1957-11-27

Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, which action I delayed until the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had returned to the house from the recent dominion-provincial conference.
It is reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 19, 1957, that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, when speaking to a Conservative nominating convention in Moose Jaw and referring to the cash advance proposal, said:
C.C.F. members oppose the move as useless, although it was supported by farm organizations.
My question of privilege is based on this false statement. The minister must know full well that every member of the C.C.F. party, far from opposing the legislation, voted for it. On the other hand, six members of the Liberal party opposed the measure by voting against the cash advance proposal. The C.C.F. members in supporting the proposal made it quite clear, as have the farm organizations, that cash advances, as a welcome first step, will not solve the problem of the cost-price squeeze facing western farmers, but that further comprehensive legislation is required.
I noticed in the same paper the minister's complaint of inadequacy of news reports on western members, and it would appear to me that this inadequacy is not being resolved by the distortion of facts by the minister. I am sure the minister will want to take the first opportunity of correcting the statement he has made and of giving an apology to the members of this group who have been misrepresented.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have no hesitation at all in supporting the question of privilege on the part of the hon. member for Kindersley. What I said, but what was not quoted in the press, was that one member of the C.C.F. had opposed this proposal, and
I used his own words. I made no mention at all in that speech of the C.C.F. in general opposing cash advances.


Mr. Coldwell:: Might I ask who was the
one member concerned, because I have no recollection of this.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I said one member, in his remarks in this house, had described it as useless.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, who was that? I have no recollection.


An hon. Member:: He does not know.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT ON PROCEEDINGS BY PRIME MINISTER

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make concerning the dominion-provincial conference, and also I should like to table for the information of the house two copies of the communique as well as several copies of the report of the proceedings in English. A French translation thereof will be available shortly. In tabling copies of the preliminary verbatim report of the public proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference, I should like to make clear that the verbatim reports tabled herewith are those furnished to the conference immediately following the session, and have still to be corrected by the speakers themselves before they are issued in final, printed form, which will be distributed to each hon. member of the house in due course. The report speaks for itself in detail, and all I will do is give a general summary of the substance of the agreed communique.
In my letters to the provincial premiers of September 16 and October 31, which have been printed as appendices to Hansard, I indicated to the provinces the nature and purpose of the conference that we proposed. I think the accounts of the proceedings indicate clearly that the conference in fact carried out these intentions.
As I made clear in my opening statement to the conference, it was convened in order to seek the ideas and proposals of the provincial governments and to explain the general views of the dominion government. This government did not place any rigid formulas
1556	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry before the meeting for approval, nor did it adopt any take it or leave it attitude. It endeavoured to learn the up to date views of the provincial representatives.
I will not endeavour to recapitulate here the points of substance I made in my opening statement to the conference. Printed copies of that statement will be in the hands of hon. members in due course.
The agreed communique of the conference indicates that sufficient progress was made on certain items to permit action to be taken on them. In particular, the government is proposing to bring before parliament at this session an amendment to the Unemployment Assistance Act to remove the so-called threshold provision, under which the dominion treasury makes no contribution toward the cost of the eligible cases upon relief roles until they exceed .45 per cent of the provincial population. A suitable measure will be drafted and placed before the house in due course to carry out this policy, which should make it easier for a number of the provinces to make suitable arrangements to assist their municipalities in carrying this burden of assistance to persons in need. It is proposed to make this change effective at the beginning of 1958.
In my statement to the conference I said that the present government was inclined to recommend to parliament a change in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to remove the clause providing that the payments to provinces under that act shall commence only when six provinces, containing at least half the population of Canada, have entered into agreements under it and have their own related acts in force. In place of that we would substitute a more definite date for commencement of the plan.
We found no provinces expressing any strong views against this change, and consequently I would now like to announce our intention of proceeding with it when opportunity offers. Consideration will have to be given as to what particular time will be selected and as to whether other changes in the legislation will be desirable.
I am sure all members of the house will welcome the announcement in the communique that:
It was generally agreed that the over-all economic position of the Atlantic provinces is now such as to justify some special grants in aid to the governments of those provinces from the federal government.
This is the most important immediate result of our meeting this week. The dominion government will now proceed to consider in detail what it should propose in order to implement this general policy.

The conference was invited to review the present tax sharing arrangements, and possible changes suggested by some of the provinces in the tax sharing arrangements act were discussed. As I made clear in my opening statement, the dominion government did not put forward any suggestions in this field, and it was understood that no endeavour would be made to reach definite conclusions on it at the meeting this week. Further consideration will be given by the government to this general subject in the light of the statements made during the public sessions by the provincial premiers, and also the subsequent discussion that took place in committee.
The discussions were generally held in a harmonious spirit, and I would like to pay my tribute personally at this time to the manner in which the provincial representatives came to the meeting to discuss in a most constructive manner questions of interest to all the provinces and to the nation as a whole. At the conclusion of the meeting the representatives of the provinces expressed their satisfaction at being able to put their views before the conference, both in open session and in committee. A subsequent meeting as soon as possible in the new year will be held in accordance with the proposals made by this government in calling the conference.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-LTslei):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has mentioned that a good measure of agreement has been reached on certain matters. Might I ask if the premier of Quebec has acquiesced to the signing of an agreement regarding unemployment assistance; and second, if the premier of Quebec has signified his intention to establish a hospital insurance plan in that province?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, any representations made by the premier of Quebec in the open session are available in the records. Any arguments or considerations that were advanced on behalf of any of the provincial prime ministers or by any of their representatives in committee of course are not open and available.


Jean Lesage: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister was the one who mentioned that a good measure of agreement had been reached-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Yes.


Jean Lesage: -on definite matters, and those two matters were mentioned. It seems to me that members of the house are entitled to know-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jean Lesage: -if the province of Quebec participated in that measure of agreement that was reached.


An hon. Member:: It was in camera.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply pointed out the facts, and I am sure the premier of Quebec will be able to express himself, if he chooses to, so that my hon. friend will understand what was said by him during the progress of the in camera sittings.


Some hon. Members:: That is not an answer.


Pierre Gauthier: Skating on thin ice again.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the statement he has made regarding the federal-provincial conference. In view of the fact he has now made statements outside of the house that we were unable to get from him in this house concerning legislation of this parliament, may I ask him if he will now tell us what date he has in mind for bringing the hospital insurance act into effect. Will he also tell us what the government intends regarding the inclusion of mental and tubercular illnesses under the provisions of this act, since this too is a subject that he discussed at the federal-provincial conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question I would point out this. In view of the fact that any decisions that might be arrived at in this regard would generally affect the whole field of dominion-provincial relations as between the government of Canada and the provinces, there was no information furnished to the provinces or their representatives that was not available to parliament. As far as the date of commencement of the plan is concerned, in my earlier statement I said that after consideration by the cabinet of the views expressed yesterday by the provinces this will be brought first and foremost before parliament.
With regard to the other matter raised, as to the inclusion of the particular types of hospitals to which my hon. friend made reference, that decision, too, will have to be taken by the cabinet in the light of the representations made during the past two days, and when the decision is made it will be immediately communicated to the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the way in which the Prime Minister ties the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and other matters in with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, can he say whether these two changes in the
Inquiries of the Ministry Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act have to wait until after there has been another federal-provincial conference?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The practice the house has followed so far this session with respect to statements made on routine motions has been for one member of each group to comment or raise questions, and I do not think we ought to go beyond that. It seems to me to be a sound limitation on statements of this kind.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my hon. friend has not had an opportunity I think he ought to be allowed to ask the question.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no objection on the part of the house, I have none.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex Easl: I thank the Prime Minister for his generous attitude in this particular matter. I was going to say that no one on this side had asked the Prime Minister any questions regarding the matter of hospital insurance. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his proposal made on Monday to the provinces for the inclusion of mental illnesses and tuberculosis, tied in as it is with the further grants which the government may or may not make to the provinces, was accepted by any province at this conference; or is it not a fact that the provinces generally wanted the inclusion of mental illnesses and tuberculosis but they wanted it without any conditions attached, or without any withdrawal of moneys which might be made available to them pursuant to the fiscal agreements that may come into being as a result of my hon. friend's new policy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will not, of course, reveal what took place in the in camera sessions, but I will read what I said which indicates that what my hon. friend has interpreted as a condition was in fact not a condition:
My colleagues and I have no objection in principle to introducing amendments in parliament to provide for inclusion of mental hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoria which have been estimated will cost $68 million to begin with if all the provinces come in and the cost will mount year by year but we wish to make clear that whatever is offered to provincial treasuries in this matter-
And, as I pointed out, the cost is $68 million.
-cannot be provided in other forms, and in particular must be taken into consideration in any revision that takes place of the tax-sharing arrangements act.

Inquiries of the Ministry
There is no condition in that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friends do not appreciate it, certainly I think the premiers of the provinces did. It is simply a statement of fact that if, over and above what the government of my hon. friend provided for in the legislation, we are to advance a yearly amount of $68 million, certainly a figure of such size will have to be taken into consideration in any revision of the agreements which, incidentally, were signed in April, 1957, and have five years to run.
We wanted to get the views of the provinces. There is no responsibility on us to endeavour to open up that which has been agreed to.
But feeling as we did that reconsideration should be given, it was pointed out by me in these words, not as a condition but as a fact, that the voluntary assumption of something the government of my hon. friend had refused to do, having regard to its cost, would necessarily reduce available moneys for other purposes.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: There was a condition, obviously.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended asking a question similar to the one asked by the hon. member for Essex East, but that question has been asked and answered. However, there is another one that I should like to ask. The Prime Minister mentioned that the government was giving consideration to payment of grants in aid to the Atlantic provinces. I was wondering if we are correct in assuming that these grants in aid are to be in addition to payments made under the formula contained in the tax sharing act.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Your Honour.
Actually any additional assistance to meet the peculiar position of the maritimes would be over and above those payments now provided for under the tax sharing arrangements act.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. L. T. Slick (Triniiy-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. I desire clarification of the reply he gave to the hon. member for Peace River who asked him, I think, if the grant in aid which the government is considering making to the Atlantic provinces is in addition to the payment under the formula contained in the tax sharing agreement. In his reply the Prime Minister used the words "maritime provinces". Is Newfoundland included in the reply?
TMr. Diefenbaker.]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave was supposed to cover all the Atlantic provinces. I referred to the Atlantic provinces yesterday, and I certainly intended that they should all be included today.


Hon. James Sinclair (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may also ask a question for the purpose of clarification of the use of language. During part of his speech the Prime Minister referred to the leaders of the provinces as premiers, and in other parts he referred to them as prime ministers. Perhaps he could inform us which he regards as correct usage?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has been asked several times of persons in my position, and having regard to the past record it seems to be a case of you take your choice.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase from two hundred and fifty million dollars to four hundred million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act; and also to provide for the reduction of down payments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


CANADA COUNCIL


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Canada Council received any applications for capital assistance under section 9 of chapter 3, 5-6 Elizabeth II?
2.	If so, from what schools or colleges that are not recognized as universities?
3.	What are the names of any schools or colleges which have been approved or accepted as "similar institutions of higher learning" as phrased in section 9 of this act?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I will
summarize the answer to the three questions in this way. Paragraph 13 of the Canada Council Act states precisely:
The council is not an agent of Her Majesty-
Paragraph 23 of the act clearly specifies the manner in which the council is to report to parliament annually. You will recall that an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) during

the debate on the second reading of the bill, whereby provision is made under this paragraph for a review of the report by parliament. Neither the Canada Council Act nor any other legislation lays any duty upon the council to report to parliament otherwise.
In so far as these questions are concerned, we do not have in the records the information requested, and we have no power to direct the council to furnish that information. It will be recalled that when the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) moved the resolution he emphasized this aspect of the legislation, and stressed that the council should be made as free as possible of possible government interference.
As a result of the legislation as passed, we do not consider that we have the power to ask the council to reveal information about applications it receives, other than the information given in the annual report. I would point out it could only be damaging to the organizations concerned if the council were to reveal information about applications which it had received and had not approved. Under the circumstances I trust my hon. friend, having regard to the law as it is, will not press further for answers respecting these questions.



ARCTIC OCEAN


Mr. Lesage: Are the waters of the Arctic ocean north of the Arctic archipelago up to the north pole, in the so-called Canadian sector, Canadian waters?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that all the islands north of the mainland of Canada which comprise the Canadian Arctic archipelago are of course part of Canada. North of the limits of the archipelago, however, the position is complicated by unusual physical features. The Arctic ocean is covered for the most part of the year with polar pack ice having an average thickness of about eight feet. Leads of water do open up as a result of the pack ice being in continuous motion, but for practical purposes it might be said for the most part to be a permanently frozen sea. It will be seen, then, that the Arctic ocean north of the archipelago is not open water nor has it the stable qualities of land. Consequently the ordinary rules of international law may or may not have application.
Before making any decision regarding the status which Canada might wish to contend for this area, the government will consider every aspect of the question with due regard to the best interests of Canada and to international law.
Questions



BUTTERFAT IMPORTS

Mr. Peiers: 1.	Has butterfat in a semi-solid form, or any synthetic form of butter or butterfat been imported into Canada since January 1, 1957?
2.	If so, from what countries and in what quantities from each country?
3.	Has a tariff been levied against this product, and if so, at what rate?
4.	Has the government taken steps to analyse the content of this product, and if so, what is the chemical result?
5.	For what purpose is this product now being used?
6.	Has the government received any submission opposing the importation of this butterfat concentrate?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: The answer to section 1 of this question is yes.
The answer to section 2 is that since there is only one importer, under the terms of section 15 of the Statistics Act this information cannot be released.
The answer to section 3 is yes, the most favoured nation tariff rate of 20 per cent ad valorem under tariff item 711.
The answer to No. 4 is that the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare has analysed samples of butter oil imported into Canada and has found the product to contain 99.6 per cent milk fat and 0.4 per cent moisture. These samples were also found to comply with the chemical specifications of milk fat as stated in the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act.
The answer to section 5 is that importers of this commodity are not required to file with the government any statement of usage. However, it is common knowledge that butter oil is used in the manufacture of a variety of processed dairy products.
The answer to section 6 is that butter oil and any other form of butterfat containing 55 per cent or more of butterfat were placed under import control by P.C. 1957-1475 of November 13, 1957.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE


Mr. Fisher: 1.	In the contracts made and pending between Northern Ontario Crown Corporation and contractors building the pipe line, are there any provisions regarding union agreements between the labour force to be used and the contractors?
2.	If so, what is the substance of such provisions?
3.	With what unions and locals did agreements exist for the working season of 1957 on the four pipeline spreads west of the lakehead?
Mr. Thomas M. Bell, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce: The answer to part 1 is no.
There is no answer to part 2.

Questions
The answer to part 3 is as follows. The united association of journeymen and apprentices of the plumbing and pipefitting industry of the United States and Canada; the international union of operating engineers; the international hod carriers' building and common labourers' union of America; the international brotherhood of teamsters, chauffeurs, warehousemen and helpers.
AIR TRAFFIC SECURITY ORDER SOR/57-450

Question No. 34-Mr. Barnett:
1.	What is the purpose of security control of air traffic order SOR/57-450, air navigation order, series V, No. 14?
2.	What are the main departures from past flight requirement regulations affected by this order?
Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: The answer to part 1 of this question is that this order was produced at the request of the Department of National Defence and is designed to permit the identification of aerial traffic within certain areas of Canada by means of flight plans and radar. These regulations are required by national defence in the interests of national security.
As to part 2, the answer is that security rules for coastal and domestic air defence identification zones and security identification zones have been before the public for some years in other form. The order combines those requirements with the rules for flight into and within the mid-Canada and distant early warning identification zones. The main departure from past requirements is that the requirements for security control of air traffic will be more readily enforced.



AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, ALMA, QUE.

Mr. Gauthier (Lake St.: John):
1.	Is consideration being given by the government to the construction of an airport at Alma (St. Joseph d'Alma), in the county of Lac-Saint-Jean?
2.	Has the town of Alma transferred to the Department of Transport the necessary land for the construction of this airport?
3.	If not, what stage has been reached by the proceedings in this respect?
4.	Will the Minister of Transport give consideration to including necessary amounts in the estimates next year for the carrying out of this project?
Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: The answer to part 1 is that the government has already assisted with the construction of a gravel surfaced landing strip at St. Joseph d'Alma and is now considering further development of the strip to provide a hard-surfaced runway.
As to parts 2 and 3, the answer is that the land has not yet been transferred to the

Department of Transport, but the Department of Justice has recently appointed an agent to act on behalf of the crown in connection with the transfer.
The answer to part 4 is that the matter is receiving active consideration.



FOOD CONTAMINATION BY RADIOACTIVITY

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the government taken any action to determine if the food consumed by the Canadian people is being contaminated by radioactivity as a result of atomic bomb fall-out?
2.	If so, what policy directives have been issued to this end?
3.	Has the government authorized the setting up of a specialized laboratory or other equipment to determine the levels of radioactivity in the food supply?
4.	If so, (a) have any reports been made so far as a result of these experiments; (b) what conclusions have been reached; (c) if no reports have been made so far, when may they be expected?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, yes; surveys have been and are being made by the Department of National Health and Welfare of canned fish and of other canned and uncanned foods.
With reference to part 2, no specified policy has been adopted other than the enforcement of the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act. So far as the Department of Fisheries is concerned, frozen and canned imported tuna fish which could come from an area affected are examined by the use of suitable equipment in the department's fish inspection laboratory at Vancouver. Up to the moment no evidence of radioactivity has been found. There have been no policy directives issued in this connection.
With reference to part 3, yes; the Department of National Health and Welfare has begun a program to study the radioactivity of foods, environmental factors such as soil and pasture, and other biological substances.
With respect to section 4: (a) while no reports have been published to date, results have been submitted to the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation; (b) the levels of radioactivity in food which have been determined to date are very low and (c) the work done will be summarized in the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO UNINSURED UNEMPLOYED, ONT.

Mr. Houck: 
Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker the answer to the first part of this question is no.
With respect to the second part of the question, the matter of participation by Ontario in the Unemployment Assistance Act of 1956 is currently under discussion with the Ontario authorities.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE


Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Has the government ascertained if all American nationals at work on the sites of the pipe line spreads under construction in northern Ontario for the pipe-line company have entered Canada lawfully and have governmental authorization for working in the particular trade each is actually performing?
2.	If not, will the government send representatives of the R.C.M.P. or the departments of citizenship and immigration or labour to investigate?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this question is in two parts. The answer to part 1 is that all applicants for entry to Canada are examined to ensure that the applicant qualifies under the laws and regulations in force. In addition, applicants for non-immigrant entry to Canada for employment, from firms or individuals, are closely scrutinized and liaison is maintained with the national employment service to determine whether qualified Canadian workers are available. If it is ascertained that qualified Canadian workers are available, permission to enter Canada for employment is refused.
In answer to part 2, where a specific complaint is registered against a company or an individual for alleged contravention of the conditions of entry for employment, a joint investigation by the Department of Labour and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is carried out.
nuns' island bridge
Question No. 42


Mr. Leduc (Verdun):: 1.	What are the names of the persons who prepared the plans and specifications for the new bridge over the St. Lawrence river between Verdun and Laprairie, via Nuns' island?
2.	Have the said plans been finally accepted by all parties concerned?
3.	Have tenders been called or advertised for this construction? If so, (a) by what means: (b) what are the names of those who submitted tenders and the amount of each tender?
4.	Has a general contract been awarded? If so, (a) by whom; (b) to what firm and at what price; (c) does it cover the whole undertaking or are there separate contracts for concrete, the substructure and/or superstructure?
5.	Have subcontracts been awarded? If so, (a) under whose authority; (b) to whom and at what price; (c) by what means were they invited?
Questions
6.	What stage has been reached in the preliminary work, about what date are the substructure and the superstructure expected to be laid, and when is the work to be completed?
7.	Who undertook the construction of the concrete piers on the south shore on the approaches to the bridge?
Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer available to question 42; it is a rather lengthy and detailed answer, and I wonder if the hon. members would allow me to table it so it can be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the answer be printed on Hansard as though it had been read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacDonald (Antigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	Dr. P. L. Pratley, with Lalonde & Valois as associates.
2.	No-all plans not yet completed.
3.	Three contracts for preliminary work have been let-(a) By public tender notice;
(b)	construction of piers IE, 1W, 2E and 2W, Atlas Construction Co. Limited, $620,063.40; A. Janin & Cie Limitee, $666,537.00; Walsh-Canadian Construction Co. Ltd., $696,036.90; Canit Construction Company Ltd., $721,210.00; McNamara (Quebec) Limited, $778,142.04; Pentagon Construction Co. Ltd., $823,976.85; the Foundation Company of Canada Ltd., $968,759.00.
Fill material-north end: Edouard Monette Limited, $63,000,00; Highway Paving Co. Ltd., $150,000.00.
Supply and placing of fill for roadway, south shore:	Walsh-Canadian Construction
Co. Ltd., $47,450.00.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Plans for the major portion of the bridge are now in the final stage of completion and it is anticipated that the work will be put under contract during the first half of 1958. Completion date cannot yet be definitely determined.
7.	Atlas Construction Co. Limited.
nuns' island bridge


Mr. Leduc (Verdun): 1.	When completed, who will operate the new bridge over the St. Lawrence river between Verdun and Laprairie, via Nuns' island?
2.	Will tolls be charged on this bridge?
3.	If so, will users desiring to leave the bridge to proceed to Nuns' island be exempted, and will citizens of Verdun receive preferential treatment?
Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is: the national harbours board. The answer to the second part is: yes, in accordance with

Orders for Returns
the first announcement of the construction of the bridge by the former minister of transport.
In answer to part 3, exemptions and preferential treatment are not anticipated.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hansell: X. Has the government of Canada negotiated with any person, firm or corporation, during the past year for the installation of a thermal power plant at Blairmore, Alberta, or any other community in the Alberta section of the Crowsnest pass?
2. If so, with whom were negotiations carried on and with what results in each case?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Hansell: 1.	How many persons are employed by the dominion government in Canada: (a) on a temporary basis; (b) on a permanent basis, as at the latest date upon which statistics are available?
2.	What was the total amount paid in salaries and wages as of that date?
3.	How many civil servants are now in receipt of superannuation, and what is the total amount of superannuation paid during the last month for which the figures are available?



BRITISH COLUMBIA ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr. Christian: To what extent to date, since January 1, 1957, has the federal government assisted the royal commission investigating the problems of the fruit farmers of the Okanagan valley, British Columbia?



MONT TREMBLANT AND WASHINGTON CONFERENCES

Mr. Cameron: 1.	How many delegates of all countries attended the meeting of commonwealth finance ministers at Mont Tremblant earlier this year?
2.	How many days was the conference in session?
3.	What was the total cost to the government of Canada?
4.	How many persons, in addition to the Minister of Finance, comprised the Canadian delegation to the conference in Washington on trade and economic problems earlier this year?
5.	How many days did the conference last?
6.	What was the total cost to the government of Canada?



CANADA BOND PURCHASE, 1957

Mr. Hansell: What amounts of Canada government bonds were purchased in 1957 by the Bank of Canada and each of the other dominion government crown companies, corporations, boards, commissions or departments?



PUBLIC SERVICE, REGINA

Mr. Ellis: 1. How many employees of the federal government by departments were employed in the city of Regina as of June 1, 1957?

2.	How many employees of the federal government by departments were employed in the city of Regina as of November 1, 1957?
3.	Is any action under way with respect to reduction in staff of any department or departments of the federal government in the city of Regina in the immediate future?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of the clause or clauses in pipe line construction contracts of Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation having reference to contractors' obligations relating to employment preferment for residents of Canada, hours of work, wage rates, and other working conditions for employees.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Haidasz:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, briefs and other documents exchanged during the last three months between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and representatives of (a) the Canadian medical association; (b) the association of Canadian medical colleges; (c) the Canadian hospital association; (d) the dominion council of health, with regard to health insurance.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Coldwell:
For a return specifying the number of imported automobiles and trucks, together with their countries of origin, purchased by the government of Canada between (a) April 1, 1956 and June 21, 1957; (b) June 21, 1957 to November 1, 1957.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I would like to address a question to the hon. Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette that the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships may be boycotted by the international confederation of trade unions, a world-wide organization of 53 million members? If so, does the minister not now agree that the company should be encouraged to reopen negotiations with the seafarers' international union, thus avoiding complete cancellation of a West Indies-Canadian trade service?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed the article in this morning's press.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question I would like to address to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a telegram from the secretary of the international confederation of free trade unions protesting the transfer of these ships from Canadian registry, and claiming that transfer to another country is for the obvious purpose of avoiding a negotiated settlement with the striking seamen? If so, would he acquaint the house of the nature of his reply to this telegram?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a telegram from the people mentioned by the hon. member, but I cannot relate verbally, now, the nature of my reply; I should have to look in my flies to see exactly what it was. However, Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the Minister of Labour particularly. It is an action which has been taken by the Canadian National (West Indies) steamship company.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A supplementary question. Does the minister not think this is a serious situation, when our trade with the West Indies is to be brought to a standstill?


George Harris Hees: I think it is obvious from what I have said that this is a serious matter, and that is why the steamship company took the action it did to try and preserve that trade.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, was it only last year-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry; I have recognized the hon. member for New Westminster.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Would the minister not now consider immediately convening the special committee on railways and shipping with power to call in witnesses from the seamen's international union, officials from both Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited and the union, and such other witnesses it might see fit, as well as for documents and papers it might require for the purpose of examining into the circumstances resulting in the transfer of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, to Trinidad?


George Harris Hees: The management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships advise me that they are engaged at the present time in a thorough examination into all the implications of the restoration of the service.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask a supplementary question for clarification. Did I understand the minister to say that after consulting his
Inquiries of the Ministry records he will bring down to the house tomorrow the substance of his answer?


Michael Starr: That is what I intended to convey to the hon. member.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Was it not only last year that the Minister of Transport himself said there should be no more transfers of Canadian bottoms to any foreign or commonwealth registry?


George Harris Hees: I do not think it was last year. I think it was two years ago that I spoke on this subject. At that time, I think, I expressed the view that if it was practical and possible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


George Harris Hees: If hon. members will look at the record-and looking at the record is valuable-they will find that I said that to have ships sailing under Canadian registry is very desirable, if practicable.
(Translation) :



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works.
(Text):
May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the minister to commence construction at an early date of a public building at Shawinigan Falls, in which all federal services would be housed? An affirmative decision would contribute to the relief of unemployment, which increases alarmingly from day to day.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. The answer is that in the estimates of the previous government for the year 1956-57 there was a vote of $525,000 for this building, but nothing was done. In the year 1957-58 there was a vote of $275,000, but as yet the plans have not been completed. It is expected that they will be finished by January 15, 1958, and once that has been done public tenders will be called, and we hope the work can be proceeded with late in March.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Finance. I wonder if the minister can tell this house the date on which he hopes to introduce the budgetary proposals and the reductions in taxation he promised T.V. audiences last night.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I made any promises to any T.V. audience last night, but when the appropriate time comes for making any announcement to the house I can assure the hon. member that the announcement will be made.



SUCCESSION DUTY ACT-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On October 31, in answer to a question I asked, he stated that amendments to the succession duty act were under active consideration. My question is, has this active consideration reached a point where action can be taken, and when can we expect amendments to be brought down?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The consideration of this matter is advancing, and I think my hon. friend will have the full answer to his inquiry very soon.



INQUIRY AS TO REDUCTION IN INTEREST RATES ON COMMERCIAL LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What information has the government as to the prospect of a reduction in the interest rates charged by banks on commercial loans?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to inform the house that one leading Canadian chartered bank has today announced that effective next Monday it will reduce the prime lending rate from 5f per cent to 5j>
per cent, and it is expected that this move will be followed by the other chartered banks in due course. I am sure this further move toward easing money, credit and interest rates, will be widely welcomed.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Antoine-West-mount):: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Finance take credit for this move by the chartered banks?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government will certainly claim the credit that is its due for a great many things it has done to seek to ease money, credit and interest rates, and is very gratified that its efforts in this regard have borne fruit.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further question. Will the Minister of Finance take the occasion before too long to tell us just what the government has done in this field?


James Sinclair: Make a television broadcast.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister, however, perhaps the Prime Minister would be in a better position to answer it.
How many of the provinces have indicated that they want the proposed hospitalization plan set up so that the federal government makes a specific contribution to national health and the details and administration of the scheme will be left in the hands of provincial authorities?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, notice of intention to ask this question was handed to me after I entered the chamber this afternoon. I would say that if the hon. member means we should have no Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, in other words that we should do away with Bill No. 320 and simply give grants to the provinces for those purposes, I know of no correspondence from any of the provinces to that effect.


James Sinclair: Too good an act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I may be wrong. As I say, I have not had an opportunity to check my files, but if I have made an incorrect statement I will let the hon. member know.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question,
which perhaps will make my question more clear. How many provinces feel that the federal government is attaching too many strings to the bill?



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has under consideration legislation this session providing for the humane slaughter of farm animals?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this question could more properly be directed to the Minister of Justice, who made a statement with regard to the matter some time ago here. We have not at the moment any particular legislation ready to bring in this session.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might supplement the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture by saying that ten days or two weeks ago we met with representatives of the committee which has been working in Ontario, and we did examine very fully the contents of their report and the results of their investigations. While we have not at the moment any legislation ready I wish to assure the hon. gentleman and the house that we are making continuing studies of the matter, because we recognize the great seriousness of the problem and the importance attached to it by so many of our people.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware that in its current issue the Montreal weekly Radio-Monde carries under the signature of Andre Rufiange the widespread rumour that following criticism in this house by the hon. member for Beauce the popular T.V. program "The Plouffe Family" would be discontinued. Can the minister deny or confirm such a report?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question before the house opened, and the "answer to the first part is no; my attention had not been called to that article in Radio-Monde, nor had I been aware of the contents of the article from any other source whatever. The answer to the second part of the hon. member's question is also no, because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not communicate with the minister with respect to programming in any of its aspects, and neither does the minister communicate with the C.B.C. or advise or instruct with regard to programming.


Mr. LaCroix:: Mr. Speaker-


Guy Rouleau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has a new question perhaps he would permit the hon. member for Dollard to ask a supplementary question.


Guy Rouleau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell the house whether the new house built by the Plouffe family has been built with funds recently provided under the National Housing Act for new housing?



FLAGS OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the declaration of the Minister of Public Works on November 15 in which he stated that the flag question is a very important one, my question is, is it true that the government has decided on the advisability of taking steps to give this country a truly Canadian flag and, as reported on November 13, 1945, at page 2138 of the House of Commons French debates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. member but it seems to me-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down; Mr. Speaker is on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will resume his seat I will tell him why I consider his remarks to be out of order. If he will consider the motion which he himself made in this house I think he will realize that this is dealing with a matter which he himself brought before the house, and therefore about which he should not inquire from the minister at this time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, notice of which I sent him yesterday. Has the interdepartmental committee which we were informed last session was being set up reported to the government the position Canada should take on the legal position of the continental shelf and territorial waters in its representations to the international conference which the general assembly of the United Nations recommended should be held in March, 1958? If so, is it the minister's intention to make the government's views

Inquiries of the Ministry known to the House of Commons, and will provision be made for a discussion on this allimportant subject?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for sending me a copy of his question which I received-and I do not know what happened -only this morning.


Harold Edward Winch: It was sent on November 26.


Sidney Earle Smith: I will
accept it as notice and reply at the earliest possible moment.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement on Friday, which was the last day he was able to be in the house because of the federal-provincial conference, that Canadian troops should never be required to serve beyond the confines of Canada except with the consent and on the determination of parliament, can he say when parliament gave effect to its consent and determination regarding Air Marshal Slemon and the 40-odd R.C.A.F. personnel who are being required to serve at Colorado Springs? Would he also comment on the statement of the Minister of National Defence in August that R.C.A.F. personnel under orders from NORAD would ignore the international boundary if the exigencies of battle so required? When did parliament give its consent to such a course of action?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has given me no notice of this question, and it involves many considerations. The suggestion that the appointment of Air Marshal Slemon to the position in question in any way violates the principle I enunciated is of course untenable, as I am sure the hon. member will conclude after reconsideration. Appointments such as that are regularly made and in no way vitiate or violate the principle I enunciated, that Canadian troops cannot be required to serve beyond Canada on the basis of the traditional discharge of parliamentary responsibility, and also the general realization on the part of leaders of all parties that such should be the fact. Certainly following 1930 there has been no suggestion that they should serve beyond Canada unless with the leave of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister answer the rest of my question referring particularly to the 40 other R.C.A.F. personnel being required to serve at Colorado Springs; and would he also comment on the statement the Minister of National Defence made in August?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will have to peruse the statement, because I do not have it before me. If later I conclude that the matter in question requires elucidation at length I will do so. Otherwise after reading the question, which I will take as notice, I will answer it at a later date.


U.S. PLANES WITH LIVE BOMBS FLYING OVER CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of a reported statement made by the British foreign minister to the effect that United States bombers flying on routine flights over Britain carry live bombs in order to maintain a state of readiness at all times, can the minister state whether United States planes with such bombs are permitted to fly over Canada?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: By agreement with the United States, only with prior permission from Canada.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Why has the federal government turned over the job of reconstructing the Peace river bridge to the highways department of the province of British Columbia instead of having the work done by the army engineers, who have done such a fine job in reconstructing and maintaining the Alaska highway during the last 10 years?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for praising the work which has been done by the Royal Canadian Engineers in restoring traffic over the railway bridge. Regarding the first remark the hon. member made, to the effect that the work of repairing or restoring the Peace river bridge has been delegated to the provincial government, that is not correct. It is the intention of the Department of National Defence to

replace the bridge in approximately its present location at the earliest possible opportunity.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sorry I did not give him notice earlier. Would the Prime Minister inform the house what progress, if any, he has to report from his discussion with Premier Douglas reportedly held earlier this day regarding the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have
such widespread interest in that subject. As a matter of fact we negotiated this morning and discussed the matter, and my colleagues and myself will again meet to continue the discussion this afternoon. I would not want to give any interim report on negotiations even if it were proper to do so.


Mr. Tucker:: A supplementary question,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Hahn@: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if he would speak into the microphone I would have been pleased to have heard his answer.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister, if I may, how soon after the six months from the time of his taking office he expects work to start on the South Saskatchewan dam. I think he is six days past that cut-off date now, and I would like to know how much longer it will be before it is started.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend's question is as correct as his timing, six months from June 10, then of course no answer is really required. But I would point out to my hon. friend that I seem to remember that in 1948 the dam was to be proceeded with after the result of a byelection in Rosthern in which the hon. member was interested.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to ask a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the further supplementary question is like the question, I doubt whether it will be accepted.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, it is probably not truly a supplementary question; it is just to repeat the question I put to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now carry out his promise and start the dam within six months of assuming office?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister carries out all his promises.


Frederick George Hahn: I have a question which is supplementary to the one I raised earlier with the Prime Minister respecting the South Saskatchewan river dam. I just learned what he had to say. In view of the widespread interest in this project I would ask the Prime Minister whether he will give the house a report very shortly in respect of the progress being made in discussions in connection with this important project.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, as soon as there is anything to report.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a question. A recent issue of the Montreal Star carries a statement to the effect that there is to be established an intermediate court of appeals in Quebec province. The Montreal Star also states that it is dependent upon concurrent legislation passed at Ottawa. According to the Star this measure has already received first reading in the legislative assembly of that province. May I ask the minister whether he is aware of this legislation, and can he tell us to what extent its jurisdiction will extend; and has the federal government given any consideration to the introduction of this measure?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I read the papers, as does the hon. gentleman, and I am aware, as he is, of the reports that appear there. But I have no formal notification of the action, if any, which has been taken or is to be taken by the Quebec legislature, and I am therefore unable to give him any fuller reply.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Lavigne (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a resolution from the county presidents

Inquiries of the Ministry of the Ontario cheese producers association asking that the government guarantee and support cheese prices at 34 cents a pound?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have received a resolution, or perhaps it would be more correct to say two related resolutions, from the county presidents of the Ontario cheese producers marketing association. These resolutions, however, did not ask that the government guarantee and support cheese prices at 34 cents. What they requested was that the dominion government provide bank guarantees which would enable the cheese producers board to continue the operations they have been carrying on for some time in regard to the marketing of cheese.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General of which I have given notice. Has the tunnel from the C.P.R. station in Vancouver to the new post office been completed? If so, what was the final cost? Will it be used for any purpose other than of taking mail from the C.P.R. station to the post office?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, while I am most anxious to supply all possible information to hon. members about my department, I also desire to observe the rules of the house, and it seems to me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: Perhaps I observe the rules of the house somewhat better than the hon. members of the opposition are observing them at the moment. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that questions regarding the purposes and cost of a tunnel which is designed to exist for something more than half a century are hardly of the urgent nature that is stipulated as one requirement for questions on the orders of the day. I think perhaps this was the specific question that Mr. Speaker Glen had in mind in 1940 when he said:
But I would call hon. members' attention to the well known Canadian practice which states "a question which could be inserted on the order paper is not allowed on the orders of the day being called". That rule has been departed from during this session but if it were observed more strictly, many of the oral questions would be unnecessary.


Mr. Speaker:: I took it that the minister was rising on a point of order. Does anyone wish to say anything on the point of order?


Mr. Dupuis:: Just one word; I checked up how many questions the hon. gentleman asked during the last session.


Thomas James Irwin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I directed a question a moment or two ago to the Postmaster General and he raised a point of order. Does the Postmaster General think for a moment that I dug this question out of my imagination? I think I have seven letters asking this question of the Postmaster General.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to make plain in my response that we desire to give this information to the hon. member but that this was a question which, according to the rules of the house, should be placed on the order paper and not asked at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is the
Speaker?


William McLean Hamilton: It
should not be asked here and I might add, in any event, that the question should have been directed to the Minister of Public Works, under whose direction this matter comes.


Mr. Robichaud:: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question before the house. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond raised a question of privilege, which was that he had not received an answer to his former question. That is scarcely a question of privilege because, as I have explained before, hon. members are not entitled to insist upon answers. They are entitled to ask questions, and in the appropriate place they are entitled to comment on the answers they receive; but they are not entitled to press to receive an answer if an answer is not given.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Barrett Macdonald: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Public Works. I should like to ask whether he will take action at once to reduce the interest rate charged under the National Housing Act.


Howard Charles Green: No; there is no intention of reducing the interest rate.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the serious unemployment situation in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories? If so, what action is the government contemplating to alleviate this serious problem?


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member's question, may I say that the same principle applies to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories as to the rest of Canada. We have taken and are taking action almost daily to alleviate the problem of unemployment in all parts of Canada.


James Sinclair: There is double the unemployment there was last year.



NOVA SCOTIA-NEW BRUNSWICK    STATUS OF AGREEMENT ON DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether an agreement has been reached between the federal government and the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick on the details of the power development or, alternatively, when such agreement is expected to be signed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The officials of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the officials of the federal government are still working on the details of this agreement. When it will be announced I really cannot say. I know they have been quite busy. I have not had a report from them for two or three days.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I
direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the point of order raised by the minister, will he inform the house when I may expect a reply to the questions I placed on the order paper on November 7, 20 days ago, concerning his department?
Unemployment Insurance Act Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
Just as rapidly as possible, Mr. Speaker. We do everything possible to accommodate the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. However, in his absence I have redirected my question to the deputy minister or to the acting minister of the department. Has it been brought to the minister's attention that farmers are being refused cash advances on their specified acreage merely because they have additional acreage under lease?


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I received notice of this question just a few moments before coming into the house, and I have not yet had time to inform myself. I shall have to ask the hon. member to let me take it as notice.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: May I
direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the Canadian buying mission sponsored by the government of Canada, which mission is now in Britain. Is it true that members of the mission may make arrangements to buy aluminum products in Britain to import into Canada?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would have thought the hon. member is about as capable of answering that question himself as I am. I suggest that if he wishes to ask the question, of which I have received no notice, I will take it as notice and give him whatever answer I can.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Michael Starr: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the length of seasonal benefit periods; to increase

Unemployment Insurance Act the number of benefit payments for which claimants may qualify during those periods; and to provide for other related matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish at the outset to thank the other parties in this house for their kind consent to allow me to proceed with the bill immediately following the debate on the resolution. I hope I will experience the wholehearted co-operation of hon. members in facilitating the passage of this bill. It must go through the Senate, pass the other house and receive royal assent. I am concerned that those who will be eligible for seasonal benefits under this new amendment will not be delayed in receiving those benefits.
During the past few weeks several hon. members have asked whether or not this government intends to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act this session. I think these questions were a reflection of the concern we all feel about the present situation with regard to employment.
Before explaining this bill, which proposes to amend the seasonal benefit provisions of the act, I should like to describe the present situation in what I believe to be its true perspective. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the last period during which the state of employment gave rise to serious misgiving was the winter of 1954-55.
I should like you to look at the figures for two of the months that led up to that time, and compare them with the same two months in this year. We find that in August, 1954, those without jobs and seeking work comprised 3.1 per cent of the labour force. In August, 1957, those without jobs and seeking work comprised only 2.8 per cent of the labour force. In September, 1954, those without jobs and seeking work again amounted to 3.1 per cent of the labour force, while in September, 1957, those without jobs and seeking work were 3.2 per cent of the labour force. We come to October and we find that in 1954 those without jobs and seeking work were 3.3 per cent of the labour force, while in 1957 those without jobs and seeking work were 3.5 per cent of the labour force.
I think, Mr. Chairman, it is also important to note that the number of persons gainfully employed in this country increased by almost half a million between October, 1954 and October 1957, while the number without work increased by only about 28,000 in that same period. In view of these figures, Mr. Chairman, and without attempting to minimize our problems, I think it is fair to say that we have already come through situations that were
potentially as difficult as is the present one. Furthermore, a favourable factor now is that this government has no intention of sitting back and letting matters run their course.
Earlier in this session I noted that by curtailing the influx of immigrants for the balance of the year, by channelling $150 million into our economy for the construction of houses, by accenting the job finding activities of our national employment service, and by stepping up our winter employment campaign activities, we indicated our preoccupation with this problem. We are proposing now to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the amount of benefit available to insured persons who are unemployed during the winter season when employment is most difficult to obtain. We estimate that the changes we propose would result in close to an additional $13 million of purchasing power being paid out to those who need it most and who can spend it to the best advantage.
At present the act provides that seasonal benefits may be paid for the period from the week in which January 1 falls to the week in which April 15 falls; that is, for sixteen weeks. However, even before January 1 there are substantial numbers of persons unemployed and unable to qualify for regular benefits, and also many are still unemployed when the present seasonal benefit period ends on April 15. The intent of this bill is to lengthen the seasonal benefit period by one month at each end, so that it will run from December 1 until May 15, that is for a period of 24 weeks. The effect that this lengthening of the seasonal benefit period will have can, perhaps, be best explained by reference to several basic examples.
First of all, there are two ways in which claimants may qualify for seasonal benefits. The first applies to those who do not have enough contributions to qualify for regular benefit but who, nevertheless, have 15 contribution weeks since the end of the previous March. The second applies to those who have had a regular claim terminate since the previous May 15, even though they may not have made a single contribution in that time. Under the present act those qualifying in the first group have a minimum duration of 10 weeks and a maximum of 16 weeks. The proposed revision will give a minimum of 13 weeks and a maximum of 24 weeks.
In regard to those qualifying in the second group, Mr. Chairman, the duration of benefit under the present act is the same as that authorized on the last regular claim with a minimum of 12 weeks and an automatic maximum of 16 weeks because of the end of the

Unemployment Insurance Act
seasonal benefit period. Our proposed revision will leave the minimum unchanged but does, of course, increase the maximum duration to 24 weeks; that is, a 50 per cent increase.
The effective date of this proposed legislation is December 1, and by that I mean that this bill will apply to all claims made in respect of the forthcoming seasonal benefit period. There is a minor exception to this and that would be those in the second group, those who had a regular claim expire since April 15, 1957, who will be able to qualify for seasonal benefit this winter on that basis. In future years, the requirement will be that they must have had a regular claim expire since the previous May 15.
Another point is that the privilege a seasonal benefit claimant now has of serving his waiting period during December will not be extended. In other words, he will now be treated as an ordinary claimant and will have to serve his waiting period at the beginning of his seasonal benefit period. This will not, however, put claimants in any less favourable a position since the date at which they can begin to be paid is advanced by three weeks and the maximum period of entitlement is being substantially increased.
We estimate that a large number of Canadian workers will benefit from the provisions of this amendment. Last winter, some
214.000	persons established seasonal benefit claims. This year since our proposed legislation will increase the period by two months, we might expect that the number who qualify will be somewhat higher. It would seem safe to say that some 250,000 workers will benefit to the extent, as I noted earlier, of some $13 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister repeat that? Did he say 250,000 benefited last year?


Michael Starr: No, 214,000 established seasonal benefit claims last winter. I think it would be safe to say at this time that some 250,000 workers will be benefiting to the extent of some $13 million.


James Sinclair: Is that 250,000 more or
250.000	all told?


Michael Starr: About 36,000 more. I should like also to bring out the point that this amendment, as well as the revocation of the married women's regulation announced the other day, is bound to result in an increase in the number of persons registered for employment with national employment offices across the country. Therefore, when hon. members ask about national registrations they are bound 96698-100
to see that they are higher after these provisions go into effect in Canada. There will be more people registered and also they may be registered for a longer period of time. However, there should be little or no impact on the monthly dominion bureau of statistics "Without jobs and seeking work" survey, and this survey will continue to be the official estimate of the number of unemployed in this country.
Under the new fishermen's regulations which come into effect on January 1, fishermen will come under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and as a result will be eligible for seasonal benefits which are being extended in the resolution presently under discussion. Under these new regulations fishermen will now be entitled to receive unemployment insurance payments after only 15 weekly contributions. Provision is also being made in the amendment to seasonal benefit regulations for benefits to be awarded to certain classes of claimants who have exhausted their regular benefits. A number of fishermen could conceivably come under this provision.
That is all I have to say at this moment, Mr. Chairman, in explanation of this resolution and the bill which will follow, but I would ask hon. members to facilitate the passing of this amendment as quickly as possible. I would be very glad to answer any questions that might be asked, providing I know the answers. I do not, of course, profess to know the Unemployment Insurance Act thoroughly, but will endeavour to obtain the answers as soon as possible.


James Sinclair: Did the hon. minister say that the date for fishermen would be the same as for the others, December 1 to May 15?


Michael Starr: They were to start from December 1 and will, under this amendment, begin at the same time as the seasonal benefits begin which will be December 1, with one week waiting period.


James Sinclair: Thank you.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to clear up any misunderstandings which might be prevalent in this house as a result of the suggestion of the hon. house leader that there had been an arrangement with the three opposition parties to have this bill cleared through the commons in the one day. I am sure it would not be possible to make such an undertaking but it was tentatively agreed that should the bill get past the resolution stage we would not require the hon. minister to take a second day in which to introduce the bill, the hon.

Unemployment Insurance Act minister, having been kind enough to provide a draft bill to some of the opposition members earlier.
The hon. house leader did say last night at the close of the sitting:
We are never quite sure how long the other place will take to debate any of these measures as they are quite jealous of their rights.
Well of course members of the commons are equally jealous of their rights, as has been demonstrated on many occasions by members of the present government, so that we want it clearly understood that should this measure reach the second stage today we will be happy to go along with it. However, we do not wish the debate to be curtailed in any way.
The Minister of Labour in his opening remarks has gone to some length in attempting to minimize the unemployment situation today, in quoting the percentage of unemployment in relation to the labour force back in 1954. Now for that and other reasons I feel we should be entitled to quite adequate consideration of the unemployment situation as it exists. The fact that we now have a fall season for six months of the year is an indication that there is a very serious unemployment problem.
We have an old saying where I come from, high in the mountains where they do get frost almost every month of the year, as follows:
Of course we have only two seasons, the first of July and winter.
Now I do not think we want to have it generally understood with respect to all of Canada that we have summer for six months and the frozen winter for the other six months, so we must realize that this is an emergency measure which has been brought forward, the government having fully realized such an emergency situation, despite the remarks of the Minister of Finance last evening and on television during his press conference and his other remarks of less recent date in Toronto, when he was endeavouring to prove that there is today no serious unemployment situation.
I just want for a few moments to point out what is in fact the situation across Canada today. In British Columbia the lumber industry has fallen off about 30 per cent, which means at the present time we have close to, if not more than, 30,000 unemployed in that industry alone. The base metal industry is certainly in the doldrums and many are being laid off from day to day. There is a disconcerting sign in my own riding. In the hungry thirties gold mining was a profitable undertaking and I now find that in


the old Wild Horse creek area, where people were making a living during the early thirties, we now have a resurrection of the gold mining industry. They are erecting sluices and so on. Now while I welcome a new industry, I hope this is not a forecast for the future in the mining industry. We want to see gold doing well but we hope it does not mean that we are entering a time of depression when the gold industry indeed does flourish.
In Kitimat we have had some 1700 people laid off. These are the figures that occur to me at the moment but we know from day to day many people are being laid off. In Alberta, the oil industry is in a serious state of depression and much of that condition, I think, is due to the policies of the present government in stifling the gas and oil industry and related industries.
In other prairie provinces there is widespread unemployment. In respect to Ontario, in September there were some 27,000 unemployed in Toronto alone. And just the other day there were 2,400 laid off by the Ford Motor Company. These are large blocks but there are many smaller groups being laid off daily.
There are rapid cut-backs in the province of Quebec and in the maritimes, we have
35,000	unemployed and the labour force in relation to the rest of the country is very small. Yet, the Secretary of State, speaking at a Conservative rally the other day said that since the Conservatives came in they have created many jobs.
I am afraid the largest number of jobs they have created are in the unemployment insurance commission offices. I have clippings here-up to 20 of them-from various newspapers containing statements of responsible people about the serious situation which has evolved this fall.


An hon. Member:: There were a lot of statements made on June 10.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There was a question raised today in the House of Commons with respect to trade in the West Indies. That trade has been cut off for a period of almost six months now and no real effort has been made to settle the Canadian National steamship's strike and if something is not done soon there will be no revival of that trade.
That means a lot of unemployment, and certainly the fact that the sailors themselves are going to be out of jobs will cause another 250 to be unemployed.
One source says there will be up to 750,000 unemployed this winter. These forecasts must be made on the basis of some statistics which

support the contention. What is the government doing to alleviate this situation? They are releasing more money, it is true, for home building in the middle of winter when it is unlikely more homes will be started, but the fact that we are releasing more money to enable labourers to build homes costing between $12,000 and $16,000 is not going to put a great deal of steam into the building program. Something more will have to be done, because the very high cost of homes at the present time is beyond the capacity of ordinary workmen to build if there is to be any hope of paying for them.
When the present government was in opposition they had many remedies to recommend with regard to housing. The Minister of Public Works was asked only today whether the government intended to lower the interest rate in conformity with the action being taken by the chartered banks. When the present government was in opposition they made many requests that the interest rates should be reduced, and the down payment reduced to 5 per cent or even less. We welcome what has been done with regard to releasing more money, but let us go further and come to grips with the situation.
Unemployment is due to the fact that we now have a surplus of goods. The shelves, apparently, are loaded. In this situation the government sent out purchasing agents. They sent 50 people to the United Kingdom to purchase more goods and piled those shelves even higher. We certainly want to do everything to increase trade with Great Britain, but it seems to me that when we are already selling more to Britain than we are purchasing the salesmen should be coming from the other side, attempting to show the people of Canada the articles which they believe are able to compete in our markets. The government's action looks to me, personally, as being salesmanship in reverse. We have stocks on the farms and in the factories but we have to go out and look for more stocks for the farms and the factories. It may be all well and good, but it occurs to me, as an individual, that we are attempting to carry election promises a litle further than is possible-putting on a bit of a show. While we hope this has the desired effect with respect to trade I personally doubt it will do as much as we have been led to believe it will.
There are large numbers of unemployed in southern Ontario even in the electrical industry, yet we have been told that an order has been placed already for $10 million worth of electrical equipment, generators and so on. That is all well and good. We certainly realize that if we are going to sell to Britain we must also buy from her,
96698- 100J
Unemployment Insurance Act but this is a time of serious unemployment in Canada while in Great Britain, though I read British newspapers quite persistently, I have yet to read any reports of any mass unemployment, or, for that matter, of any serious unemployment there.
It has been drawn to my attention-and this, Mr. Chairman, is not an important matter-that while in the United Kingdom this trade commission will be steered very carefully away from southern Ireland. They will make a quick trip to Northern Ireland, but they are going to keep carefully away from southern Ireland. A report I have here, written by Harold Morrison for the Canadian Press and published in one of the maritime papers says:
The members will be taken aboard a special train to visit all parts of England, Scotland and Wales. There will even be a one day trip to Belfast m Northern Ireland, though there will be a careful skirting of the Irish Republic of Eire. No trips are planned there.
Well, as an Irishman, I suggest that they should-


An hon. Member:: Take a jaunt to Dublin?
Byri>e: -take that special train on a little trip to southern Ireland just for the purpose of seeing what a beautiful country it is there. In addition, surely we want to be prepared to sell a few things, and while this commission is doing its work they might find that there is quite an extensive market m southern Ireland.
The minister has explained the bill. We certainly welcome the amendment. As I have said before, it does show that the government appreciates the fact that there is a serious unemployment situation in Canada, and that they are taking some steps to assist those who will be unemployed for a long Period. The fact that it will be possible for those who are unemployed during the Christmas season to begin receiving their benefits during the first week in December is indeed helpful. I note that the provision extends to the middle of May, in which month, in some areas, there are some signs of spring, though this year, regrettably, there is every indication that there will still be a large number of people unemployed at that date.
The minister has not indicated whether the government is prepared to replenish this emergency fund if necessary from the consolidated revenue fund. I think, personally, in view of the fact that this is an emergency and the government has indicated that it is now prepared to grant greater assistance to the provinces by eradicating the so-called threshold section of the assistance act, that they should not expect to retrieve these

Unemployment Insurance Act moneys from the unemployment insurance fund which, of course, is accumulated from the contributions of the employers, the employees and the government.
I think that is all I have to say. We welcome the legislation and more particularly we welcome the fact that the government is realizing that there is a most serious situation and is now prepared to face up to it and not delude the public any longer.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wish first of all to thank the Minister of Labour for his rather straightforward and informative introduction to the proposals the government has in mind. I believe the information he has given as we enter the discussion at the resolution stage is such that we can intelligently discuss this proposal and it may very well have the result of requiring less extended discussion when we come to the second reading stage of the bill. I do feel, however, that at the resolution stage it is important for us to consider some aspects of the situation out of which this proposal comes and see it in its proper perspective.
The Minister of Finance apparently has been declaiming with great vigour on television and other places that we have no emergency unemployment situation. On the other hand I note that various spokesmen for the Liberal party, including the speaker who just took his seat, have been declaiming also with great vigour that the unemployment picture is very black and that we do have an emergency situation in terms of unemployment. Percentage statistics of the present total working force as compared with those without jobs and seeking work have been bandied back and forth. I want to say that at the present time at least I do not intend to engage in that particular discussion pro or con because I believe I can fairly say that we in the C.C.F. group have always maintained that an emergency exists if any one citizen in this country is unemployed and that the total of figures is simply multiplication of individual emergencies which should be dealt with and should be the concern of the members of this house.
There is without question, as the hon. member for Kootenay East suggested, more unemployment in the province of British Columbia this year than there was last year and when one finds those figures broken down to areas with which one is personally familiar and realizes that many of the people whom one knows personally are at this time finding a problem in seeking employment then of course it strikes home very directly.
I just noticed a little news dispatch which comes from the national employment service office of the commission in the area of the

constituency where I make my home which points out that at the date of this dispatch there were 1,450 persons unemployed in the area as compared with 456 unemployed at the same time the year before. I would certainly suggest that this proposal which the Minister of Labour is now bringing forward is the very least that we should have expected from the government in the light of the current situation.
We cannot help but be reminded, particularly in view of the fact that the minister himself made reference to the situation that prevailed in the winter of 1954-55, that there is some similarity between the approach the present government is taking and the approach taken by the government of that day in the face of growing unemployment. Some of us recall that chapter one of the statutes of the 1955 session, which was assented to early in January 1955, was an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act for the purpose of bringing the seasonal or supplementary benefits as they were then called to the level of the regular benefit payments.
In its essence the present proposal is another emergency rush-job tampering with the Unemployment Insurance Act. Certainly this action will be welcomed by the persons who will be able to draw additional benefits as a result of it. However, I think it is important at this stage when we are being asked to rush this legislation through that we should realize that this is in a sense a tampering with the act, that the approach we are being asked to make in dealing with this question of the extension of seasonal benefits is not really the kind of approach which should be made to the matter of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act; that it is something to which hon. members of this house should be able to give careful and detailed consideration in the industrial relations committee.
The question as to whether or not this particular proposal is the most desirable one which the government could bring forward at this time is one that requires careful examination. I do not propose to attempt to do that at any great length this afternoon but I think I might make reference to the most recent proposals for the amendment of the act brought in by the Canadian Labour Congress in their memorandum to the government on October 21, 1957. On page 14 of their printed memorandum they suggest the extension of the seasonal benefit period to include the month of December. I take it that the government is perhaps going a little beyond that particular proposal in the measure it is bringing in; but I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the

recommendation concerning the amending of the act which is made on the previous page, page 13 of the memorandum in which the Canadian Labour Congress has this to say:
We remain concerned about section 45. Despite its amendment, the conditions affecting eligibility for benefit remain onerous. Many claimants genuinely in the labour market are unable to establish a claim and there is good reason to fear that the approaching seasonal unemployment will swell the numbers of unemployed workers who will be deprived of benefit because of this section. We believe that this matter is sufficiently urgent for immediate action.
As I understand it the proposal which the Minister of Labour is bringing before the committee at this time does not deal in any way with a change in the conditions affecting the question of eligibility for benefit. Section 45 of the Unemployment Insurance Act is of course the section which sets out the basic requirements for regular benefits but the terms of eligibilty in respect of those desiring seasonal benefits who have not had previous claims, as I understand it, will remain at 15 weekly contributions prior to the making of an application.
The minister will recall that yesterday my colleague the hon. member for Skeena raised a problem which some of the fishermen on the British Columbia coast are having because of the 15-week requirement in respect of their eligibility for unemployment insurance this coming winter, pointing out that one of the reasons they have not been able to have the 15 weeks of unemployment was because of closure regulations introduced by the federal Department of Fisheries and the international Pacific salmon commission which operates under authority granted by this parliament.
Situations such as these, which have been brought to the attention of hon. members, do lend weight to the contention of the Canadian Labour Congress that the onerous conditions of eligibility are something about which we must continue to have great concern. I well recall, and perhaps the present minister may recall, that when the Unemployment Insurance Act was being revised in 1955, the then member for Cape Breton South and the other C.C.F. members of the industrial relations committee emphasized very strongly the fact that we could not consider our unemployment insurance system to be complete until it was such that all Canadian workers who became unemployed through no fault of their own were eligible to draw benefits under the act. As I phrased it myself at that time, if they had paid one contribution or one premium into the insurance fund. However, we are still a long way from that, and this proposed amendment will not really deal with that aspect of the situation, although it will mean,
Unemployment Insurance Act of course, as the minister says, that several million dollars more will be paid out in benefits.
This, of course, does raise some question in my mind as to where the benefits are to come from, because many of us who have followed the situation in respect of the unemployment insurance fund necessarily must have some concern about the balance in the fund and the income and outgo with respect to it. In my discussions of or reporting upon unemployment insurance matters to groups of workers in my area I have emphasized the fact that the unemployment insurance fund is something which rightly has to be regarded as a trust fund belonging to the working people of Canada. I have emphasized that it is not in the ordinary sense of the term part of the finances of the government of Canada but that it is a trust fund set up to be administered by a commission in the interests of the working people of Canada and therefore any payments made from it must be made under the terms of that trust and with an understanding that that is the situation that exists.
The last annual report of the unemployment insurance commission for the year ended March 31, 1957, does give us a report, as we would expect, upon the state of the fund. On page 32 there is a graph which shows that over the period from 1953 to March 31, 1957, the balance in the fund amounted to something over $800 million and that it has risen once or twice to a figure approaching $900 million. It also shows that there was quite a drop in the winter of heavy seasonal unemployment, the winter of 1954-55, to which the minister referred in his remarks.
The report contains another table which shows the total annual revenue and expenditure from the fund. It shows that in the winter of 1954-55, or during that fiscal year, something over $40 million more was paid out of the fund than was paid into it and that in the subsequent years of 1955-56 and 1956-57, while the income of the fund was somewhat greater than the outgo, that was as a result of the investment of the funds and the income from the investment. The report shows that if it were not for the investment income, the fund, on the basis of the direct contributions made by employees, employers and the government, would have been going into the red in each of the last two fiscal years which generally have been regarded as periods of relatively low unemployment. Therefore, when a proposal is brought in at this time, and when there are signs that do point to a much higher level of unemployment during this particular season than we have had during the last year or two, this is something which
1576	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act should be considered by this house when we deal with a proposal to increase the benefits.
The minister suggested, I believe, that according to his estimate-which I assume can only be an estimate-this proposal would result in additional payments of some $13 million. I take it this amount will be in addition to the $30-odd million which it was estimated was paid out in seasonal benefits during the last fiscal year. Therefore, I think we have to face the fact, and ask the question, as to how these additional benefits are to be financed. There are no references in the resolution as to any change in respect of the manner in which the moneys are to go into the fund, or in respect of the source or the amount. That being so, unless something is done, I think we shall have to recognize it is highly probable that the fund will be depleted as a result of payments made out of it during the coming season. In addition, when the fund is depleted the income from the investments will decline. In effect, there will be a bit of a spiral of decreasing income created.
Therefore, I would suggest that the government should be prepared to state its intentions in this respect. I would agree that the $800 million to $900 million in the fund, which has sometimes been called a cushion, makes it quite possible financially, without serious risk to the fund, for us to agree to this amendment to increase benefits at this time. But I do believe that the government should be prepared to tell the house what its intentions are in respect of amendments to the act or otherwise so that the security of the fund will be maintained.
I myself am inclined to think that this might be the appropriate time to consider whether or not some fresh approaches to the question could not be taken, because this situation of seasonal unemployment, and unemployment which really is not seasonal in its nature, arises out of the actions to a large degree of some of the large corporate interests in this country.
The hon. member for Kootenay East mentioned the lay-off of 2,400 men down in the Windsor area in the automobile industry. He mentioned the lay-off at Kitimat in the province of British Columbia of some 1,700 workers. I would suggest that that particular lay-off in Kitimat is one of the most flagrant examples of the complete irresponsibility of the large corporate interests in this country that we have had in quite a while, and that if corporations like the aluminum corporation in Canada are going to create unemployment like that, just at the flick of the wrist because of some particular managerial whim,
(Mr. Barnett.]

then the time has come when they will have to be assessed for their responsibility in creating the unemployment situation. All too long the working people of this country have put up with the complete heartlessness and ruthlessness of large employing interests who shove men out in the middle of the winter without homes or places or jobs to which to go, without any thought of what their responsibility is not only to those people as individuals but to this country as a nation.
The basis of contribution into the unemployment insurance fund rests on a principle that has application in a number of fields, namely on equal contributions from employees and employers with a smaller contribution in this particular case from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. When we see that so much of this current unemployment is being created by actions such as the one I have described at Kitimat, then the question is raised as to whether that principle of contribution into this fund should be maintained in the future or whether perhaps the time has not come when there should be written into this act some form of penalty levy on employers who act in that irresponsible fashion.
I think perhaps an example of that approach is to be found in the workmen's compensation legislation across this country wherein is embodied the principle that employers are assessed an amount sufficient to cover payments required because of the accident rate within their particular industry. Perhaps the time has come when we might consider some such approach as that in respect of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, namely some penalties for those employers who will take on a large block of the Canadian working force and then, without any regard to the over-all national picture, suddenly dump them on to the employment market, as it is called.
That proposal is naturally something which would require some careful study. I think it would have to be devised in such a way that there was some flexibility in respect of the normal rise and fall of employment levels in certain industries. However, I think it is particularly applicable in a case such as the one I have mentioned in Kitimat in respect of a construction program. Either under the Unemployment Insurance Act or under some other form of legislative guarantee to be required by the federal Department of Labour, if an employer undertakes to start a project which requires the employing of, for instance, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 or 5,000 workers, I think perhaps they should be required, when they undertake that project to give some reasonable guarantee of the continuity of that

employment for a certain specified period or some guarantee of sufficient notice of their intention to lay these people off.
From time to time we have had in the house considerable discussion about the question of a shelf of public works. I think someone asked the Minister of Public Works not long ago some question as to whether the present government has a shelf. I would suggest that if we are going to have in this country a shelf of needed public works which may be undertaken, any government, no matter what their political complexion might be, should require that they be given some advance notice by these large employers as to when there is going to be a period when such a shelf would be required. It is obvious that if from time to time we are going to undertake various public developments geared to the fluctuations of industrial activity, those things cannot suddenly be put into high gear overnight and that a certain planning period is required. I think that an approach along this line could have quite beneficial results in respect of the number of people who are going to be making applications for benefits under the act and in respect of ensuring that the level of the fund would be protected when employers took action that dumped large numbers of people into the list of the unemployed.
I think I have made it clear that I am not suggesting that I feel this is a question that must be settled before this legislation is passed. However, as I said earlier, I think this question as to what is going to happen to the fund as a result of the increased drain on it is one which the government should be prepared to answer; and I believe that the government should be prepared to give us some indication as to what are their intentions. Unless they do that, while we will naturally be glad of a move which will alleviate the distress and the worry in the minds of a good many of the workers of Canada at this particular juncture, nevertheless there will be some good cause for worry in our minds as to what the future of the unemployment insurance plan in Canada is going to be.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the government apparently have at long last realized that there is a serious unemployment situation in this country and have found it desirable in this instance to bring in remedial legislation. The fact that the Minister of Labour earlier in this session indicated that he had no intention of doing so, that there was not time in which to do it, caused a great number of us in this group a great deal of concern for we realized that there definitely was an unfortunate situation
Unemployment Insurance Act wherein many individuals were going to be in need of financial assistance and were going to have it denied them unless some changes in the act were brought about.
I should like to compliment the Minister of Labour on his straightforward statement in bringing in this particular legislation. He showed that he has considerable interest in the welfare of the workers and I am sure he feels that this particular piece of legislation will do the job it is intended to do, although I am somewhat dubious on one or two points.
I should like to thank him for giving this group a draft copy of this legislation. I think that is a procedure which might well be followed by other departments, so that we would have a draft copy of a bill before we reach the second reading stage. We could then refer to the legislation and might have something more concrete to offer for consideration.
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned a very serious unemployment problem in my own province in connection with Kitimat. He suggested that there was a flagrant show of irresponsibility upon the part of management in this particular case. I listened to him closely because I wondered whether or not he was going to suggest the federal government or the government of British Columbia should take over the Kitimat project. Then, I wondered whether, if such were the case, he would expect either of these governments to keep these plants open for an indefinite time.
I think we in this house too often find ourselves-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit me to point out that I was referring only to a construction program which had been undertaken by that firm and suddenly cancelled.


Frederick George Hahn: That may be true; in this instance, I shall accept the hon. member's explanation. However, those of us who have been here for any length of time frequently have heard the members of the C.C.F. not only suggest but tell us pointblank that big business management, and sometimes small business for that matter, is not doing the job it should. Certainly they leave us wondering about what they would do. They never tell us what they are going to do. They leave us wondering whether or not they would socialize that particular industry.
I notice a great number of resolutions and bills on the order paper indicating certain changes in respect to all types of legislation. I have heard a great deal of talk about the socialization of industry of one kind or another, but I have yet to hear a single item mentioned which they suggest they would

Unemployment Insurance Act socialize or a particular plant mentioned which they would take over. It is simple enough to draft a resolution on that subject. It would be interesting to discover, for instance, whether or not our friends from Saskatchewan would be prepared to socialize the oil industry. If my hon. friends believe that is the answer to our labour problem, then let us have a resolution to that effect debated so that we could arrive at some concrete decision as to whether they are right or we are right. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano has indicated to us how management is prepared to assist in the solution of these problems, even to the extent of losing thousands of dollars in order to keep a plant open so the workers will have a home in which to live during the winter months. I refer to the situation in the Britannia mines, Mr. Chairman.
I indicated I was pleased that the minister had introduced this bill. I regret, however, that the government has found it necessary to introduce changes in the act because I deem that to be an admission of defeat for the present economic ideas which this government accepted from the former government. It is an indication that while the former Liberal government of this country had adopted this policy to do a particular thing, the adoption of the tight money policy to raise interest rates and so stop inflation did not bring about that result. Now, the government finds itself in the unfortunate position of having to deal with the unemployment situation. This indicates only one thing, namely that the economic system of this country has failed us miserably. We must, therefore, have a look at it.
The Social Credit members of this house frequently have requested the government to establish a committee to examine into the actions of the Bank of Canada in respect to the tight money policy. In this way we could establish the effect on our monetary control, upon our labour force and all the other factors which might be involved. When I first heard that this legislation was to be put before us, I wondered what had caused the government to change its mind. Certainly, the government had indicated it had no intention of introducing such legislation. I could not help but ask myself whether or not the change was induced by the fact that the Liberals, the C.C.F. and ourselves had talked so much about unemployment that the unemployment situation had Anally deteriorated to the point where action was necessary.


Michael Starr: That is right.


Frederick George Hahn: The minister says, that is right. I would say this to the minister and to other hon. members in the house, particularly our

Conservative friends, that they are saying in effect that members of parliament should not mention unfortunate problems in this house because those problems might become worse. I would say, sir, whether or not we spoke about this problem would make no difference. I would say that the tight money policy of the Liberals resulted in only one thing, namely that the Conservatives inherited it and, of course, having inherited it they want now to accept responsibility only for the good things and take none of the blame for the bad things.
May I suggest to you, sir, that the pretence there was little unemployment in this country would reflect no credit on any legislator in this house. We are fully aware of the conditions and this ostrich-like attitude of failing to recognize the problem would benefit no one. We know there is a problem. We are told there is a problem. We receive communications from our constituents indicating they are unemployed and asking what we can do to assist them. We read editorials in the newspapers indicating that there is a grave unemployment problem in this country, and yet we are told we should ignore it. We are told we are spreaders of gloom if we mention the question in the house, which is the logical place to raise this question, because it is through that means something might be done about it.
I have a clipping from the Vancouver Province of November 20 which interests me very much because the Minister of Justice was in British Columbia at that time discussing the very important question of the unemployment that might occur at Britannia mines unless this government took some action to forestall it. I am sure that all hon. members, as well as the members from British Columbia, are happy to see the mine in operation, despite the fact there was some talk about November 19 of closing it. However, in this article the Minister of Justice blamed the unemployment problem on the former Liberal government's tight money policy. The article says the Conservatives have relaxed the tight money as the first step in coping with the unemployment situation. Well, I do not know how long it takes parliament to feel the effects of a change. Certainly I think we all recognize that if inflation was stopped by the tight money policy, it has taken six or eight months to feel the effect of that particular change.
Our Conservative friends tell us that inflation is stopped. The Minister of Finance indicated just the other day that this is so. But it has taken from the first day when Walter Harris, former minister of finance, brought in the tight money policy up to now -a period of well over 1| years-to

apparently stop inflation, if it is stopped, and I doubt that very much. Now, in a matter of weeks, we are told that because the tight money policy has become loose unemployment is stopped overnight. How ridiculous can we get? The article goes on to say, in quoting Mr. Fulton's remarks:
The prophecies of doom indulged in by our opponents are grossly exaggerated and are not in the best interests of this nation.
"Spreaders of gloom" the Prime Minister called us. "Spreaders of doom" we are now termed by the Minister of Justice. Is a man a spreader of doom if he sees the unemployment situation is worse now than it was at the same time last year? Is he a spreader of doom if he can point to statistics to prove that very point? Certainly not. Is the same man a spreader of gloom, or for that matter a spreader of doom, if he is advised by his constituents that there are certain men and women who are having to go on relief in his constituency because there is no unemployment insurance available to them and because they cannot get jobs? Are these same individuals spreaders of gloom or of doom if they find there are more individuals unemployed during one week than there are in the next? I would say to the government, Mr. Chairman, through you, that it is our responsibility to draw these things to the attention of the government if that government-as is apparently the case- has not realized that we have in fact a serious unemployment situation. I say this because we are told it is not serious and that we are spreading gloom. If the government is not aware of these circumstances and we do become aware of them, is it not our responsibility to let the government know where it has failed and to try to suggest some remedy?
This may be gloomy to the Conservatives, but we in the Social Credit group do see a way out. We believe in making financially possible that which is physically possible, and there is a lot of work to be done in this regard. We just need to use our imaginations and our brains in the operation of our financial institutions so that we can make these things financially possible.
Hon. members will undoubtedly remember that not too many weeks ago I spoke during the throne speech debate with respect to this very same question. At that time I drew to the attention of the house a particular clipping from the British Columbian in which it was indicated that there were some 4,500 new jobs created but that the jobless list was high. It went on to point out that there were 4,500 men and 1,300 women or a total of 5,800 persons unemployed and 96698-101
Unemployment Insurance Act registered with the New Westminster unemployment commission office alone.
May I say that this figure, compared with 1956, was just about double. The same applies for 1954. However, I have another clipping, a more recent one, from the Vancouver Province of November 20. Hon. members will recall that I quoted just a few moments ago the words of the hon. Minister of Justice to the effect that we were spreaders of doom, because we were grossly exaggerating the conditions. Well now let me read to you what this article has to say:
Statistics for last Friday showed 24,553 persons registered under the Vancouver unemployment commission and 6,370 under the New Westminster branch.
Now, am I a spreader of gloom when I say that on the very day the Minister of Justice was speaking to a group of students at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and telling them we were spreaders of doom or spreaders of gloom, the unemployment figures in my own city had jumped by 500 in that very short while?
Certainly we must recognize that we do have a serious problem and the sooner we do so, the better. That is why I am happy to see that the minister has taken upon himself the responsibility of bringing in this particular bill to make it possible for some of these people to gain unemployment insurance since this government does not have a better answer, which would of course mean giving them jobs. In the alternative it would mean making it possible for industry to employ them.
Now this is just one instance but there are many more. I have clippings here from three places, including the Montreal Gazette. These articles become more common as conditions get worse. One headline reads:
Unemployed father of two arraigned in $32 hold-up.
A headline in the Vancouver Province of November 20 reads:
Man says he joined hold-up to get food for wife, child.
And yet another headline:
Door-breaking job-seeker draws three-year prison term.
Now, I am not saying that I accept statements to the effect that "Well, I broke into a place because I found myself in dire straits with no money to buy food for my family or myself". No, that is not the answer and those may not be true statements. But I do know, as one who has read the newspapers in my district for years, that this sort of thing becomes prevalent whenever the unemployment situation gets serious. Little
1580	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act stores are held up, the garage man on the corner has a gun stuck in his ribs and he is told to hand over the cash. These things are not so apparent or so frequent in good times when we have a period of full employment. Not at all.
This matter was drawn to the attention of the former minister, not just the fact of unemployment alone but the problems which were going to result from the policies carried out by the former government. That government had pretty well lost the lumber markets for my province. We drew to its attention the various changes which were needed to make it possible to sell more lumber, but the members of that government were prone to laughing and scoffing it off and to saying, "Well, we just didn't know the answers". It was not prepared to bring the dollar down to its dollar value; it was not prepared to accept sterling, whether convertible or block, in exchange for goods and finally develop its use in a foreign land which might use that particular kind of currency.
It was not prepared to take this particular problem sufficiently into consideration or to make the study that was warranted at that time. The continuance of these financial policies will result in the continuation of the problems of unemployment we face today; they will be repeated year in and year out. The fiscal policies which we have adopted, and which are being followed today, are outmoded as we have said time and again in this group. Those fiscal policies have proven false. Orthodox Liberals may say they are right. The Conservatives may say they are wrong. Yet there is not an individual in those groups, either among Liberals or Conservatives, who could point out the difference between the two policies which are accepted by those parties.
We, the unorthodox group, say it is time parliament had control of this money, and that it should not be left in the hands of a few individuals to do with it as they saw fit. The C.C.F. party say; let us socialize oil wells, gas wells, forests, dams, everything but what is mine. This will create more jobs without overproduction. How socializing anything would create more jobs, I do not know, but possibly some day they will explain. What has brought about the present difficulties? Several factors have contributed. There is the loss of the apple market in British Columbia, a situation which is well-established today, when Lebanon is supplying Great Britain, a market we supplied in full in earlier days. I think it is up to us to


discover causes and effects and, having discovered the cause of unemployment, it is up to us to try to cure it.
Here is another item from this same newspaper of November 20. One could make speeches about what one sees in newspapers in a single day. And I have chosen one day on purpose to indicate how all these things, the items on the financial pages, the front page stories of murder and robbery and everything else, may be related. Here we read:
Fifteen million pounds imported, but B.C. tomatoes left to rot.
That is from the Vancouver Province of November 20. And here is another item: "Italy enters Canadian cloth market". We must find the answer to these problems. Unemployment insurance is not the answer to how we are going to keep people at work.
I was delighted to find the minister taking a positive attitude to at least one phase of this problem. His words, as I recall them, were along these lines, that the government's policy was "a means of putting purchasing power into the hands of the people." That is positive action and I would compliment him upon it.
Now the answer to this unemployment problem which has been suggested by hon. members opposite might be along lines of taking offence at the way in which big business is operating. I would commend to the attention of these hon. members another article in the same paper entitled:	"In
Kitimat they battle for prosperity". The article describes how the people there have endorsed a new by-law approving a new hospital whose construction will employ 250 men, and goes on to say how the workers are studying means of cutting down "moonlighting" and giving job preference to women whose husbands are unemployed. Rents and instalment payments are being deferred, and provincial and federal governments may be asked to take up the building slack by the construction of new public buildings and replacement of temporary structures.
We can understand why some men have to have two jobs. The cost of living today is so high that it is easily understandable, I am sure. These same individuals on the other side, frequently blame big industrial developments for their troubles. They take objection to these big interests going ahead and doing something for the nation to assist in a solution of the unemployment problem-


An hon. Member:: No.


Frederick George Hahn: Oh yes, they do. But their group in Saskatchewan is not prepared to

socialize some of these very industries or, I suggest, they would have socialized the oil wells long ago.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, certain recommendations have been made by the Canadian Labour Congress with respect to modifications of the Unemployment Insurance Act. These suggestions were included in the most recent issue of the Canadian Labour Magazine for November, 1957. I am pleased to see that the minister has incorporated some of these ideas into his new bill.
In conclusion may I just say that this legislation, despite what the minister said earlier this session, despite the fact that the Prime Minister said we were spreaders of gloom and that there was no serious unemployment, despite the fact that the Minister of Justice said we were spreaders of doom and that there was no serious unemployment, is an admission by this government that it has no answer to the problem of keeping the people of this country at work.
I know we will be told that the new government has not been given a chance to develop its plans. But if they are to take credit for what the tight money policy has achieved they must accept the blame for what it failed to achieve, and if it does not keep the people employed they must accept full responsibility for that as well. The economic system we have today offers no solution to our problem. I say that in present circumstances this legislation is a "must", and that in all probability it will need to be improved. I wish to compliment the minister again for having brought it in, and say that it is my intention to support it.


Mr. Cauchon:: Mr. Chairman, by now the hon. Minister of Labour must be well aware of the unemployment situation as revealed by the dominion bureau of statistics. It has been reported both in the press and in this house.
As my riding is primarily industrial, I too feel it my duty to draw his attention to the rapid increase in the numbers of unemployed. For instance, in the Montreal area alone the increase is 14,000, according to figures released from the Montreal unemployment insurance commission to the Montreal Star, of November 22. In the country at large, as reported by the hon. Minister of Labour on November 21,	1957, there were 188,362
unemployed last year, as at November 8, 1956. As of November 7, 1957 the number stands at 327,388.
What has caused this sharp decline in employment and how does the hon. minister explain it? I refer to Hansard of October 16 this year. Here, in reply to a question put 96698-101J
Unemployment Insurance Act by the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the minister says, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that there will be seasonal unemployment this winter. We have stepped up our winter program to take care of winter unemployment. We have also advised our national employment service offices to step up their tempo in obtaining jobs for people as soon as they become unemployed. I might say also, on behalf of the government, that we have curtailed for the balance of the year the influx of immigrants which swelled our total labour population. In addition we have channelled $150 million into our economy for the construction of houses. These are the things the government has done so far in order to cope with unemployment this winter.
How can the rise in unemployment be attributed to the usual seasonal decline? It has doubled within the year. Furthermore the minister assured us that the national employment bureau has been requested to find work for these men and women. I do not understand this, sir. Does the bureau now await the minister's order before it does the task it was set up to do? If jobs had been available surely the bureau could have filled them among the registered unemployed.
As far as the $150 million for the construction of houses is concerned, I would like to read what the president of l'Association des detaillants de bois du Quebec has to say about that. I quote:
( Translation):
Mr. Paul A. Durivage, of Montreal, will preside over this two day congress that will deal with several matters pertaining to the building industry. Ways and means will be sought to spur construction. For some months lumber dealers have been particularly concerned over the drastic slump in house building and delegates to the congress are planning representations to the federal government asking for other funds in addition to the $150,000,000 already made available.
(Text):
Moreover, certainly none of those presently unemployed will be able to benefit from that if they had been planning to build. The applicant for such loans must be able to show an increase. Here and there, however, the construction workers may temporarily benefit.
Now, coming back to the cause of this problem of increasing unemployment I contend that uncertainty and fear resulting from the Mont Tremblant conference are powerful factors. Industry became uneasy, afraid of the free trade policy proposed, and started to reduce capital expansion. For example, the Aluminum Company of Canada has halted construction on two smelters at Kitimat with the subsequent lay-off of 1,000 men. I quote from an article which appeared in the Gazette on November 1 which says:
Aluminium Limited does not see much point in making a capital investment of $30 million creating productive capacity for which there will be no demand.

Unemployment Insurance Act
Slowdowns in the manufacturing of electrical appliances and clothing have also contributed to the increase in the numbers without work as have those in the Canadian textile industry. Not only is management becoming reluctant to take a chance on expansion it is also reducing stocks. But I venture to say that unemployment would not be so severe now if business and industry had the same sense of security that was given them by the Liberal administration. On several occasions since I have been in the house I spoke on the subject of employment especially on the employment of older workers. In my opinion there are three categories of unemployed. First, there are those who are out of work because of lay-offs. Second, there are those who are out of work because of age, that is those who are age 40 and over. Third, there are those forced to retire at the age of 65.
On April 17, 1951 I outlined in this house measures that I believed would help prevent discrimination in employment because of age. The present Minister of Labour will probably then ask, "Why was nothing done by the previous administration?" In reply to that question I would point out that it did seek the co-operation of management through its film "Date of Birth" but prejudice and pension schemes are not changed nor overcome easily. Today, against the background of ever-increasing unemployment, the matter is even more urgent. As I pointed out in January 1957, "It is the workers over 40 who suffer most when production methods change". It is this group which also suffers most during periods of unemployment but workers of all ages want security of employment.
According to a survey conducted by the institute of public opinion and reported in La Presse on November 20 this year, 87 per cent of those questioned preferred steady work to increased wages. That demand has resulted in some cases in what is known as the guaranteed annual wage. Together with the demand for steady work is the demand for opportunity to work. Again I say that this latter is more often denied to the man of 40 or older. Those aged 65 have no chance of competing in the labour market. In this connection I was glad to see that in its policy declarations and resolutions for 195758 the Canadian Chamber of Commerce referring to employment of older workers had this to say:
Population forecasts indicate that the proportion of older persons will be increasing. The problem of the older worker must be faced if we are constantly to raise our national product, not place an unfair burden on the employed population, and enable those older competent people who wish to do so to remain in productive and useful employment.

Studies have indicated that the older worker if properly placed can compare favourably in performance with other workers and can make a considerable contribution to the production of the country. Furthermore, the older worker group represents a reservoir of skill and experience that the country can ill afford to waste. The addition of older workers to our labour force would enlarge our productive capacity.
The chamber is of the view that Canadian employers should give full consideration to the desirability of employing older workers in suitable employment to the fullest extent practicable.
And notice especially its recommendation:
The chamber urges that Canadian employers recognize the skill and experience of older workers and give consideration to the suitable employment of this group to the fullest extent practicable.
Surely if the problem is now recognized by an influential national body such as the Canadian chamber of commerce it is time for government to take steps to solve it. Much information regarding this class of workers, their capacities and abilities can be obtained from a book called "The Golden Years" by Senator Desmond of New York State. The state of Massachusetts with its anti-discrimination board has almost abolished discrimination in employment practice. What that state has done, Canada can do.
I maintain that the government at this session should set up a committee to study the causes of the increase in unemployment, ways of checking unemployment and ways of preventing discrimination against both those aged 40-plus and those now automatically retired at age 65 without regard to their skills, health or efficiency. It is only after a study of these questions and the establishment of a vested pension plan such as I outlined in January 1957 that we shall be able to assure our older workers of employment and avert unemployment in the future.
(Translation):


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Chairman, I would like first of all, to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) on his proposed amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The increased benefit period will unquestionably prove most helpful to many unemployed workers in Canada, and in the constituency of Beauce in particular.
Nevertheless, I am sorry to note that, while the bill which will follow upon this resolution is bound to relieve unemployment, large numbers of unemployed will not benefit from this legislation. Now it so happens that in my constituency at least, they are the very ones who most need help. I shall now attempt to prove this statement with facts and figures.

For the last few weeks, in my visits to my constituency, I have personally studied the situation of the workers and have had others do likewise, and I have thus obtained some valuable information. Of course, I have had a pretty good knowledge of the situation, acquired over the last few years because on several occasions since I have been a member of this house, I have explained the difficulties facing the workers of my constituency and more particularly bush-workers and small farmers.
According to figures provided by the employment office at St. Georges, in mid-November 1956, there were 796 unemployed looking for jobs. Those figures apply to the constituency of Beauce and to the workers in commerce and industry. This year, for the same period, 1,642 people were in the same situation. In other words this year twice as many unemployed are looking for work as there were last year. I must admit that, as far as that category of workers is concerned, the present resolution providing for an increase in the number of weeks during which benefits may be paid, will be most helpful. Most of these workers have accumulated enough contributions over the last year or two to be entitled to normal and supplementary benefits and this payment will certainly be greeted with a great deal of satisfaction by the workers themselves and their families.
However, there remains the case of the bushworkers. There are two types of bush-workers, those whose chief occupation is employment in the bush, and then farmers and farmers' sons whose main occupation is farming but who, every year, go to work in the lumber camps to supplement farm income. Now that extra income is an extremely important item, and has been very much so over the past two years since net farm revenue has fallen off considerably, in line with rising costs of production. Just take, for instance, the constant increase in the price of fertilizers, feed and farm implements. Workers in this latter group usually received seasonal benefits because of the contributions they had accumulated in the fall when they were working in the bush. This year, however, they could not find jobs in the bush, they could not accumulate the required contributions. Therefore, they will not qualify for supplementary benefits and the improvements brought by the amendment to the act will not help them in any way.
Now then, what will happen to the first group of these workers, those whose main and generally sole occupation is working in
Unemployment Insurance Act the bush? I should say at this point that the figures which I am going to quote are approximate ones which I have collected in the course of my personal investigation. They reveal a rather serious situation and I would be very glad indeed if official figures showed them to be wrong.
There are about 6,000 workers in this group, approximately half of them usually working in the United States, the other half working either in Quebec or in Ontario. Of the 3,000 working in the United States there were 2,500 at work in October 1956 and only 225 at work in October 1957. This means that, in the constituency of Beauce, 2,275 bushworkers who usually work in the United States are at the present time unemployed. And, what is more tragic still, as it has not yet been found possible to conclude an agreement on the exchange of benefits between Canada and the states of Maine and New Hampshire, those 2,275 bushworkers have not accumulated any contributions because they had practically no work in the summer and will therefore receive neither regular nor supplementary benefits. Consequently, the excellent measure which this resolution leads us to expect will do nothing to brighten up their dark situation.
I should like to add incidentally that in the constituencies bordering on the state of Maine, the constituencies of Beauce, Dorchester and the others, there are about 18,000 Canadian bushworkers who generally work in the United States and who, for the reason mentioned a few minutes ago, can never take advantage of the Canadian Unemployment Insurance Act. I have in the past made representations to the Canadian department of labour requesting some agreement with the state of Maine in particular, and I know that the government of that state refuses to consider the matter.
The minister of labour of the previous government had looked into the matter. The present minister also takes an interest in the matter and I congratulate him for it. I therefore take this opportunity to ask him to keep trying to get the labour department of the state of Maine to change its policy. It would possibly be a good idea to explain to the authorities there that, unless there is a change, they will end up by being short of Canadian bushworkers. In fact the number of such workers going to the United States-outside of unemployment periods-has been dwindling at the rate of about 500 a year. If in a year or two there was a sudden increase of opportunities for employment in the bush, -which is quite possible, and I do hope it happens soon,-Maine will certainly be out on a limb, as far as Canadian bushworkers are concerned.

Unemployment Insurance Act
Now let us look at the situation of the
3.000	bushworkers of Beauce who usually work here in Canada. In October, 1956 there were approximately 2,500 at work, as against
2.000	only in October, 1957. In this group then, last October, we noted a decrease of 500, in other words an increase of 500 in the number of unemployed.
Now then, for the past few weeks woodcutting has stopped in several large lumber camps. The camps have closed down and some companies which usually end their operations by early January or soon after will suspend those operations within eight or ten days. It means that, if we add the number of unemployed workers of each of the two groups mentioned, we have, at the present time, approximately 3,400 unemployed and that there will be between 4,200 and 4,500 of them by the 10th or the 15th of December, out of a total force of 6,000 bushworkers. And here again, as the great majority of them worked in Canada this summer and became unemployed recently or some time ago, they will not qualify for the regular or for the supplementary benefits since woodcutting operations were very much reduced this year and the number of available workers much greater. As a consequence, operations were of much smaller duration and these people could not have a sufficient number of stamps affixed in their books to make them eligible for the benefits.
It is therefore, I believe, a conservative estimate to say that if the present regulations under the act remain in force there will be, on January 1st, in the constituency of Beauce, from 3,800 to 4,000 unemployed bushworkers who will not receive any unemployment insurance benefit and will not be helped by the proposed amendments to the act. How could the act be amended so as to give assistance to this large number of unemployed who do not qualify for benefits because they have not been able to accumulate the necessary contributions? I venture to suggest that it could be achieved by reducing the number of required contributions. As of now, the act requires 15 weekly contributions. But if that number were reduced to 10 or even 8, I believe that about 40 per cent of the 4,000 unassisted unemployed could obtain their benefits and would particularly be able to take advantage of the generous amendments the government is now bringing in by increasing the supplementary benefit period. This is, I know, an extraordinary change; it should of course be only temporary, but drastic situations call for drastic remedies.
And yet, there will remain the group of those who went across the border-about 2,500 of them-who will find it quite impossible to take advantage of the unemployment insurance act, even when amended as indicated by the government, and it would be so even if an amendment included my suggestion of cutting by half the number of contributions required to qualify for the benefits.
That group represents about 2,500 unemployed. Is it not a tragic situation? I confess to some reluctance in submitting a constructive suggestion in the case of this latter group. One way out would be to call for the enforcement of the Unemployment Assistance Act which authorizes the federal government to pay 50 per cent of the relief granted by the provinces to the unemployed and needy while the other half would be paid by the provinces themselves. This, however, brings back the sad memory of direct relief and the meagre allowance paid to idle human beings who could work and wished to do so. In my opinion, such a legislation should be but a last resort. Moreover, I understand that the province of Quebec has rejected that proposal and has refused to come to an understanding with the central government on that matter.
On the whole, would it not be preferable for the government to consider the possibility of undertaking certain projects, whose importance is shown by the persistence with which people in Canada have called for them for many years in certain areas, as, for example, the construction of retaining walls along the Chaudiere river in some parishes and villages of the county of Beauce? I know that in normal times, such projects should be carried out in accordance with the Water Conservation Assistance Act. However, we are in an unusual situation as far as employment is concerned and, for that very reason, the central government could carry out these works without encroaching upon the autonomy of the province of Quebec since they have recognized their responsibility in the matter of unemployment when they established unemployment insurance. Similarly, the government could also speed up the development of certain projects whose necessity they seem to have recognized since they are making plans for their implementation. Among these, I would mention the construction of a government building at St. Georges de Beauce. Such works, and many others as well, would stimulate the economy of the whole area and would greatly reduce unemployment.

I wish to be fair, however, and to recognize that the government is not unconcerned over the situation which now exists all over the country. The resolution dealing with a supplementary expenditure of $150 million for housing, which is now on the order paper, is ample proof of this and I warmly congratulate the government about this initia*-tive. However, I greatly fear that this excellent piece of legislation will bring no improvement to the particular situation existing at the present time in the county of Beauce, a situation which will surely worsen within a few months.
I have tried to explain very simply that situation as I see it and to offer my humble suggestions for its solution. I have the right to expect that the government, through its experts and even through the Minister of Labour, will be kind enough to give it their serious consideration. If they feel that my suggestions are impractical, I shall be glad and anxious, together with the population of Beauce county, to hear about better solutions.
(Text) :


Mr. Christian:: We are today giving consideration to resolution No. 13 which reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the length of seasonal benefit periods; to increase the number of benefit payments for which claimants may qualify during those periods;-
That is basically what is being asked for under the resolution. It would seem that the intention of this resolution is to liberalize the periods and also the payments. I was a little bit concerned with regard to this particular resolution when I heard that fishermen are able to qualify under the act whereas, as I understand it, agricultural workers are still in the category of an excepted employment. In my own Okanagan Boundary area agriculture is our main industry. In that area are a great many workers who are engaged in agricultural work and pursuits. It would seem to me that it is only fair and reasonable that those agricultural workers be included under the act. Later on I should like the Minister of Labour to tell the house whether consideration was given to the matter of including agricultural workers under this scheme; and if not, why not? The very fact that fishermen are included and other occupations, such as agricultural workers, are not included I think is unfair and this act should be extended as soon as possible to cover other occupations.
Unemployment Insurance Act
However, there is one good feature of this proposal and that is there will be an additional sum of $13 million which will help to increase the purchasing power and the extent of the coverage will be increased by about 36,000 persons. However, I do feel that in so far as these amendments are concerned they are actually only in the nature of emergency legislation. They are only a palliative and not a remedy; that is one particular point I wish to mention. This is not a solution of the basic unemployment problem which we have in our country.
You are no doubt aware that in our country today there are two destroyers of progress: One is unemployment and the other is a lack of purchasing power. In my own Okanagan Boundary constituency we have a number of industries such as ranching, lumbering, base metal industries and fruitgrowing. Those persons who are engaged in those industries are having an exceedingly difficult time today. In my constituency unemployment has doubled and the situation is getting worse all the time.
In so far as British Columbia is concerned, information available from reports of local offices of the unemployment insurance commission pertains to the Pacific region, which comprises the Yukon Territory and all but the northeastern portion of the province, and as at September 19, 1957, the number of persons registered for employment at local offices in the Pacific region was 29,837. The figure for the comparable date, September 20, 1956, was 15,619. I would not doubt but that the figure has substantially increased since September 19, 1957. It is well known throughout this country that unemployed people congregate in British Columbia during the winter months and more particularly on the Pacific coast.
It is necessary that action be taken to combat this serious unemployment problem. I have not as yet received from the government any satisfactory answers to questions which I have asked. For example, under date of November 13, I put the following questions on the order paper:
What steps have been taken by the government since June 10th, 1957, to help the base metal mining industry in British Columbia and in particular the base metal mining industry in the Okanagan Boundary area?
What steps have been taken by the government since June 10th,	1957, to help the lumbering
industry in the province of British Columbia, and especially the small loggers who face adverse market conditions?
I should like to point out to the committee that since November 13 I have asked other questions pertaining to various matters about which we are concerned, and I have received answers to those questions. However, I have

Unemployment Insurance Act received no answer to this particular problem as yet, and it does relate to the matter oi unemployment. I am aware that this government did set up the sum of $150 million to help house construction, but it seems to me that British Columbia is being sadly neglected by this government. Apart from the matter of housing, I should like the government to tell us what has been done in so far as the construction of capital projects is concerned in British Columbia. I am not aware of any at the present time, except perhaps the expenditure of a certain amount of money in regard to housing.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Frank Claus Christian: Mr. Chairman, prior to the recess I was speaking on the Unemployment Insurance Act and unemployment generally. To me it is hard to realize that we in Canada have the unemployment situation which we do have, being aware as we are of Canada's rich heritage and its population of only about 16 million people. Yet we have a national debt of about $11 billion and our debt charges annually amount to about $500 million. This situation is indeed difficult to understand and it appears to me that it is a sad commentary on the performance of the previous and the past governments of this country.
I note at page 1360 of Hansard for November 21, 1957, the hon. member for Levis asked the Minister of Public Works this question:
Can he tell the house whether it is the intention of the government to launch now a special program of public works across Canada to alleviate the very serious unemployment situation?
In reply the hon. Minister of Public Works
said:
Well, I have no intention of launching an overall program of public works across Canada-
I think it is a most unfortunate state of affairs if that is the present policy of the Conservative government. It seems to me that this is indeed a defeatist attitude. What I am particularly concerned about is what the government plans to do to bring about a public works program across Canada and, in particular, to help the province of British Columbia. As I have said previously, apart from the matter of housing, I am not aware of any large capital project under construction in British Columbia at the present time. In my own constituency in the Okanagan Boundary area there is great difficulty in selling lumber at a reasonable price and the small holders are having great difficulty,

especially with respect to selling their fruit. As a matter of fact this year I have noticed many many tons of fruit have been dumped in various dumping grounds throughout the Okanagan Boundary area.
I am interested to know if when the yarious provincial premiers were here this week this matter was given consideration by them particularly with respect to a public works program for Canada. So far I have heard nothing whatsoever in this connection.
Now the Unemployment Insurance Act is no solution to the problem which is facing us in this country; it will certainly not give work to the people of Canada and unless something is done in this connection it will be the people of Canada who will be the sufferers.
I would like now to deal with that other destroyer of progress; I mentioned unemployment as one, and the second I consider to be the lack of sufficient purchasing power in the hands of the Canadian people. I say that if unemployment and the lack of purchasing power continues it could wreck the Conservative party. It could also be a sad blow to the welfare of our people. I am not thinking of the Conservative party, I am thinking of the Canadian people as a whole. I think there is one very important economic truth which we should remember which is that the sole purpose of production is consumption. This was said by the famous economist Adam Smith many many years ago and his statement is as true today in our country.
As we know production is no problem whatsoever; we have no problem in that regard in Canada at all, but the real problem faced by all parties in this country in years past and today is the problem of bringing about proper distribution of goods and services among the people; this is of course the problem of consumption. I know of nothing that is being done today to try to solve that particular problem.
I submit that our monetary system is old fashioned, it is archaic. As a matter of fact it is full of moth-holes and is in need of a new cloak. I would like to read a few remarks quoted in a newspaper entitled The Fundy Fisherman published at Black's Harbour, Charlotte county, New Brunswick. This particular issue was published on Wednesday, October 9, 1957, and the heading of the article is as follows:
Royal commission on finances needed. High interest, tight money condemned.
Another heading reads:
Bank of Canada methods challenged as unsuited to needs of present day.
The article reads as follows:
Premier Hugh John Flemming of New Brunswick has thrown his influence strongly behind the

rising tide of progress against the antiquated policies of the Bank of Canada. The premier, in a strongly worded speech before the Atlantic provinces' economic council called for a royal commission inquiry into the application of the Bank of Canada policies to the Canadian economy of the present day.
Now, Premier Flemming is actually a Conservative premier in the province of New Brunswick and personally I think he would be a welcome addition to the present Conservative party in this house. At least he would introduce into its ranks some flexible and constructive thought. The article goes on to say:
The New Brunswick leader's statement came at a time when evidence mounted daily to show the failure of the high interest, tight money to provide Canadians with increased production at a steady cost of living.
Further in the article it says:
In the United States, the rather odd monetary and economic situation we appear to be in, has resulted in the United States senate finance committee holding hearings on "the financial condition of the United States". These hearings began on June 18 and continued in high gear during July and August. The whole banking and financial structure of the United States is being subjected to a most careful and searching scrutiny.
I think that something similar should be under way in Canada. After all, our monetary system has not been given a really careful examination since the royal commission on banking and currency was appointed in 1933-almost a quarter of a century ago. The result of this royal commission was, of course, the setting up of the Bank of Canada.
Further on in the article Premier Flemming says this:
Is our present monetary and financial structure really suited to the needs of the Canadian economy in the mid-twentieth century? Is it too centralized? Can it not be made more flexible so as to meet, to some degree, the needs of particular regions? I think that these matters should be the subject of enquiry by a royal commission. We, in this region, are determined that the future shall be better than the past-that is the reason that we, the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, meet in conference here today. This is the purpose for which APEC exists. But all our efforts could be in vain if we are constantly faced with a monetary policy which is completely unsuited to our regional needs.
Now if they had this conference in the United States I submit that it is only reasonable that a similar inquiry should take place in our country. As I said in the first speech which I made in this house, it is high time that we had an independent group of men appointed to study all aspects of our financial system and to bring about a substantial improvement thereof for the benefit of the Canadian people as a whole. The Social Credit group, in making the amendment to the throne speech, recognized that it was time we had a scientific modern policy to bring an end to the tight money policy and to reduce the rise in cost of living.
Unemployment Insurance Act


James Sinclair: I would like to start, Mr. Chairman, by saying a word of compliment to the minister for the very frank and concise statement he gave on this measure which is so important at this time. He is new to his job and his job is a difficult one. I think before this winter is over it will probably be the most difficult one in the cabinet of Canada. Nevertheless I think those of us on this side of the house, knowing the problems as we do, do congratulate the minister on the way he has faced up to and tried to give us the facts without evasion. I think his conduct might well be copied by one or two of his colleagues over there who have not been as frank in giving us the facts.
I am very glad of this chance to speak on this question of unemployment. I think that to many Canadians today this debate on unemployment is of much more immediate importance than the important debate on external affairs which took place yesterday. The minister gave a brief review of the conditions which necessitated the introduction of this emergency legislation and he also sketched in some of the things which this government had done in an attempt to solve the present serious unemployment conditions in this country.
Well, the Minister of Justice this afternoon, in another debate, said the proof of the pudding was in the eating, and I think perhaps the success of these measures mentioned by the minister can best be judged by their results. The results, as shown by the figures produced by the minister himself in recent weeks, are that unemployment in Canada is, on the whole, twice what it was this time last year, and the very fact that we are having to take special action today to hurry this legislation through, extending unemployment insurance benefits over a six-month period in the year, is also an indication of at least the appreciation of the Minister of Labour that this is an emergency. And all the brave words used by the Minister of Finance on the T.V. last night or in Toronto last week will not convince the Canadian people, especially the 327,000 registered unemployed as of November 7, that there is not an emergency in this country.
The fact that this legislation is going to extend what were seasonal benefits to cover half the working year is another striking example of the fact that we have a real problem in Canada today and the fact, too, that this legislation will extend to people who normally would have been covered by the present act but who have exhausted their benefits is further evidence.

Unemployment Insurance Act
I will not comment on the actions taken by the government to relieve unemployment, as listed by the minister, but I want to speak with special feeling about one action which the Conservative government has taken which, I am sure, is going to bring very serious consequences in my own province of British Columbia in particular as far as employment is concerned, and across Canada to a lesser degree. I say "to a lesser degree" because we in British Columbia are especially vulnerable in this field. When conditions are good in Canada they are very good in British Columbia; when things have been bad in Canada they have been very bad in British Columbia. We have greater swings in the economy, mainly because we are still, principally, producers of primary products. Today, in British Columbia, I see from studying the record, that we have a higher ratio of unemployment to population than any other province in Canada.
The government action I refer to is the announcement of the Prime Minister at a press conference at an airfield during the summer that he intended to try to divert 15 per cent of trade from the United States to the United Kingdom, a total volume of $625 million a year. We British Columbians find the biggest market for our three principal products the production of which is the chief source of employment in our province-in this American market, namely, our fish, our base metals and our lumber. I list them in growing order of importance, but in putting fish first I do so because it is the thing which is closest to my heart. We have been under considerable pressure, as far as our markets in the United States are concerned in recent years because of the cry of American protectionists groups to stop the flow of these products from our forests, seas and mountains into the United States.
I say that the action of the Canadian government in announcing that they intend to take $625 million worth of trade away from the United States has strengthened the hand of every protectionist in the United States who is clamouring for high tariffs against Canadian products.
I should like to deal briefly with each of the three main industries which, I contend, are likely to be adversely affected. First with regard to fisheries. We Canadians are blessed with tremendous fisheries, fisheries far greater than our population can make use of, and so we must look for foreign markets, and for foreign markets near at hand. Fish is not like wheat; it is not very storable, but highly perishable and the closest markets are best. Over one-half of our fish products today is sold for consumption and use in the United States.

In the last five years the New England senators and congressmen have maintained an important lobby to raise tariffs and bring in quotas against Canadian fish, and twice they have succeeded in having the tariff commission of the United States bring forward recommendations recommending tariffs which would have a most detrimental effect on the Canadian fishing industry. But we have good friends in the United States who value Canadian trade, and we have a good friend in President Eisenhower, because twice President Eisenhower has himself vetoed the recommendations of this tariff commission inspired by this protectionist lobby from the New England states. I say that President Eisenhower is going to have a more difficult time this spring in resisting the pressure for these tariffs from these New England senators, who can now say: "why should we worry about Canada, since Canada is devoted to taking $600 million of trade away from our markets."
An even more difficult situation prevails as far as our base metals are concerned. Canadian production in this field is far greater than a nation with a population of 16 million people can ever absorb. And, once again, the biggest and best market for base metal products is in the United States and, again, because prices have been sinking we have encountered a very powerful lobby mounted in Washington by the senators from the mining states of the west and by the miners union in the United States maintaining in senate representations last August that there should be introduced, not just tariffs but punitive tariffs on an extraordinary scale against the importation of our zinc and lead, a scale of tariffs increasing from one cent to two cents, three cents and four cents a pound on zinc and lead as they fall in price. Normally ad valorem tariffs increase, of course, as the price goes up but these tariffs will increase as the price goes down.
The whole purpose of these tariff recommendations was not to restrict the entry of Canadian zinc and lead but to block it completely. These hearings, which had been held over, are to resume this December. Earlier this week the Canadian mining association attended hearings in Washington to press the case of the Canadian mining industry, explaining the extent of its dependence on the American market and how, if these tariffs were brought in, at least one-third of our Canadian base metal mines would close immediately and the others be forced on to part-time production. There again is an example of how the action taken by this

government could have a dreadful effect on the industry of my province and, for that matter, on the base metal industry across Canada.
There is a third great industry in British Columbia based on our great timber production. Still in our province over 50 per cent of the payroll comes from our forests and here again the best market over the years for this tremendous production has been the United States, after which comes the Canadian market, and thirdly, and a long way behind, the British market. Once again we find these protectionist groups in the United States clamouring for tariffs against British Columbian lumber and, I expect, against maritime lumber, too. They have had a fair measure of success as far as plywoods and hardboards are concerned. Because of that, in my riding, in the riding of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and in the riding of the hon. member for New Westminster, timber companies are closed or working with greatly reduced staffs with little opportunity for increased markets in the future. And once again those who are clamouring in the United States for still greater protection, as they call it-still greater exclusion really of our natural products are going to be greatly strengthened in their arguments in the senate and before the tariff commission. Once again they can say: "why should we worry about this Canadian government when as government policy they are trying to take $600 million worth of natural trade from us and divert it to the United Kingdom?"
The minister mentioned the impact of $150 million made available under national housing. That is a good step forward because housing probably does provide more labour per dollar spent than any other industry. The figures, however, show that in British Columbia there has been remarkably little advantage taken of those loans. Our province of British Columbia has generally led the nation in housing construction but the most recent figures on the distribution of that money show that while Ontario had taken $49 million, British Columbia had taken less than $3 million. That is about one-sixteenth of the amount, about one-quarter of the rate of construction in Ontario.
This matter of growing unemployment in British Columbia is one which has given great concern to all our British Columbian members. That is one reason why all British Columbia private members of all parties joined so unanimously in asking the government to take positive action in a case which we
Unemployment Insurance Act regard as a key case where very little government help can keep a great industry operating this winter. I refer, of course, to Britannia mines.
Now, it is true that unemployment insurance has changed the picture a bit so far as the plight of the unemployed is concerned. During the days of the Bennett government unemployment was the scourge of the people. The people were on the 20 cents a day dole and young men were herded into labour camps-out of sight out of mind-as apparently the Prime Minister would have us ignore unemployment today when he says we are creating a fear complex if we even mention it.
The floor of Liberal social security legislation brought in in the last 20 years, unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance paid jointly by the federal and provincial governments, universal old age pension and family allowances put cash money into the family group which did not exist of course during the thirties. All these things are helpful and the amendments put forward by the minister today are helpful but they are no substitute for employment. The answer to unemployment is not the diversion of trade from one country to another but the expansion of trade in every country and above all the development of secondary industry here in our own country. We want to see an expansion of jobs through national development. The government can take a great deal of immediate action to stimulate public works. Day after day we hear the Minister of Public Works say that these things are planned and are being revised or reviewed. This is not the time for the review of public works, this is the time for positive action and every possible public work contemplated should be undertaken as soon as possible.
There is one other item I would like to mention before I sit down. In his argument the minister pointed out how helpful the $13 million which he expected would be paid in these extra benefits would be as far as purchasing power is concerned and my Social Credit friend, the hon. member for New Westminster, concurred in that. I find that very curious economics. When they were working these men had at least three times that purchasing power, approximately $40 million; and to drop from $40 million when this group was working to $13 million when they are unemployed and drawing benefits does not seem to me to be very sensible economics.


Frederick George Hahn: They would not have anything without this.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Michael Starr: Would you prefer to give them nothing?


James Sinclair: No, I would rather see them enjoying the high level of employment they enjoyed under the Liberal government.


Michael Starr: So would I like to see them enjoy a high level of employment but this is better than nothing. It is good economics.


James Sinclair: I am glad the minister has risen because now I am going to suggest that if he wants to do something positive to put real purchasing power into the hands of the Canadian people his government should meet the request that has been made by our party, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit group since this session started and have the Minister of Finance bring down a budget this session with these great tax cuts which he promises because that would really put purchasing power far greater than the $13 million into the hands of the Canadian people. That would really spur employment and activity in this country.


Mr. Charlton:: Why didn't you do it?


Mr. Pearson:: Because we had employment.


James Sinclair: Last June we had the highest level of employment and the greatest peak of prosperity in all the history of this country.


Mr. Brooks:: What about 1955?


James Sinclair: Let me just tell this committee what this would mean in terms of purchasing power. When the Minister of Finance brings down his budget it will not be any surprise to the Canadian people because the record is filled not only with the election promises but the declarations of the Minister of Finance when he was the financial critic of the opposition. They are going to increase the exemption from income tax from $1,000 to $1,500 for the single man and from $2,000 to $3,000 for the married man.


John Alpheus Charlton: That was never stated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes it was.


James Sinclair: He is going to wipe out the excise tax on automobiles and bring in at least a 25 per cent reduction in sales tax. If these promises-and after all the Prime Minister said his promises were solemn obligations which would be effectuated-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Sinclair: Yes, it is all right for you to say, "Hear, hear" but what we are asking is that these promises be effectuated as quickly as possible. What we ask is for the Minister of Finance to give some definite answers such

as those for which I congratulated the Minister of Labour earlier and when he brings down that budget and effectuates those promises-


John Alpheus Charlton: You just can't take it, that is all.


James Sinclair: -it will be, by my calculation, $300 million which he will put in the hands of the Canadian people to spur the economy.
I have one last subject on which to speak. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned a point which is of concern to those who watched the unemployment insurance fund from the start. The fund is now over $800 million. It is a good thing to have a big stable fund which can be drawn on in times of emergency. Over the years the fund should grow in amount as our working population grows but there will be dips. I do agree with him, however, that the present legislation extending the winter's unemployment season to six months of the year is unusual and was not contemplated when the original act was drawn up or when the actuaries calculated what premiums would pay for what benefits. I do not agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that the minister should contemplate making direct contributions from the national treasury into the fund because of these emergencies. I think it would be very difficult to know how much will be needed over this winter. Experience, after all, is the best teacher in a field such as the insurance field and I would think a review should be taken of the situation in the spring time.


An hon. Member:: Too late.


James Sinclair: Organized labour of course is interested in this fund because two-fifths of the contributions have been put there by the working population. Management is just as interested because again two-fifths represents their contribution. And we, the parliament of Canada, representing the taxpayers have an interest too because one-fifth came from the government's contribution. Therefore, while I think the fund must be kept under very constant review I would congratulate the minister for taking action at the present time and we shall await the results in the spring to see whether or not it has been actuarially unsound and if the fund should be supplemented with a direct contribution from the government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Coast-Capilano would permit me to correct what apparently is a misapprehension on his part. I did not make

any suggestion about the government making direct contributions to the fund but I did raise the idea that consideration might be given to some increased payments to the fund by certain employing interests who I said were in large part responsible for the unemployment situation.


James Sinclair: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. member. I thought he was suggesting direct contributions from the consolidated revenue fund.


Mr. Cameron:: Mr. Chairman, when I was
just listening to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano I thought how fortunate he must feel to be able to be sitting on this side of the house at this particular time.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: You would not have this trouble if we were on the other side.


Mr. Fraser:: It would be ten times worse.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: For 22 years you prayed for it and your prayers were never answered.


Donald Cameron: I doubt that the people of Canada would be particularly impressed by hearing the Liberal pot calling the Conservative kettle black and the Conservative kettle hurling the charge back again. It has always puzzled me why members of the House of Commons who have access to so many documents seem to have an aversion to looking at the documents which are produced by such organizations as the dominion bureau of statistics and the Bank of Canada because if they did so they would realize that the impasse we have reached today is the end result of a long and fairly steady curve which has been going on for some time. As I say, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano is fortunate that he is now able to point with horror to what is going on rather than having to do as his Conservative opponents are doing, pretend the thing he is pointing at is no longer there.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I have been rather impressed with the philosophy of the Conservative party which seems to be that unemployment is some sort of nervous disease that affects society, the sort of thing that attacks a hypochondriac, and that if you just pay no attention to his complaints they will go away, a sort of don't look now at the D.B.S. figures and perhaps the next time you look at their report unemployment will be gone. It would be amusing were it not disturbing to hear supposedly responsible ministers of the crown suggesting that unemployment is caused by members of the House of Commons, or spokesmen for industry or labour, who look at the D.B.S.
Unemployment Insurance Act figures and point to the fact that we have a serious unemployment problem are causing unemployment. As I say, it would be amusing if it were not disturbing. It is disturbing to me because I have lived long enough to have memories of previous governments which used to tell us that prosperity was just around the corner. It took us some 10 years to get around that corner.
I would also remind the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that while it is quite true that the Bennett government was apparently unable to do anything with the catastrophe that had overwhelmed the Canadian economy in 1929, there was the period from 1935 to 1939 when the Liberal government was equally helpless.


James Sinclair: It improved steadily every year.


Donald Cameron: Equally helpless, and it is a sad commentary on our economy that it was the evil machinations of a gentleman in Germany that finally came to their rescue, because there is no evidence in the record that the Liberal government of that period was any more capable of dealing with the situation than the helplessly bankrupt Canadian government that preceded it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Will he tell the committee exactly how effective the socialist governments of those days were?


Donald Cameron: The socialist governments of those days in Scandinavia-and those were the only places in which they were in power and are still in power-were even at that time giving an example to the rest of the world of how to organize on a rational basis a modern industrial economy. I do not expect that my hon. friend knows that because I have come across vast bogs of ignorance in the history of some of the members on that side of the house.


Richard Albert Bell: It must be a reflection of the hon. gentleman.


Donald Cameron: It may be a reflection, as I walked into those bogs, possibly.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to take a more serious look at this situation and realize that it is not what the Prime Minister airily described the other day as a mere temporary situation. There are far too many serious portents on the horizon now to let us believe that this is something of a delusion, if we just avert our eyes from it.
I was interested in the suggestions from our friends of the Social Credit party that there was some magical way in which, by

Unemployment Insurance Act the manipulation of the monetary system, we were going to be able to overcome those problems. I was interested, too, to hear the hon. member for New Westminster demanding what was the socialist solution to the problem because you know, Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here for five years and I have been disappointed session after session that I have never yet heard explained in this house just what is this miraculous method by which, by the manipulation of the monetary policy of the country, we are going to overcome serious economic dislocations.


James Sinclair: You have heard the hon. member for Lethbridge.


Donald Cameron: No, because I was always so bogged down by the hon. member for Lethbridge in the consideration of the problems of the Turko-Mongolian menace.


Mr. Blackmore:: It has nothing to do with the financial system.


Donald Cameron: That is exactly what I thought.
Now, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that our friends of the Social Credit party are unable to distinguish between cause and effect, unable to distinguish between what is the moving force and what is the object that is moved in our society. They seem to have no grasp of the role which money plays in the modern economy, no grasp of the fact that as the former governor of the Bank of Canada told me in the banking and commerce committee in effect, it is nothing more than a reflection of the level of economic activity at a certain time.
I have been interested also in hearing from very many sources, including the extremely eminent Minister of Finance of Canada, talk -and backed up by our Social Credit friends -about the tight money policy of the previous Liberal government. Now, far be it from me to go to battle for the Liberal government, but I did notice during the election campaign that my Conservative and Social Credit opponents were violently attacking my Liberal opponent for the tight money policy of his government. My Liberal opponent was rash enough and ignorant enough to dash to the rescue of the government for the tight money policy that had existed.
I have referred before to those documents that we can get and I would refer hon. members who have ideas about tight money to look at the September report-it is the latest one I have-from the Bank of Canada and I think they will find the same situation even to a greater degree if they look at the


October issue. They will find that there is not a single month in the year 1957 in which the total money supply has not been larger than it was in the corresponding month of 1956.


An hon. Member:: What about the interest rates?


Donald Cameron: My hon. friend asks me
about the interest rates. I have observed a strange sort of predilection on the part of the Minister of Finance to imagine, or at least to imply to us, that it has been some virtuous action on the part of himself and his colleagues which has caused the slight decline in interest rates which has taken place, the same line of reasoning which used to cause him to attack his predecessor in office and accuse him of having raised the interest rates. But, as anyone who has any grasp at all of the workings of the modern economy knows, he knows perfectly well that these interest rates were set by the demand for capital in a vast, booming period of expansion, and no action on the part of the government, either the former Liberal government or the Conservative government, had the slightest effect on those interest rates.
Sometimes we have pointed out to us the action of the Bank of Canada in altering discount rates and it seems that the governor of the Bank of Canada can speak until he is blue in the face and everything he utters falls on deaf ears when he tells us over and over again that the bank rate of the central bank of Canada is merely a reflection of the interest rates which have been achieved through the actions of our economy.
I would suggest to you, sir, that in this situation of unemployment that we are facing today we are not facing anything so simple as a mere manipulation of the monetary system; we are not facing anything so simple as some action-what action it would be I would not know-on the part of the Minister of Finance to lower or to raise interest rates. We are in effect reaching a position that it was practically inevitable we were going to reach, although for 20 years we have been able to avoid certain problems. But the problems come back again and they were outlined very ably just a few moments ago by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I may say I noted he also had the same sort of philosophy as our friends across the way when he suggested that the rash suggestion of the Prime Minister that he was going to divert 15 per cent of our trade to Great Britain had really caused a decline in our export markets. I do not think he really believes that. I think he knows enough about the workings of the international economy-


James Sinclair: Just one correction; I did not say that. I said it stimulated a feeling in the United States which is going to result in tariff reprisals.


Donald Cameron: I understood the hon. member to mention the fact that our markets there had been curtailed and he linked that fact with the suggestion that it was caused by this rather rash and unconsidered statement of the Prime Minister. I think we are obliged to face the fact that no matter what we do or say those markets are going to shrink and are going to continue to shrink for some very simple reasons.
During those 20 years we have had a number of historical accidents which have enabled us to put off coping with this problem. We were bound to hit it now. We had, for instance, the period after the war when we had a tremendous backlog of demand and when also we had certain former rivals in the industrial field completely shattered as a result of the war. In the ensuing 20 years those countries have come back; they have rebuilt their economies and they have reproduced the situation in world trade that we faced 20 years ago.
There are various suggestions as to how we are going to cope with the resulting strains on our economy. I was interested the other day to get a copy of the text of a speech made by Mr. Graham Towers, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, to the life underwriters association in Toronto. It was delivered on November 14 of this year. At page 4 of that speech Mr. Towers is discussing inflation. I suspect that his comments are aimed at certain people who have been demanding that there shall be an end to the tight money policy and that there shall be a little more shot of inflation into our economy. He has this to say:
It should be noted that those who think continuing inflation is inevitable or even necessary do not regard it as a good thing, but rather as less evil than possible alternatives. One alternative which they have in mind is a situation in which demand is not pressing on supply, employment is less than full and credit policy not inflationary. Wage increases would of necessity have to be restrained, because increased costs could not be passed on to the consumer. It is assumed that in these circumstances, there would be a political swing to the left, particularly on the part of trade unions, and governments would be found willing to countenance and support inflation or perhaps turn to direct controls in an effort to combine full employment with some degree of stability in prices. So it is argued that it would be better to accept inflation-preferably creeping inflation-in the first place, rather than make an abortive attempt to avoid it.
Mr. Towers is, I suppose, the most eminent voice in Canada of orthodox capitalist finance.
I think it is of interest to us to realize what his view is on the now widely accepted theory
Unemployment Insurance Act of full employment as the goal of a worthwhile society. He has this to say:
In the course of this argument, we leave the field of economics and get into the field of human behaviour, because it is necessary to prophesy what the reaction of the majority will be to a given set of circumstances; and that is a very risky game, unless one goes to extremes in setting up the circumstances. For example, I think it would be quite safe to assume that massive and continuing unemployment on anything like the scale of the thirties, would produce formidable political reactions and adoption of policies of the kind I mentioned a moment ago. But can one assume that the same thing would occur if unemployment at times rose moderately above the average level of the post-war years? Government figures have put this at about 3.8 per cent of the working force in the United States and 3.1 per cent in Canada. The Canadian figure of course includes seasonal unemployment, which is much more of a factor in this country than it is in the United States. These unemployment figures have generally reflected a situation in which some unemployables are listed, plus others who are in the course of changing jobs and are out of work for only a brief period of time. Can unemployment go no higher than this without forcing the adoption of policies which impose on everyone the penalties of continuing inflation?
I have quoted that portion of the speech because it seems to me to reveal the fact that a very eminent spokesman for what is amusingly called the free enterprise economy considers that the theory of full employment is not a valid one and that in order to keep our economy working we must be prepared to have more than 3.1 per cent of our working force unemployed and run the risk of social and economic dislocation. I am interested in that suggestion because this afternoon the Minister of Labour quoted the figures for October of this year when he told us that 3.5 per cent of our working force was unemployed during October. The figure of 3.5 is considerably higher than the 3.1 figure mentioned by Mr. Towers. But, far from the people of Canada accepting 3.5% with equanimity, we have seen in this house this afternoon various members reporting from their constituencies the very serious plight of a large part of the working force of Canada. That leads me to the conclusion that those who speak in this vein-and may I say that it seems to me that those who speak in this vein are in essence supported by both the government party in this house and the official opposition and even more stridently by the Social Credit party-are prepared to have this type of unemployment as a means of keeping the economy going and putting the burden onto other people.
Some while ago I read the report of a speech made by one of the most eminent members in this chamber; I refer to the hon. member for Algoma East. It was a speech made shortly after the arrival of sputnik I on the horizon. During it he made this

Unemployment Insurance Act remark-and he will correct me if I have it incorrectly-or said something to this effect, that it now appears obvious that our social and economic organizations did not fit us to keep pace with the Russians. He qualified that statement later by saying that of course, even though it did not fit us to keep pace with the Russians, it was much to be preferred to that of the Russians and was much superior. It struck me, however, as a rather hopeful sign that a gentleman of his eminence should be prepared now in public to state that perhaps the time has come for a serious overhaul of our economic and social organization.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will my hon. friend tell me when I am supposed to have made those strange observations?


Donald Cameron: I must apologize for not being able to do so because I did not clip out the article. But I will get it for the hon. member. I will admit that I was very much surprised to read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So am I.


Donald Cameron: I will get it for you; I have it in my office. It may be, of course, that the hon. member had a much more limited definition of the term "social and economic organization" than that which I have. But, as I say, that struck me as a hopeful sign. Apparently I was altogether too optimistic and my suspicions are confirmed that the Liberal party is as sunk in the past as is the Conservative party and is prepared to go on in the face of the growing evidence that we are now coming back full circle to where we were some 20 years ago.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that rather than continue to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act-I welcome this amendment but I am perfectly sure the Minister of Labour will be back in a few months with another amendment-it might be better to take some positive steps to solve at least temporarily the situation in which we are rapidly finding ourselves today. We used to hear some years ago about the former Liberal government having on its mantle shelf a whole shelf of public works that were going to be embarked upon the moment the economy began to sag. I guess a careless housemaid must have cleared off that shelf and thrown it into the ash can because we have not heard of it for some time.


James Sinclair: What about the seaway?


Donald Cameron: That has finally to come.


James Sinclair: We finished that up.


Donald Cameron: No.


James Sinclair: What about the pipe line?


Donald Cameron: Are you mentioning the pipe
line?


James Sinclair: I did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Saskatchewan dam.


James Sinclair: That is theirs. December 10 is the deadline.


Donald Cameron: I would suggest that this government should seriously consider the necessity of laying plans for a large body of public works. I would suggest something else, too, that it is time we considered placing contracts for capital equipment for the undeveloped areas of the world on much the same basis as we have been placing contracts for the production of defence equipment which now, apparently, was money down the drain.
Those are two methods I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, whereby this government could at least temporarily stem this tide that seems to be rising all across the country. While I am certainly glad to welcome this amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I am afraid that although it does reveal the fact the government is really uneasy about the unemployment situation, it reveals also the fact that the government has not the foggiest idea what has caused it or the slightest idea how to cope with it.


John Horne Blackmore: Have you?
(Translation) :


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, representing as I do an industrial constituency, it will come as no surprise to you to hear me speak on a matter concerning the working people.
I am certainly quite happy to express to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) as well as to the Conservative government the approval of the working people with regard to this measure which proposes to increase from 16 to 18 weeks the period during which benefits will be paid during the winter.
Over the past few weeks, we have heard hon. members from the other side of the house, Liberal members, speak of the situation of the workers in very lugubrious tones indeed. However, they have forgotten to say that a situation such as this does not spring overnight. If in certain parts of this country at this time there are a few areas where unemployment is prevalent, it can be attributed to the lack of foresight of the former government. It is from the former administration that we have inherited the situation facing us at this time.
However, it is of good omen that the Conservative party be called upon to deal with the situation. Every time this nation

has found itself in more or less difficult situations, it has turned to the Conservative party. I am happy to be a member of this party and to have the opportunity of helping my colleagues solve this problem which we inherited from our predecessors because of their lack of vision.
Workers in various centres will certainly be happy to learn that the benefits have been extended from 16 to 24 weeks under a Conservative government. In my own constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, official figures show that unemployment, far from increasing, has been decreasing.
Official figures which I obtained from the St. Hyacinthe unemployment insurance office show that last June there were about 1,500 unemployed registered at the local employment office. On October 31st last, always according to the figures from the unemployment insurance office in my district, this number was down to 1,100, which means a decrease of about 400 since we came to power in June last.
I would therefore like to draw the attention of this house and also of this country to the fact that the Conservative party is not the party of hunger, the party with a short memory or the party which spreads hardship everywhere but rather the party which can sympathize with human need, the party whose members all join here together trying to bring a solution to the problems left to us by our predecessors. In this, I choose to see evidence of the great satisfaction and also the great confidence we have in our Minister of Labour and in the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Text):


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate this evening. I do not wish to delay the passage of this resolution,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Henry Joseph Murphy: -but for the
information of the members who just spoke I would tell them that the reason I must take part in the debate is that one of the cabinet ministers stated, during a visit to Moncton, that it was strange we have heard no effective protest in the House of Commons from the member of parliament for Westmorland on behalf of the residents of that area. The minister was referring to the Canadian National layoffs. If I were to resume my place and not say a word in this debate, then I would be open to criticism from the Minister of Transport who made that statement in Moncton about a year ago.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I should like to commend the Minister of Labour for introducing this resolution so quickly. We know that the minister is one of the most sincere members we have in the government. I know that when I remind him of some of the things he omitted from this resolution he will take note of them and perhaps give greater thought to the policy of his party than some of the members on the treasury benches. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister what his party said they would do when they were elected. Again I am reading from the Diefenbaker national policy, which some members of the cabinet seem to regard as being unworthy of merit when inquiries are made about it. I am reading to the minister from the new national policy, verbatim quotations from the speeches of the Prime Minister, and on page 7 it says:
The Progressive Conservatives are convinced now, as always, that the free enterprise system coupled with effective free trade unions, offers Canadian labour the best assurance of opportunity, security and highest possible standard of living. To attain this end we shall-
And among other things it says:
Improve unemployment insurance legislation to include: Coverage for greatest number of wage earners; increases in benefits and allowable earnings; extension of benefit period to 52 weeks; elimination of waiting periods; prompt payment of claims;-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Those people who are now applauding this statement should recall that this afternoon the minister told us about waiting periods. I would advise those members to take a very serious view of this matter because I think many of them will be laid off after the next election.


Mr. Baskin:: Speak for yourself.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Furthermore, I may tell them a little more about their party.


Mr. Broome:: We are ready.


Henry Joseph Murphy: They do not seem to know what the policy of their party is or the statements their minister made in the past year.


James William Baskin: You are reading the policy.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Just take it easy.


James William Baskin: You take it easy.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I would pass on to you a few gems of wisdom that were given out by your own Minister of Transport. There is a clipping in a newspaper report of a speech by the Minister of Transport while he was in Moncton, New Brunswick.


James William Baskin: You are the only man in your family who went astray.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Henry Joseph Murphy: The hon. member for Renfrew South-


James William Baskin: Right.


Henry Joseph Murphy: *

should enjoy himself while he is in the House of Commons because it is felt that his stay will be a very short one.


James William Baskin: Thank you.


Henry Joseph Murphy: The Minister of Transport visited Moncton as president of the Progressive Conservative party and the headlines of this article says:
P.C. party head raps recent C.N.R. lay-offs here.
But he goes further than that. He went into unemployment insurance while in Moncton as follows:
The unemployment insurance fund amounts to a billion dollars today and was built up by the workers and their employers to tide over the working people while they are out of work. The government, therefore, has adequate resources in the unemployment insurance fund to continue to pay unemployment insurance benefits to workers who have exhausted their credits, and it is therefore the responsibility of the federal government at Ottawa to continue to pay unemployment benefits to those who are out of work and through no fault of their own are unable to find a job.
Now listen very carefully.


James William Baskin: We will.


Henry Joseph Murphy: To continue:
He emphasized that the only permanent unemployment insurance was a job and that that was what every Canadian wanted-
Now that was the thinking of the Minister of Transport when he was the head of the Progressive Conservative party; not payments, but a job for every Canadian. At that particular time he even went on to tell us why we had no jobs in the Moncton area, as follows:
Mr. Hees charged that the situation created by shops lay-offs in this area was aggravated because the work was being shifted to Montreal where the additional employment would mean little, if anything, to that city. "But", he said, "it is a very serious blow to the Moncton area".


James William Baskin: You are the biggest blow to the Moncton area.


Henry Joseph Murphy: The hon.
member for Renfrew South is quite an orator while he is seated. Now since this government has taken office, in fact just a few weeks ago, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport a similar situation. At that time the Canadian National war veterans association wrote to him telling him-they also sent a copy of their letter to me

that thousands of dollars worth of valuable machinery was being dismantled in the Moncton shops and being taken to other places. The minister said he would look

into it and we have heard nothing since. Now we have lay-offs in Moncton in the order of 110 men at one time, and a further 50 in the running repairs shop. Because we have said something about these lay-offs, they have taken a new approach and now, very quietly, they are laying off half a dozen at a time about every week or second week from the Moncton shops. Thus they are quietly putting them out of a job by the back door.
Now the Minister of Transport met with the management and said there would be certain moneys available to assist these persons. I have asked him how much of this money would be available to assist in a works program in the Moncton shops for the relief of these men. I asked him where the money was coming from-from what authority-and one day I almost got an answer. He stood up in his place, smiled and got ready to answer when that little man, the Minister of Finance, told him to sit down and I haven't got an answer from that day to this.


An hon. Member:: You mean a big man.


Henry Joseph Murphy: In the meantime our men are walking the streets of the city of Moncton and then, to add insult to injury the government and the management of the C.N.R. threw the whole thing back into the lap of the unions and blamed them for the unemployment situation, in particular they blamed the seniority system.
I am told that press dispatches say that this works program would be set up in the Moncton shops for the manufacture of cars. This was made known to the unions who met with management and objected to the men from other crafts being taken on in the car ships while the carmen were still being laid off. There was no disagreement among the different crafts at that time but it was just another attempt on the part of management, which in turn is controlled by this government, to smash the unions of the Canadian National Railways shops in Moncton.
I have also brought to the attention of the house a resolution from the machinists lodge in Moncton suggesting that they are working seven days a week to expand that shop and make switches and frogs, not only for the Atlantic division, but also for other divisions. It would seem that although the government put on a good show with relation to the C.N.R.-in fact we had a big celebration in Moncton recently when the Minister of Transport was down there-


James William Baskin: After June 10.


Henry Joseph Murphy: That's right; that's right, but the hon. member should wait

until he hears the rest of it. We were celebrating the 100th anniversary of the opening and the operation of the railway from Saint John to Shediac and the next day they laid off 100 men to mark the occasion. Last week they were rejoicing in the northern part of the province, when they had a real Conservative rally, the opening of the C.N.R. spurline. The Minister of Veterans Affairs was there with a C.N.R. trainman's cap on his head-


An hon. Member:: It was a good picture.


James William Baskin: Were you there, "Murph"?


Henry Joseph Murphy: I said it was a Conservative rally. The premier of the province of New Brunswick was there with another C.N.R. cap on-


Ernest James Broome: Were you there?


Henry Joseph Murphy: I was not
invited if the hon. member for Vancouver South would like to know; if I had been invited I would have gone. At that time the Minister of Veterans Affairs pulled the switch and the premier of the province took control of the engine and drove it down to the mines. Premier Hugh John Flemming and the Minister of Veterans Affairs seem to be the only two who would be secure in the employment of the C.N.R. There are men being laid off by the C.N.R. who have given
17	years of service and who have contributed to this fund for that length of time and I think the government should make provisions to safeguard this fund so that it will not be depleted because, in a few years, there will be more men laid off by the C.N.R.
They are building a railway yard down in Moncton and, as hon. members may remember, I asked the Minister of Transport about it. He said he was not aware of the project but they are building that yard. That is a step towards automation and undoubtedly men will be laid off who have given
18	or 19 years of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. It would be tragic if the fund was depleted and these people could not draw the benefits to which they are entitled.
Now besides those people who are registered unemployed there are a great number who are not registered, people who have been working for themselves in the woods cutting pulp and other forest products, and they do not draw employment insurance benefits. And when we think back to the promises made by supporters of the present government during the election campaign I think it is time this government got under way a constructive program of capital projects to assist these people who draw no benefits whatsoever.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I have suggested already to the house the building of the Prince Edward Island causeway and the Chignecto canal and, of course, I expect the support of the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to this latter proposal because he supported it on many occasions. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert had this to say on May 23:
John G. Diefenbaker, Q.C., the national leader of the Progressive Conservative party, on May 3 here, in Saint John, discussed the merits of the canal and joined the long list of its promoters. I am pleased to associate myself with his remarks on that occasion.
I wonder if the Prime Minister takes as much interest in this project now as he did when he was in New Brunswick last June? I would also suggest to the Minister of Public Works that a certain portion of the money to be made available for housing should be earmarked or allotted to the maritime provinces because when the last $150 million was made available we know, according to the reports, that less than one-half per cent of that $150 million was received by the mari-times. But, of course, when people are not working they do not have any down payment to enable them to take advantage of these loans.
All these matters which were so seriously debated last year should be remembered at this time. We had a very rosy picture painted to us of what this country was going to be like when the Conservative party took office. We had candidates going over the country holding rallies. Here is an advertisement from the Moncton Times of June 8, an advertisement inserted by the Kent county Progressive Conservatives calling for a rally. It says: "Fun for All". I wonder how much fun for all there is in Kent county today when they cannot sell one cent's worth of pulpwood?
And again there was a Conservative rally in Shediac, New Brunswick, run by the Progressive Conservative association-


An hon. Member:: What about Beechwood?


Henry Joseph Murphy: I will tell you about it, sure. We have to pay $1,300,000 in interest the first year back to the federal government though they have given interest-free loans to the west-
As I was saying, we have an advertisement here for the Progressive Conservative party which says: "P.C. rally in Shediac-Come and See the Magician". That was during the second visit of the present Prime Minister. Now it is time the magician came to perform some of his magical works.


An hon. Member:: He is.


The Chairman:: Order.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Henry Joseph Murphy: Terrifically
talkative members over there.


James William Baskin: What did your opponent say in the last campaign, Murph?


Henry Joseph Murphy: Probably helping you in Renfrew South.
When the 33 Conservative members met in Moncton they drew up the Atlantic resolutions. I have asked about these Atlantic resolutions and, I was told, of course, that these matters which would help the employment situation were taking up the time of the house, that these questions should not be asked and did not merit answers. But I wish to commend one of the Conservative members from the maritime provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Henry Joseph Murphy: It is easy to get a hand now, isn't it? -and that is the hon. member for Pictou. The hon. member for Pictou placed on the order paper a resolution dealing with the Atlantic resolutions for the decentralization of industry and the establishment of crown corporations in the maritime provinces. Of course, that would assist us in dealing with the unemployment situation. Also the resolutions called for discussion of special fiscal considerations to provide encouragement for industries who locate themselves in that area.


Ernest James Broome: What about the $20 million Atlantic aid?


Henry Joseph Murphy: I certainly
will support the hon. member for Pictou in his resolution, and I hope that when he brings this matter up in this house it will not be treated as a joke as it was treated when I asked the Prime Minister a question about it, as something which takes up the time of the house unnecessarily. To the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture I would say that parity prices for potatoes for New Brunswick growers would be more in his line than to ridicule the decentralization of industry and helping industry in the maritime provinces.
These are some of the ways in which employment could be assisted in the maritime provinces. I was referred by the Minister of Finance to the speech from the throne with regard to the special fiscal considerations for private enterprises. He did not understand them at first, but then he referred me to the speech from the throne. I hope he will not refer the hon. member for Pictou to the speech from the throne when this matter comes up for discussion.
Besides these people in Kent county I spoke of there are those in Albert country represented by the parliamentary assistant
[The Chairman.]
to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, many of whom work in Moncton with the C.N.R. and other industries in that area. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert held rallies there in May and June, and the advertisement for the rally on June 6 speaks of refreshments. I wonder if he is prepared to go back to Albert county and offer those people ice cream instead of jobs.
This resolution is a move in the right direction. However, I will commend once again to the Minister of Labour the new national policy outlined on page 7, article 5, so that before this measure goes through the house he may have an opportunity to broaden the resolution so as to include the matters contained in the Diefenbaker doctrine.
(Translation) :


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take part in this debate for a few moments only in order to express my gratitude to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) with regard to the amendments he is bringing forward concerning the present Unemployment Insurance Act.
Like those who have taken part in this debate before me, I do wish however to express the fear that the suggested amendments may not be precisely those which we would have liked to be brought to this act, at least with regard to the area I represent in this house. On the few occasions when I have had the opportunity of speaking about this matter in this house, I have expressed the views of my constituents in this connection. I have asked, above all, for the decentralization of unemployment insurance offices and, then, for the simplification of the procedures to be complied with in order to obtain benefits.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that when this proposed resolution has been adopted, the amendments will allow a certain number of people to receive benefits to which they would not have been entitled otherwise. According to the figures quoted by the minister, the number of people thus involved will range between 30,000 and 40,000.
I respectfully submit Mr. Chairman, that one of the amendments which had been forecast and which hon. members were expecting concerned the qualifications of claimants, a provision which will be found in section 50, subsection 2 of the legislation. The amendment I have in mind would have reduced at least from 15 to 10 the number of stamps required for qualification in the case of those who claim unemployment insurance benefits.
Like the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin)-his constituency is nearly adjacent my own or, at least, has the same general living conditions-I will state that those who have been most seriously hit in previous years

by unemployment are in the first place workers in the construction industries and then bushworkers.
If it is recognized that there are unemployed people at this time in these two classes of workers, we also know that a great number of those workers have not worked long enough since March 31 to accumulate a sufficient number of stamps to make them eligible for the benefits and, consequently, they will not be helped by the improvements in the act, as they nevertheless might have hoped to be.
Another point on which I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, is the state of emergency which is invoked for the presentation of this bill. To my mind, it is somewhat contradictory to propose an amendment to the act presumably because of a state of urgency and not providing that this amendment is only for a temporary period.
According to information given us by the minister, the amendments to this act will cost the unemployment insurance fund at least 15 million dollars and most likely a still greater amount. It means that the present unemployment situation is not normal and that, as the case of the unemployed people is to be considered as a whole, the amendments must be helpful to the majority, whatever their effects on the fund, even if afterwards the fund has to be brought back to its present level.
A short while ago I heard the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) say that the Conservative party was not the party of unemployment and hardship. Well, I say to him that if he wants to place the blame for unemployment on a political party, the Liberal party has many achievements to its credit. During 22 years, as was so well said by the former minister of fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) a few moments ago, the Liberal party, through the numerous social security measures which it has introduced, including this Unemployment Insurance Act which now serves as an expedient to the Conservative party to cope at least in part with the present serious situation, has not been a negative but a truly positive party. Without all the measures which have been introduced by the party to which I belong, I wonder in what situation the population of the whole of Canada would be at the present time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. Does my hon. friend allow me to ask whether the Conservative party, in the light of the legislation which it has now introduced, is a negative or a positive party?


Ovide Laflamme: I do not mean that the Conservative party, because it is introducing that
Unemployment Insurance Act legislation, is a negative party. I do not complain about that. I say that my hon. friend, in referring to his party at the end of his remarks, stated that it was not such and such a thing; therefore, his party is perhaps a negative party. I wish also to point out to him that the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act are possible only because, under Liberal governments, we have lived through periods of prosperity which have made it possible for the contributions paid to the unemployment insurance fund to reach about a billion dollars.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, would my hon. friend be kind enough to answer my question?


Ovide Laflamme: I cannot tell whether the Conservative party is a positive or a negative party but I am sure of one thing-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Please answer my question.


Ovide Laflamme: I told you that I did not know; moreover, it is not for me to pass judgment on that.


Mr. Habel:: Supremely negative!


Ovide Laflamme: I can simply tell my hon. friend that he himself mentioned a moment ago that his party was not the party of hardship and unemployment.
Let me also tell him that people are interested not so much in what a party is not as in what a party has done, and I repeat what I said a few moments ago, i.e. that if all the legislation now enjoyed by the people did not already exist, depression and hardship would be upon them. Now, all this legislation has been introduced and passed by Liberal governments and not by the Conservative party.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Never has the Conservative party-


Ovide Laflamme: I want to say this to my hon. friend.


Henri Courtemanche: Order! I would remind hon. members that when the house is in committee of the whole, the matters discussed must be related to the resolution before the house.


Ovide Laflamme: Very well, Mr. Chairman.
I was just pointing out the effects of the present amendments, when they are adopted, upon the invested capital of the unemployment insurance fund.
I want to remind the hon. minister that if those amendments are such as to decrease the unemployment insurance capital fund, these amendments must be temporary. Otherwise, it would be an admission that the present government is unable to foresee that they will

Unemployment Insurance Act be able, within the next few months, to meet the situation which is leading to unemployment all over the country.
The Unemployment Insurance Act, I must remind my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) is Liberal legislation of which the Conservative party is taking advantage in order to face the population. Since the introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the fund has greatly and continually increased, and this offers a guarantee both to the employers and employees for the years of depression which may occur.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would the hon. member allow me a question?
How many unemployed would there be if the Liberal party were sitting on this side of the house?


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, I will answer my hon. friend on that point. There have been two main causes as far as I can see, and as far as many people can see, there have been two great things...


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There has been June 10th.


Ovide Laflamme: ...which brought about
unemployment. First, the fact that the Conservative party has come to power; and, secondly, the fact that this same Conservative party is unstable.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If you think we do not have the confidence of the people, then go ahead and vote against the government.


Ovide Laflamme: Even if the Conservative party had gained power with a comfortable majority, it would have left in the minds of the people bitter memories...


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are still not answering my question.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Chairman, in closing I would simply suggest once more to the house that we have here, I think, a most important law and a serious situation, and I do not see why we should not be able to discuss it fully, so that each member may be able to express his opinion about a tragic situation now prevailing throughout the country, that is, unemployment.
I want to tell the hon. minister, while commending him for the amendments he introduced, that they unfortunately do not do much for the construction workers, nor for the bushworkers of my county, who, at this time are jobless.
It might perhaps have been better if the unemployment insurance commissioners and the Minister of Labour had increased the number of those entitled to benefits, as was done during a period of prosperity, i.e. last year, so that a proportional number of un-


employed might benefit this year under this legislation. Thus more jobless people would get greater benefits this winter, and the number of beneficiaries would not be smaller than during the years of plenty.


Mr. Landry:: Mr. Chairman, it was with great interest that I listened this afternoon to the explanations given to the house with regard to this measure which I would call emergency legislation designed to relieve unemployment. I do not think that we should entertain any illusions about this for, in spite of the optimistic statements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) unemployment is becoming a national danger and we have every reason to feel anxious about it.
Naturally enough, as this measure comes up for discussion, I feel I should recall briefly that in my first speech in this house on October 18 last I referred to this unemployment problem which is possibly more serious in my constituency of Dorchester than anywhere else in the Quebec area. At the time I had reminded hon. members of the fact that the working people who make up my constituency are, for the most part, farmers who because of the poor quality of the land, find it necessary to work several weeks a year in the forests of Quebec and often also in those of the United States.
The minister is not unaware of the fact that lumbering operations on the Canadian side of the border have been reduced. According to information at my disposal I believe I can state that it has been reduced in the proportion of 60 per cent. On the other hand certain American companies have even decided this year to close down operations entirely. All this has had in my constituency results which are not difficult to imagine, that is, increasing unemployment and great anxiety on the part of hundreds of heads of families on the approach of winter.
It is for those reasons that in the very first days of the session I respectfully submitted to the government the urgency of amending unemployment insurance legislation in order to relieve that unemployment. I had also suggested that these seasonal benefits be paid as of December 1 and I am happy to note that the department has lengthened the period provided by adding a month at the beginning and another month at the end. I know that that particular aspect of the legislation will be greatly appreciated in my constituency as well as in every other working constituency in Canada. Unfortunately, I regret that the minister did not see fit to accept my second suggestion which, in my humble opinion, was far more important than the one dealing with the extension of benefits.

I had in fact expressed the opinion that the government should lower from 15 to 10 the number of contributions required for qualification for the seasonal benefits and I notice with great disappointment for the unemployed of my constituency that this was not considered favourably. I regret that the government did not see fit to adopt this suggestion all the more so because I believe that a measure such as the one just proposed by the Minister of Labour misses the objective- completely in our case and partially elsewhere-which the minister no doubt had in mind.
The measure as proposed will not unfortunately have the good effects which a reduction of the required contributions would have had for my constituents because most of our unemployed, as a result of lack of work in the lumber camps, have been unable to accumulate enough contributions to qualify for seasonal benefits.
And we will have a rather sorry situation where a measure intended, in short, to assist the unemployed will precisely penalize those people for not having accumulated enough contributions.
I notice with pleasure in this proposal that the minister took into account the special situation of an important part of our population, namely the fishermen. Without knowing all the details of the measure, I believe it will be highly appreciated by this class of Canadian workers. However, I am still wondering why the Minister of Labour did not consider proposing an improvement in favour of our farmers by the repeal of the section of the Unemployment Insurance Act which requires them to pay 22 contributions or at least to prove that they worked outside the farm for at least 22 weeks in order to qualify for the seasonal benefits.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to suggest to the hon. minister to take in serious consideration these few remarks and to alleviate, as much as possible, the distress which is now felt in this country. I have welcomed the recent statement of the hon. minister about the changes made to the unemployment insurance regulations concerning married women. But this is not the most serious problem, in my view, and it would have been much more important to consider the case of the heads of family and of the farmers of our rural areas.
Naturally, Mr. Chairman, we all know that such a measure is but a temporary remedy. It will not settle at all the serious problem of unemployment, let alone relieve the government of its obligation to take the necessary steps to cope with unemployment. The Cana-
Unemployment Insurance Act dian worker will accept this expedient but would prefer a tonic which would restore his health.
I have received today a copy of a letter addressed to the hon. Minister of Labour by Mr. Philip E. Smyth, representative of an international organization. This letter was accompanied by a copy of an article published in a Washington newspaper and announcing that a conference between representatives of the United States and Canada would meet in Ottawa, on December 1st next, to study Canadian-American affairs, particularly from the economic point of view. May I express the wish that, in the course of that meeting, the hon. Minister of Labour will succeed in coming to an understanding with the authorities of the States of Maine and New Hampshire on the question of reciprocity in the matter of unemployment insurance so that our Canadian workers who must earn their living in the neighbouring country but who, nevertheless, are Canadian taxpayers, can benefit from our Unemployment Insurance Act when they come back home on account of a shortage of work. May these few suggestions convince the hon. Minister of Labour that we are following with much interest and anxiety, on behalf of our electors, any forward move that may be made to improve our Unemployment Insurance Act which, in view of the urgency of the present situation, is necessarily inadequate and ineffective in some areas as hard hit as my constituency.
(Text):


Mr. McMillan:: I am very much in favour
of this resolution which provides for a bill enabling the government to make payment of seasonal unemployment benefits starting December 1 instead of January 1. I might say that I am sorry indeed that the government finds it necessary to have seasonal unemployment benefits extended. In the 1955 session I had a resolution on the order paper suggesting higher regular unemployment and supplementary benefit payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act. At that time my resolution was superseded by amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act introduced into this house by the government.
I may say that at that time there was considerable unemployment in my riding and I even came into the house and dared to use the word "unemployment". I might say that in speaking at the resolution stage of that bill I referred to unemployment several times and my repetitious use of that word

Unemployment Insurance Act [DOT]"unemployment" was exceeded only by those now sitting on the government side of the house. I might say that a week or two prior to that time the present Minister of Labour expounded at great length on unemployment and the perils of unemployment.
I think he was referring to Oshawa at that time.
At that time, as may be found in Hansard, I said that responsible heads of municipalities, heads of unions and others came to me complaining about the inadequacy of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which representation I brought here to parliament. These same heads of municipalities and these same heads of unions are coming to me now complaining that many of these unemployed workers cannot get any unemployment insurance benefits. They tell me now that unemployment will become worse as the winter progresses. I thought I heard the Minister of Labour say the other day that unemployment might even reach the halfmillion mark. I may be wrong in that figure but I have seen other references saying that unemployment might reach the figure of 750,000.
I maintain that unemployment insurance figures as announced in this house do not present a proper picture of the situation. In parts of my riding there are people who are working part time; they work two or three days a week and they are not classified as unemployed, but they have a hard time to meet their financial obligations. Our unemployed and those on short time have certain fixed obligations which they must meet. They must meet rent, heat, tax, insurance and public utility bills. These costs must be paid because they are fixed. Some have bought new homes and furniture on a monthly payment plan. In my part of the country foreclosures on mortgages and seizures by the bailiff of furniture and so on are beginning to appear. These actions certainly do not assure others who feel that they are approaching the same condition financially.
One aspect in this whole matter is that with all of them the family budget is tight and the amount that is left for food is much less than it used to be. I think we should see that our people, particularly our children, have adequate food-an adequate, nutritious diet-in order that they may have maximum health. At that time I argued against cutting off seasonal unemployment insurance benefits as of April 15. I thought at that time that we would have a considerable number of unemployed on that date, but employment conditions improved and by April 15 we did not have so many as had been predicted

here in the house. April 15 was close at hand and that is why on April 4 a good many members in this house argued for the extension until May 15. Likewise, at this time when unemployment is mounting, I am very much in favour of advancing this date to December 1 when supplementary payments may begin.
In Canada, because of our climate, we are bound to have considerable seasonal unemployment. I think, too, that in our free enterprise system-and in fact in almost any system-we are bound to have some ups and downs in unemployment. A good part of our economy depends on world trade. I therefore think our government should do very little to interfere with the free flow of trade. Our government has sent a very expensive trade mission to Great Britain. Its purpose is to purchase only, as announced by the high commissioner in London, and it was announced in this house that its purpose was chiefly to buy. I can assure you that the unemployed in my area are more interested in helping to make things that they can sell than in buying something that they cannot pay for.
The members of the government when in opposition always talked about processing our own raw materials. Not once since I have been here this session have I heard any member of the government say anything about the fabrication of our raw materials. The former leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Drew, two or three times every session, I believe, talked about the processing of our raw materials. Certainly he gave that as one of the ways in which to cure unemployment at the time of the debate we had in April, 1955.
I am in favour of doing all we can to trade with Great Britain but all the articles that I read in the papers say that there is little or no unemployment in that country. I was a little bit surprised when the leader of this buying trade commission to Great Britain placed a good will order of $10 million in that country for certain hydro materials, and this at a time when we have unemployment in Peterborough, Hamilton, Toronto and the Niagara district where hydro have placed orders for their requirements in the past. I should like to have from this government some assurance that when we in this country buy British manufactured articles and Britain earns Canadian dollars she will spend those dollars in the purchase of our wheat and of our other raw materials. When I say this I have in mind the fact that while the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in Britain this fall, wheat was bought from the United States but I understand that no wheat was bought here in Canada.
We live in a country rich in natural resources and I think that this government

is admitting defeat when they introduce this sort of legislation to look after unemployment. Surely, this is an indictment of the government that promised Canadians almost everything under the sun at election time. I think instead of having to extend this insurance measure, the government should find jobs for our people.


Mr. Cannon:: As we are getting very close to ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief and to the point.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: They will not be to the point.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I wish to congratulate the minister upon the clear manner in which he introduced the legislation we are studying here this evening. I am sure he is one of the most hard-working ministers in the government. I can only say that I sympathize with him because it seems that the harder he works the less work there is for other people. It seems very unjust, but that is the fact.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, or the members who have been in this house with me over the last few years, how pleased I am with this legislation. It will be of great benefit to the fishermen of my constituency. Most of the workers in my constituency are fishermen, and as fishermen they get seasonal benefits. This resolution, and the legislation that will follow, will greatly increase those benefits. There is one point I wish to stress in particular, and that is if it had not been for the legislation introduced last year by a Liberal government and by Mr. Gregg, the former minister of labour, which placed fishermen under the action of the Unemployment Insurance Act, then this legislation that is being introduced tonight would have been of no benefit whatever to these fishermen. It was legislation that I had advocated over the last six or seven years. I say to the fishermen of my constituency and to the fishermen of Canada that in appreciating these amendments they should not forget the fact that if they benefit from them it is due to the fact that last year a Liberal government placed them under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano when he said that the attempt of the government to remove a great section of our purchases from the United States and divert them to Great Britain could have disastrous effects on our fishing industry. All hon. members know how close our fishing industry
Unemployment Insurance Act came to being faced with an embargo from the United States. As the hon. member for Coast-Capilano said, it would be disastrous if such an embargo were applied, and it may be if the present government continues the policy it has started.


Ernest James Broome: May I ask a question?


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I have no time for questions; my time is very short. We are now very close to the adjournment hour and this legislation should pass today if at all possible. I shall curtail my remarks at this moment, but I wish to repeat that if these amendments are of benefit to the fishermen of Canada it is due to the legislation that was passed last year by the Liberal government.


Mr. Breton:: I am pleased to be able to congratulate the minister upon these benefits, and I shall be very brief on this subject. I just want to draw the attention of the minister to two complaints that have often been received from my district. The first is with reference to article 47 which fixes the weekly benefit for the unemployed on the basis of the average weekly contributions for the last 30 weeks. It often happens that some people who are employed on an hourly or day-to-day basis, and who earn more than $60 a week, suffer from the fact that during the last 30 weeks they have missed a few hours or a few days work and so their average is lower than it should be. It seems to me that in such cases the average should be based on more than 30 weeks, and perhaps the unemployment office could take into account the previous year, if there are enough stamps for that.
Another complaint I receive often arises from the fact that in our district some people are obliged to work for farmers. In those cases they are losing the benefit of the stamps. Would it not be possible to amend the law so as to enable people who desire to pay for their stamps to do so, even if the farmers themselves are not obliged to pay for stamps. There should be a system to enable these employees to pay for their stamps if they so desired, so that they would be entitled to the benefit of insurance.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Starr thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 171, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Unemployment Insurance Act Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a second time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: the second reading of Bill No. 171, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time; now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
leave.


Michael Starr: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Could I inquire of the house leader what will be the business tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow is private members' day.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	disabled persons
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Henderson: 1.	What continuity in progress is there to establish a new railway station at Kingston, Ontario?
2.	When will the site be purchased?
3.	When will the new railway station be completed?
4.	What use will be made of the present railway station site?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1,	2, 3 and 4. The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that the facilities at Kingston are at present under review.



CORNWALL, ONTARIO, AIRPORT

Mr. Lavigne: 1.	Has the government been asked to build an airport in the city of Cornwall?
2.	If so, has the site been approved by the officials of the Department of Transport?
3.	What was the cost of such project?
4.	What contribution would be made by the Department of Transport and what contribution by the municipality?
5.	Has the item been placed in the estimates of the department by the previous administration, and if so, for what amount?
6.	What progress has been made towards the construction of such an airport?
7.	In view of the importance of the city of Cornwall and its strategic location on the seaway, will the government consider providing the facilities of both land and equipment for such an airport?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assisiant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	Yes, on the basis of a tentative approach by the city.
2.	Yes.
3.	No detailed estimate of the cost has as yet been made.
4.	The Department of Transport would construct the runway or runways provided the municipality purchased the land and agreed to administer and maintain the airport and provide any necessary buildings.
5.	Yes, $5,000 for investigation purposes.
6.	None, as the municipality has not yet indicated that it wished to proceed.
7.	It is not considered there should be any deviation from the present policy in cases of this nature of requesting municipalities to provide the necessary land and operate the airport after construction.
96698-102J

Question No. 119-Mr. Christian:
How many persons at the present time are totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the Disabled Persons Act and the disabled persons regulations, P.C. 1954-1831?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteifh (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
Persons receiving allowances under the Disabled Persons Act numbered 35,540 as at September 30, 1957. Such persons had been medically certified as being totally and permanently disabled.
The regulations under the act were amended by order in council P.C. 1957-715 of May 27, 1957. Among other changes, the definition of "totally and permanently disabled" was revised, to take effect July 1, 1957, as follows-
"For the purpose of the act and these regulations, a person shall be deemed to be totally and permanently disabled when suffering from a major physiological, anatomical or psychological impairment verified by objective medical findings which is likely to continue indefinitely without substantial improvement and, as a result thereof, such person is severely limited in activities pertaining to normal living."



LANDING FIELD GRANT, ATHABASCA

Mr. Dechene: 1.	Has the director of air services for the Department of Transport at Edmonton made any recommendation relating to a grant for the completion of a landing field north of the Athabasca river and the town of Athabasca?
2.	If so, when will these recommendations be acceded to and the grant made?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	A report has been received from the departmental district headquarters in Edmonton regarding the request for assistance to a landing field near Athabasca. It is not, however, customary for the department to reveal the views of individual members of the department either for or against individual projects.
2.	This report is still receiving consideration by the department.



FEDERAL BUILDING, EDMONTON

Mr. Holowach: 1.	How many properties have been purchased by the Department of Public Works for the construction of the federal building in Edmonton?
2.	What is the total amount paid to date for these properties?
3.	What is the total amount paid to date for the construction of the federal building?
4.	What is the estimated total cost when the building is completed?

Questions
5.	What departments of the federal government will occupy space in this building?
6. What date has been set for the official opening?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	A notice of expropriation was filed on November 21, 1951, against lots 14 to 20 inclusive and lots 69 to 73 inclusive, block 7, plan "B", Hudson Bay reserve (11 owners). Two additional lots were acquired from the city of Edmonton by exchange of properties (lots 67 and 68).
2.	$265,549.00.
3.	$5,284,407.73.
4.	$6,390,000.00.
5.	Civil service commission and the departments of agriculture, citizenship and immigration, defence production, finance, labour, national defence, national health and welfare, national revenue, northern affairs and national resources, public printing and stationery, trade and commerce, transport and veterans affairs.
6.	The date has not yet been set.



PEAT MOSS INDUSTRY, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.B.

Mr. McWilliam: What steps, if any, has the government taken towards promoting the establishment of a peat moss industry in Northumberland county, New Brunswick?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of
Mines and Technical Surveys):
The mines branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, from time to time, has provided, to parties interested in developing the peat moss industry, information on New Brunswick peat bogs including detailed data on the extent and quality of the Northumberland county bogs as shown by investigations of the geological survey of Canada and further 1939 to 1941 extensive field investigations published in 1947 in "Peat Moss Deposits in Canada", bureau of mines report No. 817.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Johnston (Bow: River):
1.	How many miles of the trans-Canada highway
are now paved and completed according to specifications:	(a) across Canada; (b) in each of the
provinces?
2.	How much of this construction has been paid for by the Canadian government to date?
3.	How much has been paid to each province by the federal government to date?
4.	How many miles of the trans-Canada highway run through the Banff national park, and (a) how many miles have been completed and paved according to specifications? (b) How many miles have been paved and then been repaired, and what was the cost of the repairs?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	(a) 1706 miles to October 31, 1957.
(b) Newfoundland, nil; Prince Edward Island, 67; Nova Scotia, nil; New Brunswick, 77; Ontario, 430; Manitoba, 246; Saskatchewan, 406; Alberta, 214; British Columbia, 266.
2.	$122,468,045.47 to November 16, 1957.
3.	Newfoundland, $8,923,850.82; Prince Edward Island, $3,272,532.20; Nova Scotia, $2,700,630.57; New Brunswick, $8,938,921.91; Ontario, $31,947,031.89; Manitoba, $10,765,984.90; Saskatchewan, $13,611,197.86; Alberta, $12,349,423.03; British Columbia, $29,958,472.29.
4.	51.1 miles.
(a)	Mileage completed and paved (final paving) according to specifications, nil. However, there are 29.7 miles covered with bituminous stabilized base course.
(b)	Minor repairs have been carried out to the stabilized base course. Involved was the placing of approximately 257 tons of bituminous stabilized base course material between mile 11 and 12 at an estimated cost of $1,500.00. The repairs were attributable to settlement on high fill sections and can be considered normal maintenance prior to final paving.



TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS

Mr. Martin (Essex Easi): 1.	Has the government received representations, through the national employment committee or any other body, to consider further implementation of schedule "M" to include training and retraining of unemployed workers to qualify them for available job opportunities?
2.	If so, has the government taken any action to implement such suggestions?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Sfarr (Minister of
Labour):
1.	Yes. Representations from and on behalf of the city of Windsor, Ontario, and the town of Milltown, N.B.
2.	Yes. Proposals for the establishment of training programs under schedule "M" at Windsor, Ont., and at Milltown, N.B., were discussed with the appropriate provincial authorities. Following thereafter a training program under schedule "M" was organized at Windsor, Ont., by the province of Ontario and the renewal and extension of such program is now under consideration by the government of the province of Ontario. A training program has been organized by the government of the province of New Brunswick at Milltown, N.B., and is in operation.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, KENORA Quection No. 224-Mr. Benidickson:
1.	How many persons are receiving unemployment insurance benefits from the Kenora office?
2.	How many persons are receiving unemployment benefits by mail from the Kenora office?
3.	How many of these claims originate from persons residing at Dryden, Oxdrift, Waldhof, Eagle River, Vermilion Bay, Wabigoon, Dinorwic, Dyment, Ignace, Red Lake Road, Quibell, McIntosh?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	Number of active claimants (persons whose claims are 'live') at Kenora local office at October 31, 1957-266.
2.	Number of active claimants reporting by mail at October 31, 1957 (included in item D-129.
3.	No figures available, as no separate record made of origin of claims within a local office area.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, FORT WILLIAM-PORT ARTHUR

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	How many persons are receiving unemployment insurance benefits by mail from the Fort William or Port Arthur office?
2.	How many of these claims originate from Atikokan, Ontario?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	Number of active claimants reporting by
mail at October 31, 1957:
(a) Fort William local office	 167
(b) Port Arthur local office	 541
Total	 708
2.	No figure available, as no separate record made of origin of claims within a local office area.



UNEMPLOYMENT REGISTRATIONS, NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Robichaud: 1. What was the total number of unemployed registered in each of the areas served by the Edmundston, Campbellton and Bathurst offices for the week ending November 16, 1957?
Questions
2.	What was the number on November 16, 1956?
3.	How many unemployed were registered in the province of New Brunswick on the two dates mentioned?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	The number of persons registered for employment at local offices of the unemployment insurance commission is derived from a count made of the live file on Thursday of each week.
At November 14, 1957, the number of persons registered for employment at the Edmundston office was 969; at the Campbellton office 1,133 and at Bathurst, 1,314.
2.	At November 15, 1956, the number of persons registered for employment at the Edmundston office was 444; at Campbellton, 407 and at Bathurst, 615.
3.	At November 14, 1957, there were 16,008 persons registered for employment at offices in the province of New Brunswick and at November 15, 1956, there were 8,479.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. Byrne: 1.	What is the total amount in the unemployment insurance fund?
2.	What was the amount in the month of October, 1957?
3.	What was the amount of contributions to the fund in the same month?
4.	What amount was paid out of the fund in the month of October?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	At October 31 (the latest date for which figures are available) the amount in the unemployment insurance fund was $884,800,516.26.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Contributions in October, 1957:
(a)	By employers and employees	 $16,720,914.67
(b) By government	 3,376,830.41

4.	Amount paid out of the fund during October 1957, $16,305,464.48.



Thursday. November 28, 1957