1958-08-16

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make with regard to the Canadian export control list. By order in council P.C. 1958-1158 of August 15, 1958, a new export control list is established, effective from August 16. This will be published in an early issue of the Canada Gazette, perhaps the August 27 issue. I have here copies of the revised export control list which I will table for the information of hon. members.
In revising our export control list in conformity with the agreed new strategic list, it has been the objective wherever possible to narrow the range of commodities of all types which will require export permits. As a result, in many cases items which remain under control have had to be defined in greater detail. Although the effect at first glance at the list disguises the real extent to which the list has been narrowed, examination will show that there have been very significant changes in the content of the list as far as Canadian export trade is concerned. Such items as aluminum, copper, and many forms of nickel have been dropped from control, as have a number of items of metalworking machinery, general industrial equipment, electronic equipment, transportation equipment and chemical products. The revised list will include as new items certain electronic devices, jet fuels, containers for liquid gases, and certain chemicals.
Many of the items which have been dropped from the list in all likelihood will find no place in our exports to Soviet bloc destinations. The most significant effect of removal of control in these cases is that permits will no longer be required for exports to friendly countries. The export control list, moreover, serves an important function in indicating those items which are regarded as strategic, and an endeavour has been made to set forth the list in such form that traders may use it for this purpose. This means that if items are not on the export control list, permits will be readily available for export to any Soviet bloc destination on application. Permits
for all exports to Soviet bloc destinations will still be required under our general area control of shipments to such destinations.
It is our purpose in administering export controls to reduce the paper work for all concerned to the essential minimum, and to eliminate misunderstanding. Our new export control list will serve as a clear lead as to strategic control policy. We are prepared to discuss with exporters ways and means by which we can still further simplify for them the procedure in complying with the remaining controls. Special permits can be used for regular shipments of items on the export control list to specified destinations, and further general permits for specified goods to destinations subject to area control. These possibilities will be given continuing attention in the department, and exporters are invited to indicate their interests. Our objective is a major reduction in the necessity for individual licences.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: In connection with a statement the minister has just made, may I ask whether when he uses the expression "Soviet bloc countries" he includes continental China in that group, and if not whether there is a special list for continental China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Continental China is included. There is no special list for that country now.



U.S.S.R.-REPORTED OPENING OF TRADE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce care to comment on a press report this morning to the effect that Canada is considering the opening of a trade commissioner's office in Moscow this fall? Would the minister further say whether he is giving consideration to a personal tour of Soviet bloc countries in the interests of expanding trade?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, both these questions were raised when the estimates of trade and commerce were before the house and I commented on them on that occasion; this is simply a repetition. I said at that time

Inquiries of the Ministry that we were seriously considering the question of posting a trade commissioner to Russia, but that at the moment no decision has been reached.
With regard to whether or not I was contemplating a trade mission, I said at that time that consideration was being given to active trade promotion but that I had not reached a decision as to what countries might be visited.



NAFEL-PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOLLOWING WITHDRAWAL OF SPECIAL PERMITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On August 1 the minister announced that the government had decided that the exclusive right of export held by the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited would terminate next July. I should like to ask the minister if he will advise this house what the government proposes to substitute for NAFEL.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this subject has been before the house by way of question and answer on several occasions. We received representations from interested parties engaged in the Atlantic fisheries, and I stated at the time the date was set for the conclusion of the exclusive right of NAFEL that we were quite prepared to continue negotiations with the interested parties in order to arrive at some solution to the problem. It has to be a joint undertaking, not one solely sponsored or proposed by the dominion government; there is a responsibility resting upon the provincial government of Newfoundland and upon the associations that are engaged in the fishing industry.
I can assure the hon. member that we are quite prepared to play our part in these negotiations and to provide some of the initiative required to arrange meetings of the interested parties, and I hope that before too many months have gone by a solution to this very important problem can be reached. We have made quite a study of the difficulties facing the Atlantic fisheries, and there is no question at all but that steps should be taken, perhaps jointly between the dominion government and the provincial government, to solve some of these difficulties.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a number of hon.
TMr. Churchill.]
members have asked me respecting the major developments which have taken place during the emergency special session of the general assembly up to the time of its adjournment yesterday.
President Eisenhower, in his statesmanlike speech, made a number of points which deserve the close attention of all members of the United Nations. Among those points was the emphasis which he placed on the need for the economic development of the area in the Middle East and the need to have the function of leadership invested in the Arab states themselves. Similarly, in the suggestions he made for a United Nations body to examine the question of the flow of heavy armament to the nations of the Middle East, he stressed that any arrangements made in this connection must reflect the views of the countries of the region.
The President made a number of other suggestions in which Canada has a continuing interest and which are now undergoing thorough study.
One of the suggestions made by the President, that for a stand-by United Nations peace force, is of course of particular importance and interest to Canada, because we have consistently advocated the need for flexible United Nations machinery which can be employed to prevent dangerous international situations from developing into international hostilities. We hope the present crisis in the Middle East will focus the attention of members of the United Nations on the necessity for taking steps so the United Nations can quickly and effectively deal with threats to any country's independence and integrity, not only to restore order once hostilities have broken out but to prevent armed conflict from breaking out at all.
The points made by the President that I have mentioned so far relate to long-term problems in the area which may require extensive consideration and detailed preparation, because they are essentially regional problems. There are, of course, more immediate problems in the area demanding early solution. President Eisenhower referred to these as well in his references to United Nations concern for Lebanon and to the need for United Nations measures to preserve peace in Jordan. The United Kingdom foreign secretary and others have also dealt in preliminary fashion with the issues involved. However, the statement of the Jordanian delegate on Thursday to the effect that Jordan did not wish to have either United Nations observers or a United Nations force on its territory has introduced a new and unexpected element, requiring careful examination in the light of further information that may become available. The Jordanian

authorities have not, however, ruled out some form of UN representation appropriate to the situation in their country.
The task now, as we see it, would be to attempt to develop solutions to these problems in an atmosphere of mutual co-operation and restraint. I am sure the house will agree that this process will not be facilitated by too many public utterances or the taking of firm positions. I would hope that all those countries directly concerned would exercise moderation and forethought in anything they may say or do in the circumstances.
I think it is only fair to say that Canadians as a whole will be very pleased that during the last few days at the United Nations it has been generally recognized that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) has played a full and important part in these important negotiations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the house I know will have heard with great interest the Prime Minister's statement on the important developments taking place at the United Nations assembly in New York. I do not wish to add to any public statements that are being made, but I should like to state my agreement with what the Prime Minister has said to the effect that the original statement of the President of the United States was hopeful in the sense that it seemed to put forward ideas which might serve as a basis for a resolution providing for United Nations action in the Middle East which might help to solve some of these problems. This action, however, if it is to be effective will have to include the participation of all the leading members of the United Nations.
As the Prime Minister has said, the reaction of the representative of Jordan in his original statement was discouraging. I sincerely hope it will be possible for the Jordanian government to alter the position which it seems to have taken in this statement and which is very difficult to understand coming from a country whose stability is now being protected by the troops of the United Kingdom.
It is difficult to understand why a country in that position should hesitate to accept replacement by a kind of international intervention which would make possible the withdrawal of the United Kingdom troops. We must hope that that position can be altered.
I would like also to assure the Prime Minister that we all, without regard to party, are happy about the activities of the Canadian delegation. We know that under the leadership of the Secretary of State for External Affairs they will play a useful and constructive part in those developments.
Broadcasting


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. are pleased with the hopeful indications from the United Nations that this very grave problem may be solved. We feel that our stand in past weeks, when we said that United States and United Kingdom troops should not have gone into that area and should subsequently have been withdrawn, has proven to be correct.
We were pleased with the statement by the President of the United States. We hope it may be possible to establish United Nations forces or United Nations observer teams in that area which will replace the troops from outside nations who are now stationed there. We further hope that this will be accompanied by a large-scale economic development program, always bearing in mind the interests of the citizens of that area.
I have read with approval the press reports of the decision taken by the Canadian delegation at the United Nations. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the stand taken by Jordan is most disturbing. I have also read with concern reports of the position being taken by the United Kingdom and the great reluctance to withdraw her troops from Jordan. In spite of the position taken by the United Kingdom, I hope Canada will press forward on a middle course, designed to bring peace to that area. Since we are a very important and prominent member of the commonwealth, we may exert over the United Kingdom that influence necessary to bring the United Kingdom and the United States into agreement, together, we hope, with other major powers, so that peace will be restored and maintained in that area.


CUSTOMS ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon.	George	C.	Nowlan	(Minister	of
National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-51, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon.	George	C.	Nowlan	(Minister	of
National Revenue) 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 establish a board of broadcast governors to regulate broadcasting in Canada; to provide that the expenditure of the board shall
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor and also to provide for the continuance of a corporation known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of operating a national broadcasting service in Canada; and to provide further for the payment, remuneration, salaries and fees of the officers and employees thereof.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that a spokesman for the United States state department appears to have contradicted a statement made in this house by a minister on the subject, will the Minister of National Defence state what exactly are the procedures which must be observed by Canadians, whether members of the government, officials or non-officials, visiting United States or joint United States-Canadian defence installations in the Canadian Arctic?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, possibly I could
answer that question. Throughout the years I have felt that in the northern defences of Canada there were in existence situations that could conceivably derogate from Canada's sovereignty. When I became Prime Minister one of my first acts was to have this question looked into in detail, with a view to assuring that, while we co-operate in defence willingly and freely, in no way shall our sovereignty be impeded or interfered with; and further than that, that everything that could possibly be done should be done to assure that our sovereignty to the North pole be asserted, and continually asserted, by Canada. Following that viewpoint, as I said, negotiations have taken place. As was said by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as appears at page 3542 of Hansard, a friendly and favourable response has been the result of the representations made.
The most recent outline of agreed procedures is contained in the agreement arrived at in respect of the distant early warning line and the co-ordinating committee in that behalf. This co-ordinating committee was established some years ago to provide for interdepartmental consultation on the technical problems arising from the construction and operation of the D.E.W. line. Procedures in effect are today visit reporting procedures and not clearance procedures, and in effect are arrangements that were required purely for administrative reasons.
[Mr. Nowlan.l
The facilities of the distant early warning line are relatively spartan. Advance knowledge of visitors is essential if food and lodging is to be made available. For that reason agreements have been reached by which in the planning and arrangement for the provision of accommodation at stations, account has to be taken of the indicated requirements for limited transient accommodation in order to look after the departmental personnel whose presence at the site is necessary in connection with the performance of their official duties. No provision has been made in the construction of the stations for the accommodation or feeding of personnel except those associated with the operation of the line or whose presence is necessary because of the construction and operation of the line. There are particular provisions in respect of civil air carriers which are not applicable to the question asked by the hon. gentleman.
Today the situation is that all that is required is that departmental personnel, government representatives and the like who desire to travel in the area shall make known their intentions, to the end that the D.E.W. line co-ordinator, Department of National Defence at Ottawa, may make the necessary representations to the areas in question to provide not only for stopovers, if stopovers are necessary, but also for refueling facilities.
I am glad to say that as a result of the representations we made changes have been effected. The other day the Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that he realized that there had been regulations during the time he administered the department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. These requirements have gradually, in the light of mutual discussions, been amended, and today there is nothing that requires to be done that in any way interferes with, impedes or diminishes our sovereignty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Are we then to take it from what the Prime Minister has said that the present regulations between the two governments covering this matter are satisfactory and that there is nothing in their application about which Canadians need to be ashamed?


John George Diefenbaker: The regulations now in effect, and which came to their final determination on July 23, are such as to assure that Canadian sovereignty is maintained and that there is nothing that interferes in that direction.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources say whether in the past the United States has used its authority to bring about very long delays in approval of applications

by Canadians to visit certain areas of the north? Can the minister further inform the house what official it was who was delayed for so many months, and whether the statement attributed to the minister in the press is correct, that in the house he had "goofed"?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I think the statement of the Prime Minister this morning covered the subject very clearly, and I am one of those who do not believe in going back over the past at a time when we are making very favourable progress in our relationships as between two friendly, neighbourly countries.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then does the minister stand by his statement that is in the Hansard record, or is the statement in the press correct, that "I goofed"? Which is it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was just as amazed as the hon. member for Assiniboia was when I saw the report in the newspaper this morning.


Mr. Benidickson:: He did not say he was amazed.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Would the Prime Minister comment on an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal today to the effect that civil servants have been refused a pay boost which they have demanded?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question, but as far as a refusal is concerned there has been no such refusal. I think on Monday or Tuesday next the president of the association will be calling on me, and I look forward to listening to the representations which will be made at that time.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
the Prime Minister whether the government has now received a report from the civil service commission regarding civil service salaries, and whether or not this report, either now or at a later date, will be made public?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Reports of that nature come to the Minister of Finance. I recently received a
Inquiries of the Ministry communication from the civil service commission on this subject, that is to say, a communication reporting on the study made by the salaries research bureau of the commission.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister care to indicate the nature of that report and whether there is any indication of a recommendation for an increase in salaries?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The report I received from the commission indicated in general that the salaries research bureau, following its extended investigation into the scale of salaries, finds there is no case at present for a general increase, but that there are certain categories in the civil service into which there should be further investigation to determine from the facts whether a case for an increase exists.


Alexis Pierre Caron: As a supplementary question could the minister tell us if there will be a further study with respect to a boost in salaries for the lower salary brackets in the civil service?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, one of the functions of the salaries research bureau established within the last year is to conduct a continuing survey of salary levels paid in all categories of the civil service. I referred earlier to a communication which I recently received on this subject and which is to the effect that the civil service commission has drawn the attention of the government to the fact that the salaries research bureau is continuing its investigation with respect to certain categories where there is some indication of a case for an increase in existing levels.


Alexis Pierre Caron: So there is no final report as yet on this question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not in the
sense in which my hon. friend is using that phrase. There is never finality about any report; it is only a report as of the time of the study and taking into account the existing circumstances upon which the study is based because, naturally, conditions are changing all the time. With respect to those categories, however, where the civil service commission has noted the view expressed by the salaries research bureau to the effect that there may be a case for an increase, the commission has approved extended studies.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Will the report presently in the hands of the minister be tabled so that we may study it?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to look into that subject and consider the nature of the communication which has been received.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of her known aversion to the entry into Canada of gangsters, thugs and racketeers from the United States, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that police authorities in Montreal are reported as saying that shady characters from the United States have a lot to do with the terrific rise in the crime level, and in view of the law in this respect, can the minister explain why these persons are permitted to enter Canada and, in view of the fact that the Canadian people are banking on departmental courage in facing this problem, would the minister inform the house what action is taken by the officials of her department to prevent the entry or the continued residence in Canada of these undesirable characters?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I read the article in this morning's press, and I am sure we all regret it if the statement is true. However, I inquired in my department, as well as I could on a Saturday morning, and I could find no trace of the department having been approached by the police of Montreal for assistance in this regard.
The United States-Canadian border is probably the most open border in the world. We are very proud to have a great many United States tourists visit Canada every year, and we are also glad that our people are very easily able to go into the United States. I may say we have no specific figures with regard to border crossings, but an estimate for 1957 was that some 53 million people crossed the border from the United States into Canada.
Obviously we could not examine every one of those persons. It is a matter for the local police to ascertain if they have in their community people who are objectionable, and I can assure the hon. member that upon application from any municipal authority which can supply us with the information required, my department will not hesitate to take such action as may be necessary to remove objectionable persons from this country.
[Mr. Caron.)



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the government of British Columbia made any offer to the Canadian government in regard to the federal government taking over responsibilities for Garibaldi park, or has the federal government made an offer to the British Columbia government, or are any negotiations taking place in this regard?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, speaking from memory there have been discussions between the responsible minister in British Columbia and myself and there has been an exchange of letters between us, but I do not think that there has been anything in the form of a definite offer one way or the other. We have discussed the circumstances, but I do not think I can honestly say that any offer has been made by either side in those discussions.


Erhart Regier: As a supplementary question, would the minister inform the house what seems to be the major handicap or stumbling block in the way of obtaining a transfer of this park into the hands of the federal government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a very involved subject, and I do not know whether this is the proper time to make such an answer.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
170. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates and the expenses of the international labour conferences (also includes the former Labour Gazette, women's bureau and manpower utilization votes), $1,067,166.


Mr. Deschatelefs:: Mr. Chairman, last night before adjournment I was pointing out to the committee the very serious discrepancy between the statement made by the Minister of Labour and the report of the national employment service offices, and I was about to conclude that on various occasions the Minister of Labour has given us information which was not in accordance with the facts. I am now going to refer to page 2523 of

Hansard of July 22, 1958. Here is a question which was asked by the hon. member for Bona vista-T willingate:
I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question based on the discrepancy between the figures for registrations at national employment service offices, which were over 526,000 on June 19, and the dominion bureau of statistics figure of persons without jobs and seeking work which was 320,000 on June 21.
The question continued for a few lines, and here is the answer which was given by the Minister of Labour:
Mr. Speaker, I have explained the situation to the best of my ability on a number of occasions in answer to questions that have been asked of me. However, I can say this: this is the method being followed by our national employment service offices in registering people amongst whom are those presently employed but who are seeking other employment.
Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand the latest report of registrations with the national employment service offices dated July 21, 1958, which shows that on that date 526,648 persons were registered and were looking for work. At the bottom of this report there is an explanatory note, and a very important one, because it throws a very different light on this subject from the light that was thrown upon it by the Minister of Labour on several occasions. This contradicts fully and completely the statement made by the Minister of Labour that the number reported by the national employment service offices includes persons presently employed who are seeking other employment. I read the following sentence from this note:
The count excludes registrations from persons known to have a job and to be applying for another one.
Then at the end of this note another disturbing fact comes to light. It is stated very clearly that not all persons who are looking for work are mentioned in the count. I feel, therefore, that we are entitled to an explanation from the minister, and unless he can give a valid reason to the contrary it seems very clear now that these figures from the national employment service offices are not only reliable but that they are the only set of figures at our disposal which give an accurate picture of the present unemployment situation. If this is so it is about time something should be done about it, and done very quickly. The working man-


Mr. Starr:: Perhaps I may intervene at this point; I feel I should. The hon. member is casting innuendoes to the effect that I have purposely misled the house by quoting figures that are wrong, and then he tries to prove that point by quoting figures issued by the employment offices.
Supply-Labour
I want to say that at all times any information I have given here has been supplied to me by offices of the national employment service to meet requests of hon. members of this house, and the figures I have quoted have been accurate figures according to employment service registrations. At no time have I changed those figures after they have been given to me for release here in this house.
The hon. member seems to place a great deal of stress on the word "known", but there are a great many people who are registered at these offices who are not known to have other jobs but who nevertheless do have other jobs. However, they did not report the fact that they were presently employed and were registering for the purpose of obtaining new jobs. The key word is the word "known", and the count excludes those who made that statement when they registered. But it does not exclude all those who have jobs and who are seeking better jobs but who failed to state they were in that category when they registered at our national employment service offices.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the minister answer a question at this point. Is it not a fact that on several occasions, not only during this session but during the last session, the minister repeatedly said that he was not relying on these figures from the employment service offices because those figures included a number of persons who were seeking other jobs while they were actually working? Is that not a fact? How does the minister reconcile his stand with the fact that the report of the national employment service which I read mentions that the count excludes registrations of persons known to have jobs and who are applying for other jobs.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have endeavoured in the best way I know to explain the fact that the count excludes registrations of persons who are known to have jobs. By that I mean those people who come to the office and advise that they have a job but who wish to register for a better one. We feel sure there are others who register but who do not give that information.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We will let the people of this country judge whether or not there is a contradiction in the minister's stand. I am going to conclude my remarks by saying this. It is significant that at this time of the year, when the situation should have been so much improved, we still have twice as many jobless as we had last year and more than we have ever had in any summer period since the last depression.
The workingmen of Canada have a right to be given an opportunity to work and earn

Supply-Labour
an honest living so they can provide their families with the necessities of life. The Canadian worker does not want charity or a dole. The Canadian worker simply wants employment. It is the duty of this government to provide him with an opportunity to work. We all remember very well a few months ago when hon. gentlemen opposite in the Conservative party were going all across the country and from both sides of their big mouths were promising that everyone in this country would have work. It is about time something was done about it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as a member representing a large number of industrial workers I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to make a few brief comments on several matters that concern the working people of my constituency. I might explain before proceeding that as an honorary member of a trade union and as a small employer and as a farmer-


Mr. Ricard:: As everything.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -who has lived in complete independence all his life slightly above the parish relief level, I am able to take a strictly objective view of this question.
While we know that on the whole the labour movement in Canada is democratic in structure and controlled by the rank and file, there are a few blotches on the escutcheon that are causing serious concern to many of the rank and file members of the trade union movement in this country, to the public in general and to hon. members of this house. From my experience in interviews with trade unionists, from correspondence I have received from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from a large number of interior places, and from numerous affidavits I have received in recent months which for the first time have been forthcoming from union members, I am of the opinion, as are some other hon. members who have expressed themselves previously in this debate, that there is an unhealthy state of affairs in a few trade unions in this country.
To illustrate that point I mention the fact that just prior to dissolution last session two members of the seamen's union came to this house and spoke for nearly three hours to 25 members of parliament representing all parties. I can tell you that from their point of view it was a hair-raising experience.
Personally I have received many complaints from workers on pipe lines, and I investigate them to the best of my ability. Prior to coming to Ottawa last session I discovered that an American was in charge of one operation and was collecting union 
dues, and the poor beggars who were paying the dues did not know what union they belonged to. They never saw a business agent or attended a meeting, and often after paying $15 for dues they would be fired three days later and other chaps hired.
A good many hon. members of this house were concerned recently by newspaper reports stating that a Canadian union critic of Mr. Hoffa, who was secretary of one of the largest teamsters' unions in Toronto, was fired by Mr. Hoffa. These things are not being taken very well by the rank and file of labour, the Canadian people or a large number of members of parliament.
In every case brought to my attention these violators of the democratic rights of Canadian workers and the principles of union democracy were imports from the United States. Just as I resent any control of the Canadian economy by large United States firms, in the same way I resent any interference with Canadian union affairs on the part of people like Mr. Hoffa and his associates. I trust, Mr. Chairman, the day will not come when that type of person and others associated with him are able to control the organized labour that will be related to the operation of the St. Lawrence seaway.
I know it is the responsibility of the Canadian labour movement to deal effectively with those who violate the traditional principles, practices and procedures of the movement. I wish to say most emphatically, and I say it without any fear or hesitation, that the rank and file of labour in Canada, the Canadian people and this parliament expect the senior officials of the Canadian labour movement to accept their responsibility in this respect.
To illustrate a different state of affairs from the one or two isolated illustrations I have given that are causing concern, I mention the fact that just prior to coming to Ottawa this year I called a conference of all the trade unions in Kootenay East and Kootenay West, which was attended by representatives from the railroaders, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, I.W.A., mine-mill and all the rest. I wanted to find out what labour was thinking. I wanted to acquaint myself with the present opinions of labour with respect to federal legislation and the problems we have to face here. It was a most successful meeting indeed, the best labour conference we have ever had in the district.
The acting president of the Nelson and Trail district labour council was elected chairman of the meeting and the secretary of the largest local of mine-mill, No. 480 at Trail, was elected secretary. We had a discussion with the rank and file with various members getting up and fiercely expressing their criticism on certain matters, advancing their

opinions with respect to legislation and also expressing their attitude regarding local, national and international affairs. I am one of those who all through his life has had a great deal of confidence in the rank and file of any organization. It has always been a treat for me to meet with these union men. Those are the people I deal with, and I have found that whenever you deal with the rank and file and place the facts before them you need have no fear as to their acceptance of responsibility with respect to any decision they may make.
I just mention that to illustrate what can be done in a very small sphere. These unions, representative of all types of labour, repeatedly have taken part in local affairs on the municipal level or community level or on the regional level with respect to the hospital building, community planning and things of that kind, and they have made a most valuable, constructive and responsible contribution to the development of public affairs in my district. I look forward to the time when the rank and file of the labour movement in Canada will participate across this country in just as effective a way in expressing their opinions with respect to local, national and international problems.
I have said these few words on a matter about which I am seriously concerned and I am always given to speaking my mind, Mr. Chairman. Never in my whole life has anyone stopped me from saying what I thought to be right, proper and correct, on any question.
I listened to the minister's opening remarks with interest, and I must say that we all like the minister. You know, he has that common touch that removes the latent fear in the hearts of some members of parliament when they approach persons in the seats of the mighty. You can go to the minister's office and you can discuss any problem that concerns you. I want to say that as one member of this house I appreciate his approach to members and his willingness to discuss a problem, no matter how insignificant it may be from the national point of view. I think it is only fair to express my appreciation in that respect, and I know that other members in this group think of him in the same way.
I was glad that in his opening speech the minister suggested that amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act were being considered. I think it is a growing conviction that, in view of changing conditions, the development of large-scale industry, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, and the consequent natural development of large-scale unions on the other side, a national labour code is required to indicate clearly the responsibility of the employers to
Supply-Labour
the community as a whole and the responsibility of larger unions to the community as a whole and their responsibility to the rank and file of the working people of this country. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that with the co-operation of the labour movement such an act can be drafted to meet the circumstances that exist today and protect the basic rights of the Canadian working people.
I was also pleased to hear the minister speak of a proposed consultative committee on employment practices. I trust this is another step forward toward the banishment of discrimination and unfairness in employment in this country. I am very happy to say, so far as my experience has been, that this is lessening very rapidly from day to day. It is a very different world we are living in today from the world of 1906. I remember the general election in 1906 when the slogan of the Tory party was, "A white B.C.; keep the oriental out." We have all learned a lot. Mind you, in fairness to them I might say that quite a number of labour organizations at the time had an identical attitude toward life. We have progressed a good way in that direction, and all that is required now is to remove those few little blemishes here and there where we find they exist.
I am glad the minister is taking further steps in that direction. I am pleased to hear of the addition to the staff of the civilian rehabilitation branch. This should in some measure increase the effectiveness of that branch, which is doing very good work indeed. Also, the minister's proposals to increase the employment of older persons are particularly welcomed by this group. I know this is a very difficult problem, because I meet it from day to day when I am in my constituency.
This is a problem of serious concern to the persons directly affected and to many other persons who have their welfare in mind. So many good Canadians are still able to make a worth-while and constructive contribution to the productivity of this country or to the services of this country but are denied the opportunity because of the difficulties that have developed as a result of automation and the development of our mechanized and industrial society. Anything the minister can do in that respect will be heartily welcomed by this group.
I was also pleased to see in the estimates and to hear the minister's statement that there will be an increased expenditure for vocational training. That is very necessary indeed. In fact I think it is an urgent matter, because while old chaps like me now on the slippery slope of life with their heels dug in hoping to avert the inevitable as long as

Supply-Labour
possible should not be worried too much, I do like to see opportunities provided for thousands and thousands of young Canadians who are possibly in some instances not suited for or do not prefer academic or professional life, but who provide a great pool of young, virile people who will in the future provide the artisans so badly required in Canada for the development of our natural resources, transportation, communications, and our industrial structure. I do hope that the increase in the estimate in this respect will continue from session to session.
While I am on that point may I say I am not given normally to speaking on the parochial level, but I must use this strictly as an illustration. There is great need of a vocational school to serve the southern interior of British Columbia, particularly the Kootenays, where we have had a very rapid expansion of the smelting, mining and lumbering industries. There we have, I know personally, hundreds of young people who are not going to university, are not going to take higher education, and who would love to have an opportunity to take vocational or trade training in vocational school at some reasonable distance from their homes, where they could undertake it without unnecessary cost and so on.
I understand those vocational training schools are established as the result of action by the provincial government, which makes application to the federal government for assistance in those expenditures in that respect. I do hope that when the minister replies to the comments made by members in this debate he will inform us a little more as to the procedure with respect to the application of this vocational training estimate, because I have a good number of people in my constituency in all walks of life who are very concerned with the fact that we have these young people leaving school. If they are taken at the right time and given vocational or trade training they can make a great contribution to Canada. If the vital two or three years are overlooked and missed, then they go on into blind-alley occupations and we fail to take advantage of those human resources as we should.
I do not want to detain the committee too long but I have one or two other remarks to make. I have often wondered why there was duplication of employment services with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. For instance, I found an officer of the national employment service-and they are hard-working people in my constituency- trying to get jobs with the lumber companies for some applicants for employment. They happened to come to the company
[Mr. Herridge.l
with which I am associated, and the next day an immigration officer turned up. He wanted us to employ some immigrant.
To me this seems a duplication, and I am of the opinion that it entails an unnecessary expense at times, and also there is certain irritation if an official of one department has been in and scoured around and done his best to find employment for those who are applying for employment, and then an official from another department arrives two or three days later on the same mission but on behalf of another branch. It seems rather odd to people in the community, especially the employers. I should like the minister to express his views on this and see whether something cannot be done to avoid what appears to me and to a good number of other people to be a somewhat unnecessary duplication.
I also want to mention very briefly something which came up at the conference where they discussed all these problems. I find the great bulk of the industrial workers are very concerned about the early establishment of a national pension scheme by this government in order to provide security so far as pension rights are concerned and mobility of employment, which I think is the right of every Canadian under present conditions. I do hope the minister will say a few words on this question and let us go away with a sort of hope in our hearts that something is going to happen in that respect at the next session of parliament.
I now come to my concluding remarks, and I have really evaporated most of the water out of what I had to say in order to save time. I find that unemployment is a major concern of a large number of people in my constituency, and I am sure it is a major concern all across the country, not only of those who are unemployed but of those who possibly fear unemployment. With so much to be done in this country with respect to national development, development of transportation, of highways, of parks and of things of that sort, it seems wasteful and sinful to let Canadians remain idle while this work has to be done.
I am not underestimating the difficulties. It is quite easy to rise on the opposition side and make all sorts of grand proposals. As the chairman knows, I always try to keep my feet on the ground. However, I suggest that there is here an opportunity for cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments in some basic planning so that this winter we can utilize, as far as is humanly possible, this good investment even if we have to go into debt to do it. If we had gone into debt during the depression to build highways and to build

houses, we would have built them much more cheaply than we are building them today. That lack of foresight and fear of the future with respect to overexpenditure does not now exist because of our experience during the war and post-war periods.
I urge the minister to urge upon his associates the necessity for some approach to the provinces in order to see whether something cannot be done to plan this type of work across this country. I can think of dozens of places in my constituency where for years people have been driving around dangerous bluffs a thousand feet above a lake on a 16 foot road with no guard rail. That is the type of work that can be done in the winter economically and properly by persons who would otherwise be unemployed, such as miners, men who work in the woods at high levels who are laid off, and persons of that sort. I urge the minister to give consideration to this matter and to have a word or two to say on what he has in mind when he replies to the various members who have spoken.
My concluding point is this. The other day when I was speaking, I think it was on the agricultural estimates, I urged the Minister of Agriculture to do what he could to get the Minister of Labour to include in new amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act farm workers or farm employees. The present circumstances are most unfair to the men and women who are willing to go and work on farms, usually at lesser wages; but they are persons of the type who, if the circumstances are at all right, would prefer to work on a farm rather than work in industry. Yet because they are willing to do that they are denied the protection which other workers get under the Unemployment Insurance Act. This situation is not fair to the workers concerned, and it is not fair to the farmers who are obliged to employ these people. I urge the minister to give consideration to that matter. I trust that the pleadings of the Minister of Agriculture will meet with a favourable response in the heart of the Minister of Labour.
Those are the few things I have to say at this time, Mr. Chairman. I shall anticipate with great pleasure, hope and confidence the reply the minister makes to the various comments hon. members have made in this debate.


Mr. Thomas:: I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman. There are one or two points which I think should be made at this time and which have not yet been made. I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to bringing farm labour under the benefits
Supply-Labour
of the unemployment insurance legislation. Farmers are having difficulty in getting the help necessary to do their work. At the same time we know there is some unemployment in our towns and cities. However, there is little inducement for workers to take temporary jobs on farms when by so doing they will not add to the time they can use in applying for unemployment insurance benefits. There is a great deal of temporary work on our farms such as fruit picking, tobacco work, work in the beet fields. I feel that it would help both the farmers and the unemployed if these benefits can be extended to farm labour.
There is another point that I feel should be made at this time. In making it I should like to make clear first of all that I believe in organized labour. I believe that organized labour is doing a good job in this country. I believe that the aims, objectives and aspirations of organized labour should be protected in every reasonable way. But organized labour has become one of the most dominant forces if not the most dominant one in our economy. As such they must be prepared to accept their full share of responsibility for our national welfare.
The speech of the hon. member for Kootenay West this morning and that of the hon. member for Timiskaming yesterday are going to be of considerable value in making this point which I shall briefly mention. It has been suggested to the minister and to the government that they should use their influence to convince organized labour of three desirable policies. The first is that labour must not organize in such a way as to constitute a threat to the public control of our institutions. In that regard I took a Canadian Press clipping from the London Free Press dated August 13. It states:
President Claude Jodoin of the Canadian Labor Congress plans to convene a meeting of unions representing about 100,000 workers to try to work out a formula for avoiding clashes or organizing jurisdictions on the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The last paragraph of that article reads as follows:
The congress wants a wider representation, to take in unions covering all phases of seaway transportation.
I read that extract as an indication of the objectives of labour and in order to point out that the time has come when not only organized labour itself but all the people of this country should take a good look in order to see where organized labour is going. I can remember when in 1919 in the city of Winnipeg, in the course of the general strike there, organized labour were issuing permits for the delivery of milk. This procedure was

Supply-Labour
found to be a contravention of the civil authority and a number of people were sent to jail. I have been personally acquainted with some of those people, and I may say that they were very fine people. If organized labour and the people at that time had looked ahead and considered what were likely to be the results of some of the policies of labour in those days, that Winnipeg general strike and the unhappiness of those individuals could have been avoided. I think the time is ripe when the public of Canada and the government should take a new look at where the present policies of labour are likely to lead them.
The second policy is that labour must hold its share of the line against inflation. We know that there are strikes going on now. The steelworkers are asking for a 33 cents an hour increase, and even now they are getting almost double the wages that labour receives in the rural areas and the smaller towns of the constituency of Middlesex West. Labour must take its full share of the responsibility for what is likely to happen if these requests for large wage increases are enforced. We know what will happen; there will be another round of inflationary pressures in all respects, and nobody can win.
In the third place, I think the government should try to impress upon labour the fact that labour must not control the civil service, the police or other services vital to our national life. This is where the speeches by the hon. members for Kootenay West and Timiskaming were of great assistance. Those speeches pointed out in no uncertain terms that there are undesirable characteristics in some of the unions. In addition, there is a tendency on the part of unions in Canada to stay with their international affiliation. The hon. member for Timiskaming had this to say about the woodworkers' union of America, as reported at page 3633 of Hansard for August 15, 1958:
-the Canadian membership outnumbers and outranks the United States union membership but they have made no effort to change the structure in order to create a national union, which they could have done quite easily by a vote at any of their conventions. The Canadian union had a majority and could have seceded from the union and become a national union had they wished to do so, but there are many advantages to belonging to an international union.
The point I wish to make and impress upon the minister and the government, Mr. Chairman, is this. Canada cannot afford to have services vital to our national existence under the control of foreign labour bosses.


Mr. Granger:: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate,

when he spoke about unemployment insurance and particularly unemployment amongst fishermen in Newfoundland. In my own riding, based upon recent visits to any number of smaller outports and upon fairly extensive correspondence, it would appear that perhaps more than 50 per cent of the fishermen who are recipients or those who should be recipients of unemployment insurance suffer from extended delays, partial payments and in some cases a complete lack of benefits which they really deserve. The result is that in some cases there is direct want, and in all cases embarrassment and dissatisfaction.
Perhaps one of the worst features of this is that the purpose of providing unemployment insurance for fishermen has not been fulfilled, that is putting fishermen on the same basis as the men who work in the fish plants and encouraging those who prefer to make fishing their vocation to do so. Last night it was stated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that probably the remedy lay in the appointment of officials who would travel from place to place and advise the fishermen as to how they should make out their returns. These officials would, in turn, see the unemployment insurance officials and advise them as to what these recipients were entitled to. As I think the minister knows, the trouble in many cases lies in the fact that the original applications are not made out properly. It seems to me that the spirit of the act is not being carried out if some allowance and some provision is not made to ensure that these people, whom the act is designed to help, can receive their proper benefits.
I should like to suggest also that field men be appointed who would travel from out-port to outport advising the fishermen and generally acting as liaison officers between the department and the fishermen. This would enable the problems of the fishermen to be straightened out with a minimum of embarrassment to those people who should be helped.
I should like also to call to the minister's attention the fact that this year in Newfoundland we have had a very poor fishing season. It has been described as the worst in 25 years. Certainly it is the worst in recent years. The poor fishery, coupled with a cut back in woods operations because the paper companies are not cutting as much pulp this year, has made this a difficult period. Undoubtedly the coming winter in Newfoundland will be the worst in many years.
I would ask him, therefore, to use his influence with his colleagues to get some of the small works, such as wharves, breakwaters and so on-works which are already in the government's plans and for which surveys

have already been made-started. These works provide a considerable amount of local employment, and if he would endeavour to get them started they would be of considerable benefit. He might also consider having the federal government undertake the building of, say, a 100-mile section of the trans-Canada highway, which would provide additional employment. Certainly we are going to need that employment this year worse than we have for many years past, and worse, I hope, than we shall need it in the future.
In concluding these brief remarks I should like to pay tribute to the minister for the kind co-operation I have always received from him and his departmental officials. He has been able to infuse into the cold mechanics of official administration a kind of warmth which we appreciate.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not able to be in the house when the Minister of Labour made his opening statement, but I have read it carefully. The thing that seemed missing from his statement was any coming to grips with the present widespread unemployment in this country. I had hoped that by this time the government, which has now been in office for more than a year, would have enunciated and developed a program to deal with unemployment, the situation in respect of which is much worse than it was a year ago.
One would have expected that the government would be doing this because of the frequently repeated statements of the Minister of Labour, of his colleagues in the cabinet and of the Prime Minister himself that the Conservative party would lick the unemployment problem. They blamed the previous government last session and during both election campaigns for the conditions which then existed, but I do not think the government can now attribute the current widespread unemployment to the policies of the previous administration. Those policies may have been a contributing factor, but it is the policies of this government today which will decide whether or not we are to have anything approaching a state of full employment.
The feeling seems to be growing in Canada that labour has become irresponsible and that our great unions are acting in an irresponsible fashion by doing things which are against the general welfare of our country. I have not at any time changed my attitude toward labour; I have always felt and I have always said in this house that over the years Canadian labour has in general taken a highly responsible attitude, and that the policies followed by organized labour in Canada have not only contributed to an improvement in
57071-3-232
Supply-Labour
the welfare of labour itself but also to the economic well being of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is easy to get up in this house and say, as has been said this morning by the hon. member for Middlesex West, that labour must be careful and must be cautious because it can add to the inflationary pressures in this country. It is easy to say that, but 1 think the government would be in a much stronger position when giving out this gratuitous advice to organized labour if it would put its own house in order. I ask to what extent is the government of this country presently adding to the costs-the real costs-of doing business and of living in Canada? Members on the government side of the house can say to labour "Don't rock the boat; don't ask for increases in wages", but how is labour going to pay the increased cost of buying a house, which situation has been directly brought about by the policy of this government in respect to increasing interest rates? This policy of increasing interest rates in its reconversion program is adding to the real cost of living of every Canadian family, because when interest rates go up, since they are a very important part of doing business, I think we all recognize that costs go up generally, because business will do its best to pass on those increased costs to the consumer.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject, surely the hon. member for Assiniboia realizes that this government has not increased interest rates on homes? Surely he realizes furthermore that in order to help the ordinary citizen of Canada to purchase his own home we have gone so far as to decrease the amount of the down payment from 20 to 10 per cent? Surely he does not want to leave the impression that this government is taking steps which will make it more difficult for people to own their own homes, because after all the outstanding feature of the work of this government has been to increase home ownership in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said that the government's action has increased the cost of homes for the ordinary citizen, and I stand by that. I completely accept the minister's statement with respect to the National Housing Act interest rates and so on. Those are statements of fact, but the average Canadian today who is buying a home is putting a second mortgage on that home, and this means that his interest rate is higher. The Minister of Labour is a very genial person, and we all like him; but if he were to start out today to buy a home, as an average

Supply-Labour
Canadian with perhaps $1,000 or $2,000 saved up tor a down payment, and if he were to take a second mortgage, he would find my statement correct.
It is impossible for the government to increase interest rates on long-term debentures such as 25-year debentures to 4J per cent without increasing interest rates generally across the country, for what investor is going to take a chance on some risky investment at 5 per cent or 8 per cent interest if he can get an iron-clad guarantee of 41- per cent, as he can with government bonds? Since this government has taken office the cost of living has continued to rise, though there has been a drop in the last month. I know the minister is very touchy this morning.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I want only to keep the hon. member straight so that he is able to give relevant and correct facts to this house.


Mr. Drysdale:: You have quite a job there.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is talking through his hat.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, perhaps I can do with some help in that regard, but you know, charity begins at home, and if the minister will start talking to some of his colleagues I think he will find that what I say is true. What about the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who made such a boob the other day that the Prime Minister had to attempt to bail him out this morning-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps I am out of order but I suggest to the minister-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You just like to hear yourself talk.


Mr. Cardiff:: If you keep on talking you will talk yourself out.


The Chairman:: Would the hon. member please try to be relevant.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I was just comparing the very careful statements I have made in this debate to some statements which have been made by some of my hon. friend's colleagues in the cabinet in previous debates to show that it is hardly necessary for the Minister of Labour to stand up and try to correct my statements when they are not incorrect. As I said, the cost of living has been steadily going up, with one or two exceptions, since this government took office. Knowing this to be true, labour is taking an attitude which is quite understandable when it says that with the increased cost of

living when its productivity goes up it should share in the benefits which come from such increased productivity.
We are all very concerned about the increase in the cost of living and further increases in the cost of production, but I do not think it is fair, right or sensible to say to organized labour on the one hand "You hold the line" and on the other hand to allow the great corporations in Canada to charge anything they wish for their products at any given time. The Minister of Labour as a member of the government has condoned a policy which has added to interest charges and which can do nothing but add to interest rates in Canada.


Michael Starr: I think, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is making hypothetical charges. He has no evidence that interest rates have gone up as a result of the conversion of the bonds to which he refers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I see that the minister is no authority on interest rates.


An hon. Member:: Neither are you.


Hazen Robert Argue: He can read the statements-


Michael Starr: The statements of whom?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not mind the minister interjecting, but I have the floor. I have sat down three times and I will sit down three more times, but I think it is only reasonable and fair that the minister should allow me to answer his interjection.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the facts.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He should stick to his seat.


Hazen Robert Argue: The provincial treasurers have indicated that their costs have been increased, and by the reconversion policy it will mean to these provinces an increase in their budgets because of increased interest rates on longterm bonds.
There seems, in addition, to be a growing feeling that the government should take a very careful look at every strike or every threatened strike to see whether or not compulsory arbitration should be used.


An hon. Member:: Just nonsense.


Michael Starr: That is not true, and the hon. member for Assiniboia is making a lot of untrue statements in this committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can answer me if he wishes. He can make a 30-minute speech in reply.


Michael Starr: This is nothing but a political speech, with no facts.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not ashamed of making a political speech. I am a politician, and the

minister's remarks labelling this as a political speech do not insult me in any way, because the minister himself is in politics. He is a politician.


Michael Starr: But I am trying to be honest about it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. Will the hon. member for Assiniboia kindly try to limit his remarks to the item being discussed at the present time? It should also be appreciated by the committee that if members wish to interrupt the hon. member for Assiniboia while he has the floor they should first ask his permission.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I have the same right as every other member has to make a statement, and if the minister wishes to reply to me he may do so after I have sat down or, if other members wish to take part in this debate, at some later stage.
I was merely saying there seemed to be a growing feeling in certain quarters that strikes, when they occur in this country, should be looked at very carefully to see whether or not compulsory arbitration should be applied in their settlement. Without doubt, in certain industries if a strike should occur human lives might be endangered. The generation of electricity is one example, or the provision of gas in an area where people depend entirely on gas. If a strike were called, say, in the dead of winter, in temperatures of 20 or 30 degrees below zero, there is no question but that this would be the case, and in such circumstances any responsible government would have to consider taking steps toward settling such a strike as quickly as possible.
But I do think the record of this country as far as strikes is concerned is one that stands as an example to most of the nations of the world. We have in this country a labour movement which is responsible and which does not engage in long drawn out strikes which give Canada a bad name. That is not the situation at all. As a matter of fact the record of this country as far as time lost through strikes is concerned is excellent indeed.
I have in my hand a copy of the Labour Gazette dated July 31, 1958. These figures are given on a monthly basis, but for the months of January to May, 1957, the percentage of estimated working time lost through strikes was .05 to .08. In 1958, from January to May, the loss of time ranged from .07 to .18 per cent.
I have looked at the statistics back over the years, and generally speaking the amount of time lost through strikes and lockouts in this country amounts to approximately .1 per cent of the working time. If one assumes there
57071-3-232J
Supply-Labour
are five million workers in this country and that .1 per cent is the regular amount of loss, this would mean that on any given working day 5,000 workers are out on strike or are idle because they have been locked out; and when one compares the number of
5,000	on strike because of action they have themselves, taken, deliberately, with the figure of over 300,000 who are unemployed through no fault of their own, one sees that the problem of strikes in this country is not a particularly serious one for our nation; it has been magnified out of all proportion.
It may seem to us that an easy way, a short cut, to deal with strike situations is by compulsory arbitration, but one of the freedoms which Canadians have enjoyed for many years is the freedom to organize collectively in their own unions, and if they believe they have a just cause, to withdraw their labour. If we do not want this kind of freedom maintained, if we should wish to substitute for that freedom compulsory arbitration by multiplying its use many times, we shall be taking away a fundamental right of the Canadian working man; we shall be taking away a fundamental democratic right; we shall be acting in an un-Canadian and an undemocratic way.
I think compulsory arbitration, if it is proceeded with as a normal instrument of government policy, will add to the number of days lost and multiply the number of strikes in this country. This has been the experience in Australia and other countries where compulsory arbitration has been used as a general policy.
I had hoped, as I said at the outset, that the Minister of Labour would inform the committee of the policies the government is adopting to provide full employment and to restore employment. The goverment's attitude was very firm in this regard. The Montreal Gazette of March 20 contains an article which is headed "Job Policy Paid Off-Starr". The article has this to say:
.reaerai Labour Minister Michael Starr predicted last night the present unemployment situation will ena by mid-June.
He drew attention to the latest figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics showing a drop in the rate of unemployment.
"These figures are dropping faster than anticipated he said.
Mr. Starr, here to address a foreign language meeting of the Monument Nationale last night attributed the unemployment drop to the pump-pnming policies of the Diefenbaker government.
"We knew these policies would correct the situation, but we did not think the favourable results would be reflected so quickly", he said.
Does the minister feel now that he can take this kind of satisfaction that the unemployment situation has been corrected and

Supply-Labour
dealt with, in the light of the current situation? Does he think the pump-priming policies of the federal government, whatever that may mean, have been successful in dealing with this situation?
Of course the Minister of Labour is not the only one who has said that these policies were working. The Prime Minister, in a Canadian Press report which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 22, 1958, is reported as having said:
I hope that by June or July the application of our policies will have met the problem, through loosening tight money-
That is a very pertinent statement at this time, "through loosening tight money".
-and through public works, so that no one will be suffering from unemployment.
Seasonal benefits have been discontinued, unemployment is just as high now as it was a year ago, yet the Prime Minister said that by June or July the application of his policies would result in the situation being corrected.
I was present at a meeting held in the railway committee room toward the end of June attended by a delegation mainly of automobile workers from the city of Windsor and five or six cabinet ministers. Did these representatives feel at the end of June that the problem had been dealt with and the situation met? No; they said there was actual suffering in the city of Windsor because of unemployment.
It is easy to rise in this house and say labour is increasing the cost of production and the cost of living, that labour in the steel industry is receiving twice as much in the way of wages as labour in rural areas, but I believe the attitude of organized labour toward farmers is excellent. Canadian agricultural producers have today in the Canadian Labour Congress one of their very best friends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hon. members on the government side may snicker if they wish, but when the united automobile workers made their presentation at that meeting in June one of the points they emphasized in their brief was that it is necessary for the government to deal with agricultural income in such a way as to increase it. Organized labour participating in that meeting demonstrated something that we in this group have known to be correct for a long time; that you cannot have full employment in Canada when there is a depressed condition in agriculture. And so, far from attempting to drive a wedge between the farmer and labour, we feel both

organizations and the membership of both are good loyal Canadians who work hard for a living and are entitled to receive a reasonable wage for a reasonable day's work.
Following that meeting a conference was held in Ottawa in the early part of July under the sponsorship of the federal government and the Minister of Labour. At that conference were people representing organized labour and people representing business and management. We had hoped at that conference to deal with the question of seasonal unemployment. We had hoped that from that conference would emerge a program and policy that would prevent winter unemployment. The Minister of Labour promised to cure the problem of summer unemployment. The Prime Minister said that by June or July summer unemployment would not be with us. Well, the government failed to alleviate summer unemployment. Is the government now going to fail in the same way to prevent winter unemployment, which is a much more difficult problem to meet?
As I indicated, we had hoped a program of winter employment would be forthcoming from that conference. Immediately following the conference I questioned the Minister of Labour in this house as to whether a program had been agreed upon, and since that time various questions along the same line have been asked of him. The most recent information we have received is that the report is now in the hands of the Department of Labour. I do not wish to misquote the minister and he may correct me if I misinterpret what he said, but I understand the report is now being processed to the point where it can be turned over to the federal cabinet for consideration.
Does that represent progressive action? Does that indicate any great degree of speed in meeting the problem? Parliament is in session, but it may not be in session very much longer. At the rate the government is going I wonder if it will introduce a policy concerning winter employment that will assist to alleviate the situation this year.
I would hope the government has so crystallized a program to deal with and prevent winter unemployment that it will have concrete legislation to present at this session, but if the delay continues one will be led to ask whether it will be possible to deal with winter unemployment this year in an effective manner.
The minister referred to certain measures the government was considering. The government had a public information program. It sought to talk itself out of a winter recession

by advertising and giving advice to the building trades. That program cost $150,000. Looking over the main estimates I find there is less provision tor that kind of thing this year than there was last year. I hope this does not mean the program, which never has been adequate, is now being reduced. Rather I hope that this and other programs will be brought before parliament to deal with this situation.
According to one set of figures we have
300,000	unemployed. This is a serious matter for the Canadian economy. The number of unemployed at present is twice that of a year ago. Are we in a position either in the domestic field or internationally of being able to afford to have half a million unemployed in Canada again this winter? In all seriousness I ask the following question. How can we attract to the democratic world as supporters of our way of life the people of the uncommitted nations, people with a low standard of living, if they look to Canada and see all these idle resources?
The provision of full employment and full production is important to the economic standards of Canadians themselves, but it is also important in terms of Canada's stature in the world today. If we have solved the problem of unemployment and achieved full production we can say to the uncommitted nations of the world that our way of life is adequate; that we have been able to provide the man who wants a job and an income with a position and a wage. As I have said on another occasion in this house it is estimated that during the last 12 months Canada has lost production to the value of $1,500 million because of unemployment. That production could have been put to excellent use for the welfare of Canadians and as part of Canada's contribution to economic development in other parts of the world.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: There are two minutes of the hon. member's time remaining. Is it the pleasure of the house to give him permission to continue?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I will give the minister those two minutes at 2.30.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I expect that my remarks will be quite brief at this time. First
Supply-Labour
of all, I want to thank all hon. members for participating in the debate on the first item of my estimates, and particularly for the worth-while suggestions that have been made as to how the functions of the department could be improved. To be fair in my remarks, I also wish to say I appreciate the criticisms that have been brought to our attention. Most certainly, a great many of those criticisms deserve to be looked at carefully to see where we can make some corrections that will bring about the kind of change in our department that will be of benefit to those who come under the laws and jurisdiction of the Department of Labour.
A number of questions have been asked regarding certain functions of our department and I would suggest that hon. members who have those questions in mind should ask them on the appropriate item of our estimates. However, I should like to make one or two observations, particularly to the hon. member for Dollard who advocated the introduction of legislation designed to abolish discrimination by employers against older workers in the matter of employment. He referred to the enactment of this type of legislation by a certain state legislature in the United States.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, we are intensifying our work in relation to the employment problem of older workers because this has been a problem that has been foremost in my mind for a number of years now, since I have seen what is happening in the labour market as regards older workers. We propose to keep in touch with the operation of the United States legislation to which the hon. member has referred. This legislation is very recent and it will only be possible to determine its value and effectiveness by watching its operation. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that progress in meeting the problems of older workers will come mainly from the process of education, employment counselling, research and co-ordination of efforts of all agencies working in this field. I am quite willing to look at any proposal which will be effective in improving the lot of those older workers.
The Leader of the Opposition brought up the subject of automation and that, too, is a very important subject now and will be more so in the future. Automation, more properly referred to as technological changes of all kinds, is having an important effect on manpower requirements in industry. Many of the comments about those changes, however, are merely opinions or general impressions. The kind of technical changes occurring in industry and the ways in which those are altering requirements for different skills and training courses are a very complex matter. In this difficult area we need facts rather

Supply-Labour
than opinions and speculative suggestions. This is why our approach to this problem has been, first of ail, to find the facts. For the last year or so the Department of Labour has been carrying forward a number of research studies to learn more about those technological changes and their manpower and training implications. To help ensure that this research is keeping its feet on the ground, as it were, we have established an advisory committee composed of the representatives of organized labour, of industry and of our universities to advise and to comment on the work we are doing.
I do not want to leave the impression that the only action taken so far is research. The vocational training agreements now in existence with the provinces put special emphasis on the extension of training facilities for the type of workers so often referred to as technicians. We know that there is a growing need for workers with advanced technical training and we are therefore encouraging the provinces to expand those kinds of facilities.
As far as unemployment is concerned, I should like to leave my remarks on that aspect of the matter until we reach the item relating to unemployment insurance. With respect to the matters that were brought to my attention regarding unemployment insurance as it affects fishermen and various other aspects of these matters, I would prefer to make my remarks when we reach that item.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, this morning I asked whether the minister could give us some indication of the program he intends to initiate to remove the present widespread unemployment. While we know the government has failed to remove summer unemployment, we would hope the government would be more successful in dealing with the question of winter unemployment. I did make reference this morning to the conference that was held in Ottawa and the report that is being processed in the minister's department at this time to be laid before the cabinet at a later date. I am wondering whether the government will have a program to place before parliament that will require legislation at this session. Certainly, widespread unemployment throughout our nation at this time is a very important economic problem; it is a crisis as far as the unemployed are concerned. I think on item No. 1 of the minister's estimates it would be in keeping with the practices of this house to have the minister give us the benefit of his knowledge on this question and the program that the government will be adopting and whether he feels that the government can deal successfully with this very urgent question.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall item 170 carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a question. I would hope that he would answer it at this time.


Michael Starr: In my remarks I said that I would make a statement on that aspect of the matter on the item on unemployment insurance.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder whether the hon. member for Assiniboia would permit me to intervene. He asked whether the minister or any other member of the government contemplated any legislation of which we have not yet been given notice to provide additional employment. I think that is a question that should not be left until we come to one of the later items where we are restricted in our discussion. That is why we should like to have an answer on the first item.


Michael Starr: You mean additional legislation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I mean any legislation of which we have not been given notice. We know what is on the order paper and we know that there are one or two things that we have been told are going to come on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: With great respect to the minister, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I do not think you can discuss on the item on unemployment insurance the whole question of providing employment for the unemployed in this country. It would seem to me that this is an act which provides some income when there are no jobs. Although we have great interest in seeing that we have incomes for people who are unemployed, we think it is a fair request to make of the minister when we ask that he give us an outline at this time of whether or not there will be any legislation and of what the government is intending to do not merely by amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act or changes in administration but about the question of providing jobs for unemployed people.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall item 170 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, this is a strange way in which to discuss the estimates of the department. We have repeated questions and do not get so much as an answer. If the minister wants to give us the silent treatment, of course there is nothing we can do about it.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad to note that the minister is now in a mood, as I would hope, to answer some of the questions I have

raised. I had said this morning also that there had been some substantial increases in the cost of living since this government took office. In view of these increases in the cost of living, it is understandable that the working people of this country are anxious that their real incomes should not be reduced by a continuing rise in the cost of living. The minister pointed out that there had been some levelling off in recent months. But I would point out to him that when the government took office in June, 1957 the consumer price index stood at 121.6 and that in June, 1958 the index stood at 125.1, an increase of 3.5. If the minister will check on the matter, I think he will find that that is the largest increase from June to June in many years. The previous June also saw a very substantial increase in the cost of living index but it was slightly less than 3.5, being 3.3. But the increase for a number of years was small in relation to this large increase that has taken place from June of 1957 to June of 1958.
A few moments ago, in speaking on the general subject of automation or technological change, as I believe he called it, the minister pointed out that this matter provides a certain real problem. Workers who are engaged in industry where technological improvement is going on at a very rapid rate and where therefore the workers' productivity is being increased at a rapid rate naturally feel that they should share in this increased productivity. I think that feeling applies to working people generally. I think it applies to the civil service of this country. When they see certain improvements by way of business machines being introduced or automation in the Post Office Department and so on, they naturally feel that they are entitled to an increase in their real incomes because of increased productivity.
Statistics show that an increase in the real productivity of this country can be or should be expected at the rate of 3 per cent per year. When one considers the increase in productivity and the large increase in the cost of living in the last year, he cannot help but have great sympathy for the civil service association of this country and the civil servants generally in asking that these two extremely important factors be considered by the government. As the minister has made reference to increased productivity, I think it is in order to make a reference to the position of civil servants.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I submit that the hon. member is quite out of order in trying now to discuss civil service salaries under this item in the estimates of the Department of Labour. There
Supply-Labour
are other items under which he can discuss the matter in the future. To get on to this civil service question now is to stretch the rules much further than is allowable.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I believe the Minister of Public Works is quite right in his remarks. This is not the time to discuss the civil service commission nor the details pertinent to it. Consequently I believe that the hon. member for Assiniboia is out of order in his present comments on the civil service commission. Furthermore, the hon. member for Assiniboia had 28 minutes-and he had an additional two minutes which were reserved to him-prior to our adjournment at one o'clock in which to voice his opinions and to ask questions of the minister. The minister expressed certain views at the opening of this afternoon's sitting and clearly stated that when we come to the unemployment insurance item he would answer the hon. member for Assiniboia. I believe that when this particular item is discussed we could then give the minister the privilege of answering the questions which were asked-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could I make a point-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The chairman is not yet finished speaking.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -and also give the minister sufficient latitude to carry on his remarks. I believe that, at the present time if the minister wishes to answer the questions that were asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia, he should have the opportunity to do so. However, if he prefers to answer them later on, on the item on unemployment insurance, I think that should be sufficient.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that under the rules of this house a member may speak as often as he wishes for 30 minutes at a time in committee. I believe that is the position so long as the hon. member for Assiniboia or any other hon. member on either side of the house is dealing with the matter before the house; and particularly and above all is it the situation in the committee of supply where Her Majesty's ministers are asking the rest of us who were elected for the purpose to vote supply. Any attempt upon the part of anyone to restrict the full scope of the inquiry would be a most unprecedented innovation in our parliamentary proceedings.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, may I say this as to the statement you have made. On reflection I think you would not want to consider it as a ruling. As has been pointed

Supply-Labour
out by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, under the rules of the house it is clear that in committee of supply, a committee of the whole, while a member is limited at one time to 30 minutes, if another hon. member follows him in the debate then the hon. member who has spoken for 30 minutes, if the chair recognizes him, is entitled to the floor again. Since I have come nowhere near exhausting my second 30 minutes I would suggest, Mr. Chairman that it is in order for me to speak at this time, assuming that what I say does not contravene the rules in any other way.
The Minister of Public Works has made a very interesting interjection in the debate. Since he is in a rather expansive mood this afternoon, I take it, and let us hope in a good mood, he might tell us at what other time during this session we may have an opportunity to discuss the very important proposals that are reported in today's Journal.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are out of order.


An hon. Member:: Oh, we have two
chairmen.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that I am not attempting in any way to stop the hon. member debating the item which is under discussion. However, the chairman has ruled that he should not discuss this question of the civil service under this item, and the hon. member should not go on to discuss it in spite of that ruling.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was about to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. If he does not want to say when we can discuss this very important question in the house, then I think it is very much in order on item 1 of the Department of Labour estimates to discuss the general labour situation in this country.


Howard Charles Green: I have no objection to the hon. member discussing the general labour situation, but he was discussing the pay of civil servants. Now, this question comes under the civil service commission item or under those of the Department of Finance. There are probably several other items under which it could be discussed, but to try to open a discussion on this question on this particular item is entirely out of order and the chairman has so ruled. The hon. member should abide by that ruling.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I have indeed ruled that a discussion of the civil service commission is out of order at the moment. A discussion of the civil service commission should be carried on under the item concerning the civil service commission. I am quite in agreement with the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member

for Assiniboia, that they can speak for 30 minutes on repeated occasions during the same debate. However, I only pointed out, if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will recall, that the Minister of Labour had said he would prefer to answer the questions on the item which dealt with unemployment insurance. I then stated that perhaps we should give him the required latitude to answer those questions.
It is quite important, especially at this time, that we try to be as relevant as possible to the items under discussion. It would be highly appreciated by the chair if all members tried to avoid repetition and tried to be as relevant to the item under discussion as could be managed. This is said with all due respect for the privileges of the members of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to raise another point of order. It is a very brief one and I do not think we will disagree on it. Your honour had said that a discussion of the civil service commission should be conducted on the item concerned with the civil service commission, and with that I agree. However, the item of civil service salaries would properly be discussed on the item of the Minister of Finance because the Minister of Finance told us this morning he was the minister responsible in that field, and I am sure the house leader would agree.


Hazen Robert Argue: I tried to be as helpful as possible and I think the Minister of Public Works, instead of getting up so quickly, should make some comment as to when we might discuss the report to which I have referred. However, if he does not wish to do so at this time we shall look forward to a discussion of that question at the earliest opportunity. Personally, I do not see how a reference to the economic position of the civil servants of this country could not properly be made under an item of the Minister of Labour, because certainly they are a very important part of the labour force of this country. If we are to discuss that particular aspect at some other stage of the proceedings, then that is what we shall do.
I do want to reiterate that I think all the working people of this country, when they have experienced the most rapid increase in the cost of living in many years while this government has been in office since June, and when they understand very well that automation has increased their production, have quite a legitimate case when they ask to share in the benefits from that increased production. When the appropriate time comes we shall have further remarks to make on this whole question. I shall be waiting with great interest for the minister's

very important statement which he said he will make as to how this government is going to solve the unemployment problem of this country.


Michael Starr: I did not say that. I said I would make a statement on the unemployment situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question I should like to ask the minister. I apologize to the minister in advance if, while I was detained out of the house, he has already answered this question. While we are on item 1 I should like the minister to give us some account of his recent meeting with the provincial ministers of labour and other persons about winter employment. We on this side of the house are just as much concerned about winter employment as the hon. gentleman opposite. It does seem to me this is a matter we ought to have an opportunity of debating in an unrestricted way, so I am asking the minister if he would do that at this stage.


Michael Starr: I shall be glad to do that, even though I had intended to do it on the item concerning the unemployment insurance commission. As I mentioned, that was the item upon which I was going to say something about unemployment. However, it is quite obvious that this winter unemployment question has been of deep concern to the government. I took it upon myself, with the consent of the government, to initiate the conference in order that we would have the benefit of the ideas or suggestions of the people concerned with the problem such as leaders in industry, labour, the provinces and municipalities and the other national organizations.
This conference was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm by those who were invited and who were present. I might say, and I say this with pleasure, that all those who were invited were present, with one or two exceptions. They did have a very frank discussion. I made no attempt at that time, as chairman, to give any direction, because I felt we needed a fresh viewpoint from those concerned. The recommendations have been made, and those recommendations are being compiled by the department for study. I have not yet had an opportunity of presenting them to cabinet. I am going to do this because I consider this problem is very important. These matters will certainly be brought to the attention of the government for consideration.
It is quite improper, I submit, for the hon. member for Assiniboia to ask me to forecast at this time what sort of legislation the government is going to introduce as a result of a study of these recommendations. At this 57071-3-233
Supply-Labour
time I cannot forecast what legislation will be introduced, and I leave it at that. However, I do want to say that a study will be made of the recommendations and action will be taken because this government has the confidence of the people of Canada, and we want to introduce measures that will be beneficial to the people of Canada in so far as the alleviation of this serious problem is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite agree with the minister that we should not press him to anticipate the decisions of the cabinet. I have held a position such as the minister now holds and I know it is a bad practice under our constitution to anticipate cabinet decisions, and whatever else I may be accused of, nobody can ever accuse me of trying to destroy responsible government in this country and that is more than can be said of many members on the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I refer in particular to the hon. member for Rosedale whose disgraceful conduct in this building-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -of which there has been much evidence-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: May I ask the hon. member to please keep to the question of labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I intend to do Mr. Chairman but I have a practical suggestion to make to the leader of the house. The minister said, and I quite agree with him, that at the present time the government has the confidence of the country. We do not question the overwhelming victory of the government and we have never done so. Every member of this house, however, has the confidence of his constituents and we all have equal rights in this house.
As I said earlier, we have just as much interest in this winter works program as has any member on the treasury benches. This session is going to last certainly for another two weeks at the very least-


Some hon. Members:: Oh?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and probably more if we are going to do the work which the people of Canada has entrusted to us. I think it will probably take a good deal longer than that.
We will take all the time that is needed to do the business of the people and what I suggest is that we allow item one to stand and go on to the other items of the minister's department until the cabinet has had a chance

Supply-Labour
to reach its conclusions at which time the minister will be free to report to us. In that way every member will have an opportunity of expressing his views and it seems to me that that is a practical suggestion. If the government is not willing to do this and if it is going to use its overwhelming majority to ram this item through-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -it is quite obvious that is because they do not dare to face a debate on this subject.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who has been preventing you from talking? No one has been preventing you from talking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the loquatious and noisy hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot has finished I will continue sir.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Would the hon. member kindly take his seat. I must ask hon. members of this house to please be silent while the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate finishes his remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, it seems to me that the government, if this winter work program is to be in any way effective, will have to reach its conclusions very quickly and it will certainly want to do this before the prorogation of parliament in case any action should be required of parliament. Therefore it will not in any way impede the business of the house or the progress of the session if we simply stand this item now and go on to deal with the other items of the Department of Labour, after which time we can take the estimates of the Minister of Transport who is so eagerly waiting to bring them before the house. This item could stand until the minister has consulted with his colleagues and is in a position to give us the report which we are all so anxious to have.


Hazen Robert Argue: In regard to the proposal of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, so that it may be possible at some later stage in this debate to have a full-scale and comprehensive debate on the very important question of the unemployment crisis in this country, I suggest that the government should accede to his suggestion. We have been discussing these estimates for a considerable length of time, after all, and the minister, quite properly in the circumstances, has said that the government has no program to offer the house at this time. We are very much aware that while the government has the confidence of the country on the basis of the March 31 election, confidence was given partly because of the categorical promise of the Minister of Labour

and other members of the government that the unemployment problem would be solved, and would be solved in June or July. It has not been solved and we are in a worse mess as far as unemployment is concerned than that in which we were a year ago. There is no program developed to any stage where it could be placed before this house in order to deal with unemployment in the months ahead.
More than that, there has not yet been a statement that any program finalized by the government will be placed before this house during this session. I think the request made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should receive sympathetic consideration by the government and that this problem should have a full and complete airing after we have learned what action, if any, the government is going to take to solve it.


Mr. Howard:: I do not wish to go around on the same theme once more-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Benjamin Howard: From the moans and groans opposite they apparently do not believe me but I do not intend to do so.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Go on talking; don't waste the time of the house by standing up.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Even that is more than some people attempt to do but in view of the rude interjection of the hon. member I would say that in view of the movement you made, Mr. Chairman, I anticipated you were going to make some comment to me and I was awaiting your remarks.
A number of suggestions were made in the formal remarks preceding the minister's remarks with respect to changes of attitude and changes in policies. I made two or three suggestions myself and I wonder whether I might inquire of the minister at this time as to what is his general attitude or as to what is the attitude of the government with respect to the suggestions I made; firstly, that we should have a standing committee on industrial relations to meet between now and the next session in order to hear representations from any interested parties so that such committee would be in a position to recommend to the minister certain legislation. Could I first ask the minister for his comments on that point?


Michael Starr: I explained this whole thing in my opening remarks and if the hon. member had read them he would have known what I said on this matter. A little over a year ago I asked all the national organizations in this country, representing both management and labour, to submit to me their suggestions on

possible revision to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Three of the larger bodies have not yet submitted their replies but have advised me that they are in the process of preparing recommendations. As soon as I receive them we will proceed to sort out the various suggestions so that we will be able to consider the possibilities in this regard.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I appreciate that and I did read the remarks of the minister although I was not personally present when he made them. One suggestion I made in this debate tied in with the thought that the legislation, particularly labour legislation and that with respect to industrial disputes investigation, if and when amended, should be referred to the committee on industrial relations during the next session. That, as a matter of fact, was the second part of the suggestion I made yesterday and it was my thought that the operation of the committee in the two fields should be connected, firstly of listening to the representations made by all interested parties, and this should not be confined to national labour organizations or national employers' organizations but should include independent unions, independent employers who do not belong to the C.M.A. or provincial groups and also include individual citizens who may be interested and concerned about this matter, and, secondly, that there should be a continuation of the understanding in the committee that it should hear all the representations and thereafter, being able to properly assess the legislation, should make recommendations to the minister regarding that legislation.
So my thoughts were not confined to the committee meeting between now and the next session, but were directed also to the question of continuing during the session when legislation was presented. I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether it is the policy of the government to channel all legislation through the committee on industrial relations.


Michael Starr: I cannot say whether that would be the policy of the government, but it will be my policy to suggest to the government that this legislation should be channelled through the standing committee on industrial relations.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have another thought on which I should like to make some comment. I wonder if the minister could give us a breakdown or an analysis of the operation of the women's bureau in the Department of Labour and tell us how it is functioning, or if it is functioning, and what it has accomplished?
57071-3-233J
Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: Perhaps the hon. member would allow that question to stand until we reach the item.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Would the minister care to indicate which item it would come under? I should be pleased to do as the minister suggests but I note it is under item 170.


Michael Starr: I apologize to the hon. member. I am unable to give details as to the functioning of this section of the department at the moment, but I would be very glad to get the information later.


Charles Benjamin Howard: When I was in the provincial legislature I had the thought that the provincial government should institute the same thing. I believe this was in 1953 or 1954, when this bureau was established under the federal Department of Labour. While the aesthetic aims and other objects of the bureau may have been worth while at that time, I doubt very much whether anything worth while is being accomplished by the operation at the present time. I say I doubt this, but I do not know. Not being a woman this matter does not come to my attention as much as it would probably engage the attention of the hon. lady the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, who would probably have a close interest in the work of this bureau. As far as my own knowledge goes, I say that I doubt whether it is really making a contribution to Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the government has not given the committee some indication that it will deal in an effective manner with the very grave unemployment situation.


Michael Starr: I said that we were concerned about this situation and the reason for calling this conference on winter unemployment was to deal with this serious matter. The hon. member keeps repeating himself and twisting words, and he is unable to say anything that is reasonable in any way at all. It is just plain playing politics with regard to the very serious unemployment situation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Irresponsible remarks of that kind from the Minister of Labour-


Michael Starr: We have been listening to this all day.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister knows that he should not interrupt an hon. member who has the floor. Such remarks by the minister are a very poor and inadequate substitute-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Supply-Labour


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: When the hon. member for Assiniboia has the floor it would be appreciated if members of the committee would permit him to continue his remarks.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was saying that the irresponsible attitude of the Minister of Labour means that the government does not take this situation nearly as seriously as it did-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: The government does not take the unemployment situation to heart in nearly the same way as it did during the election campaign, when the pledge was given that this problem would be dealt with and that at mid-summer unemployment would be solved. What have we heard this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: You.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have had an exhibition-


Michael Starr: "Exhibition" is right.


Hazen Robert Argue: -an exhibition from the government which indicates that it has no policy. The minister can pop up now and tell me the government has a policy if he likes, but there is no indication that the government has a policy to deal with this matter. Something is being processed, he says, in his department that will be turned over to the cabinet at some later date. What have we asked? We have asked that this item should stand so that this committee might have the chance to debate whatever statement the government may make later this session, so that we may be able to deal with the grave unemployment situation in this country. 1 suggest that the government and the minister are showing contempt for the unemployed of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest he is showing a callous disregard of their position by refusing not only to say whether or not he has a program, or will have a program, but also whether or not legislation will be placed before parliament during this session in order to meet the situation. The government will not even allow us to debate the subject on item 1 by allowing it to be postponed to a future date. In order to show how we believe the government should deal with this situation, and as a method of protesting this cavalier attitude toward the committee, I should now like to move that the chairman do now leave the chair and that we rise and report progress.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That motion, I believe, is undebatable.
[Mr. Argued


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Since the motion is undebatable I must ask the hon. member for Assiniboia to let me have his motion in writing.


Hazen Robert Argue: I move:
That the Chairman do now leave the chair and that the committee rise and report progress.
Motion (Mr. Argue) negatived: Yeas, 21; nays, 58.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I declare the motion lost. Shall the item carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to repeat again my appeal to the house leader to accede to that very reasonable request.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I remind hon. gentlemen that we were not voting on this question at all. Recalling some of those scenes in another parliament when the Minister of Public Works sat on this side of the house I believe the minister would be extremely reluctant to use his majority to extinguish the opportunity for debate and that is what will be done if this request is not acceded to. My friend the hon. member for Hull who I believe wishes to say a word on this subject will doubtless add to what I have said.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has again placed one of those seductive suggestions before the government. He says that if we do not consent to his suggestion, if we do not let him run the house, then we will be stifling debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Howard Charles Green: Let us just analyse what has been taking place. The estimates of the Department of Labour for the first time in the history of parliament-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the last.


Howard Charles Green: -were sent to the standing committee on industrial relations in order that they might be-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Kept out of the house.


Howard Charles Green: -thoroughly considered. That was done in the standing committee. Every single item which is now before us in these estimates was passed in that committee. I heard not one word of complaint about the proceedings in that committee. I believe a good job was done and all parties share in the credit for that good work. The estimates have now come back to the house. There has already been a lengthy discussion on the first item. It has been the practice of the house to have a general discussion on the first item

although there has always been some doubt as to just what right there was to such a discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Only when you moved over there.


Howard Charles Green: The government has not made the slightest move to shut off discussion on this item where it was in order. An attempt was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia to drag in by the tail the question of the payment of the salaries of civil servants and that, of course, was ruled out of order by the chairman. Now we have this alluring suggestion on the part of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that if we do not stand this first item indefinitely-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not indefinitely.


Howard Charles Green: -then we are stopping debate, bringing in a type of closure. Mr. Chairman, there could be no submission more ridiculous. This is a submission which the hon. member for Assiniboia and his fellow members in the C.C.F. would never raise because they know it is entirely contrary to what is taking place here.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Do not be too sure about what we would do.


Howard Charles Green: There is no reason why the discussion on the first item should not be carried on in the ordinary way. There are various other departmental estimates to come up on which employment can be discussed. It is not as though this whole field had to be covered on this one item or it would never be covered at all. There will be 25 different ways it could be brought up between now and the end of the session and I have not the slightest doubt that the C.C.F. will find 24 of them. Of course, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will never find them because he always comes in at the tail end of the C.C.F. on any issue. He is doing his party more harm than anybody else in that party.


An hon. Member:: And that is saying
something.


Howard Charles Green: When these eight men in the C.C.F. who are working under difficulties in having such a small number do bring up a point the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has to run along and jump on the bandwagon and start talking. I am perfectly aware of what I just witnessed during the last half hour. I saw the call come from the C.C.F. who went over to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and sat beside him and gave their marching orders as to what was to be done next.


Mr. Denis:: That is his business.
Supply-Labour


Howard Charles Green: At one time the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate held a very responsible position in the civil service, that of clerk of the privy council. That is really the very centre of the civil service. Of course, prior to that the hon. gentleman was the private secretary of the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King and he acquired many bad habits while serving in that capacity.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I believe we are straying from the discussion we should be conducting at this time and perhaps we should return to a discussion of item No. 170.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to reply to the flattering things that were said about me by the Minister of Public Works. I appreciate them. However, I wish to remind the Minister of Public Works of something which he appears to have forgotten.
I point out to hon. gentlemen that I am talking about this item and strictly on the item. I did not ask the minister to stand this item for a general debate on unemployment; I asked for nothing of the kind. I said that for our part we would be prepared to go ahead in an orderly manner with a discussion of the other items of the department. I made a request for a specific and limited purpose. The Minister of Labour rose in his place and said he could not report on the conference which he described as important because he had not yet reported to the cabinet. I promptly accepted that position and said that, in order to give the minister an opportunity to report to the cabinet and in order to give the government an opportunity to take action, we should stand the first item of these estimates. I did not say it should be stood for an indefinite period although of course it seems to require an indefinite period for this government to reach a conclusion about anything. But that was not my idea. My thought was that the government, for once, might make up its mind quickly about this matter and report to the house. We would be very glad to go on with a discussion of these estimates, and if the government would make up its mind in the meantime we could proceed on the first day the government did not have to make a motion to go into supply. In the interval the minister could make his report to the cabinet and then to the house on the occasion to which I have referred. The report on the winter employment program is what we want to debate and a discussion of it would not, I believe, be in order on any item of the estimates other than item No. 1 of the estimates of the Minister of Labour. It was in order to respect the desire of the

Supply-Labour
Minister of Labour to preserve the confidence that he is entitled to preserve until he has reported to his colleagues in order to let this government make up its mind, if it is capable of making up its mind, and to report to the house, that I made this very reasonable request, and I make it again.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The Chairman must insist once again on asking hon. members to respect standing order 59, subparagraph 2, which states clearly:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
We are considering item No. 170 and we must confine our remarks to this item. Shall item 170 carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, a while ago I listened to the Minister of Public Works. He said that in the industrial relations committee nothing was said to indicate that any opposition came from there. I know that I for one accepted the report on division so that we could have a chance to study the matter in the house. Furthermore, the minister seems to think that the request of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is something extraordinary when he asks that item 170 stand and that we go ahead with the other items and come back to item 170 later on in order to give the minister a chance to report to the cabinet and be in a position to say whether there is really some legislation in mind to alleviate the hardship of unemployment.
When I was a member of the Quebec legislature-I do not know whether it is still the same today; there have been many changes since I left-item 1 of every department was allowed to stand until later in the session so that we could come back to it to deal with events that may have taken place during the session. It has been the common practice to follow that procedure in the Quebec legislature, and I do not see anything in the standing order, or in any of the practices of this house, which would prevent us from standing the first item and passing the remainder of the items and then coming back to the first item later after the minister has had a chance to discuss the matter with the cabinet to see whether any legislation really is in preparation to help in the unemployment problem of the coming winter. That is what we want and I do not think the Minister of Public Works has any right to make the remarks he made because I really believe they were the cheapest remarks ever made in this house.


Michael Starr: Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said that he did not wish to anticipate government
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
legislation and he was right. He has been the clerk of the privy council and he knows very well that by this action in asking that this item stand he is using a form of blackmail.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have very rarely raised a question of personal privilege in this house but I believe blackmail is a crime and I believe it is contrary to the rules for one hon. member, even in jest, to suggest that another hon. member has committed a crime or is attempting to commit a crime. As a good lawyer I am sure the Minister of Public Works would be the first to agree with me in this. I must say that personally I could not care less about this charge because, as the Minister of Public Works has said, my life is an open book and I do not think anyone thinks I have ever indulged in the crime of blackmail. But I am speaking, sir, on a question of privilege. I do feel-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down; the Chairman is on his feet.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Possibly the minister's
language was a bit strong and I am sure he will withdraw his remark.


Michael Starr: I will withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.
In answer to the hon. member for Skeena regarding the women's bureau, this bureau has the responsibility for examining existing data and studies concerning conditions of employment of women workers and stimulating additional research by the appropriate branches of the department or other research bodies. They also have the responsibility of assembling information of interest to women, and, through speeches and published material, making it available in such a way as to foster an intelligent approach to women's problems; thirdly, they develop regular channels between the departments and other public and private agencies, including women's groups and employer and labour organizations, in order to ensure a continuing interchange of information concerning women in employment; advising the department on any of its program affecting women workers and being available for consultation with provincial government agencies or other bodies concerned that employ women, as requested.
Now, the allotment of estimates in the year 1957-1958 for this board was $32,100. The expenses in that period were $26,164.74. The allotment in the estimates for this fiscal year is $31,285.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Where may we find that in the details?


Michael Starr: It is embodied in the details; it is not set out as a separate item.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Can the minister indicate whether he thinks this women's bureau makes a worth-while contribution?


Michael Starr: My advice from the officials is that it does.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would like to take advantage of the invitation of the Minister of Public Works to search for one of those 25 ways. I have been trying to track down what the 25 ways may be. I have found one way that I think is the legal way of raising this question. In the details on page 253 there is a listing, and I find the following: "Approximate requirement for increases in rates of pay". The figure of $28,527 is shown for last year, but nothing for this year. Can the minister indicate whether he intends to keep that at nothing throughout the remainder of the fiscal year, or whether there is any thought of arranging for increases in the rates of pay for public employees working under his jurisdiction?


Michael Starr: The amount last year was for the provision of increases in wages which were not provided for this year.


Azellus Denis: Can the minister tell me
whether those increased wages were voted by the former government?


Michael Starr: It was under the general salary revision which came into effect in the fiscal year 1957-58.


Azellus Denis: Were the increased wages voted by the Liberal government before the new government came into power?


Michael Starr: No, it was not voted by the former government. It was in the 1957-58 estimates.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will not think that I am attempting to hold up his estimates because that is the last thing I would want to do. I held a position similar to his and I know how much I became annoyed when, just at the time the item was about to pass, someone rose and made a speech which I thought was embarrassing. I did not like it. Therefore, I am going to do my best not to make an embarrassing speech and not to try in any way to hold up the minister's estimates; but I am prompted to rise because of the discussion that was originated earlier and because of a remark made by my genial friend across the way, the leader of the house. The fact is that he made a statement here which was quite at variance with one he made earlier in the session.
During the discussion of the motion to send many of these estimates to standing committees for consideration, the point was made that such procedure would not affect in any
Supply-Labour
way the discussion in the house. What is happening now is that after the estimates of this particular department, namely the Department of Labour, have gone to the standing committee and have now been reported to the house for discussion, we are told: "Oh, well, those estimates have been discussed at great length and you are holding up item No. 1".


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: With all due respect to my genial friend across the way, I say that he cannot have it both ways.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, or a question of privilege, may I say that I did not say that at all. I said that you could have the widest discussion on the item here. What I said was that this charge that we are trying to stop discussion was ridiculous because not only is the matter being discussed here but it was also discussed in the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: The charge is not so ridiculous as the house leader would lead us to believe, Mr. Chairman. The minister said a moment ago that it is not the practice to hold up item No. 1. I say to him now that the former administration on more than one occasion held up item No. 1, not indefinitely but in order to give consideration to the matter which was submitted to the house; that matter was that the minister should hold up this item of his estimates until the government could report on winter work, until he could discuss with his colleagues in the government what the position was with reference to this extremely important matter of winter work which is of interest to all of us on this side of the house.
What I am saying now is that there should be no objection to telling the house what the position is. What harm could there be if item No. 1 were allowed to stand? In so far as I am personally concerned-and I can speak only for myself-I am prepared to state that if item No. 1 stood I am almost willing to wager that the other items would go through very quickly. Then if anything were to take place between the time this item was allowed to stand and the time it was passed there would be an opportunity for discussion of matters concerning the important department over which the minister presides. My only purpose in rising was to draw to the attention of the committee and of the minister the fact that on more than one occasion item No. 1 has been allowed to stand in the past. It would strike me that it should stand again on this occasion.

Supply-Labour


Erhart Regier: I think it is obvious now, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Public Works regrets the fact that he extended the hours of the house sittings to include Saturdays. However, this is what has impressed me more than anything. Here we have in office a government which has assured the Canadian people that from the month of June, come the month of July we would overcome the problem of unemployment; that we were past the peak; that we were over the hump. Those assurances were broadcast across the nation. We are now in the month of August and all we can read in the reports emanating from the Department of Labour is the age-old phraseology that there has been a decrease in the rate of increase as it affects our number of unemployed. The minister tells us that no legislation is to be introduced. He says in effect that we cannot before the end of the session expect that there will be introduced into this house any legislation that has any specific design-


Michael Starr: I did not say that.


Erhart Regier: -or bearing of any major consequence on the subject of unemployment.


Michael Starr: I did not say that.


Erhart Regier: Oh, yes; the minister has said that. The minister was unwilling, only a few minutes ago, to have item No. 1 held over.


Michael Starr: I did not say that.


Erhart Regier: The minister voted against the motion that the committee now rise. The minister insists that this house now ought to complete discussion of his department in its over-all phases; in other words, he insists that a discussion of the basic principle ought now to end. He says that he is unwilling to go to the cabinet and unwilling to say to the cabinet: My colleagues, the House of Commons is not satisfied; the House of Commons wants more definite assurance that aggressive measures are being taken to meet the situation of unemployment.
This attitude bears out what I said yesterday, namely that this government seems to have made up its mind that it is going to attempt to ride out the storm. That is a cruel position to take when we consider human values. I feel that it is a dangerous position to take when we consider economic values. This air of uncertainty that obtains in the whole economic field throughout Canada, from Newfoundland to Vancouver island, must be cleared.
The people of Canada must have an assurance that we have in office a government that is master of the situation. We have not that assurance yet. The workers of Canada, the investors of Canada and the commercial
interests of Canada are faced with this feeling of uncertainty and that is our major handicap now. That is the major cause of unemployment today. This government feels that it can with platitudes restore prosperity. It feels that it is unnecessary to meet the situation head on with an air of aggressiveness which would involve legislation and which would involve this parliament. We are asked to accept these assurances. We had those assurances six months ago, Mr. Chairman. The statistics of the minister's department now show that the assurances of this government mean nothing. As far as the unemployed of Canada are concerned, these assurances are worthless. The unemployed last winter voted Conservative-let us make no mistake about it-because they had a certain confidence in this new regime.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They still have.


Erhart Regier: I remember, Mr. Chairman, that the former hon. member for Winnipeg North, Mr. Alistair Stewart, when the last parliament was in session, went home and lived with the unemployed in Winnipeg for one whole week. Then he came back to Ottawa and he brought back a report that worried me a little bit. He reported that half of the men in the line-up at the unemployment insurance offices were C.C.F. and the other half were Conservative. I failed to understand it. He said, "They are optimistic; they have a blind faith in this government". Those people today, six months later, no longer have that blind faith. Today they are filled with disillusionment.


An hon. Member:: That's what you say.


Erhart Regier: They now realize the truth about this government. They are not taking the minister at his word today. The minister is assuring us that the government need not introduce any legislation. In effect that is what he is doing. He is saying that the cabinet need not ask parliament to consider deliberate moves to solve this problem of unemployment. The minister has asked us today to accept in blind faith the assurances that were given six months ago and which have since been proven to be a hollow mockery to those who are unemployed; that is cruel indeed.
I have only one other remark to make and that concerns what the Minister of Public Works had to say when he attempted to tell us we ought to end our discussion now because this subject has been dealt with adequately.


Howard Charles Green: I did no such thing. The hon. member must not put words in my mouth like that.


Erhart Regier: I realize I must accept the statement of the minister. However, may I recall to the minister that only a few minutes ago he expressed a doubt as to the right of a lengthy discussion on item No. 1. If that is not an attempt to limit the debate on the subject of unemployment on this first item of the estimates of the Minister of Labour, then I do not know what he meant by that remark. That is today the most important subject facing the House of Commons of Canada, how to resolve this problem, and I am most amazed indeed that the Minister of Public Works, of all people, feels that a day and a half is overdoing things.
I believe the Minister of Labour will agree that this is the major problem facing his government now. I do not believe the minister can cite one other problem that haunts him and his colleagues in the cabinet as much as does the worry about unemployment. I am willing to give him credit, at least to that extent. However, I feel they are accepting advice from the wrong places. I feel they are accepting advice from those in Canada who believe a fairly heavy measure of unemployment is healthy for the Canadian economy. A large number of unemployed, it is believed, is one way in which you can keep organized labour in line-"in line" meaning as they see the line.
There are many people in Canada today who do not view with regret a fairly heavy dose of unemployment. We feel that these are the people who are advising the government to attempt to ride out the storm. May I remind the government that if they accept this advice their fate will be the same as was the fate of one other Conservative government, and they will be swept out in the holocaust that will occur on the Canadian economic scene.


Mr. Robichaud:: In reply to a question asked by the hon. member for St. Denis, if I recall correctly, the minister stated that the increase in the estimates for 1957-58 was voted by the present government. He could have added also that it was recommended and accepted by the previous administration.
In introducing his estimates yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the minister stated that he had tabled a report on the unemployment insurance fund on July 10 which gave an accurate description of the fund, and this could be found on page 2137 of Hansard for July 10. This report shows that as of May 31, 1958, there was a balance of $662,056,156.77. Since two months have elapsed from the date of that report, could the minister advise this committee as to the present standing of the unemployment insurance fund, say at the end of July?
Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester concerning the matter of the increases which have been brought about, may I say that the civil service commission made a recommendation that these increases be put into effect. The former government deferred any action on it, and when this government took office we put it into effect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister would not want to misrepresent the facts. I attended the last meeting of the treasury board of the old government, at which this matter was considered and in which we indicated our approval of these increases but left the implementation to the incoming government.


Michael Starr: I have been advised by the officials of the labour department that what I said is so. Now, the balance-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, sir, is the minister questioning my word as a member of parliament?


Michael Starr: I am taking the word of my officials.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really have a question of privilege now, Mr. Chairman. Since when has it become the rule in this parliament that one member of parliament can go to strangers, who happen by tolerance to be in the house, to question the word of another member? It does seem to me this is one of the most extraordinary things that has ever happened in parliament in my experience. I made a statement on my responsibility as a member of parliament, and the minister got up and said my statement was untrue, and that he confirmed the untruth of it by reference to some strangers who happen to be here by tolerance. It does seem to me this is something that cannot be tolerated by parliament.


Michael Starr: In order to straighten this out-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am serious about this question of privilege.


Michael Starr: I am always serious about these questions. In order to straighten the matter out, I may say that it was not the former government which gave sanction to it. It was the treasury board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman does accept my statement as accurate?


Michael Starr: Yes, that the treasury board gave approval and the former government did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The treasury board was composed of members of the former government.

Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: I want to keep the facts straight. The hon. gentleman was the clerk of the privy council-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, he was a member of the cabinet as minister of citizenship and immigration.


Michael Starr: But he was the clerk of the privy council before that and he knows that government policy is not set by action of the treasury board but by action of the cabinet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to get into a quarrel with the minister for whom I have the greatest possible esteem. I think we really do understand one another. I will repeat what I said. I said that this matter was considered by the treasury board of the old government at its last meeting and was recommended, but that final approval was left to the incoming government. That is what I said, and if that is what the minister agrees with, then we are in complete agreement.


Michael Starr: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I still feel, sir, it was a rather-I expect it was a slip by the minister -serious suggestion that he was referring to strangers in the house to question the word of another hon. member.


Michael Starr: I said, Mr. Chairman, what I know now to be the fact and I think it has been substantiated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that action on this matter was deferred by the former government even though it was approved by the treasury board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not deferred by the previous government because the meeting of the treasury board took place one day or two days before we resigned.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order, please. It was
decided, and there was a ruling made, that we could not discuss the civil service commission under this item 170. I hope that this pleasant discussion between the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has now come to its conclusion. It would be appreciated if we came back to resolution 170 and discussed that. Shall the resolution carry?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer the hon. member's question. He wanted to know what was the balance of the fund at the end of June which was the last figure we have available. It was $644,520,634.54.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is quite evident from the figures just given by the minister, and from the report he tabled in the house on July 10,

that during the last seven months the unemployment insurance fund has been considerably reduced; in fact, that the unemployment insurance commission has in that period paid out $346 million. The fund which was close to $900 million over a year and a half ago is now reduced to something in the vicinity of $600 million and at this rate it is evident that within the next 12 to 18 months the fund will be depleted by at least 60 per cent.
In view of the serious situation, is the minister or is the government as a whole giving consideration to increasing the government's contribution to this fund which is regarded as security for the labour force of this country? It is evident that at the rate the fund has been depleted in the last year more substantial contributions by the federal government will be required.
If the minister does not want to answer that question, could he answer this simple one: Is it the intention of the government to introduce an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase the government's contribution to the fund?


Michael Starr: This government in a short space of time has gained the reputation in this country of giving consideration to all problems which are of importance to our people and certainly this is one such problem.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder if the minister, in view of the fact that he has just stated this government will give consideration to such a measure, could indicate whether there is any difference in his mind between giving consideration, giving active consideration and giving all sorts of other types of consideration, and whether he would indicate to the house what plans the government of which he is a member has for any kind of fulfilment of their primary objective which was said to be the maintenance of full employment. Has he any possible idea of how he is going to do it?


Michael Starr: In answer to that question and in answer to a lot of other suggestions made in this debate I will say we have our own methods with respect to actions which have been taken and which will be taken. We have made recommendations on winter employment and most certainly we have not received any suggestion from any member of the opposition as to how that problem should be solved.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Would the minister indicate what are his solutions? He is one of those who were elected on false pretences as a result of that type of promise.



IB, 1958

John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister wants some suggestions, Mr. Chairman-he says he has not received any from this side of the house- I can assure him we have plenty of suggestions to make but we would prefer to make them in the proper constitutional fashion after the government has brought down its program. It seems to me that when we were elected, in my opinion unhappily for Canada, to oppose the government and the hon. gentlemen were, as I believe it will also turn out unhappily for the country, to conduct the government of this country, they were expected as a responsible government to bring in suggestions to deal with our problems and not to say "We have not heard any suggestions from the other side of the house and so we have no program". That is a preposterous attitude to take and I therefore renew my request to the house leader to have this item stand until the government has made up its mind and can bring down its program before this parliament so that all the elected representatives of the people can debate it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I see that we do not get many answers to that question but could the minister give us one good reason why he does not want item one to stand? This government should try to do something to increase employment in Canada and what we want is not the dole; what we want is work for our unemployed.
If nothing is at present being done to prepare for next winter the load will once again be carried by the municipal and provincial authorities. Thousands and thousands of unemployed are being carried today who are not receiving any benefits because the municipalities have to give them food and they have to pay their rents and, after all, the provincial governments reimburse the municipalities for part of their expenditures in that connection. If we keep on this way many thousands of people will not work during this summer and so they will have no stamps for next winter and will again have to be carried by municipalities which have no means with which to look after them.
The only thing we want to know is whether the government has a policy. We want to know if the Minister of Labour has done something to create work for next winter. I know the Minister of Public Works has a public works program but it is not extensive enough to take care of all the unemployed. What is the Minister of Labour going to do because he is the one responsible for the situation? It is too bad that it happens to be he who is in charge at the present time but
Supply-Labour
it is his responsibility and he and the other members of the cabinet must find the means to solve the problem.
We are asking why will the minister not stand item No. 1. We will pass the rest today and when he has had a chance to discuss the matter with the other members of the cabinet and can come before the house during this session with a program for next winter, then we can deal with item No. 1. Up to now we know nothing; in fact I really think the minister does not know himself what he intends to do and that is not a proper way in which to administer a country, especially in a crisis such as that through which we are passing at the present time.


Mr. McIntosh:: I wonder if I might ask
the minister two questions? Could he tell the house of the number of unemployed in 1956 and the number of new Canadians who have come to Canada since that time?


Alexis Pierre Caron: That does not solve the problem.


Michael Starr: I do not have those figures
available.


Erhart Regier: I cannot allow those questions to pass unnoticed. Their indication is very very clear and it is that immigration is responsible for the level of unemployment. The member ought to know if he does not know-


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I can talk for myself.


Erhart Regier: -that the economic policies of the Canadian government are responsible for unemployment. Several years ago the Canadian Congress of Labour undertook a research program to find out to what extent immigration was responsible for our levels of unemployment and the report indicated very clearly that there was as much for as against the proposition of blaming immigration for unemployment. I hope that this is not an old Tory reaction coming to the fore which we thought had-as in fact the hon. member for Kootenay West said this morning -disappeared from Canada many many long years ago. I refer, of course, to the idea that the newcomers to our country are responsible for the ills which appear on the Canadian scene.
I am not yet convinced that immigration as such is responsible for unemployment and it is very wrong for this government to attempt, even through the mouth of a backbencher, to wash its hands of its responsibilities and to say it is the immigrants the Liberals let in who are responsible for our unemployment difficulties in Canada. I feel we are very right in our demand at the present time that the government should let

Supply-Labour
the Canadian people know what are its plans to meet the problems of the unemployment in Canada, not only winter unemployment but summer unemployment as well. We cannot afford to allow this item to go through and the government go off on its holidays several weeks hence, and let nature take its course and, maybe, end up by having a disaster happen in Canada next winter.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Shall the item carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not think I can let the aspersion made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek pass in the way it has passed up to now, because I had the primary responsibility under the previous administration for quite some time for the immigration program, and I was accused by many members of the present government-and I am not talking now about their supporters-of having too small an immigration program. If they now think they are going to get away with blaming unemployment on the immigration program of the previous government, they have another think coming. I recall that many hon. members spoke on this matter, not least the present Prime Minister, who, speaking to the ethnic press association a few days before the election in June 1957, said we could have a 4 per cent increase per year if we had his government in office. The first thing they did after they came into office was to stop immigration. If they think they can get away with blaming unemployment on immigration they are mistaken, and I ask the minister: does he blame the present unemployment situation on immigration?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not, and I want to say that the last two speeches are purely partizan speeches and an attempt to make a difference between hon. members of this committee, as regards immigration-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot let that pass, either. I did not bring up this subject.


An hon. Member:: Who did?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was brought up by a supporter of the minister who was attempting, by innuendo, to cast aspersions-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He never drew conclusions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. and noisy member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot had better go to the public accounts committee if he wants to find out how to ask questions which contain more than the answers.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.
I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has got off the subject, which

deals with general administration. It is true the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek brought the question into the ring, but I think we should defer any further comments on it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I think I am quite capable of answering for myself. I brought this question up for a reason, because I think you would find that the figures are very much the same as they were. If you add the unemployment figure in 1956 to the immigration figure since that date I would say the figure would be very much the same as the total unemployment today, and I say that this government has done a fine job in keeping employment to that level. I do not think the government is denying that unemployment has increased and that it will present a problem, but I have confidence, and so have the people of Canada, that our government has this problem under consideration and will do all that possibly can be done to remedy it.
Canada is not the only country which is facing this problem, and nothing is to be gained by members of the committee on my right repeating themselves time after time in order to make a political issue out of it. I think the people of Canada will realize what they are doing. This is a problem which the government appreciates, and the government intends to do something about it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The hon. member talks about political issues. He did not have much thought of political issues when the Conservative party was trying to oust the Liberal party from office and when they dragged not only the poor unemployed, but every other political issue in the country into it. He does not have much thought now as to all the promises they gave, promises which they had no intention of keeping. The main promise was that there would be full employment for the working classes. There was no intention of keeping that because the government does not know how to keep that sort of promise. The hon. member who says we are talking politics with regard to this kind of thing has only to look back, not too long ago, to the election before last and see who dragged politics into everything and degraded the word politics in this country by making irresponsible promises which they had no intention of keeping.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the item carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, coming back to the question which was put forward by the hon. member who spoke a while ago-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

The Acling Chairman (Mr. Chown): I think a certain amount of latitude was allowed on that occasion which should not have been allowed. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was allowed to make a comment on it, but I think I will now rule that any further discussion on immigration as related to this item is out of order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I find that very funny, Mr. Chairman, because you cannot read my thoughts, and I did not wish to speak on immigration at all, but on unemployment, which is part of this vote. When the hon. member who has spoken from my left tells us that we are making politics out of unemployment he is trying to say that members of this committee have no right to say here what they think to be right.


An hon. Member:: No such thing.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not think that any member of this committee has the right to tell another member what he should say or what he should not say, and the hon. member will have to learn in time that every member has an equal right here to say whatever he thinks fit. If the hon. member had been here at that time he would have heard the Minister of Labour in 1955 criticizing the government with regard to unemployment, and he was one of the harshest critics at that time.
The present Prime Minister also in 1955 used to criticize the government continually in a very severe fashion. The same thing is true with regard to the hon. member for Hamilton West who, I believe, was the opposition's official critic at the time. She, also, was very harsh in her criticisms of the government of that day. Now they want to stop us from criticizing government which has no policy whatever and which cannot even advise the committee what it intends to do with regard to next winter. I think that is out of place, and if I had been prevented from saying this I would have raised a question of privilege because we have the right to say what we think on these matters as well as any other members of this committee.


Erhart Regier: I notice that the minister has many excellent advisers with him. They are some of the most highly educated men in the country in the field of economics and in other related fields, and I know that the minister pays very close attention to any advice he receives from them. Is the minister able to inform the house as to what reasons his advisers gave him as to why we have this exceptionally high level of ununemployment in Canada at the present time, and what measures they are recommending
Supply-Labour
to him to overcome this problem. Why do we have this high level of unemployment?


Michael Starr: In answer to that, I have been advised by the officials of my department in comparing last year's conditions with the conditions this year, that last year the economy was declining to a marked degree. In comparison, this year the economy is on the upswing at this time.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister for that revealing statement of his to the effect that last year the economy was on the downgrade and this year it is on the upgrade, although this year we have twice as many unemployed as last year. Would the minister elucidate a bit on that point?


Michael Starr: I must frankly admit that at the beginning of last year there were fewer people unemployed than there were at the beginning of this year.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, does the minister have unemployment figures for 1954?


Michael Starr: I do not have them with me, Mr. Chairman.


Azellus Denis: At any rate it is safe to assume that the figure would be three or four times less than the present figure. I should like to place on the record some suggestions made in 1954 by the present Minister of National Defence which in light of the present attitude of the government can only be considered as strange. I refer to the French edition of Hansard, volume II, for the first session 1953-54, February 17, 1954, as found at page 2319 and following pages. I have the French translation of the remarks made on that occasion by the present Minister of National Defence who was then the private hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich at a time when unemployment was far below the level it has reached today and I invite hon. members to listen to what he said at that time:
(Translation) :
"Press reports of the last few days indicated that two battalions will be coming back from Korea very shortly. Approximately 50 per cent of the time-expired men take their discharge. They have done their period of service. Some feel they would like to take on army service as a permanent career. Others feel that they have done their duty by serving for the period of their contract, and they take their discharge.
"I should like to throw out the suggestion that some arrangement should be made whereby men are not released during these periods when there is the greatest seasonal unemployment".
The minister even went so far as to ask the government not to respect its obligation of

Supply-Labour
discharging the soldiers in Korea, even though they were entitled to discharge.
To continue the quotation:
"It seems to me it would not be very difficult for the services to provide some system of, shall we say, vocational training, to tide over that period when a man upon release will go out only to find that, owing to this seasonal unemployment, there is no prospect of finding a job''.


Mr. Parizeau:: What's wrong with that?


Azellus Denis: If it's our friends from Quebec who want to know what's wrong with it, just let them listen to the rest of the quotation:
"Earlier this session I called attention to the fact that there was a shortage of reserves for our armed forces. In my speech last December I quoted at some length statements made by General Gruenther, supreme commander of NATO forces. I am not going to repeat his statements again except to quote a few lines from a speech made by General Gruenther at Copenhagen, when he was addressing United Nations commanders. He said: The creation of adequate reserve forces means that a large proportion of NATO manpower will have to devote a considerable time each year to reserve training. That is inconvenient for the individual concerned and of course it tends to create economic strains.
"It is inconvenient to the individual concerned if he has to do his reserve army or naval training at a time when he is fully employed, but it is not such a great inconvenience to him if his reserve training can take place at a time when he is not employed, owing to the seasonal nature of his employment.
"I would suggest ..."
Remember it is the Minister of National Defence who is speaking.
"-that those men who are periodically laid off because of the seasonal nature of their employment . . . might be provided with army and navy training at that time".
Let this not go unheeded by my good friends from the province of Quebec.


Mr. Tremblay:: What does that mean?


Azellus Denis: "-and who have not become established with the security of their own homes to which they can go when unemployed".
I would like the members from the province of Quebec to listen carefully to what follows: "I would suggest that the extension of reserve naval training for fishermen is a line which might well be investigated by the Minister of Labour or by the committee on industrial relations when they consider this question of seasonal unemployment".
I ask my friends from Quebec to bear in mind that utterance of the Minister of National Defence, and to say here and now whether they endorse what he said at a time when he was a private member, and when unemployment was almost unknown in Canada.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Ignoramus!


Azellus Denis: "The same sort of thing applies with regard to-young men who are employed in the logging camps".
Now, if any members from Quebec have such young men in their ridings and if they are prepared to accept the statement made by the minister when he was a private member, let them rise and say so.
Either he was not in earnest, or else he was trying to get votes from the advocates of compulsory military service. Considering that we now have three or four times more unemployed, the minister's statement in 1954 ought to be all the more valid today.
I would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) if he has the intention-and I would call it an ill-advised intention-of following the advice of the Minister of National Defence.
(Text):


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I am far from happy yet with this bland assurance of the minister about the advice he received from his senior officials. A few moments ago he said that last year the economy was on the downgrade and this year it is on the upgrade. I should like the minister to inform us what evidence he has to support an assurance of that kind. The reports I have seen as to net profits of Canadian corporations, total Canadian production, total income of agriculture and net and real income of labour do not lead me to take an optimistic view of the present condition of our economy and on the basis of those reports I fail to see on what the minister's statement could be founded. I agree that in the field of housing there has been an upturn and an expansion but I should like the minister to indicate what is the basis of the assurance that the economy is on the upgrade this year which leads one by implication to the conclusion that we might hope to see some relief from the problem of unemployment.
On June 17 the Minister of Finance forecast optimistically an increase of 2 per cent but we have since learned that his assumption was based on no solid foundation. The Minister of Labour now tells us that his advisers inform him that our economy is on the upgrade and therefore, by implication, unemployment will cease to be a serious problem. Exactly what is the basis of the minister's assurance?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item
carry?



Erhart Regier: No, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe the minister can get away with a bland statement to the effect that the economy is on the upgrade without producing evidence concerning the foundation of that assurance.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Just keep right on talking.


Erhart Regier: All these men sitting in the gallery are costing the taxpayers a lot of money.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Who is costing the taxpayers money?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, on the problem of unemployment-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You will talk yourself out of the place.


Erhart Regier: May I assure the whip of the government that on the problem of unemployment I will keep talking until the snow comes. If this government thinks that having half a million or a million unemployed is something funny; that their summer holidays are more important than attending to the grocery bills and the mortgage bills of the unemployed, they have another guess coming and four years hence organized labour is going to throw them out. I repeat in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, that the minister ought to account for his statement that the economy this year is on the upgrade. We cannot accept it simply as a statement.


Michael Starr: One of the best indicators is the fact that registrations at our national employment service offices were on the increase as of August last year, but we have shown that there is a steady decline week by week in the registrations at our national employment services offices in recent weeks and although the dominion bureau of statistics figure for mid-July is not available yet-it has not been issued

I venture to predict that on the basis of the national employment service figure of 365,440 on August 7, there will be a very appreciable decrease in the D.B.S. figure for mid-July and even more so in the figure which will come out for mid-August.


Erhart Regier: If the minister should be wrong in that statement of his it would be simply disastrous because, after all, there is nothing new about unemployment figures declining in the month of May and a little less unemployment in June, a little less in July and even less in August. The minister knows
Supply-Labour
that in the summer months the berries have to be picked, the potatoes have to be planted and harvested, the tobacco has to be reaped and so on from one end of Canada to the other. There always is a decline in unemployment in the summer months. I am not very impressed either with this fantastic phrase, as I said before, that there is a decrease in the rate of the increase. I do believe honestly that a medal ought to be awarded to whatever civil servant first invented that phrase in reporting on the state of unemployment in Canada.
The minister's reply meant absolutely nothing, Mr. Chairman. The fact remains that in August we had twice as many unemployed as we had a year ago. The minister says that a year ago our economy was on the downgrade. He says that this year it is on the upgrade. We have twice as many unemployed. The minister has a bit of reconciliation to do. I believe that when he says the economy is on the upgrade he ought to have something more substantial to back up the statement than simply saying, well we are in the summertime and there is less unemployment than there was in the middle of winter.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I see the Prime Minister has come into the house. This is the second time that I have risen to speak on item No. 1, and to speak not at length but as briefly as I can. When I saw him come in I thought I should say briefly to him what has been taking place in his absence. Perhaps he has been listening.


Charles Benjamin Howard: He knows.


Lionel Chevrier: But, in any event, I would like to make an appeal to him. The point is this, Mr. Chairman. In the discussion of item No. 1 there has been a demand from this side of the house as well as from the C.C.F. corner that this item be allowed to stand until some statement is made by the minister concerning the problem of unemployment during the winter months. The minister quite properly has said that the matter is one which is to receive the consideration of the government because of the representations which have been made by the various municipalities. He felt that he could not make a statement until he had an opportunity to discuss the matter with his cabinet colleagues and, as I said, there is no fault to be found with that statement. But I am wondering- and I am appealing to the Prime Minister on this basis-whether this item should not be allowed to stand until some consideration be given to those representations and a statement made in the house.
I am informed, and I believe that such was the case on former occasions. I do know of

Supply-Labour
more than one instance when the first item of the minister's estimates stood until some further consideration could be given to certain matters. I appealed earlier to the leader of the house and suggested to him that if the item were allowed to stand I was sure there would be no difficulty in so far as the remaining items were concerned.
My only reason in rising when I saw the Prime Minister come in was that I felt-as did many hon. members on this side of the house-that it would be taking the house in its confidence if the government was to stand this item so that at a later date it might report on those representations and say what ones, if any of them, could be implemented during the time that parliament will be in recess. I am sure the Prime Minister would not want to do otherwise than to give this suggestion, which is made in all sincerity, due consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the sincerity with which the contribution has been made, but I fail to see that there is any necessity to hold up this item. The minister intends to make further statements and in particular when the unemployment insurance item is before the committee. If, in the circumstances, the hon. gentlemen opposite do not feel that the minister's statement is what they want, I am not going to alter in any way, or suggest an alteration in, the stand that has been taken.
The minister is prepared to answer any question. If the presentations are of such benefit as indicated-and I am sure they are- the minister will naturally want to take them under advisement and consideration. That, however, does not mean that item No. 1 needs to be held up indefinitely.
I must say that as long as hon. gentlemen opposite have a contribution to make I am sure they will continue to discuss item No. 1; but to say to the minister and to the government that we will not pass item No. 1 unless certain statements are made and consideration given to the representations that we have to offer is a perfectly proper stand for the opposition to take; but the taking of that stand is not completely conducive to that spirit that one would expect would prevail in a matter as important as this.
I am always anxious to see the opposition given every opportunity. I must say that throughout this session, as I listen to the contributions that are made, I think of other days when we used to be cut off most peremptorily if we endeavoured to secure information. But that is far from our attitude. As long as questions are asked they will be answered no matter how long it takes. I want to see this debated to the limit. If hon.

gentlemen opposite feel that they have representations that are helpful I am sure the longer we are on this particular item the more beneficial it will be to give our consideration to those questions in order to meet the problem particularly of winter employment which, I think, is the reason for the request that this item be held up.
There are many more items upon which hon. gentlemen can speak. I for one would not want to enter into any arrangement by which an item would be held conditional upon certain eventualities taking place. Hon. gentlemen have their representations to make continually. Nothing is more helpful than any additional suggestions they have, even though they did not bring them into effect when they had the power to do so. Nonetheless, in the retrospect of solitude, beneficial results often follow. No doubt they have suggestions and I welcome them. This is a troublesome problem. If the item under which a general discussion could take place is now before the committee, I am sure the hon. member for Laurier would not expect me to suggest, as long as beneficial ideas are forthcoming, that this item should in any way be set aside and removed from the field of immediate discussion. I say that with great respect for his suggestion. I know that the suggestion was made with a sincere desire to be helpful. My answer to him is in the same spirit.


Lionel Chevrier: May I thank the Prime Minister for his sincerity of approach to the suggestion I made. I should not like him to be under a misapprehension as to what I had suggested. I am afraid that in his reply he indicated that he was under a misapprehension. I did not ask that the item be held up indefinitely.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: In his reply the Prime Minister created the impression that the item be held up indefinitely. That was not my suggestion; far from it. I do not think a request of that nature would be a proper one and I tell the Prime Minister that immediately. That is not my request and I am sure it is not the request of those of us who sit on this side of the house. The only request made was that it be held up so that we might be given the opportunity of hearing the minister with reference to the program for winter employment. The Prime Minister has said, "What suggestions have you to offer? If you have any suggestions, here we are and we will listen to them". The opposition has been saying-and I simply repeat and reiterate

it-that is the responsibility of the government and that it is not the responsibility of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement fairly well answers the earlier request.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly the attitude which the former leader of the opposition took when he sat on this side of the house, namely that the responsibility lay over there on the government side and not on this side of the house. That is why we say to him, with all due respect, that it seems to us that we should be entitled to know before we rise what is the program that is envisaged during the next few months and what is the program envisaged for winter employment. The Prime Minister seemed also to be of the opinion that an attempt was being made to dictate to the government. From what I said previously and from what I am saying now surely there is not the slightest intention of any such attempt. On the contrary, I am making a request and it seems to me to be a reasonable request. If the Prime Minister feels that it is not a reasonable request or if the government feels that it is not a reasonable request, that is all right. I have made the request; they have considered it; they have turned it down. That is fine. But the request is made in that light and in the circumstances that I have stated.
I do not know whether or not I understood the Prime Minister properly but I thought I heard him say that there would be an opportunity for further discussion of this matter under item 179, at which time the minister would make a statement. Was my understanding correct and is it the intention of the minister on item 179 to make a statement about the winter employment program?


Michael Starr: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I said that I would make a statement on unemployment on item 179 but evidently that procedure was not acceptable to the members of the opposition. Since then we have not been able to get down to that item so that I could make that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I just say a word, Mr. Chairman, since I was the one-the hon. member for Laurier was not in the committee at the time-who made the first request to the house leader. 1 should just like to recall what the circumstances were. I had asked the minister-and I think I had done so with great consideration-whether he could give us a report on the conference on winter employment which was held some three or four weeks ago. The minister replied-and I at once agreed quite readily
Supply-Labour
-that he had not had an opportunity of discussing the results of the conference with his colleagues and it would not be proper for him to give a statement to the house on that conference until he had discussed it with his colleagues. We in our party on this side of the house accepted that position at once as a proper one and did not quarrel with the minister at all. Then I rose and, in as considerate terms as I could, asked the house leader whether in those circumstances he would not allow item No. 1 to stand until the government had had a chance to consider its position and the minister could give this report to us with the weight of the government behind it. That is all we have asked for at any time. The request was made in order that we should have the government's position stated to us so that it could be debated.
I recall that on many occasions, when we were sitting on the treasury benches, situations of that kind arose when members of the opposition, for one reason or another, asked for information that was not immediately available and items were held up by ministers until the information could be obtained and other items were gone on with. That is all that our request was, namely that instead of dealing with this item we go on and deal with the rest of the items of the department, and that it be allowed to stand until the government had had an opportunity to consider the results of this conference and report to us.


Erhart Regier: All I want to say before we pass this item is this, Mr. Chairman; and I can assure the house that we are now prepared to end our part in the discussion on this item. We attempted to find out from the minister what, in the opinion of the government, was the cause of the seriously high number of unemployed in Canada. The minister in effect said that last year the economy was on the downgrade and that this year the economy is on the upgrade. That is the only explanation he had to offer as to why this year in the month of August we had twice as many unemployed as we had a year ago. That statement is entirely unacceptable as an explanation from a responsible minister of labour.
Then we further asked what are the intentions of the government not only in relation to a winter employment program but with regard to solving the problem. How does this government propose to obtain the objective of full employment which, I am sure, all members of this government share. We received no reply whatsoever on that score, except an indication of a reply in the comments of the Prime Minister, when he

Supply-Labour
assured us that this matter was a responsibility of the government. As we pointed out earlier, we had that assurance six months ago from one end of Canada to another. The statistics now show that that assurance did not mean a thing in that unemployment is at an exceptionally high level for this season of the year. We expressed our dissatisfaction at this time that this parliament is again willing to shelve its responsibility and to place its faith completely and blindly in the government, thinking that the government is going to solve this problem and that consultation and action on the part of parliament will not be necessary.
We maintain that this problem is not going to be met without the advice and action of the House of Commons of Canada. We feel that it is playing with human lives, it is playing with the welfare of the Canadian economy, to put such blind confidence in the members of the government in connection with this serious problem.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am sure that the Prime Minister recalls those words which he addressed to the previous administration when he said that, day after day, week after week, they were determined not to supply the opposition with information. Just a while ago he stated that the Minister of Labour was prepared to answer any questions addressed to him. I have a simple question. Can the Minister of Labour advise this committee if positive recommendations have been offered to him by the provincial-federal conference which took place in Ottawa a few weeks ago in connection with winter unemployment?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It was not entirely a provincial-federal conference. It was a conference in which many organizations participated and gave their thoughts and ideas to us. There are some very good suggestions in that report, some suggestions that can be put into effect immediately and others on a long-term basis. As I said, it will be submitted for action, so that the government can segregate those that can be put into effect immediately for immediate results, and those that can be brought into effect to give results on a long-term basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
172.	Annuities Act-administration, $1,178,839.
Erhart Regier: Might I ask the minister if he can report on the progress that has been made in connection with a certain matter concerning employees who change from one employer to another? What I have in mind is that, in effect, the annuities branch may become the means of establishing a transferable pension plan. Are more pension plans

entering the annuities branch? We know there are many industrial enterprises in Canada who, upon setting up pension plans, have agreed with the unions that those pension funds shall be invested in the annuities branch of the federal government. If an employee moves and can find a new employer who also has his pension plan under the annuities branch, then in effect that employee has a transferable pension plan or what is sometimes called a portable pension plan. Are more pension funds being invested in the annuities branch of the Department of Labour or has the number become less?


Michael Starr: The government administers its own pensions, and so far as other pensions are concerned or the act of transferring from one to the other, that matter has been given study but to date no action has been taken and no changes have been made.


Erhart Regier: I do not think the minister realized what I was saying. I will use an example of which I am aware. The Brack-man-Ker Milling Company in New Westminster has a pension plan. These funds, to which the employer and the employee contribute, are invested and there is purchased for the individual concerned an annuity with the federal government annuities branch of the Department of Labour. Now, an employee leaving the employment of Brackman-Ker Milling Company and entering the employ of another industry anywhere else in Canada could, in effect, have what is often described in Canada as a portable pension plan if he could find another enterprise whose pension funds were also invested in the annuities branch of the Department of Labour.
I was asking the minister if he was aware of either an increase in the number of industrial enterprises who have invested their pension funds in the annuities branch, or a decrease?


Michael Starr: As I understand the hon. member's question, it is this: If a person works for one firm which has a group plan in which he participates, and leaves the employment of this particular company to find employment with another one which has also a government annuity plan, then can a transfer be made? I am advised that it is not transferable but remains as an annuity in the firm for which he has worked up to $120 a year. It is not redeemable until the age of retirement.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister now able to advise whether there are more companies using the facilities of the annuities branch than there were a year ago?


Michael Starr: The total number of individual contracts issued is 182,147. In 1957, there were 5,937 individual contracts issued and in 1958, 6,701, or an increase of approximately 800.


Erhart Regier: I am sure the minister agrees that a transferable pension plan for the workers of Canada is a desirable thing, and that it would be of immense advantage not only to Canadian employees but also to Canadian employers in that it would enable the discrimination that presently exists against older workers to be eliminated. Does the minister not consider that the annuities branch might well explore this field, and might profitably devote a little of its publicity to the possibilities that exist in the annuities branch for the working people of Canada? I realize that today there are some very high priced insurance men in Canada going from one industrial enterprise to another and spending a lot of their time in one union office after another. They do their best to persuade the union offices and the executives of Canadian enterprises to invest their pension plan funds in company A, B, C or whatever else it may be. However, these people who work in the interests of these insurance companies will never bother to inform either the union officials or the corporation executives of the existence of the annuities branch of the Department of Labour.
Does the minister not agree that a very useful service might be performed for the welfare of the working people if the annuities branch made both employers and union organizations aware of the possibilities of establishing a transferable pension plan through advantage being taken by investing pension funds in the annuities branch?


Michael Starr: There is a problem of investment where the employer and the employed contribute and there seems to be a difficulty in bringing about any such change. However, I will look into the situation and see what are the possibilities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
173.	Industrial relations activities, including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $593,133.
Mr. Carter:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister some anomalies which have resulted from the method by which prevailing rates are determined by his officials.
I understand that the Department of Labour has officials in certain branches whose duty it is to take samplings of prevailing rates
Supply-Labour
in certain areas and that these rates are used as a basis for the wages paid to people employed by the federal government as casual labourers, people who are employed seasonally and in some cases as full-time workers. In 1939 when the United States government decided to build bases in Newfoundland we came up against this problem. The wage scale for various crafts paid by the United States government were far in excess, sometimes even double those paid locally and while the U.S. government was quite willing to pay the same rates to Newfoundland employees, the commission of government at that time stepped in and set up an arbitrary scale of wages to be paid to Newfoundlanders working at the U.S. bases. We therefore had the situation where Newfoundlanders and United States citizens would be working on the same job, side by side, doing exactly the same work, with the United States citizen getting twice and three times as much as the local labourer.
After confederation we thought we had got rid of this sort of thing but it has only recently come to our attention that this same thing is still being practised as a result of the policy of the fixing of local rates by the Department of Labour. As a result we get a situation such as the one with respect to the hydrographic service which for the past two or three years has conducted surveys for the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. In this case two small boats of about 40 feet in size have been working in my own riding and it has come to my attention that these two boats, of exactly the same size and doing exactly the same work, are being paid different rates because the crew of one was recruited in Nova Scotia while the crew of the other was recruited in Newfoundland. The difference in the rates is fairly substantial and I think that is a very serious inequity which should be corrected.
As a result of this practice officials employed by the Department of Transport such as assistant lighthouse keepers, and assistant foglamp keepers are suffering from very tremendous inequities as a result of this policy. So much so that the assistant keeper who has exactly the same duties as the man in charge and who has exactly the same hours of work -the only difference in their responsibilities being the sending in of a monthly report-gets sometimes even less than half the salary of the keeper. In addition to this the keeper gets two or three weeks' holiday with pay and has other advantages, such as the provision of his coal, which are not available to the assistant keepers. This is a very serious matter which should be corrected. I do not know the full answer but personally I believe

Supply-Labour
this government should adhere to the policy laid down by the parliament several years ago when we agreed to the principle of equal pay for equal work in respect of women. I do not see why the same principle should not apply to men, particularly when government employees are involved. People employed by the federal government on identical jobs are certainly entitled to get exactly the same pay. The federal government is a very peculiar employer if it puts into effect one set of rates for Canadians in one part of the country and another set of rates into effect for Canadians in another part of the country even though they do exactly the same work.
The same policy is also in effect outside of Canada for in our embassies we employ local labour subject to the conditions I have outlined above. I happened to be in South America and I found that we had stenographers and secretaries in our embassies who had gone down there from Canada and were being paid wonderful salaries, in addition to which they received cost of living allowances because they were away from home which were up in the thousands while in the same embassies South American citizens were employed at much lower rates who were even more capable than our own people, people who could speak three or four languages. I know of one girl in particular who was a competent stenographer and who was fluent in four languages yet, simply because she was a citizen of that country, she was getting less than a quarter of what we were paying our own people. I think this gives Canada a very bad name and certainly does not enhance our prestige in foreign countries. I hope the minister will take an interest in this question and will do something to straighten it out as quickly as possible.
I think part of the trouble is that too small a sample is taken and that if we must have this sampling procedure, and if we cannot go the whole-hog, then we should at least set up one set of prevailing rates for the maritimes, another for central Canada and another for the west. There certainly should not be such a wide discrepancy in the rates for Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as obtains at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
174.	Civilian rehabilitation branch, including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council, $197,035.
Alexis Pierre Caron: Would the minister tell the house if the province of Quebec is participat-

ing in this program for the rehabilitation
of disabled persons?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman it is not.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Was the province of Quebec participating before this year?


Michael Starr: No it has never participated. Item agreed to.
Item 175 agreed to.
Vocational Training Co-ordination-
176. Administration, $109,040.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: When I spoke on the first item that was discussed, I dealt with this matter briefly. I would now ask the minister if he would explain to us how this vocational training is administered; what are the procedures followed, and who has the responsibility for making applications? I should be glad to have information along those lines.


Michael Starr: Under this program the provinces take the initiative. In other words, they make up the programs that they want to launch and then they approach the federal government for its participation. This is done on the basis of 50 per cent.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister able to answer the question I put to him on item 1? Can he give us a breakdown of the amounts paid to each of the provinces in the past fiscal year under the vocational training plan so that we may know which provinces are participating and to what extent?


Michael Starr: Here is a list of the payments made under the vocational training plan to each of the provinces during the fiscal year 1957-1958:
Newfoundland. $158,093.58 Prince Edward Island, $62,555.54 Nova Scotia, $445,935.78 New Brunswick, $277,254.99 Quebec, $2,848.84


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister give that figure again?


Michael Starr: It is $2,848.84. That was just for training affecting members of the armed forces for which a request was made. There is nothing there under vocational and technical assistance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does that mean that the government of Quebec did not participate in that program?


Michael Starr: That is right.
The list continues:
Ontario, $536,725.19 Manitoba, $347,022.68 Saskatchewan, $337,739.56 Alberta, $1,370,164.51

British Columbia, $673,646.14
Northwest Territories, $2,544.68
The Yukon did not participate.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Has the province of Quebec ever participated otherwise than in the military program?


Michael Starr: I am told that the province of Quebec participated in the vocational schools assistance program from 1945 to 1957, but they have not as yet signed any new agreement.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could the minister tell us the reasons given by the province of Quebec for not participating further?


Michael Starr: They have not given any
reasons, but we have offered to enter into a new agreement with them and they have not as yet responded.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Can the minister tell me what would have been the amount for the province of Quebec if that province had accepted?


Michael Starr: It would depend upon what program the province was prepared to launch on its own. It is hard to say what their plans might have been.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What was the amount which the province of Quebec received in the last year it participated in this program?


Chesley William Carter: I did not quite get the figure for Newfoundland. I wonder if it could be repeated.


Michael Starr: I can give the hon. member for Hull the total figure from April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1957 for the province of Quebec. From 1945 to 1957 the total was $3,139,400. These are the capital payments.


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is no breakdown for the last year in which they received any payment?


Michael Starr: No. The assistance in school construction for the same period for the province of Quebec amounted to $7,460,262.44.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is for school construction. That is from 1945 to 1957, is it?


Michael Starr: The first figure I gave was school construction and the second was vocational schools payments.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I want to make it quite clear. What are the figures from 1945 to 1957 for school construction?


Michael Starr: 


Alexis Pierre Caron: And $7,460,262 was for vocational training?


Michael Starr: Assistance in training costs.


Alexis Pierre Caron: And it was for the same period, from 1945 to 1957?
Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: That is right.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is about $550,000 a year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo asked a question about the figure for Newfoundland.


Michael Starr: Oh yes, I did give it, but I have to repeat it. It was a total of $158,093.58.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government Employees Compensation-
178.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $98,413.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: On this item I have a few questions which I believe the minister is prepared to answer. On what date did this act become operative and how many claims have been made under the act to date? Could the minister supply this information?


Michael Starr: The act came into being in 1918, 40 years ago, and since that time we have had 263,000 accident claims.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Of those claims what number were fatal accidents and how many were classed as claims relating to total and permanent disability?


Michael Starr: There were 357 fatal accidents in the 40 years. Although the average has been higher in the last 12 years, 70 per cent are minor accidents involving no lost time and about 100 a year are permanent disabilities mostly of the permanent-partial type.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What was the total amount paid out under the act since it became effective?


Michael Starr: Twenty three million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-Unemployment Insurance Commission-
179.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the Act, $31,784,500.
Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct the attention of the minister for a few minutes to the current dissatisfaction that exists in the province of Newfoundland concerning the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. His attention has already been called to this question by other hon. members from that province who have participated in this debate and also indeed this was accomplished in discussions I have held with the minister on previous occasions.
The dissatisfaction arises from two sources. The first is that claims requiring processing have to be sent from Newfoundland to Moncton, New Brunswick. This sometimes results

Supply-Labour
in delays which are caused by weather conditions involving slowness of delivery of mail and so on. The other factor relates to the general geographic conditions that obtain in the province of Newfoundland. I would point out, for instance, that the total area of Newfoundland is approximately 153,000 square miles and a population of 425,000 people is sparsely scattered over this vast area. This creates difficulties when one takes into consideration the fact that the unemployment insurance commission has only three offices in the entire province.
It has been suggested that the office in St. John's is the largest in the Atlantic region. I urge the minister and his officials to give consideration to effecting a change in the administration of the act under which it would be possible for claims to be finalized in St. John's without having to be referred to Moncton. This would considerably speed up the processing of claims.
Another question raised by hon. members from Newfoundland concerned a request that consideration be given to sending more men into the field to process claims all over Newfoundland and indeed on the coast of Labrador in order that fishermen and loggers will not have to suffer undue delay in receiving unemployment insurance payments. This is of considerable importance to a province that has a serious seasonal unemployment problem. I would remind the minister that many large national companies including banks, insurance companies and even the Canadian National Railways have seen the wisdom of setting up a special Newfoundland region because the problems of the province are not directly related to those of the maritime provinces and in fact are quite different from the point of view of geography, the economy and so forth.
In closing I would also ask the minister and his officials to give consideration to the erection of a new building in St. John's to house the huge staff of the unemployment insurance office. As the officials are probably aware the staff is presently housed in a temporary building erected by the Canadian navy during world war II. I submit that these quarters are most unsatisfactory and not conducive to the proper processing of claims. I ask the minister and his officials to give serious consideration to these recommendations.


Mr. McBain:: Mr. Chairman, as an hon. member who represents a tobacco producing area I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee what appears to be a tobacco job racket that flourishes at this time of year. I regret to have to say this racket appears to operate from certain

centres in the province of Quebec. Apparently these operators advertise that they can furnish jobs in the tobacco areas of Ontario for the harvesting of the tobacco crop. Prospective workers are required to pay a certain sum of money for transportation to the area. Unfortunately upon their arrival in the tobacco-producing areas of Ontario those individuals who have sought employment find jobs are not available and they are among the many hundreds of people seeking work. If they are lucky they may have sufficient money to get back home but if they have insufficient funds they are left stranded in those areas.
What I wish to suggest is that the national employment offices in Montreal and other areas of Quebec give wider publicity to this kind of labour racket which is carried on by a very few individuals. May I also suggest that persons seeking work in the harvesting of tobacco in Ontario should consult their unemployment insurance offices to ascertain if any jobs are available before going to the tobacco producing areas of that province.


Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to say a few words about the unsatisfactory way in which the claims of Newfoundlanders for unemployment insurance are processed and administered. I wish to make it clear I am not criticizing the personnel of the department but in Newfoundland we have certain conditions that do not obtain in other parts of Canada and I think the Department of Labour should adjust itself to those conditions because certainly they have existed for thousands of years and are not going to adjust themselves to the Department of Labour.
There are many things that could be done to speed up the processing of unemployment insurance claims in Newfoundland. As I have travelled throughout the province I have had occasion to fill out forms for people not able to do it for themselves. While on the surface the forms appear fairly simple yet there is some confusion created by the fine print. In my experience in filling in forms I have been uncertain just how much information I should fill in on the form. I believe the forms could be simplified still more.
Another matter which considerably aggravates the situation relates to the date on which the form must be filled in. I believe for the purposes of the administration of the act the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. In many areas of Newfoundland there is slow mail service. In some areas delivery is only once a week, or ten days, and in winter it frequently is two weeks or even longer. A man filling in the form knows that the mail is coming at a certain date and

he will put the date on. The inherent honesty of those people compels them to put down that date. They could put a false date and everything would be all right, but because they put down the exact date when they make out the form, and that date does not conform to the date required by the department, when it gets in, after travelling eight or 10 days, to the unemployment office the clerk looks at the date and immediately says that the date is wrong and sends it all the way back to him again to be corrected. It takes perhaps another three or four weeks before it gets back to him and he has to wait for another mail and send it back again, and all because he was honest enough to put the right date on it.
Our people in the local office should be familiar enough with the conditions to know that in those outports when a fisherman particularly fills in one of those forms he is not going to work the day after and continue working for any lengthy period. I think the practice of returning forms to claimants for such a trivial cause is unnecessary and causes a lot of unnecessary annoyance.
Something more could be done to facilitate those claims if the clerks in the office would watch when the mail closes, because the mails for certain parts of Newfoundland close on a certain date and the claims that are being adjusted for that period should be in the mail on that date. If they are posted the day after, then they just lie in the post office for another week or 10 days until the mail comes again, and that is an unnecessary delay which could be corrected if the clerks were watching the closing of the mails.
I have often thought that the office in St. John's should be organized on a sort of district basis so that certain clerks would be dealing with claims coming from a certain part of the island and would have the responsibility of seeing that those claims got in the mail at the proper time in order that there would be no unnecessary delay.
Another cause of great annoyance-and again unnecessary annoyance-is the refusal or the failure of the office to reply to correspondence. Almost every letter I get complaining about delay in adjustment of claims states that the writer has written to the unemployment office two or three times. Sometimes they telegraph two or three times and have not had the courtesy of receiving a reply. That not only causes a great deal of annoyance but undermines confidence in the department itself. These things are unnecessary, Mr. Chairman, and I do hope the minister will take whatever steps are possible to have them corrected.
Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make some remarks because of the representations which were made by the hon. member for St. John's East and yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and last night also in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act and by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I must say that after all there has been a handicap in the operation of the unemployment insurance this year simply because it was our first experience with fishermen coming under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Most certainly it was expected that there would be some anomalies that through experience would have to be corrected as they were brought forward. I think that with one year's experience in this matter we shall see that some of these things are cleared up to the satisfaction of those who are the recipients of unemployment insurance.
Last night the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said that I would have no objection to the fact that it was the previous government that brought the fishermen under the act. I agree readily that that is so. I have no objection to that, but it was this government which brought forward legislation to give them an additional two months on a permanent basis and also an additional six weeks after that period for this year.
I have noted the representations made in this regard and most certainly we shall look into the situation to see how some of those anomalies can be rectified.
As to the Unemployment Insurance Act itself, I want to say to the committee that I have submitted certain suggestions to the unemployment insurance commission and suggestions, 1 might say, which reflect a major change in unemployment insurance, necessitating a great deal of study. Some of those recommendations were studied in the unemployment insurance advisory committee in the early part of July. They are convening again on August 19 to study the remainder of the suggestions, and I hope that when the recommendations are received from them I shall have the opportunity of getting the approval of the government and bringing them before parliament next session. I had hoped it might be this session but it certainly does not look as though that may be possible. I should like to see those amendments given thorough study and be referred to the industrial relations committee.
I said at the outset that I would make a statement on unemployment. Because of the continued debate we have had this afternoon I must admit at once that I have already given considerable information regarding the winter employment conference, which relates to this, and X have also

Supply-Labour
covered other aspects that have been raised as the debate progressed this afternoon. Generally speaking, I think the committee will agree that since becoming Minister of Labour I have dealt fully and frankly with the problem of unemployment. Possibly in doing so I have dealt with it in some instances with restrained optimism-


William Moore Benidickson: What does that mean?


Michael Starr: It is optimism with some restraint. I have never made any attempt-


Lionel Chevrier: It means frankly but not fully.


Michael Starr: I have never made any attempt at any time, I think, to lull this house as to the fullest extent of the problem which we have faced and we did face it last winter, and I think there is every likelihood that we are facing it now. But I would also say that this is a problem which this government faced in the past and faced firmly, and will face it as it comes before us again in the future.
I want to say at once, Mr. Chairman, that the government's firm and quick action last year in dealing with this unemployment last winter, resulted in keeping our economy much more firmly in balance than was the case in some other countries and perhaps much more so than was expected. I think the steps that were taken by the government, and above all the knowledge that the government was prepared to take steps, had a profound psychological effect in building up public confidence last winter. I found that as I travelled across this country, particularly last spring, and had the opportunity of visiting our offices and seeing what effect it did have, and I was heartened by what was being done.
What is the present situation? From the information at my disposal I would say that in the last couple of months there has been a considerable improvement in our general situation. This improvement has reflected itself in the fact that where a year ago unemployment was rising at a faster than seasonal rate, it is now declining at a faster than seasonal rate, and this is borne out by the economists of our department who did not, I must admit frankly, anticipate that this trend would take place at this time of the year.
In recent months we have seen the effects of the action taken by the government last fall. There was a tremendous upswing in domestic housing construction and a steady rise in retail sales. This may be traced directly to government action in pumping money into housing and in keeping up purchasing power with extended social

security payments, assistance to municipalities, in dealing with unemployment assistance to farmers and fishermen. These too have had their effect. Then there was the announcement by the government of its readiness to undertake large capital expansion projects such as Saskatchewan irrigation and maritime power. I think all of these things have been reflected in increased public confidence.
In regard to my own department, may I say that I was most pleased that the Leader of the Opposition was good enough yesterday to register interest in what we were doing about the situation. The extension of benefits during the winter and spring, of course, is familiar to all members of this house. The continuing emphasis on placement by the national employment service I have already mentioned. This will continue at an accelerated pace and has, I might say, begun to show an effect in recent months. Our winter employment campaign last winter was the most ambitious one ever undertaken by the department. This year we are asking for $150 thousand again. I would suggest to hon. members that the results of this campaign do not linger entirely in the realm of academic conjecture. I myself have seen evidence, as I mentioned earlier, of how this campaign was working out.
There is no need for me to refer to the winter employment conference because I think I have dealt with it to the fullest possible extent. The recommendations will be put before the cabinet for their consideration and action. We are taking this action. We propose to take more action as it becomes necessary. I can assure this house that we recognize our responsibility and that we will face up to it. We have done so in the past and we will do so in the future.
I just want to illustrate what I meant by the fact that there is a decline where there was an increase in our employment which is more than seasonal. The figure for registrations on July 10 this year stood at 83 per cent higher than for the same date last year. The figure for July 17 was 60 per cent higher than last year; and the figure for July 31 was only 45 per cent higher than last year. Since then we have noticed a continual drop in our registrations, a fact which indicates that there is a downward trend in unemployment whereas last year at the same period there was an upward trend. On the basis of these figures I say that there will be a considerable drop in the D.B.S. figures in mid-July. There is bound to be because the N.E.S. figures indicate that. Most certainly there will be a decrease in the D.B.S. figures for midAugust. That is all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman.


Chesley William Carter: There is just one question which I omitted to ask when I was on my feet earlier. Last night in his opening remarks the minister referred to the table appearing on page 2137 of Hansard with respect to the unemployment insurance fund. I think that table was placed there in reply to a question which I put on the order paper. I wonder whether the minister could bring us up to date by giving us the corresponding figures of contributions or payments for June and also for July, if they are available.


Michael Starr: The last figures we have are for the month of June. I do not know what was shown on the table that was placed on Hansard. Was it for the end of May?


Chesley William Carter: Yes.


Michael Starr: The only additional group of figures we have is for the month of June. The contributions of employers and employees for June were $14,885,735.42; government, $2,972,973.64. Do you want the figures right across the page?


Chesley William Carter: Yes.


Michael Starr: Fines and penalties, $4,193.82; interest on investment and profit on sale of securities-


Chesley William Carter: No. I do not think we need those figures. I should just like to have the contributions and the withdrawals or benefit payments.


Michael Starr: The figure for ordinary benefit payments was $26,021,851.26; supplementary and seasonal, $10,941,005.65; or a total of $36,962,856.91.


Chesley William Carter: I thank the minister.


Mr. Spencer:: Before this item passes there is one matter on which I should like to speak for just a moment and concerning which I should like to ask the minister a question. It has to do with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, particularly as it affects workers in the community of greater Windsor and in fact all the ridings in Essex county. For that matter, I think it also applies to many other ridings in which there is a fair percentage of workers engaged in the automobile industry. It is my understanding that this is a matter which the government inherited in that it concerns the administration of regulations which were in effect at the time this government came into office. It is a matter which I have discussed with the minister and for the benefit of our community I should like to have some assurance that it is receiving consideration from the government. I think it is of particular
57071-3-234
Supply-Labour
importance because of the fact that the automobile industry in this present recession has suffered a great deal more than has any other manufacturing industry. It is of particular concern to the people of my riding in that the greater percentage of the workers in the industrial area of Windsor are engaged in the automobile industry.
At the present time, as I understand it, benefits are derived under the act based upon the contributions made by the worker during the last immediately preceding 30 weeks of employment. We all know that because of the depressed condition of the automobile market the workers hours of employment were reduced during each working week. Their contributions, of course, have been reduced accordingly. Their benefits are reduced where their contributions have been thus reduced. That condition continued for a substantial period of time until finally in many instances lay-offs took place in the industry and the workers then, of course, applied for benefits under the act. The suggestion has been made that instead of benefits being based upon the contributions made during the last immediately preceding 30 weeks of a period of some 104 weeks, they be based upon an average over the period of 104 weeks. I should like to know whether the minister is giving that matter consideration and whether we may look for some relief.


Michael Starr: I have had this matter referred to me by others who are interested, and I thank the hon. member for bringing it again to my attention. When the unemployment insurance advisory committee meets on August 19, that will be one of the problems with which they will be dealing at that time.


Mr. Badanai:: May I ask the hon. member for Essex West why he did not vote for the amendment to reduce the excise tax on automobiles when it was introduced a few weeks ago?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am
afraid I have to rule that question out of order.


William Moore Benidickson: I have my eye on the
clock, as I see the minister has, too. I do not want to hold up his estimates. We have had some correspondence about the matter of decentralization where, in my opinion and perhaps the minister's opinion, it is justified, having regard to some of the views of the unemployment insurance commission that centralization is a very desirable thing in its administration. I have in mind the need, particularly in these times, of service at

Supply-Labour
Dryden and Atikokan. I do not want to pursue it. I do not even want the minister to reply at the moment, because he did write me about two weeks ago in a very informative way. However, I am serious about this, as he knows. I had some association with the treasury board and I am conscious of the desire to reduce administrative costs wherever it is possible. I believe the minister has been up in our territory and he knows that we have a very big area to cover, particularly in a winter such as the one we have gone through. The distance to be travelled can be from 150 miles to 300 miles for these individuals who have to deal with the unemployment insurance office. I think that is important. I feel that perhaps we are a little overstaffed at Fort William, and perhaps we could take one or two men from Kenora in order to serve Atikokan and Dryden. I am not asking for an increase in overhead, but I am asking for greater service to the individual who may be concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Annuities Act-
571.	Administration-further amount required, $58,000.
Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not want to take very long, but I have a question to ask of the minister. I have been informed that when the amount does not exceed $10 per month the person concerned can get his money back. I was told this in the committee. If the amount exceeds $10 per month a man has to wait until he is sixty-five to get it. I have met people who because of ill health were unable to continue in their employment and were unable to find work for which they were fit. They could not get their contributions, which were around $12 a month, returned. I am wondering if the law could not be changed so that people could get their money returned up to a higher amount, especially at this time when there is hardship in Canada. Sometimes they want to start a small restaurant or other commercial enterprise, buy a truck to earn their living, and the only money on which they could lay their hands would be the money which is in these annuities. Would it be possible for the minister to study the matter to see if the amount could not be increased to $20 or $25 a month, so that these fellows could get their money back and start some new enterprise with this money?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
573. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act-further amount required, $1,489,434.
Erhart Regier: I am sure this will only take a minute. Is the minister able to say whether or not he has considered opening more offices of the unemployment insurance commission in the urban areas or is his policy also one of centralization?


Michael Starr: My policy is not one of centralization. Personally, I feel we should give as great a service as it is possible to give to those who need to use our offices. I am continually asking the commission to consider the establishment of offices, providing it is economical to establish them. In other words, there would have to be a sufficient number of people making use of that office. Most certainly we do not want an office in an isolated area where there is no business for it, so to speak. I believe that we should have as many offices as is necessary in order to give as good a service as we possibly can to the people of Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: I just ask the minister to look at the statistics, as I have done. I do not blame him, because I have had arguments with his predecessors about this very same problem. If he will look at the percentage of time spent by the staff of the Fort William office with reference to people from Atikokan, which is almost 100 miles away, I am sure he will feel that there could be some division of staff without any increase in public expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.

Lionel Chevrier: I take it that the business on Monday is as announced last night?


Howard Charles Green: There is one change in the order. We are inclined to take order No. 8 on today's order after item No. 7 on today's order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the change, would the minister mind outlining the program again for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Well, the first three items will be those standing in the name of the Minister of Venerans Affairs; then, item No. 7, having to do with the national capital plan; item No. 8, having to do with the setting up of a national parole board; item No. 12, the resolution preceding an amendment to the Railway Act; item No. 14, emergency gold mining resolution; item No. 17, the resolution preceeding the bill in connection with maritime coal; then, the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of National

Revenue under government notices of motions which has to do with broadcasting; then, item No. 6, second reading of a bill to amend the Financial Administration Act; item No. 9, second reading of a bill to amend the Customs Tariff; item No. 5, second reading of a bill to amend the Income Tax Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Will we continue with that business on Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure of that. The house would have to be prepared to take any of those on Tuesday and also possibly the second reading of the act to amend the Customs Act and the act to amend the trust companies and
Business of the House
loan companies acts, both of which have been referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. We might also take on Tuesday the resolution which is No. 13 on today's order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give any indication as to when the Radio Act will come up.


Howard Charles Green: I have already listed the resolution which precedes the act having to do with broadcasting.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.
57071-3-234i
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Meunier: What grants were made to the hospitals of the province of Quebec under the national health program from 1948 to the 1st of June, 1957, for (a) construction: (b) hygiene, health services: (c) other hospital services?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
(a) $22,798,003; (b) and (c) $26,178,303.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply!:



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
170.	Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates and the expenses of the international labour conferences (also includes the former labour Gazette, women's bureau and manpower utilization votes), $1,067,166.
171.	To provide for expenses of the economics and research branch, including research grants and related expenses, $663,198.
172.	Annuities act-administration, $1,178,839.
173.	Industrial relations activities, including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $593,133.
174.	Civilian rehabilitation branch, including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $197,035.
Special services-
175.	To provide for expenses of the special services branch including expenses for the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, and the movement, reception, supervision and welfare of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other
essential employment where Canadian labour is not available to meet the need, $602,618.
Vocational Training Co-ordination-
176.	Administration, $109,040.
177.	To provide for carrying out the purposes of
the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act and agreements made thereunder:	to authorize the
Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province on terms approved by the governor in council to provide financial assistance to vocational schools, and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $7,655,900- payments to the provinces, $7,355,900.
Government Employees Compensation-
178.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $98,413.
B-Unemployment Insurance Commission-
179.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act, $31,784,500.
180.	To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $75,000.
A-Department-
General administration-
Annuities Act-
571. Administration-further	amount required, $58,000.
572.	To authorize the payment of interest, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, out of the government annuities account, at a rate determined from time to time by the governor in council, on premiums being refunded that were paid under a contract entered into with Her Majesty pursuant to subsection (3) of section 6 of the Government Annuities Act where such premiums are in excess of the amount required to purchase the maximum annuity payable under that act to an employee of the purchaser because the retirement of the employee has been postponed beyond his normal retirement date; the said interest to be payable for the period from the day on which the excess premiums were received by Her Majesty to the day on which the refund is made, $1.
B-Unemployment Insurance Commission-
573.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act-further amount required, $1,489,434.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 18, 1958