1959-05-21

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 21, 1959

[Stage Direction]
Third report of sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping-Mr. Rowe.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse) presented the first report of the joint committee on Indian affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to on division.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to provide a support price for soybeans at $2.00 per bushel for No. 2 grade or better for the 1959 crop. This prescribed price is 87 per cent of the 10-year average price and 10 cents per bushel below the support price provided for the 1958 crop. All of the 1958 crop of soybeans has not yet been marketed, but it is estimated that the average market price will be considerably below $2.00 per bushel and the agricultural stabilization board will therefore be liable for a substantial payment on the 1958 crop.
The United States have reduced their support level by 24 cents per bushel, from $2.09 for the 1958 crop to $1.85 for the 1959 crop, national farm average. The lower United States support price reflects the general market outlook for the coming year. While the support price for the 1959 soybean crop has been reduced by 10 cents per bushel below the 1958 level, it will provide a real measure of assistance and should stabilize returns for this crop at a satisfactory level, particularly when consideration is given to what the growers' position would be if no assistance were provided, in view of the general market outlook for 1959 and the substantial reduction in the United States support price.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I thank the Minister of Agriculture for so readily acceding to my request of yesterday that he should announce today the government's policy with
66968-9-240
regard to a floor price on soybeans. I can only hope that other proposals I have made to the Minister of Agriculture will receive as quick attention as I made for a floor price on soybeans. I regret to say, however, that the announcement is one that will not be widely acclaimed by the soybean growers. I am afraid that this 10 per cent reduction in the floor price-


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not 10 per cent; it is 10 cents.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ten cents-of course that is more than 10 per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it is less than 5 per cent.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I should like to say this to my hon. friend. Today, but only for today, his mathematics may be better than mine, but I may say to him that his appreciation of the plight of the farmers obviously is not as good as mine. This reduction represents, I think, as others have indicated in this house, a gradual withdrawal by the government, from its announced policy of supporting certain agricultural products by way of support prices.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is nothing of the kind.


Peter Francis Martin: My hon. friend says "It is nothing of the kind", but bit by bit, day by day, the government's policy of price supports is being abridged and the farmers are receiving less and less assistance. The minister will recall that when we discussed this matter some time ago-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Peter Francis Martin: -I indicated to him that there had been a cut in the floor price on soybeans in the United States and that I would hope the action taken there would not be the kind of action-


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I raise for Your Honour's consideration the question which has been raised before, namely whether by way of comment upon a statement announcing the government's decision in a certain case hon. gentlemen opposite are allowed to cover the whole field, as the hon. member is doing today.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Chevrier:: There is no point of order.

Support jor Soybean Crop


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Hon. gentlemen opposite should be the last ones to talk about closure.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the practice is reasonably clear. The comment which is permitted is limited to comment on the subject matter of the statement which was made and does not extend to extraneous matters. Further, this is not a debate. Although opportunity is given for expression of opinion, this is not an occasion for argumentative debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for supporting the position I have been taking. The Minister of Justice, who regards himself as the custodian of our rules, did not object-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have dealt with the point of order. I would ask the hon. member to continue with his comment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have the right to comment on the point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice raised a point of order and-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought I had disposed of the point of order, but I did not hear the hon. member on it. If he wishes to say something on it I will certainly hear it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture referred to the reduction in the floor price in the United States. The Minister of Justice did not criticize or take issue with his colleague's right so to do; and I was commenting on the reduction in the floor price in the United States when my genial friend the Minister of Justice, in his state of war with one of the provinces, suggested that I was out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I noted that at the time the point of order was raised the hon. member was speaking on that matter which had been raised in the statement. That particular part did not seem to me to be objectionable.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for again coming to my assistance. As the Minister of Agriculture said, the United States has reduced its floor price by 24 cents. I indicated some days ago that I hoped that it would not be necessary for Canada to follow the course that had been taken there, because the situation is not comparable.
I thank the minister first of all for so readily answering my question of yesterday, but again I must express on behalf of the soybean growers of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -particularly those in southwestern Ontario, our regret that the government by its policy of attrition is gradually withdrawing from the floor price policy that it announced some time ago to the people of the country.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member for Essex East should be so profuse in his thanks to the Minister of Agriculture for making this announcement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want a better result.


Hazen Robert Argue: My only comment is that if this is to be the result of questions by the hon. member for Essex East in the future, then in the interests of agriculture in this country we hope the hon. member will cease and desist.
I notice that the Minister of Agriculture went to the United States to find an excuse for reducing the price of soybeans in Canada. If this is to be a consistent attitude on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and the government, then of course there should be an immediate deficiency payment on wheat since the price of wheat in the United States is being increased for the present crop year. But as I said in commenting on the last statement of the Minister of Agriculture when announcing another lower support price, it has become a consistent attitude and policy of the government to reduce step by step, in a piecemeal but rather consistent way, the floor prices on agricultural products.
This is a very regrettable announcement, Mr. Speaker. It shows that the government has abandoned any pretence of maintaining floor prices based on the farmers' costs of production. We can only say that we are certain this announcement will result in the same type of adverse comment already made with respect to many previous announcements of the minister during this session.



CROP INSURANCE


Douglas Scott Harkness: 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 provide for the payment of contributions and the making of loans by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund, in respect of the operation of provincial schemes for crop insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works based on a telegram I have just received from the Canadian director of the oil, chemical and atomic workers international union, Sarnia, Ontario. Is it a fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has issued eviction notices to a number of workers involved in the Polymer strike? If so, will the minister ask the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to reconsider these eviction notices in view of the offer of the union to guarantee the payment of overdue rent following a return to work?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have had representations on this question from the hon. member for Lambton West, and investigations through Central Mortage and Housing Corporation have already been started. I hope to be able to give the house a more detailed statement tomorrow.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister table the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 1958 of the unemployment insurance advisory committee?


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Hull knows, there is a procedure set out in our daily routine proceedings for such questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Does the minister not believe that the request made by the hon. member for Hull is reasonable, in view of the fact that the minister himself the other day, when tabling certain other reports, did table the minutes of at least one other meeting of the unemployment insurance advisory committee?


Michael Starr: Yes, I believe it is a reasonable request, but my suggestion to the effect that there is a routine procedure to be followed is also reasonable.
66968-9-2461
21, 1959	3869
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS



SELF-GOVERNMENT OF TOWNSITES    TENURE OF LEASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: I understand the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been looking into the possibility of an inquiry into the prospect of self-government for the townsites in national parks, and also into the matter of leases and length of tenure in the national parks. There is a great deal of public interest in this question, and I should like to ask the minister whether anything definite has yet been done in this regard.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: This is a matter of great interest in the western parks. I have had representations from the hon. member for Lethbridge, the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. I want to thank the hon. member for having raised this point with the department last fall, and thus we were able to take advantage of it. I have approached the institute of local government at Queen's University, Kingston, and Dr. K. Grant Crawford and his associates will undertake an impartial study, not only in the three towns of Waterton, Banff and Jasper but also in the town of Whitehorse, where the situation is somewhat the same.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Yesterday the Minister of National Defence, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Laurier on the establishment in Canada of short range tactical air navigational facilities for the United States, stated that the newspaper reports were inaccurate. I wonder if the minister could tell us in what regard the newspaper reports were inaccurate.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisier of National Defence):: I was asked yesterday to comment on a report to the effect that a series of aerial radio towers were being established across Canada. From the way the question was framed I could not connect this with the TACAN agreement which had been tabled just recently. The description of the navigational instruments of TACAN as aerial radio towers is quite inaccurate. It is inaccurate also to suggest that these are being established across Canada, because they are confined to the Atlantic and Pacific areas.

Inquiries of the Ministry



RE-EQUIPPING OF R.C.A.F. SQUADRONS IN EUROPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister yet in a position to announce a decision with reference to the re-equipping of the air division in Europe?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister care to comment on newspaper reports in today's press concerning the possibility of manufacturing in Canada a French plane?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker. We have looked at this French plane. At the present time there is no comment that I can make as to whether or not it would be manufactured in Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister think that the plane most likely to be manufactured in Canada is a mirage?


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister has no thoughts on that matter.



REPORTED DROP IN SHIPMENTS FROM LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sorry I have not been able to send him notice, but would the minister comment on the report that shipments of grain, since the opening of navigation this year, have been 33 million bushels, a drop from the 72 million bushels of a year ago? Could he say whether this tremendous drop in shipments is the result of inadequate seaway facilities, insufficient shipping or both, or of a reduction in our export markets?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I did not require notice of this question from the hon. member. The 47 Conservative members from the prairie provinces are also interested in this matter and have been talking to me about it in the interval. We are not dependent upon one lone figure to draw our attention to these important facts in Canada.
I make no comment with regard to the shipping and the seaway facilities; that is not my province. The situation with regard to export trade is being maintained. The fact that the shipment of grain from the lakehead is not as great as it was last year

has no effect on our export market at the present time because there is sufficient grain in position further east to handle these exports. Our exports of wheat are continuing at a good figure. We still expect to reach the quota that we set earlier in the year.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinily-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. What steps have been taken by the government to ensure an adequate supply of Cape Breton coal for Newfoundland consumers at prices competitive with United States coal?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Trinity-Conception for having given me notice of his question. In reply I wish to say this. Steps have been taken to ensure an adequate quantity of Nova Scotia coal to Newfoundland during 1959. Early shipments are going forward to the principal dealers, and arrangements have been made with the government of Newfoundland for expedition of scheduled shipments from North Sydney throughout the entire shipping season. The deputy minister of economic development, Mr. Johnson, has a complete list of the tonnages and dates of all proposed shipments.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I regret that this information just reached me a few minutes ago and I did not have time to send him notice. In view of the reply given by the minister on May 11 to a question by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) in connection with the loss of trawl gear as the result of dragger operations may I ask this question. Is the minister aware that substantial damage has recently been done to small draggers' gear by the large foreign draggers operating along Cape Breton shore? What action, if any, is being taken by his department to protect trawl gear as well as smaller dragger fishing equipment?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I can say only that there is no evidence of foreign draggers operating within

the three mile limit of! Cape Breton. Of course, under the present international law we have no control over foreign trawlers beyond territorial waters. As to small trawlers which are allowed to fish within territorial waters, the situation has been carefully looked into and attempts are being made to rectify the difficulty.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the fact that foreign trawlers are interfering with the operation of small draggers in the area of from three miles to ten miles out?


John Angus MacLean: No reports to that effect have yet come to my attention. I will look into the matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether Canada took part in the United Nations refugee conference which has just concluded its sessions in New York. If so, did the Canadian government agree to assist in the solution of this distressing problem?


John George Diefenbaker: Canada supported the resolution at the thirteenth session of the United Nations general assembly last year which set up the world refugee year. Since then, at various international meetings having to do with the problem of refugees, Canada has indicated her support for the principle of the world refugee year.
With respect to the second question, Canada is in the forefront in giving aid to refugee causes and in seeking to find permanent solutions to refugee problems. I think the hon. gentleman will be interested to learn that Canada has increased its contribution this year to the United Nations high commissioner for refugees from $200,000 to $290,000. This contribution will assist the high commissioner in clearing some of the refugee camps which have existed in Europe since the close of the second world war. Canada has pledged a cash contribution of 500,000 to Palestine refugees, as well as a special and additional gift of $1.5 million worth of Canadian wheat flour to help the agency in its difficult task of providing subsistence to the refugees in its care. We have also recently made a contribution of $60,000 to the far eastern program to bring European refugees out of mainland China to countries of overseas settlement.
Supply-Labour
I think that answer covers, in general, the question the hon. gentleman asked.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
163. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,105,745.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, under this particular vote I take it I am at liberty to direct some questions to the minister with respect to Canadian participation in the international labour organization and to the consideration which Canada gives, or is contemplating giving, to some of the conventions passed by that organization in conference.
There is one convention to which I wish to make particular reference; it is one which I understand Canada has not yet ratified. I took occasion to speak to the minister on the telephone about this, and though I realize that it was only a short while before the house was to sit this afternoon, and that the minister might not yet have this information available, I should like to direct a question to him with regard to it in any event.
My question relates to I.L.O. convention No. 87, adopted in 1948. It is a convention concerning freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize, and one of the articles of that convention, article 15, points out that the director general may indicate which nations have ratified this particular convention. I wonder if the minister has any information at hand as to which nations who are parties to the I.L.O. have ratified this particular convention No. 87.


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Chairman, 35 countries have ratified this convention. Unless the hon. member wishes me to read the names, I can supply him with a list of those countries at any time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Could the minister indicate whether any of the larger and more prominent nations, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, are in that list?


Michael Starr: Yes; the United Kingdom, the U.S.S.R., Norway, the Republic of Germany, Belgium and Austria are among the 35 nations listed here.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to make one or two comments with respect to what I think should be the action taken by Canada with respect to this particular convention, and though I shall address my remarks to convention No. 87 I should not be taken as

Supply-Labour
indicating that Canada should not endorse other conventions of the I.L.O. I think Canada should, before now, have taken the steps necessary for the endorsement of this convention; and if consultation with the provinces is involved, as I think it may be,
I suggest we should already have entered into such discussions.
There are two or three articles in this convention which relate to the guaranteeing of certain rights and freedoms to both employers' and employees' organizations with respect to the right to organize, and I feel sure that if Canada had taken steps earlier than, at least, January of this year toward the ratification of this particular convention we might have avoided the unfortunate situation which arose in the province of Newfoundland recently involving the decertification of two unions in that province.
I will point out, if 1 may, that article 4 of this convention, had it been enforced, would have dealt with, or covered, the particular events which occurred in Newfoundland, because it provides that organizations of workers and employers shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. Another article mentions that public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict the lawful exercise of the right to organize. Article 11 of the convention provides that each member to which the convention applies undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise fully the right to organize. This is the general tenor of the drafting of this particular convention.
I think each of those articles to which I have referred has been abrogated in one of the provinces of Canada, notably the province of Newfoundland, where public author-rities and administrative authorities have taken steps contrary to the provisions of this I.L.O. convention, even though it is not in force in Canada, by dissolving and suspending certain unions and impeding the lawful right to organize in that province. Failure to ratify this convention reflects not only on the present government but also, in an even larger measure, upon the government which preceded it, because it will be recalled that the Liberal government was in office continually from the time the I.L.O. passed this convention in 1948 until the general election of 1957. That was nine years during which that government had the opportunity, had it so desired, to take steps toward the ratification of this convention which would in large measure have prevented the disgraceful situation which developed in Newfoundland in so far as the lawful right of

unions to organize and establish themselves in that province is concerned.
Some time ago on orders of the day I asked the minister whether Canada had ratified this convention and, if not, would he give consideration to the idea. I took it from his remarks that consideration would be accorded to the question, and I wonder if the minister could now indicate what steps he has taken to that end.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, upon delving into this convention with a view to seeing whether it could be ratified, the information I have, based on good evidence, is that the subject matter of the convention is almost wholly within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Only to a minor degree is it within the jurisdiction of this parliament. For that reason two other countries of which we are aware, the United States and Australia, have not ratified this convention.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This may be a general query I am posing. Can steps not be taken to have the parliament of Canada deal with conventions of a similar nature where federal and provincial jurisdiction are involved?


Michael Starr: We cannot take up the question of ratification of conventions where the subject matter comes almost wholly within the jurisdiction of the provinces. We would be going entirely out of our field of jurisdiction and contrary to the laws established by the provinces, where they exist.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is it because of the jurisdiction of the provinces and existing provincial legislation that we are prevented from dealing with these conventions?


Michael Starr: I would say that is correct, if I apprehended the hon. member correctly.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Would the minister not think that a question of forced labour within a province would alter the situation?


Michael Starr: That subject is entirely foreign to our way of life and to conditions in Canada. We have no such thing as forced labour in this country, and consequently no statutes dealing with that subject are on the books of the legislatures.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Let me pose another question. Suppose one province undertook to establish a system of forced labour contrary to the provisions of the I.L.O. convention we reviewed the other day. What position would Canada be in with respect to dealing with that province?


Michael Starr: We would consider the situation on its merits at that time.


Hazen Robert Argue: And that is all you would do.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say in one case that it is all right to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces because it involves something that has not happened so far in Canada, and when it comes to a question that has not arisen in Canada until recently, when it arose in one province, take the opposite view. We have to be consistent.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, this is an entirely different convention from any others that come within provincial jurisdiction. In my opinion we have not in this case violated the jurisdiction of any province. There is no legislation to that effect, nor do I expect there ever will be.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Until two months ago no
one in this country expected that a province or the federal government would take the kind of action that was taken in Newfoundland, where political interference in the right to organize a labour union occurred.


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour, and it is quite out of order to discuss a hypothetical situation that may arise in a province and speculate about what course of conduct the federal government would follow in such a case. Furthermore I believe the discussion being carried on relates to federal-provincial relations, which do not come within the purview or scope of these estimates. I must point out to the hon. gentleman that he was quite out of order in his latter remarks and it would be appreciated by the Chair if we could confine the debate to the item under discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, speaking to
the point of order you have raised, surely it is a long-standing practice in this committee that on the first item of any department, which is the administration item, a great deal of latitude is allowed hon. members of the committee to discuss general matters coming under that department. Surely the question of Canada's action or lack of action with respect to an international convention is an appropriate subject for discussion under this item.
As far as reference to something that has happened in the provinces is concerned, I would suggest that is only a matter of opinion anyway, and I feel therefore it is entirely within the right of any hon. member to discuss labour matters within the provinces.
With respect to a discussion of specific actions in Newfoundland, there are many precedents in the records of this committee which support the view that it is within the
Supply-Labour
right of hon. members to discuss certain laws that have been passed in the provinces, provided an hon. member does not seek to discuss any question of disallowance which is under consideration by the cabinet. The hon. member for Skeena made no reference to the question of disallowance, and in my submission was discussing in a proper manner the general field of labour under item 1 of these estimates.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I think the hon. member for Assiniboia has failed to interpret my remarks correctly. It is quite true that on item 1 of the estimates of any department a certain latitude is permitted by the Chair concerning the matters to be discussed under the particular department involved, but this latitude does not extend into every field. The rules of relevancy must be strictly applied.
At the present moment we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour. As long as hon. members confine their remarks to the estimates of the Department of Labour they will be in order, but when they embark on a discussion of federal-provincial relations or what course of conduct the government might follow in a hypothetical situation, the Chair will call such remarks out of order. As long as I am in the chair I shall enforce strictly the rules of relevancy, and this will apply to all hon. members of the committee.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with your ruling I shall confine my remarks to this particular item. I think I would be in order in this instance-and I ask your guidance if I am not-in discussing the parliament of Canada, the nation of Canada, the government of Canada, and its participation in international labour organization conferences. As I understand it, we are sending delegates to this conference. I understand the minister will be one of the participants in the I.L.O. conference this year, and that from time to time various conferences of the I.L.O. do endorse conventions. It is then up to the member nations, in this case Canada, to determine whether it desires to ratify any particular convention.
We were discussing that phase of it, and I queried the minister as to why Canada had not as yet ratified one particular convention, namely I.L.O. convention No. 87. The minister indicated that this was because jurisdiction over labour matters was divided between the provinces and the federal government. I hoped we might be able to develop that particular theme because of the divided jurisdiction of the parliament of

Supply-Labour
Canada and the legislatures of the various provinces, in so far as Canada's attitude is concerned.
With respect to the convention we ratified the other day regarding forced labour, or the abolition of forced labour, I would ask the minister whether it is a fact that because the Canadian parliament gave ratification to the abolition of forced labour convention the provinces are bound in so far as their jurisdiction is concerned? Does the fact that the federal parliament ratified a particular convention which cuts across the jurisdiction of the provinces in effect bind those provinces to that convention? What is going to happen if some action is taken?
The only answer I have received from the minister so far is that we shall cross that bridge when we come to it. I submit the minister should have crossed that bridge before, and should have had at least the common decency and courtesy to discuss it with the provinces, because he himself admitted that they do have jurisdiction in this matter. He should have discussed with them their opinions and their attitudes with respect to the abolition of forced labour.
I am quite sure he would have had no difficulty. I am quite sure there is not a province in Canada, Newfoundland included, that would have objected to the abolition of forced labour. The minister should have had the courtesy to do that. He did not. He has not yet said why he did not, but he does say it cuts across the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities and, in fact, invades their jurisdiction. It is either that, or it does not apply to them at all. It applies only to that section of labour, as it is classified, which comes under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
I wonder whether the minister can clarify this particular point, whether or not the ratification which the house gave the other day to the abolition of forced labour convention binds the provinces of this country to follow the same approach and not take any steps to promote forced labour but to continue its abolition.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the resolution carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the minister a question. I saw an announcement the other day of the personnel of the employers' delegation to the next international labour conference, but I did not see at the time and I have not seen since anything with respect to whether or not the labour representatives had been announced, through either the minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say anything about this? Per-

haps he could give us at the same time, if he is in a position to do so, the delegation as a whole.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, there are six employee delegates, six employer delegates and an equal number of government delegates, making 18 altogether. The government delegates are supplemented by two more who are operating in Europe at the present time. I am sorry that the officials have not the names of the employee delegates, but they have been designated and I understand they have left for the conference. I can procure their names for the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We should know at some time or other who are going to comprise the delegation.


Michael Starr: They have left now. We have not the names handy at the moment, but we can supply them.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the orders of the day I asked the minister whether he could table the minutes of a meeting of the unemployment insurance advisory committee. The minister answered me at the time and said there was a procedure set out in our daily routine proceedings for such questions. Well, the reason we had no time to place it on the order paper as a motion is that the industrial relations committee is sitting at the present time, and we are in need of all the information available to be in a position to discuss the matter which has been sent to that committee. Since we are sitting at six o'clock this evening we need the minutes at that time. I think it would be an easy matter for the minister to supply the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 1958. There is a lot of material in those minutes which would help the industrial relations committee to understand a little better the bills which have been sent to it.
As a matter of fact we have had a new report from the Department of Labour, bureau of statistics, indicating the number of unemployed in the country at the present time. We see and we rejoice in the fact that there was a reduction of 77,000 in the month of April as compared with last year. I think everybody in Canada will rejoice at that reduction. We know that 7.3 per cent of the labour force are still on the unemployed list, or were in the month of April. This is a very high figure, which must give us concern about the possibility of there being a very high rate of unemployment in Canada next winter.
This is one reason we would like the minister to bring before the house some legislation which will help not only to reduce slightly the number of unemployed, but also help those who will be receiving nothing.

The number varied from 445,000 to 550,000 last January. A great many of these people will not have received any stamps and therefore will not be receiving any benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Something must be done in this matter before next winter. I take advantage of this opportunity to ask the minister whether the time has not come when we should know what the government intends to do.
We know that unemployment is going to be severe next winter. We know something will have to be done. We know the municipalities will have to carry a very heavy load. Knowing all these things, we expect the government to be ready to present some kind of legislation to alleviate all the difficulties that will be created by this situation. Now that the minister is free I will come back to my question. Will the minister be kind enough to table this afternoon the minutes of the meeting of August 26, 1958, of the unemployment insurance advisory committee? Is the minister ready to answer?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I advised the hon. member on the orders of the day as to the procedure to be followed in order to secure the production of any papers. There is provision for that under routine proceedings and orders of the day.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what the minister said, but if he had listened to me a while ago he would have known-


Michael Starr: I heard the hon. member repeat it twice, and what I said on the orders of the day still goes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The minister does not seem to appreciate the importance of these documents to those members who are working on the industrial relations committee. We have to sit morning and night, all the time, to try to finish the work we have to do. The only thing we are asking from the minister now is a little co-operation. If the document can be produced in a day or two by placing a motion on the order paper, it is just as easy to table it now because these reports are in the hands of the minister at the present time. The only thing we are asking is that the minister not be so fussy about the rules and regulations of the house and give us this document which we need.


Michael Starr: The hon. member referred to reports. I filed the reports.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am talking about the minutes of the meeting which was held on August 26, 1958.


Michael Starr: There was no meeting held on August 26.
66968-9-247
Supply-Labour


Alexis Pierre Caron: All right; the minister wants to be fussy about dates. He knows perfectly well what I mean. It was the last meeting held in August, 1956-I mean 1958; the minister will rise again and say that it was not 1956. We want a little bit of understanding from the minister. Up to this year we have been able to get some co-operation, but this year he seems to be completely unwilling to co-operate with the opposition. We need this document badly, and the only thing we want is for the minister to extend a little bit of co-operation.
Some members to my left are talking. If they want to rise and make speeches I will be very pleased to listen to them; otherwise, Mr. Chairman, please ask them to be quiet. If they want to speak loudly enough so I can hear them I may be able to answer them. Will the minister agree to co-operate with the members of the industrial committee-the industrial relations committee? I had better be careful not to change the words.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. member for Hull has asked a fair question. I believe the minister, who is a fair-minded man, will accede to this request. He will remember that when we were discussing the unemployment insurance amendments the other night he tabled of his own volition certain reports that had been prepared by the advisory committee under the former administration.


Mr. Graffley:: Are you sure he did it of
his own volition?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to know what my profound, experienced and hon. friend has in mind.


William Heward Grafftey: I merely asked the hon. member if he is sure the minister did it of his own volition.


Peter Francis Martin: Yes, the Minister of Labour did it of his own volition. There was one report he tabled after I had asked about its existence, but the other reports I am referring to were tabled by the minister voluntarily without any suggestion from this side of the house. After he tabled those reports I had the opportunity of examining them, and I found attached the minutes of at least one meeting. The dates of the meeting in question are confusing because at the top of the report it says "Ottawa, August 26, 1958" and later on in the body of the report it refers to a series of committee meetings that were convened on August 19. It is with regard to the minutes of these meetings that the member for Hull has asked the minister. The basis for the request by the hon. member for Hull is that this morning in the industrial relations committee-

Supply-Labour
Mr. Pallet!: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who is on his feet at the present time is an experienced member of the house, and he knows there can be no reference in the house to proceedings that take place in a committee until the report of the committee is before the house. I just wanted to draw that to his attention, because it appeared that his remarks were tending in a direction in which perhaps he did not realize he was going.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know of no such rule which precludes a member, having been denied in the committee-


Mr. Pallell:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me finish my reply.
Mr. Pallet!: -if the hon. member knows of no such rule I would refer him and you,
Mr. Chairman, to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, page 251, citation 324, which reads as follows:
(1)	Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the table, it is irregular to refer to them In debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.
(2)	When the evidence is before the house it may be debated at length, but members will not be permitted to discuss the conduct or language of members of the committee, except so far as it appears on the record.
(3)	If a document has been formally laid before a committee of the house, and entered upon its minutes, it is in the possession of the house, and it is a breach of privilege for any person or department to withhold it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What citation is that?


John Cameron Pallett: It is citation 324, page 251.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to argue the point. On reflection I think there is some merit, but only some, in the observations of my hon. friend. But having suggested what I have in my mind by merely a few words at the beginning of a new sentence, I am sure the Minister of Labour knows perfectly well what the situation is. The minister has said that he is prepared to give consideration to the request if it is made by way of a motion for the production of papers. If my hon. friend insists on relying on that procedure nothing can be done about it, but I would point out to him that it would be of great assistance while we are engaged otherwise outside of this house-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Or even in this committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then I will say "outside of this particular chamber" in an

effort to satisfy my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman did not understand my point. I was suggesting that it would be a great help right here in this committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As usual the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is right. It would also help us in this committee. The Minister of Labour has these minutes readily available, and can produce and table them today so they can be used by this committee, or he can go through the other procedure which will involve some delay. I am sure that his winning ways would be helpful if he would only give some recognition to the reasonable request so mildly put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Hull.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to echo this request, because submissions by a number of organizations concerning the meetings covered by these minutes have come to our attention. Because other organizations have made reference to meetings that were held, and specific dates and resolutions, I think these minutes should be produced. I feel that a great deal could be gained by the production of these minutes now rather than going through the long and tortuous method that would have to be followed to obtain the information contained in them from the people who took part in these meetings. The minutes themselves would give us the information we desire more expeditiously and with a great deal less heat than is going to be generated if these facts have to be ascertained from the people who took part in the meetings.
A great many of these people are now sending us briefs, and whether or not they know all the answers they certainly know what was said at these meetings. They know what is in the minutes of these meetings. I think a great deal of hardship is being imposed upon the members of this committee by the failure to produce these minutes. It seems that everyone except the members of parliament knows exactly what is in them. I do not believe it is going to be any more advantageous to us to have to ask a number of outside people what the minutes contain, and I think the Minister of Labour will expedite the business of the committee by producing these minutes.
It is probably quite true that the minutes do not have to be produced. However, I believe that on previous occasions the minister has done things he was not compelled to do; he has been very lenient in connection with other matters. This is a case in which

less heat is going to be generated and a lot less difficulty created in a number of rooms in this House of Commons if these minutes are produced in this fashion, rather than forcing hon. members to reconstruct what took place at these meetings by interviewing the people who took part in them.
I think the minister should give some consideration to this procedure, unless there is something specific in those minutes which the government does not want published. The minutes could be presented, and this would expedite the consideration of the estimates of the minister's department.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I want to revert to that question, but in French this time, because I am more at ease in French. We submit this is a question of paramount importance and, if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) was willing to co-operate a bit, the debate would be much shorter. In fact I am convinced that even in some committees the debates would also be shortened if there was willingness to give opposition members the co-operation which is required at times. However, I realize that the present position of the minister seems to be a by-product of the government's definite policy of unwillingness to provide the opposition with the material they need to perform their assigned task. By the same token, the people of Canada are being denied information they are entitled to have. And why are they being so denied? Merely for the pleasure of thwarting those who are in the minority.
As was mentioned by the previous speaker, representatives of various organizations seem to be aware of all that went on at the sittings of that committee. Moreover, they seem to be informed of all the minutes which were passed; the members of this house are the only ones who are not, and they cannot obtain the facts. To that effect, the Minister of Labour suggests we should place on the order paper a notice of motion for the production of papers. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is precisely because we cannot do it for lack of time, and because we need this information immediately, that we are making our request. It is not for the mere pleasure of filibustering, since I believe that at the present time any filibustering is being instigated by the government, more particularly so by the Minister of Labour.
We want to obtain this information so as to get a better grasp of the facts, and to discuss intelligently the subject matters which are deferred to the industrial relations committee. Whenever that matter comes up, 66968-9-247J
Supply-Labour
at meetings of the committee on industrial relations or anywhere else, the answer is always the same: the Speaker of the house has ruled such and such, and even then the actual ruling is not reported, so that on the basis of misconstrued rulings, we are again denied access to necessary material.
(Text):
Mr. Pallet!:	The hon. member is again
directing his thoughts, as was the hon. member for Essex East, to matters that are not-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I was not speaking of the committee. I said that in certain committees the members are refused the material they need. I was not referring to one committee in particular, and this I have a right to do because I am not discussing matters which are being considered by one committee. I think it is the policy of the government-
Mr. Pallet!: I assume, then, from what the hon. member is saying that he is not making reference to any matters that are before any of the committees that are sitting now or which have been sitting in the last few days?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I was speaking of a general attitude on the part of government members in the house and in the committees.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. First of all I must apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I believe that as chairman I should make a few remarks at this stage on this particular item. Requests have been repeatedly made, and the reasons for those requests set forth during the last half hour, for the tabling of the minutes of a certain meeting which took place on August 26, 1958, I believe. The Minister of Labour has made a suggestion that a motion be put before the house in the normal fashion for the tabling of these papers. Hon. members have sought to expedite matters by requesting that the minutes be tabled immediately.
I must in all sincerity confess that you have put your chairman in a dilemma at this time. On the one hand I must advise hon. members on my left that a repetition of the same argument for the tabling of these minutes does not conform with standing order 34 (2), which deals with repetition. On the other hand the minister has made a suggestion concerning the tabling of these minutes. If the Minister of Labour persists in his decision, and if hon. members opposite persist in repeating the same arguments, I shall have to ask the committee to pass on to another item. It would be appreciated if an answer could be given to these requests, and it would certainly facilitate the task of the chairman.

Supply-Labour


Peter Francis Martin: Before the Minister of Labour replies, perhaps I could offer an argument that is clearly within the rules at this time.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: How would you know?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "How would you know?" I suppose 1 would know for reasons that would be different from those which the hon. gentleman would entertain on the same point.


Thomas Miller Bell: You have been wrong three times on the rules this afternoon so far, but I will concede that you admitted that you were wrong.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, when he is caught, is usually generous. He is caught now, and he acknowledges that the fault is not all onesided. What I rose to say, Mr. Chairman, was that if my friend the hon. member for- what is the name of that riding in which all these people are out of work?
Mr. Pallet!: You are referring to the banner county of Peel?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; the riding of Peel, which has the Avro plant. I knew that something struck me forcefully when I looked at my hon. friend. What I was going to say was that if he was in order, as I think he was, in calling my attention to citation 324 a moment ago, I am sure he will agree with the argument I am now going to make. We will be dealing later on in the estimates with item No. 172, which has to do with the unemployment insurance commission and also with (S) under that number which has to do with the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund.
I was not fully appreciative of the observation made by my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a few moments ago, when he said "It will be useful before this committee". I am grateful to him for mentioning this point. The minutes asked for by the hon. member for Hull will be of concern and interest to this committee when it comes to deal with these items. I would ask the Minister of Labour if he does not think he would facilitate the passage of his estimates if he acceded to a request which he is prepared to fulfil in a few days.
We have a right to ask for this information. It is germane to the discussion under item No. 172. I put the request to the minister again and ask him to table these minutes. If the minister refuses one will be obliged to draw the conclusion that the minister, for some reason or another, does not wish to
[The Chairman.]
have disclosed to this committee and to the country the nature of those minutes.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I shall put my question in a different way, in keeping with section 34 of the standing orders. Since the minister seems reluctant to table the minutes concerned unless we introduce a special motion to that effect, I would ask him to consider sending the report of the minutes concerned to the chairman of the committee on industrial relations, so that we can refer to them when needed.
Would the minister agree to that request?
Does the minister's silence imply refusal? (Text):
Mr. Pallet!: This is an improper request.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have a right to know whether or not the minister wants to do it. That is the right of any hon. member. I am asking the minister whether his silence is a refusal to produce these minutes.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many times the hon. member needs to be told of the procedure to follow in this respect.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am asking another question. Is it or is it not a refusal? Am I to get a straight answer? I am asking that straight question.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It is rather against the rules for the minister to answer this question. I cannot demand that the minister answer the latter question of the hon. member for Hull. The minister suggested that the regular procedure be followed in this instance. I do not believe I can permit the hon. member for Hull to demand of the Minister of Labour that he answer the last question he asked.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will not continue on this subject, Mr. Chairman. I will just accept as a refusal the silence of the minister.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall vote 163 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman. The other day when we were discussing this item the suggestion was made-and I think it was not unreasonable-that in view of the employment situation at the present time perhaps this item, after we have concluded our discussion of it now, might be permitted to stand so that at the end of the session it could be brought forward again in the light of the unemployment or employment situation at that time and we could, under this item, hear from the minister what steps, if any, the government have taken in the

meantime to deal with this situation. I am thinking particularly of the plans for winter work which, as the minister I believe himself agreed the other day, should be put into train at the earliest possible moment.
I am speaking now from recollection but I think I am right, and the minister may be able to correct me if I am wrong. I believe a request of this kind was made at least once in the past, namely that the item, without prejudice, should be allowed to stand after the discussion had been completed, for the purpose I have indicated; I think I am right in saying that the request was accepted at that time by the previous administration.
The reason I make this request is that the figures which have been recently released- I think they were released yesterday-show an encouraging improvement in the employment picture. From that improvement no doubt the government can take a special satisfaction, but we all rejoice in it. Nevertheless, in spite of that improvement, there are still some 445,000 unemployed oil the basis of the bureau of statistics estimates- perhaps that is not the exact figure, but I think it is something like that-or something over 700,000 on the basis of the other calculation. That remains, of course, a serious situation; and justifies the request we are making, namely that when its consideration at. this time is concluded-and perhaps it is not concluded yet-this item should be permitted to stand so that at the end of the session it can be brought forward again. Then we can have a look at the employment situation at that time and get from the government before this session of parliament ends a statement of its plans for winter works programs or anything else it may have in mind which will bring about an improvement in the situation. We recognize it is improving but a great deal more improvement is required before we on this side of the house can be satisfied with the picture in this country.


Michael Starr: In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, I must say at once, as I said last week when my estimates were before the committee, that I cannot accede to that request. These are the estimates of the Department of Labour. The responsibility for action on unemployment in this country is that of the government. The government will have to decide what action it will take and the appropriate time for that action.
The figures that have been quoted by the hon. member are a month old. Since then there has been a further improvement. Hence the situation is not as dark as he tries to paint it at this moment. It is much brighter, and we hope it will continue to
Supply[DOT]-Labour
become brighter still. But the responsibility for action in this matter is still with the government. When the government feels that it is the appropriate time to assess the situation, it will do so and will reveal its plans.


Mr. Winch:: I should like to ask the minister: when is an appropriate time? The hon. gentleman has just stated that the figures quoted by my hon. friend on my left are a year old-


Michael Starr: A month old.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry. A month old. I was in Vancouver only two days ago, and two days ago in Vancouver, because no action has been taken by the Minister of Labour or by the government in response to repeated requests from this side of the house for action which would extend the period of seasonal benefits, between 7,000 and 8,000 men were cut off unemployment insurance. That is according to the figures given by the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province when I was in Vancouver at that time.
What are those men supposed to do? When is an appropriate time to take care of those 7,000-8,000 men who were cut off from benefits two days ago because no action had been taken to continue the payment of unemployment insurance? As nearly as I could point out-and I was only able to spend two or three hours in Vancouver-the answer they were given was: apply for social welfare. That was the answer the government gave in Vancouver two days ago. When is the appropriate time for action by this government-afterwards or before? I would appreciate an answer. I asked this question about a month ago, and so did others on this side of the house. What are these men supposed to do? Starve to death? Apparently they are.


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member I want to remind him again that this government extended seasonal benefits for two months.


Harold Edward Winch: I admit that.


Michael Starr: This government also extended seasonal benefits by an additional six weeks last year.


Harold Edward Winch: I admit that, too.


Michael Starr: Because of this situation, the fund has been depleted to such an extent that we must now consider increasing the contribution rates on the advice of the actuary. We are now being criticized in this house for depleting the fund, and we did it in order to help people such as the hon. member has described.

Supply-Labour


Harold Edward Winch: What about the position of these people two days ago?


Michael Starr: You are criticizing us for what we did last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The last statement by the Minister of Labour was most unusual. He is saying that because of the fact that the government has provided supplementary payments the fund has been depleted. He might have added that it has been seriously imperilled, as we now know, because of the fact that it has now been reduced to $496 million. But if the fund has been imperilled, that is only one of the contributing reasons and it is not even the major reason. The major reason for the depletion of the fund is that we have had in the last two years the highest level of unemployment we have experienced in the history of Canada except for the years 1930 and 1935. That is the reason why the fund has been so seriously depleted. The hon. minister takes satisfaction because, he alleges, the unemployment figures at the present time are even less than was reported on May 20. That is a situation which will be welcomed by everyone in this country.
But the figures now before us show a serious and continuing problem of unemployment-445,000 persons without jobs and seeking work. That represents a decrease of
80.000	compared with the previous month, but 445,000 out of work is nevertheless a serious figure. The minister says he can show that the number has been considerably reduced since those figures were issued. I would be interested in knowing what is the revised figure. It should not be forgotten that the reported statistics as contained in this monthly release do not cover all the workers of the country and that in addition to the
445.000	must be added at least another 60,000 who are not included in the standard of measurement used by the bureau of statistics in the compilation it presents monthly. The minister can correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.
In any event, there is a serious problem of unemployment still confronting us, and the request made by the Leader of the Opposition and repeated on Friday last by other hon. members of this house was founded upon the desire to elicit from this government its plans for dealing with this hard core of unemployment which, according to every indication, is likely to continue into the fall of 1959 and into the winter of 1960 at levels we hope not at all comparable with what we have experienced during the past two years.
The request of the Leader of the Opposition is, surely, not an unfair one. The minister

replies by saying that it is the responsibility of the government to announce policy, and that the government will announce its policy when it feels it is the proper time to do so. I say this to the Minister of Labour: if it is the responsibility of government to formulate policy, as undoubtedly it is, then it is also the responsibility of the government to recognize the duty which it owes to parliament, and parliament is asking now, through some of its members, for a declaration of policy for the ensuing months.
We do not want to be confronted next winter with a situation such as attended us this winter, namely finding that the government had embarked on an employment program in the late fall too late to give that program an opportunity for providing work for a much greater number of people than the 33,000 or 35,000 persons provided for under the government's winter works program. That program, in its results, did not touch the problem of unemployment, and in making this request to the minister we are, in fact, asking the government to let this first item stand so that we shall not be caught by a situation at the end of the session which would not offer us the same instrument for calling the attention of the government, if the situation should warrant it, to the fact that it has not brought forward at this early period a program designed to take care of the unemployment situation which may exist in the fall, or in the winter of 1960.
If the government has a program for next fall or next winter, can that program not be announced now? If the minister would tell us what that program is, this item will go through very speedily. If the minister would rise and say that the government has not decided on what kind of program, if any, it is going to present to parliament to take care of the situation next fall and next winter, then that at least would be a reply, and the opposition would have to consider the course it should follow. But the minister does not give us any indication whether or not this winter works program is to continue.
Surely, he sees himself that some announcement is desirable. I know he does. I regret he should find himself in his present position because, as I said the other day, if he had direction of this matter there is no doubt what he would do: he would come forward now with a program. But obviously his colleagues are not agreed on this subject, and he must therefore take responsibility for the failure of the government to tell parliament and the nation at this time what its program is to be.

Let no one minimize the seriousness of this problem. The unemployment figures as revealed yesterday represent 7.3 per cent of the labour force as is stated in the release which bears the imprimatur of the minister. That figure compared with 5.3 per cent of the labour force out of work in the United States and with less than 3 per cent in the United Kingdom indicates how serious our problem continues to be. We asked last June, July and August what we are now asking the minister today, to state the government's policy so we could anticipate along with it the kind of situation which we feared would eventuate. We are now saying to the minister that on May 21, the indices indicate that we will have a serious problem of unemployment next fall and next winter. We hope it will not be as severe as during the two previous corresponding periods, but it is going to be a problem of some seriousness. Will the government not now announce its policy, giving the municipalities sufficient advance notice so they can prepare their budgets? Will the government not now, through the Minister of Labour, also indicate whether the program will be extended so as to include such factors as supplies and thereby enable many communities such as my own community, thus far not having participated in this scheme, to have an opportunity of so doing.
The minister has won the respect of hon. members of this committee. I say to the Minister of Labour in the friendliest manner that if he would accede to this request he would find that he would cause his estimates to be disposed of rapidly and would give the country and parliament some sense of satisfaction in knowing that this government, a government that made so many promises in this field, is at long last prepared to take strenuous and vigorous steps toward easing unemployment.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should also like to speak to the Minister of Labour in a very friendly manner. I fully appreciate all that was said by the previous speaker in asking for a pronouncement from the Minister of Labour on the plans of the government for this summer, this fall and this winter to meet the problem of unemployment. There is no question whatever but that this is a reasonable request to which the minister should accede. I support all that was said by the hon. member for Essex East and endorse the questions he asked but I believe there is a problem of an even more immediate nature. We should have from the minister a statement concerning the government's
Supply-Labour
present position, policy and plans for those who may not have food on the table this week of which there must now be thousands because of the fact that the supplementary or seasonal period for unemployment insurance has expired.
I recognize the truth of what the minister said in answer to a question a few moments ago. I appreciate all that the government has done in terms of extending on two occasions the seasonal or supplementary benefit period for unemployment insurance. That is all to the good. We congratulated the minister before on having done this and if he wishes more congratulations we will extend them to him at this time. However, the good work and good policies of the past mean nothing at all if no provision is made for a situation that may develop this week. The extension of the period to a certain date this month, excellent as it is, is not going to put ham and eggs or oatmeal on the breakfast table of hungry Canadians tomorrow.
In view of all the questions raised in the past and again today it is obvious that the government gave no consideration whatever to what would happen to the thousands across Canada on seasonal or supplementary benefits when the period was closed off. When thousands are cut off from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on one day it is not to be assumed that there are thousands of jobs waiting to be filled by them. What is the planning and thinking of the minister and the government in this respect?
It is now common knowledge that there was no planning or interest on the part of the government in the thousands of Canadians who were cut off. They were on their own unless they were prepared to go through the procedure of making application for receipt of social welfare or what is commonly known as relief. Hon. members of this committee are perfectly in order in raising questions such as those raised today by the hon. member for Essex East. These reasonable questions have been put to the government in emphatic terms on many occasions and are deserving of honest answers. But of even more importance is that the government inform us through the minister what the government's policy is for those who are not only unemployed but not in receipt of seasonal or supplementary unemployment insurance payments.
It is easy to speak in platitudes and generalities about what has been done in the past but that does not feed, clothe or shelter those who in the past two days have been denied any further assistance under the

Supply-Labour
Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe we are being very reasonable in asking lor an answer to this question.
Having just returned from my home city of Vancouver I can say that this is the question my constituents expect me to direct to the Minister of Labour: How do they eat tomorrow and next week when no jobs are available and without receipt of unemployment insurance payments?
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the minister says: "We shall act in due course", yet everybody knows that "to govern is to foresee".
I fully agree with everything the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) just said. Since additional benefits or payments have ceased, i.e. since May 15, the position has become serious not only in view of next fall, winter and spring, but even now. I realize that people will not die of hunger, because they will turn to the municipalities, but by that time municipalities will have to carry too much of a load for their means, as they did last year.
I have previously quoted some figures in this respect, and I am repeating them. In 1955 the city of Huh spent $180,000 on public relief, part of which was paid by the provincial government and the rest by the municipality. Under this heading the budget of the city of Hull provides for the fiscal year 1959-60 an amount of $588,000.
What is the department planning to do for the relief of municipalities? Did not the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) promise the municipalities before March 31, 1958 that he would help them, knowing that they lacked the taxation powers of the provincial and federal governments? Just now, when municipalities are really in need, we ask the government to act, and all it says is: "We shall do so in due course".
As the hon. member for Vancouver East said a moment ago, the time to do so is now. The unemployed Eire no longer getting insurance benefits and, as a result, municipalities and public relief agencies have to shoulder the whole burden. Could not the minister introduce at once some legislation which could at least help municipalities shoulder the burden that is crushing them because of the government's carelessness? Unemployment insurance benefits which have to be paid out are
not the result of temporary unemployment, but of an economic recession for which municipal governments are not responsible.
Mr. Chairman, municipal governments cannot be held responsible for problems of international trade, nor for the decrease of foreign purchases in Canada, nor for the fact that our industrial reserves are so huge that our industries have to close down plants to avoid overloading their warehouses. Quite the contrary, the responsibility for all this lies with the central government, and that is why we are now urging them to open their eyes and see what is going on.
The hon. member for Vancouver East is back from visiting his constituency. He saw for himself what the situation was back there. It is the same situation as in this area and in neighbouring municipalities, yet the government-starting with the Minister of Labour-are closing their eyes so as not to see. That is what we are complaining about at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, a moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked the Minister of Labour to postpone consideration of the first item of his departmental estimates, that we may have a chance to discuss those problems. What was the minister's answer? He replied: "We can't do that." And yet, it has been done in the past. On many occasions in the past, ministers have agreed to let the first item of their estimates stand, for later consideration. This procedure was also the current practice in the Quebec legislature when I used to be a member. As a matter of fact, the first item of the estimates of each department used to stand till the end of the session. However, it seems that we want to enforce a new kind of closure in this house by saying: "You have to adopt this or you will not get anything." Sir, we cannot agree to this new brand of closure from a government whose members have claimed that the rights of members of parliament should be respected and that the rights of the opposition are equal to those of the government side of the house.
Mr. Chairman, we find that all those rights are being denied members of the opposition. We have no right to request anything. We are always turned down. Mr. Chairman, I say that the government is wrong when it does not live up to its responsibility towards those who are suffering. As the hon. member for Vancouver East said earlier, it is not

its responsibility to feed the hungry, to clothe those who are cold and provide shelter for those who may have to live in the open.
I believe that the minister is not facing his responsibilities when he refuses the proposals put to him by the members of the opposition. Let him bear the whole burden, the whole responsibility.
(Text):


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, we have heard some very impassioned appeals this afternoon, and pictures have been put before us of people whose benefits under unemployment insurance have expired and they are being thrown off the list. It is hard to realize that those appeals have come from an opposition which is doing everything it can to obstruct amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which, among other things would extend the period of benefit from 36 to 52 weeks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman has said that hon. members in this house are obstructing the passage of certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. "Obstruct", of course, is an offensive word as you, Mr. Chairman, well know. What we have been doing is trying to provide greater justice to the workers and the employers of this country under the act. The suggestion made by so reasonable a member, one of the most reasonable in this house is, to put it mildly, a matter of the greatest regret, I hope that he will withdraw that at once and not require action by the Chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: May I advise the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that he cannot discuss a matter which is before a committee until that committee has reported to the house.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the committee and all those who are complaining about the number of people whose benefits under unemployment insurance have expired, that they did in fact vote against this measure in principle in the house within the last few days, all except one member, the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, those who voted against the measure did not vote against unemployment insurance; they voted against a particular provision which they felt did not provide justice to certain groups in our country. They did not vote against unemployment insurance, particularly when it is realized that those in the Liberal opposition constitute the party which introduced unemployment insurance in this country.
Supply-Labour
Mr. Pallet!: That is not correct.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, to put the record straight as to who introduced unemployment insurance, I would like to remind the committee that the Conservative party introduced it long before the Liberal government ever did. If hon. members will look up the record they will find the answer. It was assented to on June 28, 1935, when the Conservative government of Rt. Hon. R. B. Bennett was in office. Furthermore, the first thing that the Liberal government did when it got into office was to try to get rid of it, and the way they did it was to have it taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was ruled ultra vires.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: That is true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman said that the Liberal government caused the Supreme Court of Canada to rule it ultra vires.


Some hon. Members:: He did not say that.


Mr. Ricard:: He did not say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under our constitution there are three arms of government, the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, each of which has separate functions. For one hon. member to say that a political party has interfered with the judicial process in this country is to cast a reflection on that body and is contrary to the rules of debate in this house.


John Ferguson Browne: The
effect of their referring it there was to get rid of it. The same thing applies today in these extraneous arguments that they are giving to us. They have all kinds of reasons why they cannot vote in favour of it. They are opposed to it. They do not want to stop unemployment insurance but they do not want to extend the benefits. They do not want to increase the contributions. I think every fair-minded person in this country realizes that if we are to extend the benefits we shall have to increase the contributions to the fund.


Charles Edward Rea: I must remind the hon. member that this matter was before the house; it was voted on and disposed of.


John Ferguson Browne: It was
before the house and it was voted on. That is what I am saying. Then, we hear all those bleatings from the opposition in this house about the people suffering because their benefits have expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order. It is a well-known rule in this house that in a

Supply-Labour
debate it is out of order to refer to anything that took place in another debate in the same session. I think, in the interests of proper procedure in this house, the hon. member should not attempt to revive on item one of the labour estimates a debate that took place on an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would suggest that the hon. member who has the floor should not stoop to such a flagrant breaking of the rules of this house. I would suggest that in the interests of orderly procedure no member should refer in one debate to action taken by members in another.


Charles Edward Rea: I think I made it quite clear to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that he could not refer to a debate concerning a matter that has already been voted on in the house and on which the house has made its decision. I hope the hon. member will bear that in mind.


John Ferguson Browne: I would be the last to want to offend against the rules of the house, Mr. Chairman, but I simply felt that the facts should be set straight at this time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I raised a particular question earlier in the consideration of this item. You know, Mr. Chairman, if these people opposite would like to make comments I would appreciate it if they would do so in a loud voice so I can hear them or make them in the proper way by standing up and doing so instead of sniping and yapping away like a little terrier puppy. I asked the minister a question concerning the ratification of I.L.O. convention No. 87 concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. I raised this matter earlier and I only make these comments to refresh the memory of the minister because so much has intervened since then. The convention provides that workers' and employers' organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority or interfered with by public authority as was done in Newfoundland by the politicians of that province.
I asked the minister then and I ask him now whether it would not be possible for Canada to ratify this convention. I make reference to it particularly but there are many others which Canada has not ratified. Could not Canada ratify this convention in so far as it applies to the field of jurisdiction of the federal government or the Department of Labour without in any way having any effect upon the provinces? Will the minister indicate whether action is contemplated to ratify convention No. 87? If that step is taken he will realize it may prevent some

other minister of labour-I do not include the present minister because I am sure he probably does not entertain thoughts of this nature-from taking precisely the same disgraceful steps that were taken in the province of Newfoundland. Will the minister take under consideration the possibility of ratifying convention No. 87 in so far as the jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament is concerned?


Michael Starr: In answer may I advise the hon. member that I will confer with the Department of Justice in order to receive their advice.


Charles Benjamin Howard: As indicated by the minister in answer to a question of mine, there are some 93 international labour organization conventions which have not been ratified by Canada. I have here a list of them giving their numbers, their dates of passage by the I.L.O. and an indication of their subject matter such as unemployment, maternity protection, night work, minimum age and so on. The reason given by the minister is that they all fall partially within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. Will the minister confer with the Department of Justice to ascertain our position with respect to the rest of these I.L.O. conventions? I point out that they all fall in substantially the same category. I should also like to ask for permission to have this table incorporated as part of the proceedings.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the committee to have the table he has referred to printed in Hansard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman explain what the table is? I am afraid I did not catch what he said.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I thought I had done so. This is sessional paper No. 80A. It contains the minister's reply to a question of mine and the conventions not ratified by Canada are listed numerically and there is also an indication of the subject matter and the year in which the conventions were adopted by the I.L.O. It indicates which ones have not been ratified by Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has this not already been printed if it is an answer to a question?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, it was an order for return.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to have this list printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: The list above referred to follows:)

List of International Labour Conventions 19191958 which have not been ratified by Canada:
No.
2	Unemployment, 1919
3	Maternity Protection, 1919
4	Night Work (Women) 1919
5	Minimum Age (Industry) 1919
6	Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) 1919 9 Placing of Seamen, 1920
10	Minimum Age (Agriculture) 1921
11	Right of Association (Agriculture) 1921
12	Workmen's Compensation (Agriculture) 1921
13	White Lead (Painting) 1921
17	Workmen's Compensation (Accidents) 1925
18	Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) 1925
19	Equality of Treatment (Accident Compensation)
20	Night Work (Bakeries) 1925
21	Inspection of Emigrants on Board Ship, 1926
23	Repatriation of Seamen, 1926
24	Sickness Insurance (Industry) 1927
25	Sickness Insurance (Agriculture) 1927
28	Protection of Dockers Against Accidents, 1929
29	Forced Labour, 1930
30	Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices) 1930
31	Hours of Work (Coal Mines) 1931
33	Minimum Age (Non-Industrial Employment)
34	Fee-Charging Employment Agencies, 1933
35	Old Age Insurance (Industry, etc.) 1933
36	Old Age Insurance (Agriculture) 1933
37	Invalidity Insurance (Industry, etc.) 1933
38	Invalidity Insurance (Agriculture) 1933
39	Survivors' Insurance (Industry, etc.) 1933
40	Survivors' Insurance (Agriculture) 1933
41	Night Work (Women) (revised) 1934
42	Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) (revised) 1934
43	Sheet Glass Works, 1934
44	Unemployment Provision, 1934
45	Underground Work (Women) 1935
46	Hours of Work (Coal Mines) (Revised) 1935
47	Forty Hour Week, 1935
48	Maintenance of Migrants' Pension Rights, 1935
49	Reduction of Hours of Work (Glass Bottle
Works) 1935
50	Recruiting of Indigenous Workers, 1936
51	Reduction of Hours of Work (Public Works)
52	Holidays with Pay, 1936
53	Officers' Competency Certificates, 1936
54	Holidays with Pay (Sea), 1936
55	Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) 1936
56	Sickness Insurance (Sea), 1936
57	Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) 1936
59	Minimum Age (Industry) (Revised) 1937
60	Minimum Age (Non-Industrial Employment)
(Revised) 1937
61	Reduction of Hours of Work (Textiles), 1937
62	Safety Provisions (Building), 1937
64	Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers),
65	Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) 1939
66	Migration for Employment, 1939
67	Hours of Work and Rest Periods (Road Transport) 1939
70	Social Security (Seafarers) 1946
71	Seafarers' Pensions, 1946
72	Paid Vacations (Seafarers) 1946
75	Accommodation of Crews, 1946
76	Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) 1946
77	Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry) 1946
78	Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-
Industrial Occupations) 1946
Supply-Labour
No.
79	Night Work of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations) 1946
81	Labour Inspection, 1947
82	Social Policy (Non-Metropolitan Territories)
83	Labour Standards (Non-Metropolitan Territories) 1947
84	Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) 1947
85	Labour Inspectorates (Non-Metropolitan Territories) 1947
86	Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers)
87	Freedom of Association and Protection of the
Right to Organize, 1948
89	Night Work (Women) (Revised) 1948
90	Night Work of Young Persons (Industry)
(Revised) 1948
91	Paid Vacations (Seafarers) (Revised) 1949
92	Accommodation of Crews (Revised) 1949
93	Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea)
(Revised) 1949
94	Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) 1949
95	Protection of Wages, 1949
96	Fee-Charging Employment Agencies (Revised)
97	Migration for Employment (Revised) 1949
98	Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining,
99	Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery (Agriculture)
100	Equal Remuneration for Men and Women
Workers, 1951
101	Holidays with Pay (Agriculture) 1952
102	Minimum Standards of Social Security, 1952
103	Maternity Protection (Revised) 1952
104	Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous
Workers) 1955
105	Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957
106	Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) 1957
107	Protection and Integration of Indigenous Populations in Independent Countries, 1957
108	Seafarers' Identity Documents, 1958
109	Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea)
(Revised) 1958
110	Conditions of Employment of Plantation
Workers, 1958
111	Discrimination in Respect of Employment and
Occupation, 1958


Charles Edward Rea: Shall vote 163 carry?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I had asked whether the minister would indicate if he will confer with the Department of Justice about these other I.L.O. conventions.


Michael Starr: I will take that suggestion under consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have been greatly disappointed with the attitude of the minister toward a winter works program. In looking over Hansard for Friday, May 15-


John Ferguson Browne: The hon. member cannot refer to a debate on another matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I tell my hon. friend from Newfoundland that I am referring to the debate on item one, the same item, and it is very much in order. As a matter of fact, such references are provided for by the rules.

Supply-Labour
In connection with the possibility for providing a winter works program the minister said: "I have had some experience in this connection. Preparation for any plan of this nature at this time would be a little premature." That is a rather fantastic statement by the Minister of Labour in view of the history of seasonal unemployment in this country. Everyone who knows anything at all about unemployment statistics knows that even in a period of relatively full employment we do have substantial unemployment in Canada in the winter time.
I have on my desk the unemployment figures for recent years. Taking the month of February, for example, I find that unplaced applicants in February of 1956 numbered 515,000, in February of 1957 574,000 and in February of 1958 854,000. Tremendous unemployment in the winter has become almost the pattern. Yet the Minister of Labour, when asked whether the government is making any plans to provide for even a relatively small winter works program, said that it was too soon and that it would be premature to advance such a program at this time.
This shows, that the government not only has no plan but does not really think that seasonal unemployment is a very urgent or important matter. Not only has the government winter works program employed only 40,000 people on site, but the fact is that the government is not prepared to undertake the necessary planning to provide an adequate program next year. Surely this is a callous attitude. It means that the government has little or no regard for the approximately half million people who have been unemployed during the winter for some years. I suggest to the minister that he endeavour to get his colleagues to agree now to announce that for the coming winter there will be a continuation of the winter works program with certain improvements as to amounts paid thereunder. As has already been said, the minister would assist in the passage of his estimates if he were to state now the policy of the government on this important question.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what the attitude of the government has been to the very important presentation made to the government by the united steelworkers of America requesting a full inquiry into the steel industry of this country. I feel that the Minister of Labour is the appropriate member of the cabinet to whom to direct this question, since the whole point in the brief presented to the government was this: That the workers in this industry have been blamed for the
[Mr. Argue.l
very high steel prices. They believe that the high steel prices have resulted from an arbitrary fixing of steel prices by the companies at levels that are unduly high, at levels that are not justified by the wage rates paid in the industry. Although there has been a substantial increase in productivity over the years, the wage increases have never equalled the increase in productivity and yet the steel industry of this country, according to this submission to the government, has set steel prices unduly high to the consumers of steel and the industries in Canada dependent upon steel. I should like to have from the Minister of Labour a statement on the attitude of the government toward this brief.


Michael Starr: May I answer the hon. member's question at this time? It is evident that the hon. member does not realize this matter is under consideration by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that the representations in that regard will not be made by me but will be made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wish the Minister of Labour would talk to his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I see that the memorandum was not presented to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but was presented to the Prime Minister and the government of Canada. This is becoming a government of delay, indecision and procrastination. There has been delay with regard to this submission, with regard to the appointment of a minister of external affairs, as well as appointments to 40 or 50 prominent positions in the civil service. There has been delay upon delay. I think the trade union people of this country will be disappointed that the Minister of Labour, on item one, is not able to give an affirmative answer to the important request of the steelworkers that the steel industry in Canada be investigated. In their submission, the steel industry is taking exorbitant profits and is blaming the high prices on the workers in the industry.
I have another question that I should like to direct to the Minister of Labour, and that has to do with the wage rates being paid by contractors doing work on the South Saskatchewan river project. I want to say that I raised this matter under the P.F.R.A. item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. At that time I was told by the Minister of Agriculture that all the correspondence coming to him on this matter had been referred to the Minister of Labour. I take it, then, that the Minister of Labour has knowledge of this situation and will be able to tell the committee what action has been taken in this regard.

As I understand the situation, it is that the contractors who are doing the work on this project have not abided by the minimum standards of wages and working conditions provided under the Saskatchewan law. They have failed to comply with the Saskatchewan law because they have said that in working on this project they are subject to federal law. The trade unions in Saskatchewan, and the people of Saskatchewan generally, do not support the position taken by the contractors, namely that they should be paying substandard wage rates in Saskatchewan and imposing working conditions that are not similar to working conditions provided by contractors who come under provincial jurisdiction. If this is the case, and I have every reason to believe it is, if it has not been corrected, then I think it is a reflection on the federal government and the federal government's policy.
Another point that is made is that the people employing the labour at Outlook are endeavouring to employ labour based upon non-union wages, based upon wages in rural areas that are not and cannot be subject to a general labour act and are, therefore, tending to pull down the general level of wages in the province. I ask the minister what action has been taken as a result of the submissions that have been made to him.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has brought up the matter of the South Saskatchewan river dam project and the wage policies applying to that project. I should like, in answer to his question, to make this statement. My department, that is the Department of Labour, has received a number of representations respecting wage rates on contracts let by the Department of Agriculture for various phases in the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam. Most of these representations have stemmed from the Saskatoon building trades council, in an attempt to have the wage rates recognized by that council and which apply in Saskatoon, applied also to various contracts let for the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
The Saskatoon construction industry wage rates are generally the highest in the province. There is no justification for applying these rates on the Saskatchewan dam unless it is necessary to bring labour from Saskatoon in order to proceed with the project. But, in fact, the inquiries that we have made show that only 3 per cent of the labour supply comes from Saskatoon, and the great bulk of it comes from many locations in the province outside the four major cities of Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw and Prince Albert.
What we have done has been to establish on this project minimum rate schedules which
Supply-Labour
are based upon collective agreement rates where they are applicable in the area, and on wage surveys of private industry construction rates where there are no collective agreements. Such survey areas comprise the secondary cities and the larger towns of the province. With respect to our minimum wage rates applied at the Saskatchewan dam, three rates are collective agreement rates applicable on projects anywhere in Saskatchewan and one rate is that established by a collective agreement on the site of the work. The other rates compare favourably with quite a few of the rates that we use on contract projects in the four larger cities.
I wish to make it clear that the wage rates contained in the wage schedules issued are the minimum wage rates which the contractors are required to pay for the several occupational classifications of employees employed on the projects. The contractor may find it necessary to pay higher rates than those provided in the schedule, either by reason of having to recruit his employees from higher wage centres or as a result of collective bargaining. If we applied Saskatoon rates on the dam projects, it would mean also that the Saskatoon rates would have to be applied on all other federal government contract works in the province, including the extensive work done by P.F.R.A. It would have the effect of raising construction rates generally and thus increasing construction costs all over the province without good cause.
We are making another wage survey this summer of the private industry construction wage rates in Saskatchewan and if the general level of wages has risen, then corresponding increases will be made in the minimum wage rates used on these federal contract projects. The method of determining fair wages to apply on federal government contracts is based upon the fair wages legislation and is in line with the policy that has been applied for over 50 years.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think the reply of the minister is satisfactory. A little later on I wish to quote from a letter that was sent by Premier T. C. Douglas to the minister on January 21, 1959. I placed a motion on the order paper under date of May 1, 1959, and the motion reads as follows:
A copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents or agreements exchanged between the federal government or any agency thereof and any provincial government, trade union or other organization, regarding the wage rates which are to apply in connection with the construction of the south Saskatchewan dam.

Supply-Labour
In looking through this correspondence I am unable to find reported here an answer from the Minister of Labour to the letter written to him by Premier T. C. Douglas on January 21. This may have been an error in the bringing down of this return. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has replied to the premier of Saskatchewan; if so, under what date and whether his reply will be produced in the House of Commons in compliance with this order passed by the house.


Michael Starr: Yes, I replied to the premier of Saskatchewan. I cannot tell from memory what the date was. I shall be glad to table the letter. Since I replied to the premier no further correspondence has ensued between the two of us. Hence I would deem that he was satisfied with my answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would assume that he has probably come to the point reached by many other people in this country. I think he is probably discouraged with the great volume of correspondence he has had with the government and the very little action which results from such correspondence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At that he has obtained more than the premier of Manitoba.


Hazen Robert Argue: The premier of Manitoba did not get very much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; he certainly did not.


Hazen Robert Argue: The premier of Saskatchewan received a letter which has not been produced in this house. Hence the premier of Saskatchewan has not received very much either. The premier of Saskatchewan and the minister of highways in Saskatchewan have been corresponding with the Minister of Public Works and trying to get the Minister of Public Works to embark on some programs to provide employment in this country. I am sure there are projects in which the Minister of Labour would take a great deal of interest. All the Saskatchewan government have been able to get from the Minister of Public Works are answers to their letters, but no action. In his letter of January 21, 1959, the premier of Saskatchewan said in part:
Labour groups In our province have drawn to our attention the fact that to date the wage schedules issued to contractors have been set on the basis of the town of Outlook, the nearest urban centre to the construction site. Outlook, however, is only a town of less than 1,000 people. The great bulk of the workers on the project will have to be drawn from the larger cities such as Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and Regina, and their families will no doubt continue to live in these centres. The labour groups, therefore, contend that establishing rates of pay on the basis of Outlook conditions is manifestly unfair and the government of Saskatchewan shares this view.
We recognize that the schedules issued by your department are only intended to fix minimum

rates, but there is no doubt that the construction firms use these schedules in tendering on contracts with the result that the schedules effectively influence the actual wage rates. I would urge very strongly that in future the fair wage schedules should be based at least upon the going rates applicable in the cities of Saskatoon and Regina.
That has not been done, I interpolate, according to the minister's reply this afternoon.
Unless this is done, I am very much concerned that the better contractors will find it difficult to bid successfully on the project and that the overall progress of the construction program will be greatly hampered by continuing labour difficulties.
We in Saskatchewan are proud of the way in which the contractors who have done work for the Saskatchewan government have been able to get along amicably with the trade unions in Saskatchewan. We resent very much the fact that on a federal project contracts being let result in the paying of wages that for Saskatchewan on similar projects are substandard.


Mr. Garland:: I should just like to say one word briefly on this matter. Those of us in the opposition are indeed disappointed at the attitude of the minister in refusing to allow the first item to stand so that we might learn from him or from the announcements of other ministers in the government their attitude toward this continuing problem of unemployment. Many members on all sides of this house have come here after holding office in municipalities. In looking over the members whom I know I find that many of them have held offices in municipalities and are well aware of the problems that arise there. Regardless of party affiliation, I think many of them must view with some alarm this policy of winter works which was announced last year and which sought to transfer some of the responsibility for unemployment to the provinces and to the municipalities.
This winter works program-as has been said so often in this chamber and it is not my intention to repeat at any length-was a hurriedly conceived scheme at best. It has been described as too little and too late. The effect of it is apparent. It provided employment for less than 1 per cent of the employable people in this country. One might well question the value of a program of this type. Of what use is this type of work, provided, conceived and planned quickly by a municipality-that of laying sewers, digging ditches, cutting brush-to the average office worker, plumber, electrician or carpenter of this country who has the right to seek employment in his own trade?
I say that this is a matter of some real concern to the municipalities of Canada. With the experience that was gained with this

program last year surely it was up to the government this year to announce earlier the program they propose to implement in this regard. As all members of the house know, the municipalities arrange and plan their budgets early in the year. Surely that was another reason for announcing earlier in this calendar year the program that would be followed by this government.
There is, of course, another problem associated with any works that will be planned by the municipalities, namely that occasioned by the increased interest rates and the increased costs of borrowing which municipalities are now experiencing.
One other point I should like to make is this. I should like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to announce before the end of this month what their policy will be in connection with winter works programs. My reason for asking that question is this. From May 31 until June 3 the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities will be meeting in North Bay in convention. It would seem to me that here would be a splendid opportunity for the Prime Minister, who will be addressing that conference, to announce to the delegates assembled there the program which his government intends to implement as an effective means of dealing with this problem of winter unemployment. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to say if the government will be in a position to make an announcement at that time, or earlier.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: I rise at this time to express an opinion on the winter works program. I do not intend to say anything on the last winter works program, but merely to convey, as I think it was intended that we from Vancouver should, the views of the Vancouver city council and of the engineering staff of that city on any other program of a similar nature which may be envisaged. I feel quite sure that the minister has something of a similar nature in mind for next year.
About two days before most of us had to leave Vancouver to attend the opening of the present session of parliament the Vancouver city council requested Vancouver members to meet them and discuss the winter works program. Unfortunately, the majority of hon. members could not be there but there was, nevertheless, a fairly good representation. It was pointed out to the Vancouver members
Supply-Labour
of the House of Commons who were present that the city of Vancouver could have done much more with regard to this program if greater notice had been given, and if the city had been given the opportunity to arrange finance and carry out preliminary engineering work. It was emphasized at this meeting that if longer notice had been given to the cities and to the municipalities they would have been able to take much greater advantage of the federal government's proposal. We were asked to convey these views to the government.
I hope the minister will take this opportunity to say that consideration will be given to a further plan of this kind in the coming fall and winter, and in the following spring, and that he will be able to give the committee an assurance that longer notice will be given in order to enable the cities, towns and municipalities to take fuller advantage of his plans to the benefit of themselves and of the unemployed.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourgei:: Mr. Chairman, I must say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that his reply of a flat no to the very sensible question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland), came as an unpleasant surprise to me.
The Minister of Labour must surely remember that the recent winter work program has not been an unqualified success in all cases, especially in the province of Quebec.
That is why I should like to say a few words on this matter. In the province of Quebec, all of the heavy burden fell on the municipalities alone, because the Union Nationale government failed to help them by paying 25 to 30 per cent of the cost of labour, as was done in other provinces.
As mentioned by my colleague, announcement of that program will presumably be made at a later date-at least that is what the Minister of Labour has indicated-probably in August or September. It will then be too late; in fact, it is too late now, because-as stated by previous speakers-* municipal budgets are usually drawn up in February, March and April. So when the scheme is announced in August or September, municipalities will not have the money for public works that would provide jobs.
Of course, I cannot say whether the cabinet or the Prime Minister has asked the Minister of Labour to keep mum, but surely the minis-

Supply-Labour
ter must realize that the program should be announced now while we are discussing his department's estimates. In view of past experience, and of the situation last winter when many municipalities, mostly in Quebec, were unable to take advantage of the winter works program-wholly inadequate as it was -and had to take the full blame, or at least 90 per cent of it, for this state of affairs, I think the government's plans should be disclosed earlier. I hope the minister can tell us, before we are through with his estimates, what the government is planning in this respect, so that municipalities can start their own planning. As the minister knows, it takes two or three months to complete field surveys and prepare plans and estimates, so if a start is to be made on this program in early December, municipalities should be put in a position where they can start planning for it immediately.
I hope the minister will not remain silent until we are through with his estimates, but rather will inform not only the house, but also interested municipalities, as to its intentions regarding this program for next winter. (Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
A-Department-
164. Economics and research branch, including research grants and related expenses, $670,030.
Charles Benjamin Howard: This particular item concerns the economics and research branch. I wonder if the minister would indicate what are the activities of this branch. Could he tell us what researches the branch conducts, and could he give us some information about the research projects which have been conducted during the past year, together, if possible, with any plans the branch has for the future. With regard to grants-and I believe these amount to some $7,000-could he tell us who receives these grants and for what purpose they are used.


Michael Starr: Under the general authority of the Department of Labour Act the economics and research branch serves as a central federal agency for economic and social analysis and research in the labour field in carrying out research projects on labour problems including wages, hours and working conditions, union organizations, collective bargaining, employment and unemployment, professional and skilled manpower, occupations, the training of skilled manpower and other subjects in the labour field. The service is conducted in co-operation with employers, unions and research, statistical and other agencies within the government and outside.
The results of these activities are made available through regular and special reports which are widely distributed, and many

articles appear regularly in the Labour Gazette. This is the type of work which is carried on, and whenever any particular subject comes to our attention it is taken up by this department for study and a report.
These grants are paid to universities. Last year we paid out the following grants: University of Toronto, $200; University of Alberta, $1,000; University of British Columbia, $1,200; an additional grant to the University of British Columbia, $1,000; University of Ottawa, $1,200 and McGill University, $1,000. These relate to studies on labour arbitration, labour management and labour relations, union management, technological change and so on. These are the grants paid to the universities to carry out studies of this nature.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Professor Carrothers, a law professor of the University of British Columbia, has written a book concerning the use of court injunctions in labour disputes in the province of British Columbia and is presently working on an analysis of arbitration cases in that province. Would he be in receipt of any of these grants? Would he operate partially under a grant?


Michael Starr: In 1953-54 we provided for the payment to Mr. Carrothers of $900 to assist in the study of the use of labour injunctions and in 1954-55 the sum of $300 was provided for this purpose.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I understand he is presently working on a similar study with respect to arbitration in labour disputes. Would he receive assistance in this respect?


Michael Starr: Out of this $7,000 there would be some assistance in that matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, under this item I presume would come the authorization for whatever researches are being undertaken in the department with regard to a modern problem that is of great concern, I am sure, to all of us, and that is the problem of automation. This question was referred to the other day by the Leader of the Opposition and earlier in some detail by the hon. member for Trinity.
It would be interesting to know to what extent the Department of Labour through its research division, which I am sure is an excellent one and I suspect comes under the direction of that very able economist, Mr. G. V. Haythorne, has been able to ascertain what conclusions have thus far been arrived at with regard to the effect of automation in Canada.
Our unemployment figures are serious as they have been for the past two years.

To what extent are we able to attribute it to the factors of automation? Possibly the minister could give us some indication as to whether or not studies have been pursued to show if automation has affected unemployment and could it be somewhat counteracted by the advantages to date of automation itself, or is it a fact that the machines, for instance, that make automation possible in our day are not produced in this country to any extent but are produced notably in the United States and as a result, while we have unemployment due to automation, we do not at the same time have fully the corrective measures to provide some counter-action?
I have been interested in this problem as one who lives in a great industrial centre of the automobile industry. I have recently been told, for instance, that automation has not had the effect on that industry that I had publicly suggested was the case. In any event this is a matter that very greatly concerns our generation. The Department of Labour, I know, has been giving some attention to this matter. I am sure we would all welcome a statement from the minister as to the effect and as to the result of these researches.


Michael Starr: If the hon. member would hold his question temporarily I could make a statement in a few minutes.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, there has been some suggestion that the research and economics division of the Department of Labour was set up for the specific purpose of providing figures that could be compared to or used in conjunction with or opposition to those figures prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics. Since the present government has taken office has any consideration been given to eliminating the duplication that obviously takes place as between the two departments. Many of these figures we have on employment and employment trends are at variance with dominion bureau of statistics figures while others appear to be a duplication of the bureau's figures or statistical breakdowns of figures prepared by them. Has the minister found any justification for maintaining this division that processes and obtains figures which should already be available from the dominion bureau of statistics?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the work in the economics branch is undertaken from the point of view of the labour market and does not duplicate the labour activities of the economics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce which works from a labour trend and research point of view.
I made inquiries in this regard to satisfy my own curiosity and general knowledge on
Supply-Labour
another occasion and I have been assured there is no duplication. One group does a certain work and the other does another work both of which are vital. The work of the labour department is valuable in the compilation of these figures. As I say, I have been assured there is no duplication.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, along the line that the hon. member has just taken, I have been really concerned over the growing margin between the estimate of unemployed which we all know the dominion bureau of statistics secures by a sampling procedure similar to the Gallup poll-one hopes it is as accurate-and the actual count that is made in the employment offices. The disparity between these figures has grown very markedly in the last two years. If the hon. member for Essex East happens to have his figures there I could point out that the gap-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is 445 in one
case and 733 in the other.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The figure in one case is 445,000 and in the other 733,000. I think this is a bigger gap than ever before except perhaps in one or two preceding months this year.
Some of us who represent outlying parts of the country know that even the figure of unplaced applicants is well below the number of people who are genuinely anxious to get work because some people who have exhausted their stamps do not think it is worthwhile to waste a postage stamp writing to St. John's or to Grand Falls to have their names put back on the roll when they know there are no jobs available in any case.
I have had some experience with this matter when I was an official some years ago and these two sets of figures are very difficult to reconcile.
I admit that they do not pretend to measure the same things. I am not going to try to make arguments on this side of the house that I used to reply to when I was on the other side of the house. The only thing I am concerned about-and I think a lot of us in this country who are really concerned about the continuing magnitude of this problem of unemployment are also-is the growing margin between these two figures. It is really quite a big gap between 445,000 and 733,000. It is almost 300,000, and that is not the kind of gap there used to be in earlier years.
Of course, the magnitude of the figures was less in earlier years; but I am wondering how

Supply-Labour
much research is being done on the preparation of these figures, and how much is being done about checking the sampling technique, because I have a very real concern about its accuracy. I know that an effort has been made-and I am not accusing the government of anything because I know that when we were in office we made an effort-to purge these employment service lists of names of people who had already got jobs or who had really left the labour market, and tried to keep them as a reflection of people who were really looking for jobs. I know also they are taken once a week. They are always going to exaggerate to some degree, I admit, the number of people who are unemployed but there does seem to me to be a really serious disparity between these two figures on which more real study is needed than appears to have been given, judging by such debate as we have had in the house up to now.


Michael Starr: In answer to the question of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, may I say that these figures have intrigued me ever since I have taken over the responsibility. I found upon inquiry that this trend of the difference has always been in existence between the D.B.S. figures and the other figures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Always a difference, yes.


Michael Starr: On the same basis, as a matter of fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The proportions are getting worse.


Michael Starr: In the summer time they are closer together and then when seasonal unemployment starts, winter lay-offs start, the gap widens in that respect. That is the only explanation I have been able to get on this difference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one other thing I would like to say. The minister will remember that when he was over on this side of the house his measure of unemployment, and that of his associates over here, was always the national employment service figure, but then, on June 21, he saw a great light on the road to Damascus and since that date the figure for unemployment has always been the lower figure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was not Paul.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not Paul, either, as the hon. member for Essex East pointed out, on this occasion who saw the light on the road to Damascus. It may not have been the road to Damascus; it may merely have been the road to the Confederation building. But I must say that I cannot help but have the

feeling that a lot more research should be done not merely into the categories of figures but perhaps because, when all is said and done-as the Prime Minister told us on one famous occasion-unemployment is not a statistic. There should be a study of who these people really are and what the kinds of employment are, and a lot more work. I am not arguing that the minister should employ a lot more people in this branch but I am just wondering whether the kind of practical, hard study, realistic study is being carried on that should be carried on.


Michael Starr: Yes; I am assured that extensive research and continual research is being made in this respect.
May I answer the hon. member for Essex East who requested an explanation of automation? I would like to make this statement, Mr. Chairman. New labour-saving machines and more efficient production methods have been a feature of industry and business in Canada for as long as these have existed. What is new today, and it is affecting both the factory and the business office, is the increased pace at which technological changes are taking place and the way in which new automatic equipment is performing a whole range of production or office tasks rather than only one or two relatively simple operations.
It is very easy to become confused when discussing automation because this type of technological change can take many different forms. One type, for instance, involves the use of specialized machinery which carries out a pre-set number of operations with almost no human intervention. Such machines, although becoming more numerous, have been in use in many manufacturing industries for quite a few years.
A second kind of automation involves the integration of materials handling and a number of processing operations. Transfer equipment, for example, automatically carries the work from one automatic machine to another. This is usually called Detroit automation and in Canada is found in only a very few firms, mainly in the automobile industry.
A third type of automation involves the use of automatic electrical or electronic control systems. These are fairly common and have been a feature of some industries for many years. This is the type of automation found in oil refineries, electric power stations, communications and a number of other newer fields, such as railway yards and sheet steel production.
A final type of automation involves the use of electronic computers and data processing machines. Such equipment can be used for research work and for office work where large volumes of data have to be processed.

Insurance companies, public utilities and blanks are using these to an increasing extent.
It is very difficult at this stage to estimate the impact of automation upon the labour force in Canada. There undoubtedly have been cases where it has resulted in lay-offs of individual workers at specific plants. There is some evidence to indicate, Iiowever, that the Canadian experience so far has been that the expansion of company business and normal labour turnover, coupled with planned policies on transfer and retraining, have gone and can go a considerable way toward successfully meeting the human challenge posed by the new methods and machines.
Nevertheless, what the cumulative effect will be on the situation in local areas or on the national economy is still not clear. It lias been suggested that the employee displaced by automation is the one who is not hired. That is to say, the main result may be important changes in the kinds of job opportunities available for new entrants to the labour force. One difficulty is that the effects created depend on many other factors: the degree of prosperity in the national economy; levels of employment and unemployment in alternative occupations; the speed with which new or extended job opportunities open up in the tertiary service industries; and the rate at which technological changes themselves spread throughout Canadian industry.
It is because of the scarcity of reliable data on the effects of automation that our intention in the Department of Labour has been to carry out, and stimulate elsewhere, as much research as possible on these effects in industry and in business offices. In the department we have been conducting for the past two years a number of detailed and more general studies of automation and its effects. The findings of some of these investigations have already been published and given wide circulation.
To help us in securing the facts about automation and its consequences we established two years ago a small technical advisory committee consisting of representatives from industry, from labour and from Canadian universities. I made mention of that in the committee last week when we were discussing the estimates of our department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the chairmanship of-


Michael Starr: Mr. Haythorne.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A splendid man.


Michael Starr: We have reviewed our research plans with this committee and discussed our findings with them and in this way received
Supply-Labour
useful advice and suggestions. This committee will be meeting again in May to discuss this work further.
As I have indicated, it has seemed to us that there was not enough reliable information about automation and its effects on manpower to provide a foundation for a fully useful discussion by any large committee or conference. Our approach at this stage, therefore, has been to make use of a smaller advisory committee to work with us in the basic job of assembling the facts. This is the foundation on which any more general discussion should be based. I must say that for the past two years we have been working on automation in the automobile industry.


Mr. Herridge:: On that point I should like to ask the minister a question. I think I have been most restrained this afternoon. Are these investigations carried out in the smaller centres and in the smaller industries? I think the picture there is in some cases changing faster than it is in some of the larger industries. The picture so far as automation is concerned has changed very rapidly in the last five years and if these investigations are not carried out in the smaller centres and industries they will not actually reflect the true picture throughout the country.


Michael Starr: Automation in general has been carried out in the larger industries rather than the smaller ones. We have made studies of the electrical products industry, the heavy machinery industry, the household goods industry and the automobile industry.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the minister's department should make some investigation into the sawmill industry in view of the thousands of feet of lumber that are being cut per man per day compared with even ten years ago. The same thing applies to logging in some cases. Years ago it was considered to be a good day's work to put 1,000 feet of logs on the beach per man per day but in our district it has now reached 10,000 feet per day per man. That shows the effect of automation even in the smaller logging enterprises and smaller sawmills.


Mr. Carter:: Can the minister advise the house whether he has any information on similar studies being carried on in the United States with regard to this question? The reason I ask is that I saw a report recently indicating that the pre-recession level of production had been attained in the United States with a million fewer people in the labour force. The inference was that the million fewer jobs was due to automation. Can the minister confirm anything like that from United States inquiries?

Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what studies are being carried out in the United States in that field.


William Arnold Peters: I think some consideration should be given to the matter of having the same type of organization in two departments of the government. I am satisfied that the minister has probably examined the matter in terms of unemployment figures because he has had a great deal to do with them in the last two years. However, a large proportion of the figures coming from the research branch of the Department of Labour appear to be only a re-hash of figures compiled by the dominion bureau of statistics. Sometimes they are put together in a different way. Sometimes they are divided by zones or in various other ways. They are issued in various publications and this seems to be a duplication of services which I do not think is necessary.
Having been in the labour field for a number of years and interested in the research done by the Department of Labour, I have found that most of the material published is not suitable for use in the field. Most of it can be found in a much more up to date form by reading the newspapers and gathering the information there rather than from the Department of Labour.
There are also a number of other publications that I think serve very little purpose. One of them issued by the Department of Labour was entitled, "Two Minutes of Facts" or two minutes of something. It was very poorly received by the workers. Possibly management liked it better but it was poorly received by the workers in the industries with which I have been connected. It seemed to serve very little purpose except that of keeping somebody in a job.
I think a look must be taken at the work of this branch in view of the charges that have been made, with which I am sure everybody is familiar, that it was set up by a former cabinet minister for the specific purpose of keeping track of another department in which he was interested. The hon. member for Essex East is probably quite familiar with this story.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I am not. I was wondering about it.


William Arnold Peters: Well, it is a widely circulated charge and I think the government should give some consideration to an examination of whether this department did serve the function of keeping track of another department and, if it did, whether it was worth while to do so.
Many ,of the publications of the research branch are pretty much a waste of money

and the time of those who have to read them. A good proportion of the figures do not seem to serve much purpose. They are out of date when they are received and in the main they are taken from some place else. The staff is not sufficiently large to accumulate these figures and evaluate them.
I think that the research department could serve many functions. The minister has outlined the work that it is doing but there are a great number of things that it is not doing. One of them really does not involve automation but concerns the situation where one industry has disappeared and is not being replaced by other industries. I am thinking particularly of mining where communities have been developed which are dependent on one particular industry. The industry then faces extinction through loss of markets or depletion of ores. No assistance is being given to the workers or employers or the communities generally to help to establish industries that are suitable to the particular geographical area. I think this matter should be a part of the problems of the Department of Labour.
I would refer particularly to pulpwood and logging operations affecting areas such as Kapuskasing, Cochrane and Timmins. These are areas where large year-round labour forces used to be maintained but now the numbers of workers are very small. No assistance has been given to aid in the establishment of new industries or the development through research of something that will replace them so that large numbers of men will continue to be employed.
In some cases technical changes are eliminating work forces and in others the need for certain products is passing. Therefore the employment picture is not the same as it was previously. I think the Department of Labour could do some research in this field, not research with regard to whether people like to use left-handed shovels or right-handed shovels but with regard to whether or not they are going to be able to use a shovel at all.
There is a new trend of workers being unemployed in large numbers over long periods of time with little likelihood of their being re-employed in the same kind of work they were doing a few years ago. I refer to the pulp and paper industry again because for three or four years now we have seen the employment figures dropping. Yet everybody is aware of the fact that as much pulp and paper are being used and that sales of these commodities have not varied very greatly in our export markets. Nevertheless the labour force has decreased very rapidly and the workers do not appear to be coming

back. I think it would be advantageous if research were carried on under the Department of Labour with regard to developing secondary industries and for the purpose of supplying employers and employees with the facts as to what types of industries would be most suitable.
Some of the problems are obviously connected with this matter of diversification of industry, especially as that relates to the city of Toronto. I am concerned mainly with Ontario, and in the city of Toronto there are thousands of new factories being built every year while in northern Ontario, where unemployment is increasing-in fact there would not appear to be any end to this unemployment problem in certain industries-new industries are not being established. No information is made available to help induce some industries to come to areas where their raw materials are more readily available, where a labour force is more readily available than it is in major cities such as Toronto.
I think some consideration should be given by the department to this field. The minister will agree, I believe, that we are not interested entirely in improving the unemployment situation by means of handouts or increasing the benefits given to people who are unemployed, but we are primarily interested in seeing that these people are employed. If the research department is going to do the job which I think it should be doing, working toward creating opportunities for workers to obtain employment, whether it be in new industries or in revamped industries, then the research department should be working along the lines I have suggested. I do not believe this has been the case up to date. I believe the research department has produced the figures it has been asked to produce. I am not suggesting that these figures have been requested by the Minister of Labour. What I am suggesting is that there has been a direction given to this department to produce certain sets of figures, and those are being produced.
I suggest, however, that this should not be the function of the research department. The dominion bureau of statistics should be capable of producing these figures. Perhaps there should be a transfer of this work from one department to the other. It may be argued, and perhaps the Minister of Labour could indicate, that if his department took over the functions of the dominion bureau of statistics they could do a much better job. I do not believe there is room for both departments in this field. These figures should be factual. We should be able to get them from one department. We should not be asked to compare two sets of figures which have a discrepancy of almost 50 per cent.
Supply-Labour
I should like to see more down to earth research undertaken, that is research that is going to provide jobs for people and which would provide us with information that is not now available. I should like to suggest the type of information that I feel should be available. In northern Ontario we have many natural resources, and many other advantages for increased industrial development and employment opportunities. We do not have the type of information available that is available in other countries. In Norway, in Russia and many of the Scandinavian countries, they have a similar climate, similar mineral and timber wealth to that which we have. They have had experience in industrial development in these areas which are similar to parts of our country in which we have no industry at all except the so-called primary industries. These facts should be available and could be available. I should like to suggest that the minister's department give some consideration to undertaking this type of research and having these figures made available to the Canadian people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's rather lengthy intervention has prompted a very brief one from me. We were told by the Minister of Finance, late in June, 1957, that he was going to eliminate waste and extravagance from all the departments of government. It is some time since we have heard much talk about that. Can the minister tell us from which branches of his department the Minister of Finance has eliminated waste and extravagance? If he has, how much has been eliminated?


Michael Starr: Well, all the hon. member has to do is look through the estimates for the past two years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister reduced his estimates very materially?


Michael Starr: We have maintained our establishment, we certainly have not increased any part of it, and we are doing a great deal more work now. We have had the responsibility for a larger winter works program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And for more unemployed.


Michael Starr: The Department of Labour is not responsible for the unemployed. The Department of Labour looks after the administration of labour matters, and the registration for work is conducted by the unemployment insurance commission, as the hon. member well knows.

Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the total number of persons employed reduced? This is statistical information that this research department would have.


Michael Starr: No, it is not.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to say a few words in support of the contention put forward by the hon. member for Billingsgate just recently-excuse me, I mean Bonavista-Twillingate-with respect to some study to ensure a better understanding of the actual number of unemployed persons in Canada. We have gone on from year to year taking two sets of figures about which everyone has his own opinion.
I have discussed this matter with a number of people because I have been interested in ascertaining why people do not register for employment. In one case I was informed by the man that he knew there was no work available. Another chap told me the work that was available was unsuitable. Another one told me he could not leave home for family reasons. Another one told me he did not register for work because his wife was expecting a baby. Actually another man, on another occasion, said he did not register for work because he wanted his wife to have a baby. Another man told me he wanted to rest for a week or two. Another one was without the funds with which to pay the fare to the place where employment could be obtained. Another one was on a diet and could not leave home; he could not eat in a lumber or mining camp. Another man had insufficient money for the purchase of the clothing required to undertake employment in a mine some miles away. Another man was taking advantage of the opportunity to cut his year's fuel, and so on.
I do believe there should be a very close study made of this question so that, as soon as possible, we can have a figure given to us which would indicate the total number of unemployed in Canada, a figure in which we could have some confidence as representing the facts.


Michael Starr: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member very much because I have been giving some thought to this problem of having two sets of figures, and once in a while a third set of figures will be given by other people. This creates confusion. I have been considering having the department work out some new figure that would be more authentic and would be more to the point so that we would all know the exact number of unemployed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

165. Annuities Act administration. $1,242,512.
Mr. Badanai:: I should like to ask the minister a question on this item. Has he given any consideration to increasing the ceiling of $1,200 per year which is in effect now in connection with the annuities that can be purchased by a person in one year? When the Annuities Act was introduced some 20 years ago $1,200 was considered to be a fair retiring allowance for a couple living in a very modest way. Since then, the value of the dollar, in terms of what it will purchase in food and commodities, has dropped to about 50 cents. I should like to hear from the minister whether he is considering allowing people to purchase an annuity of more than $1,200 a year. Would the minister answer that question?


Michael Starr: No, I am not. I am not giving that matter any consideration.


Hubert Badanai: I should like to ask the minister why not. As a matter of fact, I understand that the Department of Labour are anxious to see these annuities extended to embrace larger amounts in order to cover the necessities of life at the present time. Does the minister think that the value of the dollar today is the same as it was some 25 years ago? By no stretch of the imagination can anyone think that you can now buy for a dollar the same commodities that you bought 25 years ago. I urge the minister and the government to give this matter serious consideration because I think it is of vital importance to the people of the country.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Can the minister tell the committee what is the interest rate paid on annuity? While I am on my feet, I should like to thank him very much for the courtesy he extended to the delegation from Saguenay and lake St. John yesterday when we were in his office to discuss unemployment.


Michael Starr: The interest rate prevalent now is 4 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
167. Civilian rehabilitation branch, including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $209,850.
Mr. Roberge:: I should like to know from the minister what provinces are participating in this program for disabled persons and what was the amount received last year by each of them?


Michael Starr: The expenditures for the year 1958-59, up until March 31, 1959, were as follows:

Newfoundland	 $6,973.86
Prince Edward Island	 1,960.09
Nova Scotia	 9,238.65
New Brunswick	 11,060.43
Ontario	 17,227.41
Manitoba	 8,172.61
Saskatchewan	 14,017.40
Alberta	 8,182.97
British Columbia	 3,323.65
Total	 $80,157.07


Gabriel Roberge: I know that Quebec does not receive anything. Can the minister tell us whether Quebec has ever participated in that program?


Michael Starr: No. Quebec has not signed the agreement.


Gabriel Roberge: Never?


Michael Starr: It never did.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational training co-ordination-
170. To carry out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act and agreements made thereunder; to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province on terms approved by the governor in council to provide financial assistance to vocational and technical schools and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $9,825,700-Payments to the provinces, $9,525,700.
Mr. Denis:: What is the amount of money paid to the province of Quebec under this item? Has Quebec received any money under this item? If so, when? What is the total number of persons who have benefited under this item?


Michael Starr: The year 1953-54 was the last year in which Quebec participated in the vocational training agreements.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister tell the committee the amount paid to the province of British Columbia under this item?


Michael Starr: The amount was $972,717.34.


Azellus Denis: Can the minister tell us the number of persons who benefited under this item? In the details, for instance, we find such headings as training for primary industries and in home-making, foremanship supervisory training and training of unemployed workers. Of course, the minister must have the number of persons who have benefited.


Michael Starr: There was a total enrolment of 25,670.


Mr. Pascoe:: The item reads in part:
Supply-Labour
-to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into Agreements with any province ... to provide finantiai assistance to vocational and technical
schools_
There is in Moose Jaw a technical school built by the provincial government. Can the minister say whether the federal government is helping out in the construction of that technical school; if so, how much is the contribution?


Michael Starr: Yes. We contribute to it to the extent of about $1,700,000.


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

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Unemployment Insurance Commission-
172. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act, $35,179,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he could bring us up to date with regard to the advisory committee set up under the Unemployment Insurance Act. As the committee knows, three representatives of labour on that committee resigned over an appointment made by the government to fill a vacancy which arose on the unemployment insurance commission. When Mr. Tallon retired, Mr. MacArthur was appointed by the government. The representatives of labour resigned because it was felt that there had been a failure on the part of the government to comply with the provisions for consultations contained in the act. Accordingly, three of the labour representatives resigned-Mr. George Burt of the United automobile workers, Mr. Marchand of the Catholic syndicates and Mr. Andreas who, I believe, was the representative on the advisory committee of the Canadian Labour Congress.
I should like to ask the minister if he has taken any steps to meet with the labour representatives I have mentioned with a view to their resuming their functions on that committee and whether, if he has taken such steps, they have agreed to return. If not, will the minister tell us whether he has taken any action whatsoever with regard to them and, if the answer is in the negative as I gathered the other day it will be, what steps has he taken to fill the vacant position on the advisory committee. I am sure the minister will appreciate the importance of the

Supply-Labour
advisory committee being able to function at full strength at the present time, particularly in the face of representations -which are now being made to a committee of this house and of discussions which have taker place in this house and which will take place later when the committee makes its report. It seems to us there should be no delay about either asking these gentlemen to return to their functions after withdrawing their resignations or, alternatively, re-establishing the full quota of labour representatives on the advisory committee. I think the minister ovies this committee the fullest information he is able to give us.


Michael Starr: For the information of the hon. member for Essex East, the unemployment advisory committee is composed of four representatives of the employees, four representatives of the employers, and a chairman. This committee meets once a year to consider the actuarial report to the unemployment insurance commission on the state of the fund, at which time they make a report to the governor in council. That report is tabled in the House of Commons as prescribed in the act.
As the hon. gentleman knows three of the workers' representatives resigned. However, the term for the whole committee expires on June 27 of this year, and with this in mind I have written letters to the four representative employers organizations asking for either the resubmission of the nominations of the present serving members or for new names for consideration. I have also written letters to the workers' organizations. I have written to the Canadian Labour Congress advising them of the fact that there are three vacancies and that the term expires on June 27 and asking them for the submission of names. I have also written to the Canadian Catholic federation of labour pointing out the same thing and asking for names. I have written, further, to the national legislative committee of the railway brotherhoods. In these letters I requested that names should be submitted to me by May 22, that is tomorrow. I have received word from the Canadian Labour Congress that Mr. Jodoin has been away on business, but he will be back tomorrow, so I expect names will be submitted to me for consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says the committee meets once a year. I think the act provides that it shall meet once a year, but he may recall that once, in 1958, it actually met on two occasions.


Michael Starr: I can clarify that point. The committee does meet once a year, and I have set out the purpose for which it meets on
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).!
that occasion, but it may also meet at the request of the minister at any time the minister may wish to consider certain amendments to the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And at the request of the commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate points out it may also meet at the request of the commission. Can the minister say whether or not there have been any meetings of the advisory committee since the introduction of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Michael Starr: There has been no meeting of the advisory committee since August 19, 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was there any consideration given to the request of the labour representatives who resigned, prior to their resignation, for the holding of a further meeting other than that held on August 19, 1958?


Michael Starr: That was a matter for the decision of the chairman of that advisory committee.


Chesley William Carter: Before this item carries I
should like to take a few minutes in which to make some observations about unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen. Recently we have heard statements over the air by commentators, and we have read articles in the press, which have been phrased in such a way as to create in the public mind an impression that one of the big factors in the drain on the unemployment insurance fund has been the inclusion of fishermen within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think that such statements require an answer. In reply to the hon. member for Kent (N.B.) the minister put on record some time ago-and I am referring to page 3146 of Hansard-that during the period between June 30, 1957 and March 31, 1959 payments out of the unemployment insurance fund amounted to $782,794,595, while at the same time, contributions amounted to $426,316,719. In other words, during that period the unemployment insurance fund paid out $365.5 million more than it collected.
To mention this in the same breath as saying that benefits are now being received by fishermen is to convey a very wrong impression to the people of Canada. I do not know what the exact figures are-perhaps the minister could put them on record- but I do not think that the payments to fishermen amount to more than $10 million

a year in excess of the total of the contributions received. In other words, why focus so much attention on about 3 per cent of this drain and say nothing about the other 97 per cent?
That is what is being done by certain writers in the daily papers and by certain people who have access to the air waves over our broadcasting stations. In addition to that it has been stated that now the fishermen are included this fund is no longer an insurance fund but has become a welfare fund. There again it seems strange to me that fishermen should be singled out for this distinction because if it is a welfare fund now it was a welfare fund long before any fisherman got any benefits from it.
All the people who are employed on the great lakes know that they are going to be out of work during the winter. That fact is a certainty. They were included years before the fisherman was included. If it is a welfare fund for the fisherman surely it is a welfare fund for them. The same applies to all the stevedores along the great lakes' fronts, along the St. Lawrence seaway and to the people employed in our canals and at the Montreal and Toronto docks. It is true as well, in some instances, of those employed in the forest industry. All those people were included long before the fisherman was included and nobody said a word about the insurance fund being turned into a welfare fund. It is strange that now, because a few fishermen have at last been admitted, a hue and cry has been raised and severe criticism expressed of the fact that fishermen are at last eligible for insurance.
Some of the most severe critics of the extension of insurance benefits to fishermen have been mainland firms and organizations such as chambers of commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I should think that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association should be the very last to make any comment on this question-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the hon. member for a moment. I believe he is right in saying there has been a great deal said about what the inclusion of fishermen has cost the fund. To put the record straight I must say that fishermen came under the unemployment insurance act on April 1, 1957. From that day until March 31, 1959 the inclusion of fishermen cost the fund a total of $13,880,000 over a period of over two years.


Chesley William Carter: Over two years it has cost less than $14 million and this has been receiving adverse publicity in publications put out by chambers of commerce and by the Canadian 66968-9-248
Supply-Labour
Manufacturers' Association and over the air. I thank the minister for setting the record straight in that respect.
These manufacturers in complaining and criticizing the inclusion of fishermen are saying in effect that it is all right to include the people who manufacture the fish, the people who process it in plants, the people who convey it from the boat and weigh it and carry it to the plants and ship it to the markets; in fact, it is all right for everybody who handles the fish to get unemployment insurance benefits. On the other hand the poor man who has to go out and risk his life and undergo the most severe hardship and danger should not be included. They are saying in effect that it is wicked and wrong for him to get unemployment insurance benefits. Surely the critics of this should reorient their thinking. In my opinion the fisherman has a greater claim to benefits than any of the others because he produces the raw material which provides not only the employment but the opportunity for all the other people to get benefits and also the opportunity for the manufacturer to make a profit.
It has been said that the contributions of fishermen are very small in comparison with the benefit period. I saw in a publication a statement to the effect that a fisherman can get benefits for 5J months. It is true that he can, but so can everybody else who qualifies for seasonal benefits. These people should know that the number of weeks of benefit a fisherman gets depends on the number of stamps he has. In Newfoundland this year the majority of our fishermen did not earn enough stamps to get benefits at all. I suppose that approximately 60 per cent or 70 per cent of our fishermen could not qualify because they could not acquire sufficient stamps. Another 30 per cent got the bare 15 stamps and as a result of that received benefits for ten weeks. The average benefit period for seasonal unemployment is less than 15 weeks or thereabouts.
When these manufacturers and chambers of commerce wax indignant about the fisherman receiving benefits and when they draw comparisons between the amount the fisherman contributes and the amount he draws out, I should like to remind them of this. The fisherman is a taxpayer. He pays sales tax on everything he buys. In addition to that he contributes his share to the benefits that are paid to all the people who secure employment because of the product he produces. These people must be very naive if they do not realize that all of this comes out of the price paid to the fisherman for his fish and he, being the low man on the totem pole, has to carry that burden.

Supply-Labour
I would ask these people to examine their consciences collectively and individually before they continue pointing fingers at the fisherman. If they are honest with themselves I believe they will come to the conclusion that they themselves by their own actions in laying off men unnecessarily have put a far greater drain on the fund than that represented by all the fishermen who may draw benefits for many years to come.
While on this subject I should like to remind the minister that we were promised some time ago that the part of the act which applies to fishermens' benefits would be revised. We have not heard from the minister concerning when he expects to do something about this. He must know now that there are serious inequities in the way the act is administered and that some revision is long overdue. As the act stands at present some fishermen can never draw benefits because their greatest period of activity is during the winter season and the stamps they earn at that time cannot be counted for benefits during the slack period of the fishing season. I hope the minister will be able to assure us that the government does intend to overhaul this legislation and revise that part of the act which relates to unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen.
Last year I made several suggestions to the minister about the administration of unemployment insurance benefits. As I went about my district I was glad to observe that the minister took some of my suggestions seriously and put them into effect which fact was very much appreciated by the fishermen.
I should like to elaborate now on a suggestion that I made a few days ago to the minister about people who pay into the fund for five consecutive years without drawing any benefits at all. I suggested that there should be a maximum period for people who are never going to be out of work and who pay continuously all throughout their working life. I should like to amplify that by citing the case of a foreman. It is often the case that a foreman starts out on an hourly wage rate and after a few years is transferred to a salary basis. His income then rises above the level which permits him to continue coverage under this act. I am told that in such cases his insurance book is valid for only 90 days after his transfer to salary. Should he get out of work he cannot receive any benefits at all from the contributions that he has paid in for five years. That seems to me to be very unfair.


Michael Starr: May I just give this information? The stamps and book are good for two years.


Chesley William Carter: Are good for two years after the man has transferred to salary?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: Or after his salary rises above the permissible level of income?


Michael Starr: That is correct.


Chesley William Carter: I am very glad to have that information because it is not generally known. I am also told that after the two-year period expires and this man gets laid off and has to be re-employed at an hourly wage rate he has to start all over again and build up his contributions from scratch.


Michael Starr: May I interject again? I personally paid into the fund for 10 years and I was very happy that I did not have to collect anything from the fund, and that time has expired.


Chesley William Carter: I am glad that the minister was able to pay into the fund for 10 years, but the minister was fortunate enough not to be laid off and have to look for work. I would point out to the minister that when a person is out of work it does not matter too much whether he is on an hourly rate or on a salary rate; his need is just as great and there should be some coverage. Therefore, I would suggest to the minister that he should take another look at this five-year period to see whether something more equitable could not be worked out for people who have paid for a full five years or seven years, or whatever the minister or his advisers may decide, and give them some special consideration.
Before I sit down there is just one other point I want to bring to the minister's attention. It arises from the experiences which I have encountered from a number of my constituents. The applicant in an isolated community, particularly in my province, has to send his application in by mail. Now, his application can be lost in the mail. It can also be received in the office and be mislaid by some of the commission's employees. In both of these cases the applicant must prove, and must very often go to considerable inconvenience to prove, that he actually sent in his application. Some discretion should be given to the managers of the offices in the various regions in such cases because, it seems to me, the applicant has no protection if a clerk in the office loses his book. All he has to say is, "Well, I did not get it; it was not received". The poor applicant is put to untold inconvenience. The postmaster may mislay it or it can get lost in the mail somewhere and the applicant has to suffer the whole burden of the inconvenience. I do hope that some way can be worked out under which the benefit of the doubt can be given to cases such as these.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say that I endorse completely everything that my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo has said about unemployment insurance for fishermen. I do think that this apparently concerted publicity campaign by some people in more favoured and protected industries against the fishing industry is one of the most unwarranted and unfair things that I have seen in a long time. I am very grateful to the minister for his intervention in the debate to indicate that he agreed with us about that. After all, this is an industry that has to stand on its own feet. And worse than that, it competes without any subsidy in world markets against half a dozen countries where the fisheries exports are subsidized. The fishermen have to buy in a protected market. I will not elaborate the argument which was made very well by my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo; but there are one or two particular observations that I should like to make very briefly about the administration of unemployment insurance, particularly unemployment insurance for fishermen, but not exclusively that. It is much more the administration, generally speaking, in remote areas where it has to be done largely by mail.
But before I do that, in view of some of the extraordinary history we have heard this afternoon, I should like to say how proud we are on this side of the house that it was a Liberal government that, after struggling for three years against the Tory premier of Quebec, and finally getting him defeated, was able to bring unemployment insurance on a constitutional basis into operation in this country. All the improvements that have been made in this legislation over the years, except one or two that have been suggested very recently that we do not think were improvements, were also attributable to a Liberal government.
Having said that, I come back to one or two of the small flies in the ointment, and a very good ointment it is, too. The first thing I should like to say is something that I thought would have melted the heart of the minister long before this. I have written him on several occasions, as he will recall, about cases where young men who had got enough stamps to get unemployment insurance were denied unemployment insurance because they went back to school. Now, I do think, this is the kind of provision that gets put into legislation in prosperous times. It is quite obvious that in times of full employment unemployment insurance is not intended to be used as a kind of income while someone completes his education; but it does seem to me that in times when unemployment is great and employment is slack it is a terrible social waste to say that because 66968-9-248$
Supply-Labour
a young man goes to school instead of hanging around at home when there is no work available, his unemployment insurance is cut off. I am sure that this would not require -I should not say "I am sure" because I am not a lawyer and I have not examined the act carefully-I very much doubt whether this would require any amendment to the act; I think it would merely require an amendment to the regulations. I appeal to the minister once again to take these cases under consideration, and not merely to take them under consideration but to get his colleagues to act and do something about them because it is hard to think of anything more wasteful than saying to these young men, "you have to stay out of school in order to get your unemployment insurance; if you go to school you have no right to unemployment insurance." This happens, of course, more often in a seasonal occupation such as fishing, perhaps, than in some others.
The other difficulty 1 mentioned the other day and I should like to reiterate it. It is this. There is a very strong feeling about this, and I think it is a justified feeling about placement disabilities. As I said, I do not want to criticize the officials because I have nothing but praise for the officials with whom I have anything to do. I think they are doing their best; but in a province like Newfoundland there is a real problem because of the poor communications and the great distances from the offices. There is un-questionally a tendency when jobs become available to give them to those people who are handy to the offices rather than to others who, though they may have been unemployed a great deal longer, are more remote from the offices. I do not say that the ones that are remote should get preference over the others, not at all, but it does seem to me that in some way or other there should be equality in a matter of this kind. I hope that the minister will give the matter some consideration and will get his officials to give some consideration to trying to work it out.
I also want to appeal again to the minister to have more peregrinating officials in provinces like Newfoundland. It is a very great problem to explain things by letter. I have received a lot of letters, as the minister knows, and I have sent a few to him. I have also sent a lot to the chief commissioner who has always been most considerate with any of these letters and has gone to a lot of trouble over them. But it is very hard for many people to understand and explain all the complications that arise as between seasonal benefits and regular benefits and the number of stamps that are required and it does happen at times that mistakes are made quite inadvertently in the offices. That is why, when

Supply-Labour
it takes a week for a letter to come back and another week for a letter to reach the office, people get discouraged.
Sometimes these people go for months without the insurance payments to which they are entitled. They have to go on relief. They spend the relief money and when they finally get their insurance money the welfare organization wants repayment of the relief money. This creates all sorts of unnecessary social problems.


Michael Starr: If I may interrupt, I think we can overcome some of the problems the hon. member has mentioned. As you know, we have appointed agents now who are sufficiently trained to carry out the function of filling out claims on behalf of people so that there is no delay involved in letters going back and forth through the mails. If the hon. member knows of areas in his riding where he thinks there should be an agent appointed I will be glad to do so if he will let me know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to take the time of the committee or the minister now. I will be very glad to talk about that privately. The minister will understand that I do not want to mention some places in my riding without mentioning them all. I promised the Minister of Public Works that I would not give the names of all the places in my riding this evening. That was a private undertaking but I intend to keep it. But there is one other point. While it is very useful and important to have claims offices, I have been very much interested in seeing the minister make provision for job officers who would travel around-


Michael Starr: We established two new offices in your riding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the offices the minister established were for the purpose of dealing with claims, not for the purpose of providing jobs.


Michael Starr: They have placement officers there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In my riding?


Thomas Miller Bell: Why don't you take a trip down there and find out what is going on?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Saint John-Albert would like to come to my riding with me any time I would be very happy to take him around. He would soon find out that I am fairly well known in my riding, probably just as well known as he is in his.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon.
member said in the first election in which he ran that he was going to move into the riding and I notice that he has not established residence there yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, I do not know whether you will permit me to reply to the hon. gentleman but what he has stated is completely incorrect and I have tried to choose a word that is parliamentary. Whenever my constituents complain about my conduct I will be impressed but as long as the complaints come only from the hon. member for Saint John-Albert I will be impressed rather differently.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I believe we should discuss the labour estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am labouring to get back to the point. My point is that I feel a more decentralized effort should be made in certain of the provinces in the field of placement as well. It seems to me that I should not take any more of the time of the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate speak of this group's efforts to bring to the minister's attention the wisdom of permitting university students, those who can obtain technical training-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And schoolboys too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -nurses and others who might attend business college to attend these institutions during the time they are drawing unemployment insurance if during that period they would otherwise be simply unemployed and idle. I agree with what the hon. member said. I think it is stupid and socially wasteful to allow our young people to waste their time when we can assist them to that limited extent without any additional expense to the exchequer.
I want to bring to the minister's attention again the question of covering defence personnel by bringing them under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I brought this matter up in the veterans affairs committee and found out that the high officials of the defence department made the decision. Personally I do not see why senior officials of the defence department should decide whether or not other ranks in the armed forces should come under unemployment insurance. I have a number of cases in mind of men who came out of the armed forces during the last 18 months and who have been unemployed for long periods because they have been out of contact with work in the area, out of contact with employers and so

on. I do urge the minister to give consideration to bringing at least the other ranks in our defence forces within the scope of this act.
I agree with what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had to say with respect to the local administrative officers having more opportunity to move around the districts they serve in order to meet employees and employers and so that the employees will have a better understanding of how to complete these forms when they become unemployed and will also have a better opportunity to be aware of the job opportunities throughout the district.
Having made these few remarks, I wish to deal particularly with the question of the inclusion of farm workers under this legislation. I started to expand upon this subject in the debate on second reading of the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, Mr. Speaker clipped my parliamentary wings on that occasion so that I have got to do it at the proper time, which is now. I know that the minister is fully informed of the situation but I promised the farmers of my constituency that I would bring up the matter at every opportunity and I look upon this as another opportunity. I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that I am not in the habit of speaking in the house for the sake of gathering votes.
The farm organizations of British Columbia, including the British Columbia federation of agriculture, the British Columbia fruit growers association and others, have expressed their opinion concerning this matter. It is a problem to the farmers. These organizations have expressed their opinion by resolutions passed at annual conventions year after year but so far without result. I realize the difficulties surrounding the problem. It is somewhat more complex than servicing an industry where you have workers working eight hours a day within a certain area, under certain foremen and things of that sort. I know there are differences but for the life of me I cannot see why these difficulties cannot be met through satisfactory regulations.
The average farmer is placed in an unfair position compared with other employers because when he wants to get casual or temporary help the prospective employee has two choices. He can go to work where he is covered by unemployment insurance or he can go to work for the farmer. Naturally he is going to choose the job where he is protected by unemployment insurance and can earn the stamps while he is working. For that reason, at various times and particularly during certain seasons the farmers have difficulty in getting labour, particularly in a region
Supply-Labour
such as ours where they have to compete against the lumbering industry, the mining industry and the smelting industry whose scales of wages are somewhat higher than the average. I do think that this matter should be given further consideration and I believe that regulations could be drafted that would exempt the farmer's family. This regulation could be so drafted as to confine the coverage to persons outside the family who were employed by the farmer for particular work.
There is another matter that I want to mention which does affect farmers who do employ persons under circumstances that do not bring them within the terms of this act. I have had this matter mentioned to me by farmers on a number of occasions. They claim that the definition of persons who can be brought under this act when working for farmers is not clear enough. I wrote to Mr. James McGregor, director of the unemployment insurance commission, in connection with this matter on March 18 last. He replied to me as follows:
This is in reply to your letter of 16th March to Mr. E. C. Desormeaux, secretary of the unemployment insurance commission, with reference to the insurability of certain types of labour on farms.
Employment in agriculture is excepted by section 27(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, it was considered desirable to preserve the continuity of insurance for skilled tradesmen who ordinarily work in insurable employment when they take employment in their regular trades on farms. As it is not very practicable for a farmer to arrange to insure employees for only a day or two of casual employment, this provision applies only when a skilled tradesman is engaged for more than six days in any period of thirty consecutive days.
I hope this general statement will be helpful to you. However, it might be advisable if you receive specific enquiries about this to refer your correspondent to the local office of the commission which serves his area. In this way it is more likely that he will get complete and up-to-date information based on the circumstances in his particular case.
My point is, Mr. Chairman, that I have discussed this matter with the local officials of the unemployment insurance commission, with the officials in my own district, and they have said, if you want clarification you must write to the senior officials in Ottawa. I have done that, and they have referred me back to the local officials in the constituency. There is a great deal of ambiguity on this question. I want to suggest that there should be some clear definition as to who can be covered by unemployment insurance when working for a farmer.
I want to know if you can cover a man who is clearing land? He is doing identical work to that of the man working in the woods. He is not regularly employed in the production of crops or assisting in the raising of stock. Can you insure a man who is assisting in the building of dams for irrigation

Supply-Labour
purposes? Can you insure a man who is erecting a fence, and who has particular equipment for erecting fences? He comes along with a truck which has pulleys, winches and things of that sort on it. Can you insure a man who is grading roads on your property? Some farmers have miles of road to be graded with mechanical equipment. Can you insure a man who is installing a water system? He is not a plumber; he is not a skilled tradesman, but he has had a lot of experience putting in water systems and provides a very satisfactory service. Can you insure a person who is cutting fuel? Now, this is an operation that is more akin to a forestry operation. He is not working on the farm, he is employed with a power saw to cut you 50 cords of wood for next year.
I am one of those persons, who live under rather primitive conditions compared to most of the sophisticated members of this house. I ask these questions because they have been particularly brought to my attention by farmers in my district. It would assist farmers generally if there were a clear definition. In my opinion, there should be a clear identification of the persons who are covered and who are employed by farmers. I am quite sure there are many farmers who have lost opportunities to obtain the services of a particularly competent person because the farmer and the employee were both of the opinion he was not covered under the act. I should like the minister to give us some information on this subject. I see he is chatting with his officials and is probably bubbling over with information at this time.
I should like him to tell us, first of all, his opinion as to the possibility of allowing university students, technical school students, students at business colleges, nursing schools and so on, to be covered by unemployment insurance to which they are not entitled now while attending these schools. I should like his opinion about the coverage for these people who work for farmers. I am not much concerned about those who are not in the working ranks. I have always been concerned about the working man, being one myself. I should like his opinion on the possibility of having farm workers generally included within the terms of the act, and what he can suggest with respect to having a clearer definition of the persons who can be employed on a farm now.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and also the hon. member for Kootenay West asked me about the coverage for students attending schools or universities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or ordinary schools.


Michael Starr: Well, this applies to them. One of the requirements to be fulfilled in order for a person to be eligible for benefits is that he must be available for work. It is this requirement that students are usually unable to meet. The umpire, who is the final authority under the act, has ruled that in the case of full-time students there is a strong presumption of non-availability. This presumption can only be rebutted when the student demonstrates his primary interest is in obtaining immediate full-time employment.
If, for example, a student has incurred substantial expense in attending a course, such as fees, it may be taken for granted his primary interest is in pursuing the course. If, on the other hand, he was prepared to change to evening classes, where those are available, he may be considered as being available for work or being eligible for benefits. Generally the claimant who, while unemployed, occupies himself by taking short courses at a time when opportunities of suitable employment are not likely to develop until after the course is completed may be available for work. It will be seen from what I have said that each case has to be decided on its own merits.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister would permit me a question on that point, I would say that the first case I drew to his attention was the case of a young man in Newfoundland, and it cost him absolutely nothing to go to school. He could have quit school the next day and yet the decision was adverse. I have had a good deal of correspendence about that case with the minister. I have had no case in which there was any question of anyone being put to any expense, yet all these applicants have been turned down. It does seem to me that there should be some redefinition of the regulation because, certainly in Newfoundland, it does not seem to work very well.


Michael Starr: I am going to look into the whole situation because I must admit that I have sympathy with the hon. members on this point.
So far as the farm employees are concerned, over the past few years there has been a tendency toward more farm labour coming under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. There have been difficulties. The farm organizations themselves were not sure that they actually wanted to be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act. There were segments of the agriculture economy in which opinion was against it. There were other segments, particularly the fruit growers in the Okanagan valley, the Annapolis valley and the sugar beet growers, which were anxious to come under the act. We have studied every possible form of

coverage, universal coverage, territorial coverage, and at the moment we are studying what I consider to be a feasible plan, that is inclusion on a voluntary basis.
In other words, if a farmer finds himself unable to obtain employees to work on his farm but there are some available and the only reason they will not accept his employment is that he has not unemployment insurance coverage, then he may be able to be registered as an employer and to obtain that coverage. That might be the start of the inclusion of the farm employees. As I say, we are at the moment giving study to this matter. This study of the inclusion of farm help has been going on ever since I have taken office, I might say, but because of these difficulties and because of the change of mind by the industry itself, so to speak, there has not been brought about a more rapid solution.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister mind commenting on the present ambiguity with respect to who is covered as farm labour?


Michael Starr: Section 61 of the Unemployment Insurance Act has to do with the matter. It covers skilled tradesmen employed by farmers. The act applies only to skilled labour, tradesmen who are employed by farmers for a short period of time; I believe it is 60 days.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What is a skilled tradesman? The minister must understand that nowadays a man turns up with a hammer and saw and says "I am a skilled tradesman". What is the definition of a skilled tradesman?


Michael Starr: There is not a clear definition
of that category. It is supposed to include carpenters and other people whom the farmer might hire to work on his farm doing repair work or in the construction of buildings and so on. There is no clear definition. That is one of the things that probably will be cleared up when we look into the possibility of including farm labour under this act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This matter is of a good
deal of importance to the people in my district. Would a man who came on your premises to clear land and said, "I am a skilled logger and I take contracts to clear land on farms on occasion" be a skilled tradesman?


Michael Starr: I doubt that very much. I
would not think so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like the minister
to tell that to the loggers in my district.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before this item
carries I want to make reference to one matter. There have been many issues between the Minister of Labour and myself and hon. members in the past few weeks
Supply-L/abour
but I should like to thank the Minister of Labour for resolving a problem which was of great concern to a number of my constituents during this past year. Some of them had been called upon to pay fairly large sums of money back to the unemployment insurance commission. These con-situents came to me and I decided that under the law these impositions had been exacted illegally. I took the matter up with the commission and they told me finally that they agreed with the decision I had taken but that they had no authority to return these monies to the individuals concerned. The commission also stated that it did not propose to demand payment of others who had not made the payment in accordance with the demands previously made on them by the commission. This matter was finally taken to the minister and he decided that as the impositions in the first instance were unjust it would be unfair to fail to return the monies to those who had already paid just as it would be unfair and illegal to demand payment of those who had not paid. I want the minister to know that notwithstanding the vigorous character of the issues between himself and those of us on this side of the chamber and in particular myself, I appreciate his resolving this problem which has meant so much to a considerable number of the men in the factories in Windsor whom I have the honour of representing in this house.


Mr. MacEwan:: I have just a few remarks to make on this matter. It is a matter of which the minister has knowledge now but I believe it will bear repetition. I listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Of course, I always enjoy them. Off the record, may I say this. He mentioned the fact that he did not speak to gain votes. I am sure that his winning ways and pleasant personality are responsible for doing that.
I wish to refer to a submission made to the Minister of Labour by the United Steel Workers of America, local 1231 of Trenton, Nova Scotia with regard to a certain part of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Many of the members of this union are employees of the Eastern Car Company which builds railway cars. As a result of this type of employment, it quite often happens that the employment is intermittent as orders come and go throughout the year. As to the payment of benefits under the act, as is known, under the act the average of the last 30 weeks is taken. In this case, the employees of this particular industry, who number close to 1,000, are at top production pay on the high rate by way of contributions but because the work is intermittent as I have said-that is, they are

Supply-Dabour
called in on a certain day and are laid off on a certain day-they are given a small stamp. As is known, four small stamps, in the course of this contribution, place the contributor on the lower benefit scheme.
The submission which was made by this union or by its local branch to the minister, of which I have knowledge, was to the effect that if a change could be made in the act-and it would probably apply to other types of workers in Canada-to the effect that if 51 per cent of the higher stamps for the past 30-week period was used as a medium it would give them an opportunity then to receive the higher benefits. As I have pointed out, when they are working, as a result of their earnings they pay on the higher bracket but they do not receive the benefits on that rate scheme.
Last year a submission was also made to me by this same union with regard to the matter of an increase in the benefits paid to the contributor. I spoke at that time and without commenting on the act which is now before the House of Commons and is in committee, and in which an increase is proposed by the government-certainly not brought about by any advocacy on my part, but by the wisdom and the efficiency of the Minister of Labour and of this government, of course-I hope that as a result of the few words that I have said this evening on this matter, perhaps the same desired results will be obtained.


Chesley William Carter: I want to mention briefly one or two points which slipped my mind when I had the floor a little while ago. First of all, I want to take one parting shot at those manufacturing firms in central Canada and remind them that every cent the poor fisherman is going to get from the unemployment insurance fund will come right back here into their own pockets because they have a protective market and we are their prisoners. Therefore I hope they will think twice before again objecting to benefits for the fishermen.
There are two other points which slipped my mind when I had the floor just now. The first one is this. It is my understanding that if an applicant sends in an application for regular benefits and if he has not qualified he must submit another application for seasonal benefits. I would ask the minister if something could not be done, particularly in the case of fishermen, so that only one application would be necessary.
The other point I wish to make concerns fishermen, particularly fishermen from Newfoundland who leave their homes and fish on ships sailing from mainland ports. These men are away from their homes for ten months out of the year, but on some occasions during the off season when the ship is under refit or for some other such reason they come home,

and during that time they draw unemployment benefits. However, occasionally it happens that a trawler in a nearby port is shorthanded, and a company applies to an employment office in St. John's, informing the officials that this fisherman is home. Under these circumstances the man has to leave home and take the work offered to him or be disqualified from benefit. It seems to me that some special provision should be made in the case of people who work away from their homes for long periods of time, and I ask the minister if he would give his attention to making some special provision to meet this type of case.


James Roy Tucker: The government intends to raise the contribution but fails to increase the benefits. In other words, the fishermen, the labourers and the workers will now be required to pay more of their meagre earnings for stamps to qualify them for the same amount of benefits. The new provision allowing a full claim for 52 weeks of benefit does not really mean much, as a claimant would only get value for the amount of stamps he has to his credit and fishermen and other workers barely get enough stamps each year to qualify for seasonal benefits, so this benefit is of no value to them or to the many. It will only benefit a few. Some of the benefits paid are ridiculously low, $6 or $8 a week. What can a person do on such an amount these days?
Section 46 (2) cuts off some of the benefits from the claimants. For example, when a claim expires at a full week the subsequent claim begins on a previous Sunday so eventually a claimant receives benefit for a full week. For example, a claim expires on Wednesday. A claim is put in for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. A subsequent claim begins on Sunday of that week, so later the man is paid for Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Thus he gets the benefit of the full week. Under this new amendement a claimant will not receive any benefit for Thursday, Friday and Saturday because his subsequent claim will commence only on the following Sunday, so he has no claim in existence for Thursday, Friday and Saturday of the week, whether or not his claim expired on Wednesday, so he loses benefits. This boils down to the fact that both claimants and employers have to pay more to the fund in order to get the same benefits out of it whereas the government is not contributing any more than it did formerly. The workers must pay all the time.
Many fishermen in Newfoundland are disturbed by changes in the unemployment insurance regulations providing for the compulsory deduction of 25 per cent from gross earnings before calculating earnings for

insurance purposes. Would the minister explain why this change was made and what advantages there are for the fishermen?


Michael Starr: The change in the regulations was made in November, 1958. Many changes were made at that time to try to remedy the anomalies which existed. In doing that we created anomalies, also, and one of them is this one and right at the moment we are considering it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad the minister is doing so.


Augustin Brassard: I have two questions I should like to put to the minister. I understand that many civil servants employed by the provincial governments have been brought by those governments within the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I should like to know how many provinces have placed their employees within the scope of this act, and what are the conditions for taking such action?
Should Quebec not be participating, I wonder whether the minister would consider, writing a friendly letter to a friendly government, not to put the hammer over the heads of the Quebecers but to invite them to participate in the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Michael Starr: The civil services of all the
provinces except Quebec are included, and I have taken note of the hon. member's suggestion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will you file it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister could now give me the information about the Winnipeg office for which I asked him the other evening.


Mr. Southam:: Coming from a rural constituency I am interested in the problem of unemployment insurance in relation to farm labour, and I thought I should make a survey to find out information which I could pass on to the minister.
Several weeks ago I wrote to all the reeves and councillors in my constituency asking them pertinent questions and seeking their views on this matter. I have had a good crosssection of opinion. All of them with the exception of one, Councillor Reid, have written me saying that they feel that farm labour should come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I just thought I should pass this information on to the committee, feeling this is a good cross-section of opinion in this particular area.


Michael Starr: I should like to reply to the hon. member for Trinity and to congratulate him on the very good speech he made to this committee on the matters with which he dealt last week. This has to do with mechanization in 66968-9-249
Supply-Labour
the prairie region. An installation on a trial basis was made last year and the results obtained have justified the continuation of the experiment. Hon. members will appreciate that with the complexity of this operation and the speed which must be achieved and maintained several bugs were encountered. These are however being overcome and it is hoped that the final results will not only provide the best service possible to claimants but will also lessen costs. Because this is still in the nature of a pilot installation, the commission is not in a position to determine what the ultimate staff requirements will be in the regional and local offices of the prairie region at the present time. It is expected there will be a saving in this connection.
The machine installation consists of multicontrol reproducing punches and standard interpreters in all mechanized local offices, which are 14 in number. The yearly rental for this equipment is $37,800. At the regional office there are 24 machines consisting of Univac electrical computers, tabulators, collators, verifiers, sorters, etc., and the yearly rental for this equipment is $50,520. The total rental for equipment is $88,320. Special forms are required for use in this equipment and the cost for 1959-60 is estimated at $140,000. These forms, of course, replace standard forms used in the non-mechanized officers of the unemployment insurance commission. Furthermore, if and when mechanization becomes universal, forms will be purchased at somewhat lower prices than for the pilot operation.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour the case of the farm labourer and in particular I should like to plead for the western farm labourer. Our agricultural industry in the west is rapidly becoming mechanized and because of this it is difficult to obtain labour to run the machinery. It takes a skillful labourer to run these machines. As a result of mechanization the farm labourer has become a seasonal worker. I believe the farm labourer is the only one not now covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. The fisherman is a seasonal labourer and he is covered by this legislation.
I should like to thank the minister for informing us that studies and research have been done along these lines but may I point out to him the urgency of having the farm labourer brought under the provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to thank the minister for his complimentary remarks about my earlier effort on the subject of rehabilitation of

Supply-Labour
displaced workers. I hope that he and the department will give my recommendations serious consideration and I would be pleased if they would implement some of my recommendations in whole or in part.
I should like to sound a warning at this time with reference to mechanization in the unemployment insurance commission. Machines that will streamline the operation and make it more efficient are desirable but machines and procedures that treat people as statistics are undesirable. I know that the minister is in general agreement with this philosophy but I just want to call his attention to the very grave danger of treating unemployed people simply as units in an unemployed labour force.
I do not have personal knowledge of how these procedures work but I urge him when he considers the merits of the experiment and the possibility of extending it to other regions to take into consideration the effect it has on the relationships between people, the unemployed on one hand and those members of the commission who are trying to serve and look after them on the other. I urge the minister to bear this in mind. I know he will because I am convinced that he is just as interested as we are in this matter.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the hon. member for Trinity that I have this philosophy foremost in my mind. The mechanization of which I spoke of relates to the processing of claims only and certainly there will be no mechanization in terms of placing people in jobs or interviewing them.
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing the Minister of Labour's estimates I shall avail myself of this opportunity to draw the minister's attention on the hardship suffered by loggers and bushwork-ers following a notice published by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in December 1958, which reads as follows:
Notice to operators engaged in wood cutting and lumbering.
Revised divisor table.
As from January 4, 1959, section 143, as amended, of unemployment insurance regulations will put into force a revised table of quantitative divisors used in establishing the number of unemployment insurance contributions to be credited to workers engaged in wood cutting and lumbering, whose rate of pay is based on their production figures rather than on the time spent on such production. The revision of the said table took into consideration more general use of mechanical saws, which resulted in a higher weekly production per man than in the past.

The notice also provides that, in future, wood cutters must cut 12 cords instead of 8. The proposed amendment therefore requires that lumberers increase their production by 50 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if, on the one hand, account was taken of mechanization, the fact was overlooked, on the other hand, that forestry operations, in Quebec, are mostly a winter activity, and that it is rather difficult for a lumberer to work a six-day week. Often, as a result of bad or changeable weather, they have to be content with four days' work. It is therefore quite impossible for them to cut 12 cords a week under such conditions.
It seems to me that if account was taken of mechanization, in determining the number of cords which a bushworker may cut, account should also be taken of bad weather, so as to extend to those workers the same privilege that is extended workers in private industries, that is to say the right to obtain a stamp without having to work a full week. I therefore ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to take up this matter with commission officials for their consideration so that they may be in a position, if possible, to show greater fairness towards lumberers.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct another question to the minister. Could he tell me whether the negotiations undertaken with the authorities of the State of Maine and New Hampshire are being continued, so as to enable Canadian forestry workers employed in those states to qualify for unemployment insurance, through an agreement similar to the agreement reached with the authorities of the state of New York? Could the minister indicate whether it is possible to reach such agreements with the states concerned?
If not, would it be possible to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act in order that these workers could qualify for benefits? We know that many of them would rather work in Canada-thus increasing the number of those who are seeking jobs-than go to the United States to work, because they cannot have the coverage of unemployment insurance. Therefore, I ask the minister to tell us if the negotiations with the two states concerned are still going on.
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion which I shall take under consideration. For the past year and a half I have been endeavouring by communication to arouse an interest on the part of the states of Maine and New Hampshire

in the terms of the reciprocal agreement with those states. Just recently within the past few weeks a representative from the Department of Labour attended a discussion held in the United States on this subject, the movement of labour across the border. He reported to me that the United States authorities now have a more lenient attitude toward the problem. We hope to follow it up and bring about a satisfactory conclusion in that respect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
173. Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council. $75,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if he could tell us how many areas in the Atlantic provinces are now declared labour surplus areas coming within this vote and how many people have been moved out of those areas in the Atlantic provinces under this vote since the first of the year?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, there are two areas designated labour surplus areas, Spring-hill and Bell island. We have had inquiries from two firms interested in a few hundred of the men from Bell Island. That is the reason why this area was designated as a labour surplus area, in order to allow us to pay the cost of transporting the worker, his wife and family and household effects to the location of his new employment elsewhere in Canada.
There were 42 workers and 23 dependents transferred from the Springhill area in the last fiscal year for which we paid their expenses to other jobs elsewhere in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have there been any yet
from Bell island?


Michael Starr: As far as I know there are no reports of any being transferred as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Azellus Denis: Before we get through with the estimates may I be permitted to revert to item 168 just to ask one question while the officials are here?


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member the consent of the committee to revert to item 168?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Azellus Denis: I should like to know from the minister whether the province of Quebec has received any benefit from this item which has to do with a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under 66968-9-2491
Supply-Public Works
agreements entered into with the provinces and the federal government?


Michael Starr: I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that that information is not available on my desk at the moment because of the fact we had passed the item. I should be glad to convey that information to the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is that the province has not.


Michael Starr: I want to be sure.


Charles Edward Rea: That completes the estimates of the Department of Labour.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
318. General administration, $9,335,045.
Charles Edward Rea: This item will be found on page 64 of the blue book and the details on page 416.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Public Works are set up in such a way that most of the discussion and questioning takes place on the different items, but I thought it might be helpful on the first item if I gave the members of the committee a brief summary of the work of the department during the last fiscal year which ended on March 31; then, a brief summary of our plans for the present fiscal year which commenced on April 1. Also there are three or four particular projects about which I think the members would like to have special information.
The work of the department has been quite severely handicapped because of the severe winter weather conditions which existed during the last winter in most parts of the country. However, the departmental activity was maintained at a very high level and I should like to pay tribute to the officials from coast to coast. They have been working under great pressure and have a great many projects under construction. I am sure that all hon. members who have had any contact with the department during the last year-and I would think that that includes everybody, judging from the letters I get-will agree that these officials have done a very good job.
The high level of activity is reflected in the total departmental expenditures of $220.3 million for the fiscal year 1958-59, which is an increase of approximately $8 million over
1957-58 and $55 million over the year 1956-57. On the building construction side of the departmental program in 1958-59 the expenditures totalled $60.5 million compared with $52 million in 1957-58 and $45.4 million in 1956-57. Expenditures on the construction of new harbour works as distinguished from

Supply-Public Works the building construction work of the department reached a total of $28.4 million, against the previous year's figure of $26.2 million and an expenditure of $22.4 million in 1956-57.
The sum of $10 million was spent on the construction of the trans-Canada highway in the national parks which, as hon. members know, is the direct responsibility of the federal government. Our contributions to the provinces on the shared portion of the trans-Canada highway construction represented a total expenditure of $51.1 million compared with $49.4 million in 1957-58 and $24.8 million in 1956-57. The expenditures on this account in 1958-59 reached the highest total ever achieved in a single fiscal year. In addition to increased expenditures on works which fall within the department's own responsibility, activities on behalf of other government departments resulted in expenditures totalling $33.1 million, an increase of $1.7 million over the previous year.
There has been continuing emphasis placed on construction through the winter. This was very effective during the last winter, particularly in the building construction field, in which most of the projects were not closed down during the unfavourable construction season. The severe weather conditions did curtail winter construction activity to some extent on the harbours and rivers side, particularly in Quebec and the maritimes, where the physical conditions in many cases made progress impossible. However, to offset this the department undertook the policy of acquiring materials in advance. This had the double effect of providing increased employment during the winter months, for example timber cutting in Newfoundland, and of permitting a start on actual construction as early as possible after the spring break-up.
A large program of works was undertaken during the winter in the field of building repairs and maintenance, such as interior painting, partitioning and so forth. Although those works are not individually large in value, their cumulative effect is significant. Quite a large number of locations were involved. For 1958-59, the total expenditure on these types of works reached $2,710,000, with a labour value in the neighbourhood of 2\ million man hours.
The program of constructing small standard post offices across the country was another highlight of 1958-59. This program has been adopted to get those small post offices built during the winter months and with a minimum of administrative work, which perhaps I should call red tape. This is the first winter that the department has gone into such a plan heavily and we think it has been very successful. Mind you, those buildings are erected only where a lease has expired. We


do not build them where there is a lease in existence; but where a lease is running out and it is considered appropriate by the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works that a small post office should be built, that has been done. Sixty-seven buildings, with a total value of approximately $1.35 million, were undertaken. Most of these have now been completed or are in the final stages of construction. The construction of these buildings, as I have said, was carried out during the winter months. I have here a list of these post offices and if hon. members are interested in seeing it perhaps I could have leave to place it on Hansard.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the minister leave to place this on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: the list above referred to follows:)
Miscellaneous Works "Crash Program" Newfoundland
Location	Area
	(in square feet)
	600
Port Rexton 		
Spaniard's Bay 		
Nova Scotia	
	
Elmsdale 		600
Middle Musquodoboit 		... 800
	600
New Ross 		... 600
Pugwash 		
River John 		
Weymouth	 800
New Brunswick	
Boiestown 		600
	fiOO
Canterbury Station 		600
Harvey Station 		800
	600
Salisbury 		600
Quebec	
Bromptonville 		800
Campbells Bay 		800
Contrecoeur 		800
Dunham 		600
East Broughton		600
Fort Coulonge 		800
Grenville 		600
Hebertville 		800
Lorrainville 		800
Rougemont 		600
St. Ambroise (Chicoutimi) 		600
St. Barthelemy 		800
St. Hubert 		800
Ste. Marguerite Station 		600
St. Paul l'Ermite 		800
Ste. Thecle 		800
Lac au Saumon 		800
Ontario	
Alfred 		800
	600
Callander 		800
Chalk River 		800

Location	Area
(in square feet)
Harmer	 600
Hastings	 800
OtterviUe	 800
Spanish	 800
Thornbury	 800
Wellesley	 600
Wyoming	 800
Manitoba
Belmont	 600
Minitonas	 800
Ninette	 600
Otterburne	 600
Ste. Rose du Lac	 800
Saskatchewan
Elrose	 800
Frobisher	 600
Spiritwood	 800
Strasbourg	 800
Wapella	 800
Alberta
Acme	 800
Airdrie	 600
Bow Island	 800
Blackie	 600
Cochrane	 800
Clyde	 600
Morrin	 600
Smoky Lake	 800
British Columbia
Bella Coola	 600
Fort Langley	 600
Pitt Meadows	 600
Wellington	 600


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I might say a few words now about harbours and rivers engineering projects. The use of model studies, in conjunction with the national research council, was increased and emphasized to study proposed projects in advance with a view to determining the results which can be expected and minimizing the possibility of inefficient and expensive undertakings which fail to achieve the desired results. Among the projects which have special problems and have therefore been subject to prior model study are the ones at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, which as we all know has been a very tough problem; Saint John and Ingalls Head, New Brunswick; Glace Bay, Nova Scotia; Chandler and Matane, Quebec. A model study of the Fraser river development has been in use for some years.
To turn to development engineering projects, which come under another branch of the department, during the last year work on the construction of the trans-Canada highway through the national parks included completion of the bituminous stabilized base course in Banff and Yoho national parks, making it possible now to drive from the east gate at Banff to the western boundary of Yoho on a first-class paved highway. I might add that it is possible to drive on a first-class paved trans-Canada highway from
Supply-Public Works
the western border of Yoho park all the way to Kenora, Ontario. I did it myself the summer before last and the highway is even better now.
In Glacier and Revelstoke national parks the start of construction was delayed in that the route involving these parks was not decided upon until 1956. As members from the west will know, the decision then taken was to abandon the Big Bend route around the bend of the Columbia and build a new road paralleling the Canadian Pacific railway from Golden to Revelstoke with the exception that the road goes through Rogers pass and the railroad goes through a five mile tunnel having abandoned the road through the pass quite a few years ago.
Similarly, in the case of Terra Nova in Newfoundland this park was only declared in 1957. However, the work in these three parks has been pressed forward and all of the trans-Canada highway mileage was under grading contract by last summer. In Terra Nova in particular, while grading is not yet completed traffic is making use of the road. A full statement of activities on the trans-Canada highway through the provinces was given during the readings of the bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act last March. However, an indication of the accelerated progress on this undertaking on the basis of final figures for 1958-59 is that Canada's share of expenditures for the year rose to over $51 million, as I pointed out earlier in my remarks, which exceeded the original estimate by an appreciable amount.
Other projects in the field of highways and bridges which concerned the department during the year included the awarding of contracts for the substructures of bridges at Campbellton, New Brunswick, which will run to Cross Point, Quebec, $1,261,600, and at Burlington, Ontario, $698,300. In addition, the contract for the superstructure of the Burlington bridge has been let at an amount of $3,684,400 and tenders for the Campbell-ton-Cross Point superstructure have been called for June 4.
Work on behalf of other government departments was undertaken in all major fields of activity of the department. More than 200 individual projects were undertaken for 15 other departments. The majority of these were on behalf of the R.C.M.P. and northern affairs and national resources and included are major developments which are taking place in northern communities. There was also a heavy program of highway construction and location undertaken for northern affairs and national resources. In the national parks some of the principal items were reconstruction of the Banff-Jasper and Banff-Windermere highways and the Emerald lake

Supply-Public Works
road in the west and of the Cabot trail and the gulf shore road in the east.
In the northwest territories the extension of the Mackenzie highway toward Yellowknife was continued both on the location and construction sides. Other road survey projects in these areas include the Marian river road, the Fort Fitzgerald-Bell Rock road and a road from Peace Point westerly in Wood Buffalo park. In the Yukon territory, the reconnaissance survey of the road from the Dawson-Stewart highway to the oil reserves in the Peal plateau and thence to Fort McPherson, a distance of about 300 miles, was completed, as was the final location of the first 140 miles of the road. During the past winter a clearing contract was awarded on the first 45 miles where construction will start this summer. All of these undertakings involved an expenditure of $12 million during 1958-59 with the money being provided in the appropriation of northern affairs and natural resources.
So much for a brief review of the fiscal year 1958-59. I should now like to give members of the committee a few of the highlights of the departmental program for 1959-60. The total amount requested, exclusive of statutory items, in the 1959-60 estimates is $173.6 million. This reflects a decrease of $17.8 million on ordinary account. The decrease relates mainly to the completion of the major construction phases on a number of construction projects, for example, the customs building and post office at St. John's, Newfoundland, the national revenue building at Montreal, buildings for mines and technical surveys here in Ottawa and also some very expensive harbour improvements such as at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, and Toronto. I hope, by the way, that we are not going to be criticized for reducing our estimate by a small amount.
Offsetting the decrease to some extent are additional requirements for the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge, an increase of $1,800,000, the low level Burlington canal bridge, an increase of $2,200,000, and an increased requirement related to the construction of a new dredge for the west coast dredging fleet, the increase being $660,000. Additional expenditure of about $1 million is included for the construction of the trans-Canada highway in the national parks. An increase of $3 million is also forecast in the contribution to the provinces for the trans-Canada highway, although this is a statutory item.
As for the winter employment implications of the 1959-60 estimates, although the amount provided for repairs, upkeep and normal maintenance of public buildings across the country is slightly reduced, it is the intention again to schedule these works to be carried out during the winter months in the interest of relieving seasonal unemployment. The department's activities in this field in
1958-	59 have tended to reduce the requirements somewhat.
Similarly, it is intended to proceed again with a program of standard post office construction across the country in the winter of
1959-	60. This program is carried out from the vote which is described as being for "miscellaneous works" in which an increase of three-quarters of a million dollars is requested. I have a list here of the small post offices and where they are to be built during the coming winter. If hon. members so wish, I would be glad to place it on Hansard.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to put this list on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: The list above referred to is as follows:)



PROPOSED CONTINUING PROGRAM-1959-60

[Stage Direction]
Province	Location
Newfoundland	 Newtown, Norris Arm.
Prince Edward Island	 -
Nova Scotia	 Florence, Reserve Mines,	Clarke's Harbour,
Whycocomagh, Brookfield.
New Brunswick	 St. Louis de Kent, Blackville, St. Quentin,
Dorchester.
Quebec (Quebec District)	 St. Anselme, Les Escoumins, Gaspe Harbour,
St. Bruno Lac St. Jean, St. Basile de Port-neuf, Ste. Felicite, Godbout, River Bend, Price, St. Pamphile.
Quebec (Montreal District)	 Beebe, Mont Rolland, Oka, St. Gregoire de
Nicolet, St. Germain de Grantham, Hudson Heights, Ste Adele.
tMr. Green.]

Supply-Public Works
PROPOSED CONTINUING PROGRAMME-1959-1960-Cone Province	Location
Quebec (Ottawa District)	 Taschereau, St. Andre Avellin, Chapais, Macamic.
Ontario (Ottawa District)	 Lanark, Casselman, North Gower, Manotick.
Ontario (Toronto District)	 Jordon Station, Waubaushene, Manitowaning,
Stevensville, Virgil, Belmont, Swastika, Port Rowan, Cookstown, South River, Grand Bend.
Ontario (London District)	 South Woodslee, Courtright.
Ontario (Winnipeg District)	 Ear Falls, Balmertown.
Manitoba	 Dominion City, Fisher Branch, Miami, Inglis,
Hartney, Winnipegosis.
Saskatchewan	 Central Butte, Neilburg, Perdue, St. Brieux,
Punnichy, Rockglen, Vanguard.
Alberta	 Big Valley, Exshaw, Alix, Canmore, Mannville.
British Columbia	 Field, Shawnigan Lake, Galiano, New Denver,
Saanichton, Vananda.
Howard Charles Green: I would point out that sometimes things happen in connection with these small post offices and I cannot guarantee that all of them will be built. There may be some changes and perhaps some additions to the list. I find that quite a few problems come up in this connection, such as a quarrel about a site or something of that kind, and these things take time to work out. One centre in which a large federal building and not a small post office was to be erected had three sites selected by the local citizens. Almost a civil war developed in the town as to which site should be used, and the result has been that, for the time being, no building can be erected in that particular place.
Then in so far as work for other government departments is concerned I would say that a significant increase is indicated in the volume of works the Department of Public Works is being asked to undertake on behalf of other government departments. For 195960, 338 projects with an estimated total value of $227.9 million have been assigned by 11 other departments. This compares to a total of 236 projects valued at $152 million which
Department
Northern Affairs	
Veterans Affairs	
Transport	
Citizenship and Immigration .
R.C.M.P	
Agriculture	
National Research Council ... National Health and Welfare
was originally included in the 1958-59 program. Expenditures on this account for 195960 are now estimated at $51.82 million compared with $40.6 million at the time of the 1958-59 estimates and $35 million included in 1957-58.
Hon. members might be interested in some of the major departments for which the Department of Public Works will be undertaking work. I have a list which could be put on Hansard. For example, there is the department of northern affairs, 95 projects and the estimated total cost is $165 million; the estimated 1959-60 requirement is $26.9 million. Then, there are projects for veterans' affairs, transport, citizenship and immigration, the R.C.M.P., agriculture, national research council, national health and welfare. Perhaps I could have these figures printed without reading them.
The Depuiy Chairman:	Has the hon.
member permission to have these figures printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: The figures above referred to are as follows:)
	Estimated	Estimated
No. of	total cost	1959-60projects	(Millions)	requirement95	165.0	26.98	11.0	1.717	9.6	3.444	9.3	4.5105	8.8	3.911	7.5	3.93	7.3	1.836	6.9	2.7
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: Not included in these listings is the program of construction of community stages for the fishermen in Newfoundland. This program, being undertaken on behalf of the Department of Fisheries, is now estimated to cost about $835,000. During the 1958-59 winter sites for the stages were decided upon and some of the materials required, mainly timber, were obtained. It is expected that the program can be completed in 1959-60. I had hoped we could finish some of this work during the winter months, but that turned out to be impossible.
In so far as the development engineering projects are concerned for 1959-60 fiscal year, slope seeding-as hon. members know that is where you spray grass seed on the slopes of the highway-general clean-up and the installation of guard railing will be carried out along the paved highway in Banff and Yoho parks. The grade separation at the Norquay overpass in Banff, as well as the Wapta lake railway relocation in Yoho, will be completed. All aggregate needed for the final paving of the trans-Canada hghway in those two parks will be crushed. In Glacier and Revelstoke parks, depending upon weather conditions, the major part of the grading of the highway will be completed as will most of the structures. Avalanche studies in the Rogers pass section of Glacier and the design of suitable avalanche defences for this area will be continued. In Terra Nova park grading on the highway will be completed and we will be in a position to proceed with the bituminous stabilized base course. For all of these projects, an amount of $13,400,000 is provided. However, if we encounter a good construction season, it is possible that a supplementary appropriation will be needed later in the year. An amount of $48 million is included in these estimates to cover payments to the provinces under the trans-Canada agreements during 1959-60.
In the few minutes which remain, I should like to give to the members a sketch of the situation with regard to five or six particular projects. One of the most challenging and most interesting projects the department has under construction is the improvement of the harbour in St. John's Newfoundland. A further amount of one and one-quarter million dollars toward harbour improvements in St. John's, Newfoundland is included in this year's estimates. This will provide funds to allow a continuation of the major reconstruction program for this port for which funds were provided in last year's estimates. This is one of the largest projects which the department has undertaken, with the total cost being in the neighbourhood of $13 million. To date, three contracts totalling over a million dollars have been awarded to provide a marine [The Deputy Chairman.]

agency wharf for use of the Department of Transport, a small boat basin and a significant quantity of dredging. The first of the demolition work contracts has been advertised, with more to follow.
It is expected that tenders will be called in July or August for the main finger pier and the related operating facilities, with this particular contract representing a value of probably some six to seven million dollars. There are numerous portions of this harbour development which are receiving continued study at present, as the planning is relatively involved. I refer to improvement in the road traffic surrounding the waterfront; the extension of sewers through the new waterfront structures; naval and Canadian National Railways' installations; and such other problems. A large number of properties, including some private homes, wholesale and retail businesses, lumber concerns and a fish plant are being acquired in order to make these improvements possible.
The need for modernization of St. John's harbour is easily seen by a comparison of the cargo handling costs there and in other Canadian harbours. The capital expenditures being made in connection with this development will pay for themselves in the savings to be realized by Newfoundland through the improved handling and distribution of cargo. The plan includes, in addition to the works now under way and the large finger pier- it is so named because it is shaped like a finger-an adjacent marginal wharf which will provide berthage for all sizes and types of ships using this harbour. Transit sheds, storage sheds, etc., are of course included.
Progress on the general project has been favourable. However, I expect the work will not be completed until 1962 or 1963. This project is, of course, supplying much needed employment for the St. John's area and when the main pier contract is awarded this employment will be greatly increased and should be of particular help during the coming winter.
Hon. members will have heard about the possibility of a causeway from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island over the Northumberland strait. As reported to the house, the government has undertaken a feasibility study for providing a crossing over Northumberland strait to replace the existing rail and highway ferry service. Proposals for such a crossing had dated back to 1891. The most recent proposal was put forward by the province of Prince Edward Island in 1956, when they suggested that a rock-filled causeway be constructed at a cost of $50 million, and asked the federal government to investigate rock sources on cape Tormentine. Preliminary work was done on this, as well

as an economic study of the cost of operations and capitalization of the existing ferry system.
The difficulty in considering the proposal of Prince Edward Island, as well as previous ones, was that no engineering studies had ever been made to establish that a causeway could be constructed and supported by sufficient data to give an estimate of cost. Most important, investigations had not been made to establish what would be the results of tidal conditions along the coast should such a causeway be constructed. As this information was required before a proper assessment of either the physical or economic feasibility of the project could be considered, the government authorized the undertaking of this study in March 1958.
The study has been most complex. The design of any type of structure required a complete tidal survey throughout the whole of Northumberland strait. This work was undertaken by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys which had engaged a boat to put the work in hand by May, 1958. In addition to establishing the existing tidal conditions, that department predicted the changes in tidal conditions which would result from the construction of a causeway. It was established that a causeway would completely change the phases of the tide at the crossing, so that high tide on one side of the crossing would coincide with low tide on the other side, creating a condition where there would be up to ten feet differential in head on opposite sides of the causeway. It was also established that such a causeway would create changes in tidal ranges to varying degrees along both coasts of Northumberland strait. This necessitated a survey of existing shore line conditions and land use along the coasts of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the Northumberland straight area and these surveys are now being used to establish estimates of cost of remedial works and possible land damage as a result of construction of a causeway.
In addition, it was necessary to have a very complete survey of the ice conditions in the strait and predict what the conditions would be as a result of causeway construction as obviously any change in these conditions would require careful study in relation to navigation and fisheries.
A great deal of credit is due to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for their tidal studies and for their studies on the shoreline and land use, particularly in view of the fact that they were able to undertake this work so efficiently during 1958 and provided so much information in a limited time.
Considering the scope of the study and the fact that each phase of the survey was, to
Supply-Public Works
some degree, dependent on the information from other phases, the work has progressed remarkably well and it was possible to provide sufficient information to the consultants who were responsible for the site investigation and preparation of alternate designs enabling them to submit their report within the last week.
The alternatives in this report will now be considered by this department as well as by other departments concerned, such as transport, the Canadian National Railways and fisheries, and will be consolidated with the reports on the cost of remedial works and possible land damage. This review is now proceeding, following which the government will give consideration to the economic feasibility of the project.
Then I had intended to say a word about the development in Courtenay bay, at Saint John, New Brunswick, but I will leave that.
I also have a report on an extremely interesting development-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Charles Edward Rea: However, I am sure the committee will give him unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: I thank hon. members very
much for their kindness.


Maurice Bourget: Before the minister goes
further, may I ask whether he can inform the members of the committee if a copy of the report on this study with respect to the causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island could be made available to members of the committee? It may be a confidential report; I do not know whether or not that is the case. But for the information of the committee, I think it would be extremely interesting if we could have a copy of it.


Howard Charles Green: The report, of course, has just come into the department and it will require careful consideration. At the moment it would not be wise to make that report public until it has been considered.
I should like to say a few words about the development in the lower St. Lawrence area because, to me, this is one of the most interesting developments taking place under the department. There are a number of items included in this year's estimates which will provide funds for the continued development of the Quebec north shore area, notably Pointe au Pere, Pointe au Pic, Seven Islands and Baie Comeau.


Maurice Bourget: Entirely.


Howard Charles Green: Each year the leading officials from all over Canada are called in for a conference of a week. The various problems are reviewed and suggestions are made. This is only one of the ways in which the deputy minister, Major General Hugh A. Young and his assistant deputy, George Jackson and the

other executive members of the team have built up this good spirit. I should like to commend their work to the members of the house. I think they are doing a splendid job for Canada.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
leader of the house if he would tell us which we can expect on the menu after the energy bill.


Howard Charles Green: I could give the hon. member better information on that point if he could tell me when I can expect that debate to end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As soon as possible.


Howard Charles Green: If it ends tomorrow before five o'clock, we will be going on with public works estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is private members' time.


Howard Charles Green: I said before five o'clock; five minutes to five.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the leader of the house give us any information about next week?


Howard Charles Green: I am sorry but I cannot say just what the legislation will be next week.
Business of the House
We must get this Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act through. Payments to the provinces are being held up because it is not being passed. I would think that would be the first item called after the debate on the national energy bill. We have been holding back the resolution on the C.N.R. finances until my hon. friend's party are ready to go on with it. I do not know whether or not they are now prepared to do so. I believe the report from the committee was tabled this afternoon. But I am not sure whether the printed reports of the evidence taken in the committee have been distributed. We should like to get on with that resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to remind the minister that payments to another province are being held up also because of the failure of the government to bring in legislation. I hope they will give consideration to that matter as well.


Howard Charles Green: I am not quite sure to which province the hon. member has reference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I can make a declaration of war.
It being five minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Question



ANSWER TO QUESTION

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

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Were tenders recently called for the mail service designated Antigonish-Sherbrooke, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, who submitted tenders and what is the amount of the bid in each case?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes.
2.	Stuart Ellis McKeen, Aspen, $2,400; Lester Vincent Macdonald, Sherbrooke, $3,100; William Duncan Mailman, Box 28, Sherbrooke, $3,300; Reginald Henry MacKinlay, Sherbrooke, $3,300.40; Robert MacFarlane Carroll, Sherbrooke, $3,850; Roland Morton Myers, Antigonish, $4,455; Arnold James Macintosh, Sherbrooke, $4,800; George Harold Mason, Goldenville, $5,100; John Henry MacDonald, Jordanville, $5,500.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
163.	Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,105,745.
164.	Economics and research branch, including research grants and related expenses, $670,030.
165.	Annuities Act administration, $1,242,512.
166.	Industrial relations activities, including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal
Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $610,739.
167.	Civilian rehabilitation branch, including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, In accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $209,850.
Special services-
168.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, and the movement, reception, supervision and welfare of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential employment where Canadian labour is not available to meet the need, $588,786,
Vocational training co-ordination-
169.	Administration, $110,920.
170.	To carry out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act and agreements made thereunder: to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province on terms approved by the governor in council to provide financial assistance to vocational and technical schools and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $9,825,700-Payments to the provinces, $9,525,700.
Government employees compensation-
171.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $98,958.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
172.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act, $35,179,000.
173.	Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $75,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 22, 1959

[Stage Direction]
Third report of sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping-Mr. Rowe.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse) presented the first report of the joint committee on Indian affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to on division.