1958-08-15

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) presented the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a statement in connection with the Doukhobor situation in British Columbia.
The government of Canada has been following closely the developments in the Kootenay area of British Columbia where, for many years, acts of violence, damage to property and disorder have been occurring. These occurrences have recently spread to other parts of the interior of British Columbia. The dominion government has shared the concern felt by all, and especially the citizens of British Columbia, over this situation.
While maintaining the view that the constitutional responsibility for the maintenance of law and order continues to be that of the province, the government of Canada has felt that the most recent series of outbreaks, especially, have demanded a readiness on its part to give sympathetic consideration to co-operating with the province in any specific request or proposal put forward by the province which offers real possibility of a solution of the problem.
In accordance with this spirit, representatives of the dominion government have recently participated in extensive negotiations with representatives of the government of British Columbia in connection with a particular suggestion advanced by the latter as a solution to the problem. This involves the suggestion that members of the Doukhobor sect associated with the sons of freedom, who have for many years insisted that they are in conscience unable to accept and
abide by the laws of this country, be assisted in their expressed desire to emigrate to Russia.
In the course of these discussions, and in keeping with the attitude outlined above, the dominion government indicated to the province its willingness to accept a generous share of the burden of implementing this proposal. As a result of these discussions, the following joint statement has been agreed to by the two governments. The text is as follows:
This statement is made by the governments of Canada and British Columbia jointly in the belief that certain members of the Doukhobor sect associated with the sons of freedom earnestly desire to leave Canada forever and is made for the purpose of establishing the intention of the two governments to co-operate so that those persons may carry out their desire.
Those desiring to take advantage of this offer will be required to declare their intention on or before the 30th day of September, 1958, and arrangements will be made to complete migration as soon as possible after this date. Those desiring to leave Canada should at once communicate with the office of the dominion director of citizenship and immigration in Vancouver or with the government agent at Grand Forks, Rossland or Nelson in the province of British Columbia.
The governments of Canada and British Columbia are agreed that upon being advised by the U.S.S.R. that the Soviet union will accept applying Douk-hobors of that sect as immigrants into that country:
(1)	the governments will assist and co-operate with individuals, families and groups desiring to migrate, in the furnishing and securing of all necessary documents, visas and passports required for the purpose;
(2)	the government of British Columbia will assist in restoring to their parents custody of their children for whom parents make application for the purpose of emigration from Canada;
(3)	reasonable financial assistance will be provided (a) by the government of Canada to cover the cost of transportation to the U.S.S.R.; and (b) by the government of British Columbia to assist in the establishing of settlers in that country in an amount not to exceed transportation assistance and for a period subsequently to be determined;
but upon the condition that all such financial assistance will be made available only to persons renouncing Canadian citizenship;
(4)	the government of British Columbia will assist, if asked, in the orderly realization of assets real or personal of migrating persons and will credit moneys thereby secured as directed by them.
The government of Canada will co-operate in arranging for and facilitating discussions between representatives of the Doukhobors and of the Soviet government in Canada regarding the arrangements to be made for admission to Russia of those desiring to migrate.
Those who do not within the time specified accept this offer to assist in migrating from Canada will be understood to desire to remain in Canada subject
3580	HOUSE OF
Doukhobor sect-Proposed Emigration to all laws, municipal, provincial or federal, governing Canadian citizens and privileged as heretofore to enjoy the rights and liberties of such citizenship.
That is the end of the joint statement. I may say that the text of this joint statement is also released this morning in Victoria at this time by the government of British Columbia.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure the house will have listened with great interest to the statement of the minister on behalf of the federal government, and I can only say on behalf of the opposition that we hope this arrangement between the federal government and the government of British Columbia will work out satisfactorily and that these people will be able to find the tranquillity elsewhere which they apparently think they cannot find here in Canada.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As
the member representing the constituency which is the focal point of the problem with which the minister has dealt, may I say that without a doubt the house has listened with great interest to the minister's unprecedented and unusual statement concerning the agreement between the federal government and the government of British Columbia to deal with an unusual situation and in response to a most unusual request. We in this group trust that co-operation between the federal government and the government of British Columbia will result in a final solution to this long-standing and most difficult problem to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.
We are glad the government of Canada has extended its co-operation to the government of British Columbia, and I compliment the minister for his patience, constructive approach and deep concern and interest in this question. I do urge both governments to enlist the co-operation of the district consultative committee, which is composed of representative citizens who have a great understanding of the situation, circumstances and other aspects of this problem.



INQUIRY AS TO POSITION OF MINOR CHILDREN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In the light of his announcement, what is going to be the position of the minors? The people I have in mind are boys and girls aged 18, 19 and 20 who may desire to remain in Canada. Will the voluntary movement apply there? In other 

words, is there going to be any protection whereby those youngsters who wish to remain in Canada can remain, despite the wishes of their parents?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter that would have to be the subject of careful negotiation and consideration. The desire is to have this movement entirely voluntary, as hon. members will appreciate, and it will have to be the duty of those administering the movement to ensure that this feature is maintained. At this stage and from this distance I do not think it is possible to make any forecast as to what would be the situation if a problem of that nature arose. It would depend upon the good will and judgment of those who are taking the applications for registration for the movement, but due regard will be taken of that problem in the administration of any program that may develop.
(Translation):



STATEMENT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) asked me if I had received any request for the appointment of a registrar and the establishment of a bankruptcy court in the judicial districts of Richelieu, Beauhamois, Iberville and St. Hyacinthe.
I find that representations have already been made in this respect. In fact I had received a letter from the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), inquiring whether the request in question would be favourably received. Those representations, and that letter, were referred to the officials of my department who now have the matter under advisement. Consequently, my answer today must be the same as the one I already gave the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, that is to say: the matter is under consideration.
(Text):



MARITIME COAL PRODUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize certain amendments to the agreement made under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act with the Dominion Coal Company Limited,

for the purpose of varying the terms of repayment of principal and interest as provided under section 4 of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Having in mind Canada's formal obligation to Newfoundland under the terms of union, can the minister yet say whether the government proposes to take action at this session to implement the recommendations of the McNair commission report?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this royal commission was appointed by the last government, and apparently its recommendations are not acceptable to all. I have read criticisms of various leaders in Newfoundland respecting the amount recommended, and that being so the government must give the fullest consideration to the matter before announcing the course it will follow.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingaie):: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if we are to take it the government does not intend to act at this session?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have already said. Certainly this government has a responsibility to look thoroughly into the recommendations made. Those recommendations apparently not having the support of the leaders in Newfoundland, this re-emphasizes the necessity of the fullest consideration being given by the government before taking action.



SEED WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house of the nature of the protest made to the United States government with regard to the restoration of the 10-cent tariff on Canadian seed wheat going to the United States? Can the minister say what has been the result of these protests, and whether the United States President is likely to veto this increase?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot forecast what may be done by the President of the United States. The matter is under careful observation by us, but it has not yet been made final. Our position is well known to our United States friends, and at the moment I think the situation is sufficiently under control. I cannot give any information in great detail along the line that my hon. friend is asking.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a supplementary question, can the minister tell the house whether a protest has been launched? The minister has said that the matter is under observation. Is something more being done?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, it is under observation and very active consideration. My hon. friend can rest assured that the government will take such steps as are necessary in this regard.



REPORTED REDUCTION IN PROHIBITED EXPORTS TO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is aware that, according to the press, the president of the board of trade announced, presumably to the House of Commons in London yesterday, that agreement had been reached in Paris removing 63 types of goods from the prohibited list for sale to the communist world and giving the details with regard to that action? If so, will he inform the house what are the details of this arrangement, so that Canadian exporters may also know where they stand in this regard?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the article appearing in the Montreal Gazette this morning which purports to be the report of a speech made by Sir David Eccles on this subject. I have had that article checked. It appears to be substantially correct in so far as the items therein listed are removed from the strategic control list. I propose announcing to the house within a day or two the situation in so far as Canada is concerned. For the benefit of our businessmen the control list, when approved, will appear in the Canada Gazette.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he can report to the

Inquiries of the Ministry house the extent of damage to federal government property in the bombing incidents in the Okanagan yesterday.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot report generally on federal government property, but I can say that two post offices in that area were bombed yesterday, one at Oliver and the other at Osoyoos, both by means of dropping bombs through the outside letter slot. In the front of the post offices glass was broken. There was minor internal damage but no loss of mail. There was some damage to the mail which happened to be in the letter boxes at that time, but no interruption whatsoever of service.



TRINITY BAY, NFLD.  REQUEST FOR SPECIAL STAMP ISSUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister given consideration to commemorating by a special postage stamp the centenary of the landing of the first trans-Atlantic cable at Trinity bay, Newfoundland, in 1858?


William McLean Hamilton: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. There are many important Canadian historical events which the Post Office Department would like to commemorate by means of a postage stamp, but there are only a limited number of stamps with which to do so. Unfortunately it was not possible to commemorate this particular event with the issue of a postage stamp this year. I might mention that early in October the Atlantic provinces area generally and particularly Halifax will find the 200th anniversary of the establishment of democratic government in Canada, which took place there, commemorated by the issuance of a special stamp.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance care to comment on the news report this morning, attributed to a government spokesman, that the forthcoming commonwealth economic conference would be more a discussion on monetary affairs than trade development?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press article to which the Leader of the Opposition refers, but I may say to him and to
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1
the house that at the conference, as it is being prepared for and in accordance with the plans made, the agenda provides for a very wide range of discussion.
I have emphasized previously that it is not merely a trade conference but a trade and economic conference. The conference will embrace within its discussions almost every type of subject that pertains to economic relations within the commonwealth. It will include the matters to which my hon. friend has referred and a great many others.
I can only emphasize at this point that the agenda contemplates the widest kind of opportunity for discussion of matters of interest to the economies of the nations within the commonwealth.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norfhumberland-Miramichi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government received representations from the Atlantic provinces economic council requesting a reduction of the tariff on raw sugar imported from non-commonwealth countries to a level not exceeding 10 per cent above the rate applicable to raw sugar imported from commonwealth countries?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such representations having been made. I might say that the question of our sugar imports is a matter that is always under consideration.



RELEASE POLICY RESPECTING HUNGARIAN-POLISH-ROUMANIAN ASSETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cartier):: May I ask the
Prime Minister when he will be good enough to deal with the problem I put to him on June 18, 1958.


John George Diefenbaker: That matter is still receiving the active consideration of the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State, but a decision has not yet been reached. I have the file before me. I can say to the hon. gentleman that I realize his interest in this question. It is one that deserves the earliest possible decision. However, there are divers matters to be considered before a final decision is made.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that since the start of construction of the new Dorval airport terminal conditions have changed due to the jet era, will the minister consider the recommendation made by both the international civil aviation organization and the international air transport association to the effect that air conditioning will be a must in air terminals in the jet age, according to a report which appeared on August 13 last in the Montreal Star?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. When planning was under way in the 1954-55 period, air conditioning was considered but not included at that time since it has not been usual to include air conditioning in government buildings unless special reasons justify this. Air conditioning would have added about 10 per cent to the cost of the building, or about $1J million.
Requirements relating to jet aircraft use were not known in 1954 to either the air lines or the planners, and it was only last year that the international aviation experts decided that there was good reason at terminals where commercial jets are parked close at hand for sealing the building completely against the noise and, therefore, for air conditioning at Dorval. The jets will park 500 feet away at an aeroquay.
To introduce air conditioning at this stage would require material delays in completion of construction, something I do not favour in view of the great need for the building. However, because we have provided adequate duct space in the public waiting room area, limited air conditioning could be added at a later stage if experience should make this necessary and desirable.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question arising out of the minister's statement. In view of the statement he has just made, does he not think it worth while that an investigation be made by the officers of his department to ascertain whether or not it would be advisable, even if there would be delay as he has said, to give consideration to the introduction of air conditioning?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, exhaustive examinations have been made into the matter, and the
Inquiries of the Ministry officials feel that the delay is not justified and that if it appears to be necessary later the ducts are there and the air conditioning can be added.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arihur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the government had any indication of any United States action subsequent to the discussions held here with the President of the United States on the United States treasury department case against the Premium Iron Ore Company now before the United States appeal court?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no advice of any change or of any development that has taken place following the discussions which were held here between the President of the United States and the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister of Canada and members of the government.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: While I am on my feet might I be permitted to answer a question which was asked me on August 2 by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with respect to "The Nation's Business" on radio and television.
I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that this program was suspended as it always is on the dissolution of a parliament. It is reinstated on the request of the political parties concerned, after consultations among the leaders of those parties and/or their representatives as to distribution of time and other details incidental thereto. The reply which was prepared the day before yesterday advised me that up to that moment no request had been received from any political party for the reinstatement of this program, but I was advised by telephone this morning that yesterday one of the political parties represented in this house had made application to the C.B.C. for the reinstatement of the program, and that they will be very happy to have conferences arranged among the representatives of the various political parties here.
Supply-Northern Affairs



STATEMENT ON TELEVISION PROGRAM WEARS MANY FACES&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: On August 6 the hon. member for Russell asked me with respect to a program to which he had taken offence, namely "Death Wears Many Faces", carried on the C.B.C. television network at 9 p.m. on July 30.
I am advised that this is one of the programs sponsored by the Kraft company and originates in New York and is part of a series which has been carried on the C.B.C. I am informed that as of August 8,17 unfavourable telephone calls and 2 favourable calls had been received by the C.B.C. with respect to this program. Six of the unfavourable calls emanated from the city of Ottawa. There were three unfavourable letters and one favourable letter.
(Translation):



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I would	like to	ask the	PrimeMinister a question, and I hope that the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) will not take exception	if	I show some interestin his voters. It	is	quite	normal	that Ishould do so, as I am a member of the public accounts committee. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received, from the clerk	of	the	city of	Hull,
a letter dated August 13, 1958, concerning the national capital improvement plan. I am ready to table this document for the information of the hon. member for Hull.
(Text):

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
Water resources branch-
276. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grant of $350 to the international executive council, world power conference and a grant of $35,000 to the Canadian national committee of the world power conference to assist in defraying the costs of the conference's sectional meeting to be held in Canada in 1958, $1,257,459.
The Deputy Chairman:: This item will be found at page 55 of the blue book, with the details at page 412. Shall vote 276 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: Last evening, Mr. Chairman, when this item was under consideration there

were two questions that I directed to the minister. Perhaps I could follow them up. One had to do with the board of control upon which his department has representation.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I wonder whether hon. members would please bring their voices down. There is so much mumbling going on here that I cannot hear the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether, first of all, the minister would tell us what are the duties and responsibilities of this board of control.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: At the close of last night's sitting, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier was directing some questions to me with respect to certain boards concerning the regulation of lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river on which my department has representation. There was some confusion at the time as to which board the hon. member had reference. I think this statement will give the complete story.
At the present time the department, through the director of its water resources branch, has membership on two boards which were appointed by the international joint commission and which report to that body with respect to the regulation of the levels of lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river.
With respect to the regulation of the levels of lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river, the international lake Ontario board of engineers was appointed by the international joint commission in April of 1953 under terms of reference from the governments of Canada and the United States dated June 25, 1952. It is a two-man board upon which Canada has one member, an engineer of my department.
The international St. Lawrence river board of control was appointed by the international joint commission on November 16, 1953 under the terms of an order of approval of that body dated October 29, 1952 in connection with the application of the government of Canada to the international joint commission:
-far an order of approval for the construction of certain works for the development of power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river.
[DOT]-dated June 30, 1952. This is a six-man board upon which Canada has three representatives, one of whom is an engineer of this department, who is also a member of the previously mentioned board and who is chairman of the Canadian section of the board of control.
The international lake Ontario board of
engineers submitted to the international

"death

joint commission on May 5, 1955 a plan of regulation, No. 12-A-9, to which the hon. member referred last evening. This plan was designed to protect the interests located upstream and downstream from the power works in accordance with the range of levels and criteria tentatively adopted by the commission in March, 1955.
At this meeting representations were made on behalf of the province of Quebec to obtain greater assurance that the adopted plan of regulation would provide the downstream interests with adequate protection. The commission directed that the board incorporate such minor adjustments as might be necessary to best meet these requirements. This direction resulted in the development of a plan known as plan No. 12-A-9CM). Although plan 12-A-9(M) had not been presented to the commission or to the governments formally, the governments took into consideration the results of this plan, particularly in regard to its similarity to plan 12-A-9 with respect to its critical profiles for channel excavations, and the adjustments it contained to satisfy downstream interests. Accordingly, in the government's reply of December 3, 1955 to the commission's letter of May 9, 1955, plan 12-A-9 was approved for the purpose of calculating critical profiles and the design of channel excavations only. The commission's recommended range of stage of 244, navigation season, to 248 as nearly as may be, and the recommended criteria for the operation of regulatory works were approved.
In so far as the work of the international lake Ontario board of engineers in developing a plan of regulation was concerned, the commission considered that it had completed its assignment and it directed that the board should complete a documentation of its regulation studies in a form in which the commission could present the material to the international St. Lawrence board of control, the body charged with responsibility for the operation of the plan, for the study of further refinements of that plan. The board of control undertook these further studies and in June, 1958 presented to the commission plan of regulation No. 1958-A, which plan was adopted by the commission at a meeting in Montreal on July 14 last.
The present status of the international St. Lawrence board of engineers is that it is completing its studies with respect to factors affecting the levels of lake Ontario as requested in the terms of reference of June 25, 1952.
The international St. Lawrence river board of control is continuing its co-operation with the joint board of engineers, a body appointed
Supply-Northern Affairs by the governments of Canada and the United States to act for them in ensuring adequate construction programs, plans and specifications. With the completion of construction the board of control will assume the responsibility of carrying out all provisions of the orders of approval of October 29, 1952 and July 2, 1956 related to the water levels and regulations of discharge of water from lake Ontario.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to thank the minister for that very comprehensive statement having to do with the two boards over which his department has control, which perhaps I could follow up with just a short question.
Plan 12-A-9, as he has stated, has been approved by the international joint commission by way of an amendment to the original order of approval. The minister then referred to plan 12-A-9CM), which was recommended in order to protect the downstream interests. Could I ask the minister if plan 12-A-9CM) has now been made an amendment to the original order of approval of the international joint commission?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to that question is no.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister went on to deal with a still further amendment adopted on July 14, 1958 in Montreal, known as plan 1958-A. Has that plan received the approval of the international joint commission by way of amendment to the original order of approval?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It has been approved by the international joint commission, but the order of approval has not been amended.


Lionel Chevrier: I know that much of this is technical and I will not unduly pursue the matter. Perhaps I can wind up my remarks by this question. Returning to the board of control, the minister gave to the house a moment ago an outline of the duties and responsibilities of that board. Having regard to the present levels arising out of the development of power in the international section, those levels are to be held at 238 for the first ten years. I have been informed that there is a possibility that this will be changed and that the levels will not be held at 238 for that period but might well be increased to 242 before the end of the ten years. Is that matter under study by the board of control, and have they made any recommendation in that respect?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that this matter is not under study by the
3586	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs international board of control, and that no specific proposition has been made by that board.


Lionel Chevrier: It may not be under study, but one of their duties is to supervise for a period of ten years the operation of the levels, and may I have an answer from the minister or his advisers as to whether or not there is any change in the original idea of allowing the level to remain at 238 for ten years?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that any change such as that suggested would have to come as a direction from the international joint commission.


Lionel Chevrier: Then going back to plan 12-A-9(M) and plan 1958-A, which I take it have been considered by the minister's officers in order to protect the downstream interests-that is to say, in order to protect the development of power at Beauharnois -so that nothing which is done upstream will in any way affect the power development at Beauharnois and so that nothing which is done upstream will affect the level in the port of Montreal, is the minister satisfied that these two plans will adequately protect the safety of the interests in these two areas?
In so far as this can be done, will it protect both these interests; first, power development at Beauharnois and second, the level of the water in the port of Montreal?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The engineers are satisfied that these arrangements will do just those two things, but it should be pointed out that these plans are under continuous review in case anything else should be done to improve the situation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think everyone in the constituencies around the great lakes is interested in this Illinois development which, I understand, a senate committee has approved, and it is quite likely that this diversion will go ahead, at least for a certain period of time. The Canadian Department of External Affairs sent an aide memoire in relation to this subject indicating that the Canadian position is that while Canadians are not in favour of this diversion it is completely within the right of the United States to go ahead with it.
I want to ask whether the Canadian Department of External Affairs received any advice from the water resources branch with regard to this; and second, if the diversion goes through, whether any studies are planned concerning any possible step that Canada might take, especially with regard to the lake Superior watershed, to compensate for the tremendous gallonage that is going to be taken out at Chicago.
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The department of northern affairs, through its water resources division, did advise the Department of External Affairs about the effects of the Chicago diversion. There is, Mr. Chairman, as you know a present diversion to the great lakes watershed from Longlac which more than compensates for the water taken by the Chicago diversion. As far as I know there is no plan for any further diversion from the great lakes watershed into the great lakes system.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I may be dealing in fantasy, but I understand there has been a diversion from Lac St. Joseph westward in order to help the power set-up along the Manitoba border, and that there has also been a diversion of water which would originally have gone into the Hudson bay-James bay area, and I am just wondering whether there is any prospect of a more thorough study of the situation to determine whether we can afford to take still more water from the Hudson bay watershed and divert it into the lake Superior watershed or the Winnipeg river area?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a matter of fact the St. Joseph diversion is from the Hudson bay watershed into the lake Winnipeg or Nelson river watershed, and it does not affect the great lakes watershed. As to the question of diverting more water from the Hudson bay system into the great lakes system, I think that is purely a matter for the province of Ontario.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether he is satisfied that this proposed diversion via Chicago, concerning which an aide memoire has been sent to the United States government, will not prejudicially affect Canadian interests in so far as upper lake levels are concerned?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The facts are that such a diversion will prejudice the levels of the great lakes system and will reduce the power potential of that system.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the point where I wondered about the study. There is more water up in that watershed, especially lying northeast of lake Nipigon, and I was just wondering whether the minister could not have some study conducted into ways and means of compensating for any diversion which might take place in the future. Even if the department does not go ahead with a concrete plan, would such a study not be worth while; or would the department already have the information necessary to know whether we could compensate for water taken out?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think two
things should be cleared up. First of all, the proposed diversion has not gone through. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we have made our view clear to the United States that taking more water would prejudicially affect both water levels and power production. As to the second point, dealing with the possible diversion of water from the Hudson bay watershed into the great lakes watershed, information is to some extent available but the view at the moment is that the possibilities would be limited by the economic factor, the cost.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the minister's
answer, may I ask whether the United States is entitled under international agreements to make this diversion which prejudices our interests, and if not, how does that country justify the action which it is proposing to take?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, the United States is entitled to make the diversion, but there are certain factors prejudicial to both countries which we have been pointing out in the hope that they may see the weight of our arguments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
278. To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $227,780.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say a few words because of the importance of this vote in connection with the diversion of the Columbia river watershed in Canada and because of the great interest taken in this most important question by the people whom I have the honour to represent.
I notice that the vote is $227,780 this year as compared with $245,437 last year, a reduction of $17,657, which I presume indicates that the endeavour to obtain information is coming to an end. This is very different from the estimates we have had in previous years in connection with these studies.
I wish to express my appreciation of the good work which has been done by the staff of this branch of the minister's department, because it is their work which has made it possible to assess this situation in Canada. I also wish to express our appreciation-and when I say "our" I am speaking for the great majority of my constituents-of the good work done by the international commission and particularly by General McNaughton, who is highly regarded in my constituency. Most of my constituents believe that his foresight, patience and firmness in years past have contributed in great measure to the
Supply-Northern Affairs respecting of Canada's right to the development of her own water works on the Columbia, and I think his position is now understood and appreciated to a much greater extent than it was a few years ago-to such a degree, indeed, that his arguments are now recognized as valid in the United States. And for the same reason that the United States authorities have the right to divert the waters which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a few minutes ago, Canada has the right to divert the waters of the Columbia if Canada sees fit to do so.
I am one who hopes the government will be able to make an early arrangement which will be applied to all parties concerned for the commencement of the main dam on the Columbia river, wherever it may be located.
I understand there is a possibility of shifting it a short distance upstream or downstream from the earlier projected Mica creek location. However, I have two questions to ask the minister.
Can the minister inform the committee what this money will be spent on? Are the surveys entirely completed? Will this money be spent just on details of the report and so on? I understand the report of the engineering board on the Columbia development is expected some time late this fall. I am sure that is the basic document upon which this government will formulate its plans and its policies.
My second question is this. I do not expect the minister to be a prophet or to venture into the unknown and unseen, but because of the great interest in this question could he tell the committee in general terms what steps the government proposes to take after it has studied the report of the engineering board and has the facts before it to further the development of the hydro resources of the Columbia in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps before the minister replies I might make my observations on the same subject and he can deal with both of us at once. Before doing so may I join in the appreciation which has just been expressed for the work of the minister's officials in connection with this survey, which work has been as efficient as that of his officials in other branches of the department. I cannot give them any greater praise than that.
Perhaps the minister would indicate to the committee the progress which has been made in the survey in question, and perhaps also he would tell the committee whether pending the completion of this survey there have been any talks between the two governments on the diplomatic level to clear up some of the international legal principles involved, if

Supply-Northern Affairs they need clearing up, and which perhaps could be done while the survey is going on, thereby saving time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member tor Kootenay West for his gracious words to a great Canadian. In answer to his question concerning what steps will be taken after the report is submitted to the government, I believe the obvious conclusion would be that it will be studied. I believe I have already indicated to the committee that an economic study is under way now, the report of which is just about ready for presentation to the government, as I understand it. With the new engineering study to review the findings of previous engineering studies and the economic study to which I have referred, it is a matter of the government making a decision on what is the best means of proceeding from that point.
In reply to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition concerning what talks have taken place with respect to the legal principles at stake, the answer is that discussions have been taking place but there has not been an exchange of views on global positions. Rather, there occurred an exchange of general views on the positions of the two governments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, are these talks being held on the diplomatic level between representatives of the two governments or between officials of the minister's department and officials of the department concerned in Washington?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This department does not carry out those discussions, but there have been discussions on the diplomatic level.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
279. Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by Fraser river board, $95,000.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I must admit frankly that I am confused, and I know it is because of my ignorance that I get a little mixed up. The Minister of Public Works has estimates relating to the Fraser river and the Minister of Transport has estimates relating thereto, and here I see that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is asking for the sum of $95,000 for what are described as federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Fraser river board.
I should like to ask the minister exactly what is the organization known as the Fraser river board. Is that a branch of his department? What exactly is it? What is the 

composition of the board? What is the investigation about? What is this board investigating? I notice that roughly $100,000 was voted under this item in each of the previous three years.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, these investigations were authorized by an order in council, No. 655, dated May 5, 1955. In general they are to determine what developments for the control of the water and incidental resources of the Fraser river basin in the judgment of the board would be advisable, practical and in the public interest, with particular reference to flood control and hydroelectric power generation.
The terms of reference contain such items as the following. There is reference to the fact that Canada and British Columbia shall share equally the cost of the said survey and report and the board shall render a preliminary report of its findings not later than June 30, 1958. I understand this has been received. It also provides that the board shall be terminated within a period of three months from the submission of the preliminary report unless the two governments agree that the board continue until the submission of the final report. In this case the two governments provided funds to ensure the continuity of the board following receipt of the preliminary report.
I should like to make a correction. I have just been advised that the interim report has been received, and it is expected that the final report will be received at the end of October.


Erhart Regier: Have these investigations anything to do with those currently going on at the University of British Columbia in connection with the same subject? Also, would the minister answer the question I asked previously concerning how this board is constituted?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the board is composed of four members, two from the province of British Columbia and two from the federal government, and the chairmanship alternates back and forth each year. At the present time an appointee of the federal government holds the chairmanship.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the minister is aware of the investigations that have been going on for the past several years at the University of British Columbia. There is a pilot project there largely financed by donations from private corporations to the university. Is this board acting in connection with that investigation? Is this one and the

same investigation, or are two investigations going on simultaneously, each doing basically the same work?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have to be very careful in speaking on this point, Mr. Chairman, because my information is not from this department. We understand the investigation referred to by the hon. member is to reconcile the fish interests and the power interests on the Fraser, and has nothing to do with our department.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, this investigation is concerned not only with the problem of fish versus power, but the pilot project in particular also deals with the problem of flood control. I regret that there should be an expenditure of public moneys for two investigations that are really doing very much the same work.
I know in more recent years the university investigation has paid a lot of attention to fish versus power. However, the initial project was concerned primarily with finding ways and means of controlling the waters of this river, and it was for this purpose that a large model of the Fraser river was constructed. If the Minister of Public Works would like to help us out so that we might have the record ironed out I have no objection.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understand, Mr. Chairman, it is not in this department, and I cannot give any more authentic information than I have given.


Erhart Regier: Has the Fraser river board any offices out in British Columbia out of which their engineers conduct their operations? If so, would the minister be kind enough to advise where they are?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, the offices are in Victoria.


Erhart Regier: Has the minister any explanation as to why the offices would be in Victoria rather than in New Westminster or Vancouver? It seems rather strange. Victoria is far removed from the scene of operations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The capital
city of British Columbia is Victoria. Since they have their offices there they can utilize the provincial staffs and information which is collected there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
289. To provide for contributions to the provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces, $9,000,000.
Mr. Dupuis:: How will the minister proceed to make a suitable distribution of the $9 million among the 10 provinces?
Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday on the opening vote in answer to the Leader of the Opposition and several other members, this vote is to meet the program of the government which calls for expenditures in any province up to the amount of $1,500,000 a year. The total for the 10 provinces would be $15 million for which we would be responsible, but because the program has just been worked out with the provinces we have no accurate way of knowing what the total will come to. The amount of $9 million was put in, in the working out of the estimates, as our best estimate as to what the amount would come to. As to each individual province, they have put forward programs of roads and we have accepted those programs. When the agreement is signed we shall pay the proportionate amount on the work which has been done this year.


George Roy McWilliam: I think the minister said yesterday in regard to New Brunswick that it had not yet taken on the full amount. I take it that probably final arrangements have not been made. However, I would like to ask the minister whether in the agreement that is being drawn up or has already been concluded, the Renous-Plaster Rock highway in New Brunswick is included in the access-road program.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes; in accordance with the policy that I have tried to follow, if a road has been accepted it is included in the program, and that road, I am informed, has been agreed upon.


Guy Rouleau: Can the minister tell me whether there have been requests from the province of Quebec?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


Yvon Dupuis: Can the minister tell me, if there are no demands from the province of Quebec, whether he is going to put the money in a special fund until we have a government in Quebec that will likely ask for a share of those grants, as the previous government did with university grants?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These are annual votes, and we will be very pleased to have Quebec come in.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it from this vote that the cost of roadbuilding in the Northwest Territories is paid?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Which vote is it, then?

Supply-Northern Affairs


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Vote 287, which deals with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and vote 284.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
295.	To provide for contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory, reforestation and forest fire protection in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces, $1,650,000.
Mr. Roberge:: Is the province of Quebec sharing in this one?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
296.	To provide for contributions to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them in establishing forest access roads and trails for the attainment of adequate fire protection as well as other aspects of forest management, $1,000,000.
Gabriel Roberge: May I ask the same question of the minister; is the province of Quebec taking part in this program?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman.


James Roy Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I would be
grateful if the minister would give consideration to some access roads in my riding of Trinity-Conception. I refer now to the Claren-ville, Georges Brook and Trouty access roads. I know the minister must have the co-operation of the provincial government in this connection. I think my request will meet with the approval of the provincial government. I shall write the minister in connection with my request.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I gathered the general import of the hon. member's question, but there were certain parts which I just did not hear. This is the winter work program that was carried out last winter. We offered to the provinces, as a means of providing work in the winter months, that if they proceeded with a program of opening up forest access roads we would pay 50 per cent of the cost. This program ended on June 10 in all provinces. In answer to another hon. member yesterday I said that if it is the decision of the government to continue this plan it will be announced in due course.


James Roy Tucker: Do I understand that similar projects will be continued?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is a question of policy and, as I said, if it is to be done it will be announced by the government in due course.


James Roy Tucker: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
297.	To provide for a contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the spruce budworm infestation, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province, $600,000.
George Roy McWilliam: Can the minister tell me
what amount has been spent to date on the spraying of the forest lands in New Brunswick? I know this vote is to provide for a contribution to the province of New Brunswick. I would like to know whether that money is paid directly to the province or to the forest protection association which is carrying out this work in conjunction with, I think, representatives of three or four of the major pulp and paper industries in the province of New Brunswick. I am wondering what are the mechanics in regard to payment, and whether the vote has been spent to date?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The moneys
are paid directly to the province. The total up to March 31, 1957, was $2,264,270.56.
The amount that it is estimated will have been spent up to March 31, 1958 is $3,250,000. That, of course, is an estimate.


George Roy McWilliam: Will the minister tell me if he has any information with regard to whether this operation is now approaching completion? Is it the case that the task will soon be accomplished, or will it be a continuing one? I am not sure whether the minister can answer that, but maybe he can give me some enlightenment on the matter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This matter concerns the forest biologists. They are not completely certain that the program will definitely be wound up this year, but will be advising us later. The general feeling is one of optimism that this is the last year the program will have to be carried out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government travel bureau-
303. To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian Tourist Association, $2,182,206.
Guy Rouleau: What is the procedure followed in awarding advertising contracts to magazines and newspapers?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The policy of the government has been to divide its advertising, and there are three firms with which we deal under this vote, Locke-Johnson and Co. Ltd., Harold F. Stanfield Limited and F. H. Hayhurst Co. Limited.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Pearson.!

507. To provide for advances in accordance with agreements entered into or to be entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $11,329,000.
Mr. Robichaud:: I have a few questions to ask the minister, and all I want is short replies. I do not want him to take 15 pages of Hansard or 25 per cent of the time as he did yesterday. Can the minister tell the committee what portion of the vote of $3,410,000 for 1957-58 was spent last year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The shortest answer I can give is that this question was answered in the standing committee.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, we are in committee of supply and I think we have a right to an answer. I should like to know what part of last year's estimate was expended last year, and also how much of the $11,329,000 allotted for this year has been spent to date.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is taking some time to dig up the answer from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee. If my memory serves me correctly, I think the answer given at that time was that nothing was spent last year but that it is revoted this year. Up to the present no money has been spent, but the work is proceeding.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister has just said that the work is proceeding. If work on the construction of thermal plants in New Brunswick is proceeding, can the minister now advise the committee if a specific agreement has been signed with the province of New Brunswick for the construction of the East Saint John plant?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, the contract is still under discussion.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In reply to a question which I asked the minister on Saturday, July 26, the house was informed and the minister admitted that tenders had been called for equipment for the East Saint John plant. I understand that tenders have already been awarded for equipment and machinery such as boilers, generators and so on. The main agreement signed with the province of New Brunswick on February 14, 1958 was tabled in the house as sessional paper No. 110, and in paragraph 5 under the heading "Construction" it states:
The assistance in respect of the construction and equipping of power projects will be given by Canada through the northern Canada power commission pursuant to agreements from time to time entered into between the northern Canada power commission and the New Brunswick electric power commission in respect of specific power projects only.
Supply-Northern Affairs
Paragraph 6 reads as follows:
The approval of the time, need for, location, use, type, design and specification of each power project by the northern Canada power commission, upon application by the New Brunswick electric power commission, shall be a condition precedent to the provision of assistance by Canada. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
According to the minister's statement work is now proceeding, tenders have been called and awarded, and no agreement has been signed between the government of Canada and the province of New Brunswick. Would the minister comment, please?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member has read from the records that have been submitted to the house and they are quite accurate. At the present time the agreement is being negotiated, but every one of these tenders has been agreed to by the northern Canada power commission with the understanding that when the final agreement is signed payment will be retroactive. We did not want to hold up progress on this development. It is the same principle that we are using in connection with roads to resources. When we agree on a certain thing they go ahead on the understanding that it will be accepted as charged to us.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am sure the minister is also aware of paragraph 8, subparagraph (c) of the main agreement, which reads in part as follows:
-whereupon the northern Canada power commission will at its own expense and in accordance with the design and specifications as approved construct and equip the power project.
Apparently construction and equipment of the project are being carried on by the province of New Brunswick. Could the minister advise the committee if the plans and specifications for this project have been entirely completed and if they have been approved by his department?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The plans are not entirely completed, but all plans that are completed have been approved by the northern Canada power commission.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In other words this is a project in which the federal government is interested and the work is being carried on before the plans have been completed. This is something about which we have heard a lot in the last few days in the deliberations of a certain committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern administration and lands branch-
584. Branch	administration-further	amount
required, $59,440.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I have one question I want to ask the minister. I have heard about a fairly

Supply-Northern Affairs new revolutionary instrument in surveying called the tellurometer. It is supposed to give a much more accurate control of mapping and surveying. I was wondering whether his department is doing any research with this particular instrument, or is planning on using it in its northern operations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Our department is very much interested in any new device for accurate mapping and surveying. As the hon. member knows, this is more properly a question for the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I have no specific information that the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys are dealing with this particular new development.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is not your forest survey branch doing some work in the northern part of the country in relation to surveys? What I mean is this. Is it the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys that is looking after this aspect?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is a little difference here. We are doing surveys in the north in relation to quantities of lumber under forest inventory. I thought the hon. member was referring to some development in connection with contour locating on maps. I understood that was what the hon. member was asking about.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My understanding is that this is one of the most revolutionary advances that has ever been made in mapping and surveying. I was just curious as to whether the minister's department was on to that development and was trying to find out whether this particular instrument can be useful in this country.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The information that my officials give me is that these base maps for the forest survey are made by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. As for the equipment in use there, we have no official information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5S6. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $3,500,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it that this item, along with the parallel item in the main estimates, would cover roadbuilding in the Northwest Territories. I should like to ask the minister a question. It is not concerned with the importance of roadbuilding for development purposes, which we all recognize and which has never been denied by anybody. Under this item I should like to ask him whether he can inform the committee in at least general terms how much employment has been given under

roadbuilding activities in the Northwest Territories since the beginning of the year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I had this information yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and then I lost my papers. But the total for our department and D.O.T. is approximately 2,000 on construction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
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.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to deal with the estimates of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission, I should first of all like to express my appreciation to the chairman and members of the committee on industrial relations. This committee has already considered these estimates and I would say, Mr. Chairman, that they have made some helpful and useful suggestions. However, on these estimates of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission I am sure members of this house in committee will have other questions to ask, and I shall try to be as helpful as I can in supplying the answers, with the advice and co-operation of my officials.
The total of these estimates, including the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission, comes to $84,891,842, of which $71,359,500 relates to the unemployment insurance commission and $13,532,342 to the Department of Labour. The estimates of the Department of Labour exceed those of last year by $2,086,210, and those of the unemployment insurance commission are greater by $199,301 than last year.
Supplementary estimates totalling $1,547,435 are also being requested, bringing the total requirement to $86,439,277, an increase of $3,832,946 over last year for both departments. Of this amount, some $2 million is required to provide for expanded vocational training agreements with the provinces. There is also an increase of approximately $1 million in the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund.
Owing to greatly expanded activities, there is an increase of $676,000 in administration costs of the unemployment insurance commission. Hon. members will recall that an effort is being made to emphasize job-finding activities of the commission. This effort will be continued and augmented.

I should like briefly to touch on some of the programs in my department which are included in the estimates now before the house. In the field of industrial relations we are facing a situation where a number of one-year and two-year labour agreements have lately terminated or will terminate in the next few months. As a result of this fact, conciliation proceedings are under way in a number of different fields of industry.
I might mention at this time that during the year a total of 117 disputes in industries under federal jurisdiction were dealt with by the officers of my department. Of these, 53 were settled by these officers and 22 by conciliation boards. The others were in various stages of conciliation as the year ended.
Coming to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, may I say that I have given notice of my readiness to consider amendments to this act and that a number of suggestions have been received and are being considered at the moment.
I am still waiting for three major national organizations which have been requested to submit their recommendations, but to date I have not received them. However, on checking into the matter I find that they are in the process of completing their recommendations, and that they should be within my hands within the next few weeks.
Another matter which has been of major concern to my department has been the elimination of discrimination, whether it is based on race, religion or colour, throughout the labour field. It is my intention to set up a consultative committee representing interested groups to advise upon the administration of the fair employment practices act as it relates to discriminatory practices in industry.
One of the most important programs of the department is that concerning the rehabilitation of persons disabled or inhibited in one way or another from following their normal pursuits and earning a living for themselves and their families. It is encouraging to note that in this connection we have particulars of 1,055 persons who have been returned to useful employment during the last fiscal year. Previously the majority of these people were supported by public assistance, though this figure does not, of course, include all those who were to a greater or lesser degree assisted under this program.
In the civilian rehabilitation branch, in order to carry on the services rendered we are making provision for two additional employees to assist in the placement of older workers. This has been an aspect of labour problems in which I have been very interested for quite a number of years. Because of the
Supply-Labour
practice of certain industries of specifying certain ages, they have thereby eliminated many useful persons from employment. We are concentrating on this aspect of the matter by endeavouring to institute an educational program for employers, and by pointing out to them that the ability of a person is in no way diminished as the result of age but that in some respects the workmanship of an older person offers a great deal to a prospective employer.
As hon. members are well aware, my department carries on an extensive public information program relating to winter employment, and we have included in these estimates an amount of $150,000 for the continuation this year of this program. I might mention that in pursuance of this objective of alleviating and improving the winter employment situation I called a conference in Ottawa. This conference was attended by representatives of provincial labour departments, national organizations and others interested in finding a solution to this pressing problem. The recommendations of the conference are now being studied by my department and will shortly be submitted to the government for active consideration.
I think I can say however, that the conference did serve to heighten the realization of the extent of this problem and to place the problem squarely before a number of persons and groups in a position to take concerted action in order to deal with it. As a result of the conference I think there is a greater awareness of the whole situation, and that there will be the maximum degree of co-operation from provincial labour departments, labour and management group!! and other interested bodies in order to evolve measures by which to deal with the situation.
Another matter with which my department is concerned is vocational training, and new agreements have been reached with the provinces which call for further federal expenditure in this field. I do not think I need to emphasize in this house the importance of programs to provide increased facilities for trade and technological training in this country. Hon. members are aware, as I am aware, of the need for adding to the pool of trained and skilled labour in Canada, and I do not think I go too far in describing this objective as a national necessity.
In respect of this field of vocational training I should like to bring to the attention of this house the fact that the existing agreements will make available a total of $40 million from the federal government to the provinces over the next five-year period. Of this amount $25 million will be allotted for buildings and

Supply-Labour
equipment and $15 million for operational expenses on a matching basis.
The Department of Labour is also continuing to study the effects upon industry of recent technological changes including automation, and I feel the results of these studies will have a useful application in determining the effects of such changes on manpower and training needs for the future.
Returning now to the unemployment insurance commission, I would like to point out that there were several extensions of seasonal benefits last year and this year, and that discriminatory regulations against married women were removed. Fishermen were brought under this act, and added administrative requirements in connection with these changes account in part for the increased costs relating to this department. In connection with the unemployment insurance fund, I tabled a report on July 10 which gives the current state of the fund, and the table relating to the fund can be found on page 2137 of Hansard for that date.
In order to emphasize the job-finding function of the national employment service I am asking this year for 150 new positions for placement personnel, and provision for this will be found in the supplementary estimates of the unemployment insurance commission. The purpose of this additional staff is of course so they will be able this winter to activate the job-finding program of the national employment service, which will mean that we will not be content merely to pay benefits but that a positive and energetic effort will be made to place people who are without jobs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The committee will have listened with interest to the statement the minister has just made on the first item of his estimates, which gave him an opportunity to discuss generally the work and the problems of his department. I think the committee will have been struck by the fact that although he spoke on a good many matters-not, of course, in detail-he did not deal at this time with what I consider to be the most pressing matter from his point of view and that of his department, namely the problem of employment and unemployment. Perhaps he intends to do this later after he has heard from us.
The minister mentioned the desirability of removing all discrimination and the further steps he is taking to ensure that this will be done. I am sure he will get general support from this house in the achievement of that most important and desirable objective. He also mentioned the work of his department in respect to rehabilitation of and work for the handicapped, which is also important and

must commend all our support and sympathy. He also mentioned the problems of the older workers, which make an appeal to our sympathy, especially those of us who will soon be joining the ranks of the older workers. Then he just touched upon one of the most important of all labour problems, which is very much in the minds of labour at the present time in view of technological developments in our industrial society, the problem of automation. We in this party have already given an indication of our realization of the importance of this problem by certain concrete suggestions we have made as to the responsibility of government in meeting it. It is certainly something which will have to increasingly engage the attention of the Minister of Labour and the Department of Labour.
The minister also mentioned-he did not do much more than mention-one of the most basic problems of all, a problem very much in our minds at the present time, that of industrial relationships. He called attention to the fact that this problem is looming up at the present time in certain specific respects in the form of the renegotiating of contracts between employers and employees in some of the most important industries in this country. There is no doubt that problems in this field, dangers in this field, are looming up, and if these problems are not solved and these dangers are not averted they will certainly add to our economic difficulties at a time when we already have enough economic difficulties. As the Prime Minister has said, and as I think the Minister of Labour has also said, the solution of this problem of industrial relationships at this time will require a sense of responsibility and restraint, and the exercise of this responsibility and restraint on the part of all concerned.
It seems to me that the basic problem of labour relations is more and more becoming one of the confrontation of huge corporate structures representing a concentration of great power-power not always controlled entirely in Canada-by huge union structures representing also a concentration of great power also not always controlled entirely in Canada. In this situation, which is very different indeed from the unbalanced one of say 50 years ago, then so heavily weighted against labour, both sides must recognize that new circumstances have developed and a new situation has arisen because of the growth of our industrial structure and the concentration of industrial economic and financial power into fewer and fewer hands.
As long as this is the case, and it is
inevitable that corporations should develop
in this way, surely both sides must recognize

that this has created new problems. It emphasizes in our minds not only the necessity for conciliation and solution but also the priority of the public interest. Governments .-in some cases in this field provincial governments, and in other cases the federal government-are the guardians of the public interest. In the discharge of that guardianship, that responsibility, governments I think have a duty to emphasize the necessity for social control, in certain circumstances, as a recognition of that public interest. Certainly, as I am sure the minister himself is very much aware, this situation has thrown new responsibilities on government as well as on workers and employers. Perhaps it necessitates a new approach to labour problems by government, one that will certainly preserve the rights of both sides, but subject always to the public interest.
I was glad to hear, and I am sure the committee was glad to hear, that recognition has been given to the seriousness of this problem; recognition of the desirability, perhaps, of a new approach to the problem of industrial relationships by the Department of Labour, and that ideas have been asked for by the department which would help them in the changes that may be required in the industrial relations act. Undoubtedly in view of this changing situation some changes are required to expedite and make more effective conciliation procedures, so that we may not be increasingly confronted with emergencies when those procedures have broken down, with the government having to step in and intervene by methods, at times, which no government desires to use or to be put into the position of having to use.
One could talk on this subject for a long time, and I have no doubt that some of my colleagues in my own party as well as members of the other opposition party will be discussing this aspect of the question. In the course of the remainder of my remarks, which will not be extensive, I propose to concentrate on unemployment. I hope to discuss the present situation in a way which may assist in steps which, perhaps, the Department of Labour can take toward meeting it. In view of the fact that I am now beginning a new subject, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, at the luncheon recess I had reached the point of discussing a matter which, of course, is of primary
Supply-Labour
importance to the country and of equal importance I know to the minister and the Department of Labour, perhaps our most serious domestic problem, that of unemployment. As a matter which so directly concerns the Department of Labour and these estimates, I propose to deal with the present position as I see it, to discuss it frankly, but neither to make statements which I believe are not accurate or distort those I do make.
It is quite true that in recent weeks our economy in the face of deflationary pressures has shown a strength and resilience in some sectors which must be encouraging to all Canadians. It has also, of course, shown weaknesses, and those weaknesses are perhaps best illustrated by the employment picture in this country at this time. The situation I admit, and I have always admitted, is difficult and confused and in some respects almost contradictory. We have before us, and it is being emphasized more and more when discussions related to it take place in the house, a real and perhaps even a growing danger of inflation. The latest indication of the importance of that danger to the south of us-and whatever happens down there in these matters certainly affects us-is that today the federal reserve system in the United States has increased its discount rate through the federal reserve bank in San Francisco-and that will be followed I am sure by other banks-from If per cent to 2 per cent. The continuing danger of recession in the midst of this inflationary danger is shown, as I said, by the unemployment figures.
The two dangers, then, face us at the same time. I know, as other hon. members know, that this has certainly made it difficult for a layman to understand what is going on and what should be done to meet it. It has also confused the experts and the economists. We should, in fact we must face up to both these trends and try to analyse them in the hope that by a sober and intelligent analysis we can do something about them. However, parliament or the government cannot do anything about this problem if the existence of the problem and the dangers inherent in it are not recognized.
In attempting to assist in that recognition by producing facts which bear on it, we on this side of the house are continually charged with being promoters of doom and gloom and of shedding crocodile tears. Well, Mr. Chairman, this does not worry us, and it is not going to deter us from doing our duty as an opposition as we see it. But because these charges are continually levelled at us when we talk about the employment picture it makes it necessary for us to continue to

Supply-Labour
expose the insincerity of those charges by recalling the attitude of hon. members of the present government when they were sitting on this side.
I recall that at a time when winter unemployment in this country was under 200,000 the present Minister of Public Works moved and the present Prime Minister seconded a resolution which demanded the immediate appointment of a select committee to examine and do something about the unemployment situation which, in the words of the present Prime Minister as found at page 2099 of Hansard of February 15, 1954, was comparable to that of the beginning of the great depression. If hon. members will refer to page 2085 of Hansard of February 15, 1954, they will find a record of the discussion relative to the resolution to which I have referred.
During the 1955 session the opposition of that day demanded that a dominion-provincial conference on unemployment be called. My hon. friends may recall that they demanded it in very strong terms, and vigorously condemned the government of the day for not calling it. They made this demand at a time when the unemployment problem was less than half as serious as it is in 1958, and when it was a problem which this country pretty quickly solved.
Furthermore we should not forget that in those debates on unemployment in previous sessions the opposition of that day never failed to use the higher national employment service figures to support and at times exaggerate their claims. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour used to use those figures regularly, but I suppose when he talks on this matter later in this debate he will probably use the lower figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics.
When I have talked about unemployment inside and outside the house I have always used the dominion bureau of statistics figures, and when I have used the national employment service figures it has never been by themselves. There are two sets of figures, and perhaps neither gives the exact picture of what is happening. One set may exaggerate in one direction and one set in the other, but if the figures we have before us now, from whatever source they may come, turn out to be exaggerated and the dangers which are inherent in those figures turn out to be dangers which will be met and removed, then everyone in this committee and in the country will rejoice at that development. Meanwhile it is our duty to warn the government of the possibility of these dangers and try to convince it that something effective must be done to meet them through wise government policies.

I suggest it cannot be denied by any unprejudiced observer that we have been going through the worst period of unemployment since the depression of the thirties. Hon. members of the government I know will surely admit that now, even if they did not admit it in the debates in this house during last session. The members on the treasury benches have certainly changed their attitude on this question, because in the autumn session last year they did not give this house any indication that they appreciated the dangers of mounting unemployment. When they had to admit an abnormal situation had developed they tried either to minimize the seriousness of our economic troubles or else they claimed that unemployment was decreasing.
It is very interesting also to quote in this connection what various ministers had to say about this issue during the election campaign. As we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour perhaps I should limit myself in this regard to three statements made by the Minister of Labour. On February 20 he is reported as having said in Woodstock, Ontario, on February 19, the day before, and I quote from the Ottawa Journal of February 20:
"We believe unemployment is our responsibility and as long as one Canadian is unemployed we intend to do something about it."
We also attacked the former government's "tight money" policy as contributing to unemployment.
That is a remark which inspires certain ironic reflections in the light of what has happened in the last month or two. Then he said:
We gradually eased the tight money policy, dropping interest rates.
No doubt that was in the interests of creating employment. Well those interest rates have been increased by the present government since that statement was made. Then the Montreal Gazette of March 20 quotes the minister as saying:
Federal labour minister Michael Starr predicted last night the present unemployment situation will end by mid-June.
I shall have something to say about that in a moment, based on the official statistics on the subject. Then on March 28 the minister is reported by the Toronto Daily Star as having said:
Mr. Starr said that both he and the Conservative party had "great confidence in the future" and predicted that through various campaigns to be instigated this coming year, the problem of seasonal unemployment would be eliminated.
I hope the minister is right, but I suspect he will find it a little difficult to eliminate the problem of seasonal unemployment. While the Minister of Labour was saying during the

election campaign that unemployment would have disappeared by mid-June, the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, parts of which we have heard twice in this house, said as quoted on page 1233 of Hansard:
Once again the latest figures are encouraging, showing a rapidly narrowing gap in the percentage of unemployed as compared with a year ago.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, with all respect to the Minister of Finance, that that is a misleading statement in the light of the official statistics on this subject. To support what I have just said we should look at the current situation as described by those official statistics, in order to see if those optimistic
Supply-Labour statements made by ministers are justified. For the purpose of the comparison I would like to make, I intend using the dominion bureau of statistics figures which certainly do not exaggerate, to say the least, the unemployment problem. In order to prove the points I want to make I should like at this stage to ask permission to insert a series of official statistics from the bureau of statistics, Canadian Statistical Review, which show for the first six months of 1957 and 1958, the number of persons in Canada having jobs, the number of unemployed and seeking work and the percentage of the total labour force unemployed. The statistics follow:



EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN CANADA FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1957 AND 1958

[Stage Direction]
('000 omitted)
.	P.c. of total
With jobs	Without jobs	Labour force
and seeking work	unemployed
1957	1958	1957	1958	1957	1958January	
5,393	5,371	303	520	5.3	8.8February	
5,362	5,314	323	555	5.7	9.5March	
5,373	5,317	343	590	6.0	9.9April	
5,442	5,453	306	516	5.3	8.6May	
5,687	5,665	194	366	3.3	6.1June	
5,834	5,794	162	320	2.7	5.2
These are official figures, Mr. Chairman, from the publications of the bureau about which I should like to make some observations. To begin with, let us look at the employment side. It can be seen from these figures from the bureau of statistics that the level of employment, not unemployment, has been lower in 1958 than it was in 1957 for all the months covered from January to June, except April. In January, 1958, there were
22.000	fewer people with jobs than in January, 1957. That figure was 48,000 in February and
56.000	in March. In April the trend was reversed and there were 11,000 more people with jobs than in April, 1957; but again in May, 1958-and this is significant-the figure was lower than in May, 1957, by 22,000, and in June it was lower by 40,000.
These figures, I think, lead to two conclusions. First, on the average for the first six months of this year, total employment has been lower than in 1957. This certainly must 57071-3-228
emphasize that we are in an abnormal situation, especially as you have to relate these employment figures to the increase in the labour force and the natural increase in population and the increase last year by immigration. With all that, our employment figures on the average for the six months of 1958 are lower. Second, since the month of April the employment gap, expressed in absolute terms as between 1958 and 1957, has been increasing. This means, I suggest, that the optimistic statements made by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance are not supported by the facts and by the most recent information available to us.
Let us look at the unemployment situation, Mr. Chairman. Of course the number of unemployed, according to dominion bureau of statistics figures, has been decreasing steadily since March, 1958. That was to be expected with the seasonal pick-up, and we can all take satisfaction from that decrease. But perhaps it is more significant to consider
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
the gap in the percentage of unemployed this year as compared with last year. That gap is measured by dividing the percentage of the total labour force unemployed in 1958 by the same figure for each month in 1957.
If you apply that simple arithmetic you find that in January, 1958, the percentage of unemployed was 66 per cent higher than the year before; in February, 66 per cent; in March, 65 per cent; in April, 62 per cent. The figure went down a bit in April. In May it was 85 per cent higher and in June 92 per cent higher, and June is the last month for which figures are available. One cannot get very much comfort out of these facts. In other words, since April, 1958 the gap in the percentage of unemployed as compared with a year ago has been rising, and it has been rising significantly.
Now, surely this most important fact-and it is an important fact, and I am quite sure it worries the minister as much as it worries us-is in direct contradiction of what the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech at page 1233 of Hansard, which I have already mentioned and which was repeated in this house at page 3103 of Hansard as recently as August 5, when he quoted the unemployment figures for the month of June. On that last occasion in August he said, without, in my view, any regard for the facts:
These figures indicating the decrease in unemployment are, I think, figures that fully bear out what I had to say in the budget speech when I said, as found on page 1233: "Once again the latest figures are encouraging, showing a rapidly narrowing gap in the percentage of unemployed as compared with a year ago."
The figures I have quoted, Mr. Chairman- and they are official figures-show that the gap is not narrowing; it is widening.
My observations up to now have been limited to the unemployment situation as it has developed over recent months, and have been based exclusively on the most conservative figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics. I suggest that these statistics emphasize that the situation is still serious and I hope I will not be accused of presenting a gloomy picture merely because I put these figures on the record.
Now, what can we expect in this regard for the rest of the year and the beginning of 1959? Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any forecast about the unemployment situation in the immediate future. The responsibility for doing that and for giving the unemployment outlook to the house is, of course, that of the minister. Perhaps he will give us as clear and frank a statement as he can on this very important matter and on the policies the government intends to

initiate in order to cope with what I believe to be a continuing and serious situation.
Before the minister makes that statement I should like to give him some indications that might be of assistance to him in his presentation. In the first place I want to point out that according to our usual seasonal pattern in Canada-and this is, of course, to be expected-unemployment reaches its lowest levels in June, July, August and September. That has been the pattern over many years. But then it starts to rise again, even in periods of boom and prosperity, until the following April. In 1957, for instance, the percentage of the total labour force unemployed reached 2.7 per cent in June and remained at about that level for the following three or four months until it climbed to nearly 10 per cent, under the D.B.S. figures, in March, 1958. When the minister presents his employment outlook he will no doubt take into account the fact that in June of this year the percentage of unemployed was 5.2 and not 2.7 as it was last year.
In the second place, I am wondering whether or not the minister has studied the situation in the light of the conclusions of the famous hidden report, the "Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958". If he has he should then be in a position to answer some of the questions raised in excerpts from this report which have appeared and which have a very important bearing on the labour and employment situation in the country. One excerpt from the report reads:
In view of the downward momentum now present in the economy it is questionable whether any firming trend in the latter part of the year would be sufficient to bring over-all production for 1958 as a whole up to the level of the preceding year.
Meanwhile, available manpower, plant and other productive facilities will continue to increase. This means considerable slack is likely to persist in the economy throughout 1958 with unemployment remaining well above the level of any preceding post-war year.
Then another excerpt from the report:
Since this was written a large number of returns from the July survey have been received. Eighty per cent of the industries have revised their employment forecasts downward over the past three months, with the downward revision of total employment being about 2 per cent.
The estimate of average unemployment for 1958 as forecast in the "Canadian Economic Outlook" was 425,000, an increase of 67 per cent over 1957. I ask the minister whether he thinks this figure is too high. If he does, undoubtedly he will tell us and it will be a reassuring statement from him. But does he really think this 67 per cent increase over 1957 is too high when for the first six months of 1958 the percentage of unemployed on the average has been 72.6 per cent higher than for the corresponding period of 1957? If the

minister feels that the figure of 67 per cent as an average over the year is not too high, it represents a serious situation which challenges all of us to do something about it, and which certainly challenges the government. Before this item is carried, perhaps the minister will tell us what the government proposes to do about it.
Before answering these questions, the minister might like to recall again what he and his colleagues used to say about unemployment when they were in opposition and during the election campaign. Before I sit down I should like to refer him to a statement attributed to him in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 5, 1958, in these words:
It is our duty to see that no Canadian suffers a single loss of a job this year.
If the minister finds some difficulty in telling us how the government is going to meet this responsibility, and I can understand the difficulty for it is certainly not an easy problem, perhaps he might discuss this issue with his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I know he is engaged on important work in New York at the moment, but during the election campaign the Secretary of State for External Affairs had a very simple solution to the unemployment problem, because the Saskatchewan Star-Phoenix of March 15 reports him in this way:
External affairs minister Sidney Smith told a Saskatoon audience Friday evening, jobs were the immediate solution to unemployment in Canada.
There is no doubt that is true. Jobs are certainly the answer to the jobless, but what are the policies of the government which it is hoped will provide these jobs in the months ahead? It is the answer to that question that we would like to get. We would at least like to hear from the minister on that question before this estimate is passed.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address myself for a few moments to one phase of the minister's opening statement which over the years has not, in my humble opinion, received the attention from parliament that it deserves. I want to speak for a few moments about our vocational training program. In his opening statement the minister announced to the house, and I have also noted in the report of the director of vocational training, that $40 million is being set aside for vocational training in the coming year, but the strange thing is that of that amount $25 million is being devoted to capital assistance toward the building and equipment of schools and only $15 million for training and education.
I consider that for a country like Canada $15 million for training our youth in trades
57071-3-2281
Supply-Labour
in technical schools is indeed a very paltry amount, and it is distributed amongst the provinces of Canada to such an extent that it cannot really make a serious impression in any province. To me it appears to be somewhat of an excuse for us to be able to say that we are doing something about vocational training. It is like going over a subject once very lightly.
In my opinion the problem is certainly deserving of much more serious attention. It is a national problem, and if the minister and his officials will really think deeply about it I believe they will come to the conclusion that we have sort of been glossing over it. I think we have been delinquent in training our people to keep abreast of technological improvements, automation and inventions in all industries, and unless our workers are trained to keep up with the progress of the times our industries will fall very far behind.
It is true that some contributions are made. I do not know why some provinces insist on thinking of this matter in terms of education and refuse certain subsidies, as some provinces have refused them. This matter too might fall under the heading of education. I would address myself to hon. gentlemen in the province of Quebec and ask them to consider seriously this matter of whether we are not delinquent in the province of Quebec in the matter of the training we are giving, realizing of course that education falls entirely within the jurisdiction of the province. However, this is something that falls under the heading of labour. Unless we are going to train our youth and give them facilities with which to keep abreast of the modern advances of science, certainly our skilled labour will be falling far behind.
I should like to suggest to the minister- and this is a humble suggestion-that the Department of Labour, under his guidance, create in Canada one central training institute where we will train not necessarily skilled labour but teachers. We should have a vocational teachers' training institute so that the very best teachers trained in the central school may go to the different provinces and the different institutes. There, with their training as skilled teachers, they may be able to do a much better job than is being done now.
What happens at the present time? The technical schools or the trade schools in the various provinces call in individuals who may be excellent craftsmen. They may be excellent in their own industry but they are not necessarily good pedagogues; they are not necessarily good teachers. I do not think they have the fullest ability to get across to pupils in the way a trained pedagogue can.

Supply-Labour
If the Department of Labour would take a proper view of vocational training in Canada much could be done. Of course, as I said before, I consider its present program merely an excuse for saying "We are doing something about it". Actually I think we would blush if we compared our efforts in the matter of vocational training with the effort of other countries. Very respectfully and seriously I suggest to the Minister of Labour that here is an opportunity to develop in Canada a program of vocational training, not only by going into the provinces with petty subsidies as we are doing now but by creating an institute for teachers.
I happen to know something about the matter because I am connected with a vocational training organization with schools in various countries in the world. I speak from some experience. That organization has a teacher training institute set up in Geneva. What they do there is train people. The graduates of that institute then travel to various countries and to the various schools. They are expert teachers in vocational training. I think this step would be welcomed by industry in Canada. I feel confident, and I think the minister will agree with me, that industry in Canada could benefit from more skilled labour. I do not know how many hundreds or how many thousands of these skilled technicians from other countries are now in Canada working on Canadian projects.
I do not deride this fact. I think they are necessary. I think they are doing a magnificent job for industry in Canada, but why should we not have our own people trained to do that work? Labour would welcome it. I feel certain that labour would subsidize such a central teachers institute. Labour certainly would create bursaries and scholarships and encourage it in every possible way, if approached, because it is to their benefit. Industry is seeking trained help. Shortly after the war there was a dearth of trained labour in the country and the minister will recall that we sent team after team-I refer to Canadian teams-over to Europe in order to seek out skilled labour there.
Whilst we have been following a program of vocational training in Canada, I direct my appeal again to the minister to think very seriously about this project of creating in Canada an institute for teachers of vocational training. We have, for example, schools or institutes in which we train teachers to go into the elementary schools to teach our children. They are trained teachers; they are trained pedagogues. We have institutes in which we train people to enter the universities in order to train our people in the higher

fields of education. But in the field of vocational training or technical training we have been greatly delinquent.
I do not lay this fault at the feet of the present administration; past administrations must certainly assume some responsibility. But I really think now is the time, when Canada has grown up, to take this step. We need a great deal of skilled labour in Canada. We cannot get it, Mr. Chairman, to the extent that we shall require it unless we create an institute that will train the appropriate teachers to go back into our various provinces, since they control the vocational training schools, where they will qualify our people for that service.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to associate myself with what I understood to be the recommendation of the hon. member for Cartier. Having been connected with education for a number of years in Canada I have long realized the need for a training school for our technical teachers. The atmosphere that would prevail at such a training school varies so much from the regular academic normal schools that I think the proposal put forward by the hon. member, namely that we establish at least one national training school for vocational teachers, is worthy of the most serious consideration. I believe it would greatly assist in supplying those teachers which at the present time are in meagre numbers.
I should like to congratulate the minister
__this is the first occasion on which I have
had the opportunity to make any reference to him-on his attitude since becoming Minister of Labour. He has always been extremely modest. He is one cabinet minister that you can expect to find almost anywhere in Ottawa. He lives with the people whom he professes to serve. He makes a great effort to maintain contact with the ordinary taxpayers of Canada. I feel that his example might well be emulated by other cabinet ministers. With his approach to human beings and human problems, how in the world he finds himself in the ranks of the Conservative party is something I have never been quite able to figure out. However, he is there and I know that his presence will be an influence for good.
I hope the Minister of Labour will not look upon everything we say as his own personal and sole measure of responsibility. I have always regretted-and I said this previously when Hon. Milton Gregg was minister-that we seem to throw all the blame for unemployment on whoever happens to the Minister of Labour, whereas actually unemployment as such is more the major concern of the cabinet as a whole, including

such men as the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. These men actually have more to do with the level of employment in the nation. Yet somehow or other the Minister of Labour is the minister whose estimates are before us when we talk about unemployment, and he always has to take it in the neck for whatever is wrong in the employment field.
Partly to refresh the minister's memory, I would like to refer to an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of October 17, 1957. As the minister will remember, that was shortly after the house opened and when he first became Minister of Labour. The headline was "Job Threat Met", and the article read as follows:
Labour minister Starr was ready in the commons when Erhart Eegier (C.C.F.-Burnaby-Coquitlam) asked what steps the government is taking to alleviate "a rapidly growing unemployment problem".
In quick succession, Mr. Starr listed what the new Progressive Conservative government has done:
1.	The government has started up its strive for a greater construction program.
2.	National employment service offices have been ordered to step up the tempo of finding jobs for the unemployed.
3.	Immigration for the rest of the year has been curtailed because of pressure on the national labour force caused by the heavy influx earlier this year.
4.	The government has made available $150,000,000 for a housing loans fund.
I had the feeling at that time that this was not nearly adequate and that the newspaper reporter had been indeed optimistic when he analysed this as meeting the job threat. I am sure many other members in this house were afraid that this would not nearly meet the situation.
The government did make efforts to help by means of the winter construction program, and I suppose the government and the minister may argue that if this four-point program had not been pursued last winter unemployment in Canada would have been much worse. That, to me, is a very, very weak argument to use as an apology for the serious level of unemployment which even now exists in the middle of our summer, when we normally have next to no unemployment at all.
I know that the national employment service officers were ordered to bestir themselves and look for possible openings for our unemployed. However, both the first and second measures are very hard to analyse, and I do not think even the minister would be able to tell us with any accuracy how much employment was actually created by those policies.
With respect to the third policy, the curtailing of immigration for the rest of the year,
Supply-Labour
I have never been exactly convinced that immigration adds to unemployment. I agree that the unplanned immigration which we had for many years did aggravate the situation in that such a very heavy percentage- sometimes as high as 65 per cent-of the immigrants were single men ready and willing to take employment. I notice, however, that even today the minister's colleague is still pursuing a policy of allowing able workers to come to the country provided they are sponsored by someone in Canada, while at the same time she denies entry to Canada of consumers and future citizens such as the type of people I have referred to as the orphans of the world. Canadians even today are not allowed to bring from other parts of the world, orphans whom they wish to adopt and who certainly would not be a threat to those presently employed in our country. I do not think that answer has met the situation, therefore.
I will agree, however, that the fourth policy has done very much to help the situation. The money this government has made available for housing and the further funds made available under this section I must admit have helped us very, very much.
We do get the impression that this government, by deliberate design, has decided to try to ride out the storm. No policies have yet been advanced, by this minister or indeed by any other minister or by the Prime Minister himself, whereby the government is consciously embarking upon a program to lick once and for all this problem of unemployment which seems to bedevil so many of the western nations. Even assuming that economic conditions were to take a turn for the better, and that thereby in one respect the government is able to ride out the storm, I submit, and we have long submitted in this party, that the problem caused by automation is going to prevent us from eliminating the recurring problem of unemployment, and that if we ride out this present economic recession automation will assume even greater proportions which will require measures to be adopted.
The Leader of the Opposition made some reference to governmental assurances in the past that the problem of unemployment had been largely overcome and that we had every reason to look forward to sunnier days ahead. I was looking through my notes over the lunch hour and, though I did not bring them with me, I found in them many references to occasions when the former minister of labour, for instance in 1954, was assuring the Canadian public that as far as unemployment insurance and unemployment generally were concerned we were over the

Supply-Labour
hump. That is rather old phraseology, and I wish responsible ministers would not use it so often; because it leads to a certain cynicism in the hearts of the unemployed in Canada when they read these statements.
I know the minister is not the first minister to place very great reliance upon statistics supplied to him by the officers of his department, but I would like to point out that those figures for last winter indicated some three-quarters of a million unemployed. Another set of figures showed a much lower total. I submit, and I have always submitted, that even the worst figures supplied to the minister are not adequate to show the situation, and in this regard I would like to place on record the problem which was brought forward by the Ontario welfare council in their submission to the then prime minister of Canada on January 28, 1955. Among other things they referred to approximately 20 per cent of the labour force not being covered by unemployment insurance, and they took the figure of
750.000	unemployed. When you add 20 per cent to that figure-because they have no reason to go to the offices of the unemployment insurance commission since they are not registered and are not eligible-you get an additional 150,000, and that figure of
750.00	becomes 900,000. Those people are unprotected against need arising out of unemployment, and number approximately one-quarter as many as are covered.
Then there is another class of persons, namely those whose benefits have expired. This group, I think, is particularly pertinent at this time when the minister supplies us with figures relating to the number of our unemployed. There are thousands of Canadians who no longer have any need to go near the offices of the unemployment insurance commission because they have nothing to gain. These are the people whose benefits have expired. It is apparent that at a time when the unemployment situation has worsened steadily many people have used up their right to benefit under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Supplementary benefits in the winter months only partially meet the need.
Another class of people who are not really on record are those persons without sufficient credits to entitle them to claim insurance benefits; young people entering the labour market, newcomers to Canada and others who are unprotected because they have not worked long enough to become entitled to benefits. There is also the class of people whose benefits are not sufficient to enable them to support themselves and their families at even a minimum subsistence level.

They would not add to the official figures, but the other categories would, and they should be borne in mind when we are considering the statistics on unemployment.
We were given the assurance-I do not recall its precise terms-that as long as the present government is in office, or as long as the present Prime Minister is in office, the Canadian people can be assured that no one will suffer as a result of unemployment. That was a very odd announcement at the time it was made. If we consider that the maximum that is payable to an unemployed person under the Unemployment Insurance Act is some $30 a week for a man with a family, and that in many cases he has payments to make on the first mortgage on his home and often on a second mortgage; or, failing that, in rent; and that he has payments to make on his furniture and possibly on an automobile, as well as his ordinary costs of upkeep such as the weekly food bill, clothing bills, medical bills and so on, I cannot accept the assurance that no one will suffer because of unemployment as long as the present government remains in office, if at the same time all this government has to offer the unemployed is this maximum of $30-odd a week.
I should like to ask the minister whether he does not think it is about time we should consider removing that ceiling, or raising it, with regard to the maximum amounts that are payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act. This becomes especially important when people are unemployed for any length of time. I suppose all of us, for a month or for two or three months, could manage to live somehow on $30 a week. However, there are many Canadians who have had to live on that small amount of money for six, seven or eight months, and others who are no longer able to get even this help.
The situation is much more serious than the announcements of the government like to make out, and unless some action is taken now I am making the prediction that next winter will see over one million unemployed in Canada. And quite apart from the human suffering that will be caused when this takes place, if we consider the loss to the nation of having a million men unemployed in our country for a period of a year, we find that it means a loss in production, a loss in the wealth of our people, of three billion dollars or in other words 10 per cent of our present gross national product. That 10 per cent is far more than enough to spell either prosperity or depression for our people.
We feel that the government is not paying enough attention to the seriousness of the

problem. I know that the minister himself is spending a great deal of time on it, and what I have to say deals with the minister's representations to the cabinet. I hope when he attends cabinet meetings he is not the mild and meek man we meet on the sidewalks or in the lobbies of the hotels in Ottawa, or wherever we meet him. I hope he is much more aggressive, and that he will become a front bench member of the cabinet. I could never understand why the Minister of Labour has to occupy a seat in the second row, because labour is the most important single element in our society and the Minister of Labour deserves a seat close to the Prime Minister himself.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, and I noticed that while he found some fault with the government's optimism he did not offer very many remedies as to how employment might be provided. Maybe this is not the time to go into details on that particular question, but I had been hoping he would go into somewhat more detail than he did. Of course the answer to unemployment is increased markets for Canadian goods. This involves greater international trade. We have to extend our program of economic aid abroad; we have to see that the people who make up the labour force receive a fair return so they are able to buy back what they make, and that agriculture is given a fair purchasing power in our economy.
It is amazing to me that wherever you have a planned economy-and I am not referring now to nations behind the iron curtain-where-ever you have a government in the western world consciously embarking on a planned economy, you have licked the problem of unemployment. As long as there is conscious planning on the part of a government, unemployment is a relatively easy matter to deal with. If people insist on continuing the economic set-up which they are now perpetuating they will have to adopt the policy that if a man is unemployed he is entitled to unemployment insurance benefits until employment is found for him without any limitation in terms of weeks or months, and to this end supplementary benefits should be payable the year round.
I know this will mean payments out of consolidated revenue, because at the present rate of expenditure, according to the figures which were placed on record at page 2137 of Hansard, we find that at the rate of depletion as it obtained in January and February of this year the fund would only last for 16 months before it was exhausted. Thus, if we are going to extend either the size of the payment or the length of time during which payments may be made, the government will
Supply-Labour
have to revise the financial set-up of the unemployment insurance fund.
I should also like to suggest to the minister that he recommend the setting up of many more offices in the urban parts of Canada. One of the cruelest things which apply to a man who is unemployed is the fact that he has to stand in this line-up sometimes two or three blocks long. In the wintertime he has to stand in the snow or rain to obtain his meal ticket, or to register, or to do whatever it is he needs to do, and I think the minister would earn our gratitude by telling the senior officials in his department, "look, we do not care to build for you a huge organization with a six or seven floor office building with hundreds of civil servants at your command. In the city of Vancouver we want 12 or 15 insurance offices so there may be a human touch, and so the unemployed may not become mere cogs in a machine." If that were done I think not only would more employment be found through these offices, but in addition the unemployed themselves would not have to suffer the terrible humiliation they now feel when they are almost like prisoners in a penitentiary, when in fact all they have is a number.
In fact, in some of these huge offices costing millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money they have become so arrogant that they keep locked the doors of the washrooms lest some unemployed throw a paper towel on the floor and whoever looks after the building would have to pick up that piece of waste paper. I think it is mean to insist that people stand for hours in line without having access to washroom facilities when such facilities are already available in the building and were installed for the purpose of handling the people who have business to do in the building.
I also wish the minister would use his influence to obtain far more money for the adult education program particularly as it applies to vocational training. I would appreciate it if the minister in his reply would indicate how much of the money is estimated for each of the ten provinces. I believe the hon. member for Cartier expressed regret over the fact that not all of the provinces were taking advantage of the aid available for technical education. If my memory serves me correctly his province takes a larger share of the available assistance than does any other province and I should like to congratulate the people of the province of Quebec on that attitude. With respect to retraining workers and providing technical education the people of that province have not hesitated to play their full role.

Supply-Labour
The problem of adult education is very important and with the development of automation it is going to become a much more serious problem. The department is expending $71 million this year through the unemployment insurance commission branch but only $7 million is being expended for vocational education. They are spending ten times as much to supply relief which in the long run is only a stop-gap action as they are spending to supply technical and vocational training that will assist workers to play a useful role in society. Making more money available for this kind of training and building more institutions for this purpose will assist in solving the problem.
We have reached the point where men of 35 and 40 years of age have to learn new trades because of automation. Many of these men are married and have family responsibilities. We cannot expect them to take a technical course for a six-month period and leave their families without means of sustenance. We will have to enhance our program of aid for those who take the courses and assume responsibility for the incomes of the families while the breadwinners are learning to equip themselves for new roles in life.
I hope the minister will also pay some attention to a growing problem in Canada. I know he did not like what he felt he had to do in the case of a public utility on the west coast but I believe the time has come when the federal government should take the leadership and begin to sit down with Canadian organized labour to see whether in the field of public utilities a solution cannot be found that will be acceptable both to those owning public utilities and to the workers involved. None of us wants compulsory arbitration I am sure and yet that is apparently what will come about because of the way we are allowing things to go on at the present time. As time goes on that situation will become worse. The minister with his kindly and conciliatory nature through his department would be able to supply a real service to the Canadian labour scene if he would offer leadership in that direction.


Mr. Houck:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Labour I must admit at the very outset I find myself in a very difficult position mainly because of my personal affection and high regard for the Minister of Labour. I believe the Dominion of Canada over the last years has been . highly fortunate in its choice of those who have filled that very important portfolio. Certainly the life and accomplishments of the late Humphrey Mitchell will live in our

memories for many years. The Hon. Milton F. Gregg performed a fine job in the capacity of minister of labour and although perhaps he has jumped from the frying pan into the fire we will not forget what he accomplished on behalf of the working class people of this country. And now we have the present genial Minister of Labour.
I must admit I admire the hon. gentleman for more than one reason. One of the main reasons for my admiration of him, and I think it was mentioned on other occasions, is that he is fair and square and when asked a question he does not give a political answer. I have always felt it was a pleasure to ask him questions in the house because he does not throw the question back to the Liberal party and attempt to place the blame on the previous administration for whatever condition is being discussed. He does not try to make us believe we are at fault for every situation that arises. When he is at fault he accepts the blame like a man and does not behave like some other ministers who attempt to throw the blame on the past Liberal regime.
The minister is to be congratulated, too, because he has a very fine group of officials in his department. If I may use the parlance of the baseball field, no manager can be successful unless he has a good bench. The minister is certainly fortunate because he has a good bench, a highly competent group of officials standing behind him. I have always felt that no minister of the crown could do a good job unless he had capable officials assisting him. I had an opportunity to observe the work of these officials when serving on the industrial relations committee and was greatly impressed when they presented their brief to the committee and answered questions concerning the operations of the department. I say to the minister that both he and his officials deserve a great deal of credit.
Another thing I like about the minister, and the previous speaker referred to it as well, is that he always wears a friendly smile. We always like to see him in the building because of his cheerful countenance although we did miss him during the six weeks when he was attending the labour conference in Geneva. Another thing about the minister that will stand out permanently in the minds of all hon. members is that when he was in opposition he was Mike to everybody and now that he has been elevated to the high position he holds he is still the same old Mike and we love him for the many fine personal qualities he has.
I have thrown orchids to the minister and as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition I presume I may now be allowed to

throw bean balls, to use another baseball expression. I am advised that there is a new rule in baseball. An umpire has the right to fine a pitcher $50 for throwing a bean ball. Mr. Chairman, if you feel I am throwing a bean ball, simply call it to my attention and I shall desist from doing so.
During the last election campaign, as was referred to by my leader and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the Prime Minister stated that should a Conservative government be returned on March 31-and it certainly was returned with an overwhelming majority-"no Canadian shall suffer through unemployment". Those were the words he used. This promise, reflecting as it did the great public concern over the deepening crisis in our economy was largely responsible for the unprecedented mandate the Conservative party received from the Canadian people. Many families suffering real hardship as a result of extended unemployment expect the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise. It is the opinion, based on experience and fortified by studies of Canadian and United States economists, that the present crisis is not of a seasonable nature but is beginning to take on the deep-going and all-embracing nature of that of the thirties.
The vast unemployed wealth of our country stands indeed in sharp contrast to the presence of over half a million workers who want desperately to be gainfully employed, but for whom no work is to be found. Similarly, vast surpluses in consumer goods piling up in warehouses from coast to coast stand in sharp contrast to real hardship experienced by hundreds of thousands of Canadian families who have been unwillingly removed as a market for these products by unemployment.
We feel that only by extraordinary measures on the part of the federal administration can these contradictions be corrected. And by "we" I mean the Liberal party. I refer to measures which will result in extensive public spending in projects of a nationbuilding character, measures which will open the markets of the world for our industrial and farm products, measures which will place more consumer purchasing power in the hands of the unemployed, thus achieving the twofold purpose of increasing the home market for our surpluses while guaranteeing that no unemployed worker or his family shall suffer through unemployment.
Certainly, no feature of America's economic life-and when I say "America" I am including the United States and Canada- has been more at the heart of our rapidly rising and widely shared levels than the daring of this nation's businesses in pricing for volume and taking their chances on profit.
57071-3-229
Supply-Labour
It is no accident that this policy has characterized our most profitable industries. If we are to maintain the vigour and vitality of our free economy this drive for the widest possible markets must continue. A price policy designed to bring increasing volume should be nothing short of an article of faith for every businessman. The economic recovery and growth we bring about must take the form, not of higher costs and prices but of more production and more jobs.
We might just as well be realistic over this trouble. If we as earners obtain such large increases in our incomes each year that the cost of production moves always upward, then as customers we shall find only higher price tags on the goods in the stores.
The Canadian people believe in good wages, both in private and public employment. Good wages reward effort and build markets. But the Canadian people are going to be looking over the shoulders of those sitting at every bargaining table to see whether the wage settlement and subsequent price decisions are consistent with a stable dollar, or whether they mean another dismal sequence of ever-rising costs and prices. Inequities in the wage structure must, of course, be adjusted. But consumers are not going to be satisfied with less and less value per dollar of price, which is the inevitable result of less and less production per dollar of cost. If businessmen and labour union leaders forget these truths, the consumers will remind them in ways that are clear and painful and, in the process, the whole economy will suffer. These are not theoretical considerations; they have a direct bearing on specific industries today.
I was impressed-and the Minister of Labour spoke about it when he introduced his estimates this morning-about the older people and the lack of employment. Mr. Robert Scott, executive secretary of the Alberta federation of labour, said this, and I think it is very important:
Age discrimination is one of the most serious unemployment problems in industry today. It has aggravated the general jobless situation across Canada.
He continued:
Employers are considering workers over 40 years of age obsolete. In some cases persons who are 35 are too old to be employed.
He went on to say:
These people are forgetting that in general workers are more efficient and dependable between the ages of 40 and 50.
Dr. F. W. Hanley of Calgary said this. He has studied the problem:
Probably never before has the aging man so frequently been denied an opportunity to exchange his work for the essentials of living.

Supply-Labour
much some of the proponents of the idea will groan if it causes an increase in their income tax. With the government engaged in a large public works program it is indeed reasonable that it should see that as much as possible is done in the winter. But it is also reasonable, and I am very emphatic about this, that industry should try to remain in production throughout the year instead of operating on the basis of six months of overtime and six months of lay-offs. It is not only the government but business that should start long range planning to prevent another great winter slump.
The years since the end of the second world war saw a constant increase in employment. The rising tide was not checked until the middle of 1957 and as the government changed at that time it was natural that many people should blame the Progressive Conservative party. Whether or not they are right I am not going to judge. It is a question for a master economist, but actually we had gone a long time without a recession of any considerable size.
During the warmer months employment has been gradually increasing but the fact remains that the situation is still bad for this season of the year. With the automobile industry in a great slump, many of the firms that supply mechanical parts, glass, tires and other materials and many that supply the tools and machinery for automotive construction are also under pressure. Indeed, many western farmers, as members from the west know, are looking out at barren and drought-parched land and are facing one of the poorest harvests. That will certainly not aid the employment situation next winter.
I should like to say a word or two about the dispute between the 15 unions representing the non-operating personnel and the Canadian railways. The settlement of this dispute is indeed of great national importance. Apart from the establishment of rates of pay and working conditions for this segment of the railway industry, the settlement will also have an impact on the wages and working conditions of all railway employees. We all know that the settlement of other union contracts within the railway industry depends upon the settlement which is reached in the dispute between the companies and the unions representing the non-operating personnel. The settlement will also have an impact upon the general economy of the country through the ultimate cost of rail service.
What has happened to date? Last November, almost ten months ago, the unions submitted their proposals and demands to form the basis of a new agreement to replace the contract which was to expire on December

31, 1957. The unions, representing approximately 127,000 employees of the two major railways alone, proposed that the wages of their members be increased as of January 1 of this year by 11 per cent plus 17 cents an hour. In addition, the unions proposed other revisions of the then existing contract, the most important of which had to do with the health and welfare plan, to which the railways were asked to double their contribution, and the request for a more generous vacation policy.
Since the unions tabled their demands last November the normal process of collective bargaining has been followed. The unions and the companies failed after a little more than three weeks to reach any basis for settlement. At the request of the unions the Minister of Labour established a conciliation board on December 2. Little progress was made until the board commenced its hearings on March 3 in Montreal. We know that the delay was due in part to a protest by the union over the appointment of the chairman of the board who, after a month, resigned. However, that delay was unfortunate, and perhaps unnecessary, as the Minister of Labour could have learned, before the appointment was made, whether either party had valid reservations about the nominee. This delay not only caused inconvenience to the parties to the dispute but also seriously retarded the ultimate settlement of the dispute upon which so much depends both within and without the industry.
The board has now submitted reports to the minister and to the parties. These reports are dated July 21 and were made public on the 30th of last month. Since then we have had no further word on what progress has been made or what steps have been taken to bring about a settlement.
We know that the chairman of the board and the representative of the union submitted a joint report which the minister has stated is to be considered the report of the board, in which an increase in wages was recommended. The increases are as follows: four cents an hour retroactive to January 1 of this year; an additional three per cent effective the first of next month; and a third increase of three per cent to be effective April 1, 1959. The representative of the companies in his minority report recommended no changes in the wage rates for the year of 1958. The members of the board also commented on the other issues in the dispute but I do not propose to mention them at this time. However, I propose to ask the minister what his department and the government proposes to do now with regard to this problem. The conciliation process has now been exhausted.

The parties may accept or reject the majority report of the board and they are free to follow whatever course they choose from that time onward.
We on this side of the house-and I say this to the Minister of Labour-know that it is not an easy task for the government to face, that it is not easy to bring about a settlement which provides for the employees rates of pay and working conditions comparable with those paid for similar work and which, at the same time, does not place an unreasonable strain on the resources of the companies. But if the dispute is to be solved, imaginative and bold action must be undertaken by the government right now. The dispute cannot be allowed to drift until the environment has become so muddied that a solution cannot be found without causing great inconvenience to the country and its economy or by other drastic measures.
I want to say this, Mr. Chairman. In opposition the minister-and the minister was not too pronounced in this matter-and his colleagues made daring and bold statements about how they, if they were in power, would deal with such disputes; how they would solve these disputes within the framework of collective bargaining and with a minimum of delay. The Prime Minister and other members of the present government were bitter in their comments about the slowness of the Liberal government in dealing with such disputes and they made sweeping charges about the government's ineffectiveness. I am going to ask the minister and the government what they are going to do about it.
I think the Minister of Labour is duty bound to tell this house and the nation what steps he is taking or proposes to take to bring about a settlement without a strike or a forced settlement by legislation. What is the government doing to prevent this dispute degenerating into a second British Columbia coastal steamship episode?
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should just like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour a local problem and ask the indulgence of hon. members of the house for another few minutes. I have received a complaint-and I think it is one that is justified -concerning the fact that United States musicians are allowed to enter Canada for the purpose of playing musical engagements, whereas Canadians are stopped by United States immigration officers from taking performing jobs in the United States. Meetings have been held not only in Niagara Falls but in other places along the border by the various locals. Our own local union passed a resolution to write to the Minister of Labour protesting the ease with which United States
Supply-Labour
musicians are allowed to enter Canada. A reply to this resolution was received from the deputy minister of labour, Mr. A. H. Brown, in which he states in the last paragraph of it;
If you know of any cases of musicians who have entered Canada under section 7G for the purpose
of giving specific performances and have remained in Canada to accept regular employment or persons who have entered Canada under permit to accept the position which could be filled by a resident in Canada.
We have a number of members in our local in Niagara Falls who have been out of work this past winter and spring and many of them have been working on short time. Their membership is quite excited to think that in all cases they could have very capably filled the requests for professional musicians that have been so frequently filled by men from across the border who seem to be lucky enough, according to their contracts, to be able to secure work in Canada at almost double the price which people pay for Canadian musicians. I have learned just recently that these musicians from the United States come over without even bonding their instruments. I am asking the minister to give the matter some attention. I know it is a question of customs. I hope he will take the matter up with the minister concerned and see whether something cannot be done. Each and every time one of our Canadian musicians attempts to go across with his instruments to engage in a playing job in Niagara Falls or Buffalo, he is always told by the United States immigration officers, "You can't come in for you would only take jobs away from United States musicians". Fair play is fair play. I know the minister will do something about that problem.
Might I sum up, Mr. Chairman, by saying this.


The Chairman:: Order.


Michael Starr: Let the hon. member finish.


William Limburg Houck: I have only a little bit more and I shall be finished.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the committee to permit the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Limburg Houck: Thank you. I can only sum up what I have been trying to say in this way. The government must do something and do it immediately. Certainly the Canadian people look to this government to take the lead first by creating new purchasing power, by drastically reducing income and sales tax immediately, raising income tax exemptions for single persons and in a much higher

Supply-Labour
bracket for married persons with dependent children. Second, in expanding employment by a new trade policy, by seeking increased trade on the basis of mutual advantage with other countries. Third, the economy could be primed by construction of thousands of new homes and extended public works should be brought forward to build needed schools, hospitals, highways, power and irrigation projects. Fourth, the needs of the unemployed must be met by an increase in unemployment benefits, these benefits to continue for a longer time of unemployment.
Might I say this, Mr. Chairman, and I do this seriously indeed. If the people of Canada had followed the Liberal platform in the last election and indeed the Pearson plan, namely a vacation on taxation, and placing the dollar back into circulation, certainly we would not be facing the serious unemployment situation we are facing at the present time.


Mr. Howard:: In rising, Mr. Chairman, to participate in the discussion of this particular vote, I would like, as the hon. members have done, to make a comment or two with respect to the minister himself as an individual and with respect to the attitude that he has shown both in the house in dealing with questions, by correspondence and in personal discussions. I have the highest commendation for the minister for the sincerity that he shows, and for the humbleness that is apparent in his everyday dealings with the problems of his department. I know that it is not because of lack of sincerity or lack of desire on his part if the other cabinet ministers do not agree with him in some of the proposals that he may make from time to time. However, I would suggest that there are some other cabinet ministers, notably the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture, who would be well advised to follow the attitude and the example set by the Minister of Labour. If they would do so, I am sure that we would be able to conduct the discussions relating to their respective departments with the same degree of amicability and sensibility that we are able to discuss the questions relating to the department of the Minister of Labour.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the opinions expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in his opening remarks on this vote, because I wondered whether the Liberal party was going to exhibit any different attitude today from that which they adopted while in office during the past years. All I could discover, however, was the same exhibition of verbal wandering into the question of labour-management relations, a

subject with which he is not too familiar. However, the Leader of the Opposition ably and succinctly posed the problem in a nutshell when he dealt with the solution to unemployment. In posing that problem he included in his comments an observation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a speech made by that gentleman, I believe, at Saskatoon, when he said that the solution to unemployment is jobs. Of course I quite agree with both these hon. gentlemen in that connection and apparently there is at least one thing which one will learn if one spends some time in the Department of External Affairs; one can at least get to know what the problem is even if one has no idea of the solution to it. One of the first realizations one would have, apparently, would be the realization of the right questions to ask.
I know that in dealing with the estimates of the Department of Labour we could, and probably will, expand our discussions beyond the actual field covered by the department. We could get into the internal operations and attitudes of the unions and of management and the relationships between the two groups and the impact of those organizations upon society. It is not my intention to wander into any specific aspect of that field or to refer to specific elements of society, but even though I may have some pretty definite opinions on the attitude of management, I will confine my remarks to a few comments concerning the unions themselves. This is because I spent a number of years as an officer of unions and a certain period as an officer of one particular union, and as a result of this experience I came to know something of the day to day working within the unions.
Firstly I must say that in Canada we are in nowhere near the position in which the United States finds itself with respect to some of the unions south of the border. The situation in respect of those unions has been well publicized by certain United States senate investigation committees, and my personal opinion is that as a whole we have a much cleaner group of unions in Canada than exists in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: I say that, knowing as I do many of the union officials in this country. There are, however, some Canadian unions whose policies and operations certainly do not fit within the expression of opinion I have just voiced. I have personal knowledge of some unions where the members are absolutely afraid of losing their membership cards and of losing their jobs as a result of expressing their opinions at union meetings. This is a most deplorable state of affairs in what is supposed to be a free society and

where people are supposed to be able to express their opinions, be they critical or in commendation. Because of the operations of some Canadian unions, however, such freedom of expression does not exist although these unions are in the minority.
Unless this situation is cleaned up with respect to particular unions there is a danger of such practices extending to other unions and, although I hope I will never live to see the day when this happens, the unions may fall into such disfavour among their own members and with the public in general that the Canadian people may decide some corrective legislative steps will have to be taken.


Mr. McGee:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he care to mention the particular unions he has in mind?


Frank Howard: No, I will not mention the particular unions I have in mind because, as I stated earlier, I do not think this falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. I merely express these views in a general way. It might be said that I am hiding behind the question, but I would rather not give the names of individual unions about which I have personal knowledge. I hope that will satisfy the questioner.
As I said earlier, however, only a small fraction of the total of millions of Canadian members are affected in this way. I do not think the inference should be drawn from my remarks, and I am sure it could not be drawn, that within the unions to which I have referred the same sort of thing exists as apparently exists in certain United States unions which have now come under the surveillance of the senate investigation committee. I refer to racketeering, thugs and gangsters who get control of the unions for their own immediate ends. I am certainly not implying that such is the situation here but, as I say, I have personal knowledge of some policies being followed in Canadian unions which have the effect of placing union members in fear of losing their jobs so that they will not express their opinions on union policies.
I wish to raise another point which comes more specifically within the ambit of the department's jurisdiction, and this has to do with the reference which has been made to the operative machinery used for negotiations, that is to say the process of direct bargaining, the use of conciliation officers and conciliation boards and, in some cases, what I believe are called industrial inquiry commissions. With respect to the legislative or operative machinery for negotiation, I wish to express some thoughts I outlined in discussing a particular bill a few weeks ago.
Supply-Labour
We have in Canada a most ridiculous situation with respect to our labour laws applying to negotiations and relationships between union and management in collective bargaining. We have a federal act which embraces certain employees across the nation, but ten of our provinces are concerned with the field of labour legislation with respect to matters falling under the jurisdiction of the provinces themselves. All in all, we have or could have, eleven different types of legislation for the certification of unions, eleven different types of legislation for the granting of bargaining rights, eleven different types of legislation so far as conciliation procedures are concerned and eleven different types of legislation regarding the entire field of labour-management relations from the original moment of organizing to the final signing of the collective agreement.
It is neither sensible nor conducive to efficiency to have this diversity or this difference of legislation. In some cases the unions find themselves operating under one set of bargaining procedures as laid down by law, while just across the border in a neighbouring province the same union and the same employer might find themselves covered by a different set of laws. In the federal field the same thing is applicable. Some employers find themselves under federal legislation in one instance and under provincial legislation in another, and I suggest that in order to remedy this particular situation some distinct and concrete steps should be taken, steps similar to those taken in 1940 or 1941 when the Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced. Maybe I have got the wrong year there. But an undertaking was made at that time to amend the British North America Act in order that the Unemployment Insurance Act should apply universally across the nation. It was, in effect, an invasion, or the giving up, if you want to look at the other side of it, of provincial jurisdiction, and that, I think, must be done in this instance to ensure the uniformity of labour legislation with regard to certification, negotiation procedures and so on, in order that we may have one set of laws throughout the country and not have confusion in the minds of management, in the minds of unions and, especially, in the minds of individual members of unions who work in different industries in different provinces at different times and find themselves governed by different sets of laws.
This may entail some adjustment in our present industrial disputes act after discussions with the provinces. If we do not succeed in having a uniform set of labour laws across the nation, then at least in so far as the federal government is concerned we need

Supply-Labour
to overhaul our legislation completely. At the present time we have a system of attempting to assist labour and management in the conduct of their affairs in so far as their negotiations are concerned, a system of conciliation boards which in some cases may operate successfully but which in many cases does not-and this applies to the provincial field more particularly, probably, because I have had a little more interest in provincial labour legislation in years past than I have had in federal legislation.
The attitudes of the various chairmen of conciliation boards is one obstacle which must be overcome. Many conciliation board chairmen still use the approach of trying to be Cyrus Ching, the second; trying to get the two parties together in order to prevent a lockout or a strike. They will confer with the unions individually, and confer individually with management and with the other members of the board in an attempt to find the solution which would be mutually acceptable and will then recommend in their awards that this should be the basis of a contract. Other conciliation board chairmen do not take that attitude at all. They sit there as if they were self-appointed lords, listen to both sides of the argument, then lock themselves up in a room and without paying much attention to the contentions of one side or the other bring forth some preconceived idea of what they think the solution is and dump it into the laps of both parties who are then no better off than they were months earlier.
I submit that the operation of the conciliation boards is outdated at the present time. It promotes delays. The hon. member for Niagara Falls mentioned a period of many months spent on negotiations between the management and railway brotherhoods, and part of that delay has been occasioned by conciliation board procedures. I am suggesting we would be moving in the right direction and laying the foundation for finding adequate solutions to differences between labour and management if we were to scrap the conciliation board procedure and have an adequately trained, tactful staff of people who would enjoy the confidence of both unions and management. Such confidence would, no doubt, need to be generated over the years. These trained conciliators would have to be intelligent and capable people, tactful and diplomatic, and they would have to enjoy the confidence of both parties so that they could meet with them both separately and collectively to help work out solutions to their problems. I am not saying that our present conciliation officers are not competent or able, but they have not been able to effect a settlement by conciliation in many

cases where strikes have taken place which in my opinion might have been avoided had we had a more sensible approach.
Further, I would suggest that any future labour legislation which is brought before this parliament, any legislation which comes under the minister's jurisdiction

and whether or not this has always been done in the past I do not know-should be referred to the committee on industrial relations, because, as we all know, it is not possible for an individual representing management or an employers' association, or for individual officers of unions, or individual citizens to come before the House of Commons or before the committee of the whole house and say: here is my thinking with respect to a particular piece of legislation. The only way in which we can offer the citizens of this nation an opportunity of expressing their views to parliament with regard to a specific piece of legislation is by referring such legislation to a standing committee so that the legislation, when it is finally developed, will reflect the attitude of the nation and, to every extent possible, of those people who will be operating the legislation and who will be affected by it. In fact, I would give this committee authority to initiate legislation, the authority to hear ideas.
In the province of British Columbia we have had for a number of years a standing committee on municipal affairs in the legislative assembly, and that committee has, in effect, authority to initiate legislation.
All that is referred to it is the general subject matter. Municipalities, unions, private corporations and individuals go to the committee every year and say, "Here are our ideas. We would like these in legislative form." Questions are asked, consultation with departmental officials occurs and legislation is initiated by that committee. I feel it would be wise to give our industrial relations committee authority to initiate legislation, to deal with legislation referred to it and recommend changes with respect to drafting. Between now and the next session I would suggest the committee on industrial relations be established as a permanent and continuing committee in order that it might sit during the period of recess and hear views and ideas and arguments and accept briefs presented to it concerning changes in our present legislation and at the next session be in a position to make some good, concrete recommendations with respect to our legislative program.
I wish to deal for a moment or two with the question of minimum wages and hours of work. That is a field which the federal government must enter with respect to employees coming under the jurisdiction of federal labour legislation. Various figures have been

suggested with respect to a minimum wage and minimum hours of work and although I have personal views on this subject I do not feel it is my duty to express them at this time although I certainly would if requested to do so. For the purposes of this context we could take the figure of $1 an hour and a 40-hour or 44-hour week. I have heard the argument expressed that there is absolutely no need for guaranteed wages with respect to employees coming under the jurisdiction of federal labour legislation, and there is no need for restrictions on hours of work or provisions for overtime. Everyone looks at the railways and says, "They are organized into unions. They do not need guaranteed wages. They are able to negotiate their own wages. They have overtime provisions. There is no need of the federal government making this a matter of legislation". I submit there is a need for this within the operations of the railways themselves.
I do not know if the condition exists today but a few years ago in British Columbia the Canadian National Railways was contracting some of the more menial jobs to outside contractors. The extra gangs, the people laying track, the spike drivers and others were not organized into unions. That work was contracted to an individual company. In fact, the possibility of organizing them appeared remote. Most of the employees on these jobs were new Canadians. There were a few from Spain but many from Italy, Portugal and other countries. They came directly from their native country to Canada, stepped off one train and on to another which took them to a location where they were immediately put to work by the contractor. They had no knowledge of the language and certainly no understanding of the wage rates or hours of work that should be in effect. They were exploited left, right and centre by the contractor. If you can imagine it in this day and age when we have laws in some provinces setting minimum wages and establishing minimum hours of work and providing for penalties for infractions of the law, these people were forced to work ten hours a day, six days a week, with no overtime provisions for 90 cents an hour. That is one group of employees that could benefit by the enactment of legislation guaranteeing a certain minimum wage and imposing a limit on the number of hours they can be required to work in a day. There are other groups, too, but I mention that one only because they worked indirectly for the railway company and were exploited by the contractors.
I notice in the estimates reference to an economics and research branch in the Department of Labour which has approximately 130 employees and involves an expenditure of
Supply-Labour
approximately $600,000. I have wondered for some time just what this branch does. I also wondered whether there is not a duplication of effort between this branch of the Department of Labour and similar branches in other government departments, especially the Department of Trade and Commerce, which deal with the economy of our country. I do not know if there is duplication but I find it strange that in the field of research into economics we do not have one branch of government to deal with the entire question of the Canadian economy for all departments of government.
My friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam dealt at some length with the question of unemployment and the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is not my intention to reiterate his remarks on that subject with which he dealt so effectively but I have one or two thoughts to express with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I suggest it is time we began to look at the application of the act and payments of insurance benefits generally from the point of view of their being something in the nature of a guaranteed annual wage. Large industries, corporations and manufacturing units could certainly themselves bear the cost of a guaranteed annual wage covering their own employees but there are many companies in the nation that are far too small to assume the financial burden of paying a guaranteed annual wage to their employees. By establishing the policy of looking at our unemployment insurance legislation, not in terms of being a dole because a person is unemployed but in terms of a deferred payment of wages because of contributions the individual has made to the operation of an industry and/or to society we would be better off. It would spread the cost of providing additional payments while unemployed over a much broader base rather than confining it to individual industries.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that my time has nearly expired but as I have one or two additional points to make I wonder if the committee would extend to me the courtesy that was extended to the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I assure the committee I shall require just a minute or two in which to conclude my remarks.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the committee to agree to permit the hon. member to finish his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: In conjunction with the question of changing our philosophy with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act and looking at it in the light of attempting to

Supply-Labour
provide a guaranteed annual wage, or a deferred payment of wages during periods when people are unemployed, if you wish to classify it that way, I believe we will also have to relate to that our attitude with respect to pensions. The same administrative machinery could be used to administer the pension schemes as is used to administer unemployment insurance.
We must, I think, establish in the nation a system of allowing a person who contributes to a pension the right to transport his pension contribution with him when he moves from one employer to another. Many industries in which persons are employed for 10 or 15 years go out of business, or a curtailment is made in production. The person who has contributed to a pension plan for 10 or 15 years finds that he can no longer contribute to that pension plan because he has practically no employment, and if he goes to work somewhere else where there is no pension plan, what position is he in, if he retires 10 or 15 years hence? I suggest we should have in Canada a contributory all-inclusive portable pension plan so that a workman can move from one job to another and carry his pension contributions with him. Then, when he reaches the age of retirement he will be in receipt of a pension, in addition to the basic old age pension, adequate to look after the needs of himself and his family in his later years.
Another reason for insisting on such a system is that we find many older workers, within two or three years of reaching pensionable age, are subjected to most severe attitudes by employers in order to make them leave their jobs and thus lose their pension rights. I might add that I know of the personal experience of my own father. He was subjected to this sort of attitude by his employer in the last few years of his working life. If he had been a younger man, if he had not been so near the pensionable age, I know he would not have put up with the degrading things he was forced to put up with. I know there are many other people who have the same problem. A portable pension scheme would certainly overcome this.
With respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act itself, I hope the government will undertake to remove the discriminatory approach used with respect to contributions by and benefits to fishermen. I know there is no need to remind the minister of the promises which his party made before the last election and the election of June 10, 1957, because they are in the back of his mind and I hope he keeps them there. I hope that when the time comes to change the

Unemployment Insurance Act, which apparently is not going to be done this session, he will undertake to remember the promises which were made by the Conservative party and which I do not wish to reiterate at this time.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with those who have already spoken and tell the minister that we appreciate the sincerity with which he has dealt with the many problems he has been confronted with since his appointment as Minister of Labour. We have not been able to agree with him all the time, or with the methods he and the cabinet have used to deal with those problems, but we admire his readiness and his willingness to deal with those problems.
On this vote, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with a particular problem. At the last session of the last parliament I introduced the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation that would facilitate the employment in federal works, undertakings, businesses, as defined in section 2, of chapter 38 of the statutes of Canada 1956, or in any corporation set up to perform some function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada, of male or female persons over 45 years of age who, on account of their age, find it difficult to secure employment at the present time.
I know for a fact, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members from all sides of the house have encountered many instances of persons over 45 years of age who were unable to secure a job on account of their age. Some of the cases I have had to deal with were really pathetic. I have encountered during my five years as a member of parliament people over 45 years of age, able and capable of doing a good job in their particular field, but who were turned down by employers on account of their age. Thus, unable to earn their living and take care of the needs of their family, some became sick, depressed and almost a wreck. This situation creates a serious social problem in this country. This problem should be taken care of now by this government. It is our duty to put a curb on the ever-increasing tendency to discriminate against those over 45.
The problem I have just stated is an urgent one. In order to prove my assertion as to its gravity I would like to refer to the number of unemployed persons over 45 on May 24 of this year. On June 20 last, in answer to a question I had put to him on May 24, the Minister of Labour answered that in the week ended May 24, 1958 the estimated number of persons without jobs and seeking work, 45 years of age and over, was

approximately 90,000; 90,000 persons looking for jobs and almost unable to secure them on account of their age.
Compared with the social problem created by the discrimination I just mentioned, the reasons given by employers for not being too anxious to give a job to persons over 45 years old and over should not stand. All workers, no matter what their age may be, must share equally in the job opportunities. Canadians, including those over 40 and 45, should have equal opportunities in the labour market.
Some states in the United States of America, aware of the social problem I am dealing with, have enacted laws to prevent this kind of discrimination. For instance, the states of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New York have adopted laws prohibiting discrimination against certain persons in employment on account of their age. In most of those laws the principal acts relating to age which are forbidden by law are the following:
1.	To print notices or place advertisements indicating a preference based upon age.
2.	To deny an equal opportunity to obtain employment solely because of age.
3.	To discriminate against an individual because of his age in compensation, tenure or other conditions or privileges of employment.
4.	To deny membership rights in any labour organization because of an individual's age.
5.	To deny the chance of being referred for employment because of age.
Some might feel that such a law might be difficult to enforce. If we read the first annual report of the Pennsylvania fair employment practice commission, whose job it is to see that the law against discrimination is observed in that state, we see that it has achieved good results.
Since I know the great comprehension of the Minister of Labour of problems similar to the one I have just dealt briefly with I am sure he will study carefully the laws I have mentioned in my remarks and I sincerely hope that he will see fit to bring about similar legislation in Canada at the next session.
I remember very well giving my support to the resolution presented every session by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration while she was in opposition to the effect that this house should enact a law to promote equal pay for female employees. At every session she introduced her resolution until the government of the day decided to bring it in as a government measure. I am seeking her support today as well as the support of the Minister of Labour. Again, I hope it will be part of government legislation at the next session. As far as I am concerned, I shall continue to press the
Supply-Labour
necessity of solving this problem as long as it has not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, I have heard all the verbal bouquets tossed at the minister and I know that the finest bouquet we could present to him would be to pass his estimates as quickly as possible. I should like him to know that several members who sit on the opposition side have told me that he is the best minister of labour they can recall. I know that he gives fair and equal treatment to all members of the house no matter where they sit.
I wish to refer to two or three matters, particularly one raised by the hon. member for Skeena. He said that generally speaking we have as fine a labour movement in Canada as anywhere in the world. I believe our labour leaders are outstanding and labour has built up a fine record of greater and greater participation in our democratic form of government and our culture. Unfortunately, there are a few labour unions that do not follow the general pattern. I should like to read to the house an excerpt from a letter I received which bears out some of the implications of the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena. This man is a sailor and he writes as follows on August 8:
I wish to ask, how long must we seamen suffer extortion, intimidation, beatings-up and being D.N.Sed (do not ship), a neat way of expelling us from the union on any kind of trumped up charge or without a charge by revoking our permit, for which we pay $69, or our book. This effectively prevents us from working in the industry. To fight action for reinstatement or reimbursement through the courts requires much money, which most of us do not have to pay out to high priced lawyers such as our union hires to fight us. Why doesn't the government ban or deport Hal Banks? This man has an established criminal record; even our citizenship courts refused to grant him citizenship.
Banks has been in Canada 10 years dictating in our union. He has never run on a ballot. He is in fact a dictator who was never ever elected. He was appointed in the U.S.A.-
Then he goes on to talk about this being an intolerable situation. Actually we know that Mr. Banks was brought in by the steamship companies in order to clear out what they called the communist influence in the union of that time operating on the great lakes. This is an example of what happens when you try to tamper in the affairs of a union. In this case it seems to me that the cure was worse than the disease.
I also have a clipping from the Vancouver Province of Thursday, August 7, in which there is an article by Doug Collins telling about a union man who had to pay a $200 ' fine imposed by the union. The article reads in part as follows:
A union man paid a $200 fine last week. It was levied on him by the seafarers international union

Private Bills
because he didn't turn up for picket duty during the recent C.P.R. strike. The man, Christoph Donins of Haney, earns $238 a month. In addition to the fine, he had to pay a $28 strike levy, leaving him $10 for his first month of work this summer. The case isn't an isolated one.
The article goes on to say that when Donins protested to the strike committee about the size of the fine he was told that he was lucky, that one person who missed three watches or three times on picket duty was fined $100 and another missed one and had to pay $25. He was also told that he was lucky because if he continued in that way he would be beaten up.
Two weeks ago at a union meeting another man complained about assessments and I am informed that a Mr. Heineki wanted to know if the man complaining would like to have happen to him again what happened in 1953 when he suffered a mauling and beating up. I know that when a strike vote was taken on the west coast something over 90 per cent of the seamen supposedly voted to strike. However, the strike vote was conducted under the auspices of the union whose idea of democracy is well illustrated by what I have already said.
The largest union on the west coast is the international woodworkers of America. It is a good union, a democratic union. It has helped to raise the standards of workers in the forest industries. It is a union which is tough in bargaining but is democratically run. That union took a strike vote and found that 80 per cent of its members were in favour of a strike. They proceeded with their negotiations and the time came when a supervised strike vote was taken under the provincial labour code. In that vote the number favouring a strike dropped to 65 per cent. There were 35 per cent opposed.
That clearly indicates the fact that even when a secret vote is held by a democratic, good union the results may change when a vote is taken under government supervision. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Labour that if a supervised strike vote had been taken in the case of the S.I.U. the number favouring a strike would not have been 90 per cent or anything like it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15 (3), to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to standing order 15 (3).



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-8, to incorporate Canadian women's press club.-Miss Aitken.
On the order:
House In committee on Bill No. SD-219, an act for the relief of James Nelson LeBlond.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I would move that all divorce items, whether at second reading stage or in committee, be given priority at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent that all divorce items standing on the order paper be taken prior to other items on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that all divorce bills standing for consideration in committee be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), that the divorce bills standing for consideration in the committee as a whole be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion pursuant to standing order 54 (1). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: House in committee of the whole on certain divorce bills. Is it agreed that all the divorce bills be taken together?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one comment with respect to this entire group of divorce bills being taken in one lump and to say that I did not realize that we would ever get to the point when we would bring in automation in dealing with divorce.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the bills carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill No. SD-219, for the relief of James Nelson LeBlond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-220, for the relief of Louise Auger Lecavalier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-221, for the relief of Marie Noella Therese Legault Lebel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-222, for the relief of Muriel Marguerite Elizabeth Ada Brant Yeaman. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-223, for the relief of Marie
Becherbleith Reicher.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-224, for the relief of John Charles Underhill.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-225, for the relief of Patricia Wirth Usher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-226, for the relief of Jean Audrey Vickers Mastro.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-227, for the relief of Mary Rebecca Lafontaine Johnson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-228, for the relief of Jetti Edelstein Popowski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-229, for the relief of Jean Philippon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-230, for the relief of Sidney Schwartz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-232, for the relief of Barbara Crawford Bucci.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-233, for the relief of Holger Madsen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-234, for the relief of Miriam Astrof Hymovitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-235, for the relief of Margaret Welsh Clark Gray Perego.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-236, for the relief of Eunice Joyce Stone Berwick.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-237, for the relief of Rita Elizabeth Edwards Bryant.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-238, for the relief of Mary Farrelly Crane.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-239, for the relief of Margaret Eileen McKenzie Beauchemin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-240, for the relief of Jeanette Josephine Cools Cox.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-241, for the relief of Geraldine Marilyn Woods Spencer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SB-242, for the relief of Mariette Giselle Denise Pesant Forget.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-243, for the relief of Joy Diedre Shelley New.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-244, for the relief of Muriel Ethel Serchuk Rutenberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-245, for the relief of Deborah Barash Dindzik, junior.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-246, for the relief of Gladys Elsa Hannah Birnbaum Aston.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-248, for the relief of Giulietta Marcogliese Iacurto.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-249, for the relief of Herbert Budd, junior.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-250, for the relief of Dorothy Mary Shrimpton Legault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-251, for the relief of Maria Giusseppa Di Nunno.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-252, for the relief of Marie Jacqueline Fernande Belisle Wechselberger. -Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-253, for the relief of Simonne Fournier Bergeron.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-254, for the relief of Cecily Anne Maud Carter Bernard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-255, for the relief of Marie Henriette Andree Massue Prevost.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-256, for the relief of Lovell Orville Woodard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-257, for the relief of Joseph Wing.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-259, for the relief of Hilda Jamesie Hatfield Carter.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-260, for the relief of Evelyn Mae Wood Snell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-261, for the relief of Robert Smith.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-262, for the relief of Ethel Fisk Gwynne-Davies.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-263, for the relief of Marie Reine Drouin Milliard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-264, for the relief of Joseph Leonidas Albert Paradis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-265, for the relief of Hyman Wexler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-266, for the relief of Natasha Harpf Crayter.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-268, for the relief of Shirley Bertha Marietta Birrell Wilson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-269, for the relief of Norma Elizabeth Gammie Costigan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-270, for the relief of Merita Helen Gertrude Alarie Russell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-271, for the relief of Sydney Clarence Walker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-272, for the relief of Barbara Anne Young McFadden Pallett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-273, for the relief of Jean Mercidus Cecilia Steel MacDonald.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-274, for the relief of Arthur Thomas Hazell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-276, for the relief of Iris Olive West Dion.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-277, for the relief of Margaret Cox Lafortune.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-278, for the relief of Gertrude Falkenstein Garfield.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-280, for the relief of Angela Bertha May Cohen Weinstein.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-282, for the relief of Rosanne
Dolimont Ruelokke.-Mr. McCleave.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-283, for the relief of Jeannette Hatsedakis Haeck.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-284, for the relief of Natan Grunstein.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-290, for the relief of Hedwig Papp Witwitzki.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-161, for the relief of James Ross MacLaren Paul.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-162, for the relief of Barbara Golebiowski Lorens.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-163, for the relief of Nicholas Vogel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-164, for the relief of Viola Mary White Witt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-165, for the relief of Joseph Lucien Roland Richer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-166, for the relief of Marc Baillargeon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-167, for the relief of Lucille Perrin Ballard.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-168, for the relief of Barbara Rae Lynch Harding.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-169, for the relief of Estelle Leblanc Hebert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-170, for the relief of Georgiu Panajtiotis Yarenis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-171, for the relief of Shirley Watson Pennoyer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-172, for the relief of Anastasia Gorshko Hruby, otherwise known as Ann Gorshko Hruby.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-173, for the relief of Edwin Showier.'-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-174, for the relief of Nikolaj Kurdiaszow.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-175, for the relief of Johann Schneider.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-176, for the relief of Lise Beaudry Livingston.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-177, for the relief of Beverly Georgina Berry Turpin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-178, for the relief of Shirley Eileen Ferris MacTavish.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-179, for the relief of Maurice Turcotte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-180, for the relief of Christina Maxwell Biggs Sanderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-181, for the relief of Thomas Patrick Heavers.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-182, for the relief of Josephine Gertrude Rice Thornhill.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-183, for the relief of Ruth Gruber Sosnowsky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-184, for the relief of Samuel Wasserman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-185, for the relief of Celia
Bernhaut Jamensky.-Mr. McCleave.
[The Chairman.]
Bill No. SD-186, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Rainsborough Archer Rudner.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-187, for the relief of Waldo John Brayton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-188, for the relief of Jean-Paul Camire.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-189, for the relief of Evelyn Zigayer Sedawey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-190, for the relief of Eleanor Wanda Leshynska Ross.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-191, for the relief of Irene Rondeau Desbiens.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-192, for the relief of Victor Petrashevics.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-193, for the relief of Joseph Adrien Octave Guillotte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-194, for the relief of Jeannette Jaslow Feifer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-195, for the relief of Edith Rosen Browman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-196, for the relief of Paul-Emile Papineau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-197, for the relief of Joan Patricia Gatien Juzenko.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-198, for the relief of Myrto Mona Diane Chevrette Cadieux.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-200, for the relief of Andrzej Skarzynski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-201, for the relief of Otto Zilkalns.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-202, for the relief of Leo Milette. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-203, for the relief of Angelina Di Battista Overland.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-204, for the relief of Robert Herman Kashower.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-205, for the relief of Evelyn Mills Miles.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-206, for the relief of Margaret Alguire Kernaghan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-207, for the relief of Georges Albert Hetu.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-208, for the relief of Francisca Catharina Sanders Simard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-209, for the relief of Yolande Robert LeBel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-210, for the relief of Joseph Anthime Roland Bock.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-211, for the relief of Clarence Joseph Reilly.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-212, for the relief of Elizabeth Christina Law MacNab.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-213, for the relief of Frank Joo. -Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-214, for the relief of Eileen Annie Elizabeth Stonebridge Hopkinson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-215, for the relief of Giuseppe Fusari.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-216, for the relief of Jean Adolphe Abel Mathys.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-217, for the relief of Catherine Regina Hearn Cullen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-218, for the relief of Richard Cloutier.-Mr. McCleave.



SENATE BILLS-SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. SD-299, an act for the relief of Patricia Alleyn Burstall Corrigan.- Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that all the divorce bills standing for second reading, being items Nos. 103 to 123 inclusive on the order paper be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. SD-299, for the relief of Patricia Alleyn Burstall Corrigan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-300, for the relief of Charles Athol Gordon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-301, for the relief of Margaret Canuel Fraser.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-302, for the relief of Jean Dick Joslin-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-303, for the relief of Halbert James Haldane Kerr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-304, for the relief of Freda Levine Schubert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-305, for the relief of Mary Thelma Bourgeois Gaudet.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-306, for the relief of Jacques Gerardin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-307, For the relief of Yolande Charron Fiorucci.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-308, for the relief of Fernand Larouche.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-309, for the relief of Mary Pelly Osborne.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-310, for the relief of Leonard Lowrey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-311, for the relief of Josette Lacaille Johnston.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-312, for the relief of Iona Gertrude Mary Adcock Dolphin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-313, for the relief of Maurice William Miller.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-314, for the relief of Margit Szilagyi Rojzskies.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-315, for the relief of Rita
Jeanne Landry Benoit.-Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills
Bill No. SD-316, for the relief of Maria Eva Dorothe Deziel Lefebvre.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-317, for the relief of Violet Mary Ward Gravel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-318, for the relief of Jean Phyllis Fensom Kell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-319, for the relief of Louise Giguere Boisvert.-Mr. McCleave.


John Borden Hamilton: Now
that we have disposed of all the divorces, Mr. Speaker at this stage I should like to move that item No. 101 dealing with Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company might be given priority over other items on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that item No. 101 be now taken?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANS MOUNTAIN OIL PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, August 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-6, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company-Mr. Broome-Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
On clause 1-Subdivision of shares.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall clause 1 carry?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Chairman. In discussing this clause I should like to point out first that there appears to be, or has appeared to be until this moment anyway, as has been expressed to me on a number of occasions, the feeling that those of us in the C.C.F. have a certain strategy in mind with respect to this particular bill, as that strategy was evidenced in dealing with this bill and with other private bills. I should just like to say that the attitude and the thoughts that have been expressed to me-and, I am sure, to other hon. members-indicate merely a tendency to jump to conclusions. I would say that one should wait until the final decision is made before attempting to say what are the ideas of any particular individual member or any particular group element in the house.
In the standing committee on this bill an amount of evidence was given and a number of opinions and ideas were expressed. I would say that certainly the greater proportion of the time of the committee was taken up by Conservative members and that many of those members-and I certainly will not do them the discourtesy of mentioning names, but the evidence is there for all to see- expressed doubt about the necessity of approving this bill. Many of them expressed fears as to what the end result would be if this bill were allowed to pass. Some of them were in outright opposition to it. Then for one

Private Bills
are participating in this company as a means of investment rather than as a means of speculation.
I might add that I have discussed this with two or three stockbrokers since that time, and I am told Trans Mountain is not an investment stock, but purely a trading and speculative stock, and that is all it will be tor some time.
I asked Mr. Renwiek about the price, and the exchanges are reported as follows:


Frank Howard: If this split takes place then I assume that the price of the shares will be $12 to $15 probably on the market-or $10.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Or $25 or $30 very shortly, especially if the situation becomes acute in the Middle East.


Frank Howard: I was going to ask that question also. If this company is given permission and this bill is passed and the shares are divided five for one, the price on the market being $10 or $12, something in that neighbourhood, with no thought of issuing more of the additional shares out of the treasury and selling them on the market and some situation does develop in the Middle East, a situation similar to the Suez arises, then presumably the stocks will take another surge upwards regardless of this 10 per cent broadening and you might find yourself in the same position of trying to sell $50 or $60 shares out of the treasury. Would not your position be the same as it is now?


Mr. Renwiek:: I think my answer to that is yes, but perhaps Mr. Taylor would like to say a word here.
Then, Mr. Taylor, who is an official of the company said:
Yes, you would be in the same position.
And the report goes on:


Frank Howard: Would you come back and ask for another stock splitting to get them down again?


Almon Secord Rennie: We would have to.
Thus, the reason was, first, that it broadened the base of ownership. Our answer to that is that it does not broaden the basis of ownership but that in effect it gives more control to the five oil companies concerned. The second reason was that it would allow the company to sell shares at a lower price than they are now quoted on the market, and the evidence throughout indicates that this is not so unless it is the intention of the company to issue those shares out of the treasury the day after this stock split takes place, if it does take place. So the answer to both these questions is in the negative.
I think we should also consider with respect to this matter all the interests which are affected by the operation of this company. We should consider what interests are affected by this request for a stock split. Some of these interests may be overlapping, but I am going to suggest that there are four. One is the interest of the company, another is the interest of shareholders, another is the interest of the general public

and the fourth is the interest of the employees. Some individuals may be concerned in more than one of these categories, but I think I can say these are the four interests affected. We must ask ourselves whether any of these interests will be advanced or whether they will be adversely affected in the over-all picture should a stock split take place.
With respect to the interests of the company, I presume it would be advanced, because the company has spent I do not know how much time down here in an attempt to get this stock split through parliament. So I would imagine it is evident that the interest of the company would be served by this stock split.
What about the interest of the shareholders? Yes, the shareholders would be well served, but only five of those shareholders. The interests that would be advanced would be those of Imperial Oil, B.A. Oil, Richfield Oil, Standard Oil of British Columbia, and Shell Oil. These shareholders would be the only ones who would receive benefit from this stock split, because their control over the company would be that much more effective than it is at the present time. When we consider that a 30 per cent interest now enables these companies to exercise control over the board of directors amounting to 66f per cent it is obvious that even a slight change in the effectiveness of that control would result in complete control over this board. The only interests that will be served will be those of the five major oil companies which have a record that is known throughout this country to be a little unsavoury.
There was absolutely no evidence given to the effect that the interest of the general public will be served. The splitting of stock five for one is not for the purpose of bringing benefit to the general public but for the purpose of broadening the base of control and reducing the price of the shares so they can sell more of them. The evidence indicates that these are not valid reasons. The arguments are not strong enough to support them. The interest of the general public will not be enhanced by the stock splitting.
With respect to the employees of the company as a part of the general public, I do not know what the position will be. Evidence was presented to the effect that the company's attitude toward its employees has been a good one and I do not wish to argue one way or the other in that respect except to say the stock splitting is not the thing that will have a beneficial effect upon the employees but the earning capacity of the company will because presumably the company will have

greater income and profits and accordingly should share these with the employees to a greater extent than at present.
I have endeavoured to make clear the reasons why we are opposed to this measure. I expressed opposition to this by voting against this clause and the preamble in the committee and I intend to express the same sort of opposition if and when it comes to a vote in this committee because, as we indicated, from all the evidence submitted it is clear that no good purpose can be served by the stock splitting. The evidence had a profound effect upon many Conservative members in the committee. I do not know whether their opinions have changed since then. It would be most enlightening if some of the hon. members who were most vociferous and who expressed the greatest amount of fear and regret in the committee would indicate to this committee why they changed their minds practically overnight.
I intend to express my opposition to the passage of this bill as I am sure will all hon. members of the C.C.F. because it will do nothing but give more effective control to five major oil companies and will do nothing beneficial for the general public.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall clause 1 carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I thought
surely the sponsor of the bill would make some comments contrary to those I have made. Otherwise I must feel that my arguments were valid and acceptable to him.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Any comments on the bill? Shall clause 1 carry?


Frank Howard: On division. We want a standing vote.


Mr. Drysdale:: Have you got five?
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 61; nays, 6.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have my vote recorded.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the preamble carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Ernest James Broome: the third reading of Bill No. S-6, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two comments on third reading. There were rumours circulating throughout the house and the corridors in recent days to the effect that we in the C.C.F. were nothing more than a bunch of deliberate obstructionists with respect to this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Private Bills


Frank Howard: I would just add that if the noise that just emanated from the other end of the house is meant to be derisive, I may point out to hon. members that the bill is not through third reading yet.


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell those pipe-line boys to listen.


Frank Howard: I believe it is clear now that the rumours about our being obstructionists are far from true. We in the C.C.F. feel it is our duty and function to express our opposition to certain measures in every way possible and depending on the degree of objection of an individual member or the group to a certain measure the opposition and objection may be expressed more strenuously in some cases and on more frequent occasions than with respect to others.
We have expressed our objection and opposition to this bill on second reading, in the standing committee and in the committee of the whole and by our votes as did one other hon. member who does not belong to the C.C.F. We believe we have no right as a group to attempt to frustrate the desire of the majority by preventing a measure of this nature coming to a vote. We know that in other instances of other bills, especially public bills introduced by private members, the game to be played is to talk them out time after time and to prevent parliament from having the opportunity of voting on those particular bills. I might add that this government policy of talking out other measures is adopted when individual members express support for those bills but hon. members are afraid to stand up and be counted as being in favour of or opposed to them. Therefore, they take the easy way out by talking them out. We of the C.C.F. do not do that; we do not talk these things out, Mr. Speaker. We express our opposition on many occasions. I would say further, Mr. Speaker, that that is the main reason why we feel we are setting an excellent example to other members opposite to treat other bills in the same way as we are treating this one.
We intend to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, as we have by voice all the way along and at its final stage we intend to vote against it. I would also say that it appears today there has been a bit of juggling in the private members' hour as to what business on the order paper is to come before other business with unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member is not questioning the judgment of the house. Everything has been done with the unanimous consent of the house.


Frank Howard: I would not question the judgment of the house and certainly not your

Private Bills
own. I merely say that this juggling was necessary in order to move certain measures forward in order that they may be dealt with. The Minister of Public Works is not in his seat but I would merely say that if he had not been so anxious to eliminate private member's Monday this juggling would not have been necessary.
In conclusion, I say this is an example that I hope hon. members will follow in order to allow ideas and thoughts to come to a vote instead of talking them out continually.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, although we are opposed to this measure we are prepared to have a vote taken within a few minutes. I do want to say that some practices that have been followed recently place me for one, and I think other members, in a very difficult position. I refer to the type of lobbying that has been going on in reference to this bill and other bills. I appreciate the fact that when a private company comes to this house to have a bill placed before it, in addition to the public discussion in parliament and the discussion before the committees they may feel that certain other representations of a private nature should be made.
I question really whether we should be having any private discussion with people who are involved either directly as shareholders or as hired officials of those companies. In this group, when we have had a formal request by sponsors of the bill or by the people involved in the company, we have been prepared to meet their representatives as a group; in other words, to have them meet our caucus. But since that time, Mr. Speaker, we have had people connected with this bill- and I am not referring to any member of parliament-and interested in having this measure passed in the house attempt to exert pressure on us and on me, and it makes my position at any time more and more difficult because when I get that kind of pressure, even if I should be in favour of the bill, my natural reaction is that if some private company is endeavouring to pressure me into supporting their bill, I would be most apt to vote against it.
As far as I am concerned, the sponsor of this bill has conducted himself in a parliamentary manner at all times. But I say publicly for the record that I would not extend those remarks to certain individuals who are not members of either house but who are interested in this company.
As far as other pipe lines bills are concerned, I would hope that people who are interested in getting them through the house 
would leave members of parliament alone and let them judge the bills without any type of private lobby being conducted within the walls of the House of Commons.
When the government has a public measure to put through the House of Commons they place it on the order paper. There is a public discussion, but there is no attempt to badger members of parliament in their offices, and this kind of practice I resent. I hope that the other companies which have bills on the order paper will not resort to that practice or in certain instances, continue that practice.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


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

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. MacEwan in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administrationno. 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.
Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, when the
committee rose I had been trying to show that the strike vote taken by S.I.U. on the west coast was not a vote in which any credence or reliance could be placed as being a true reflection of the wishes of the members. My whole point is to suggest to the minister that he might find it to advantage to survey the various legislation in use under provincial labour codes with respect to the taking of supervised strike votes.
I quite realize that this particular union is not an example of what the other labour unions are like. The overwhelming majority of Canadian unions are good unions and their leaders are honest, conscientious and hardworking men, dedicated to the job of trying to alleviate working conditions for labour and to give labour a better share of the national income but that does not minimize the fact that several thousand Canadians, for their whole working future or as long as they want to be seamen, are placed in the hands of one man-namely Mr. Banks- and that he and his men control and dictate the policies of this union. These people live under a tyranny in regard to the earning of their livelihood which can only be compared with that existing behind the iron curtain. They are assessed according to the wishes of the executive of the union, and we
Supply-Labour
know how long and how hard countries like Canada and the United States have fought for the principle of representation in regard to taxation. This right is denied to these men in respect of what is perhaps the most important field of all so far as it affects their daily life and that is the way they earn their living.
I do not have to go into detail about the background of Mr. Banks, because it is all in Hansard; it has been brought before this house on previous occasions by the present Postmaster General, the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the present high commissioner at London, Mr. Drew, but I would like to quote one or two paragraphs from Hansard commencing at page 6801 for June 26, 1954, when Mr. Drew had this to say about Mr. Banks:
This man had been convicted on different occasions in the United States. One of those convictions in 1930 carried with it a sentence of fourteen years in San Quentin prison.
Later on he said the following:
But on December 5, 1947, at Richmond, California, he was charged as an ex-convict with being in possession of firearms.
And further down the page he says:
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is an old rule, which should be firmly respected, that no man is guilty unless proved guilty and there must always be a presumption of innocence. But when you see facts such as this, and when you learn that this man came to Canada and was not only convicted under the Customs Act but also twice charged and acquitted here, one begins to inquire, and surely the pattern of charges should at least be a warning to the government. One cannot disregard the fact that this man was charged on June 28, 1942, with child stealing in the United States, though there is no evidence of conviction in that case. Later he was charged with murder and acquitted.
That is what Mr. Drew had to say, and on page 6538 of Hansard for July 21, 1955, the hon. member for Kootenay West had this to say:
Quite a number of good labour people, men who have worked all their lives in the labour movement, are concerned about the damage this character is doing to the good name of labour in Canada. That is not the whole record. The government does not appear to have the whole record.
Here he was referring to the previous administration.
As a matter of fact the hon. member who spoke before me mentioned some twelve charges for carrying concealed weapons. When a man is charged twelve times for carrying concealed weapons, even though acquitted it indicates that he is a pretty tough character. He was also charged with child stealing. Beyond that we will have to leave the matter until next session,-
During last session a group of us met together and heard from certain men who had formerly been members of the seafarers international union with respect to some of the things

Supply-Labour
which went on within the union. For instance, a bookman, or trusted henchman of the union executive, would be a voting member and would have the right to lift the ticket of anybody he chose with respect to the ship in which that man was sailing or the group with which he was working. When the ticket was lifted that man no longer could be shipped; he was on what they call "D.N.S." or "Do Not Ship" and his livelihood was taken away from him until he had squared himself with the union.
It is the job of the Canadian Congress of Labour to handle its own affairs and to clean its own house, and I suggest that the labour movement in Canada, which is 99 per cent pure, should take action against unions such as this one which negate the very principle of unionism, which is that of operating a union in the best interests of the workers. It is not only a question of what we might call dragooning workers. For instance, I have a clipping from a Toronto paper which talks about teamster union boss James Hoffa having fired his outspoken critic, William Mills. Mills was secretary treasurer and business agent of the Toronto general truckers union. He was also barred for life from holding office in the union. I also know of locals which have been arbitrarily placed under trusteeship.
The former officers of the union local were fired; they were allowed to keep their union cards but have been debarred from ever holding union office, and that local no longer has the right to run its own affairs. This was done by a directive of the international president.
It is necessary that these problems be cured by labour itself, but I do suggest that they are problems on which the minister should keep his eye. Perhaps a gentle nudge now and then might help.
We would not stand for one minute for the taking away of liberties with regard, say, to elections to this house but these practices are allowed with regard to the operation of one or two labour unions, and surely the livelihood and protection of Canadians who are members of these unions is something that we as a government and as members of parliament should consider to be within our purview.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I really want to confine myself exclusively to one topic this evening, and I am sure the minister knows already what that topic is, because I have had a good deal of correspondence about this subject with him since he became minister. I would like to say that in any correspondence I have had with the

minister or with the officials of his department or the unemployment insurance commission I have received nothing but consideration and the promptest action, and I hope the minister will not think that anything I say is intended in any way to be censorious or even really critical, except of the kind of deficiencies which I think do exist, and did exist when we were in office because of inadequacies of staff which may, of course, have been increased because of the increased volume of work which has fallen upon the insurance commission in the past year.
It is not the general work of the commission that I want particularly to talk about, but the administration of unemployment insurance for fishermen. I have in my hand a letter which has been addressed to me, and I imagine a copy was also addressed to the minister, by the general secretary of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen. It sets out a resolution unanimously adopted at the annual convention held in St. John's on April 14, 15 and 16 which embodied the views of the federation after the first year's experience in which we all knew that because this was new, and because it was complicated and because it was being applied in respect of people many of whom had very little previous experience in dealing with forms and stamps, complications would be bound to arise and cause a great many administrative headaches. I should like to read this resolution into the record. It begins:
Whereas the introduction of unemployment insurance to fishermen has been of untold benefit and assistance to our fishing population;
Perhaps even the minister would not object to my interjecting at this point that this was done by the previous administration.
-and whereas a number of problems have arisen in its first year of introduction, which was as we expected unavoidable-
These are the points which are made in the brief.
1.	The abolition of the 30 per cent cost of production. Contributions paid and benefits received on gross earnings as in all other types of employment.
To enlarge on this suggestion it might be said that where fishermen know their operating expenses these may be accepted by the employer or buyer, but we find that during the past season the majority of buyers accepted the line of least resistance and invariably deducted 30 per cent. If this cannot be abolished we suggest that a 20 per cent deduction will amply cover operating expenses.
2.	Fresh fish, salmon (fresh frozen, salted or tinned), mackerel, herring, lobsters, codoil and all other species of fish and fishery products to be treated as saltbulk or dried cod, and settlements made at the end of the fishing season and the divisor system used, as with salt cod.

I may say that personally, on the basis of such observations as I have made myself, I would very strongly endorse that view.
We would draw the attention of the commission to the position of our fishermen who can their own salmon, lobster and halibut, and who at the present time are not eligible for insurance benefits. We suggest that these be included and the divisor system used.
3.	Skippers and sharemen-We feel that stamps should be equally divided so that sharemen may qualify for benefits. At the present time the skipper has far too many stamps and the share-men insufficient. If the fish or fishery products which have been produced equally by both skipper and sharemen cannot be shared equally for insurance stamps purposes, then we suggest that the catch be divided into the number of shares plus one which would give the skipper two shares instead of half the voyage and his share of the remaining half; for example, a skipper has five sharemen in all, six men or seven shares.
I do not expect the minister to give an immediate reply to that. It is pretty technical, and it would perhaps tax me a little to give a reply myself.
4.	Clearer defining of stamp contributions and receipts for types of work other than fishing. This will have to be done in an educational manner through the press, radio and visits by unemployment insurance office officials similar to those carried out by the St. John's office during the fall of 1957.
5.	To encourage fishermen students who attend vocation or training schools during the off season period, and who had been fishing during the past year to qualify for benefits. At present students are automatically disqualified. This we consider wrong and discouraging to our ambitious young fishermen.
I am going to pause here for a moment and say that as the minister knows I feel very keenly about this question. While one can fully understand the provision in the act that anyone who on becoming unemployed goes to school is not strictly speaking unemployed, and should not therefore receive unemployment insurance, it does seem to me that in a period where there is a considerable amount of involuntary unemployment it is very discouraging indeed to these young fellows who would like to go to school to be prevented from doing so because if they do they will lose their unemployment insurance benefits. As the minister knows, I have brought several cases to his attention, and so have other hon. members from Newfoundland and, I believe, from some of the other provinces as well.
It would surely be an advantage from every point of view to have these young lads go to school when they cannot get a job. I do not think this would require an amendment to the act, but I may be wrong. I think it could be done by regulation. If the governor in council wants to stipulate that these young men should agree to accept a job if one turns up, but be allowed to go to school, I would
Supply-Lab our
not quarrel very much, though I think it would be better to give the jobs to someone who is not going to school and let them complete the term. I hope other hon. members who represent constituencies where many are engaged in the fishing industry will support me in this plea to the minister that he make this change in the regulations which could not have a very serious effect on the fund and which would in most cases increase the employability of these young people.
And then, if I may return to the document:
6.	Fishermen penalized because of employers or buyers mistakes. When the employer or buyer of stamps placed wrongly in fishermen's unemployment insurance books or places stamps of incorrect denomination, fishermen should not be disqualified because of such mistakes, but in consultation with the employer the audit office should make the necessary adjustments and the fisherman should receive the full amount of his benefits.
I am sure the minister will say that is done and I agree with him it is done frequently after a lot of labour on the part of members of parliament as well as on the part of many of the officials of his department. I believe I can say that in the months of January, February, March and April I received more letters from my constituents about unemployment insurance than about all other subjects combined. I know the minister is conscious of this problem and I am sure he will do his best to make improvements in this regard. I continue:
7.	We strongly recommend the plan inaugurated by the St. John's office last autumn to have representatives visit various localities and meet with the fishermen and assist them with their problem, and we would suggest that this be extended to all parts of the province during the coming summer and early fall months.
8.	We strongly urge the necessity of opening regional offices for not more than two weeks at a number of the larger settlements, especially along the northeast coast, in the strait of Belle Isle and on the Labrador. These offices would expedite the registration of fishermen for benefits, accept their insurance books and forward same to the regional office concerned. We see no necessity for the continued expense of keeping regional offices open other than for the short period during November and December when all our fishermen and many other workers are registering for unemployment insurance benefits.
Dealing with that last point particularly I would suggest a variant. I have some doubt as to whether even opening offices, except in one or two of the bigger places, would be as useful as having a number of itinerant officers who were well trained visit all the settlements, the little ones and the big ones, each officer being given a region, and really settle these problems right there on the spot where he could go to the merchant and talk to the individual and find out where the difficulties arose. It is true, of course, that my friends the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, the hon.

Supply-Labour
member for Trinity-Conception, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's and the hon. members for St. John's East and St. John's West would not have as many letters to answer as they now have and perhaps we would not ingratiate ourselves with our constituents as we do now but the minister, of course, would greatly increase in popularity with our constituents and it would be for the benefit of these people.
The minister will recall that in the last parliament I described him on one occasion as a displaced Liberal and I do not withdraw that description of him. He is one of those people who strayed from the true faith.


Michael Starr: I objected last time, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, I still think the minister's heart is in the right place and in the main I believe his head is screwed on pretty well.


Hazen Robert Argue: Watch out, Mike.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And what is just as important, in my opinion, he takes the view I believe every one in public office should take, the view that until they prove indubitably that they are wrong the citizens are right. When we stop to think that for many of these people whose incomes regrettably are not as large as we would like to see them, who depend for their livelihood on the prompt payment of these unemployment insurance claims, we realize it is not merely a matter of annoyance or inconvenience if there are delays. It is sometimes a matter of forcing these people to go on relief while waiting for unemployment insurance payments to be made.
I could cite a number of cases-I was going to say hundreds but certainly dozens-where that happened and where it caused a great deal of pain to the people. They feel they are entitled to the insurance and it frequently turns out they are not entitled to it and they must agree to pay back the relief and sometimes it is difficult to do that when the time comes and great inconvenience is caused for everyone. I hope the minister will be able to yield to my importunities and those which I am sure he will hear from other hon. members from Newfoundland and probably from the other provinces too, but at any rate from those who represent constituencies on the east coast where the fisheries are prosecuted. I hope he will find it possible to have itinerant officers who will go around in November, December and January and visit the various settlements and settle the questions on the spot, and I really mean settle them.

Of course, there may be occasional problems of such complexity they would have to be referred to St. John's but even then I would hope they could be settled in St. John's without their having to be referred to Moncton. There are two things about the reference of these matters to Moncton that are a source of humiliation to Newfoundlanders. One is the length of time it takes and the other is the fact that the average Newfoundlander feels things should be settled in St. John's. There is a certain humiliation attached to having these matters referred to Moncton, a feeling that it is not quite right, not quite in the spirit of confederation. I am sure the minister is sympathetic with that sentimental position which, although sentimental, is also practical because reference to Moncton takes that much more time.
I do not really think I should trespass more on the time of the minister or the committee. I wish to say again how grateful I am to the minister himself and to all the officials of his department with whom I have had to deal for the courtesy and consideration they have invariably shown. But I do think it is necessary to have more staff and for the staff to be in direct contact with the customers, if I may use that term in this context.
In that connection I wonder if the minister could also give some consideration to another proposal I wish to make. I do not know how feasible this is and I would not speak about this with the same confidence with which I spoke about the previous proposal. I am quite sure I am right about the proposal concerning itinerant officers but I appreciate that there may be difficulties attached to the proposal I am about to make.
It is very worrying to those of us who represent constituencies like mine where there is no large centre or central place for people to go and where they are a long way from the nearest employment office-and I emphasize that aspect of it to the minister-people in places like Bonavista, Twillingate, Wesleyville, Fogo and other places in my district and I could go on to mention others all along the coast of Newfoundland, and in remote ridings elsewhere that they get left out to some degree in the service given to the Canadian people by the national employment office, not consciously left out but unconsciously which perhaps hurts more. I wonder if there could not be some way in which the officers having some authority could make tours and visit these places from time to time and register people and find out what their qualifications were and see to it that when jobs do open up they are not given on a first come first served basis to those

in the big centres; but when there is a shortage of jobs ensure that they are divided up among people in the smaller places who certainly need them just as badly as do those in the bigger places. I merely put that forward to the minister as a proposal and, as I say, I can see there would be some serious difficulties involved in it but I would hope the commission and the minister would be open minded about it and give it study and consideration.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of congratulating labour unions in my riding, and the Catholic unions, on their invaluable services to workers. I must also point out the part played in Joli-ette by the local Labour Council.
I call upon the government:
(1)	To appoint labour representatives on all councils or boards set up to consider matters of concern to workers;
(2)	To consider the possibility of extending unemployment insurance benefits to farm workers;
(3)	To continue to vote millions of dollars for housing developments and, if possible, to broaden the scope of the National Housing Act so that all workers may become home owners;
(4)	To maintain restrictions on immigration;
(5)	To permanently reject the proposal of free trade with the United Kingdom, as it would put 300,000 workers out of work;
(6)	To diversify our trade;
(7)	To avoid credit restrictions;
(8)	To enact, if possible, at some time, legislation forbidding employers to refuse hiring of workers aged 45 or more.
(Text):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to tax the patience of the minister, but since I represent a community where the big majority of the population is composed of trades and labour men, I think I ought to say something on the matter. As I was coming up the hill this afternoon I saw a man carrying a poster on which was written, "Who will give me work?" Thousands of people in this region and thousands more across the country could have asked the same question today, "Who will give me work?" It is not that I want to blame the government altogether for the present situation but we have to admit that unemployment is a major problem today. Some may think that we want to spread gloom and 57071-3-230
Supply-Labour
discouragement when we speak of this matter, but a fact is a fact. Unemployment exists at the present time and we are afraid that next winter it will be a lot worse than last winter. If we do not say anything about it, and if that comes about, we can be blamed for not telling the government that something should be done. Some may think that we are going too far. May I be permitted to cite a few remarks made by some of the ministers in 1955, when they were on this side of the house? I have in my hand remarks made by the present Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard of the session of 1955, volume II, at page 2035:
The Minister ot Labour mentioned how good conditions were six months ago. This reminded me of an old story on the prairies. A man had died in a blizzard and sympathy was given to the mourners by saying, "Just remember, six months ago yesterday was the hottest day of the year". What a hopeless picture! The government, faced for the first time with serious unemployment that has been mounting over the years, is unable to give any hope. We are unable to rouse them into placing before the people of Canada some of the picture.
At page 2036 of the same volume of the same year, the Prime Minister said:
The municipalities are loaded down with unemployment relief. The residents of our urban communities cannot bear it any longer. What is to be done about the unemployed employables? What is the attitude of the government? Well, if I understand the press of this country, almost without exception the press says that constitutional matters are today being raised as a smokescreen to relieve this government of its responsibilities. You cannot feed 550,000 hungry stomachs by promising them that if the constitution permitted it something would be done. The government adopts that attitude.
At page 2037, he said:
I repeat that we do not believe that inaction should be allowed to continue.
At page 3339 of Hansard, volume IV, of the session of 1955, the Prime Minister said:
Even on the question of unemployment the government cannot agree with itself. One department says there are 630,000 unemployed up to April, and another department says 390,000.
This is exactly the situation we had last night when we took the figures of the bureau of statistics and the figures of the unemployment insurance commission. I continue:
The minister has a revised version that does not even equal the lower figure of the two.
A little later, on page 3940, the Prime Minister said:
Certainly, the degree to which chaos is present in labour matters in this country indicates that the Department of Labour lacks direction, lacks system and lacks, not authority but direction.
These things were said by the Prime Minister of today. At the time the lady who was the official spokesman for the opposition in

Supply-Labour
labour matters-she is now Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-said, at page 1601 of Hansard for the session of 1955:
Regardless of the number of people who are out of work, regardless of whether the number is 362,000 or 569,000, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not hon. members and the people of Canada are going to consider that a person is merely a statistic.
Each of these 569,000 persons reported by the Department of Labour and each of those reported by the dominion bureau of statistics is a human being. Many of them have persons dependent upon them for support. It .is not only a matter of buoyancy or lack of buoyancy of the Canadian economy: it is a matter of frightened men and women with cold bodies and hungry stomachs. It is a matter of fear which grips the hearts of working people who are probably employed themselves but see their neighbours idle and who ask themselves: when is it going to happen to me? Certainly, they say, we expect Canada to go ahead. Certain it is that Canada will thrive, but in the meantime what do we eat?
At page 1602 of Hansard of the 1955 session, the same hon. lady said:
In the midst of wealth we have human misery.
With all the faith in the world these people cannot wait 10 years or 15 years for a steady job and a weekly pay check.
At page 1606, the same hon. lady said:
A nation is prosperous only as its people are prosperous. I think that is an accepted fact.
Farther on, she said:
We cannot afford to wait. This is a time for action.
The Minister of Finance of today took part in the same debate on unemployment following something that the prime minister of the day had said. Mr. St. Laurent said, as reported at page 3396 of Hansard of that session:
We have a country where there should be work for everybody and if we are not smart enough to organize the economy of the nation to provide work for everybody we are incompetent.
Then the Minister of Finance of today said:
And we say to the Prime Minister, "Out of thine own mouth hast thou condemned thyself, and not only thyself, but condemned thy colleagues as well."
This is a problem that is national in scope. It is beyond local responsibility. What we want on the part of this government, and what we still look for, are employment measures, some constructive and some effective approach to meeting the deterioration in the economic condition and the unemployment situation in Canada today.
And on the same page there is the following:
The second problem which has been ignored by the government is the problem of unemployment. This problem has been discussed at length in this session, or I would seek to go into it at greater length today. But let me content myself, in this limited time, with making this limited observation on the subject, that the government throughout this session has observed a conspiracy of silence with regard to unemployment: and it
	.
has carried that conspiracy of silence into the budget. It is still running away from the problem of unemployment.
This budget does not meet, in fact it cannot even make the pretence of meeting or even assisting to meet, the problem of unemployment. The government is still running away from that problem; they hope to ignore it.
The present Minister of Labour had this to say in the 1955 session as found at page 78 of Hansard:
As an example, we in Oshawa found last year that when the rolls showed a decrease in the number of registered unemployed of something like 600 or 700 they were the people who on April 15 were cut off supplementary benefits, but work was still not available. Contracting work was not in progress and construction had not started. Therefore, those people were left stranded without any financial assistance whatever from April 15 to some time toward the end of May. I strongly urge that the Minister of Labour consider the extension of time for supplementary benefits beyond April 15; my suggestion would be to May 15.
The very same situation exists in the automobile industry today. There are many unemployed and at the present time not much is being done. The same minister had this to say in 1955 as found at page 3937 of Hansard:
I feel that the Department of Labour and this government should make strenuous efforts to alleviate the present condition of those who find themselves unemployed.
Mr. Chairman, we can take almost everything that was said in 1955 about the condition existing then, apply it to the present government today and the situation would be about the same, if not worse. Unemployment is a problem that we have to face. We have to face it in reality. We have to admit the fact that we are going through the summer with heavier unemployment than we had last year or the year before and that winter will soon be coming with a very grave problem falling upon our shoulders. The government will have to face up to it. The statistics furnished for the week ended June 21, 1958 show that those without jobs and seeking work numbered 320,000 compared with 162,000 in 1957 or a difference of 150,000 in those looking for work in June and not getting any unemployment benefits. These people were looking for work and were not able to get work. If things go on that way, if the numbers of unemployed increase as they have increased in the summer time then I am afraid of the winter which is coming.
Those with jobs and working less than 35 hours a week rose from 413,000 in 1957 to
501,000	in 1958, a difference of 88,000. These people are not working a full week but less than 35 hours a week and the number has increased anyway. In the case of those usually working less than 35 hours a week there is an increase of 72,000 in Canada. If we take

the pulpwood industry we see that in the province of Quebec in the first four months of 1957 there were 1,254,962 cords produced but that in the same period in 1958 the amount has fallen to 678,452 cords. If we take the figures for all of Canada we see that there has been a decrease from 3,499,390 to 2,277,753 cords.
That means that no wood is being cut because the pulp mills have resources sufficient for what they have to do next winter. We can see what is happening around here. In my constituency there are pulp mills in Hull, Gatineau, Masson and Buckingham. In each one of these pulp mills they have not reengaged those they laid off in the fall of 1957 because their warehouses were full to the roof. The trade has fallen. What is the reason for that? We must discover what is the reason. I know that we sold a lot more to the United States last year and the previous year but the warehouses are filled to the roof and they have let workers go. In Masson, Buckingham and Hull there are people only working three or four days a week in the summer. What will the situation be like in the winter if trade does not increase?
We are meeting great difficulty now in international trade. The Minister of Labour is not responsible for the decrease in international trade but as he is a member of the cabinet and has a responsibility to see that people who need work get work I think he should use his influence on his colleagues so that they will do something to help us to sell the goods we have to sell today and in the future.
A while ago we were visited by the electrical workers. We were also visited by the automobile workers. I think the pulp and paper workers and many others might have come here because they all have the same complaint. They are only working part time and they are really afraid of the coming winter. Unemployment benefits will not give much encouragement to them because those who are not working this summer will not have the proper stamps in order to draw benefits next winter. What will the government do about that? Will they let the load fall on the shoulders of the municipalities which have not got the means to take care of it? Will the government let it fall on the shoulders of the provincial governments? The provincial and municipal governments have not got the revenues to assume such a great responsibility and I think the federal government has got to do something now because there is a great problem.
With the increase in unemployment this year, with the increase in the cost of living, we get into a vicious circle. When the cost of living rises the unions try to get higher wages, which they deserve, and when they get higher
57071-3-230i
Supply-Labour
wages the cost of living increases once more and the prices of our goods may be too high for us to compete in foreign markets. So something should be done anyway. If it is grants to those who cannot sell their goods, all right. We cannot expect to take winter as it will come in a very short time. When I think of winter I think at the same time of a little poem which I believe was written by Faure. He said in French:
(Translation):
Here is winter with her sad retinue,
Bitterly cruel to the poor-
(Text):
That is true. When winter comes, then comes the worst unhappiness. I see that the hon. member for Roberval smiles and laughs at that. That is one thing he does not understand. As 1 said the other day, his mind is so small as well as his head that he cannot catch very many of these things.
I say that when winter comes, whether the hon. member for Roberval laughs today, it is a problem with which we shall be confronted. This is a problem even if the government is not entirely responsible for the situation. But in accepting the responsibility of governing the country, the government has accepted the responsibility of seeing that everything goes well. I therefore expect that the minister will see that something is done to bring a little bit more happiness in Canada next winter.
There is one last thing I want to speak about. It has reference to the bureau of statistics. I know that it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour but labour problems are included in it. I said this to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I want to repeat it today. When statistics are given with regard to the province of Quebec, the city of Hull is never mentioned. Mention is made of Sherbrooke and Three Rivers which are just about the same size as the city of Hull. But Hull, which has been recognized as the metropolis of western Quebec, is never mentioned at all.


Mr. Peters:: It has been mentioned in connection with the printing bureau.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Oh, yes; it has been mentioned in connection with the printing bureau. I will come to that matter on some other occasion.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a very good town.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes; it is a very good town. I think that if Ottawa did not have the present situation in connection with beer, they would be very poor.


An hon. Member:: And very dry.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Especially so. But the city of Hull, which is one of the most important

Supply-Labour
cities of the province of Quebec, should be classified apart from Ottawa. When we come to metropolitan figures, it is always included with the city of Ottawa. There is no sense in this at all. The city of Ottawa has nothing to compare with the city of Hull. It is a city of government employees. The manufacturers which we have in Ottawa are not at all the same as those we have on the other side. When we want to look for figures, what do we find? The other day I was looking for pulp and paper figures, and the only thing I could get was Ottawa-Hull, manufacturing, pulp and paper. There is just a small amount of pulp and paper made at Booth's but now it is E. B. Eddy, their Ottawa mill. I think the minister should ask that the city of Hull be recognized as being an important part of this country, an important part of the province of Quebec, and of the same importance as Three Rivers and Sherbrooke. Then when we want to get figures or statistics we would know where we stand. At the present time it is impossible to get real figures. When I have asked the officials of the Department of Labour, they have told me that the only thing they have is with regard to Ottawa-Hull. I do not blame them for that. They go according to the statistics. But I hope that the minister will see that his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he asks his department to prepare statistics for the country and for the province of Quebec, will see to it that the city of Hull is considered as a special part of the province of Quebec and not as a part of the big Hull-Ottawa area.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join those who have congratulated the minister on the manner in which he has handled the problems of the past year. I should also like to make some suggestions as to how those problems can be handled more efficiently in the year to come. We do not want to repeat the remarks that have been made by many others and the warnings that have been given in connection with the unemployment situation. I think that these are generally understood. I am quite sure that the minister has given consideration to some of the problems. I should like to endorse the remarks made where the minister was asked to make his voice heard to see that something more would be done in that regard.
I sat this year as a member of the industrial relations committee and I have very little to say on what that committee did. But in the next year, because it is a new government and because they should have a new outlook and because labour hopes to get something better than what was developed in 1948- certainly a number of years have gone by-

we hope to see some new development take place in a federal labour code. We are in the unfortunate position federally of being able to look at some of the provinces of Canada and find that they have better labour legislation and better labour codes than has the federal government itself. Particularly because the federal government is in such a narrow and restricted labour field I think that they could quite easily set up a labour code that would be the envy of the nation and an example to the rest of the world.
In this labour code I would suggest that we set a national standard of wages, working conditions, minimum age of employment, vacations with pay; and that further we do something to assist the people across this nation in establishing equal pay for equal work. This problem has been recognized. Certainly the fair sex representatives of the government and in the cabinet have done their share to popularize this idea, as has the ladies throughout the years who have sat in the House of Commons. But still the problem exists where women who work on the same job, who have the same type of employment are not receiving equal pay. Under the federal labour code or in most of the provinces there are loopholes, particularly in the province from which I come, through which you could drive a truck. In most cases, where cases have been laid before the courts, this road through which you could drive a truck is sufficient for the able employer to duck down one of the by-ways. I therefore think the federal government could give leadership in this field. It is not a field in which it is impossible to work out a program which would be acceptable so that once women are doing the same type of work, they would receive equal pay for it.
There are other things that the labour code should protect. One of these is this. It should guarantee to labour the right to organize and to obtain union security in all public and as well as public enterprises. This matter, of course, became a problem federally in the last few months in connection with the civil service. We found that in the civil service there are several classes of employees. There are some that are civil servants and are protected by two associations which are doing a fair job in most respects. But there are classes of employees that are not covered by the civil service and therefore do not come under the jurisdiction of either one of those organizations. We have also heard of party politics being played in these particular fields. We think that the federal government should put them all into a class where they can be represented and protected and can be given the rights that workers should be entitled to

enjoy in all these matters, and this includes public as well as private enterprise.
Secondly, we should streamline conciliation procedures so as to expedite the peaceful settlement of disputes. I wish to state I am irrevocably opposed to compulsory arbitration for any reason whatsoever.
I think the Minister of Labour was very ingenious and should be complimented upon the solution he found for the recent dispute. I do not agree, and certainly none of the members of this group agree, however, that even as a last ditch resort should we accept compulsory arbitration. If it is necessary to set up an administrator in a particular field, then that administrator must be given the right to settle the problem before the problem is returned to the employer and the employees. Negotiations can be conducted on a third party basis but in no case should the employed or the employer be compelled to accept compulsory arbitration.
Thirdly, we should abolish company unions and provide effective sanctions against violations of the provisions of the act. Company unions in many cases have operated to the detriment of the employer as well as the employee and have been detrimental to the welfare of the national economy as well as to the companies concerned. When company unions grow and become federations they in all cases work out to the detriment of the people who set them up in the first place, and we feel they should be outlawed.
These are only some of the things which must be included in a federal labour code, and I am quite sure the minister has been giving these matters consideration and that probably in the next year or two we will develop a new national labour code which will be as good as, if not better than any of the codes in the provinces across the country.
I would like to mention a matter which was discussed in committee and that is the question of international unions which has become a problem in the last few years. They have been built up for various reasons and I think the time has come to say something good and something bad on this aspect of the labour situation. I belonged for a number of years to the steelworkers' union of America, which is an international union, and I was later employed by the international woodworkers of America union. I have had a considerable amount to do with both of these unions and I believe they are a credit to unionism and to the people of Canada. In a number of cases-and this is particularly true of the international woodworkers' union of America -the Canadian membership outnumbers and outranks the United States union membership but they have made no effort to change
Supply-Labour
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 reason why these unions grew was because the companies involved also became international companies. I have dealt with companies which are controlled by and are, in many cases, only subsidiaries of United States companies, and in many cases these United States companies have not given consideration to the Canadian economy and the Canadian way of life, but only in a very few cases have they set up their subsidiary companies in such a way that the policies were different in Canada from those in the United States. The unions have found, when dealing with such companies as Johns-Mansville that the United States company has set up their negotiators to consider the Canadian situation from the United States point of view, and the unions would be in a very bad position if they did not have some official who could be called in and who could handle the situation as it related to the United States situation.
I believe, however, there are very few of these unions which have not turned over the majority of control to their local Canadian union, and I have personally sat on wage policy committees with respect to the steelworkers of America. I have also sat on a Canadian wage policy committee and I can assure the house that the decision of such a conference was not similar in any way to those in the United States. We were not concerned with the situation which had developed in the United States wage policy conferences, but were considering the conditions which existed in this country and which were not always similar to those in the states. Our conditions are usually much poorer from an economic point of view than those across the border, and I think I can say with some authority that the financial set-up of the union has been criticized because in many cases money flows from Canada to the United States. It is true that the international treasury is often in the United States, but this money is a book balance for the purpose of transferring dues to that country. The money is deposited in almost every case in Canadian banks and does not go to the United States.
Speaking for the unions to which I belonged, and I was active president for a number of years of a mining union, the money which was brought into Canada to

Supply-Labour
assist us with respect to very serious problems in the gold mining industry in 1953 will not be equalled in the next hundred years by the amount of money collected in dues from Canadian miners in that area. This United States money was sent for our assistance and does not take into consideration the money spent helping us to organize and to carry on the business of that union. So I think something should be said for these international unions, and I would also point out that their accounting systems in most cases, though very large and adaptable, do prevent problems which have developed in all unions with which I have had anything to do.
Mention has been made of one international union which is a bad one, but I would suggest that you do not just find unions which are bad and union officials who are bad without also finding bad employers. You do not find them separately. One particular case which affects the Canadian people is with respect to a certain gentleman who was brought to Canada to break a communist-dominated union. That might be good or it might be bad, but it is certainly no credit to the Canadian people that they should need co-operation from outside in order to do the job. The gentleman who was brought in had a record of which no labour man would be proud. I suggest that he came in in this instance with the co-operation of the federal government, which acted in its roundabout role as employer in the shipping industry in connection with a matter of which we have disposed. The government assisted in bringing him into Canada and allowing him to operate under the conditions necessary to perpetuate bad unions and bad union representation. If the representative of the union has no power to fire the men in his employ, to intimidate them or to keep them in subservience, then he cannot remain in that position because they will vote him out. But in this particular case the government assisted in keeping that particular gentleman in his position, and if hon. members check the records of the investigations in the United States with respect to the teamsters union they will find that in all cases where the union became corrupt there was also a great deal of corruption on the part of employers.
Check the record and you will find no union can fire employees. They have not that right. They always obtain this treatment by working out a dead with the employers. Where employers and unions are bad you will find these corrupt practices and I suggest that they are so limited in Canada and happen so rarely that they make headlines when they do. There are now over a million

union members in this country and there are very few of them who are bad.
There is another problem which the minister could examine if he saw fit, and that is the matter of choosing a union. The minister was involved in the pipe line industry and in the affairs of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and in this particular case one of the things that should never happen in unionism happened. There were a number of companies given contracts and these companies had no employees. They went out and negotiated yellow dog contracts with unions who had no membership in that area and when the employees were hired in this case they were told they were going to pay dues to a particular union and that they would not have any choice in the matter. This problem has become acute because these employees on that line are still not represented. I have a letter from a man who paid $90 in dues in nine weeks and who wrote me to find out what unions he belonged to. These conditions exist because of these yellow dog contracts being signed and the government must bear some responsibility because this concerns a crown corporation.
Also, it is understood that at the end of the 11 or 12 months in a normal contract year the employee has the right to decide collectively whether or not he wants the same union to represent him in the coming year. In cases where the employer and the bargaining agent get together and make a deal they take away that right from the worker, because if there has been a contract signed in that period of time the two month period is no longer applicable because the contract is binding on both parties. This is done without holding a membership meeting; in some cases without there being any employee from that union present. The contracts are signed, and the members are away for another ride for another year with the same thing happening again.
The people who say that the unions have strayed from the job they are supposed to do had better take a look at the employer because he also had to do his share and they will find that the blame does not rest alone on either side. This is a field in which the minister could become involved for the benefit of all Canadian workers. There must be some policing of the gross negligence that sometimes takes place, and I think that labour itself would be very happy to have him put in an administrator when these conditions exist and hope he can straighten them out and put them back on the straight and narrow. In all cases when the employees know what the conditions are they are quite willing to take a stand and do something

about them themselves. I think this is a field that the government has already entered because of the conditions they have encountered on the pipe line, and I am sure they must exist in many other fields.
Another problem which has been mentioned in the committee and which I should like to comment on now is the situation where the courts of Ontario decided that the federal government was going to be involved in certification and in the handling of the problem of the uranium workers. I have in my riding hundreds and hundreds of people who are working in the uranium fields in Blind River and the Elliott lake area. They are mostly either Timmins or Kirkland Lake people who have gone there because of the wage structure and they are having a terrific problem in Blind River. This falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. The minister was handling these certifications, but I understand they were turned back to the provincial government by the Ontario courts. The government of Ontario has failed for years and years to do very much for the safety of the mining people working in the mines. The rate of accidents in the mines is very heavy. The silicosis problem, which they could have ended many years ago with laws which would have ventilated the mines rather than putting aluminum dust into people's lungs has not been dealt with. In Blind River they are killing people off every day because they have not the time to implement the proper safety regulations.
I suggest that the minister should take these mines back under his jurisdiction and put in honest inspectors, inspectors who do not go to the mine and hang up their clothes and say to themselves: now that is not going to give the company very much notice. But the mining companies know full well that the inspector cannot go anywhere else until he has picked up his clothes, and that the inspection is going to happen there. It is the same thing as members of the House of Commons committee found when they walked over to the printing bureau. When they found that the Department of Public Works had supplied all the fans in town-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must point out to the hon. member that the printing bureau and the Department of Labour have separate functions, and I would ask him to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


William Arnold Peters: I was only pointing out that the inspections made in the mines should be impromptu inspections not conducted tours, and that they should not give the people notice that they are going to go,
Supply-Labour
because sometimes conditions can be changed or bettered by the time an inspector arrives. I know myself, because when I worked in the mines we were sometimes sent in to scale the bad places so that the loose rock was not so apparent to the inspector. It looked very nice for a while. It was known when the inspector brought his clothes on Friday, because he left them over Saturday and Sunday and that the inspection usually came on Monday, by which time things were usually in fairly good shape. If these inspections came under the minister, conditions would not be the same in these uranium mines.
I should be happy if the gold mines were placed under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, because if such action is justified in the case of the uranium mines the same justification applies in the case of the gold mines inasmuch as the government buys the product and pays a subsidy with regard to its production. In these respects it is similar in nature to the uranium product. I should like to see something constructive done to bring this under the federal code, particularly when I am sure the minister is going to bring it up to the standard of the best province in Canada and probably a little higher. Certainly the people in the industry would appreciate it.
Another problem is the matter of a national pension plan. Certainly, in the field of mining, a national pension plan is a problem which is before the workers and their bargaining agents all the time. Such workers have a tendency to fluctuate from mine to mine and from area to area and that is a good thing. It is the only thing which made it possible for us to develop our resources in the mining field. But I think consideration should now be given to putting in a national pension plan for them. The pension would be supplementary to the basic national pension of $75. It would be contributory. It should be compulsory for a miner working today to pay a percentage of his wages to a pension plan and the employer should be compelled to pay an equal or a greater amount to the plan.
This would be administered by the government and be transferrable from mine to mine, from industry to industry and from field to field. A miner who worked a number of years in the gold mines and then transferred to the nickel mines could carry his pension with him and when he decided to go to Windsor and work in the automobile industry his pension would be transferred. At the end of 20 or 25 years during which he would have worked in various industries in different parts of the country he would have a decent

Supply-Labour
pension and could retire and live out his last days without asking for a handout. He would have contributed to the pension throughout his lifetime and it would bear a relationship to the wage he had earned throughout that working period.
I urge the minister to give consideration to this type of pension plan. The minister knows full well that most miners have a short working life and live in poverty for a number of years before they die. The wages in the mines have not been sufficient to permit them to buy government annuities implemented by the Department of Labour in years gone by for a similar reason. I feel confident the minister will take action in the field of pensions and thus benefit many people.
I have only one other matter to raise this evening and that is the question of statistics. The Department of Labour has a large research and statistical branch and the work it does is also done by similar branches in other departments of government. This indicates that we should either expand this branch in the Department of Labour and the Department of Trade and Commerce or else expand the work of the bureau of statistics.
Frankly, I am inclined to believe that the bulletin produced by the Department of Labour is superior to that produced by the dominion bureau of statistics because it contains more accurate, up to date and reliable figures. Perhaps it would be a good idea to dispose of the dominion bureau of statistics and enlarge this branch. We are in no position to finance this type of research work in a number of government departments and duplication could be avoided. The material compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics is not always completely accurate because unions and private firms do not like to make full disclosure of their statistics. I have sought on a number of occasions to use this information during negotiations but I have discovered there are other sources which provide more up to date information concerning wages in plants and industries. Some consideration must be given either to expanding or decreasing the work of the dominion bureau of statistics.
With respect to the duplication of effort we find that the results of the two bodies are not always the same. The figures released by the statistical branch of the Department of Labour sometimes bear little or no relationship or similarity to the figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics. I believe we should consider either increasing the work of this branch or amalgamating it with the dominion bureau of statistics.
(Translation):


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, although there are those who may not attach much importance to the department whose estimates we are being asked to vote, I consider it to be one of the most important government departments, considering that I represent a riding with a large labour population.
In my riding, where 75 to 90 per cent of the constituents are workers, the unemployment problem has been very acute for the past few months. Every week-end I am visited by scores of people who ask me to help them. They include people who are no longer drawing unemployment insurance benefits, yet who have three, four or five children and are without any means. Accordingly their only hope is to go to the St. Vincent de Paul society in their parish, but these charitable organizations ran out of funds last winter, leaving these poor souls with no choice but to walk the streets, cap in hand. Not a single section of the department does anything to help them.
It is all very well to give us these statistics, but they are inaccurate inasmuch as they ignore those who cannot draw benefits and those who are not registered in the unemployment insurance offices. There are all too many people who, while no longer drawing their benefits, are left out of government statistics. The latest statistics available, dated June 21st, show 320,000 persons seeking employment. This is acknowledged to be a record since the war, for the highest number so far was in 1954, I think, when there were 186,000. This makes today's figure a record for unemployment in Canada.
Speaking only of Montreal, there were as of June 19, 1958, 61,000 registered unemployed, whereas on June 20, 1957, there were only 29,900, which means that there are now twice as many. Last week, when I went to an unemployment insurance office with some citizens who thought they had a good chance to obtain something, a member of the staff of that office told me that this year they had paid out just double the amount of last year. It can therefore be said that in the city of Montreal, the government is now paying twice as much in benefits as last year, and that the number of unemployed has doubled, not counting those who are not registered.
You will remember that, during the conference called last July, federal and provincial ministers of labour studied the problem of seasonal unemployment. After the conference, the minister of labour of British Columbia complained that neither his colleagues nor himself had an opportunity to make any

suggestions in this matter. Moreover, it seems that no definite suggestion was made by the federal government on that occasion. It is also to be noted that no report to the house was made on the matter by the Minister of Labour. We can therefore blame the government for not having announced any project which might have been of assistance to those who are suffering from seasonal unemployment, or those who will suffer from it next winter, for their number will certainly be much greater.
According to the last statistics I just mentioned, it is obvious that there were 320,000 unemployed in Canada in the month of June, twice as many as last year. In spite of this serious situation, the government does not want to extend the period of unemployment insurance benefits during the summer months, and still considers that unemployment as seasonal. It is obvious that it is more than a seasonal situation and that the government should assume that responsibility for the whole year.
In that connection, Mr. Chairman, allow me to suggest to the Minister of Labour, in order that he may deal with the unemployment situation in Canada and particularly in Montreal, that a standard should be set so that as soon as unemployment exceeds a certain figure, the government may act at once. In my opinion, the Department of Labour should use the number of unemployed in 1957 as a basis for future years. It is known that, in 1957, there were from 160,000 to 170,000 unemployed and that, at the present time, there are about 320,000, or about twice as many. It means therefore that there is acute unemployment and that our Canadian citizens are in need. It is the responsibility of the government to help the unemployed as it must feel responsible for it.
This government seems to enjoy setting records. After a record deficit from the Minister of Finance, we are today witnessing a record number of unemployed, that is 320,000.
I repeat that, in my opinion, the government should, when a crisis is upon it, as it is this year, when all the funds provided are expended, assume year round responsibility for the unemployed and help them meet the needs of their families.
I suggest that the government should intervene to help the unemployed when the level of unemployment reaches a certain high mark, let us say that of 1957. The present unemployment situation is all the more serious because people who are unemployed at this moment will remain unemployed next winter. How can they obtain sufficient stamps to qualify for 57071-3-231
Supply-Labour
unemployment insurance next winter if they cannot work during the summer? As everyone knows, any worker who suddenly loses his job and who resumes work later, must accumulate a credit of 30 weeks of work to be entitled to his meagre pittance in the form of unemployment insurance. What will the present unemployed do now that they are drawing no benefits, and what will people do next winter who are about to cease getting their benefits? Can you imagine the untold number of unemployed and the misery that will prevail throughout the country next winter? I am not wishing that it will be so, Mr. Chairman, but I fear that next fall and next winter will be seasons of hardship for our Canadian workers. How does the government intend to ensure that these unemployed will not be without work indefinitely?
Since the Conservative government has been in power it has done nothing to help the Montreal unemployed to find jobs.


Mr. Parizeau:: Are we going to carve out an eleventh province?


Gérard Loiselle: If that hon. member has something to say, he will kindly wait until I am finished, because he will find it perhaps harder to speak standing up than being seated.
It was content to carry on the big projects initiated by the Liberal government, such as the development of the harbour of Montreal and the works leading to the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Moreover, this government did nothing to encourage the authorities of the city of Montreal to improve housing conditions in old districts. What has the government done to come to an agreement with his friend in the province of Quebec and with the city of Montreal with a view to undertaking new projects of town planning in districts such as the one which I represent here?
We have all read with interest recently the report of the committee charged with the study of the influence of the St. Lawrence seaway on the future development of the city of Montreal. It is essential to adapt the facilities of the city of Montreal to conditions which must be expected after the opening of the seaway. In that field, the federal government must accept its responsibilities. I wish the government would tell us what has been done and what action it is planning in this field. It is obvious that the much needed rehabilitation work would create many jobs for our workers, and that such an undertaking would, in the long run, benefit the whole country.
Mr. Chairman, it is deplorable that in the middle of the summer we should have 320,000

Supply-Labour
unemployed in Canada. I would not want to go back to the 30's, at the time of the dole, when the municipality of Montreal had to support the jobless, thus incurring debts which the taxpayers of that city are still paying off.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in English to confirm what I said in French and so that the minister may understand better what I just said in French. I am of the opinion that the unemployment problem should be handled on a different basis. In June, 1957 there were some 160,000 people unemployed in Canada. In June 1958 there were 320,000 people out of work in Canada. The government and the Minister of Labour should inaugurate some system by which we could take care of the unemployed.
We do not like to recall the depression years when whole families were on the dole. In many instances their only food was what they received on the bread line. Workers experienced a period of abject poverty. Life was not worth living. Parents and children were practically starving and dying of hunger and cold. Everybody remembers the 1930's in Montreal. I know something about it. I was living in the city of Montreal. Montreal is still paying off the debts that it incurred to support the out-of-work people in Montreal at that time.
I have a press clipping from the Vancouver Sun of July 25, 1958, and I should like to read the following extract:
Provincial labour minister Lyle Wicks' diagnosis of Ottawa's attitude to unemployment confirms what the Sun has several times suggested.
The Diefenbaker government is determined to ignore what properly ought to be called "recessional unemployment".
At the recent municipal-provincial conference on the jobless problem, Mr. Wicks complains, Ottawa tried to restrict discussion to seasonal unemployment. It would limit discussion to what may be expected this winter.
At that, Ottawa has a right to be concerned about the coming winter. As Alderman Halford Wilson said, unemployment is bad enough now and likely to be worse in the winter if preventive steps are not taken. The same day he said it, the local unemployment insurance office warned that "no significant improvement can be expected in the near future."
How true this could be is shown in official figures this week disclosing 320,000 Canadians out of work in mid-June. This is a decline of 46,000 from May but double the figure of a year previous.
As to the suggestion I made a few minutes ago, I have a press clipping from the Toronto Star dated July 14, from which I should like to read the following extract:
There are two ways the federal government can provide for those who will need help. It can change the Unemployment Insurance Act at this session

of parliament, lower the requirement that six months steady work must take place between first and second claims for insurance. Or, if it feels that this would remove the insurance principle from the act, it can make special provision for those unemployed who will not qualify for aid. Either way, the government must be prepared to take care of men and women out of work through no fault of their own.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the government and the Minister of Labour pay special attention to the unemployed people in Canada. I deplore unemployment myself because I represent a constituency consisting almost wholly of labouring people. I know what the unemployed suffer. I again ask that the government and the Minister of Labour enact some measure, if at all possible, so that in bad years like 1958 the unemployed people will be taken care of by the government 12 months in the year, if that is necessary. This will help the people of Canada, and we are here to protect them as far as we possibly can. I would like to see more people working next winter.


Mr. Martel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this subject. First, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour and the government for the action they took last year with regard to unemployment by increasing the amount of weekly benefits available to persons covered by unemployment insurance. I think this is clear proof that the government is discharging its responsibility and should a situation similar to that of last winter arise again I am confident that the government will do its best to come to the help of the unemployed. Something should be done, said the hon. members for Hull and St. Ann, but apparently they are unaware that something has already been done. A lot of things have been done by the government and if no action had been taken when the government took office we would have a much worse situation than last year. As proof of this one only has to look at what has happened across the border since then. However, it is most encouraging to note that the United States economy is on the recovery road and the results should be felt in Canada later this fall and throughout next year. One only has to look at today's newspapers to get an idea of the optimistic opinion now prevailing in the United States. The impact of their recovery will be felt in Canada all the more now that the new Progressive Conservative government has repaired our own economy in all sectors. It is reported in today's newspapers that the automobile industry is now staging a spectacular recovery across the border and United States businessmen are confident that 1959 will be a record year. For all these reasons

I believe that the attitude of the Minister of Finance when he presented his budget will be proved to be right and that we may well find that he was not optimistic enough with regard to the year 1958.
What has been done by the government speaks for itself. The record is there and the facts are known throughout the country. Of course, there are still a few clouds in the economic sky but the situation has improved steadily since the government took office. In all sectors of the economy, including employment prospects, official figures across the country clearly indicate that that is so. For the purpose of having it on record I should like to read some extracts from an article that appears in a paper published in my region. I am pretty sure that the hon. member for Hull can see the headline. It is headed, "Employment Prospects Looking Good; Improvement Says Local Commission." The article appeared in the Val d'Or Star of August 13 and reads in part as follows:
Statistics issued for the months of July and August by the commission manager, Mr. M. Decarie, revealed Val d'Or and immediate district as now being placed in one of the best employment areas of the country. In some respects, employment conditions are ahead of those existing a year ago. Despite the fact that businessmen in town describe this summer as "poor" in connection with tourism, the commission states that more jobless have been taken on in this field than there were during the same period last year.
In his report Mr. Decarie says that mine employment has shown a marked improvement in activities in all spheres. This, he comments, has been the best month for mine workers since last year. Operations in the bush are remaining steady, and so far there has been no suspension of work as there was last year.
Construction too has shown a considerable upturn over the past eight weeks, and again employment prospects here are way ahead of a year ago. More building projects over a wide area of northwestern Quebec have accounted for the upsurge in employment among construction workers. In some areas, the Star learned this week, it is becoming difficult to obtain skilled building workers.
Commerce and transport industries were also well to the fore during July and August, and a steady improvement was recorded in these two employment categories.
This shows, Mr. Chairman, that the public works program and the actions that have been taken, by the government are being felt throughout the country because my area is a remote one and we are feeling the improvement right now. That is not all that is said in this article. I should like to read the last paragraph, which is as follows:
Although many cities and towns throughout the country are anticipating the coming winter with grave apprehension in employment prospects, commission officials in Val d'Or are quietly optimistic that we shall not reach the depressing unemployment figures reached here last spring.
57071-3-231J
Supply-Labour
I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to renew my request to the Minister of Labour for employment offices in my riding of Chapleau. It covers an area of over
80,000	square miles and we have no such offices. There is a population of some 65,000 people and we need a few offices and suboffices. With such offices I believe it would be easier for our workers to find jobs right in the riding whereas now they have to travel quite a distance to find work.


Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter which I should like to bring to the minister's attention and I believe this is the only item on which it can be raised. However, before I deal with it I should like to associate myself with the pleas made this afternoon by the hon. member for Cartier and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam for the establishment of institutions to train teachers as vocational training instructors. I should also like to associate myself with the request made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
The matter which I wish to bring to the minister's attention has to do with the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act which 1 believe is administered by the Department of Labour. Perhaps I can save time and illustrate my point better by describing an actual case. One of my constituents lost his life at sea and left behind a wife and several children. The wife and children received an allowance under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. Susequently the mother died leaving the children as orphans.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but there is far too much noise in the house tonight. It would be appreciated if hon. members would use the smoking room to carry on their conversations.


Mr. Carter:: Subsequently the mother died leaving the children alone in the world. These children were taken into the home of their married sister who acted as a foster mother and after a time the allowance under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act was restored but because of the wording of this act it was impossible for the foster mother to receive the regular allowance. The reason for that was that the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act stipulates that in order to qualify for an allowance the foster mother must move into the house where the children originally lived. To me that seems to be a rather senseless requirement.
If you take into consideration the situation of a merchant seaman you will find that he is an ordinary person. He is not likely to have a very big bank account and the mother

Supply-Labour
who is obliged to exist on charity and allowances is going to find it difficult to keep that house in proper repair. In this case the children were taken out of the house in which they lived and were moved into the sister's house in the same community, only a few yards away from where they originally lived.
Surely we in this parliament with that legislation should be concerned about the welfare of the children and not about keeping establishments open. In this case the children have moved into a better home than they had previously. Yet their foster mother is deprived of the allowance because of the wording of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. I think that fact indicates that this legislation needs to be overhauled, and I would ask the minister to give the matter serious consideration.


Mr. Deschalelels:: Representing as I do a riding which is mostly made up of members of the labouring forces, I think there is no doubt that I am as concerned as is any other member about the unemployment situation and as anxious to take part in this debate on the estimates of the Minister of Labour. Since we are dealing with the estimates I should like to take advantage of the opportunity to ask two questions of the minister in connection with the compilation of unemployment figures. From month to month we receive one set of figures compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics and another one compiled by the unemployment insurance commission. When the minister was sitting on this side of the house I well remember how dissatisfied he was with these two sets of figures. Since we have today more unemployment than we had a year ago, I submit that we should try to improve the system of compilation that we have. With the various offices of the national employment service covering almost every area of this country, I do not see why a more accurate system of compilation with regard to unemployed persons cannot be established. The more accurate such a system is, the easier it would be to bring relief to a specific area where unemployment is more serious than it is in another one.
This brings me, Mr. Chairman, to a question I should like the minister to answer. The Minister of Labour has reiterated many times that the reason why the figures of the national employment service were set aside was that the monthly report included a number of persons who already have a job and are applying for another one. If this is the only reason-and the minister has never

given another one-for not using these figures, I should like now to quote the latest report issued by the national unemployment service. On the bottom of this report we read that the count excludes registrations from persons known to have a job and applying for another one. It therefore seems that we are entitled now to an explanation by the minister on this point, because the reason he has given many times in this house is contradicted by the latest report we have received from the national employment service.
I know that the dominion bureau of statistics does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour but since the minister is using these figures I should like to have from him some explanation as to how these compilations are made. I hope that the minister in his remarks before the item is voted upon, will care to give us some comment on those two particular points that I have raised.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Since it is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and as I have a few more remarks to make, may I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow? Perhaps when the house leader is replying, he might tell us what we will do on Monday and Tuesday as well.


Mr. Green:: Tomorrow we shall continue with the estimates of the Department of Labour. Then we shall take those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and of the Department of Transport. On Monday we shall commence with the three measures standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: In the order on the order paper?


Howard Charles Green: Numbers 1, 2 and 3 on today's order paper; also item No. 16, which is an amendment to one of the other three. Then we shall take item No. 7, second reading of an act respecting the development and improvement of the national capital region; then item No. 12, a resolution preceding a bill concerning the Railway Act; item No. 14, the emergency gold mining resolution; the item which appears under government notices

of motion today having to do with an agreement made under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act; then the radio resolution which is on the Votes and Proceedings today; then item No. 8, second reading of an act to provide conditional liberation of persons undergoing sentences of imprisonment; then item No. 9, an act to amend the Customs Tariff; then item No. 5, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. If we get all those through before ten o'clock we will have done very well.
Business of the House


Lionel Chevrier: That ought to keep us busy for Monday and Tuesday.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know about the items for Tuesday as yet.


Lionel Chevrier: It is nice to be optimistic._


Michael Starr: It will keep you busy until October and he has plenty more.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is Charles Lynch an employee of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If not, has he made any appearances for C.B.C. television at Ottawa since May 12, 1958?
3.	If so, how many such appearances?
4.	Have members of the press gallery made such appearances? If so, what are their names and on how many occasions, since the above date?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Nine (up to the end of June).
4.	The following members of the press gallery have made appearances for C.B.C. television at Ottawa up to the end of June: Michael Barkway on two occasions John Bird on two occasions Arthur Blakely on one occasion Bill Boss on two occasions Clement Brown on one occasion Grant Dexter on one occasion Blair Fraser on two occasions Marcel Gingras on one occasion Jean Grand-Landeau on two occasions Georges Langlois on two occasions Robert McKeown on five occasions Lorenzo Pare on one occasion Frank Swanson on two occasions.


RADIO RELAY TRANSMITTERS, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	In which communities in British Columbia, if any, do low power radio relay transmitters operate?
2.	In each of the above mentioned communities what is the (a) population; (b) number of radio receiving sets served by each such transmitter?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
Revelstoke
Burns Lake
Terrace
Field
Lytton
Fernie
Prince George
Osoyoos
Hope
Kitimat
Natal
New Hazelton Grand Forks Kimberley Williams Lake Creston North Bend Vanderhoof Salmon Arm Ocean Falls Golden
Greenwood
Princeton
Quesnel
Cranbrook
Smithers
Ashcroft
Oliver
Castlegar
Kaslo
McBride
2.
Location
Revelstoke	
Burns Lake	
Terrace	
Field (1)	
" LPRT's Share
Lytton	
Fernie (2)	
" LPRT's Share	
Prince George	
New Hazelton	
Grand Forks (3)	
" LPRT's Share.
Kimberley (4)	
"	LPRT's Share.
Williams Lake	
Creston	
North Bend (5)	
"	LPRT's Share.
Greenwood (6)	
" LPRT's Share
Princeton...
Quesnel	
Cranbrook (7)
jpulation	Estimated No. radio receiving sets
5,700	1,500
3,100	800
5,900	1,500
900	200
800	200
700	200
8,000	2,100
5,500	1,400
18,400	4,700
1,500	400
7,000	1,900
6,000	1,500
14,700	3,800
8,200	2,100
4,200	1,100
7,100	1,800
1,700	400
1,600	400
8,000	2,000
2,500	600
3,800	1,000
10,000	2,600
16,200	4,200

Questions
Location
Estimated No. radio
Population receiving sets
" LPRT's Share
Smithers	
Ashcroft	
Vanderhoof	
Oliver (8)	
" LPRT's Share	
Osoyoos (9)	
" LPRT's Share...
Salmon Arm	
Castlegar	
Hope (10)	
" LPRT's Share	
Ocean Falls	
Kaslo	
Kitimat	
Golden (11)	
" LPRT's Share...
McBride	
Natal (12)	
" LPRT's Share	
7.900
4.200 2,600
2.900
9.200
7.700
7.900
1.700 15,700 10,300
5.100 5,000
3.500
2.100
12,400
2,300
2,100
1.700 2,600
2.500
2,000
1,100
700
2,300
1,900
2,000
2,600
1.300
1.300 900 500
3,200
500
700
(1)	Field duplicated with Golden.
(2)	Fernie duplicated with Natal and Cranbrook.
(3)	Grand Forks duplicated with Greenwood.
(4)	Kimberley duplicated with Cranbrook.
(5)	North Bend duplicated with Hope.
(6)	Greenwood duplicated with Grand Forks.
(7)	Cranbrook duplicated with Fernie and Kimberley.
(8)	Oliver duplicated with Osoyoos.
(9)	Osoyoos duplicated with Oliver.
(10)	Hope duplicated with North Bend.
(11)	Golden duplicated with Field.
(12)	Natal duplicated with Fernie.


SECOND TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  REPRESENTA- TIONS FROM WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. Howard: 1. In addition to the present trans-Canada highway, have any representations or requests been made to the federal government for financial assistance in the construction of an east-west highway through, or in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?
2.	If so, (a) from whom and upon what date was each representation received; (b) what financial arrangements were suggested in each case; (c) what disposition was made to each representation?
3.	What action has the government taken with respect to the general suggestion for such highway?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1.	-Yes.
2.	-
(a)
Representations received Date
(6)
Financial and other arrangements suggested
.(c)
Disposition made
Merritt board of trade Merritt, B.C.
3-6-58 Endorses resolution of Edmonton chamber of Acknowledged and noted for commerce requesting federal aid in con- consideration, struction of Yellowhead route highway.
Central North Thompson board of trade, Clearwater, B.C.
Urges agreement between federal government and the government of the province of British Columbia covering construction of proposed Yellowhead highway.
To be considered but advised that priority to be given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.
McBride district board of trade McBride, B.C.
24-5-58 Endorses resolution of McBride farmers' Advised priority to be given institute concerning Yellowhead highway to completion of present and solicits effort be made to carry it out. trans-Canada highway.
Trans-Canada highway The Southern Route Association, Castlegar, B.C.
12-5-58 Inquires as to whether or not the government Advised that the government of the province of British Columbia has of the province of British requested federal aid for completion of	Columbia has requested
southern trans-provincial highway No. 3.	federal aid in the construction of highways, but no specific request for No. 3 highway.
Questions

(o)	.
Representations received
McBride farmers' institute, McBride, B.C.
Kamloops board of trade, TCamloops, B.C.
E. H. Hallock,
Hope, B.C.
Mr. and Mrs. Chas. Cleaveley,
Little Fort, B.C.
Minister of Highways, Province of British Columbia,
Victoria, B.C.
Yellowhead route association of British Columbia
C. H. Wright Trail, B.C.
Yellowhead route Association of British Columbia, Clearwater, B.C.
Trans-Canada highway the southern route association,
Castlegar, B.C.
Associated boards of trade and chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia, Castlegar, B.C.
Central North Thompson board of trade, Clearwater, B.C.
Mayor Wm. Hawrelak, the city of Edmonton, Edmonton, Alta.
Hinton and district chamber of commerce, Hinton, Alta.
Vermilion board of trade, Vermilion, Alta.
Trans-Canada highway system (Yellowhead route) association, Edmonton, Alta.
Date	(b) j Financial and other arrangements suggested	(?) Disposition made6-5-58	Urges federal government to offer the government of the province of British Columbia fifty per cent of cost of construction of Yellowhead highway between Yellowhead and Kamloops, B.C.	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.14-4-58	Requests action on construction of proposed Yellowhead route highway between Kamloops and Jasper.	Advised Yellowhead route would be considered in any overall program of federal aid to highways. Priority is being given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.11-4-58	Urges construction of Yellowhead route in British Columbia.	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.25-3-58	Requests Yellowhead highway through British Columbia be completed.	To be considered but advised priority to be given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.4-3-58	Requests agreement concerning construction of Yellowhead route highway from Kamloops to Jasper on 50-50 share basis.	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.28-2-58	Requests offer of federal aid to government of province of British Columbia for construction of Yellowhead route on same basis as trans-Canada highway agreement.	To be considered but advised priority to be given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.30-1-58	Urges federal aid for construction of trans-Canada highway on southern Route, Salmon-Creston and Columbia river to Cascade.	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.27-1-58	Endorses resolution of Edmonton chamber of commerce requesting federal aid in construction of Yellowhead route highway.	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.16-1-58	Urges federal aid for completion of trans-Canada highway No. 3 (southern route).	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.15-1-58	Urges federal aid for early completion of trans-Canada highway No. 3 (southern route).	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.23-12-57	Urges federal government in co-operation with the provincial governments institute an overall policy aimed at creating an arterial highway system on the basis of the trans-Canada highway agreements.	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.28-5-58	Requests Canada's participation in construction of proposed Yellowhead highway.	Advised priority to be given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.23-5-58	Requests offer of federal aid to government of province of British Columbia for construction of Yellowhead route.	To be considered but advised priority to be given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.9-5-58	Requests immediate construction of Yellowhead route highway by federal and provincial governments.	Advised priority to be given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.25-11-57	Requests co-operation with provinces on same basis as for trans-Canada highway, to create an arterial highway system.	Acknowledged and noted for consideration.
(a)

Questions
Representations received Date Financial and other arrangements suggested
. (c)
Disposition Made
E. T. Love, Edmonton, Alta.
28-10-57 Requests action to construct Yellowhead Advised priority to be given route.	to completion of trans-
Canada highway on present route.
North Battleford chamber of commerce,
North Battleford, Sask.
Lloydminster and district chamber of commerce Lloydminster, Sask.
Saskatoon board of trade, Saskatoon, Sask.
Yorkton and district chamber of commerce, Yorkton, Sask.
Northern Trans-Canada route association, Prince Albert, Sask.
6-6-58 Endorses resolution of Edmonton chamber of commerce requesting federal aid in construction of Yellowhead route highway.
5-6-58 Endorses resolution of Edmonton chamber of commerce requesting federal aid in construction of Yellowhead route highway.
5-6-58 Requests agreement between Canada and the provinces and early construction of Yellowhead route highway.
12-5-58 Endorses resolution of Edmonton chamber of commerce and urges immediate construction of Yellowhead route highway by federal and provincial governments.
12-3-58 Urges construction of a second trans-Canada highway through Riding Mountain national park in Manitoba to Mafeking, through Tisdale, Melfort .Prince Albert, Shellbrook, Turtleford and Lloydminster in Saskatche-
Acknowledged and noted for consideration.
Acknowledged and noted for consideration.
To be considered but advised priority to be given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.
To be considered but advised priority to be given to completion of present trans-Canada highway.
Acknowledged and noted for consideration.
The Saskatchewan	27-12-57
chamber of commerce,
Regina, Sask.
Saskatchewan No. 14	6-11-57
highway association,
Wynyard, Sask.
Town of Kamsack,	16-10-57
Kamsack, Sask.
Urges government of the province of Saskatchewan to complete its section of a second east-west highway and requests federal government assistance on same basis as for the trans-Canada highway.
Requests high priority be given to construction of proposed Yellowhead route.
Requests federal government give serious consideration to commence second trans-Canada highway immediately.
Acknowledged and noted for consideration.
Acknowledged and noted for consideration.
Acknowledged, project under consideration by provincial and federal governments.
3. The matter of federal aid to the provinces for highways other than the trans-Canada and roads to resources, for which contributions are now being made, will receive consideration by the government. Priority is being given, however, to the completion of the present trans-Canada highway.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
Water Resources Branch-
276.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including grant of $350 to the international executive council, world power conference and a grant of $35,000 to the Canadian National Committee of the world power conference to assist in defraying the costs of the conference's sectional meeting to be held in Canada in 1958, $1,257,459.
277.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $123,500.
278.	To provide for studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $227,780.
279.	Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by Fraser River Board, $95,000.
280.	To provide for a contribution to the cost of constructing a dam on the Conestogo river near Glen Allan, Ontario, for the purposes of flood control and water conservation, in accordance with the terms of an agreement entered into between Canada and the province of Ontario, $500,000.
281.	To provide for federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba Board, $40,000.
Northern Administration and Lands Branch-
282.	Branch administration, $1,209,353.
Yukon Territory-
283.	Operation and maintenance, including $1,000 for grants to museums in the Yukon Territory, $820,897.
284.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,251,084.
285.	To authorize payments to be made, in respect of each of the fiscal years in the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1957, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, to the government of the Yukon Territory, in accordance with an agreement to be entered into by the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, on behalf of the government of Canada, and the commissioner of the Yukon Territory, on behalf of the government of the Yukon Territory, such agreement to provide, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, that the government of the Yukon Territory will not impose,
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
levy or collect individual income taxes, corporation income taxes, corporation taxes or succession duties, as defined in the agreement, for the five-year period specified therein; the payment of the total of amounts under the agreement to be calculated on the following bases:
(a)	an annual subsidy to the government of the Yukon Territory of eighty cents per head in respect of a population of twelve thousand one hundred and ninety (12,190) persons, being the population of the territory for the year 1956 as determined by the census taken in that year, $9,752;
(b)	a grant in aid of the government and council of the territory, $30,000; and
(c)	for the fiscal year ending in 1958, the sum of four hundred and nineteen thousand dollars ($419,000) and for each of the four immediately following fiscal years the greater or
(A) the quotient obtained by dividing
1.	four hundred and nineteen thousand dollars ($419,000) multiplied by the value of the gross national product per capita for the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year in which the fiscal year for which the payment is made commenced,
by
2.	the value of the gross national product per capita for the calendar year 1956,
or (B) ninety-five per cent of the sum paid under this subparagraph in the immediately preceding fiscal year;
the estimated total amount required for the fiscal year 1958-59 being, $478,752.
Northwest Territories and Other Field Services-
286.	Operation and maintenance, including $1,000 for grants to museums in the Northwest Territories, $6,263,941.
287.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including costs arising out of the relocation of the town of Aklavik and payment of such compensation as the Governor in Council prescribes to persons affected by such relocation, $15,053,450.
288.	To authorize payments to be made, in respect of each of the fiscal years in the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1957, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, to the Northwest Territories Revenue Account, in accordance with an agreement to be entered into by the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, on behalf of the government of Canada, and the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, with the approval of the Council of the Northwest Territories, on behalf of the government of the Northwest Territories, such agreement to provide, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, that the government of the Northwest Territories will not impose, levy or collect individual income taxes, corporation income taxes, corporation taxes or succession duties, as defined in the agreement, for the five-year period specified therein; the payment of the total of amounts under the agreement to be calculated on the following bases:
(a)	an anual subsidy to the government of the Northwest Territories of eighty cents per head in respect of a population of nineteen thousand three hundred and thirteen (19,313) persons; being the population of the Territories for the year 1956 as determined by the census taken in that year, $15,450.40;
(b)	a grant in aid of the government and Council of the Territories, $30,000; and
(c)	for the fiscal year ending in 1958, the sum of five hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($520,000) and for each of the four immediately following fiscal years the greater of
(A) the quotient obtained by dividing
1. five hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($520,000) multiplied by the value of the gross
national product per capita for the calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year in which the fiscal year for which the payment is made commenced, by
2. the value of the gross national product per capita for the calendar year 1956, or
(B) ninety-five per cent of the sum paid under this subparagraph in the immediately preceding fiscal year;
the estimated total amount required for the fiscal year 1958-59 being $585,451.
289.	To provide for contributions to the provinces to assist in the development of roads leading to resources in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces, $9,000,000.
Forestry Branch-
290.	Branch administration, $139,678.
Forest research division-
291.	Operation and maintenance, $1,328,886.
292.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $164,283.
Forestry operations division-
293.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $302,780.
294.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $19,230.
295.	To provide for contributions to the provinces for assistance in forest inventory, reforestation and forest fire protection in accordance with agreements that have been or may be entered into by Canada and the provinces, $1,650,000.
296.	To provide for contributions to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them in establishing forest access roads and trails for the attainment of adequate fire protection as well as other aspects of forest management, $1,000,000.
297.	To provide for a contribution to the province of New Brunswick for assistance in a program designed to combat the spruce budworm infestation, in accordance with an agreement entered into by Canada and the province, $600,000.
Forest products laboratories division-
298.	Operation and maintenance, $750,299.
299.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $259,260.
300.	Grant to Canadian Forestry Association,
[Stage Direction]
301.	Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation Board- remuneration and expenses of the federal member of the board, $5,575.
National Museum of Canada-
302.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $603,292.
Canadian Government Travel Bureau-
303.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian Tourist Association, $2,182,206.
506.	To authorize advances to the northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with subsection (1) of section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $7,910,000.
507.	To provide for advances in accordance with agreements entered into or to be entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $11,329,000.

508.	To authorize the operation of a revolving fund, in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act. for the purpose of acquiring and managing stores required for the operation and maintenance of the national parks of Canada; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $1,000,000.
National parks branch-
National parks and historic sites services-
580.	Construction or acquisition of buildings,
works, land and	equipment-further amount
required, $500,000.
581.	Grant in aid of the development of the International Peace Garden in Manitoba-further amount required, $5,000.
582.	To authorize payment of the national battlefields commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec (Chap. 57, Statutes of 1908, as amended)-further amount required; payments made or to be made for the erection of a monument to Sir George Garneau as ratified, $20,150.
583.	Grant to the city of Orillia to assist in the commemoration of Stephen Leacock in accordance
Supply-Items Passed with an agreement between the government of Canada and the city, $15,000.
Northern administration and lands branch-
584.	Branch administration-further amount required, $59,440.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
585.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $69,604.
586.	Construction or acquisition of buildings,
works, land and	equipment-further amount
required, $3,500,000.
National Museum of Canada-
587.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $15,000.
Canadian government travel bureau-
588.	To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada-further amount required, $73,000.
659. To provide for advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act-further amount required, $2,290,000.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, August 16, 1958

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) presented the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.