1959-02-17

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforlh):: I have the honour to present the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations. With unanimous consent of the house I move:
That the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I do not want to divide the house on this matter because it has been discussed at length, but for the same reasons we stated earlier we do not care to decide right away that we should sit while the house is in session. I oppose the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon member is not opposing the motion being put today? The hon. member is not withholding unanimous consent, but is stating his objection to the motion? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Chevrier:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have the honour to present, in English and French, the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs. By unanimous consent I move:
That the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, presented this day, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent Mr. Dinsdale, seconded by Mr. Montgomery, moves that the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, we take the same exception to this procedure with respect to obtaining permission to sit while the house is sitting as we have taken to the previous reports from committees. But in order to retain the nonpartisan approach in this house to the
extremely important question of veterans affairs we will suffer in silence on this occasion.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order here. You have stated in connection with this motion and previous ones that by unanimous consent the motion is made, and you have proceeded to read the motion. Unanimous consent is something that is given or withheld by the hon. members of the house, and it seems to me that the right to withhold unanimous consent should not be taken away. It seems to me that a request should be made for unanimous consent. So there will be no confusion at the moment in the mind of anyone, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I am quite prepared to give unanimous consent on this occasion. However, I do not like the practice being adopted of taking away our right to withhold unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order may I say that each member who has asked leave to make a motion has prefaced his motion by the expression "by unanimous consent". If any member objects, of course the motion cannot be proceeded with. Also, in putting the motion I have indicated that it must be by unanimous consent. As I understand it, unanimous consent is given to the motion being put but of course that does not mean that the motion is carried by unanimous consent. The motion, in the last two cases, has been carried on division. Is that the point to which the hon. member refers?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. My point was that neither the person moving the motion in each instance today nor Mr. Speaker-and I submit this with deference -asked for unanimous consent. Your Honour stated as a statement of fact, "by unanimous consent" and the mover in one case used the word "by" and in the other the word "with".


Mr. Speaker:: It might be more correct to separate the stages. When I state "by unanimous consent" and hear no objection, I proceed to put the motion. Does the house give unanimous consent that this motion be now proceeded with?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1080	HOUSE OF
Tabling of Reply Respecting Peace Treaty


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. Mr. Dinsdale, seconded by Mr. Montgomery moves:
That the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs presented this day be now concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: I have the honour to present the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. By unanimous consent of the house I move:
That the first report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent that this motion be proceeded with?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: I have the honour to present the first report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries. By unanimous consent of the house I move:
That the first report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries presented this day be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent that this motion be proceeded with?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, members of the house will recall that on February 9 I tabled the text of the Soviet note of January 10 to the Canadian government proposing 

a conference of 28 countries, including Canada, to consider a peace treaty with Germany. At the same time I tabled a copy of the draft peace treaty which accompanied the Soviet note.
I now inform the house that the Canadian reply to the Soviet government's note was today handed to the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, and our ambassador to the U.S.S.R. was instructed to deliver a copy to the appropriate authorities in Moscow.
I take this opportunity of tabling copies of the Canadian reply. As members will note, it reflects the government's view that the many questions raised in the Soviet note could most profitably be examined at a conference on all aspects of the German question, in which the four powers who have special responsibilities for Germany, the U.S.S.R., France, the United Kingdom and the United States, would participate. Until the results of this four power meeting have been assessed it would not be useful to take a decision about the holding of a large peace treaty conference attended by Canada and other participants in the war against Germany.
As reported in the press, Mr. Speaker, the governments of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and West Germany yesterday sent their replies to the Soviet goverment's notes of January 10 proposing a German peace treaty. These replies were considered last week in the NATO council, where the attitudes of other NATO members to the Soviet proposals were also discussed. Although differing somewhat in detail, the replies of the four powers are essentially at one in proposing a meeting in the spring of the foreign ministers of the U.S.S.R., France, the United Kingdom and the United States to discuss all aspects of the German problem.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Might I ask the minister whether the four power reply to which he has just referred was considered by the members of the NATO council before it was agreed upon?


Sidney Earle Smith: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has been kept informed of the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the Greek and Turkish governments for an agreed

and peaceful settlement of the Cyprus question, which I am sure everyone in this house earnestly hopes will be achieved; and would the Prime Minister be in a position to make a statement in regard to the negotiations?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition gave me notice of this question, which enables me to give an immediate reply. I cannot, of course, report on the negotiations for an agreed and peaceful solution to the Cyprus question at this time, in view of the fact that the formal tripartite conference seeking to achieve such a solution began its deliberations in London only this morning.
Reports have been received of the discussions which the prime ministers of Greece and Turkey concluded at Zurich last week. They indicate that progress appears to have been made toward a solution of the problem, that there has been a favourable reaction to the Zurich talks in the United Kingdom and Cyprus, and that the results of these talks have at least been accepted as a basis for negotiation at the conference in London. The Canadian government and its partners in the NATO council are hopeful that the negotiations being conducted in London will lead to a just and lasting solution to this complex problem which involves three of our NATO allies.
Today, according to a dispatch, the British foreign secretary, Right Hon. Selwyn Lloyd, announced that there were four factors which are considered by the British government to be basic to any solution of this problem namely: The strategic interests of the United Kingdom in Cyprus must be safeguarded in such a way that they cannot be compromised in the future; the two Cypriot communities must be reconciled; Greco-Turkish friendship must be re-established; the Cypriots themselves must be given the opportunity to establish their own institutions.
Further than that I do not think it is possible to go at this moment.


SAINT JOHN, N.B.-USE OF COAL IN THERMAL PLANT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question is based on a statement made by the chief engineer of the New Brunswick Power Commission, as reported in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of February 12, to the effect that the power commission
Inquiries of the Ministry would save more than $500,000 a year by using oil rather than coal in the East Saint John thermal power plant.
In the light of this statement by the chief engineer, can the minister now reiterate the assurance given to the house last July 1 by the Minister of National Revenue and repeated in the mines, forests and waters committee by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys on July 30 last, that coal would definitely be used in the new thermal power plants built in the maritime provinces, including the East Saint John plant?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I believe this policy of the government was made abundantly clear during the last session, and as yet there has been no change in that policy.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement that there has been no change in that policy, can he explain to this house what is causing the delay in signing a specific agreement with the province of New Brunswick with regard to the East Saint John thermal plant?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The water in the river has been very high this year, and the amount of power produced by the first two units of the Beechwood plant has been so large that the province of New Brunswick saved money by not going ahead with the original plan for the thermal plant at Saint John.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on several recent occasions in the House of Commons to the effect that officials of various government departments are studying the terms of bill
H.R.l. now before the House of Representatives in Washington, may I inquire if any further steps have been taken in relation to that bill by the Canadian government.


Sidney Earle Smith: Officials have substantially completed their study of the purport and contents of the bill known as H.R.l., and I can now inform the house that we are preparing for presentation to the state department in Washington a note of protest against the implementation of this bill.

Inquiries of the Ministry COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT



AGRICULTURE-INQUIRY AS TO EFFECTS OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Minister of Justice, a question of primary importance to the farmers of Canada.
In view of the rapid development of so-called vertical integration, particularly in the production of poultry and dairy products, as a result of financial assistance and marketing facilities provided by packing houses and feed companies to these producers, and in view of the fact that this trend threatens to develop into a monopoly of production markets with prices of these commodities controlled by packing and feed companies, would the minister have a study made of this situation in order to make certain that no violation of the Combines Investigation Act is involved?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: The hon. gentleman was good enough to send me notice of this question. However, owing to other engagements I did not receive it until just before I came into the house. I must say that while a quick study of the implications of the question would indicate that it is one of some importance, the hon. gentleman asks me to take so many "views" that I am unable in the time available on orders of the day to discuss the matter in sufficient detail to give him the kind of answer that his question involves.
I also feel that perhaps I should bring to the attention of the hon. gentleman and of all hon. members opposite the fact that this is the sort of question which does not permit of the kind of reply which should be made on the orders of the day. Indeed, like many questions which have been addressed to us lately, it contains matters of conclusion and opinion which evoke not an answer but a debate.
I would suggest that hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of "viewing" all the things that they do in their questions, should instead view citations 171 to 179 inclusive in Beau-chesne's 4th edition and see how they should frame proper questions on orders of the day.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, after that lecture from the Minister of Justice-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which was long overdue.


Lionel Chevrier: -I shall do my best to so frame my question as not to have it offend against the rules of the house, although-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether the hon. member for Laurier proposes to pursue the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice. If he does I shall be glad to hear him.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, I propose to ask a question, but I was prefacing my question with the remarks I have just made. I was going on to say that the Minister of Justice was impinging upon the rights of Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before I entertain any supplementary question by the hon. member who asked this question, I should like to ask if any hon. member disagrees with the view that this question is out of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if you yourself did not feel you should raise a question of privilege over the usurpation of your functions by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West has a supplementary question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, after having been duly admonished I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the minister realize that my views represent statements of fact, and would he give consideration to those facts when he has the leisure and time to do so?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I was making. The hon. gentleman has stated as matters of fact propositions which I do not at the moment dispute or deny; but before I could answer the question on the basis on which he has put it it would be necessary to enter into a debate as to its implications. That is why I suggest this is not the type of question to ask on orders of the day.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Order. You are not


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Speaker@: I should like to know whether the minister is taking this question as notice or whether he is objecting to answering the question as being out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Take it as notice.


Mr. Fullon:: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could take it as notice, but my point is that it is not the kind of question that should be asked on orders of the day.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Then you should raise a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: If hon. members opposite wish me formally to raise a point of order I shall be glad to do so, and I shall refer them

to some of the citations in Beauchesne, specifically to citations 171 to 179.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hon. gentlemen asked for this. If they do not like it they should not have asked for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We love it.


Lionel Chevrier: Now you are in order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am always in order, unlike the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that citation No. 171 contains certain rules which must not be transgressed in putting a question. I shall refer to only certain of the rules. The citation reads in part:
A question oral or written must not:
(f)	contain an expression of opinion.
This whole question contains expressions of opinions. I continue:
(g)	be hypothetical.
(h)	contain inferences.
(i)	contain imputations.
(j)	be framed so as to suggest its own answer.
(s) embody a series of questions which should
be moved for an address or order.
(w) raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this question clearly transgresses all these points in the citation, but particularly the last one. I would refer hon. gentlemen opposite, because I know that Your Honour knows this, to citation 173, which contains the following passage:
The principle on which the practice has been tolerated in past years should be respected, that is, the reading of long series of questions elaborately prepared is not to be allowed on the orders of the day being called.
There are at least three separate "views" in this question. I would also refer hon. gentlemen opposite to citation 174 referring to a question:
On the 27th May, 1936, a member with the intention of addressing a question to a minister, began to give some explanation about the alleged danger of making a certain mineral area dependent upon the plans of some smelter's company. The Speaker interrupted him and said: "Order. The honourable member ought to understand that he cannot make a speech in asking a question."
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you for the lecture.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -a short selection of some of the ways in which questions on the orders of the day have been asked by hon. members opposite, in each case transgressing the rules of the house.


Murdo William Martin: Thank you.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we on this side have complete confidence in your ability to decide whether or not a question is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: So as not to shatter that confidence immediately, I shall give consideration to this matter and make my ruling tomorrow.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I shall try not to delay the passing of the supplementary estimates, as the Minister of Justice did, in asking a question which I am sure is in order. It is directed to the Minister of Labour. I would ask the minister if he has anything to report on the position of the negotiations between the unions representing the 1,300 employees of the C.B.C. and the C.B.C.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minisler of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct that same question, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, to the Acting Minister of National Revenue.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minisler of National Revenue):: The position is this. There was a mass meeting of the strikers on Sunday, and there is to be a meeting this afternoon between the C.B.C. and representatives of the strikers.
(Translation):



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister considering the advisability of revising certain enactments included in the labour legislation of Canada?
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I wish to inform the hon. member that organizations interested in the act have, at my request, submitted certain suggestions which are now being studied in the Department of Labour as possible amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.

Inquiries of the Ministry



USE OF JUDGES AS CONCILIATORS IN LABOUR DISPUTES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister comment on reports that his department is taking steps with relation to section 37 of the Judges Act to curb or stop judges from serving as conciliators in labour disputes?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, no legislation is contemplated at this session with regard to that matter. I have expressed to various interested persons the concern of the government with respect to the amount of time that judges are sometimes called upon to serve off the bench on extrajudicial matters. No decision has been reached, and in view of the complicated nature of the situation and the important problem to be solved it will probably be some time before any definite steps are taken.



CANADA CAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. Can the Prime Minister confirm the announcement carried in Fort William and Port Arthur newspapers of February 16 and made by George Wardrope, M.P.P. for Port Arthur that the Canadian Car plant in Fort William will not close but will receive a tremendous portion of government contracts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Having been recently referred to citation 171 of Beauchesne, I am reminded by the hon. member's question that it is not according to the rules to cite a statement from a newspaper and ask a minister whether or not it is true. If his question is limited to that, it is not in order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the D.B.S. unemployment figures published yesterday, he can tell the house, pursuant to the observations made by members of the government two weeks ago, when we may be expected to deal with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act do not provide jobs for the unemployed. At the moment we have an item of $15 million in the supplementary estimates which we hope to put through the house so we may be able to recompense the municipalities through the provinces for our share of direct payroll costs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the Minister of Labour not aware that while unemployment insurance assistance does not provide jobs it will provide relief and maintenance for many thousands of people who are out of work?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of that fact. With that in mind the government extended seasonal benefits for an additional two months last session and then an additional six weeks, and the two months extension is now in effect permanently.


REQUEST FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DEBATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is in a position to tell the house when we may expect to have the opportunity to debate external affairs? The house has now been sitting for a little over a month, and perhaps the minister could give some indication of the government's intention with regard to the business of the house in that particular.


Sidney Earle Smith: Such a matter is left to the house leader. I can say that the acceleration of that debate will depend on the prolixity of discussion on the matters coming before the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister not regard my question as one that was put to him in the friendliest terms? Would he, in view of the importance of this matter, think it worth while to discuss the matter with the house leader or possibly with the Prime Minister, whose interest in these matters is understood to be paramount?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to either the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I would think it concerns both departments. It has to do with an article which appeared in the Financial Post of

February 13 in which Canadian Pacific Air Lines is reported as stating that it must give up its air route to Australia unless the agreement with Australia is renewed. The article goes on to state that Canada has nothing to offer Australia-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -following the negotiations that have taken place. In view of this statement, which is a rather serious one having to do with a commonwealth country, has the minister any comment to make?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 I informed the house that the service that had been prevailing between Australia and Canada in respect to air flights had been extended from February 10 to March 11, and I assured the house at that time that Canada was pressing for a continuation of that service. The air agreement between Canada and Australia was signed at Ottawa on June 11, 1946 and it provides for direct air services oetween the two countries. From time to time discussions have taken place as to the frequency and capacity of flights for this direct air service. The frequencies are controlled by licences issued under the agreement by the aeronautical authorities of both countries, and the air agreement has been interpreted somewhat differently in this regard by Canada and Australia.
As I informed the house on February 6, discussions are now taking place with Australia to resolve these licensing difficulties, and every effort will be made by the government to maintain reasonable conditions for the Canadian air carrier operating over this route.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Public Works but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Prime Minister. Because of the importance of the Moosonee harbour project to the future development of Canada, and northern Ontario in particular, can the Prime Minister say whether an agreement respecting this development has been reached with the government of Ontario? If not, will he comment on the progress of these negotiations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize the great importance to the province of Ontario of the establishment of this port. I can add nothing
Supply-Labour
to what has already been said in that connection. No agreement has been entered into.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister give us any information on negotiations with United States officials over protests by that country respecting the policy of her department to enforce direct entry of European immigrants into Canada?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has received a considerable amount of consideration by the department. I was under the impression that the last conference we had with the officials concerned had been amicably concluded. That conference was some months ago. If something else has occurred since that time I would be glad to secure a further report for my hon. friend.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My question has reference to a meeting that was held a week ago today. The United States comment arising from that meeting was to the effect that the Canadian proposal is thoroughly impractical. I wonder if the minister would check and see if that was the reaction of United States officials?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have already said I would be glad to get a report on that matter.

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



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
709. Payments to a province during 1958-59 and 1959-60 fiscal years in accordance with an agreement entered into by the government of Canada and the province, with the approval of the governor in council, that provides for contributions by the government of Canada of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 1st day of December, 1958, to the 30th day of April, 1959, on winter work projects in municipalities as contemplated by the agreement, $15,000,000.
Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, when last we had this item before us I was indicating-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I wonder if those members who are leaving the house would please do so quietly so we may hear the hon. member who has the floor.


Erhart Regier: I was indicating on Friday of last week, when our consideration of this item was interrupted, that in my opinion

Supply-Labour
there are two serious national economic issues lacing us at this time. One is the matter of inflation, and the other is the matter of unemployment. I believe that is fairly well recognized in all parts of the house. We have not yet heard the government's program to deal with the matter of inflation. However, we hope to hear of that at the time the budget is presented.
We have here an indication that the program for dealing with unemployment is very limited indeed. The very name by which this matter is commonly known is an indication of the limited nature of the program that is being offered, because it is commonly referred to as the winter works program. Unemployment in Canada at the present time is much more serious than something that would be taken care of by merely a winter works program. We need a more basic solution than that.
However, even though this is the only specific solution being offered at this time, we in this group will not hesitate to support the vote of $15 million here requested. We feel that this program, limited though it is, would have been much more effective had it been offered to the provinces and to the municipalities much earlier. We regret also that the terms limit participation by the federal government in this relief project to a period of only five months of the year. We know from all indications, and especially in the light of the figures that were revealed only yesterday, that we will have a serious unemployment problem in the month of May, at which time this program will have ended.
We regret that the program is not extensive enough, and is very limited in the number and type of projects that can be included. We realize that the number of unemployed who are going to receive help, who are going to be supplied with employment under this measure, is a very small portion of the hundreds of thousands who are actually unemployed. We realize that this measure meets only to a small degree the larger needs of municipalities which they are hoping to meet by participation in this program.
Looking at the amount of money asked for, Mr. Chairman, and doing a little arithmetic of our own, we find that we are being asked for $15 million to supply assistance for five months. This means $3 million per month. The expectation of the minister is that normal wages are going to be paid, at least normal wages, and I am very pleased to note that he made mention of that. If we assume that $300 per month will be paid for the five months period, according to my arithmetic that only gives employment to about 10,000 men in Canada. If you have $15 million

divided by five and divided by $300 per month, you arrive at 10,000 men employed.
I fail to reconcile that with the very hopeful prediction of the minister last week when he indicated that with only half the money used thus far he was already assured of 22,712 men being employed. I hope the minister will at some later point be able to reconcile the great variation that exists between dividing $15 million by five, divided by $300 per month, resulting in 10,000 men being given assistance, and his statement. The minister told us that with apparently only half the expected projects in yet, and with only half the money being used, he already arrives at a figure twice as large as the one at which I arrived.
If we provide employment to 10,000 men of the 500,000 who are unemployed, we are only assisting 2 per cent of the unemployed of Canada. Even if the minister's prediction is borne out, and for every man given employment on-site there will be three men given employment off-site, we would only be giving assistance to about 8 per cent of the unemployed of Canada.
One of our major complaints about this program is that it involves a heavy and costly burden on our municipalities. There have been so many estimates made the portion of these projects which consists of labour costs that one finds it difficult to arrive at a decision. The minister gave us an estimate of some 38 per cent. I do not know what kind of a hat that particular forecast was grabbed from, but from the information I have been able to obtain from municipal officers in many parts of Canada, labour costs on these winter works projects will run from a low of 2J per cent to a high of 12 per cent.
When we consider that this offer means that Ottawa will pay only one-half the cost of labour, it means that the labour cost involved that Ottawa will pay in relation to the cost of the undertaking as a whole is somewhere from 1.25 per cent of the cost to a high of 6.25 per cent. To take the smaller figure, with $15 million on the part of the federal government this means that our municipalities, if they wish to take full advantage of this offer, will be obliged to expend the sum of $1,170 million; or even if we take the more optimistic forecast, namely that one eighth of the cost of these projects is labour content, then for the $15 million that Ottawa is willing to spend or is prepared to spend, our municipalities will be obliged to spend $210 million.
If these figures are anywhere nearly accurate, Mr. Chairman, then I must say at

this time that even the old municipal improvements assistance act which was instituted in the hungry thirties by a former government was of far greater value to the municipalities, both as a relief of unemployment measure and also as a local improvement measure, than this present winter works program.
I must say this. What is $15 million of an investment by this federal government when we consider the fantastic loss to the national wealth in having half a million people unemployed even for one day? In one day we lose $6 million of wealth as the result of half a million people being unemployed. If we keep half a million Canadians unemployed for the five months to which this item refers, then the national economy will have lost $600 million of wealth. Yet we have in office a government which in its efforts to avoid this huge loss as a result of unemployment can offer only $15 million.
On Friday the minister gave us some statistics. For the $15 million the federal government is intending to spend, he said there had already been submitted accepted projects totalling $57 million, of which he claimed that 38 per cent would be in labour expenditure. The federal government's share of that amount, he said, would come to $7,751,000. Even accepting the minister's estimates, this federal government is offering to pay some $7 million out of an expenditure of $57 million. Mr. Chairman, this does not look to me as though this government is accepting much responsibility, when the offer is made to our hard-pressed municipalities that this government will spend $7 million if the municipalities will agree to spend $50 million out of their own resources.
Again accepting the minister's figures, we find that he says this will give employment of 1,226,358 man days. Dividing this figure by five, then dividing it by four and dividing it again by five months, according to the minister's own estimate we find it producing aid to 12,264 men for five months. I hope the minister will explain how at the beginning of his talk he predicted employment for over 20,000 men if half this money was going to be spent, indicating indirectly employment for 40,000 men. Taking the number of man days he mentioned, dividing by five because there are five work days in the week, and dividing by four because there are four weeks in the month, and then dividing by five again because five months is the average period this project is intended to serve, you come to only 12,264 men for a five-month period. That is taking the minister's own estimate and the number of man days of employment that are going to be given.
Supply-Labour
Even taking the minister's own estimate we must come to the conclusion that only 5 per cent, and not more than 5 per cent at most, of the unemployed in Canada are going to receive assistance from this measure. It is hardly sufficient in this day and age for a federal government of Canada to say to 100 unemployed men, "Look, we cannot help you all; we will help five out of the one hundred." That is hardly in keeping with concepts and expectations that have been built up in Canada over many long years now, beginning with the green book offer of 1945 that the federal government should assume all responsibility for all employable unemployed in Canada. It is certainly not in line with the expectations that were raised among the Canadian electorate before the election of either 1957 or 1958.
We now get the advice, "Yes, you will get a little bit of help from Ottawa, provided you are prepared to load a fantastic tax burden on the homes of Canadians living within your municipality". That is in effect what this offer amounts to. The minister is offering $7 million if municipal councils are willing to saddle the home owners with a debt burden of $50 million. That is what this offer amounts to, based on the minister's own estimate. Even if his estimate is right, I maintain that this is expecting far too much of our municipal officials, who have reached about the limit of the taxes they can impose back home where the debt burden of the municipalities is coming close to the maximum.
I should like to refer to one statement made by the minister as reported at page 1018 of Hansard. He stated in effect that this plan was evolved out of a meeting on unemployment called last summer, and a later meeting with the mayors and reeves of our municipalities. Referring to the municipal officials who were in Ottawa he had this to say, as reported at page 1018 of Hansard:
In other words, they felt they could proceed with some of their municipal projects in the winter time provided the additional cost was offset by a contribution from the federal government.
It may well have been that when the minister urged the municipalities to undertake public works in the winter months, they put before him the argument that winter construction costs are higher, and the idea may have been expressed that some compensation ought to be paid. However, I am sure the mayors and reeves never meant to convey the idea that, as municipalities, they were willing to assume the burden of unemployment relief works and that all they were asking was that the extra costs caused by winter weather should be borne by the federal government. These figures I have spoken

Supply-Labour
of indicate that all Ottawa seems prepared to do is to carry the extra burden caused by our inclement winter weather. Mr. Chairman, this whole program is too small a share of too limited a program, arriving much too late in the season to be of any major assistance in the matter of unemployment.


Mr. Valade:: May I ask a question of the
hon. member who has just sat down. When the hon. member mentioned that only 10,000 men were going to be employed with the money voted by the federal government, did he take into account the number of persons who would be employed in the industries supplying the materials and machinery to do this work in the cities of Canada?


Erhart Regier: Yes, I did. I indicated why,
and I also had a full appreciation-and I said so in my remarks had the hon. member been listening-of the claim of the minister that for every one directly employed there would be three employed in off-site jobs, and I am not arguing with that at all.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Chairman, I wish only to take a moment, because this legislation under discussion will most certainly pass. I would like to suggest to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that it should not to be construed to this house or to the people of Canada that there is any general dissatisfaction with this item. I have here one example, and there are many others. This is a letter from the Calgary labour council; a member of a body which I believe my hon. friends are intending to court, with apparently no success as yet, in the labour movement of Canada. In the opening paragraph this letter states very clearly that they commend the government for taking this action, and in a subsequent paragraph they say that they feel the result of this policy is good. In the Calgary area approximately $2J million will be approved, which will of course materially help to reduce unemployment. That is but one example.


Mr. Howard:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Arthur Smith: Yes, when I
am through.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I only wanted to ask, would he table the letter?


Arthur Smith: Yes, I will be very happy to do so. As I was saying, this is but one example of the attitude of a great number of organizations in connection with the success of this program. I think the house must keep in mind that this is but one of the moves which are being made to answer,

at least in part, the problem of unemployment as it faces Canada today. It is not a whole program in itself but only a contribution to it.
I think, too, Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet I would like to make a suggestion in recognition of the problem as it affects certain areas, based on their climatic conditions or geographical position in our country. I think any future consideration of a program of this type should keep in mind that it is difficult, with sub-zero temperatures, to take full advantage of the offer which in effect is going to require the extensive supplying of concrete for sidewalks and other works which can be included in this entire program.
I also have a letter from the association of professional engineers. They make a suggestion which I think is worth while to consider, that the construction of roads and streets being to some extent impracticable because of climatic conditions in certain areas, such construction work as building homes for the aged and hospitals should be considered. In other words, Mr. Chairman, what I am suggesting is that some flexibility in a future program of this type should recognize the difficulty which exists in sub-zero areas of Canada taking complete and full advantage of the suggestions which were offered, I believe very generously, by the government.
I also think, in the same sphere, that consideration should be given to providing assistance in the development of plans and engineering designs, because many municipalities will not have undertaken at an early stage some of the major projects upon which they would like to commence work. These two suggestions I offer in the hope that if a future offer is made in any other year, considerations can be given to them.


Mr. Houck:: Mr. Chairman, I know all the members of the house will agree with me when I say that I think one of the greatest catastrophes which could befall any person is the loss of employment whereby he or she provides the means of subsistence for his or her family. It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I want to say a few words in regard to this item.
I think I can speak with some feeling, without boasting whatsoever, because I have had some experience as mayor of Niagara Falls. I think the Minister of Labour will agree with me when I say that one of the drawbacks and one of the reasons we have to prepare some sort of plan for winter unemployment is the fact that automation has stepped in. The advanced machinery age has stepped in, which deprives a lot of men of work throughout the winter. It was not too many years ago when in

Niagara Falls, when we had a snowstorm, we would hire about 200 to 250 men and take quite a few days clearing the snow away. Now with three snow loaders and a number of trucks we can do the same job with 10 or 12 men, and they certainly take the place of manpower.
I think one of the things we must impress upon ourselves is that too many people are looking to the higher levels of government, rightly so or not, for work to be provided. I believe this is a co-operative affair. I feel that the municipalities, the provincial governments and the federal government must cooperate; and not only that but industry, whether large or small, and municipalities must also co-operate in this matter.
There are certainly a lot of jobs that can be done, as the previous speaker said, in the winter but which are done either in the spring, summer or fall. I have a friend who is a large contractor. He always said to me, and I will never forget it, "I try to do the jobs in the summer which I can do. There are only two jobs I can't do in the winter, and they are anything in regard to soil and outside painting. I do the construction, the basic work, in the summer and fall and leave the inside work for the winter so I can provide employment for my men". I was also talking to another contractor, who said, "I try to hire men who have a dual capacity as mason and plasterer. I do the work outside in the summer and fall, the masonry, the soil and painting work, and then I put these masons plastering and painting inside during the winter."
I think this is all bogey talk. We hear so many people say you cannot do a certain job in the winter, that it must be done in the summer. Manufacturers as well as governments have to learn that almost 90 per cent of the jobs can be done in the winter as well as summer.
What does the Department of Labour say about seasonal unemployment? The Department of Labour refers to seasonal unemployment regarding economic and social waste in these terms:
Seasonal unemployment in real terms means Inability to utilize available manpower and productive capacity and maladjustments in the allocation of resources, all of which impose additional cost on the economy.
Seasonal unemployment, like most any other type, creates a feeling of insecurity and dissatisfaction on the part of those who bear it most directly.
Mr. Chairman, it has been said by the hon. member for the C.C.F. party that there are some objections to this plan. In the first place, it is too little and it is too late. In the second 66968-8-69
Supply-Labour
place, a lot of the municipalities cannot afford it. In the third place, many municipalities are not taking proper advantage of it even if they can afford it. But I think a point which is of paramount importance is the fact that municipalities cannot afford the supplies. If the government had included supplies I am sure many, many more municipalities would have taken advantage of this program.
Now, I want to say to the Minister of Labour that I think he did a very fine thing when he called that conference last July. I congratulated him at that time, because I thought it was a proper thing to do with unemployment coming, as it was sure to, this winter. But people who attend conventions, and I have been to plenty of them, go to them full of pep and enthusiasm and say, "Oh, yes, we will do this and we will do that". They pass all kinds of resolutions about what they intend to do, but the moment the door of the conference hall is closed behind them they lose their enthusiasm and lose the vigour with which they were holding forth about the ideas promoted at the convention.
If there is one criticism which can be made of the minister it is this. It can certainly be said of him that he was too late in getting the instructions out to the municipalities. My colleague the hon. member for Essex East asked on a number of occasions in August if a report had been received by the cabinet in connection with this convention, and the minister replied that it had not. The municipalities received a telegram from the Prime Minister in the last week of October. We on this side certainly thought the conference should have been held in time to enable plans to be formed. Plans should have been in the hands of the various municipalities by the end of September at the latest, because the municipal governments must know on what basis they are to plan, they must study their budgets and be given information as to what lies ahead. In this respect the Minister of Labour has a most important task on his hands.
May I offer this suggestion to the minister, and I do so with all possible friendliness; in fact, I should like to offer him two or three suggestions. First of all, he should call together the ministers of labour of the various provincial governments and have them meet here in Ottawa as soon as possible to talk over not only the question of winter unemployment but the subject of unemployment in general. The ministers of labour should then return to their provincial governments, call in the reeves and mayors of the various municipalities and discuss at once

Supply-Labour
with them the answer to the problem which is bound to be presented by unemployment next winter.
There is a further suggestion I should like to make to the minister, and I think it is a feasible one. The hon. member for Calgary South has referred here to work being carried on in April and May. We have this problem arising in Niagara Falls, namely that it is almost impracticable to undertake work on sidewalks and similar projects in the month of April. The same is true, I know, in other municipalities, and I hope the minister will endeavour to persuade the government to agree that this work can be carried on until at least June 1, in order that more municipalities may be able to take advantage of this provision and go ahead with their schemes.
I often wonder about this situation, and sometimes I shudder to think of it. Suppose the Liberal party were responsible for the government at the present time, and suppose unemployment were as high as it is today-* of course it would not be as high if the Liberals were in power. I shut my eyes and imagine how the Minister of Labour, in his genial way, would criticize us. Certainly the hon. lady who is now Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would be at our heels almost every day complaining about the situation as, I have no doubt, would the Minister of Finance. He would be doing his homework every night in an effort to find arguments to direct against us, using the same arguments that we are using now.
Hon. members opposite may ask us, what are you offering as a solution? Well, there are two or three suggestions which I am offering toward a solution, and with regard to the first of these I believe the Minister of Finance will be in agreement with me. This is an old chestnut. I have heard many fine speeches in this house and many fine arguments advanced in favour of the elimination of the automobile tax. The Minister of Finance certainly made some when he was in opposition, and I am sure if the government could see fit to remove this tax it would have splendid results in keeping men at work. Cars would at once become cheaper, and many more people would be buying them.
I should like to point out to the committee that there are almost half a million people connected with the automotive industry, which provides about one in ten of all the jobs available in the country. When one considers that we have in Canada over 5,000 automobile dealers, well over 15,000 independent garages and over 18,000 service stations, the importance of this industry to employment becomes apparent.

There is another thought which occurs to me, and perhaps in speaking about this I am being somewhat selfish because the problem arises in the Niagara district more acutely than anywhere else. We could put a lot of men at work in the Niagara district if it were not for the 25 per cent duty imposed by the United States government on crushed stone. If this duty could be removed at least half a million tons of crushed stone per year, and perhaps twice this amount, could be sold to a value of almost $1,500,000. This naturally would mean more winter work, more work for truck operators, loaders and others.
There is a large potential market for crushed stone in the United States, particularly in the Niagara Falls, Buffalo and Cleveland areas, but unfortunately with this 25 per cent duty we cannot compete. If the minister would get together with his counterpart in Washington with a view to eliminating this duty the result would go a long way toward eliminating unemployment in the Niagara district. The latest figures which are available to me show that in 1956 Canada imported from the United States crushed stone to the value of $1,162,900, while Canadian exports to the United States amounted to a little over $49,000. There is obviously room for Canada to benefit in this direction.
There is a further matter, and I believe the Minister of Finance will agree with what I have to say on this subject also, because he is as familiar with the subject as I am. I spoke about it during the debate on the speech from the throne. I believe one of the ways by which the federal government could help relieve unemployment would be by restricting the dumping and unfair importation of cutlery and plastics from the United States and Japan. In the last two weeks the silverware companies of Niagara Falls have had to lay off another 150 men, because no silverware made in Canada can possibly compete successfully against products manufactured at very low cost due to the poor wages and inhuman conditions governing the employment of Japanese workers.
I might point out that the soap companies, which as hon. members may know include prizes and premiums with their products, have not put into their packages a single piece of silver made by companies in Niagara Falls for a very long time, whereas two years ago they were buying large quantities of this merchandise from Niagara Falls. If we could recover this trade it would mean employment for 400 or 500 men.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to have to remind the hon. member for

Niagara Falls that we are discussing a contribution toward labour costs by the federal government, not generalities or importations which are subject to customs and tariff duties.


William Limburg Houck: Well, I will try to get the engine back on the track if I can. I appreciate your correction, Mr. Chairman, but I was pointing out one way of increasing employment in Niagara Falls. If these men are to be put back at work we must certainly offset the consequences of importing this type of product from Japan.
Winter unemployment, as I need hardly point out, has a most unfortunate moral effect. A man walks the streets all day and when he comes home his wife asks him, have you got a job? The man says he has failed to find work, and this is the cause of many wrecked homes. Many of our younger generation, after walking the streets looking for jobs in vain, are tempted to turn to occupations which are less than honest. The prisons are filled with people who were trying to find some substitute for honesty. If we could make more winter employment available it would go a long way toward coping with this problem.
I want to pay my respects to the government, and through the government to the Minister of Public Works. When the estimates were tabled a week or so ago I learned that they included provision for a new post office and a new unemployment insurance building in Niagara Falls. May I urge the minister to get the projects under way as soon as possible so the outside work may be done this coming summer and thus provide plenty of employment for workers in this area. At the same time I would urge him to start construction of the new post office at Stevensville, which would provide that small community with work during the winter. I know that the construction of two large buildings of this nature in Niagara Falls will assist in alleviating the unemployment problem there.
The worst thing that can happen to an employed man or an unemployed man is to become a victim of fear with respect to whether or not he can adequately provide for his family. The workers of Canada are contributing to the development of our country. We want them to feel a sense of justifiable pride in the work they are doing so they can throw back their shoulders and stick out their chests content in the knowledge that they are making a valuable contribution to the nation. It is important that they do not become victims of discouragement or fear. Above all we must not permit them to lose faith in Canada.
66968-9-69J
Supply-Labour
I wish to refer again to winter unemployment in Niagara Falls. I have in my hand a statement made by the mayor of Niagara Falls in his inaugural address delivered during the first week of January, in which he said:
In the beginning of 1958 there were 1,937 males and 1,042 females or a total of 2,979 persons registered at the local employment office for the area. Of the persons registered 2,880 were drawing assistance.
I might explain that the area embraces Niagara Falls, Chippewa and Stamford. The mayor went on to explain that as of December 24, 1958 there were 2,175 males and 1,248 females or a total of 3,423 persons registered, and of this total 3,272 persons were drawing assistance. This certainly indicates a very serious unemployment problem. He then went on to discuss the plans of the city of Niagara Falls concerning the construction of sewers and water mains at an estimated cost of $109,000, of which the city's share is $86,300, with a view to relieving the situation.
I believe it would be interesting to the committee to present a comparison of the portion of direct relief paid by the city, which of course is 20 per cent, to the amount received from the federal government through this plan designed to alleviate unemployment. I have prepared a table showing a breakdown of the construction of a 6-inch water main and a 24-inch sewer, showing the number of man hours of unskilled labour represented in each project, the amount to be paid by the city and the amount of direct relief paid by the city. The table is based on a wage rate of $1.25 per hour in accordance with the regulations which provide that the wages paid on any project eligible for assistance must be the current wages for that type of work prevailing in each community. The portion payable by the city for direct relief is based on a family of five-a husband and wife and three children-for whom the maximum monthly payment is $162. The table is as follows:
No. of Man	Portion of
Hours Amt. to be Direct Relief Unskilled Paid by Paid by
Item	Labour City (25%) City (20%)
6-inch water
main	 1,092	$340.00	$205 74
24-inch
sewer ...	1,964	615.00	366.12
There are countless opportunities for employment in Canada through the inauguration of various projects. Some 30 years ago Canada was just a child or a young boy. In the last 30 years our nation has grown to manhood, and is the envy and admiration of all countries of the world. Certainly the

Supply-Labour
payment of $15 million to provide employment represents just a peanut policy on the part of the government, if I may use that vernacular expression. I presume that with the share contributed by the provinces the payment will be in the neighbourhood of $30 million, which is still just a drop in the bucket.
We have heard much talk about vision. I hope all hon. members in this chamber have vision and I know they have, but vision must lead to concentrated and vigorous action in order to be effective. I know the Minister of Labour will certainly give us some action if he is permitted to do so. May I say to that hon. gentleman in a friendly spirit that I appreciate that he recognizes the plight of the unemployed. He represents a riding that has serious unemployment problems, and he is as familiar as any hon. member in this committee with the problems besetting his constituents.
May I use the parlance of the automobile industry in directing my next remarks to him, and I do so because his riding is the centre of a large automobile industry. In all seriousness I suggest to him that he should change the type of gasoline used in the machine of his department and in the cabinet of his government as well. Let us get the machine out of neutral and put it into high. If I were in his place I would start feeding the members of the cabinet tranquilizing pills. I realize that all ministers are proud and jealous of their departments, but in my opinion the department of the Minister of Labour is one of the most important in the federal government. I believe he is doing an excellent job in his department, but he is running up against a bulwark of jealousy in the cabinet because some of the ministry are jealous of their departments and want more money for them.
The minister has shown a great deal of fighting spirit within this chamber in the last few weeks, and I urge him to take that kind of spirit into the cabinet and demonstrate to the other ministers that there is a need of more money for unemployment relief projects. If this were done I am sure the minister would win the gratitude of all Canadians.
In all seriousness I say that the workers who are contributing to the building of Canada today have the same spirit that animated their forefathers of old when they molded a great dominion out of a vast wilderness. However, the Canadian workman must have his fear of unemployment dispelled. He must

be offered the encouragement of increased employment opportunities in order to make Canada the great nation it potentially is.
We have heard much talk about the north, and I congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on his vision concerning the potentialities of the north. I hope his vision will soon become a reality involving the establishment of new homes, factories and jobs in our country. Perhaps the old saying "Go west, young man, go west" will become "Go north, young man, go north".
May I assure the Minister of Labour that Her Majesty's loyal opposition is behind him 100 per cent in whatever he may do for the unemployed. We hope he will win the cooperation of his cabinet colleagues in bringing in additional unemployment relief projects so that Canada may become the great country it deserves to be.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to talk very long, but 1 should like to congratulate the government which, through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), has made $15 million available to the municipalities for wintertime municipal projects.
I may say to the minister that the city of Joliette has taken advantage of that offer and is very happy about it. Indeed in a recent letter to me, mayor Camille Roussin said that the city was satisfied with the assistance it had obtained from the federal government. May I point out, too, Mr. Chairman, that there is less unemployment in Joliette now than there was last year at the same date. So, when I hear hon. members of the opposition talk about recession, crisis and unemployment, I like to refer to the debates of the House of Commons and particularly to a speech made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who was then member for Stormont. During the 1937 session, the present member for Laurier, who was then member for Stormont said, as recorded on page 61 of Hansard:
At the present time, the working masses are suffering;
So stated the hon. member for Laurier who was then member for Stormont. And who was in power at the time? None other than the Liberal government.
On referring to the speech then made by the hon. member, recorded on page 63 of Hansard for January 18, 1937, here is what

the hon. member for Stormont, now member for Laurier, said, and yet it was the Liberal government that was in power at the time:
During the depression, Mr. Speaker, many corporations pay and are still paying enormous salaries to their directors, and hand out huge dividends to their shareholders, but they failed and are still failing to pay to their employees a just and equitable wage . ..
The time has come, to my mind, when there should be state intervention.
And the hon. member for Stormont went on to say:

this house holds in its hand a powerful weapon with which it might strike, and that is the tariff. Many industries are in need of a protective tariff. There are some which could not carry on without it. I believe that every legitimate industry should be protected, but upon the distinct understanding that it will pass on to its employees in the way of better wages and better working conditions, the benefits of this tariff so ardently sought.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the statements made by hon. members in the opposition are somewhat at variance with what they said when they were in power.
And going back a little farther still in Hansard, I note that during the 1939 session-


The Chairman:: Order. I do not see that the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) have much to do with the item now under discussion. I think that to be in order the hon. member should get much closer to the matter under consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, subject to your agreement, I would ask that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm be allowed to go on-though I do not know whether he is in order-but I would like him to continue reading into the record that speech I made at the time, because it did not have the meaning that the hon. member suggests. The purpose of the speech was to place before the house the social conditions existing at the time, and the whole speech deals with this matter. I also described at the time the Church's social doctrine in connection with workers and industry in Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Stormont was speaking in terms of recession at the time he was discussing unemployment, and the trouble workers were having in finding jobs. In a word, he was talking in terms of a depression, and yet it was his government that was in power at the time.
Supply-Labour
To go on, Mr. Chairman, here is a statement made by the hon. member for Stormont on June 22, 1938, as recorded on page 4154 of Hansard:
And incidentally, Mr. Chairman-
The recession in the United States began some time during the summer of 1937, and because of our intimate relations with our neighbour to the south, soon afterwards we began to feel the effects of that change. But let me say, sir, that this government took what I believe to be adequate and immediate steps to meet that oncoming recession. It at once brought down legislation providing for a works program. It caused to be passed the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, by which $30,000,000 was made available to municipalities in this country for self-liquidating projects.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is discussing the economic situation in general terms, and this is neither the time nor the moment to start a debate on economic conditions. The hon. member's remarks must bear on the matter now under consideration, and strictly in that order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make those few remarks. I shall have the opportunity to speak again on that matter in due course, but I wish to say that our hon. friends who now criticize the government, would speak of depression, recession, tariff and of our business relations with the United States, while they were in office.
I congratulate the Minister of Labour for having made $15 million available to municipalities. The city of Joliette has taken advantage of a share of this sum, as many other municipalities are doing now.


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate, I do not propose to refer to speeches made in 1937 or 1935 or even 1930, but I wish to point out to my hon. friend that, when he said that the number of unemployed had decreased by 2,212, thus trying to show-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I never said that.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I did not write down the actual statements made by the hon. member because, first of all, they were always out of order; but he certainly said that there were fewer unemployed in the city of Joliette.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: True.


Maurice Bourget: Well, I would remind my hon. friend that if he refers to statistics just supplied by the national employment service,

Supply-Labour
he will realize that in January a record number of people in the country were looking for employment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Order.


Maurice Bourget: And if we resort-this is not out of order, Mr. Chairman, I think that the purpose of this item is precisely to provide jobs for the unemployed-and I would point out to my hon. friend that if he is satisfied that there is a decrease of 2,000 in the number of applications, well he is satisfied with very little.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss briefly this vote of about $15 million; I say about $15 million because I understand that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) himself, even with the figures he now has in hand, cannot tell us exactly if the amount will be $10, $12 or $15 million. However, the vote under consideration represents part of the cost of winter works undertaken by municipalities since the 1st of December last year up to April 30 this year. This will be the federal government's share and, as we all know, it represents only 50 per cent of the labour costs.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go against this vote, for I have much regard for the likeable minister; I do know that down deep he realizes that the bad cause he has to defend today is embarrassing to him, because he surely knows, as we all do, that this plan-as was stated and as it must be repeated

was taken too late, and is altogether inadequate.
Besides, in the remarks I made during the debate on the speech from the throne-as my friends from Quebec know-I gave as an example the city of Quebec whose authorities had considered undertaking projects worth $500,000. However, when city engineers went over those projects they found that the projects would cost the city an extra $5,000 even taking into account the share that the federal government was to pay by way of help to the municipality. That is why the mayor of Quebec said at the time that it was a bad deal for the city and that, if the city went ahead with them, it was only to give jobs to a few unemployed because, according to available information, those works amounting to $400,000 or $500,000 would not provide employment for more than 100 or 200 people, and for only three months.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister must admit that it is doing very little to give a

city like Quebec the opportunity of providing work for only 100 or 200 persons now out of a job, especially when we consider, according to the latest statistics given by the national employment service, that there are at present in the city of Quebec 18,000 persons looking for jobs.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, the city of Quebec has not been the only municipality to complain. Canada's metropolis, the city of Montreal, has done likewise. In fact the Montreal Star of January 31 reported that a special committee had been set up by the Montreal city authorities to consider the program put forward by the federal government.
In their first report to the executive committee, the members of that committee said that the step was inadequate. They went on to say that the restrictive clauses contained in the proposal to the municipalities precluded the city of Montreal from taking full advantage of it, and they enumerated at the same time those restrictive clauses: First, the 50 per cent offered was limited to labour costs.
Second, no payments would be made on these works after April 30, although some of the projects might not yet be completed.
Third, the grants applied to certain types of public works, but not to building construction.
On this point, I was pleased, a few moments ago, to hear the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) drawing the minister's attention to this situation, and asking that the act be broadened so as to provide more employment and to give municipalities an opportunity to submit other projects that might provide more work for workers who are now unemployed.
Fourth, members of the committee also mentioned that the government's financial help did not apply to regular employees of a city, who would normally be unemployed if they were not given work on those jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I think when you have the authorities of the metropolis of Canada and of the capital city of our province claiming, with proof in hand, that those projects do not meet present needs, you have reason to say that our municipalities were justified in complaining.
Mr. Chairman, the Liberal party has been charged on different occasions with making destructive criticism. Well, the members of the committee established by the city of

Montreal were neither friends of the Liberal party, nor opponents of the government; the committee included well qualified engineers and contractors like J. B. Sterling, Mr. C. A. Duranceau, director of municipal services, Mr. Lucien Hetu, director of public works, Mr. Lucien L'Allier and Mr. Bernard Beau-pre, engineer. I also want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that this report embodies exactly the same arguments that we, on this side of the house, have been putting forward ever since we have known the terms of the program that the federal government has offered to municipalities in order to help the unemployed.
Mr. Chairman, there is an extremely important point that has been mentioned earlier and that I wish to emphasize. Through this winter work program all the responsibility falls on the municipalities; we all know that at the moment municipalities lack the necessary financial resources to undertake such works. We also know that municipalities that wish to co-operate and undertake winter works have to borrow if they do not have the required money, and nowadays they have to pay at least 6 per cent interest. This reminds me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated that he quite understood the difficulties which the municipalities had to face, as evidenced by a report published on February 26, 1958 in the newspaper Le Droit, which says:
Mr. Diefenbaker has stated that the government is aware of the difficult financial situation which the municipalities are facing. We shall see, he stated, that they get a fair share of taxes, so they can meet the new requirements resulting from their rapid growth.
According to Mr. Diefenbaker, tax-sharing will have to be studied carefully by the governments concerned. The government is willing to adopt a program of assistance to municipalities, in the light of that study and of the recommendations made by the provincial governments.
It seems to me that the federal government had a fine opportunity, following the announcement of that project, to provide assistance to the municipalities, in offering them to share the cost of that winter works program; and yet, the municipalities are shouldering the greater part of the responsibility.
In fact, a heading in La Presse of February 10, 1959, caught my eye. It said:
Federal help, $43,000 for works amounting to $1,118,000 in Montreal.
This means less than 4 per cent of the cost of the works. I do not intend to argue
Supply-Labour
with the hon. minister about the 38 or 40 per cent which, according to him, represents the cost of labour for those works. But when I quote such an example, where the federal government gives only $43,000 for works amounting to $1,118,000, I am at a loss to understand that the cost of labour for those projects, which have been submitted and concurred in by both the provincial and federal governments, should represent 38 or 40 per cent.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I believe the government would have been well advised to act on the suggestion we made last year: i.e. set up a municipal loan fund, to provide for long-term loans designed to finance large scale municipal improvements. The municipalities would thus have had at their disposal the necessary funds and could at once have undertaken such works as those suggested by the present government. But the government did not do so, and I believe that, under the circumstances, it must take the blame for not having done so.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Bourget: Before closing-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Maurice Bourget: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member say why his government, having been in power for a quarter century, never initiated such a loan fund?


Maurice Bourget: I must say to my hon. friend that we never had to face an unemployment crisis such as the present one, and that moreover, there was legislation on the statutes allowing municipalities to borrow money, as I mentioned, I believe, last December or last May, when I spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Another point I would draw to the hon. minister's attention is that, according to page 1018 of Hansard of February 13, the hon. minister had this to say:
Projects are still being submitted and processed. There has been no delay. In addition to the onsite jobs, employment has been provided for many more people engaged in the manufacture of materials and supplies and working in other trades and transportation and other services that are involved. It is estimated by those interested in these projects that the figure of 22,712 workers can be tripled in order to arrive at the number who are participating in the program.
Well, I do hope that in quoting this figure, the minister was not trying to lead the

Supply-Labour
people to believe that this winter works program gave employment to 22,712 unemployed, because I would say between 75 to 80 per cent of these projects were sewer and waterworks jobs.
And of course, it goes without saying that if such works are undertaken by municipalities or contractors, they will certainly be done by regular employees. This shows clearly that the figure of 22,000 does not mean that the number of unemployed has decreased by
22,000	as a result of that program. Moreover, the minister said that we should multiply that figure by three to determine the number of people who would thus be employed. Here again I believe that the hon. minister is mistaken. If he is thinking of those working in the industries producing the building materials required, he will realize that those are regular employees. This shows that this program did not give the results the government expected, and that the government is responsible for that situation.
(Text):


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to make a couple of comments about this particular item from the point of view of the effect it has on the constituency I represent and its effect generally. The first indication that the country had that such a program was going to be entered into was a telegram from the Prime Minister to the various provinces. I think we should attempt to analyse what the basic design behind that telegram was in addition to letting the provinces know that the federal government was willing to enter into projects of this type on a cost-sharing basis. What it was designed to do-and it did this- was to leave the impression with the general public that the federal government was going to participate in 50 per cent of the costs with the municipalities on certain types of projects.


An hon. Member:: Labour costs.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My hon. friend can take his own time to make his own speech on his own feet without interrupting me and misinterpreting what I say. The impression that was left in the country was that the federal government was going to participate by paying 50 per cent of the cost of municipal projects.


An hon. Member:: Labour costs.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You can talk about labour costs all you want to, but that was the impression that was left with the general public, namely that the federal government was

going to bear 50 per cent of the costs. Then when the letter from the minister was sent, we found the gimmicks in this program and the loopholes and we found out that the federal government were not so generous as they originally let on they were. We found out what this so-called 50 per cent means in terms of the amount of money that will be contributed. That matter has been dealt with at some length by others in this debate. But from the minister's own figures we find that the federal government is going to contribute 13 per cent of the costs. I assume that the minister's figures are correct even though he may have misinterpreted the information which was given to him by the municipalities. As I say, we find that the federal government will pay 13 per cent of the cost of these projects and that the municipalities, already deep in debt, will be bearing 87 per cent of the cost.
There are three reasons why this is not a too sensible approach in so far as municipalities are concerned. Certainly it affords some employment to people presently unemployed. One reason is that it was too late in the year, too close to the winter season to make proper preparation for such type of work. The second was that many municipalities were completely involved because of their project arrangements. They had laid their plans out for the year sometime previously.
The third question is their debt position. We all know the position of the municipalities and we know that they vary from one to the other. But generally speaking, the fact is that they have been going deeper and deeper into debt as the years have gone by. This apparent benevolence on the part of the government in this respect was not what it was originally represented to be. It merely means that the municipalities carry the large burden of the costs, paying almost the complete amount toward projects of this type, and the federal government comes along and takes the credit. This is something which it has been quite willing to do in many other cases in the past, namely to take credit for something as long as somebody else pays for the program and does the work.
In the constituency of Skeena this program means relatively little. I am sure the minister has had communications from municipalities to the effect that, generally speaking, they are not able to participate in a program of this type for a variety of reasons.
I should like to make reference to a couple of communications I have from municipalities out there in order to show precisely how little this program means to the municipalities in that constituency. While my friend and

fellow westerner, the hon. member for Calgary South, made some reference to a letter he had received-I believe it was from the Calgary labour council-to the effect that this was a generous program, I submit that possibly the Calgary labour council is not as close to the situation as are the municipalities themselves to which I should like to make reference. I have here a letter from the corporation of the village of Burns Lake. It is dated January 21, 1959, and reads in part as follows:
It is felt that, as the federal government shares only in the direct payroll costs of any project, the benefits to the municipality are negligible.
Consequently they are not able to undertake any type of project. I also have a letter from the corporation of the district of Kitimat. It is dated January 19, 1959, and, with respect to the winter works program, it reads in part as follows:
The program was announced so late in the year that it was impossible for us to take advantage of it before the rigours of winter were upon us . . . It is a pity it could not have been announced two or three months earlier so that the procedural details would have been worked out in time to take advantage of some of the earlier winter months.
We have these two municipalities in my own constituency which express the point of view with respect to this program. They are far closer to the scene than were those to whom my hon. friend referred who wrote to him from Calgary.
There is one other aspect of this matter that I believe we should raise. I refer to the minister's estimate of jobs provided. I believe his figures lead us somewhere into the area of
65,000	to 70,000 people being employed in these winter works projects throughout Canada. That is based on the projects which have already been approved, as I understand it. If I am incorrect I am sure the minister will take advantage of the situation to correct the figures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Twenty-two thousand.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No; I understood 22,000 were directly involved, and then he tripled that. His reference was to three times that figure; and at an earlier stage of the proceedings in the house he made reference to 60,000 people being employed either directly or indirectly. It was that 60,000 or 70,000 figure to which I am making reference. Hearing no objection from the minister, I assume I am fairly close to what his figures were in that regard.
In addition to that, while this strays a little from the point, we had a comment a few days ago from the Minister of Public Works to the 66968-9-70
Supply-Labour
effect that the housing program of the government last year resulted in some 200,000 man-years of employment, which he interpreted to mean 400,000 jobs provided. If this is so, I am not complaining about that part of it one bit; it is quite laudable. But I suggest that the government, out of its own mouth, condemns itself for its shortsighted policy when it comes to dealing with unemployed people of this nation. It has not the foggiest idea where it is going so far as economic problems are concerned, and is only able to make small, faltering steps to correct it by instituting something like the winter works program, or something similar to the housing program which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works.
The other day we had an announcement from the dominion bureau of statistics to the effect that 538,000 people were out of work seeking employment. They are the figures which the minister attaches himself to as being the lowest of the group of figures compiled by that department. If we add to this the estimated number of people who are being employed as a result of the winter works project, and the estimated number that the Minister of Public Works suggested would be employed as a result of the housing program, we find ourselves with the D.B.S. figure of somewhere in the neighbourhood of
800,000	or 900,000 people out of work. I am not saying what the unemployment insurance figures would be, but they would be much higher than that.
This arises for one reason, because the government fails to see precisely what the problem is, just as our friends failed to recognize what the problem was when they were in office. This arises because continually over the years Canadian parliaments-perhaps not in toto but certainly recent parliaments- gave away in many cases control of sections of our economy to private individuals and private groups, and let them go their own merry way without too much thought or concern about the effect it would have on society or the economy generally. When we get into economic difficulties because we have given away the operation and control of our society and economy to outside sources, everyone comes running to the government to bail them out, and the Canadian taxpayer bears the brunt by paying for the mistakes and errors of the private individuals who control the country. We end up increasing the debt, borrowing more money and selling more bonds in order to promote a winter works program and housing development, only because governments in the past, and this government at present, failed to realize that someone else is controlling and directing the

Supply-Labour
economy. It should be their responsibility when they are in office, representing the taxpayers of the nation.
The minister also made reference to the planning which is necessary in order to cope with these things. I suggest to the minister that he should not be afraid of words like planning or co-ordination, but should realize, as I am sure he does, that it is necessary; and unless we have some sort of plan or coordination of our economic system we are going to continue to have economic difficulties from time to time. I know that the minister basically, deep down inside himself, is a sort of socialist, if I may put it that way. He is a socialist-minded person, but there are too many arch Tories in the cabinet and he cannot get his point of view across. That is the whole difficulty. I know that if the minister had his way and was able to institute the type of economic system necessary to deal with these things, and was able to have the influence which he would like to have in getting his points of view across- perhaps even if he were the minister of finance-we would be in a much better position than we are at the moment, because then the minister could deal with the question of employment as it should be dealt with. It would not be done in this haphazard, halfway measure by sending telegrams, and things like that. The minister could exert a little more pressure and could even threaten to resign a couple more times, perhaps, than he has already. Then perhaps he would be able to move the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance a little more in the direction of dealing in a sensible fashion with this problem, and institute some sort of planning in order to ensure that our taxpayers and the working-class people of this country do not recurrently find themselves on the unemployment rolls, and the federal government does not have to come to the assistance, not only of the people unemployed but of private industry and bail them out, plunging the Canadian taxpayer further into debt by so doing.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: May I ask
the hon. member a question, who was talking of private enterprise. Is it the policy of his party that they would take over the industries in Canada which he was referring to?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I suggest one thing to my hon. friend, that if he had been paying attention-


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I was paying attention.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If you continue to interject and not give me an opportunity to answer the question I shall resume my seat. If my hon. friend had been paying attention to political affairs and studying the different

political philosophies over the years, he would not have to ask such an asinine question.
(Translation):


Mr. Leduc:: 
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I really did not expect to speak until tonight, but I see that circumstances require me to start immediately.
The amount of $15 million requested by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is, in our opinion, inadequate to meet present conditions. What is most surprising is that the members on the government side still appear to be labouring under the same impression as a year ago, and feel that unemployment is being exaggerated by the opposition. I would not want to be accused of misquoting the words spoken by the Prime Minister on February 15, 1958, though I must say that this was before the elections.
(Text):
He accused the Liberals under Lester B. Pearson of grossly exaggerating the unemployment figures. (Translation):
And, seeing how little effort is now being made by the government to face this sad situation in which we are involved, I have come to wonder whether the government is still under the impression that if things are left alone they may eventually settle themselves. The following article, written by Tempus, appeared in the Financial Times: (Text):
The principle that seems to prevail with regard to employment is that if you do not pay any attention to it it will go away by itself.
(Translation):
In any case, what have we been finding since the very beginning? The government is doing too little and too late. After the claims made by labour unions and many 66968-9-70J
Supply*-Labour
sociologists to the effect that conditions appeared to be deteriorating, we urged the government time and again, last year, to please hurry and develop some plan to alleviate the hardship that would result from an extended period of unemployment. And the government has been able to find only one thing to do, namely to distribute an amount of $15 million, throughout the length and breadth of Canada, to certain municipalities as a means of cutting down unemployment.
Well, to help fight unemployment, I had interior alterations started in my office a few days ago, at a cost of $2,500.


Mr. Martel:: I had work done amounting to $3,000.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The hon. member said he spent $3,000 on improvement, which means that, proportionately speaking, the hon. member who just spoke and myself have done more to relieve unemployment than did the government.


Mr. Fortin:: How many men did you hire?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Ten.


Louis Fortin: They must have been getting poor pay.


Alexis Pierre Caron: They are reasonably paid; they draw the wage rate prevailing in the area according to the collective agreement governing hours of work, besides what they get for the overtime they have to do to accelerate the project.
That shows that some individuals almost go to extreme limits to overcome the difficulties we are facing. And the government stands pat without saying anything; a few backbenchers ventured to speak, but the government stood there without saying anything and allocated the amount of $15 million which is being distributed across Canada to help certain municipal work projects. Everything was planned so late, especially in the province of Quebec, where the program was accepted by the Quebec government during last January only,-that the municipalities did not have enough time to plan work projects and submit them to the department of municipal affairs and have them approved early enough to take proper advantage of the offer made to pay 50 per cent of wages spent for carrying out those projects.
I heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon)-I must remember those three names-state that in Joliette, people were satisfied. I am happy to see-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said exactly.

Supply-Labour


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could you repeat what you said, so that we may know?


Mr. Habel:: He does not know himself.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That's what X understood you to say.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You misunderstood.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I understood you to say: "In my constituency, Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, we are satisfied and I congratulate the minister for that".


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I said that-


Alexis Pierre Caron: If the hon. member claims he did not say the words I just quoted, I accept his change of attitude; it means therefore that in Joliette, as anywhere else in the country people are unhappy over the present situation.


Mr. Denis:: Except for that, it is true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not what I said.


Alexis Pierre Caron: As the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) pointed out earlier, I should perhaps have asked the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to write out his speech in advance and distribute copies to members who were to speak after him, because he denies all he has said.
Mr. Chairman, the present situation is much too serious to be settled by a paltry sum of $15 million distributed across the country, especially when the costs of those works will only be subsidized up to April 30. The municipalities which have undertaken extensive works are sure these works will not be finished by April 30. If the Minister of Labour had wanted to do something practical, he would have said: "We will pay 50 per cent of the cost of salaries for all works started before April 30 up to their completion". Many municipalities would then have tried to take advantage of such a winter works program. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there appears to be a belief that unemployment will pass, will disappear and will be forgotten. Besides, some blame us, as did the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm, for criticizing the government about the present situation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are simply asking for constructive criticism.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has not reread the remarks made by his hon. colleagues when they were in the opposition. In fact, I notice at page 3937 of Hansard of 1955, that the present Minister

of Labour, who has the responsibility for that department, said when he was in the opposition:
(Text):
I feel that the Department of Labour and this government should make strenuous efforts to alleviate the present condition of those who find themselves unemployed.
(Translation):
And we are now asking those same gentlemen what they have done that is so extraordinary to correct this situation which is much worse than the one which prevailed in 1955.
Mr. Chairman, I now refer to a statement made by the present Prime Minister, when he was in the opposition:
(Text) :
The municipalities are loaded down with unemployment relief. The residents of our urban communities cannot bear it any longer. What is to be done about the unemployed employables? What is the attitude of the government? Well, if I understand the press of this country, almost without exception the press says that constitutional matters are today being raised as a smoke screen to relieve this government of its responsibilities.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, it is exactly the situation under which our municipalities are labouring at the present time. As a matter of fact, they are in an impossible situation; and the government says that we need the support of provincial governments. That is the smoke screen resorted to by the present government, and our municipalities are forced to run into debt to pay the rent, food and clothing of thousands of people who are not on direct relief and who do not work because they cannot find jobs. In spite of all that, the government does not seem to find the means of doing anything to come to the rescue of those who are in dire need. Members on the government side are doing absolutely nothing to warrant the criticism they voiced in 1955 when they were condemning the Liberal party and holding it responsible for the situation prevailing at the time.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, could I direct a question to the hon. member for Hull?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


Azellus Denis: Would the hon. member kindly inform the house how much the province of Quebec is contributing to the winter works program?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, it is rather difficult to reply otherwise than as follows: the province of Quebec is contributing nothing whatsoever.


Azellus Denis: Shame!


Alexis Pierre Caron: And here is also for the information of my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, what the Prime Minister said, at the time, as recorded on page 3940 of Hansard of 1955:
(Text):
Certainly, the degree to which chaos is present in labour matters in this country indicates that the Department of Labour lacks direction, lacks system and lacks, not authority but direction.
(Translation):
How does the situation stand now, Mr. Chairman. There is a lack of direction, authority and system on the part of the government in a like situation.
And again, on the question of unemployment, here is what was said by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), as recorded in Hansard of 1955, at page 1601 of the English version:
(Text):
Regardless of the number of people who are out of work, regardless of whether the number is 362,000 or 569,000, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not hon. members and the people of Canada are going to consider that a person is merely a statistic.
(Translation):
Well, Mr. Chairman, we are still faced with the same situation at this time. Unemployed people are still apparently considered as mere figures supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Hull?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member tell me whether there was no winter unemployment when his party was in office? Let him answer that. What did the Liberal government do when labour unions submitted briefs asking that something be done to slow down immigration? Answer me that one.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I shall have to remind hon. members that we are talking about a specific matter and not the general question of unemployment. This matter refers to the sum of $15 million to assist those who are unemployed.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I am following the ground which has been covered by those who spoke before me on the question of unemployment. The nature of the problem is such that the whole question of unemployment comes into it. I am seeking to prove that the problem is of such proportions that the sum of $15 million is inadequate under the circumstances and so I feel I should be allowed to go a little further in my
Supply-Labour
references and not be confined just to the question of the payment of $15 million.
You will well remember that in 1955 when we discussed these matters hon. gentlemen opposite went much further in their references. That is what I am seeking to do at the present time and I really believe I am only following those who preceded me in this discussion.


Charles Edward Rea: As long as you do not go too far afield. We must have reference to municipal works to be undertaken by the federal government the provinces and the municipalities. We must keep our speeches and our thoughts referrable to this particular item.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am just amplifying the matter by citing quotations to prove that $15 million is insufficient. In addition to that a question was addressed to me by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and I hope his question was completed when I rose.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-


Azellus Denis: In French.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly. Of course there was winter unemployment, there will always be, but winter unemployment is almost normal and seldom reaches the national figure of
250,000	unemployed. But when you reach the figure of 538,000 unemployed people in the country, according to the latest official statistics, and when you add the few thousand unemployed who have not registered, that makes a total of close to 800,000 unemployed, as was pointed out a few moments ago by an hon. member. I submit that that is a condition of exceptional unemployment, and that the government has a duty to protect these people from hardship, because as the Prime Minister has said, no one should be allowed to suffer from unemployment while he is in power-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the government has never tried to dodge its responsibilities.
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Surely.


Michael Starr: I know how concerned the hon. member for Hull is about the present situation but I also know he expressed the same

Private Bills
concern last year during the session and on the orders of the day he brought to my attention the situation in Hull and requested some action. In reply I requested the hon. member to give me details of the situation in Hull, but up to this time I have not received them. I wonder if the hon. member would care to get around to giving me those details in view of his concern?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to that question because it was raised by the minister. I want to tell him that last year I advised the municipal authorities to forward this information. I do not know if this has been done. However, there is one comment I will make. I will repeat the request and see that the information reaches the minister. However, I know there are reports that are coming in from Hull that will give him the figures he requires. Furthermore, I told him last year and I will tell him again that if the statistics for Ottawa and Hull were separated it would be easy to furnish this information.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15, to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. William Anderson (Waterloo South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-7, respecting Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company to the Gore Mutual Insurance Company. The company's present name is not sufficiently descriptive of the types of insurance business it now carries on. You will notice that the words "district" and "fire" are dropped. This company was formed and originally established in 1839 by an act of the crown which permitted the creation of a fire insurance company in the various districts into which the province of Ontario was then divided. Those districts included London district, Wellington district including Guelph and the Gore district which embraced an area taking in Hamilton, Dundas, Galt and Brantford.
The Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company began business in the area from which it derived its name 120 years ago and after these many years the company does business throughout the province of Ontario and in addition has for a considerable number of years conducted substantial business

in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. The company also maintains branch offices in each of these provinces.
The word "district", which has a historical significance, is now no longer applicable to this company and is detrimental in that it frequently gives the impression that the company is something other than a national institution. The directors believe that the company would be more adequately named if the word "district" were dropped.
The same story applies to the word "fire". Originally in 1839 the company was established as a purely fire insurance company. Since that time, however, the federal government has authorized the company to write all types of insurance except life. In fact, over 60 per cent of the business of the company is now derived from other than fire insurance. The dropping of the word "fire" is in line with the practice of other companies which have experienced the same sort of growth and expansion.
I might mention that the federal superintendent of insurance, Mr. MacGregor, has been kept informed of the proposed change and believes it to be appropriate. The company has had a wonderful record of service over the past century and has contributed many thousands of dollars to charitable causes. I might mention here that during world war I the Gore District Mutual Fire Insurance Company made an outright grant of $100,000 to the federal government to aid in the war effort.
This bill is a very simple request on the part of a progressive company with a very fine and patriotic background, and in my humble opinion it should be passed with the minimum of delay so that the company may carry on its fast growing business under the name of the Gore Mutual Insurance Company, the proper name for the type of business being carried on at the present time by this long established institution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCleave for the second reading of the following bills:
Bill SD-19, for the relief of Ruth Georgina Potts Dobie.
Bill SD-20, for the relief of Patricia Burnell Fraser Rosensweig.
Mr. M. J. A. Lamberl (Edmonlon West):: Mr. Speaker, on the previous occasion when these bills were before the house there was considerable discussion about certain principles

governing bills of this type, and I feel it incumbent upon me to go further into the question. I realize that on February 6 the chairman of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills spoke at some considerable length, as did others, on the matter of divorce. However, in the light of these particular bills I think I should review certain essential requirements for a divorce. While I may speak on general principles which at first sight may not appear to be directly related to the bill, I believe they will all be tied in because I intend to take the particular bill and relate it to these principles.
In this morning's Globe and Mail Robert Duffy makes the statement that "parliament has the authority to pass bills of divorce on any grounds it chooses." In my opinion that is a rather general statement and I do not believe that could be done without further action by the house. For the time being we have to deal with a certain type of evidence and certain essentials required to establish grounds for a divorce. I suggest to hon. members that the manner of handling divorce cases should not differ from the way in which they are handled in the appropriate courts in the various jurisdictions throughout the country. I believe that there should be some uniformity of practice and requirements.
I think that the essentials of a divorce may be summarized briefly as follows: First of all, there is the question of jurisdiction; second, proof of misconduct; third, the questions of connivance, condonation and collusion; and, fourth, proof of marriage, etc. In his earlier reference to this question the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Mc-Cleave) spoke about the question of jurisdiction and the danger of possible abuses of the process of law through parliament in the presenting of petitions to this house which more properly should have been presented in courts of provincial jurisdiction. In the past cases have been presented before the house and the committee where marriages had not been proved and previous divorces had not been proved, and as far as practice was concerned they left much to be desired.
The hon. member spoke about proof of adultery and the weight of evidence required. I do not think I should have to go over that ground but I should like to deal now with the questions of connivance, condonation and collusion. In this connection I should like to refer to a very valuable authority, "The Law of Divorce in Canada", by W. Kent Power, published in 1948. The author of that learned text speaks about connivance at pages 41 and 42, and for the guidance of members of the house I should like to put on the record the principles by which we should be
Private Bills-Divorce
guided in considering these cases. In dealing with connivance, the book says this:
Connivance means that the adultery of one spouse has been caused by or has been knowingly, wilfully or recklessly permitted by the other as an accessory. It must precede the offence, and is clearly distinguishable from condonation which follows it.
I quote further:
Connivance implies that the plaintiff has been accessory to the very offence on which the action is based, or at least has corruptly acquiesced in its commission.
In the event that there should be connivance, that is a fatal flaw to the petition in my humble submission. Members of this house should scrutinize the evidence presented for any suggestion of connivance just as carefully as they would for any other point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While what the hon. member is saying is quite interesting and would be appropriate as a lecture in a school of law, it does not seem to me to be related to the case with which we are dealing, that of Ruth Georgina Potts Dobie or the other bill. I must say that unless he can do that, it seems to me he is continuing to be out of order.


Mr. McCleave:: If I may speak on the point of order, I would say that in reviewing the two cases there did not appear to be evidence in the printed record to show that collusion, connivance or condonation were expressly met. I think perhaps the hon. member has brought a good point before the house on second reading of this bill, when it is a question of approval in principle.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member who has the floor would tell me how he relates this discourse on connivance to the bill before us?


Mr. Lambert:: With the greatest respect, I feel that if I am to point out flaws in the bill, then I should relate the principles upon which the bill should be considered. I am considering these principles as they are laid down and as I feel they relate to this bill in particular, as I indicated in my opening remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I have gone along with the hon. member now for some minutes, and I think it is time he related these principles to the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to rise on a point of order at this stage and ask for your guidance on a matter that is causing members on this side some concern. What I should like to know from Your Honour, and from those who are interested in the discussion of this matter, is whether or not this discussion is likely to take up the whole of the hour.

Private Bills-Divorce
I do not want to repeat what has been said, but there is no doubt in our minds that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has been dealing with grounds for divorce and has not, during any of the time he has spoken, directed his attention to the bill that is now before us. There is on the order paper a bill which we consider to be of some importance, and that is Bill No. C-6, an act respecting the flags of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Lionel Chevrier: I am speaking to the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the hon. member is speaking to the point of order, but the point of order relates to this bill and not to what follows it. Really, that is not a consideration except that the rules should be observed generally so that the business will be dealt with in its proper turn.


Lionel Chevrier: I realize that is the case, and I had risen to ask for your advice on the point because this is the third time now that it has happened that bills of this nature are debated until about five minutes to six. This gives no opportunity for those on this side who want to discuss Bill No. C-6-


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the idea.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say this: I am attempting to deal with the point of order which is now before me, and one which I raised myself, that the discussion is proceeding along irrelevant lines. It is perhaps out of order to go into what was done before. I appreciate the hon. member's opinion, and it is in accordance with my own, that the discussion has been out of order. I am asking the hon. member who has the floor to confine himself to the discussion of the principle of the two bills before the house.


Mr. Churchill:: On the point of order, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has suggested to this house that hon. members who are entering into debate on this bill are preventing him from proceeding to some other bill in which he is interested. In other words, he is attempting to close off discussion in the house on a legitimate-


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order; the statement I made dealt with the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, and if my hon. friend looks at the record he will find that that is the person at whom the remarks I made were directed. I said that the hon. member was not speaking to the bill itself but was dealing with the reasons and grounds for divorce and thereby delaying the other bills, namely No. C-6, which we had a right to discuss.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My point of order is simply this, that it is not within the competence of the hon. member to attempt to suggest to the house that some other bill that he has in mind is more important than the one that is under discussion. I think the point of order is quite wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: It is quite true, and I have already indicated that. I do not think that is the point under discussion. The point is whether or not the hon. member for Edmonton West is dealing with the principle of the bill before us. I think the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) wanted to say something.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: It was on the
same point. I wanted to say that the hon. member has tried to do indirectly what he could not do directly, that is leave some inference that someone is trying to prevent a member from getting on with his bill. Now, it is quite obvious-


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what is happening.


John Borden Hamilton: It is quite obvious that there is still a long session ahead of us and the hon. member's bill, which is listed as No. 2 under public bills, will certainly be dealt with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, at five minutes to six.
Mr. Pallet!: What about the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter)? He spoke long enough.


Lionel Chevrier: That is an important point; may I be permitted to reply?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for
Laurier would allow the hon. member who has the floor to proceed, we might conclude this discussion. He has been advised he is out of order and he must continue to debate the bill in a relevant manner. If another point arises, I shall be glad to deal with it. I think the point has been sufficiently aired,


Norman Platt Lambert: If we are to discuss this bill intelligently, I do feel that it must meet certain principles, and I am trying to establish the principles to which this bill must be related. It would be, with the greatest respect, pointless for me to say that this bill is deficient, that there are matters of principle in the granting of divorces in which it is deficient, if I do not relate it to what I suggest are the proper principles upon which divorce should be granted.
The point with which I was dealing was connivance. We find that in this bill the only reference to connivance was, did you make any agreement or plan with your husband whereby he was to commit adultery,

or did you give him your permission to commit this adultery? In other words, the proof of absence of connivance here or the negation of connivance is, in my opinion, insufficient. I would direct this particular point to the committee that will study this bill in detail.
Then we come to the principle of condonation. What does condonation mean? With the permission of the Chair, I shall put on the record what is meant by condonation.
I am quoting from Power again:
Condonation of a matrimonial offence means the forgiveness of the offence with a full knowledge of the circumstances, followed by a reinstatement of the offending party to his or her former position, subject, however to the implied condition that no later offence be committed.
There the reference again in this bill, I would submit, is insufficient because there is a reference to some possible adultery. Again I would draw to the attention of the committee the advisability of going into this matter further.
Then we come to that much more difficult question, namely collusion. What is the definition of collusion as exercised by the courts on many occasions? Briefly, is it merely a denial of any arrangement to commit adultery? That would appear to be what is asked for in these particular bills. But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that collusion goes much farther than this. I would suggest that it goes to the question of whether the parties have entered into a financial arrangement or otherwise whereby one of the parties has been in effect bribed either not to defend the action or to bring the action. In other words, there is an abuse of the process of law. I would refer to the statement that collusion puts the court or this house in a position where it cannot trust what is before it.
Again we have in this particular bill a mere reference: did you make any agreement with your husband whereby he was to commit adultery for the purpose of obtaining this application? There is nothing there in so far as financial arrangements or otherwise are concerned. I would say to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) that the proper conduct of divorce actions in this house is just as important to me as other bills may be to other members. I think we should come to a decision that we will establish a practice whereby these matters can be dealt with appropriately.
I could say further things about the conduct of cases and the admission of hearsay evidence. In this particular case this is the type of evidence which led the committee which heard this petition to believe that there was in fact adultery whereas, if the record were stripped of that hearsay evidence,
Private Bills-Divorce
they might not do so. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the committee to which this bill will go when it has passed second reading will be obliged to consider certain questions.
I should like, if I may, to raise these various points so that the committee may deal with them.
I want to find out, first of all, whether, in dealing with bills like this one for the relief of Ruth Georgina Potts Dobie, we are sitting here as a committee of review.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are sitting and dealing with the bill; and the hon. member certainly is not doing it.


Norman Platt Lambert: Are we an appellate court or are we a forum to which, if we find that the presentation has been deficient, the petitioner may come back and be given a second chance to add additional evidence?


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt the hon. member again, I would point out that the principle of this bill is a very simple one. It is whether or not the petitioner, Ruth Georgina Potts Dobie should be granted a divorce. That is the purpose of the bill. I think it is quite out of order to engage in philosophic discussions on the functions of parliament and other abstract principles with regard to the administration of justice. The matter is just as simple as that. Surely the hon. member can deal with it on that basis.


Norman Platt Lambert: As I have indicated, with respect to this bill, I have raised certain points which I draw to the attention of the committee in their detailed consideration of this particular petition. I should like them to consider those points and perhaps to make a certain recommendation.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the concern of some members of the opposition as to the right of members on the government side to speak on certain bills-


Lester Bowles Pearson: And to avoid speaking on others.	[DOT]


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member who is about to discuss this bill will not revert to the point of order which has been attended to. The matter before the house is a divorce bill, not the conduct of the members.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to revert to the point of order but I was almost tempted to revert to the attitude across the way. There seems to be, not only in this debate but in certain other debates recently in the house, an attempt on the part of the opposition to stop-

Private Bills-Divorce


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is going directly in the face of the injunction I just gave him. I would ask him to confine himself, if he will, to this divorce bill.


Mr.   Morion@: Mr. Speaker, out of deference to you, I will direct my thoughts to this particular bill. I agree with what the hon. member for Calgary West has stated-


An hon. Member:: No; the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mr.   Morion@: -or rather with what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has stated, namely that in some respects these bills before us do not meet the requirements that perhaps would be expected to be met in the courts. I think it is quite in order to observe how bills before us do not meet these requirements. In the particular bill with regard to Patricia Burnell Fraser Rosensweig, we find here the type of evidence that often brings, not only the divorces that come before this house into disrepute but sometimes even those before the courts. Somehow or other these detectives seem to be able to appear at an appropriate time, as they did here, on the occasion at the apartment at 5840 Decelles Place.
On examining the evidence, Mr. Speaker, you will find that this was not the ordinary residence of the co-defendant concerned but of the defendant. This co-defendant concerned, as will be noted in the evidence, has children and would ordinarily be expected to be at her own place of residence. But it appears that at the appropriate time she is followed and is found to be staying at another apartment. From the evidence given and from the questions asked I do not consider that they have stated that there was not connivance or collusion. I should like to urge upon the committee that this question be checked into definitely, with an eye to the suggestion to the other place to be more particular in asking the questions they ask and not to forward to this house cases such as this one especially that I have mentioned, with such flimsy evidence or evidence that could be questioned.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the bill concerning the petition for divorce of Patricia Burnell Fraser Rosensweig.


George James McIlraith: That is really not what the hon. member is speaking to and he knows it.


An hon. Member:: Closure by the opposition.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to speak to this bill without speaking about

principles but I will keep my remarks directed to the bill before the house. It is quite evident to me, although it may not have been to the committee-I was not on the Senate committee-that not only have they not disproved the matter of connivance or condonation, but there are certain items in the evidence which appear to me to be nothing else but connivance. You might note that this petition is dated May 30, 1958. The evidence produced by these professional private-eyes was produced two days previously. Even if we are willing to take such evidence, is there not a fair inference that this evidence was produced with the full knowledge of both parties to this marriage? Mrs. Rosensweig is very indefinite about the facts of her marraige. When she was asked, "When did you discontinue living in Montreal?", presumably with her husband, she said, "About 1956". A woman who has been suffering an unsatisfactory marriage-


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member inform the house which bill he is discussing at the present time?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, I will be pleased to. It is Bill SD-20.


Osias.-J. Godin: We are dealing with SD-19.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We are dealing with both bills together, and the hon. member who spoke last also spoke on this same bill. If the hon. member would pay attention, I would not have to waste the valuable time of this house repeating myself.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that this woman is very indefinite about the details of her own marriage up until the point where she suddenly decides it will be in her best interests to have her marriage dissolved. It is also apparent from the evidence in this bill that the husband, Mr. Rosensweig, also wishes to have the marriage dissolved, because according to the evidence he is now keeping company with a young widow with two children. Here are all the elements of connivance. I will not go so far as to say that adultery was committed. From the evidence this adultery is only an allegation, and occurred on one lone occasion and was condoned by the wife. Probably it was not committed. But here we have a married couple who never did get along well in their marriage suddenly deciding, four years later, that they would both be much happier single.
I do not want to go into the principles behind divorce but surely if there had been any reasonable grounds for divorce they would have come out long before this. The woman says in her evidence that her husband was not interested in having a family. But what does he do as soon as his wife deserts

him but go and find a widow with two children. This shows, in my opinion, that the husband himself was very anxious to end this unsatisfactory marriage, and it would certainly put him into the frame of mind where he would connive with his wife to have this marriage dissolved.
How did we get the evidence on which this bill is based? It came through what we call a professional private-eye. If you read the evidence you will see that this private-eye went to a private residence and taped up the door. There is very grave doubt in my mind whether this is the sort of behaviour which we as Canadian citizens have to put up with. But they taped up the door. This was, presumably, to prove that neither the woman nor the man had left during the time the private-eye went to get his aide. When they got back they forced entry into this suite, and we are now asked to believe that the gentleman in the suite allowed them to come in without any show of violence whatsoever. Again, I cannot help but think this was a setup. This man did not want to keep these men out of the room. This man clearly wanted to get the evidence against him which would get him out of a marriage which he did not want, and thus allow him freedom to marry again.
As for this Mrs. Himes; as far as I can see she is a respectable widow looking after a family. She is apparently a woman of proper instincts. She would not commit adultery, if she committed it at all, in her own home. She would not subject her children to immoral atmospheres; but it is certainly well within the realm of possibility that she would co-operate with a man with whom she has fallen in love, with a man who likes children, and with a man who has her sympathy for being entangled in an unfortunate marriage. I think this woman has co-operated with the husband in order to help free him. Whether or not the wife in this case condoned or forgave her husband is a moot question. In any event, she only had two days, between May 28 and the formal complaint which she made to the court for a divorce, to do so.
A contract of marriage is the most sacred and the most serious contract which can be entered into during one's stay on this planet, and it should not too easily be broken up. I cannot help but feel that she had many years to think this matter over. She had four years at least, and I think this divorce is purely a matter of convenience, not one of wounded marital relations. If we get to that, the question before us is: who was wrong? This woman comes to us and asks for relief from her marriage, claiming a crime against the marriage law of adultery. But who ran out
Private Bills-Divorce
on whom? By her own admission she left her husband of her own free will. Now she comes to the court asking us in the House of Commons, and in the other chamber, to relieve her from a contract which she, and she alone, broke during the first five or six years of this marriage. The fact that this divorce is uncontested again appears to me to be complete proof that the husband knew, and that the wife knew, all the facts and difficulties they would experience in getting this divorce.
I do not criticize the decision made by the other place, nor do I criticize this house for granting a divorce where the evidence would justify our so doing, or where the evidence had been adduced in good faith. In those circumstances we would be right in setting right a marriage which had long since gone on the rocks.
I do think it was a travesty of justice for us to pretend that this type of evidence presented in this way, uncontested, is a true picture of what has happened. I realize that I am encroaching somewhat on the limits allowed me by the rules of debate on divorces in concerning myself with the principles which lie behind divorces in general, but it is only in the consideration of each individual case that we arrive at general principles, and if we keep on granting divorces in the present manner I think we are undermining the stability of marriage. I can only hope that by bringing the discrepancies in these individual cases to the attention of the house a great deal more care will be taken in the future.
I should like to see this bill go back to the committee for further discussion. I should like to see some attempt made to call the husband and, if necessary, to call the third party to this proceeding so that we might hear from these people that they do not deny these allegations. I do not see why this should not be done, because I think it is well within the power of the committee which hears these divorces to insist on more conclusive evidence before being ready to grant this petition. I could go through this evidence word by word, and I think anybody hearing it would agree with my contention. We have allowed this type of divorce to go through before. It is only when the proper evidence has not been heard and the proper persons, in my opinion, have been called that we are able to come to the conclusion that adultery has been proved.
Perhaps we are not required to have the same type of proof with regard to adultery that one would expect in a criminal case. We are able to make up our minds on the balance of probabilities. It would be almost impossible in a civilized community to expect

Private Bills-Divorce
the type of proof on an adultery charge which would convince beyond all possible doubt. I do not deny this at all. But all the elements of connivance are here, and none of the elements which would disprove connivance are present. I think this woman knew that this was going on, and I do not think she did anything about it until it was suitable for her to petition for a divorce.
Another question I should liked to have asked her concerns her present financial position. It came out in the evidence that from the time these two people were married the wife earned more money than her husband. As far as I can see she is still earning more money than her husband. The petition for this divorce would, therefore, certainly not be on support grounds, because this woman is quite capable of supporting herself. It is obvious that up till now the woman has not felt herself to be morally wrong. Apparently she had no pangs of jealousy until six years after the marriage, and I cannot help but feel that behind her petition for divorce is a desire to enter into another alliance. This woman could not be asked this question but it is certainly fair for anyone sitting on the committee and reading the evidence to ask himself: is this a bona fide case where a woman wronged by adultery has come before this committee for a hearing, expecting us to give her the benefit of our doubts.
There can be no question that there is doubt in this case. The woman is asking for the benefit of this doubt. In order to get this benefit I suggest she has to come to us with clean hands. It is obvious that if she is guilty of connivance or condonation we would refuse the petition. If she were asking us to grant the petition on humanitarian grounds because she is distressed, that might cause us to bend in her direction and give her the benefit of any doubt, but I claim that in this case all the evidence is negative.
She has not satisfied me. She may have satisfied the committee. Of course, it is up to everyone to decide according to his own conscience whether or not he believes there has in fact been condonation or collusion. However, from my point of view, speaking for myself and apparently for the other members of this committee-the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in particular-we should be very careful to make sure that everything has been done before we grant this petition. I see no reason why we should not send the bill back, because it is a very serious matter to dissolve this marriage, and we should not be doing our duty to the two people concerned, or perhaps to the three people concerned, if we did not see everything was done to preserve this marriage and give it every chance.

I cannot believe that two days is long enough for any woman to consider the question of adultery even if it had been committed. I am quite sure that many marriages would be broken up if such haste was the order of the day. Many marriages have been saved after one of the parties has fallen from grace. It would not be hard to go through cases in civil law and find instances where marriages have been saved by time. I do not know whether any attempt was made by either party to effect a reconciliation. The husband did not appear before us and the question was never put to the wife. Certainly, two days is not long enough, and it was this two-day limit which began my suspicion concerning this whole case. Knowing the difficulty of getting attention through legal channels, I found it astounding that a woman should, after suddenly being confronted with the adultery of her husband have a petition before the Senate within two days of the alleged offence.
I notice there are no children involved in this case and that is a blessing in a marriage apparently as unhappy as this one. Since no children are involved, this would simplify a settlement of any property after the marriage is finally dissolved, if and when it is dissolved. But let us suppose there had been children. This would have complicated matters very greatly. This has put the red light on again in our deliberations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is setting up a supposition as to what could happen when there are children which seems to me to be a little irrelevant in this case where there are none.


An hon. Member:: Give him time.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I was just trying to bring in the question concerning children because a question arises when-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought that was what the hon. member was doing and that is why I asked him to desist.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat that it is my desire to impress upon hon. members of this house my grave doubts concerning the desirability of granting this divorce on the basis of the present evidence. Although hon. members opposite may think this is not a matter worthy of discussion at this point, I can only say if it is not I do not know why these bills come before the house. If we are wasting our time in discussing these bills perhaps some move should be made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is referring again to a general question. 1 would be glad if he would sum up his statement about this bill.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion this bill does not represent a proper basis for granting a divorce. I realize that this personal opinion will not carry very much weight. Nevertheless, I am not alone in holding this opinion. If many other hon. members of the house feel the way I do about it, certainly it would be a good idea to send this bill back to the other place so it could be discussed in committee again to see whether or not more conclusive evidence of adultery could be found and also to rule out any suggestion of connivance.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Halifax speaks I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) before he takes his seat. Is it his opinion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already sat down and having recognized another hon. member I am afraid it is too late. Questions should be asked before an hon. member sits down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to resist the temptation to take part in this very interesting debate because if by some chance or through some fortuitous circumstance this measure were disposed of at three minutes to six o'clock, we would then have three minutes in which to discuss one of the most important items to come before the house this session, a resolution concerning a national flag for Canada and after that three minutes it would go to the bottom of the order paper and then there would be no opportunity to discuss it-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member appreciates that the protests were warranted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if it is not permissible for an hon. member in the course of a debate to point out that the debate is deliberately taking a certain direction to avoid discussion on the next item of the order paper, namely a bill introduced by an hon. member from this group asking that we give consideration to the desirability of having a distinctive national flag?


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.
Private Bills


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely it would be of assistance to point that out. During the last hour the discussion we have had has been obstruction against a bill concerning a distinctive national flag for Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure it is not in order to impute motives to hon. members in the proper discussion of matters before the house. If the discussion is not proper the way to deal with it is to point out the deficiency as a point of order; but to draw general inferences which impugn the motives of hon. members is not in accordance with what is expected in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue my remarks without imputing any motives to anybody, because that of course would be unparliamentary, I would go on to point out that the effect of a decision on this matter at three minutes to six o'clock would be what I have just indicated. It would be put to the bottom of the order paper. The next bill on the order paper concerns a very important question which hon. gentlemen opposite do not wish to discuss-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition is quite obviously not entering into a debate on the bills that are before us. He is drawing attention, as was done earlier, to other matters not now before the house and I suggest on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: That is quite true. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to continue I would ask him to confine his remarks to the bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to continue my observations on this bill so that at six o'clock when we are talking about this bill the subsequent bill on today's order paper will still be available for discussion at the next sittings of the house. I am sure that hon. gentlemen opposite will be delighted that we are endeavouring to make it possible for them to discuss at the next sittings of this house a matter of such importance as that of a distinctive flag for Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not be recalcitrant in this attitude because he is quite out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very well then, Mr. Speaker, I shall speak to the bill. I have listened with very great interest to the observations of my hon. friends opposite. I recognize that it was difficult for them to resist the temptation to stray into principles but toward the end of the hour they were successful and my hon. friend who has just sat down has made some very interesting

Supply-Labour
comments on these bills. He has suggested for reasons which he gave and which may or may not have been impressive to the house that these bills should be sent back to the committee for further consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member concluded?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Having seen the Clerk on his feet I assumed he was telling you it was six o'clock. If it is not six o'clock I shall be very glad to continue and I shall not have as difficult a time in doing so as some of my hon. friends opposite did in attempting to extend their remarks because I have only one minute and so it will really not be difficult for me to continue. It would be interesting to examine the reason why there has been discussion for an hour this afternoon on the bill before us. The reason is quite clear to every hon. member of the house-


Some hon. Members:: You are out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am now about to give the reason for the discussion and for the sudden and intense interest of my hon. friends opposite-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is six o'clock and I do now leave the chair. It being six o'clock the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Department op Labour
709. Payments to a province during the 1958-59 and 1959-60 fiscal years in accordance with an agreement entered into by the government of Canada and the province, with the approval of the governor in council, that provides for contributions by the government of Canada of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 1st day of December, 1958, to the 30th day of April, 1959, on winter work projects in municipalities as contemplated by the agreement, $15,000,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned at five o'clock, I was talking about the unemployment situation in our municipalities and saying how little the government has done to improve the situation. In reply to some questions asked by some 
hon. members, I shall refer to what certain ministers had to say, when they were in the opposition, about employment in Canada. When the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck) had the floor, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) seemed to consider the whole thing as rather funny. However, I remember that during the 1955 session, as recorded on page 3396 of Hansard, he said:
(Text):
The second problem which has been ignored by the government is the problem of unemployment. This problem has been discussed at length in this session, or I would seek to go into it at greater length today. But let me content myself, in this limited time, with making this limited observation on the subject, that the government throughout this session has observed a conspiracy of silence in regard to unemployment.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, the situation now is exactly the same. The government seems to want to remain mum on a subject as important as that of assistance to the unemployed.
When we were saying that the situation was serious, that it was getting worse from day to day and that the winter would be tough, we were accused of being crepe hangers, of exaggerating the situation; and yet, if we look at the latest statistics, we note that in January, the number of unemployed had risen by 11,000 across the country. This means an increase of 11,000 unemployed over last year's figure and a further increase compared to the figure for the previous year. In other words, if the government keeps on behaving as it now does, the situation will become absolutely unmanageable.
Mr. Chairman, this situation is inconceivable, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) pointed out in 1955 when, sitting in the opposition, she said:
(Text):
In the midst of wealth we have human misery. With all the faith in the world these people cannot wait ten or fifteen years for a steady job or a weekly pay cheque.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, it is a well known fact today that people must need food, clothing, shelter and fuel. Yet-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman-


Alexis Pierre Caron: -the government lets-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: There is no point of order.

Supply-Labour


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hull is out of order since what we are called upon to do is to vote $15 million to help municipalities. The vote has nothing to do with the hon. member's remarks- (Text):


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member claims I am out of order because I am speaking of the case being placed before the municipalities at the present time, and I believe that I am not out of order because I am just bringing out points to show that the present government is doing nothing to help the municipalities to meet their problems today. I would suggest that the hon. member read a little more of Beauchesne and learn his standing orders before he raises a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: On the point of order, just to clarify the matter, the item of $15 million certainly does pertain to the unemployment situation, but I do not think we should discuss the pros and cons of the unemployment situation in past years and so forth. I think we should stick as closely as we can to the item.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, our municipalities are hoping for help from the federal government, and the government is doing practically nothing to help them.
True enough, we are being asked to vote an amount of $15 million for a winter works program. However, at the present time, municipalities have to help many of their citizens who are out of work and do not qualify for unemployment insurance. They have to clothe them, house them, and provide them with food and fuel during the winter. That is the task being performed by the municipalities. And they have had no help from either the federal government or the Quebec government, I feel this situation is of interest to us and that we are entitled to discuss it in connection with this amount of $15 million that we are asked to vote. A nation can only be prosperous to the extent that its citizens are prosperous and, today, people are not prosperous.
If there are over 800,000 registered or unregistered unemployed, I do say that the present situation in the country is bad and that our municipalities are not receiving from the federal government the share they are entitled to; that is what I was trying to say and prove. In fact, I read the following in the Ottawa Citizen of January 13 last:
(Text):
Although the Diefenbaker government has been in office (or about 18 months, Mr. Davie Fulton, the Minister of Justice-
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Is it a Conservative paper?


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is an independent paper.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Liberal.


Alexis Pierre Caron: You should read it more carefully and more often; it would inspire you.
(Text):
Although the Diefenbaker government has been in office for about 18 months, Mr. Davie Fulton, the Minister of Justice, the other day tried to place the blame for unemployment on the previous Liberal administration . . . His attack on the previous government is surely a symptom of the Conservative party's bankruptcy of ideas.
(Translation):
It is a well-known fact that the government has not found the means of offering
more than $15 million to help our municipalities face this situation. In other words, in so far as the unemployment situation is concerned, the present government has failed completely and does not seem to grasp the gravity of the situation.
Moreover, the Citizen, which my hon. friend should consult more often, stated on December 29:
(Text):
It now seems clear that not many more than 10,000 men will get jobs under the winter works program to which the federal government is contributing 50 per cent of the labour cost.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, the minister said the other day that those projects would perhaps provide employment for 20,000 people. Those figures are still not correct, and the minister spoke on the basis of information supplied to him. But even if we agree that 20,000 Canadians would benefit from the winter works program, it means that an infinitesimal number of unemployed will have a job; and this is the step taken to check unemployment.
Besides, municipalities could not very well take advantage of the program, because the government introduced it too late. The government should have taken action when we told it last year that conditions would be serious. But then the government did not do anything but repeat its criticism against the Liberal party. And yet today, we realize that as far as Montreal is concerned, the federal government is contributing no more than $43,000 for works amounting to something like $1,118,000. I could give figures and similar examples in the case of almost any municipality.

Supply-Labour
As I said a moment ago, there are 11,000 more jobless in Canada and those $15 million could not check the rising tide of unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that if the Liberal government which preceded the present administration-and I say this for the information of my hon. friend for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, (Mr. Pigeon),-if the Liberal government, as I said, had not, through its social legislation, introduced the Unemployment Insurance Act, the situation would be so serious that I would fear a revolution in this country, as a result of the present government's inaction.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Hull allow me a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member for Hull explain to me how it is that between 1946 and 1957 there were in the country, under a Liberal government, 2 million unemployed or applicants?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I did not quite get the question, Mr. Chairman, but 2 million unemployed is an estimation of cumulative figures from year to year, and that cannot be taken into account.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: They are D.B.S. figures.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Cumulative statistics can be misleading, and I could quote the English saying that figures don't lie, but it is certainly possible at times to make them lie.
And besides, Mr. Chairman, while the number of unemployed is increasing, and money is getting scarcer, the cost of living is on the increase, which means an additional worry for those who have to shoulder the burden, like the municipalities.
I hope the government will eventually wake up, as the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck) said; in fact, he claimed that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) was well disposed, but that he had no co-operation from his cabinet colleagues. Well, I hope the violent temper which he displayed the other day, when he scurried out of the house, will help him goad the government into action and make it stop saying that the situation is not serious.
The situation is indeed serious. The time has come, more than ever, for the government to wake up; in fact, if it does not, I fear for the future.
About the payment of half the cost of winter works, when I said that the cost of

those works undertaken during winter could exceed by 12 per cent that of works done diming the summer, a certain member rose to say that engineers had given him figures showing that the difference could not be more than one per cent. Well, that is possible if the hon. member has those works done on stone. It is cheaper during winter to quarry the stone because there is no water; hence, there is no need for pumping machines; stone is a good conductor of heat and cold and blasting is easier; I also understand that a mechanical shovel can pick it up without the necessity of repeated blasting. But when works are done in the ground, during winter, it is much more expensive. At the time I was mayor of Hull, I found that jobs carried out late in the fall or in winter time are much more expensive.
Mr. Chairman, if municipalities have to pay 10 to 12 per cent more, it means that they stand to gain absolutely nothing, because the cost of the labour required to carry out these jobs represents at most about 25 per cent of total costs at the present time. Assuming that one half of 25 per cent, or 124 per cent, is paid by the government, and that winter works cost 12 per cent more, and considering that today-since the celebrated conversion loan of our friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)-municipalities have to pay If to 2 per cent more than previously to borrow money, it can be seen that municipalities that have to borrow money to carry out winter works stand to lose money, in spite of government grants.
Anyway, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) proved it this afternoon when referring to works undertaken in Quebec city.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the government should wake up and do something.
The other day I heard the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) state that out of 3,000 unemployed in that city, 48 only were helped through the winter works program in that locality. And it is the same almost everywhere. That is why the winter works program organized by the minister has been quite ineffective in Canada.
I hope that the minister will change his mind and that he will be able to convince the Minister of Finance and especially the Prime Minister, that superman who, before the election, promised to solve every problem. If I should be elected, he said, no one is going to suffer from unemployment. I hope he will

remind him of his great election promises and tell him that more than $15 million are needed to handle the situation.
I urge the Minister of Labour to use his power, if he has any, to try to convince the ministers that a serious effort must be made to help the unemployed of Canada who need it.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take part is this discussion, as I wanted the government to vote the funds requested for the Department of Labour. I realize that my intervention will somewhat delay the voting of those funds, but I feel compelled to deal with the matter for a few minutes because some members of the opposition who have been speaking out of turn are more prone to sound off than to reason things out. I should like, Mr. Chairman, to point out certain discrepancies in the statements made by our friends of the Liberal party.
In the first place, much fuss is being made over an article published in La Presse, a Liberally-inclined newspaper, on February 10, 1959. I would ask my friends who do not know the colour of newspapers-such as the Ottawa Citizen-since they do not want to admit it, I ask them to question what the big Montreal daily La Presse stated on this matter.


Alexis Pierre Caron: "America's largest French
daily."


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: America's thickest newspaper.


Georges-J. Valade: It was Jean-Louis Gagnon who said it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He is a good editor.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. May I point out to the hon. member who has just finished his speech that, if he is not through breaking out with his arrogant remarks, he could at least let me go on with my speech.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I was answering your friend, and my own.


Georges-J. Valade: I raised a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to remind the hon. member for Hull that while he has duties as a member of parliament, he also has obligations towards the House of Commons and I would ask him to let me finish the speech that I have not yet been able to begin.
Supply-Labour


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I would ask the hon. members not to talk all at the same time. I must remind them that the hon. member for St. Mary now has the floor; and I would ask them not to interrupt him unduly.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for reminding the members of the opposition of their duty in this house.
Mr. Chairman, I merely wished to say that I realize that there are some in this house who ignore the standing orders and who take it upon themselves to criticize anything the Conservative government is doing for the general welfare of the people, not to mention the fact that they quote more or less accurate figures in order to misrepresent some of the measures which the Conservative government is trying to put forward to correct the unfortunate unemployment situation, which was not caused, in any case, by the Conservative government, but precisely, as has already been said, through the lack of foresight of the Liberal government which was unable to deal with the situation.
A moment ago I heard the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) say that if it had not been for legislation introduced by the Liberal party, the situation would be even worse.
Imagine, Mr. Chairman! If the Conservative government had not offered that 50 per cent grant towards winter works I wonder, with the lack of foresight of the Liberal party, what the situation would be like now as far as unemployment in the country is concerned. It is the Conservative government that agreed to pay 50 per cent of labour costs for winter works and some are making much ado, Mr. Chairman, about the amount of $43,000 paid by the Conservative government on the total amount of $1,118,000 for works in Montreal. Our friends forgot to mention that that amount of $1 million does not cover only winter works, but also the purchase of materials to be used in connection with winter works. That is what our friends of the opposition do not quite realize. And small wonder, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Bourget: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Georges-J. Valade: I am just coming to the end of my remarks. I shall allow you a question afterwards, if you wish.
No doubt you will remember reading in the papers a few days ago that the mayor of a municipality of greater Montreal, Ville d'Anjou-and I wish to congratulate him- was the first to take advantage of the measure

Supply-Labour
adopted by the federal government concerning winter works, because he set out the pace in undertaking a two million dollar works project in his municipality. Here is a mayor who lives up to his responsibilities; here is a mayor who found in the measure adopted by the Conservative government, legislation designed to help rectify the present situation- which was not the Conservative party's doing but which it inherited-a situation resulting from the want of foresight on the part of the preceding government.


Azellus Denis: Would the hon. member now allow me to put a question to him?


Georges-J. Valade: Yes.


Azellus Denis: The federal government has provided $43,000 for winter works. Since there are 82,000 unemployed in Montreal, how much does that amount to per unemployed person for the year?


Mr. Lessard:: Fifty cents per unemployed.


Georges-J. Valade: If the hon. member would ask his friends who make preposterous calculations in inverse geometrical progression, he will find it fairly easy to get a reply. As far as I am concerned, I would rather compare the Liberal government's record with what the present Conservative government is doing to deal with unemployment.
What did the Liberal party do to improve the unemployment situation? The preceding Liberal government froze credit and almost prevented the industry of the country to develop the way it is doing now. And, in order to please our friends of the opposition who like to quote literary authors-my hon. friend from Hull (Mr. Caron) might be able to suggest some authors in his riding-I am going to cite Michelet who said about the revolution:
You who cry over the causes of the revolution should also shed a few tears on the causes that brought it about.
Unemployment was brought about by the Liberal government and I should like to ask it to shed a few tears and agree to the item that the Conservative government is now asking for.
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, it is with some regret that I break into this amusing little game of the pot calling the kettle black. However, I should like to confine my remarks today to the matter before the house at this moment. I think possibly a good place to start would be with the statement of the minister as found at page 1018 of Hansard of Friday, February 13, starting at the bottom of the page:
I do not know whether there is anything else I can add at the moment except to say that this

is a field in which the federal government has never before participated.
I have not taken the opportunity of searching back through Hansard in order to verify that statement. I can only presume that it is true because, while I followed all of the speeches made by members of the official opposition, to date I found nobody who has denied that statement by the minister. On this fact I should like to compliment the minister. It shows that he has realized that there is a situation that needs attention; his position is in contrast with that of many of his colleagues. It also shows that he is willing to go ahead and try something that has never before been tried by the government of this country.
I believe that what we should do now is to pay particular attention to this program he has started and see just how good it is, how well it meets the situation, whether it should be improved or enlarged or whether in fact it might not be better, in the interests of all concerned, if something else were substituted for it.
Mr. Chairman, there appears to be a certain amount of confusion among the various municipalities across the country with regard to this program. I think it is quite easy to realize why this is so. Contained in the original letter that went out from the minister to the various provincial premiers, on page 2 under the item "Terms of the Offer" we find the following:
The Canadian government, subject to the approval of the plan by the provincial government, will reimburse each municipality one-half of the direct payroll costs of the municipality or its contractors or subcontractors during the period from December 1, 1958, to April 30, 1959-
Yet on page 3, under the item marked No. 7, we find the following:
Payments to year-round employees of the municipalities will not be included as part of the direct payroll costs-
I think that is rather an important item and I think that is possibly one of the major reasons why confusion has been caused among the various municipal officials with regard to this plan.
I recall very well, Mr. Chairman, that when this plan was first announced with due fanfare and publicity the impression very definitely was created, first of all that the federal government was assuming 50 per cent of the costs of these projects. I grant that the government never said that, but the fact still remains that that impression was created. Certainly the municipalities welcomed this announcement with great good cheer. However, when they started going into the actual terms of this proposal they found that definitely was not the picture at all. Instead of finding the situation to be

in accord with the first impression they received, namely that the federal government was to undertake 50 per cent of the costs, they found that the 50 per cent which the federal government was going to share in was confined to the payroll costs. They found further that it was confined to the payroll of people who were not in the steady employment of the municipalities.
Again, in the minister's statement of the other day, as reported at page 1018 of Hansard, we find the same thing:
This program involved participation by the federal government to the extent of 50 per cent of the total payroll costs in such projects as would not ordinarily be undertaken during the winter.
In the same letter which the minister sent to the provincial premiers, in item No. 4 on page 3, it is stated:
The bulk of those employed under this plan must be unemployed at the time they are hired.
I presume it is intended to grant employment and the resulting wages to those most in need. But when I inquired among various municipal officials in the Timmins area they informed me-and apparently they must have been mistaken because certainly this is contained in this letter or directive-that they had the impression that the only people who could qualify on these jobs were unemployed whose unemployment benefits had completely run out. As I say, they may have been mistaken. Apparently either my informants were in error or else the people who supplied the minister with his information were in error, one of the two.
I certainly do not question for a moment the words of the minister. I am sure he based them on the information supplied him by his officials. I see again on the same page of Hansard, page 1018, where the minister says that, to their pleasant surprise, the labour content amounted to some 38 per cent of the cost of the projects. There again that information is very much at variance with the information supplied by some of the various municipal officials and contractors in my area.
Let me refer to the three main projects, or I should say categories, listed under here as follows. The categories of work projects to be covered, subject to the acceptance of each winter works project, are:
<a) The construction and major reconstruction of streets, sidewalks or roads, other than arterial roads;
(b)	The construction and major reconstruction of water, sewage and storm sewage facilities not including buildings;
(c)	The construction and development of municipal parks.
I have talked with various contractors and asked them what proportion of jobs particularly falling under the first two categories
Supply-Labour
here would be involved in materials, and they informed me that on projects of this kind as high as 70 and 75 per cent of the cost of these projects would be for materials alone. They told me, of course, that under the terms of this agreement none of that cost would be shared by the federal government. They told me further that up to another 20 or more per cent would go for the cost of machinery-bulldozers, trucks, shovels, and that sort of thing. Again the federal government does not share these costs. Their share is confined to the cost of labour other than the regular municipal employees who may have to be placed on these projects to supervise them. In fact, they went so far as to say, particularly under these first two categories, that the actual labour cost that the federal government might share in would amount to not much more than 3 per cent of the cost of the whole project. As I say, possibly the information given to me is wrong, but that is the information I have.
In regard to this 50 per cent cost of payroll on jobs of this nature, such as sewage lines, water lines, trunk sewers and so on, it is impossible for the municipality just to go down to the employment office and hire 50 or 100 men and turn them loose on these projects. They must place their own experienced personnnel in charge of these projects; otherwise the repairs to these projects could cost more than the actual projects themselves.
So you can see, Mr. Chairman, that a considerable amount of the actual labour cost in these projects would involve permanent employees of the municipalities. They would have to put their engineers to work and their foremen on the job, and put leaders in charge of whatever projects they were working on. In fact, one of the municipal officials told me-and incidentally this is not contained under these three categories, so I am pleased to see that the government is not holding them down strictly to the three projects mentioned here-about a job concerned completely with manual labour in connection with clearing brush on a site which was going to be used as a city dump. All that was needed was an axe and a saw to cut the brush, and a box of matches to burn it. Under this project, which involved only manual labour, no machinery or material of any kind, they told me that all the municipality would realize from the contribution of both the federal government and the provincial government would be in the neighbourhood of 35 per cent.
There appears to be a lot of confusion. Either these people have the wrong impression or have been given the wrong picture

Supply-Labour
of this project, or else the figures supplied by the Minister of Labour are not in keeping with what the municipalities say in this project.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member allow me to give him this information, Mr. Chairman. The figures I have quoted regarding this plan have all been supplied by the municipalities themselves.


Murdo William Martin: These figures come directly from the municipalities?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Murdo William Martin: Then, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the mystery deepens as we go along. The minister quoted some of the figures of the numbers of men who, it is hoped, will be placed in employment over the next two or three months; in fact, over the five month period of this project. I believe he mentioned the figure of 22,712 men totalling up to a grand total of 1,226,358 man-days. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to get any kind of clear picture to evaluate what this program actually does. The best we can do is take some kind of average, and on that basis I believe, according to my mathematics, it works out to an average of about $12.77 per day for a total of 54 days, which is in fact about two and one-half months of working days. That would be in keeping with the directive in this letter to the effect that people employed on these projects will be paid at the going rate. I think possibly the rate of $12.77 a day would be a pretty fair average across the country from coast to coast of the daily wage being paid.
But another thing which I hope the minister will be able to supply as soon as the information is available is some kind of pattern of the length of time these people will be employed. Will they be employed for two weeks, one month, two months, or will some of them be employed full time and others for a very limited period? Again using the law of averages, we find that if one-half of these people employed were employed for the full four months period, the other half would only average one month of employment.
Mr. Chairman, X think the big question is this: Just what kind of an answer is this? This, we find, is the first and only project that this government has put forth designed specifically for the relief of unemployment. They have done other things, such as housing, which has helped but was not designed basically to relieve unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Yes, they were.


Murdo William Martin: They were never stated as such. If I may continue with my
[Mr. Martin (Timmins) .)
mathematical exercise and project this particular plan to its fullest extent, supposing we were to use this plan, or one very similar to it, for the full relief of unemployment today. We would find that over a period of five months we hope to have a total of 1,226,358 man-days. With the present unemployment, that means it is two days' work for the unemployed over a period of five months.
The minister quoted a figure in respect of the amount of money this is going to cost the municipalities, and he also gave an estimate of the amount that would be reimbursed to the municipalities by the federal government. These figures are, of course, estimated figures and probably no more exact than the ones I have given. The best we can do is to make certain assumptions, and we find that in order to put everybody who is now unemployed back to work on the lines of a plan similar to this, the municipalities would have to raise in five months time over and above their regular budgets a total sum of $2,330 million of which, on the basis which has been mentioned, they would receive reimbursement from the federal government amounting to $379 million. This applies to the same five-month period. If we extended the period to a full year we would find that the municipalities would have to raise $5,600 million over and above their regular budgets and that of this sum the federal government would reimburse them to the extent of a billion dollars, or an amount in that neighbourhood.
I do not think it is impossible for the federal government to raise this one billion dollars. After all, it is roughly 50 per cent of what we are now spending on obsolete weapons of defence. But I do say it is a physical impossibility for the municipalities to raise their share. It is a hopeless proposition. Not only would the municipalities have to raise their own share, but they would also have to raise, initially at least, the share of the federal government and the share of the provincial government where the province is taking part, because it is clearly stated that the municipalities must raise these funds and that they will be reimbursed eventually by the federal government and by the provincial government if the province is sharing in the program.
I do not know exactly what the situation is in all the various provinces across the country, but I have been given to understand that in Ontario unemployed persons whose eligibility for benefits has run out can turn to the municipalities and the municipalities have to raise only 20 per cent of their welfare payments, the other 80 per cent of the cost

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
being reimbursed in the ratio, I believe, of 40 per cent by the federal government and 40 per cent by the provincial government. As time goes on and as more and more unemployed persons become ineligible for benefit and are obliged to fall back on the municipalities, how can a municipality be expected to take part in such a plan as we have heard described, under which they have to raise the full amount required to put these people to work, when today they only have to pay 20 per cent of the cost of relief? It is very fine to get all these jobs done, and many municipalities have jobs waiting which they have been trying to get under way for years. Let us not forget, however, that municipalities have to strike their budgets at the beginning of the year, and where in the world can they raise this additional money to put such a plan into effect way back at the end of the year? I mention these things to show that it is an impossibility as far as the municipalities are concerned.
There is one other point which I should like to have explained and it arises in the very first paragraph of the terms of the offer contained in the letter sent to the premiers of each province dated October 29. The letter says: "The Canadian government, subject to the approval of the plan by provincial governments" will do various things. And we find, according to the Minister of Labour's own statement, that even to date only five out of the ten provinces are participating in this plan. I wonder if this is the best we can do for the municipalities? Even if they want to take advantage of this scheme they cannot do so apparently unless they first obtain the approval of the province, regardless of whether the province is sharing in the scheme or not. This is one more item in the proposal which tends to confuse the municipalities and which has probably prevented them from taking advantage of this plan, inadequate as it is.


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to enter into this discussion but as mayor of a municipality I must say I was filled with alarm when I realized the growing number of the unemployed. When one considers it, $15 million is really only a drop of water in the bucket when it is remembered that 538,000 people are without employment at the present time and that over 800,000 are seeking work. If we relate this sum of $15 million to the total number of the unemployed-538,000-and if we take as a basis of our calculation the assumption that the average wage of a labouring person in Canada today is $12.50 a day, then we find that $15 million would supply work for 538,000 unemployed people for about two and a quarter
days. Hon. members will agree with me, I think, that this is not going to do very much to alleviate the suffering among the unemployed in Canada.
It is said that the government pays 50 per cent of the cost of labour. On a public utility project, labour cost averages about 20 per cent of the total cost. The proposal means, in effect, that the government would be contributing approximately 10 per cent of the total cost of the project. As a mayor I can tell the committee that the financial situation of the municipalities is such that very few of them can afford to undertake any project on the basis of a 10 per cent contribution. Many of the municipalities in Canada at the present time are on the verge of bankruptcy.
The high cost of financing and issuing debentures is preventing many of our municipalities from undertaking even the projects which carry the highest priority, whether they are given a 50 per cent grant or not. If the government would indicate that something might be done in conjunction with the provinces, and that the provinces would contribute the other half of the labour costs, it might be possible for the municipalities to undertake desirable projects and to pay for the necessary materials. It must be remembered that municipalities have only limited scope with regard to raising money through taxation. The amount of taxes raised by the municipalities approximates only 10 per cent of the total tax levied, with the result that it is very difficult for the municipalities to take advantage of this plan by undertaking the construction of any public utilities at the present time.
One should also take into consideration the demoralizing effect of the presence of a large amount of unemployment upon those who are still employed-the fear of losing a job, the fear of hunger, the despair and anxiety which the situation creates. Let everyone remember that the Prime Minister said in his election speeches that not one man would go hungry in this country if he was put into power. I think it is about time the government took some action so that these projects could be carried out, but not on a 10 per cent basis because there is scarcely a municipality in Canada which could undertake to carry out a project on such terms.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
720. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council-further amount required, $630,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, this item relates to payments in connection with the movement of coal under conditions prescribed
1118	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys by the governor in council and calls for a further amount of $630,000 in order to cover additional grants for the transportation of coal. I hope that during the course of my remarks this evening I will be within the rules and standing orders of this house as my remarks will deal specifically and particularly with the disposal of the surplus of coal, especially as it relates to the maritime provinces.
The coal situation today, we know, is a major problem. There is what can be described as a coal crisis, a crisis which has been prominent since the day the present government took office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I may tell hon. gentlemen opposite that they will have ample opportunity to learn about the situation before I conclude my remarks. Before dealing with the specific item in the supplementary estimates I should like to bring to the attention of the committee remarks made by the former prime minister, the Right. Hon. Louis St. Laurent, remarks which have been quoted before in this house and which have been strongly criticized by hon. members who now sit on the government side, particularly during the last two election campaigns. These remarks deal specifically with the surplus production of coal in the maritime provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The indication my hon. friend has given of going back to an earlier period prompts me to rise on a point of order concerning the limits of debate on this item. May I point out that this item involves simply a further amount to be added to an appropriation which parliament made at the last session for the current fiscal year. The need for this additional amount of $630,000 arises from one cause and one cause only, namely that effective April 1 of last year, the first day of the new fiscal year, the amount of the subsidy paid on the movement of coal from the maritimes to markets in eastern Canada was raised by 50 cents a ton. That is the purport of this item in its entirety and therefore with great respect I submit that the kind of remarks upon which my hon. friend indicates he is embarking are not in order.
What we are dealing with here is an item on which parliament has already appropriated something over $8,500,000 for a purpose approved by parliament in principle. All we have involved in the item now under discussion is an addition to that same item of an amount sufficient to pay for the additional subsidy of 50 cents a ton on the coal moved from the maritimes to the markets of

central Canada. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not think an item so confined in its effect is any occasion for as extended a debate as that upon which my hon. friend appears to have embarked.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I anticipated that as usual the Minister of Finance would interfere and attempt to call the speaker to order. On the very point of order raised by the Minister of Finance, where we are voting an additional amount of $630,000, which means a payment of 50 cents a ton additional for the transportation of coal from the maritimes to central Canada, I want to state that the very purpose of my remarks is this. I will seek to prove to this committee that this amount is not sufficient. The payment of $630,000 will not take care of the situation. With all due respect to the remarks made by the minister I feel that my remarks are duly in order.
I was about to comment on a statement made in this house by the former prime minister the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent prior to the election of June 1957.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, you have not dealt, as I understand it, with the point of order, and I take it that my hon. friend is proposing to proceed with his speech. May we have your ruling on the point?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to direct my attention to the point of order which has been raised by the minister. The item now under discussion is entitled, "dominion coal board" and refers to payments in connection with the movement of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council. I respectfully submit that the item under discussion would authorize the hon. member for Gloucester to discuss anything under the dominion coal board having to do with this item. What he is proposing to do is to say to the committee that the 50 cent payment which is authorized under this item is not sufficient. For that reason I submit with deference that so long as he deals with the transportation of coal he has the right under this item to proceed in the fashion in which he has.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: On this particular item we must limit ourselves to the question of coal transportation and we must not address ourselves to the general principle of the economics of the dominion coal board. We cannot resume the debate which took place at the last session on the activities of the dominion coal board at which time everyone had a chance to voice his opinion. We must at this point limit ourselves strictly to the transportation factors involved in the present

estimate. I will therefore request the hon. member for Gloucester to restrict his remarks to transportation.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to abide by your ruling but it is exceedingly difficult for any speaker to limit his remarks to the transportation of coal alone. There is a reason for this item. This vote is to help subsidize the transportation of coal in order to take care of the surplus of coal that presently exists in the province of Nova Scotia. I shall limit my remarks to the question of coal only.
I was saying that the former prime minister stated in this house that he wanted these coal mines to be kept in operation because, as he said, we do not want coal mining towns of Nova Scotia to become ghost towns and that so far as he was concerned and to the extent his opinions may have carried weight in the decisions that were taken then we were not going to encourage substantial increases in the production of coal because we did not think it would be fair to future generations of Canada. Those were the words of a prime minister who, notwithstanding the critical significance and possible reaction of his remarks on the eve of a general election, would rather tell the truth than adopt the position of his opponents by making promises which he never could fulfil.
On February 28, 1958, when speaking at Coxheath, Nova Scotia, the present Prime Minister is reported to have appealed for a new mandate on the basis that his government had fulfilled every promise made to the electorate. The words of the Prime Minister on that occasion were these:
I now ask for a working majority so that together we can go forward into the future and build a great Canada.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister prior to the last election. I am sure that some hon. members, especially those from Cape Breton and elsewhere in Nova Scotia, recall this full page advertisement during the last campaign. In it I find the words, "Action today or regret tomorrow."


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret that I must tell the hon. member that his remarks are out of order. We must confine our remarks to transportation alone and not the general economics of the dominion coal board. If the hon. member wishes to make a speech on the economics of this question I will have to ask him to resume his seat.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Again I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that my remarks are based on the surplus production of coal, and the reason we have this item before us is
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys that there was not sufficient money in the vote last spring to take care of transportation.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. Once again I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the item concerns only payment for transportation and has nothing to do with the overproduction of coal which possibly necessitates a system of subsidies. The remarks of the hon. member must be confined strictly to the question of transportation payments and nothing else. Later during the session there will be an opportunity to deal with the question of coal. The remarks that the hon. member is making at present will then be relevant but at present we are dealing with a supplementary estimate and hon. members should not stray away from the item under discussion. Therefore I respectfully ask for the co-operation of the hon. member in limiting his remarks to the item.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I will have to abide by your ruling but I am still convinced that the reason we have a transportation problem, the reason an extra amount is needed, is that we have a surplus of coal in the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Last June temporary layoffs took place in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, and these layoffs were not avoided by definite action on the part of the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is only one chairman here and I hope that hon. members on the other side-


Mr. Graffiey:: Why don't you abide by his ruling then?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. First of all I must ask hon. members to refrain from all talking at once. It is quite true that there is supposed to be only one Speaker and one Chairman presiding. Once again I must say to the hon. member that his remarks concerning what possibly took place in the mines which necessitated subsidies have reference to the economics of the mines whereas this is strictly a question of transport and transport payments. The hon. member must confine his remarks strictly to transport payments.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, again I accept your decision. I know that you want to limit my remarks to the question of the transportation of coal but in order to talk about the transportation of coal I want to lay before the committee the fact that there is at present a surplus of coal. I am not talking about the economic situation as far as

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys the coal industry is concerned. There is a surplus of coal in Nova Scotia and the surplus of coal today would not be there if the promises made by hon. members on the government side of the house had been kept.
That is my main argument, Mr. Chairman. I know that in New Brunswick in 1958 we had a decrease in production and transportation subsidies were not required for New Brunswick coal. But although production in Nova Scotia was 431,034 tons lower in 1958 than in the previous year, additional money is needed this year in order to subsidize the transportation of coal from Nova Scotia to central markets. The situation is worse today than it was 18 months ago when the present government took office. Only ten days ago 4,000 miners were laid off in Nova Scotia.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I will try to make myself more explicit. This item has nothing to do with what happens at the mines. It has to do with what happens from point A where the rail cars leave to point B where the rail cars go. The only thing that can be discussed is what happens between those two points. I regret that I cannot permit the hon. member to enter into a general debate concerning the coal situation at present.
The question of relevancy has come up very frequently in this session and as it seems to be disregarded by too many members I believe it is necessary that I should bring to the attention of hon. members at this time that this rule should be strictly enforced in all debates. We have a long session ahead of us. We have very serious matters to discuss and debate and unless we adhere strictly to each item we will stray off into debates which will be endless. In one debate a certain degree of latitude was granted by the chair to the member introducing the discussion and as a result the same latitude had to be tolerated by the chair in the case of other speakers also. That debate threatened to be endless. Consequently I must remind hon. members that from now on we will enforce the rules. I am not here to make the rules. I am here to have them observed and the question of relevancy will be observed in its strictest sense. In the present instance, if the hon. member wishes to talk about what happens to these coal cars from point A to point B he can have the floor. Otherwise he cannot.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would be the last one-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the house realizes that I would be the last one to disagree with the chairman's ruling, and I did not rise to disagree with the ruling. On the contrary,


I rose simply to bring this point to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that while I can find little to dispute in the general ruling you have just handed down, nevertheless I should like to remind you respectfully of one fact. During the course of the consideration of the preceding item, No. 709, the debate was allowed to stray to almost anything that concerned the Department of Labour. I am not suggesting that the same thing should be done here but I do suggest with respect that the member for Gloucester should be allowed to discuss the matter before the committee now, namely the dominion coal board and the expenditures required for the movement of coal. In order to do that I think there must be some leeway in the ruling so that he can lay the foundation for his argument on the movement of coal at the amount mentioned in the item now under discussion. I simply rose for the purpose of reminding the chairman that the debate was allowed to roam all afternoon on the previous item and I think that at least this speaker should be given some latitude.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Laurier, I think I am disposed to agree with what he had to say about the debate having roamed very widely, very far afield indeed, on item 709, and I hope that what he has said now will be taken to heart by those who sit around him.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: What about your members?


Lionel Chevrier: The speakers were as
numerous on the other side.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say this, further, that I feel my hon. friend is confusing this item in the supplementary estimates with the kind of discussion that is had on the main estimates. You referred on a similar point last week, Mr. Chairman, to a ruling to this effect, that where the supplementary estimate consists of an addition of a sum to the one already voted at the last session in the main estimates, the addition to the sum does not permit a wide ranging debate, as if the item before the committee were the original item.
The question before the committee is whether a particular sum shall be added to a sum that was already voted. It does not reopen the former item at all. In the present case, it is quite clear that the sum proposed to be added here is not to pay the subsidies as they were in existence prior to the commencement of this fiscal year. This sum is required for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to pay the addition that came into effect on April 1, 1958 to the subsidy on the movement of maritime coal to

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
the markets of central Canada; that is all that is involved in the item. This does not permit reopening of the discussion on the broad question of even the transportation of maritime coal to the central provinces. The subsidy for this was provided by parliament at the last session.
The one thing that is involved in the present item is whether parliament is prepared to approve the payment of the subsidy of 50 cents per ton which was added to the previously existing subsidy.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before proceeding with my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the point of order. On page 838 of Hansard for February 9, 1959 the Minister of Finance, while addressing this house on a nonconfidence motion and attacking the hon. member for Essex East, is recorded as saying:
We have been waiting now for two days to get on to an item relating to the winter works program in the supplementary estimates, but hon. members opposite are talking about everything under the sun in order to prevent our reaching the discussion of this winter works program.
At that time the hon. member was talking about the subject of unemployment, so he is certainly taking a different attitude tonight than he was on February 9, because then he was saying that we had to get to the labour item on the supplementary estimates to debate unemployment.
I shall try again to abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I fully realize that hon. members on the government side do not want to hear a discussion of the coal situation this evening. They know that the situation is altogether different from the one they would like to see. I know that quite a few of them, if not all of them, have no desire to speak on this item. I am surprised to find that on an item which has to do with the dominion coal board we are not allowed to speak about the dominion coal board. The dominion coal board appears to have been coming into the picture quite frequently during the last few weeks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the time has come to say very plainly that the hon. member is simply seeking, in a very palpable way, to circumvent and defy your ruling.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance has no right to make the kind of statement he has just made. If he wants to raise a point of order, let him raise it, but he cannot make the statement he made and say that the hon. member is defying the Chair. He has no right to do it, and he should not try it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For the comfort of the ire of the hon. member for Laurier, I will repeat the statement.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Now that closure is being imposed on us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order; will the hon. member resume his seat.


Alexis Pierre Caron: There is no flag being draped around your seat tonight.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before resuming my seat, I want to say that I will abide by your ruling. It will not be necessary for anyone to send for a flag, as has been mentioned by one hon. member. The minister can look all he wants to, but we remember this incident when he had to walk out of the house.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. We are discussing an item which deals with the transportation of coal. We are straying somewhat away from this item. We are talking about closure, flags and various other matters. I shall ask the hon. member to kindly confine his remarks to the transportation of coal. I must tell him, for the last time, that if he wishes to stray away and discuss the economics of the coal situation the chair will be forced to ask him, regretfully, to take his seat.
Furthermore, I must ask the committee to avoid any more incidents such as the one that has just taken place.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I realize that I was talking about transportation, but the transportation about which I was speaking was a little different from the transportation of coal. Someone had been transported out of the house. In any event, as I have said, the remarks which I intend to make this evening were directed to the coal industry, and in view of your decision I realize that I will be unable to proceed. Before resuming my seat I will ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to give us an explanation in full of this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I have already given an explanation of this item twice. If the hon. gentleman did not take it in either time, I shall endeavour to repeat it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I asked the minister of mines to explain this item.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is customary for the Minister of Finance to answer general questions on the items in the supplementary estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: The question was directed to the minister of mines.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Are you the minister of mines?
1122	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have explained this item twice, and how it arises. It is to provide a subsidy of 50 cents per ton on the movement of coal, that addition having been brought into effect by order in council as of April 1, 1958.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister of mines tell us how many tons of coal this item covers, and where were they to be shipped?


Mr. Comlois:: I shall try to bring the committee to a lower temperature. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding about this item. This vote is not concerned with dominion coal board affairs. The vote states-[DOT]


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Dominion coal board.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Yes, that is the title, but please, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the hon. member for Gloucester to read the explanation here. It says:
Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council.
The conditions were set out in the order in council, and the present vote relates only to them. I think that is sufficient. My understanding is that we are dealing with a particular item related to the increase in the subsidy which was decided upon last year at the beginning of the fiscal year and provided for by order in council. The addition of 50 cents a ton was made to the subsidy for the shipment of coal to the Ontario market.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has the minister the order in council? Can he produce the order in council involved?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I do not have this order in council here, but it was tabled at that time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister explain the order in council? Can he tell us what it is about?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall item 710 carry?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: We want to know what the order in council is about.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I have not the order in council here, I am sorry to say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the order in council, like others, has found its way into the regular reports that are made and form part II of the Canada Gazette. This matter was discussed fully last session. My hon. friend has apparently overlooked the fact that this matter was discussed fully in the estimates committee at the 1958 session when the main estimates for the year 1958-59 of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys were reviewed. In this matter we are threshing again very old straw. This vote

is intended to provide a subsidy on the same movement of coal as was discussed there, adding 50 cents to the subsidy then approved.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, even if the item were discussed 110 times, the hon. member has the right to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys a question and that is what he has done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has his answer.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: It is very simple. I think everybody knows about that order in council. It was tabled.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Everybody but the minister.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester knows about it. It is very simple. It is an increase of 50 cents a ton on Nova Scotia coal transshipped from any port in Quebec-Montreal or Three Rivers -to the Ontario market.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On what date was this order in council passed?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: On April 9, 1958.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: At least we obtained one answer.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, we are now considering an item of $630,000, representing an additional subsidy of 50 cents a ton for the transport of coal to the province of Ontario.
I am of the opinion that this question of coal transportation is closely linked with the difficulties prevailing at the present time in that part of Nova Scotia where 4,000 miners are jobless. Should the government ask us to vote a sum of money-let us say twice as much as the one now listed in the supplementary estimates-perhaps we would not have those 4,000 jobless miners in Nova Scotia. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say that when we refer here to those jobless miners in that part of Nova Scotia, we are quite right and, in fact, if the government should ask the house to vote $1,500,000 instead of $630,000, there would not be any jobless people in Nova Scotia at present. That is the issue which concerns us at the moment.
In 1958, Nova Scotia produced 5,254,736 tons of coal, of which about 1,700,000 tons were transported to the province of Quebec, and about 500,000 tons to the province of Ontario. I am informed that for the year 1959, this additional amount of 50 cents a ton, which we are asked to vote now for the transportation of Nova Scotia coal east of

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
Toronto, will be inadequate. It is the duty of the government to tell us, while we are asked to vote that additional sum of $630,000: "We propose to ask the house to vote this supplementary credit in order to permit the transshipment of a greater quantity of coal to the province of Ontario".
In 1958, the province of Quebec market remained roughly the same as it was in previous years. Since 1947, about 1,800,000 tons of coal have been sold in the province of Quebec each year, and that has been the main maritimes' external market.
In the province of Nova Scotia, the consumption reaches roughly 1,800,000 tons also.
During the same span of years, a certain quantity of coal has been sold to Newfoundland and New Brunswick, and the rest was used in industry or by Dosco itself, either in Sydney, or in some other of its plants.
Mr. Chairman, the study of this item is very important and we who are sitting here on this side of the house, want this sum to be voted as soon as possible. But here is what happened. Last year-and here again it is a question of transport-the people of Nova Scotia were told that all their problems were settled, that the new government would look after the Nova Scotia coal mines. What has been done? If the government had kept its promise last year and had made possible the transportation of more coal outside the maritimes, we would not be confronted with this most serious problem at the present time. Our hearts go out to the people of Nova Scotia-
(Text):


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is certainly not abiding by the ruling made by the chair earlier.
(Translation):


Armand Dumas: I said, at the outset of my remarks that this question of coal transportation was the problem which the Nova Scotia coal mines had to face at the present time. The 10,000 or 12,000 miners employed in the collieries of Cape Breton-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member who just interrupted you should know it.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, I submit that promises were made to Nova Scotia. They even went so far as suggesting there would be no unemployment in the mines. What did we see? Last summer, we saw-
66968-9-71J
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are having a repetition of the same sort of thing we encountered with the hon. member who spoke previously. In view of the fact that you were not in the chair when this point arose on the remarks of the hon. member who spoke previously may I point out, Mr. Chairman, that this item concerns one matter and one matter only-


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -namely the addition effective April 1, 1958 of the sum of 50 cents per ton to the existing subsidy on the movement of maritime coal to the markets of central Canada. It concerns that one thing, namely the addition of 50 cents to the previous subsidy. It does not warrant this discussion, as was ruled by the Deputy Speaker when in the chair earlier. It does not give any warrant for this wide-ranging discussion into the whole economy of the coal industry. The hon. gentleman who is now speaking is just making the kind of speech which the hon. member who spoke previously attempted to make and which the Deputy Speaker, when in the chair, ruled to be clearly out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed to say a word on the point of order. I listened very carefully to what the hon. gentleman was saying in the French language and anyone who understands the French language properly can come to no other conclusion but that the hon. member was dealing with the transportation of coal. He directed his remarks continually toward the transportation of coal, and he dealt with that from the beginning of his remarks, during his remarks, and until he was interrupted by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I respectfully submit to you, sir, that he is perfectly in order in the remarks which he has made.


Charles Edward Rea: I happened to be standing behind the curtain when the Chairman made his ruling, so I did happen to hear it. Therefore I will follow the ruling of the Chairman naturally. I do feel that the hon. member for Villeneuve started out, as far as the translation is concerned, quite in order. I think that in the last three or four minutes he began to wander a little, but I am sure he will want to get back to the subject.


Armand Dumas: You are very kind, Mr. Chairman.
1124	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys (Translation):
I stated my case on this matter last year, but again, this matter of transportation is what we are concerned with at this time, and it is precisely on this point, and on the sole basis of this matter of transportation, that the Minister of Finance is asking us today to vote an amount of $630,000. I am sure the Minister of Finance is anxious that this amount be voted as soon as possible. However, it is the responsibility of the opposition to draw attention to some very important points that are of concern to the people of Nova Scotia.
Last December, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) had some talks here with members of the management of the Dosco mine and with a group interested in the coal mining industry. Surely, on that occasion, some mention must have been made that men would shortly be laid off. This matter of coal transportation was therefore referred to, since, as I said a moment ago, in the province of Nova Scotia, coal consumption amounts to about a third of the whole production in that province, while the other two thirds are exported. So my arguments are always closely linked with this transportation issue.
Quite recently we had the visit of the premier of Nova Scotia here in Ottawa. Labour union representatives came here to discuss with government members that Nova Scotia coal transportation issue. In the province of Quebec and in Ontario, it was decided-
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I must correct the hon. gentleman, and in so doing I rise on a point of order. He is now proposing to discuss the matter of representations or discussions recently entered upon by the premier of Nova Scotia. I must point out that those discussions have nothing whatever to do with the subject now before the committee.


Mr. Crestohl:: What kind of closure are you trying to put on us now?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are dealing here with one matter and one only. We are not discussing the transportation of coal in general. We are dealing with one question directed to whether parliament shall provide the sum required to pay an additional subsidy of 50 cents per ton effective April 1, 1958. That is all. These discussions that my hon. friend wants to advert to now have nothing to do with this item at all.


(Translation):


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, I am positive you will agree that my remarks were dealing with item 710 of the supplementary estimates for the year closing on March 31, 1959.
At any rate, I do not want to prolong the discussion, because we on this side of the house are interested in the welfare of the Nova Scotia miners, and in their returning to work as soon as possible.
The government should disclose to us its intention of adding a further amount to this item in order to improve the distribution of Nova Scotia coal.
That is our argument, Mr. Chairman. If the minister is prepared to promise to us, to-night, that the government intends in the near future to ask the house to increase the grants for the transportation of coal, or to further the mechanization of the mines, or to offer grants with a view to building up coal washing plants, I shall resume my seat at once, and we are going to agree to this item immediately.
Mr. Chairman, this matter of the Nova Scotia coal is a far-reaching one and the government has promised the people in that province that the problem would be solved. Therefore, we ask the government to solve it as soon as possible.
(Text):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I think before deciding this question we should have an answer from the minister. My colleague, the member for Villeneuve, stated that we on this side of the house are not satisfied when $630,000 only is voted to take care of the situation as an additional subsidy on transportation of coal. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys knows that representations have been made to the government. They were made here on November 19. They were made again on December 17, again on December 19, again on-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I rise again on a point of order. We are just having a repetition of the same kind which occurred a moment ago. My hon. friend now wants to talk about discussions held in connection with something else, something additional that has nothing whatever to do with the item under discussion. It has nothing to do with the payment of the subsidy of 50 cents per ton which was brought into effect by order in council on April 1 last, and I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you hold the discussion strictly to the item which is before the house.


Charles Edward Rea: I want to say further that, following the rule of the chairman

Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
of committees I must ask the hon. member for Gloucester to consider the payment in connection with the movement of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the minister will illustrate to us just what we can discuss under this heading. We are in committee of the whole, and on items presented to the house asking for a vote of $600,000-odd, I respectfully submit to you we should have some latitude to examine as to whether or not the sum should be voted, whether a greater sum should be voted, or whether a smaller sum should be voted. We are entitled to some latitude to examine the item and discuss it. We simply cannot be closed off and just say "I will vote for it", or "I will not vote for it." I would like an illustration from the minister as to what he thinks can be said on such an item other than just voting for it. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that you should allow an examination into that item in so far as it will deal with that item. Is the amount sufficient? What makes it necessary to present this item now to the house for approval? We cannot approve it in blank and rubber stamp it. I submit we are entitled to some latitude in examining it, and I think that is what the hon. members were doing.
(Translation):


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, I have asked a few questions of the Minister of Finance. I cannot blame him for failing to answer my questions. I would like to ask the same questions of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) so that he may reply. Could the minister tell us how many tons of coal are affected by this item of $630,000 that we are asked to vote today?


Mr. Comtois:: I think it is time to clear up this situation. I will try to do so in order that the matter be well understood and so that this question which is interpreted in a certain manner on one side of the house and in a different manner on the other side be settled once and for all. The amount provided for in last year's estimates was $8,580,250, for subsidies to be paid during the year. After the start of the fiscal year, an order in council was passed raising the subsidy on Nova Scotia coal by 50 cents a ton. Of course, the cost of that could not be determined until the end of the year. No one knew at the time how many tons
of coal would be sold on the Ontario market. Well, at the end of the year, it was found that for Nova Scotia only-I repeat, for Nova Scotia	only-an	additional amount of
$1,808,170 was required as a result of this increase of 50 cents a ton granted by order in council in April 1958. While our estimates for the year did not meet the full amount for Nova Scotia, due to the increase granted by order in council, our estimates for Alberta coal showed a surplus, which was applied against the transportation of Nova Scotia coal. But we still needed $630,000, and that is the amount we are asking the house to approve in order to complete the amount of the additional subsidy.


Armand Dumas: The reason I directed that question to the minister is that a few moments ago he mentioned that this applied only to coal shipped to Ontario. Is that item only for coal shipped to Ontario?


Paul Comtois: Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Dumas: Now turning to the three questions I raised, I said we were in favour of voting this item of $630,000, but I asked the minister whether the government could now indicate whether a plan for the future has been worked out, and whether, for instance, there is to be a supplementary vote, an additional vote for speeding up mechanization, or whether it has been decided to grant a subsidy to enable firms to build a cleaning plant so as to improve the quality of their coal. As an example, the Ontario Hydro Electric Company is willing to buy Nova Scotia coal provided that it is of the required quality and, of course, that it is sold at a comparable price to American coal.
The province of Ontario buys 16 million tons of coal per year. I realize the difficulties involved. American coal costs less delivered than Nova Scotia coal at the mine pit. That is why, today, the government must subsidize the transportation of Nova Scotia coal, so that it may compete with imported coal. Is the government in a position tonight to state whether it intends to increase coal transportation subsidies and to ask parliament to vote a grant to speed up the mechanization program of mines and the construction of a cleaning plant? That would raise our hopes for a significant improvement of the situation which has been existing since 1958 in Nova Scotia.


Paul Comtois: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Villeneuve cannot ask me to answer
1126	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys a question on a matter the government has under consideration. That question has already been asked by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). I have already answered that the matter was being considered and that I would announce to the house the government's decision.


Armand Dumas: I believe that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is indeed well disposed towards coal industry in Nova Scotia and in western Canada. However, since the committee on mines, forests and waters is sitting since this morning and that its sittings will probably go on till the end of April, may I ask the hon. minister to convince his colleagues that the situation in Nova Scotia is quite serious, that it is important that a decision be reached as soon as possible and reported to this committee, which in my opinion, is the best committee of the house.
(Text):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister at least give us some indication as to when we could expect a decision following the series of representations made to him and to the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has nothing to do with this item, Mr. Chairman.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is it the intention of the minister to introduce further supplementary estimates to cover the subvention on the transportation of coal from Nova Scotia?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the government so decides, the hon. member will learn of it in due course.


William Arnold Peters: A great number of questions have been raised which I am sure should not have been raised, and I believe they have confused other hon. members as much as they have confused me. I should like to ask a number of questions in the hope of getting the information I need. First, what does the 50 cents make the total subsidy paid for the transportation of coal? Is the 50 cents something additional or is it the total subsidy?


Paul Comtois: The hon. member should be aware that on every ton of coal shipped to the ports of the St. Lawrence and then transshipped to the Ontario markets the government grants a subsidy of $5.25.


William Arnold Peters: Does that include the 50 cents?


Paul Comtois: Yes sir.


William Arnold Peters: On what grades of coal are these payments made; are they paid on all grades or only on certain classes of coal?


Paul Comtois: Bituminous coal for power.


William Arnold Peters: What is the method of obtaining the subsidy? To whom do you pay it?


Paul Comtois: We pay the subsidy to the company which sells the coal, of course.


William Arnold Peters: Could I inquire how much subsidy is paid to the companies?


Paul Comtois: Mostly to the Dominion Coal Company. This company produces about 80 per cent of all the coal produced in Nova Scotia.


William Arnold Peters: The minister mentioned $5.25 per ton when shipped to the Ontario market. Does this create a favourable differential in competition with, first of all, United States imports and, secondly, with coal coming from western Canada. In other words, is the subsidy leading to the sale of maritime coal rather than coal imported from the United States and the west?


Paul Comtois: The subsidy of course improves the condition of the market and helps to sell the coal in Ontario.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Does it cover both domestic and industrial coal?


Paul Comtois: I did not understand the hon. member's question.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Does the subsidy cover coal for domestic use and for industrial use?


Paul Comtois: Yes.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I trust I may carry on for at least half a minute before I am found out of order by the Minister of Finance, the self-appointed chairman of this committee.


An hon. Member:: That depends on what you say.


Osias.-J. Godin: I feel it would be fitting if I were to make a brief reference to the fact that I deeply appreciated the wonderful address which the Minister of Finance had occasion to deliver in Sudbury last night in connection with the observance of Brotherhood Week. My only wish at this time would be that the minister this evening would practice to a greater extent what he preached last night. The hon. gentleman had no difficulty winning converts to the brotherhood idea and he captured and held the interest of the audience to a marked degree.
I feel it is my duty in discussing this item to point out that the government has failed to come to terms with the problem confronting the coal industry. I realize that I do not

come from a coal producing area of Canada but since I have been a member of this house during the last two sessions I have observed that there is no problem in the eastern provinces that has commanded more attention than that facing the coal industry. The renewed and increased difficulties in the industry about which we have recently heard indicate that the government has failed to find a solution.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Gloucester and especially with the remarks made by the hon. member for Villeneuve who indicated the need for increased coal subsidies. I urge that the attention of this government be directed to considering the problems of the industry and the whole question of the payment of subsidies on the transportation of coal. I hope the government will see fit to answer the requests that have been made for action in this regard and take steps to alleviate the grave condition that exists in the eastern provinces in respect of the coal industry.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before this item passes I should like to ask a few questions of the minister. I would like to know the percentage of coal hauled by the C.P.R., C.N.R. and by water?


An hon. Member:: What about air? What about Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: There is no way of knowing.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister give an estimate?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: Since the minister cannot give me the exact figures I would appreciate an estimate of what percentage is hauled by each of these means. Is the subsidy being paid under this item larger than the freight rate, or half of it? What is the percentage?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Chairman, I would have to give full details on the different subsidies paid on transportation by rail or ship from one point to another and from one district to another. If the hon. member wishes I could privately furnish him with all the details which cover three full typewritten pages. I am perfectly willing to give him this information.


An hon. Member:: Send him a letter.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that some hon. members on the
government side who come from coal producing areas have not seen fit to take this problem seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


Hédard-J. Robichaud: They have been laughing and joking about the whole matter since the debate started.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: We were laughing at you.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister tell us how many tons came under the subsidy? What was the total percentage of coal that came under the subsidy?


Joseph-Roland Comtois: The information I have indicates that 2,670,885 tons came under it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, that certainly was not enough to take care of the Conservative lent which is taking place in Cape Breton today.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. I would not want to disappoint the hon. member for Gloucester by having no one from Nova Scotia on this side of the chamber speak on this item. I should like to congratulate the government and the appropriate minister on the subventions that have been paid and also on the provision of this additional amount which I understand has helped acquire markets in Belleville, Ontario, and has also landed coal as far east as Toronto. The landing of Nova Scotia coal in eastern markets is of great assistance.
I am sure the government is considering the problems confronting the coal industry which were so ably expressed by the hon. members for Villeneuve and Gloucester and that appropriate action will be taken in this regard.
May I conclude by saying that I am glad hon. members of the Liberal party from the maritime provinces and also from Quebec have seen fit to speak on this item.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You should say we tried to speak.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Yes I really should say that because you did not do too well, that is true. Several years ago in the county of Pictou at a certain coal mine employing between 1,000 and 2,000 men-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Shall the resolution carry?


William Arnold Peters: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask a few more questions on this subject.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister who is leading the house what the government business is for tomorrow?

Business of the House Mr. Churchill:	Mr. Speaker, there is no
change in the program as announced yesterday but I will put it on the record it hon. members so wish. Tomorrow we will continue with the supplementary estimates. We will then take item No. 6 on today's order paper, the resolution concerning the St. Lawrence seaway; followed by item No. 7, the resolution concerning the Northwest Territories Act; item No. 4, the resolution concerning the National Defence Act; item No. 2, the resolution concerning the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; item No. 9, the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act; and then item No. 12, the resolution concerning the appointment of parliamentary secretaries to ministers of the crown.
This will carry over to Thursday, I presume. On Thursday there will be added to the list item No. 8, the resolution concerning the National Housing Act, and item No. 3, the resolution concerning the Trans-Canada Highway Act.


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

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	When the St. Lawrence seaway is opened to navigation what canals will be entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority for operation?
2.	Has the St. Lawrence seaway authority been given title to and control of the Welland ship canal and lands adjacent thereto? If so, on what date?
3.	Has the St. Lawrence seaway authority been given title to and control of the Cornwall canal and lands adjacent thereto? If so, what area of the Cornwall canal is included in the transfer and on what date did it take place?
4.	What duties and responsibilities will hereafter be entrusted to the canals branch of the department of transport and will this branch remain where it is or be brought under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
5.	To what division of the department of transport will the secondary canals of Canada be entrusted for operation?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Pursuant to section 14 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act it is proposed to seek authority of the governor in council to entrust to the authority the management and operation of the following canals: (a) that portion of the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals remaining in service after the flooding of the pool above the power dam at Cornwall; (b) Lachine canal; (c) Welland canal; (d) Sault Ste. Marie canal; (e) the Beauharnois canal.
2 and 3. Answered by 1.
4.	The canals division of the Department of Transport will continue to administer the St. Peters canal, Canso lock, Chambly canal and the St. Ours lock on the Richelieu river, St. Annes lock and Carillon-Grenville canals on the Ottawa river, the lands of the Old Beauharnois canal and Soulanges canal, the Rideau canal and Trent canal.
5.	Answered by 4.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	How many vessels did the Canadian National steamships own in 1958?
2.	Did a strike against such vessels take place? If so, on what date?
3.	Was the strike settled?
4.	Did the government authorize the transfer of the flag of the Canadian National steamships vessels from Canadian to foreign registry? If so, for what purpose?
5.	Did the government authorize a retransfer of the flag to Canadian registry? If so, for what purpose?
6.	What did the transfer of the flag accomplish?
7.	Did the sale of the above vessels take place, and to whom?
Questions
8.	Have the vessels been operated since the date of the sale, and between what countries have they been plying?
9.	What purpose has been accomplished by the sale?
10.	Where are each of the ships now?
11.	Since the date of the strike, for what length of time have these ships been immobilized?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Prior to the date of sale the Canadian National Steamships owned eight vessels.
2.	July 4, 1957.
3.	The management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited announced on May 21, 1958, its decision to abandon the service between Canada and the West Indies and to dispose of the ships by sale. The House of Commons was advised of this decision on the same date.
4.	A complete statement on the transfer by the company of the ships from Canadian registry was made in the House of Commons on November 11, 1957.
5 and 6. In announcing on May 21, 1958, the decision to abandon the Canada-West Indies service, the management stated that the registry of the eight vessels had been transferred from Trinidad to Canada for the purpose of the sale of the fleet.
7.	Yes. Banco Cubano del Comercio Exterior.
8.	Not to the knowledge of the management.
9.	In addition to the announcement on May 21a further statement was made in the house on August 12, 1958.
10.	At date of sale the eight vessels were anchored at Halifax. The last press reports to come to the attention of the management indicated that seven were in Halifax and one in Baltimore.
11.	So far as the management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships is concerned-from the date of the strike, July 4, 1957, to the date of the sale, August 12, 1958, the ships were out of service.


MICHEL CHARTRAND TELECAST
Mr. Howard: 1.	Was the Department of Justice asked for a legal opinion regarding a political telecast given by Mr. Michel Chartrand of 3 Sylvester street, Longueuil, Montreal 23, Quebec, on November 3, 1958, over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television station CBFT channel 2, Montreal?
2.	If so, what opinion was given and by whom was it signed?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice):
1.	Yes.
2.	Legal advice given by the Department of Justice to another department or agency

Questions
of the crown is of the nature of communications between solicitor and client and is therefore a privileged communication the publication of which is contrary to public policy.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS
Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the date of sale of the strike-bound ships owned by Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited?
2.	What were the terms of this sale?
3.	What was the purchase price of these ships to be?
4.	Have the terms of the sale been fully met?
5.	If not, in what respects have they not been met?
6.	How much money has now been paid to the owners of the ships in question for their purchase?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	August 11, 1958.
2.	Payment of 20 percent at time of purchase and the remainder in five equal yearly
Total Canada	
New Brunswick	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
Newfoundland


EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, NOVA SCOTIA- UNPLACED APPLICANTS
Mr. Robichaud: What is the number of unplaced applicants for each employment service office in Nova Scotia, for the most recent date for which such data is available?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
Number of unplaced applicants at local offices of the unemployment insurance commission's national employment service in Nova Scotia at 29 January, 1959, the most recent date for which such data are available, are as follows:
Number of Unplaced
Local office	Applicants
Amherst	 1,377
Bridgewater	 2,392
Halifax	 6,781
Inverness	 1,433
Kentville	 4,061
Liverpool	 836
payments with interest at 5 per cent per annum.
3.	$2,800,000.
4.	Yes.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	$560,000.


SALT FISH EXPORTS TO CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES
Mr. McWilliam: What was the value of the salt fish exported to the Caribbean countries by Canada, and the respective values for New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, for the years 1956 to 1958, inclusive?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):
The value of exports of salt fish to Caribbean countries in the years 1956, 1957 and 1958, and the value of these exports cleared through customs ports in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, were as follows:
Year 1956	1957	1958$11,905,932	$12,424,852	$11,449,365248,766	226,795	222,83911,142,597	11,610,191	11,065,969422,576	525,602	86,963
Number of Unplaced
Local office	Applicants
New Glasgow	 4,951
Springhill	 1,526
Sydney	 7,227
Truro	 2,150
Yarmouth	 3,896
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
Special services-
709. Payments to a province during the 1958-59 and 1959-60 fiscal years in accordance with an agreement entered into by the government of Canada and the province, with the approval of the governor in council, that provides for contributions by the government of Canada of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 1st day of December, 1958, to the 30th day of April, 1959, on winter work projects in municipalities as contemplated by the agreement, $15,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 18, 1959