1959-05-12

Mr. Speaker:: I would not ordinarily take the liberty of interrupting the house to welcome a former speaker; but since the gentleman in question was the speaker of this house in 1916, 43 years ago, and is now chief justice of the province of Quebec and apparently in good health and not a frequent visitor, I think the house might give me the liberty of expressing on its behalf our welcome and good wishes.



RAILWAYS, AIR LINES AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Second report of sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping-Mr. Tasse (for Mr. Rowe).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the delays which have taken place on the Welland canal, I should like to know whether it is the intention of the government to establish a system of priorities which would give the right of way to ships of Canadian registry over those of foreign registry.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The answer is that there is no such intention at the present time, but this matter is under study. I might also add for the information of the house that at this moment there are only six Canadian ships waiting at Port Weller for entry into the Welland canal.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Has the minister given any consideration to the installation of sector type gates in the lock at Thorold, where I am informed there has been quite a bit of delay? These sector type gates are similar to those used on the new locks of the seaway. If they were installed I believe they would speed up the movement of ships very considerably.
66968-9-226


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I inspected that
lock yesterday and I was not advised of any slow-down in the operation of the lock gates. There was a slow-down of 16 hours during which the whole canal was stopped because a Canadian ship went out of control and ran into a safety gate, but that had nothing to do with the type of lock or the type of gate. That was the fault of the ship in question, but I shall be very glad to look into the matter.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister comment on, or tell us whether any consideration is being given to, the protests of some Canadian interests over the fact that foreign ships are not required to carry pilots throughout the whole of the lakes, and whether any consideration is being given to putting that rule into effect?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have heard no such protests.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY UNITED KINGDOM TRADE COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusiin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of his absence I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. My question arises out of a statement made yesterday in Vancouver by the United Kingdom trade commissioner. The trade commissioner is reported to have said that the United Kingdom would definitely put pounds before loyalty to the commonwealth if Russia undercuts world prices. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if this policy came about as a result of the 15 per cent diversion policy of the new Conservative government.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that before the hon. member phrases his question in that way he should first satisfy himself as to the accuracy of the statement attributed to Mr. McGregor, the senior United Kingdom trade commissioner in Canada. I have information that the statement attributed to him was not made in that form at all. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. McGregor was giving a

Inquiries of the Ministry press conference in Vancouver and the reporter from the Vancouver Sun put to him this question:
Do British businessmen put pounds before loyalty to the commonwealth?
Mr. McGregor never used this expression, as I am informed by the United Kingdom high commissioner, and his answer was merely to the effect that British businessmen did trade with Russia and had been so trading for a hundred years in the course of ordinary commercial practice. When the newspaper in question publishes the article under the caption "U. K. Buys Red Goods" I think it will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that the actual statement does not correspond with the headline or with the question of the hon. gentleman.
I may add as well, Mr. Speaker, so far as this matter relates to commonwealth trade, that the United Kingdom high commissioner, since this matter appeared in the press this morning, has issued a statement referring to the conclusions reached at the commonwealth trade and economic conference at Montreal last autumn. He concludes his statement with this sentence:
Within a multilateral trading system over the widest possible area, Britain remains determined to increase its trade with other commonwealth countries to the maximum possible extent.


Mr. Pearson:: May I ask the minister what he is reading?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said this is a statement given to me by the United Kingdom high commissioner.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the house will agree that the question ought to be answered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself on his return. I shall be glad to bring it to his attention.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the automobile traffic tie-ups
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1

caused by the additional traffic through the Welland ship canal, will the minister recommend to his colleagues federal financial participation in the construction of a new high level bridge over the Welland canal at the Queen Elizabeth highway?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any automobile tie-ups due to traffic going through the Welland canal at the present time.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: You had better get around.


George Harris Hees: The delays are due to ships waiting to enter the canal at Port Weller, not in the canal itself. Once the ships are in the canal they go through in perfectly normal fashion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was not referring to the ships. I was talking about automobiles. Perhaps they put the bridge down for the minister. I think he knows the bridge I refer to.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think it would do the hon. member a lot of good if instead of talking off the top of his head, he would go there and have a look at what he is talking about.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if he is aware of the fact that I was there about a week ago. I did not get the red carpet treatment, and there was a considerable traffic tie-up.


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member was there, had his eyes open and watched what was going on he would have seen that the canal was working in perfectly normal fashion. The crews and the locks are working at top speed and full capacity. The fact remains that the canal has become very popular as more ships than were expected are using it. The canal is in the position of a popular girl at a party, with the boys simply having to line up for dances.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is exactly what I said.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: With air travel increasing rapidly between Canada and the United States, and with the summer tourist season approaching, will the Minister of National Revenue give early consideration to the establishment at the air terminal in Seattle, Washington, of facilities for handling customs and immigration, thus eliminating much inconvenience and delay at the port of Vancouver?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this matter under consideration, consult with the officials of the department, and give a reply later to the hon. member.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that many C.N.R. employees in the Palmerston area are losing their jobs due to dieselization, automation and transfer of work to other points, and that another lay-off will affect men with 30 to 40 years' seniority who have given their lives to the service, will the government indicate what the policy is with regard to the C.N.R. north of Guelph?


George Harris Hees: This seems to be my day, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that as a result of dieselization there was a certain rearrangement of staff in the area north of Guelph. A total of 15 employees were involved, 13 of whom were able to exercise their seniority rights in accordance with the appropriate wage agreement. The institution of improved passenger train service in the Bruce peninsula through the use of rail diesel cars effective June 21 will also mean certain adjustments, but all the men involved will be able to exercise seniority rights. It is the general practice of the management to cushion the impact of technological changes so far as is possible and to assist the placing of employees in other forms of work.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my absence the hon. member for Peace River asked two questions concerning the proposed Great Slave lake railway line. I can only say at the present time that no decision has yet been reached as to the route of the proposed line, and assure the hon. member that in the consideration being given the matter by the government all relevant factors are being taken into account.


George James McIlraith: No decision until after the Alberta election.
66968-9-226i
Inquiries of the Ministry



NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION CO.  REPORTED INTENTION TO USE U.S. SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the crown-owned Northern Transportation Company intends to use ships of United States registry in Arctic work this year? If so, would he assure the house that other Canadian companies will be given the opportunity to do at least some of this work before these United States ships are brought in?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of that fact; neither was I given any notice of this question. I will be glad to look into this and give the hon. member an answer as soon as I have done so.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government doing anything to reduce the delays of some 10 weeks to highway traffic at Montreal caused by the construction of a diversionary railway span by the Canadian National Railways?


George Harris Hees: The government and the Canadian National Railways have looked into all possible means of reducing or minimizing delay. The only plan of which I know that has been put forward for so doing would cost over a million dollars, and neither the government nor the Canadian National has decided to go ahead with such a plan.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the government or the minister give consideration to the construction of a Bailey bridge, which would substantially reduce those delays of 10 weeks this year and perhaps much longer next year?


George Harris Hees: As I said, the construction of an auxiliary bridge has been considered, but the cost of such a bridge is believed to be very high.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minisler of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on a question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Ottawa West.
3562	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry This concerned the supply of hydraulic turbines for a dam being constructed by the United States army engineers, for which a bid was submitted by a Canadian company. Specifically, the hon. member asked whether the procedure for evaluating bids which was being followed by the United States army engineers, as reported in the press, was at variance with the arrangements for production sharing.
The answer is no. The production sharing arrangements apply only to the production and procurement of defence supplies. The turbines required do not fall into this category, being part of a civilian project. The United States army corps of engineers are involved, not because of any defence implications but only because it is the practice of the United States government to make them responsible for the execution of works of this nature.
I would add that although there is no direct defence production interest in this matter, my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be the one to make any further comments if further comments are necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister not aware of the fact that national security is one consideration governing the award of these contracts in the United States? Could it not therefore be assumed that this had defence implications and be brought under the terms of the agreement?


Mr. O'Hurley:: In reply to the Leader of the Opposition I may say that the information I have received is that the United States army engineers always work on these projects, these dams, and the project is not of a defensive nature at all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister aware that the United States electrical manufacturers have applied to Washington for a declaration that this is in fact a project related to defence in the United States?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Is the hon. member for
Trinity referring to this dam?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No; the installation of the turbines, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Well, Mr. Speaker, according to the information we received it is not a defence project at all; it is a civilian project.


George James McIlraith: Will you find out?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: We certainly did.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of an intention on the part of the Bank of Canada and others to curtail personal and commercial lending at this time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I saw a newspaper article to that effect this morning. I can only conclude that it was completely speculative, because I have no knowledge of any such intention on the part of the Bank of Canada.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: If the minister should, in the next day or two, receive from the governor of the Bank of Canada a copy of a letter directed to the banks along these lines, would he inform the house about its contents?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would expect
to, unless the letter should be of a confidential nature.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I wonder if the minister has any knowledge of the repeated accusations that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has failed to provide low cost housing in the hinterland areas, specifically in the northwestern Ontario region?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon.
member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) asked me a similar question having to do with the town of Atikokan. I think all the complaints have come from that town. The question asked yesterday was as follows:
Can the minister inform the house whether down payments on low cost housing in remote areas, such as the town of Atikokan, are on a par with down payments asked in larger centres?
Perhaps I could deal with the two questions in the one answer. There are three factors involved in the determination of down payments. The first factor is the loan terms available under the National Housing Act; 90 per cent of the first $12,000 of the appraised value of a dwelling and 70 per cent of the remainder. These terms are the same in all areas, large or small.

The second factor is the appraised value. The National Housing Act provides that the corporation will determine appraised values for lending purposes. Appraisal levels are adjusted on the 1st of January and the 1st of June each year, as a result of surveys of material costs and wage rates conducted in the corporation's branch office areas. Because residential construction costs in small towns are usually not less than in neighbouring urban areas, the amount of loan in such towns is usually as great as or greater than in urban areas. For example, the loan level in Atikokan is 8 per cent higher than in Fort William and 10 per cent higher than in Winnipeg. Appraisal levels in Atikokan were adjusted upward by 5 per cent on the 1st of January as a result of the survey of residential costs carried out in the area late in 1958.
The third factor affecting the amount of the down payment is the actual selling price of the dwelling. This is something over which the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no control. It depends on market conditions, the kind of house and so on. It is the difference between this selling price and the loan which determines the down payment.
In view of the rather bitter attack made by a real estate agent and builder in Atikokan on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I should like to add the following. The housing standards prescribed by the division of building research of the national research council do not mitigate against minimum standard or low cost housing in Atikokan or in any other community. Houses similar to the C.M.H.C. minimum house, which the corporation is prepared to approve, may be built in Atikokan without basements, and indeed without foundation walls. The house may be built on concrete posts. It need not be equipped with electrical services or plumbing, if such facilities are not available in the community. It is known that this house can be built to sell for $8,000 including land, and equipped with both electrical and full plumbing services.


William Moore Benidickson: How much?


Howard Charles Green: For $8,000. It is also known that this house, similarly equipped, can be built to sell for $9,500 including land in Prince George and Dawson Creek, two of the highest cost areas in Canada. As yet there has not been an application for a minimum house of this type in Atikokan. A loan for the construction of a house similar to the corporation's minimum house would be approved to any creditworthy borrower in Atikokan, Kenora-although I do not suppose they would want minimum houses there-
Inquiries of the Ministry


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, yes.


Howard Charles Green: -Dryden, Geraldton, Marathon or any other community in northern Ontario.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I know the procedure here. The minister is naturally dependent upon advice given to him by his officials. May I just say that I think, in referring to a builder, he was rather unfair in that the person who is best known-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: My question is this. Has the minister noted that one of the chief supporters of this government in northwestern Ontario declined to accept a directorship in the Ontario chamber of commerce because he felt that that body, contrary to what they did last year, were not prepared to advance the same recommendations along those lines?


Howard Charles Green: I think this is the builder and real estate agent to whom I was referring. I really was not a bit interested in his politics. I repeat that he made a very strong statement, and a statement which I considered to be unfair.


William Moore Benidickson: Well, I think the
minister's statement was unfair, because-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this matter should not be continued. I see that it is not.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should
like to ask the Minister of Public Works, in view of the answer he has already given, whether he is in a position to confirm or deny definitely that officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have been instructed to discourage the construction of these so-called minimum houses in any area of northern Ontario?


Howard Charles Green: All the instructions I have given to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have been just exactly the opposite. I have encouraged the constuction of minimum houses, not only in northern Ontario but in every part of Canada where they can be built.


John Richard Garland: Is the minister in a position to know if his officials are carrying out his orders?


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member will give me the name of any official who is not carrying out this instruction I will be very glad to make inquiries.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Does the minister

Inquiries of the Ministry know of any opposition from real estate people other than those mentioned already in connection with this minimum house?


Mr. Speaker:: I should scarcely have thought that was a matter within the administrative responsibility of the minister unless the question means, have there been any communications.


Murdo William Martin: Has this been drawn to the minister's attention?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (SI. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith)?
La Presse reported yesterday that, at a meeting of the Catholic Hospitals Association of Canada, the Minister of National Health and Welfare met the representative from the province of Quebec, Hon. Daniel Johnson, Minister of Hydraulic Resources, and on this occasion, the provincial minister told him, regarding Quebec's acceptance-
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Question! Question! Order!
(Translation):


Mr.   Danis@: -of the federal plan for hospital insurance-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is indulging in somewhat extended preliminaries. Perhaps he could ask his question.


Azellus Denis: I was just preparing the minister to answer my question.
(Translation):
He is reported as having said this:
If and when we accept to participate in your plan, it will be with the determination to obtain much more than is being offered at the present time. It will be a hard bargain.
My question is this: Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare obtain further particulars on this matter from the provincial minister? If so, what are they?
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is completely out of order-


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Jay Waldo Monteith: -because whatever conversations I may have had with the


minister of resources for the province of Quebec took place at a dinner, and they were of a very private nature. It was a purely personal discussion.


Azellus Denis: I think it is very important-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already taken considerable liberties with his question. He knows he is not entitled to insist upon an answer, as I have said from time to time. He is entitled, perhaps, to a reply, but he has had his reply.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie):: I wonder if I might ask the Acting Minister of Justice if the rumour is correct that a chief justice of Newfoundland has been appointed.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Minister of Justice):: I am very sorry, but I cannot confirm this rumour.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister any progress report to make about his American scooters?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: If the hon. member would preserve his impatience until my estimates are under consideration, I will be glad to give him all the details.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Starr for the second reading of Bill No. C-43, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-43, perhaps I should present to the house the problem which arose over the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), in the following terms:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "this house declines to proceed with a bill, the terms of which do not provide that the contribution from the government to the fund be made equal to one-half that of the existing combined contributions from employers and employees.


Howard Charles Green: If Your Honour is proposing to give a ruling, may I suggest that you allow hon. members the opportunity to make submissions to you first in respect to this point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I was just about to say that I had given careful consideration to this, but that before dealing with the matter I should be glad to hear any hon. member who feels that the amendment is not in order. I did suggest last evening, it will be recalled, that hon. members might take the opportunity to give the matter some consideration overnight. I say quite frankly that my considerations up to this point lead me to think that the amendment could be sustained. I should be glad to hear any hon. member who would like to contest the regularity of the amendment.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Before you make your ruling, and bearing in mind that there were extensive arguments advanced here last night, I should like to say a few words on this particular point. It seems to me that the opposition in this case had some four alternatives before them with regard to this piece of legislation. First, they could vote against this bill, and they may still do so. Second, they could move a six months' hoist which would, in effect, kill the bill-


Lionel Chevrier: Order.


John Borden Hamilton: Third, they could propose that it be sent to a committee for further consideration if they felt there was something substantial which they wanted to change. As a matter of fact, I think in this connection the minister said yesterday that he was quite prepared that this bill should go to a committee.
There is, then, a fourth alternative which is the one the opposition has chosen. They could move a declaratory amendment adverse to the principle of the bill itself. A great deal of the evidence in this case indicates that the amendment as phrased is not adverse to the principle of the bill, and on that ground I believe it should be ruled out of order. In my opinion the opposition by this amendment is trying to have things both ways. Hon. members of the opposition obviously do not want to vote against this bill, but at the same time they want to use this method to hold it up and substantiate the position they are taking.
I wish to refer Your Honour to two references in Beauchesne's fourth edition. The first is a page 279, citation No. 388. I shall not deal at length with the facts referred to in this citation, but reference is made to a bill dealing with co-operation between the
Unemployment Insurance Act Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific railway. I refer Your Honour to the last words of the paragraph, in which it is stated:
The Speaker ruled this out for the reason that, instead of being a declaration of principle, it proposed a postponement of the second reading pending a definite declaration of the house; moreover, it did not purport to disagree with the principle of the bill but it dealt with its provisions and anticipated amendments whch may be moved in committee.
I would also refer you to citation 393, subparagraph 1, at page 280. It reads:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading.
We also have the words of the mover himself as reported at page 3553 of Hansard of May 11:
We support the principle of supplementary payments in the face of the serious unemployment problem that now confronts Canada; but we say that those payments given to people out of work to help to keep them alive should be borne by all of the taxpayers of the country and not imposed on the workers and on the employers of Canada exclusively.
In effect the mover of the amendment said that he approved of this principle. In all likelihood the hon. member for Laurier will say that if this were reserved and sent to a committee it would be impossible to move an amendment of the type that is involved here. This is not a case where the opposition contend that there is going to be an increase in government expenditure and therefore the amendment could not be moved in committee. At page 3556 of Hansard the hon. member is reported as having said:
It means a reduced expenditure, on the contrary, and because of that it seems to me that this amendment is in order.
If it is in order in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Essex East now before the house, then obviously it would be in order in connection with an amendment placed before a committee. We have a situation where the opposition are attempting to do something at this stage, but at the same time if the argument hon. gentlemen opposite advanced last night is correct they would be perfectly in order in attempting to do it at the committee stage. In the face of this fact I would say that the amendment should be ruled out of order


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate the way in which he considers the principle declared in the amendment is not contrary to the principle of the bill. I had some difficulty in following what he said in that respect.

Unemployment Insurance Act


John Borden Hamilton: I would answer Your Honour's question in this way. At the present time this legislation provides ior contributions by the government to the unemployment insurance fund. There is no change in principle in connection with the amendment which has been proposed; there is only a change in the amount. Under those circumstances I would submit that an amendment of this kind is clearly not contrary to the principle of the present legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that if I could accept the view which has been so well expressed by the hon. member for York West, that the amendment amounts to nothing more than an attempt to change the amount of the government contribution by reducing it, then I would have to agree that the amendment is not in order because such an amendment could be moved in committee at the committee stage, and it is clear that no amendment to the principle of the bill on second reading can be accepted if it is an amendment that could be put forward when the bill progresses to the committee stage.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, before making your ruling could I redirect your examination to the views expressed last night by the hon. member for Laurier in that respect.


Mr. Speaker:: I followed with interest the quotation from the address that was given, but what I have to interpret is the amendment itself and I think I should give my views on it, perhaps not at great length but at sufficient length to indicate the reasoning I am following.
As the hon. member for York West said, there are a number of ways one can approach an amendment to second reading of a bill, and he has enumerated them. If this one is to stand it clearly must fall within the scope of an amendment declaratory of a principle opposed to the bill. Beauchesne in citation 382 makes it clear that such an amendment is possible. In fact it has been recognized both here and in other parliaments as a proper amendment to second reading. Citation 382 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons lor not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill-
I have examined this proposed amendment from that point of view, first as to its form. The form of the proposed amendment to my mind is acceptable. There are precedents both in this parliament and in the

United Kingdom for this particular formula for moving a declaratory principle. For example, in the journals of 1877 of the British House of Commons an amendment is noted which declined to proceed further with the bill under discussion for reasons of the principle. Also, in 1933, at page 17 of the journals of the British house, there was another reasoned amendment moved in the following words:
An amendment was proposed to be made to the question, by leaving out from the word "That" to the end of the question, and adding the words "this house declines to assent to the second reading of an unemployment bill which fails to recognize that all the victims of the unemployment which is inherent in the modem system of industrial capitalism are entitled to equal and honourable treatment and maintenance-
-and so on. Therefore I am satisfied that the form is correct. The real question to my mind is whether it is relevant to this bill. I asked myself what the principle of the bill was, and I have taken in answer the words of the Minister of Labour in explaining the principle of the bill yesterday, as he indicated it in moving second reading of this bill, which is one to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. He said, as reported at page 3537 of Hansard:
The present amendments in this bill will provide coverage for a greater number of wage earners, They will increase benefits and allowable earnings. They will also increase contributions.
With respect to contributions the minister said:
However, there is a responsibility on the government to maintain the fund in a condition of equilibrium and this the new schedule of contributions will help materially in effecting.
Therefore one of the principles of the bill is that of maintaining the fund by increasing the contributions. As hon. members know, there are three sources of contributions, namely the employer, the employee and the government. The bill provides that specific increases in contributions be made by both employers and employees. It does not propose to amend section 83(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which provides for the contribution by the government to the fund of one fifth of the amount contributed by employers and employees. However, the effect of increasing contributions which employers and employees are to make under this bill is automatically to increase the amount the government will have to pay to make up its one fifth contribution under the existing act. What the hon. member is saying in his proposed amendment is that the increased contributions to the fund should be made by the government, by increasing its contribution from one fifth to one half of the employers' and employees' contribution as they

now exist, and leaving the employers' and employees' contributions as they now stand.
This, I think, is where I really part company with the hon. member for York West, because if the amendment were found to provide for a one half contribution of the revised schedule it might then be said not to be different in principle but in amount only. In other words, the opposition asks the house to consider a different principle of maintaining the equilibrium of the fund by increasing the contribution of only one of the three contributing parties, namely the government.
It is a resolution declaratory of a principle adverse to the main principle of the bill. It is not an amendment which could be moved in committee except by an amendment which would call specifically for increased expenditures of public funds, which no opposition or private member is entitled to do.
Now, I find some difficulty, as I am sure all members do, with these declaratory amendments. One cannot go too far with them because they would open the way to an endless succession of debates on the second reading of a bill; but in this case it seems to me there is a principle which is different and relevant, because it is a principle of contributions to the fund. Where there is a reasonable doubt or difference of opinion as to whether such an amendment is regular or not, I suggest to hon. members that it should be resolved in favour of the right of private members to bring a matter of this kind before the house, particularly as their function in money matters is so restricted. When this bill comes in and is debated-and its principles are only discovered when it is introduced-I think the door is then closed to a debate at a future time on this particular principle. If a member is to bring the idea of this amendment before the house and divide the house on it, it seems to me this is the only opportunity to do so.
As I say, it appears to me to meet the precedents and the rules of the house; therefore I am prepared to allow the amendment.
Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, at the termination of the debate on the amending bill last night the leader of the house made the suggestion that members of the opposition were free to vote against the bill if they so wished. Sentiment along the same lines was expressed a moment ago by the hon. member for York West. We are not against the clause in the bill which provides for an extension of payments from the present 36 weeks to 52 weeks, but we are opposed to the increase in the contributions without corresponding
Unemployment Insurance Act benefits being paid out. Even the extension from 36 weeks to 52 weeks will benefit only a very small percentage, approximately 3.5 per cent, of the workers from whom excessive amounts in contributions are being extracted, and also from the employers. In other words, we are not being fooled by the contents of this bill.
For the record I should like to go a bit into the history of the bill which was introduced in this house by Hon. N. A. McLarty, the then minister of labour, on July 16, 1940. This is the resoluton which I shall read, as recorded on page 1647 of Hansard:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to enact a scheme of national employment insurance to be administered by a commission appointed by the governor in council, and to create an unemployment insurance fund from contributions from specified persons and from moneys provided by parliament, for the payment of insurance benefits, to be administered by the commission assisted by an advisory committee; with provision also for the organization and maintenance of an employment service administered by the commission with the advice and assistance of a national employment committee; also with power to the governor in council to establish committees and boards subsidiary to the commission and to enter into agreements with the governments of other countries for reciprocal arrangements relating to unemployment insurance; with provision for the remuneration of the commissioners and the appointment and remuneration of such officers, clerks and employees as may be required for the due carrying out of the provisions of the act and for the costs of administration.
During the debate Mr. McLarty said this, as reported at page 1647 of Hansard:
The surest foundation on which to base democratic government is a happy and contented people. Nothing militates more against happiness and contentment than fear. By this measure, fear will be removed to some extent from 4,660,000 of the Canadian people.
These figures included the dependants of the workers affected by the act. When the Unemployment Insurance Act was first introduced the entire labour force in Canada under the act was estimated at 2,100,000. During the course of the debate the then leader of the opposition, Mr. R. B. Hanson, gave approval to the principle of the bill, as indeed it met with the approval of all parties. However, he did question the amount which industry would be asked to pay as its contribution to the plan.
He said this, and I quote from page 1653 of Hansard for July 16, 1940:
I have been told it is estimated that industry will be asked to pay $50 million into the fund in a good running year, after the act has come into operation. I do not know whether or not that is a correct estimate.
The then Liberal minister of labour replied as follows:
No. I know that the leader of the opposition does not want to give anything but a correct

Unemployment Insurance Act
impression. That would be a very exaggerated figure of what industry would pay under the rates fixed by the proposed bill.
Mr. Hanson then continued:
I have no means of knowing, of course, but that is the figure which has been indicated to me, and I am glad the minister has indicated that it is an exaggerated figure. He will be prepared, when the opportune moment comes, to state the maximum amount which will be taken from industry to finance these proposals. I think the country would like to have the most solemn assurance that the scheme will be actuarially sound, because if it is not, and there is a deficit, the treasury of Canada will be asked to meet the deficit.
These quotations from the debate which took place when the original bill was introduced 19 years ago reveal that the members of the party in opposition at the time, now the government party, were very much concerned with the cost of the operation of the act at a time when unemployment was almost non-existent with the exception of the unemployable. The number in our labour force has probably trebled since then, and the number of unemployed now appears to be in the neighbourhood of half a million.
I am not opposed to the provision to replenish the unemployment insurance fund, which is depleted and overdrawn; but surely when we are asking labour and industry to increase their contributions by approximately 30 per cent with no increase in the benefits to the workers there is something wrong with the bill. The contribution of the worker earning from $51 to $57 per week is being increased from 56 cents to 72 cents a week. A single man in that salary range now receives $21 per week by way of benefit and a person with dependants receives $28. The present bill does not provide for any increases. That is indicated in schedule A on page 4 of the bill, where we see that the rate of benefit for a single person is $21 per week and for a worker with dependants $28 per week.
By no stretch of the imagination can it be assumed that the bill will benefit labour to the extent that we are led to believe. Does the bill include hospital employees? Does it include nurses? Does it include domestic help? It does not include any of these categories. All there is in the bill is a higher contribution by labour and industry without corresponding increases in the benefits, except that the eligibility for unemployment insurance has been extended to 52 weeks.
I sincerely trust this does not mean that the government has given up hope of being able to introduce a program which will eliminate the necessity of accepting continuous large scale unemployment. Our objection to the bill stems from the fact that the government has ignored the recommendations of the

advisory committee to the effect that any increase in contributions by labour and industry should be accompanied by corresponding increases in the benefits.
I like to go back into the history of this legislation, because it shows the difference between the attitude of the government in power when the act was originally introduced and that of the present government. For the benefit of the house I should like to quote from Hansard of July 18, 1940, at page 1719, where I find the following:


Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister) :: I understand my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to proceed with the second reading of the unemployment insurance measure today.


Hon. R. B. Hanson (Leader of the Opposition):: That is correct. I have striven vainly to understand the principles and details of this bill. Under ordinary circumstances counsel would take at least three days to brief this bill: I have had about four hours. I protest against any attempt to rush this bill through the house without adequate time for study, even before it comes to second reading. The bill, apart from any war measures that we have put through parliament, is the most important measure that I can recall for years, since the act of 1930 at any rate. It involves the annual expenditure of millions upon millions of dollars. There should be no rush to push it through the House of Commons, even if it is to be sent to a special committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I said yesterday, the government have no desire to rush the bill at all. Our desire is simply to expedite the business of the session as far as we can.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am prepared to stay.
So are we prepared to stay until we see this legislation put through in a proper manner. The prime minister of that time, Mr. Mackenzie King, went on to say:
In agreeing to have the bill sent to a special committee after the second reading I was seeking to oblige the Leader of the Opposition, who made the suggestion, and I propose to hold to the arrangement made. I have sought to expedite the step, since it has already been made abundantly clear that all parties in the house are agreed upon the principle of the bill. If my hon. friend feels that to take second reading tomorrow would not give him sufficient time to examine the bill, I am prepared to hold it until Monday. But I very much hope he may be ready tomorrow.
Prime Minister Mackenzie King appreciated the difficulties under which the opposition was labouring at the time, and did not hesitate to give the opposition the consideration asked for. Would it be too much to ask the present government to give the opposition the same consideration?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in discussing this proposal to replenish the unemployment insurance fund we have an obligation to go into some of the aspects of the question that lie behind the need for this particular action in Canada. We have never decided, as they

have in some other countries, just when the unemployment insurance fund should cease to be employed to pay benefits to those out of employment and when the national treasury should be used to supplement this type of payment. In Great Britain, where in the past year they have had 620,000 unemployed or 2.8 per cent of the labour force, it is considered that anything over 2 per cent is a national responsibility. In the United States they have had 4,700,000 unemployed, or 6 per cent of their labour force. In Canada, according to the figures for January, 1959, we have had 538,000 unemployed or 8.9 per cent of our labour force. If one compares the conditions in these two other countries with conditions in Canada, one finds we have had three times as much unemployment, percentagewise, as Great Britian has had, and half as much again as in the United States.
When the unemployment insurance fund was set up it was to handle the problem of seasonal unemployment, or persons who were displaced from industry on a temporary basis. During 1955 we experienced a serious unemployment situation. Again in 1957 and 1958 we had very serious unemployment conditions. These percentages of unemployed have been much higher than we considered the seasonal or temporary unemployment situation would bring about when we established the unemployment insurance fund. These periods of unemployment were covered actuarially by the amount of money Canadians were required to pay into the unemployment insurance fund.
This serious unemployment situation does not appear to be getting any better. It has been pointed out that in the March report of the national employment service the figures show close to 800,000 workers unemployed. This is less than the 885,000 reported in March, 1958, but it represents a staggering problem which is still far from solution. Taken as a proportion of the total paid workers in the non-agricultural labour force, excluding employers and those working on their own account, the March 1959 unemployment figures represent more than 15 per cent of those who normally work for others. The March 1958 figure was 17 per cent. There is a decline, but the improvement is hardly sufficient to warrant the belief that mass unemployment is now only a bad dream.
Merely restoring the Canadian economy to its pre-recession level will not be enough to ensure that those now out of work and those now entering the labour force will secure jobs. A considerable expansion of the economy is required to provide full employment. The government's forecast of capital
Unemployment Insurance Act expenditures by private business this year does not offer much hope for any substantial stimulus to expansion in 1959 from this sector. Consequently it is up to the government to help stimulate expansion by a large scale spending program. However, the budget is more concerned with the bond market than with unemployment.
A number of businessmen and economists have expressed doubt about the Minister of Finance's estimated increase of 7 per cent in the gross national product. Mr. Ashforth, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, for example, expects the gross national product to rise by only 4 per cent over the 1958 level. The point is that even a 7 per cent rise, which the Minister of Finance expects, will be quite inadequate to support full employment in Canada. Our own estimate is that it will require a rise in the gross national product of about 14 per cent or 15 per cent, excluding the effect of price increases, over the 1958 level to support full employment.
This situation does indicate there is a chance that we will again experience unemployment conditions similar to those of the last two years in which there has been an exceptional level of unemployment, not necessarily of a seasonal or a temporary nature. This amendment we are now proposing to the Unemployment Insurance Act is an indication that we are going to try to build up the unemployment insurance fund by means of contributions in an amount that would be sufficient to take care of any unemployment conditions in Canada. Mr. Devon Smith, financial editor of the Toronto Telegram, writing in the Toronto Telegram of Monday, April 27, 1959, had this to say:
The threat that hangs over our unemployment insurance has its roots in a dangerous mood.
The threat is that our protection against unexpected unemployment is being melted away because we are using the money collected from our industrial workers for other purposes.
Then he goes on to say:
Sound accounting quite obviously calls for a separation of the assistance given to seasonal workers and misplaced or unemployable persons, from the self-help provided by regularly employed industrial workers for their own unexpectedly unemployed.
We must keep unemployed insurance free of any share the wealth political enterprise.
I think this suggestion is one to which we must give some thought, namely the matter of separating the unemployment insurance fund from what might be termed a national unemployment disaster fund, which obviously must be supported from the current revenues of the government. It is not fair, it is not reasonable, to ask people to carry insurance

Unemployment Insurance Act against the type of disaster that is contemplated by seasonal and temporary unemployment, and at the same time ask those people to increase their contributions to the extent that the fund will carry a national situation which is not within the control of the contributors. We are suggesting, therefore, that two funds be set up, the one we now have in force and a new one to which we could bring money from the treasury.
The unemployment insurance fund has dropped from a maximum of $927 million in 1956 to $427 million. The average amount paid out of the fund yearly to take care of seasonal and temporary unemployment could be worked out actuarially; then when the fund dropped below a certain amount additional moneys to bring the fund back to that level could be obtained from the treasury. This would mean that conditions over which the insured workers have no control would be taken care of by contributions through taxes paid by the Canadian people. This is an idea that has been endorsed in the agricultural field, and we are only suggesting that the same type of program be introduced to take care of the labour force by establishing a new, auxiliary fund.
We have some qualms about supporting this particular measure. At the same time we sympathize with the minister in the problem with which he is confronted. We realize that the need for increased benefits is quite evident. We agree that a certain amount of money will have to be paid if we are going to extend the benefits for unemployed workmen. Certainly we are very much in favour of extending the benefits from the period of 36 weeks to 52 weeks. But it is my information that the increase we are granting to the unemployed in extending the period from 36 weeks to 52 weeks will require an increase of 1 per cent in the premiums paid by the workers at the present time. This information would indicate that a great deal less money is necessary in premiums than the 30 per cent the minister has asked for. I should like to know whether the minister has these actual figures, whether he knows how much more actuarially it will cost in premiums to allow for the extension of the benefit period from 36 weeks to 52 weeks.
Second, we would have to take into consideration and be willing to increase the premium to take care of the extension that is being made to those that are now in penitentiaries, increasing the period during which they may revert into their working period from 44 weeks to two years, on a basis similar to that of those who are sick or unemployed through medical reasons. I would think the minister probably has these actuarial figures. At one time we had the benefits extended to

this period. They were subsequently reduced. It is quite probable that it would not be too difficult to work out how much this extension is going to cost.
I would suggest this with respect to this other category we have added, namely the category on the top, and may I say that I am not opposed to adding this category. But as to this category on the top, where we have raised the amount of money that an insured worker can earn to $5,460 and where we pay him an increased benefit of $36, I would feel that this would be an inexpensive category to add. I would think that the higher in the wage scale we go, the less chance there will be for those people to be unemployed because there has always been a tendency for the higher paid groups, those in the highly skilled trades, when they are unable to find work, to keep coming down into a lower paid category where work over a wider scale was available to them. I would therefore think the number who will be unemployed in this particular category will be much less than in any of the categories of employees earning much less money.
I think the amendment moved by the official opposition is worthy of support. I believe that the facts and figures presented in moving that amendment are worthy of some consideration. They have taken into account the observances of the former government in the years in which they had administrative responsibility for this department. It may well be that some of the facts presented last night have not been available to the present Minister of Labour. If so, when we are asking for this bill to be referred for further study I would think that consideration could be given to this matter by the minister and that he could join in hoping that this bill would be sent back to a committee so we would have a better chance of examining this situation.
Over the last few weeks newspapers have mentioned their opinion of the increase in the unemployment insurance fund. I think they have generally agreed that we are going to be obliged to give some consideration to splitting this fund into these two parts, one for which the money will come out of the treasury because of the fact that the economic situation in Canada is such that unemployment results.
In this regard it should be borne in mind that many economists in Canada are saying that we are going to have 400,000 people unemployed continually or we are not going to have a rising and expanding economy. I disagree violently with this sentiment. Certainly we must have holes in our heads if we think we have to plan for

400,000 people to be unemployed so we can have a rising economy. I disagree that this is going to happen. I certainly hope that the government does not sympathize with this thought.
The great unemployment that we have had has not been the result of seasonal lay-offs or lay-offs in particular industries because of automation. They were not seasonal layoffs that took place in the automobile industry. They were not seasonal unemployment situations that developed in the lumbering industry. Rather they are layoffs that took place because of the economic situation in Canada. Therefore I think justification can readily be found for the inclusion of treasury money for the support of this unemployment fund, because the fund was never set up to handle national disasters. These things should bear some consideration.
I think the minister should be able to tell us how much it costs to extend seasonal benefits for these workers-I think actuarially the information is available-and how many people will be unemployed in the new category that we have added to those now covered by unemployment insurance. With this information we may reconsider the position that I think we must take if we are not so say that the best information we have would indicate that only a 1 per cent increase in the premium is necessary to extend the benefits to 52 weeks. If this is true, then I do not believe we can support a 30 per cent increase, 29 per cent of it to cover what we would consider to be a national problem in an economic sense. I think the minister in his summary should give some indication as to the actual cost involved in the various increases.


Mr. H. M. Batien (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the main purpose of Bill C-43 is to increase contributions to the unemployment insurance fund so as to stabilize that fund and increase the amount of money available for purposes of paying benefits to those who may be unemployed in the future.
However, I feel that we are discussing the bill without having available to us the necessary information. Certainly the last fiscal year was one in which there was a great depletion of the unemployment insurance fund. A great deal of money was taken from that fund in order to pay unemployment insurance benefits to those who were out of work and were able to qualify. Because I think the greatest depletion in that fund has been during the last fiscal year, I believe the figures for the last fiscal year should be given to the house so we may be in a better position to understand what the situation is.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I realize, of course, that the advisory committee under the act is not compelled to present its report until some time before July 31. At the same time I do think it might have been very helpful to the house if the appropriate information had been given us so that we would have been in a position to discuss this bill in a way which would be more relative to the facts of this year rather than to the facts of last year.
Certainly, many people across Canada are very concerned about this fund. Over the last two years they have been able to experience its good effects in time of recession, and they have been able to appreciate the benefits which have come from this fund. In many cases across this land distress has been alleviated because this fund was in existence and because demands could be made upon it. I think no greater tribute could be paid to the former administration than to say that at a time of depression, such as we have had in the last two years, a fund was in being to alleviate the distress which would have been experienced if no such fund had been in existence. I believe that this fund, set up almost 20 years ago by a Liberal government, has proved in the last two years to be a bulwark against the country-wide effects of recession.
I say again that people all across this country, and particularly those who work for wages, are very much concerned about the state of this fund. They want to know how much money is there, and what possibility there is of the fund being able to carry on next year, the year after, and the year after that. And yet, although the people who receive these benefits have contributed 80 per cent of the money to this fund, we are discussing this bill without the necessary information which should be given not only to the house but to all those who have contributed so largely to the fund over the years. As I say, there is keen interest in this fund throughout the country, and why should there not be?
During the last two years, this fund has been reduced by an amount of approximately $400 million. We can look at page 3 of the report of the advisory committee of August 18, 1958 and note the status of the fund in 1955 as compared with 1958. In 1955 the fund was in credit to the extent of approximately $846 million. The deficit in that year was $41 million. In the following year, 1956, the balance to the credit of the fund was approximately $859 million, and in that particular year the credit balance rose by an amount of $13 million. In the year 1957 the balance to the credit of the fund was $878 million, and even in that year the total year's operations resulted in an excess of revenue over

Unemployment Insurance Act expenditure of nearly $19 million. We come, then, to the year ending March 31, 1958, and we find that the fund has been depleted to the amount of $744 million, with a deficit for the year of $134 million. We do not have a report for the year just ended, but it seems that the amount to the credit of the fund as on March 31, 1959 was about $496 million and that the deficit on the whole year was about $248 million, which means that in the last two years this fund has been depleted by almost 50 per cent.
A further comparison can be found in the table which is printed on page 5 of this report. This table shows the balance in the unemployment insurance fund per insured person, and for the year 1950, at the beginning of March, the lowest amount for that year was $216 per person, and the highest, $223. In 1951 the lowest was $221, in the months of January and March, and the highest amount was $249. And so we go right on to the year 1958, and we find that as of March 31, 1958 the amount in the fund per person of the insured population was $177. Or let us look at the amount for March of each year from the year 1950. In March, 1950, it was $223; in 1951, $221; in 1952, $252; in 1953, $270; in 1954, $273; in 1955, $242; in 1956, $232; in 1957, $221, which was the same, approximately, as in the years 1950 and 1951. As of March 31, 1958 the amount was $177 per person, and I suspect that the amount as of March 31, 1959 will be considerably lower still.
I agree with the minister that some effort must be made to stabilize this fund. Some real effort will have to be made if we are to prepare ourselves against the type of unemployment such as we experienced during the past winter. Are the methods outlined in this bill sufficient to enable us to do what needs to be done? Yesterday, when the minister spoke on second reading, he said, as reported on page 3537 of Hansard:
The present amendments in this bill will provide coverage for a greater number of wage earners. They will increase benefits and allowable earnings. They will also increase contributions.
All of us would agree that there are some benefits which will be increased by this bill, but I hope nobody will take the minister's statement as meaning that there is to be a general increase in benefits. Possibly one of the things which the government should do is to look more closely at the administration of this fund. I have here a cutting from the Ottawa Citizen of April 24. The headline states: "Big Loss Taken in Government Bonds by U.I.C.'s Fund". The first paragraph states that the unemployment insurance fund took a loss of $10,155,171.51 on the government bonds it sold last year. The article goes on to say


that this was due to the fact that these bonds held by the commission had been converted during the conversion period. Bonds to the value of $300 million had been cashed, and in cashing that amount $10 million had been lost. I am sure that the people of Canada when they listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) as they gave that tremendous broadcast and reduced financial leadership in this country to television showmanship, did not expect that to happen. I am sure the people of Canada did not expect anything like that to happen when they were encouraged to convert their victory bonds, and surely if such a thing could happen to a government agency it could, in proportion, happen to other people who have money invested.
Further, as was stated last night by the hon. member for Essex East-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You had better get a better authority than that.


Mr.   Balien@: -the minister made a loan to the unemployment insurance fund of $80 million. The Minister of Finance does not want to talk about this $80 million, but it has come to our attention that a loan of this magnitude was made to the fund.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it was not.


Mr.   Balien@: Yesterday the hon. gentleman did not accept any responsibility for that at all, but if this loan had not been made to the fund surely the Minister of Finance would be in a position to tell the committee that it is not so. Again, if we were to look at the investment portfolio of the fund we would find many holdings of a long term nature. It is my view that because of the nature of the unemployment insurance fund when it may be necessary from to time to time to pay unemployment insurance benefits to those who are unemployed, the holdings of the unemployment insurance commission should be more liquid. They should be able to be used more readily if they were of a shorter term nature.
The minister says that there are increased benefits and that, of course, is a true statement, but let us have a look at those increased benefits. In the first place the benefits will be increased from 36 to 52 weeks. That will include a small percentage, perhaps not more than 3.5, of those who now receive benefits from the fund. Also the levels are raised and there are added classes. The wage level is raised from $4,800 to $5,460. This will include not more than 80,000 workers. I agree with these benefits but I suggest they are not nearly as important in quantity and amount as they would appear to be from the minister's statement. Surely

the 80,000 people who are going to receive benefit from this represent but a small percentage of the thousands of workers who receive benefits from the total unemployment insurance fund.
The actual fact is that there is no real increase in benefits under these amendments. On page 2 of the bill there is a table setting out the rates of contributions. The first class earning less than $9 a week enjoy an increase of less than 25 per cent. The various ranges of earnings are set out in the table and the increase for the last class is 30 per cent. While these rates are increased by 30 per cent there is no real increase in the benefits derived by those people who are in those classes.
Here we have a bill under which it will be expected that the people who are in the two added classes at the top of the list will provide approximately $8 million of revenue to this fund. Here we have a bill that will ask the employees and employers across this country to provide $32 million for each group in the form of additional revenue to this fund. This is a total of $72 million. In actual fact this bill is nothing more than an increase of $72 million in taxes which is 20 per cent of the total impost for a full year announced by the minister in his last budget.
The people of Canada who pay into the fund are largely opposed to having their contributions to it increased. I believe they feel that if the rates of contribution are to be increased then surely the rates of benefits should also be increased. Thus far in this debate we have heard very little from those hon. gentlemen who sit on the government benches. I hope that before this debate concludes those who sit on the government benches will stand up and give us the reasons why this bill is as it is. I trust they will be able to support the various amendments introduced and the statements made in the bill. I am sure the whole house would benefit from their opinion and I am sure the country would welcome the statements they have to make about this bill.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks to make because I believe the general criticisms have been well summed up. We can look at the bill and say it is nothing more than a tremendous increase in payments and represents no increase in benefits beyond the two new classes. The entire purpose of the increased benefits apparently is designed, as the minister expressed it, to build up the fund to a point where it will not be in such great danger and at such a low level as it is at the present time. The added hope or the added carrot is that come next election the
Unemployment Insurance Act minister will be able to reduce the payments and then stalk about on election platforms telling the people what a fine chap he is and that he should be re-elected.
This is nothing more than an attempt to force working class people to pay for the short-sightedness of the government in respect of its economic policy and with respect to its inability to see past its collective nose when it comes to the question of unemployment. It is an attempt to bail the government out of a difficulty which it got itself into. As my friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) said, it is a backdoor method of increasing taxes. However, as I said previously these points have been covered and may be covered again by other hon. members when they speak.
I wish to make only one point concerning one group of workers affected by the act and by unemployment both seasonal and the type of unemployment that accompanies Conservatism. I speak particularly of loggers who through no fault of their own but rather because of the nature of the industry in which they work and because of weather and the export conditions of that industry experience difficulty.
The act was amended a few years ago, I believe in 1955. Provision was made that where a person had a previous benefit period he then had to have thirty contribution weeks within the last year. There is a provision in this bill to amend this section but not the appropriate part I am going to mention here. It was found in the application of that section that there were countless hundreds of loggers who could not possibly meet the qualifications because of the seasonal nature of the industry, the shortness of the work year, the recurrent lay-offs because of factors other than weather, and so on. Quite a bit of correspondence was entered into between the then minister of labour, the loggers affected and their union.
The then minister of labour, the Hon. Mr. Gregg, sponsored a bill in this house at a subsequent session which reduced the qualifying period from 30 to 24 weeks which made it somewhat easier for the loggers. Although I mention loggers it is because I am familiar with them but I am certain there are other categories of working people who are also adversely affected by this provision in the act. If the minister wanted to do something constructive he could have altered subsection 2 of section 45 of the act to establish a closer relationship between the period of qualification set out in the legislation and the inability of some people to comply with it due to the nature of their empoyment.
Surely, if the minister feels it necessary to allow inmates of penal institutions to have
3574	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act special considerations under the act in order to qualify, then he could extend that selfsame generous attitude to working people who for one reason or another do not get into penal institutions. I agree that inmates of penal institutions should be covered. In fact, the minister will recall that he was one of the first persons I called on personally when I got to Ottawa in 1957, before the fall session was held, and had a personal discussion with him about these two particular things: one, inmates of penitentiaries being allowed to extend the qualifying period up to two years, the same as people who are self-employed or unemployed because of illness or something of that nature; two, the question of the application of section 45, subsection 2, as it applied to loggers and to other employees. The minister went half way, but his attitude would be much more acceptable to the working class people if he had gone in the other direction, or in both directions, and dealt with the adverse manner in which the act applies to loggers.
I do not intend to say any more, but I should like to reiterate that we in the C.C.F.- and some of our members have spoken on this-have posed a number of questions to the minister. I have asked for some actuarial figures, if he has them, of the relationship between the tremendously increased payments and the so-called increased benefits to which he referred. The unfortunate part is that the minister did not see fit to advise the house of these matters, which I am sure he must have felt were material to the bill, and on which he should have advised us when he made his introductory remarks on second reading. Perhaps if he had done that we would not be going around and around in this particular discussion at this time.
Perhaps part of the reason is, as happens so often, when a minister wants to refer a bill to a committee he sloughs most of the responsibility that he should have off on the members of the committee, hoping that the bill will get past second reading and that he will not be in too embarrassing a position. If that is the case, I am sure the minister has good reasons for not wanting to extend this type of debate because certainly he would be in an embarrassing position if he started to relate what actuarial figures there are, if there are any, to the relationship between the 30 per cent increase in contributions and payments, and whether that terrific increase was necessary merely to cover persons when they are released from jail in order to go back an additional two years, or whether it was justified to cover the extension from 36 weeks to 52 weeks, or whether it was justified


to cover the two new classes, or whether it was justified to cover the whole three at once.
I submit the minister will have to admit that what he is doing is taking over part of the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and attempting to become a second minister of finance by taxation methods. Perhaps all the Minister of Labour is doing is trying his hand out. He may move into the seat of the Minister of Finance when that hon. gentleman moves somewhere else. It may be that this is just a sort of apprenticeship course that he is going through to see what it feels like to impose taxation on people.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation which we now have before us appears to have two desirable features and two very undesirable ones. I think the increase in allowable earnings is something that deserves favourable consideration because it will remove one of the problems of the worker who is unemployed and enjoying unemployment insurance. We all know of many cases-certainly there are many instances in my own riding-where the worker receiving unemployment benefits has been offered work but he is afraid to take that extra job for fear his earnings might disqualify him for further benefits and then several weeks would have to elapse before he could be reinstated in his benefits. The increase in the allowable earnings will to some extent alleviate that problem and for that reason I welcome it.
The other feature, the two new classes of benefits, I think perhaps deserves support because it relates benefits to people in the higher brackets whose contributions are so much greater that perhaps in the past they have not received a fair benefit in proportion to the contributions they have made. Therefore, in the interest of justice I would say that this, too, is a desirable change.
The undesirable features of this legislation are, of course, the size of the increase itself and the fact that the burden falls entirely upon the workers and the employers. Our chief criticism of this legislation is that the government makes no contribution to the increased payments into the fund. Since there is no comparable increase in the rate of benefit, therefore the benefits which the workers will obtain from this are not comparable to the increased rate of contribution. The 52 weeks extension, to my mind, is of doubtful value. It merely restores the original benefit period which was written into the act when it was first set up by the former Liberal regime. When it was reduced

to 36 weeks I do not think that any very serious disadvantage resulted and I doubt whether there is any very great advantage in restoring it.
To appraise this legislation we must carefully weigh the benefits against the impact upon the taxpayers and upon the national economy. We must ask ourselves how many workers will benefit from this extension from 36 weeks to 52 weeks. In this connection I should like to put on record a paragraph from the fifteenth annual report of the unemployment insurance commission and I quote from the bottom of page 49:
The great majority of insured persons have a good contribution history and experience had shown that in many cases the credit thus set up for an unemployed person when he files the claim was not being used. For example, during the five-year period 1949-1953, although about one-third of all those establishing benefit rights were entitled to 180 days (30 weeks) or more, only about one-twentieth actually drew benefit for 180 days or more. This is illustrated by the following: The average duration authorized for all claimants was 26 weeks; the average benefit taken by all claimants was nine weeks; 90.1 per cent drew only one to 19 weeks, 6.4 per cent drew 20 to 29 weeks, while only 3.5 per cent drew 30 or more weeks.
Since that paragraph contains statistics for the five year period from 1949 to 1953 it does include a period of recession which in some respects is very comparable to our present situation. If we had the figures for today I doubt that there would be any great change in these percentages. In fact, as we progress toward the 52 weeks the percentage will certainly drop considerably and should be below the 3.5 per cent mark. It seems then that we are paying a price that proportionately is too high for the benefits that are going to be received by such a small number of applicants.
We must ask ourselves also what will be the impact of this heavy increase in the rates of contribution. We know there will be no increase in the rates of benefit so that those workers who fall in the category of less than 36 weeks, and they are the majority, will receive no benefit at all. The impact on the contributor, however, will be considerable. Ostensibly the increase is going to be shared 50-50 by the worker and the employer. The worker will pay 30 per cent more and the employer will pay 30 per cent more for the same benefits.
We know that there is no escape for the employee. He must pay the 30 per cent increase because there is no way of passing it on to anyone else. But with respect to the contribution paid by the employer, perhaps in the majority of cases the contribution does not come from the employer at all. He simply passes on the cost to the consumer. Since the worker is also a consumer he will
Unemployment Insurance Act therefore pay not only his own contribution but a considerable part of the employer's contribution. Consequently, the increase in the case of the employee will be considerably more than 30 per cent. Just how much more, of course, is difficult to say but it could very well raise his share of the increase from 30 per cent up to 40 per cent or perhaps even higher.
We must also look at the impact on the economy. Since a large part of the employer's share is going to be passed on to the consumer, this amounts to another tax, and we all know the effect of an increase in taxes upon prices. The recent increase in the cigarette tax is a good example. In order for the government to get two cents extra the person who buys a package of cigarettes now pays four cents more. The same will be true with respect to the consumers who will have to pay through higher prices for a part of the employer's share.
We understand that the total amount to be raised by this increase will be approximately $72 million, and for $72 million to be collected by the government and placed in the unemployment insurance fund the taxpayers certainly will have to pay considerably more. Possibly they may have to pay $80 million, $90 million or even $100 million in order to make $72 million available to the unemployment insurance fund. This in turn is going to have an effect upon the competitive position of industry and upon our position as a trader in world markets.
There is another aspect of this matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention. There are many contributors who will keep on paying as long as they work and will never receive one cent in benefits because of the nature of their employment. It does not seem quite right to me that these people should pay continually when there is no chance whatever of receiving any benefit. I should like to make a suggestion to the minister for his consideration. When a person has paid five years' contributions without receiving any benefit at all I suggest that when he pays his sixth year he should get his first year's contributions refunded. Perhaps a five year period may not be feasible but I use it to illustrate the proposal I have in mind. Possibly the period could be ten years, but I think some consideration should be given to the worker who has to pay in during all his working life and by the nature of his employment can never get anything back.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this unemployment insurance legislation was meant to take care of temporary unemployment only. But

Division
we are faced now with conditions that did not obtain when the legislation came into being. There is now a distinct possibility that we may be faced with a large measure of permanent unemployment. We know that our population is growing and that our work force is expanding at the rate of about 200,000 or more new jobs every year. The theory behind this legislation is that a man's labour is a marketable commodity. To take care of our increasing labour force we must depend upon the expansion of capital investment but at the present time a considerable portion of our capital investment is devoted not to creating jobs but to destroying jobs. I think the time has come when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) must try to secure some sort of breakdown of public and private investment to determine what proportion will be devoted to creating jobs and what proportion will be devoted to automation which will have the effect of destroying jobs. Certainly all indications now point to the fact that our labour force is going to expand at a rather more rapid rate than new jobs are going to be created, and this will tend to increase unemployment and to make a larger proportion of our labour force permanently unemployed.
I believe this will necessitate rethinking on the concept of labour because a man's life and the life of his family depend upon employment, upon his ability to market his labour commodity. I think we must ask ourselves what is going to happen when there is no market for a man's labour. This situation may not be as far in the future as many of us believe. Certainly, it is something to which we should be giving some thought at the present time, because if we are going to meet that situation it is going to involve a great deal of change in our monetary policy-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is going rather far afield from anything that is contained in this bill.


Mr.   Carler@: I was just pointing out that provisions we are considering are for temporary unemployment only, and we have a bigger problem to face as a result of the conditions to which I referred, and the time to think about it is now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Lionel Chevrier: May I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to standing order 51.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-18 to incorporate the Lutheran Church-Canada. -Mr. Weichel-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Richard A. Bell (Carleton) (for Mr. Macdonald, Kings) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-19 respecting the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills standing for second readings, is it agreed that the house shall take all these in one motion? They are bills SD-206 to SD-233 inclusive, items 50 to 77 on today's order paper.
Private Bills
Bill SD-208, for the relief of Brenda May Newbury Sherwood.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-209, for the relief of Lillianne Reed Volchuk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-210, for the relief of Fernand Filiatrault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-211, for the relief of Elisa Gislena Maria Blankaerts Juneau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-212, for the relief of Louis Gustave Rey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-213, for the relief of Gertrude Mary Prosser Hortig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-214, for the relief of Mary Barbara Jex Light.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-215, for the relief of Joan Elizabeth Healy Watson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-216, for the relief of Franz Prader.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-217, for the relief of Emilienne Celestine Mallard Grossin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-218, for the relief of Gertrud Maria Meta Wauer Macovetsky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-219, for the relief of Mohammed Dijiro.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-220, for the relief of Aurore Giguere Gourd.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-221, for the relief of Lucinda Marguerite Vaughan Flood.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-222, for the relief of Joan Turvey Fields.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-223, for the relief of Patricia Elizabeth Tobias Garber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-224, for the relief of Marian Ida Rex Ross.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-225, for the relief of Mary Ann David Arial.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill	SD-226,	for	the	relief	of	Marjorie
Barbara Hawthorn Morrison.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-227, for the relief of Sarah Friberg Lazare.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-228, for the relief of Marie Adrienne Maryse Dagenais Garlick.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-229, for the relief of Alexandre Pare.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill	SD-230,	for	the	relief	of	Norman
Grover, otherwise known as Norman Bernard Grover.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill	SD-231,	for	the	relief	of	Marjorie
Winifred Joyce	White Young.-Mr. McCleave.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill SD-206, for the relief of Theodora Cornell Moore Martin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-207, for the relief of Rose Ange Lorange Gadoury.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-232, for the relief of Helga Fischer Dollard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-233, for the relief of Marguerite Louise Agathe Piche Chartrand.-Mr. McCleave.

Fraser River Fisheries FRASER RIVER



LEGISLATION TO SAFEGUARD NAVIGATION AND FISHERIES

Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-23 respecting navigation and salmon fishery on the Fraser river.
He said: This bill is a very short one and, as is apparent from the title, it has to do with the protection of navigation and of the salmon fishery on the Fraser river in the province of British Columbia.
Perhaps at the outset I should say that the control of these matters on the Fraser river belongs to Canada. The Fraser river was a navigable river at the time of confederation; in fact it was a navigable river a good many years before this country entered upon confederation. In addition, it is part of the sea coast and inland fisheries of Canada. One of the purposes of this bill and certainly an important one, is to prohibit the building of hydroelectric projects on the Fraser river, or of any dam for such purposes, and also to prohibit the placing of any obstruction in the Fraser river except those which may be necessary to be built by the government of Canada in connection with erosion, or flood control or current control. And, of course, the government of Canada does this now on the Fraser river, and has been doing this for many years as the authority which has control over the navigable waters of the river.
Hydroelectric power dams are always high dams and they store a great deal of water. No matter how carefully they are constructed or operated they always affect the flow in the river involved. The Fraser river presents difficulties from the point of view of navigation. My view is that the river should not in any way be rendered more difficult in the matter of navigation than it is right now. At this time the great port of New Westminster is concerned about silting up and that sort of thing.
I can say with exactitude and with no fear of contradiction that the Fraser river is the greatest salmon river in the world. The fishery of which that river is the foundation of an important item in the Canadian economy. The salmon fishery on the Pacific coast makes an annual contribution of $80 million to the Canadian economy. Of course, the fishery on the Fraser river itself is only part of this industry and the great feature of the Fraser river is the run of the Pacific salmon. We must also consider the wages earned by the fishermen and all the collateral matters of commerce such as fishing boats which are expensive, their engines and equipment, nets and so forth.

The Pacific salmon industry gives Canada an important position in the export market of canned salmon, particularly in the United Kingdom. This is a prestige export for Canada because Pacific salmon is the finest canned product of the sea to be found anywhere in the world. One might say I have dealt with the economic side of things and all of these factors are highly important today. In addition we must recognize that this industry provides a great source of protein food. My suggestion is that we cannot take any chances of doing possible damage to that industry because of the vast amount of food it produces each year.
I know there are those who say that power and salmon can exist together on the Fraser. That has been said on previous occasions by learned engineers, professors, biologists and others in connection with the Columbia river just south on the Pacific coast which flows into the sea between the states of Washington and Oregon. Expert opinion was that the Bonneville dam could be built without damage to the fishery but that dam ruined the entire fishery on the Columbia river which was second in importance only to that on the Fraser.
There is a canal in connection with the Bonneville dam and one learned gentleman said that the salmon would follow a ship into the lock and go out the other side when the ship passed through, but the Pacific salmon does not operate in that fashion. While I have every respect for the expert opinion of these engineers, professors and others, when it comes to an innate knowledge of the spawning habits of the Pacific salmon I have more respect for the knowledge of the fish.
At the present time there exist no safe or accepted method of passing fish up and down the river to the sea. Getting them up is not as difficult as getting them down. The little fingerlings, as they are called, are not strong when they go down to the salt water. They suffer injury dropping over the dam or passing through the turbines and are killed by the millions.
Furthermore it should be noted that there is no need for the development of electric power on the Fraser river. We have the Columbia river in British Columbia about which most hon. members in this house know because it has been in the news a great deal. Another important river is the Peace river. In my opinion these two great rivers are capable of generating all the power needed in the foreseeable future. We also have the potential of atomic power.
I should like to read the views of the president of the Fisheries Association of British Columbia as set out in a letter to

me dated February 11, 1959. I am sure that most hon. members opposite will remember very well the Hon. James Sinclair, president of this association. He stated:
The stand of the Fisheries Association has been that we can have both fish and power in British Columbia. Fish from the Fraser and power from non-salmon streams, such as the Peace and the Columbia. In addition, there are ever increasing thermal sources of power now available in British Columbia with the completion of the oil and gas lines to the coast. The British Columbia Electric has already built a 75,000 KW gas turbine at Port Mann and is now building a very large thermal plant at loco which can use either oil or gas. The first unit of this plant will be 300,000 kilowatts and its final capacity 1 million kilowatts. This latter figure equals the total production of the British Columbia Electric system today from all sources. These plants certainly would not be built if the cost of thermal power was not pretty close to the cost of hydro power.
There has been remarkable increase in the efficiency of thermal plants in recent years.
The third alternative source of power comes from nuclear energy. In this field, the British are the leaders with six plants either in production or under construction. Two plants have been producing power for the commercial grid for over a year. Sir John Cockcroft, head of the British Atomic Energy Commission has announced that by 1962 power from nuclear plants will be competitive with conventional power plants and by 1982 will be half the cost of conventional power. In view of the enormous resources of uranium which Canada is fortunate enough to possess, it would be the height of folly to dam the Fraser when other such sources of power are available for if the Fraser is dammed, the salmon resource will be lost forever.
That is the considered view of a fisheries expert. The parliament of Canada can settle this question once and for all. We have in Canada the greatest salmon river in the world that provides a vast source of food. There is no need for generating power on this river when other alternatives exist.
In closing let me urge hon. members to give this matter sympathetic consideration. Let us take no risk in using the Fraser river for the purpose of providing power. I ask all hon. members to assist in the protection of our vital salmon fishery through giving their support to this bill.


Mr. W. H. Payne (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McPhillips) for so ably presenting a case with which I am quite frankly in disagreement although familiar with. It is not many months since the day when discussions on this subject were held at considerable length with the gentleman whom the hon. member has quoted so widely in defence of Bill No. C-23, the Hon. James Sinclair, as an outstanding fisheries authority.
I wish to make myself quite clear, as I have on many occasions on the platform, with this
Fraser River Fisheries
authority in matters having to do with Canada's fisheries. I, like thousands of British Columbians, have not at any time encouraged a program which would deny to anyone a benefit. I wish to make that most profoundly clear; but I do, Mr. Speaker, take violent issue with a bill of this kind which in effect does not only close the door but slams the door in the face of all practical and logical study and investigation which could, if properly carried out, be the means of seeing that the people of British Columbia were favoured with both the benefits of salmon fisheries as well as of low-cost power. This would aid them, not only in their industrial and commercial uses, but would lessen a burden on the thousands of homes and families in the greater metropolitan complex area from which I come.
In saying this I wish to emphasize most definitely that the domestic bills for power today, essential to the life of the modern communities, in the greater Vancouver area run almost twice, and in certain specific instances three times, the cost borne by householders elsewhere in any other communities in this dominion of ours. I think before we slam a door in the face of a proper, logical and reasoned approach, which may bring a solution to this complex problem, we should give a little thought to the interests of the thousands of people who today are paying through the nose because insufficient research and insufficient study has been carried on. Too many authorities have grown up, authorities, which I wish to emphasize most forcefully, when it comes to power matters in British Columbia today, believe you should go to see the fisheries experts on power matters. You should go and talk to the president of the B. C. fish association; you should go and talk to the fisheries biologists; if you want the answers to power problems. That is the place to get your answers. I am likewise equally critical when, if you want solutions today to biological fish problems in our province, you go to the power authorities.
I have read evidence which has been presented to committees from time to time during this session. I refer to the committee on mines, forests and waters and also the committee on marine and fisheries. It is pointed out, as I say, if you wish an expert on fisheries you go to the opposite side of the pole. If you want to consult an expert on hydro matters you go to the fish people. It is high time that this whole problem was made free of all closed, bigoted views. Intelligent men, qualified people, must be brought in to solve this problem and must be adequately financed. It is high time, Mr. Speaker, that this dominion of ours started to call on the

Fraser River Fisheries
United States under the international North Pacific fisheries treaty to pay its share because it takes half of the harvest of the salmon that spawn on the upper stretches of the Fraser river. I contend that our United States neighbour, taking that advantage, has not produced according to the treaty nor in any way cooperated toward a logical solution to this matter.
I hold in my hand what I consider to be a very well thought out editorial from the Vancouver Sun of February 17, 1958. It reads in part as follows:
Research can find a way to have hoth salmon and hydroelectric development of the Fraser river.
But the research isn't being done.
Again this sensible warning comes. When will it sink in with politicians who posture so eagerly as saviours of the salmon from the wicked hydro barons? When will it sink in with fishing interests who applaud the politicians and try to sell the idea that hydro soon won't be important? And with hydro interests who face having to inflict higher costs on the public unless the Fraser is used.
I also hold in my hand a mail-out that every householder of the lower mainland received last year. This indicates another expense of modern day costs in raising a family. It indicates that household electric rates must be increased, and the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia know the results.
In discussing this matter there is also a great tendency to overlook a few of the facts. Flood danger is an ever present one on the Fraser river. I admit that the proposer of this bill will say that the bill in no way precludes solution of flood problems. I would like to read from the interim report of the Fraser river board, dated June, 1956. In part, it says:
Since then, in 1950, 1954 and again in 1955 the river rose above the 20-foot level at the Mission bridge, the danger mark prior to dike reconstruction in 1949. However, the system of dikes as reconstructed since the 1948 flood, contained the freshets and only very minor local damage or inconvenience has resulted.
Then it goes on to refer to other very disastrous floods which the people of the lower mainland of British Columbia have learned through the years to live with. The important fact is that this same report in its findings recommends-and I would point out that on that board as one of the five members was a representative from the department of water resources branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Mr. T. M. Patterson; from the Department of Fisheries there was the chief supervisor of fisheries, Pacific area, Mr. A. J. Whitmore-that a multi-purpose project should be undertaken to control floods. The reason they recommend multi-purpose projects is that damming for the sole purpose of
[Mr. Payne.l
controlling flood waters in the Fraser river is not economically feasible unless benefits can be gained by virtue of the production of power, by virtue of the reclamation of land through moving siltage up on to the flat lands and moving water on to the surface. I point this out, Mr. Speaker, but not to suggest that this parliament can go forward on such a project today. I do not think any person in the province of British Columbia contends that this matter of salmon and power can be solved today; but we do contend that it will never be solved if we are going to face a lack of co-operative effort and approach the problem on a level of bigotry.
I should like now to refer to a statement by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean). I will say to him that I have heard this statement made on many platforms by other past ministers of fisheries. At page 100 of the proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on marine and fisheries of April 23, 1959, the minister said in answer to a question, and the proposer of this motion concurred in these remarks in his earlier statement:
That power development from hydro sources, or even from the common types of thermal development, may be a passing thing. It is quite likely that in the very near future it will be economically feasible to produce power from atomic energy.
It is statements of this nature by fisheries people speaking on technical matters regarding energy and generation of power that wash out a solution of the problems that we are now concerned with. I am deeply concerned with the power cost that results, from this approach. The burden is placed on our homeowner. I should like to refer to the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 11, of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, April 7, 1959, wherein perhaps the most outstanding Canadian authority on atomic matters, Dr. John Convey, director of the mines branch, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, gives his testimony as found on page 261 and on following page. He had this to say:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I am somewhat on the spot, but since I reported to you almost 12 months ago, I am in a position to give evidence that there has been a lot of experimental work done in the field of the development of nuclear power. However, it is still in the experimental stage and there do not exist any economical kilowatts produced by atomic reactors today. At Geneva last fall it was reported there were some 13 power reactors producing power, but none of them economically. Eight of these exist in the United States, one in the U.S.S.R. and three in Great Britain. The situation is still one in which you have a combination of three main factors: the nuclear fuel, the moderator and the coolant.
He goes on to say:
Quite a number of experiments are under way at the present time, but the cost of producing power for these reactors is certainly nowhere in

the neighbourhood of six mills. There are educated guesses as to when it will break through, but as far as I know at the present time it is merely a guess to say that by 1970 we will be producing economic power.
He goes on at great length and makes this final statement:
So I would say right now that experimental work in reactors has not reached a stage wherein one could give an honest guess as to just when it will break through; and I cannot see it breaking through at least for another two decades.
I and the thousands, I say advisedly, who feel as I do and for whom I speak in the house do not say that atomic power may not be the only economic means of generating power requirements in the future. We do not say that dams are essential on the Fraser river. We do say that, at the moment, the only economic means of generating power is through hydro development, and as long as that situation exists let us not, by passing Bill No. C-23, close the door to a logical, reasoned and intelligent approach to this problem which faces all in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Rather, let us get on with an intelligent, reasoned research program so that we will not deny the people of our province those benefits which may be derived through a logical, proper approach to the problem.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words to say on this, shall I say, most novel and interesting bill. I fully appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mc-Phillips) with regard to preserving the salmon fishing resources of the Pacific coast but I think he has taken a rather unusual way to do that. In my opinion there are several sound reasons why the bill should not be passed by the house. I respect fully the sincere intention of the hon. member to protect this fisheries resource about which he is so concerned.
First of all, the bill is very final. It slams the door. It reminds me of an occasion about 60 years ago when my father wanted to stop me skating on Sundays and in order to do so he chopped up my boots and skates.


George James McIlraith: Did you say 60?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


George James McIlraith: I thought it was 40.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was a very final act but within a week or so my father ended up by having to buy me new boots and skates. This bill is final. Section one provides:
No hydroelectric power shall be generated in the Fraser river in the province of British Columbia, nor shall any dam, weir or other obstruction to navigation or to the spawning run of the Pacific salmon, be constructed in or over the said river.
Fraser River Fisheries
If the bill should pass it would finalize the situation so far as the Fraser is concerned. I think the bill overlooks possible developments of the future. We are not in a position to say today that it will not be possible to have fish and power on the Columbia as a result of research. Today I was reading of the tremendous advance made in that direction in the Soviet union, according to a report in the newspapers, where they claim that they have been able to develop power and preserve fishery resources at the same time. It is only a newspaper report but I suspect there is some foundation of fact in it.
In adopting the bill we would be closing the door to possible developments of the future through research and so on. I am sure that all thinking people in British Columbia are concerned about the preservation of the fishery resources but the people who think and take a long point of view do not want parliament to take any action that would prevent any future development as a result of advances in science and in our knowledge of these matters.
There is a second reason for my opposition to the bill. The member realizes there are other, shall I say, surrounding aspects to this question that I do not want to go into in detail at this time, but if the bill were to pass it would preclude the more efficient development and use by Canadians of the surplus waters of the Columbia in the future. In that connection we are not certain what the possibilities are and what the circumstances will be, but the bill would preclude Canadians from using the surplus waters of the Columbia in the years to come in the most efficient way and in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to the bill and trust it will not be passed by the house. I think we would be much wiser to leave ourselves the opportunity to take whatever course we see fit to take in the future with respect to the development of the Fraser and the utilization of the surplus waters of the Columbia in the light of the fact that at the present time, as St. Paul says, and I use his words in connection with this problem: "We see as in a glass darkly."


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak I must say at the outset that I disagree violently with the preceding two speakers, especially the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Payne) who, incidentally, is my roommate. He took exception to the fact that the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McPhillips) in his bill was slamming the door but I feel that the door

Fraser River Fisheries
was not slammed tightly enough or perhaps was slammed too violently so that it sprung open. Contrary to the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, I believe that the legislation does not go far enough. The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) has provided in his bill that no hydroelectric power dam shall be constructed on the Fraser river. In the second paragraph of the hon. member's bill he allows the federal government a certain amount of leeway with respect to flood control, navigation and so on, and I think that perhaps this is one of the difficulties in the bill.
In recent testimony before the marine and fisheries committee, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) pointed out very clearly the sensitivity of spawning fish to any interference with their natural habitat. I, myself, am rather leery as to any interference by power dams or flood control dams. If I may, I should like to quote what the minister says on page 11 of the proceedings of the marine and fisheries committee:
In British Columbia and the Yukon we have been concerned with the continuing problem of overcoming the effects of industrial developments on the major salmon runs. I might say in this connection, in a general way, that one of the problems of conservation is of course the impact of civilization and industrialization on the environment in which fish live. There are very severe changes which follow industrialization and settlement in a natural habitat which may not be apparent to the casual observer, but which the fish are very much aware of. I am referring to such things as changes in the fluctuation of run-off, water temperatures and many other things along this line of which the casual observer is not aware. These things include siltation of spawning beds and the reduction of the sunlight in water by siltation, and contamination and suspension of fine material in the streams, which cuts off the sunlight and reduces the growth of micro-organisms in the streams, on which the fish feed, especially in the early stages of their growth.
Perhaps the fisheries committee, in its recommendations, Mr. Speaker, expresses more truly the principle which the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is trying to enunciate. In their conclusions on page 85 of the committee's report we find this:
Your committee expresses the opinion that no dams should be built on the Fraser river, or any of its tributaries, where such dams will, in the opinion of the Minister of Fisheries, interfere with, or be detrimental to anadromous fish runs.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) expressed concern about the fact that this legislation was final. He seems to forget that parliament can, in the next day or even next year, should changes be required, introduce other legislation to replace this legislation. I would say, therefore, that the difficulties in connection with shutting the door are perhaps theoretical and only for

the time being. I believe the door should very definitely be slammed.
What is the reason for this interest on the part of power companies in British Columbia? British Columbia has a power potential of some 25 million horsepower. In this connection, the Fraser river has a power potential of approximately 7 million horsepower. I contend, that we have two other rivers, the Columbia river with a potential horsepower of 3 million and the Peace river which has another 4 million potential horsepower. In addition, we have thermal power, for example, such as that which exists at Port Moody. I believe there are some six nuclear power stations which have been established in the United Kingdom. It is purely the monetary and economic considerations which urge these interests to establish a power dam on the Fraser river because of its closeness to the settled mainland area.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that of more importance than dams and electricity is the fact that we have a tremendous resource which, in the past year, had a landed value to the fishermen of some $37 million. The market value would probably be considerably more than that. This represents almost 15 million fish going up the Fraser river. I feel that when we have this natural resource that comes back year after year it is extremely important that we do nothing to jeopardize the continuity of this particular run. One of the suggestions that is frequently made in connection with this fish and power problem is the idea of having fish hatcheries. The experience of those in the hatchery business has been that the fish leaving the hatchery are extremely vulnerable. The fish can be produced in the hatchery, but once they get clear of the hatchery they tend to die off in large numbers. Experiments have shown there is no advantage in artificial over natural propagation in this respect.
The sockeye salmon, which is the one with which we are most concerned in the Fraser river, apparently has proven the least suitable for hatchery culture. For example, I should like to cite from the B. C. Professional Engineer of March, 1959 an article entitled "Artificial Propagation is Not the Answer". This particular article, dealing with the problem of raising young fish in a hatchery, states:
A modern salmon hatchery capable of rearing 2 million sockeye to seagoing size costs approximately $1 million and at least $60,000 annually for operation. The Adams river run alone would require 100 such hatcheries to equal the natural production of seaward migrants. The super-hatchery installation required would have 16,000 standard-size rearing ponds, an inflow of several thousand c.f.s. and a labour force of over 2,000. Other lesser runs

which are concurrent with the Adams run would require additional space. Even with all this effort to duplicate the numbers that would be produced naturally, the low survival rate of the hatchery-raised fish would fail to duplicate the natural return of adults.
To summarize, the Fraser fish-power problem centres around the sockeye salmon, the species of salmon which is least adaptable to hatchery culture on any scale, and which occurs in such abundance in the Fraser river that hatchery and rearing facilities are inconceivable.
Two of the greatest difficulties with regard to the problem of the fish migrating upstream is, first of all, the delay and second the problem of transporting them over the spillways. Again I should like to refer to the same article because it very succinctly and concisely sets forth the problems:
Basically there are two problems on the Fraser for which no satisfactory solution has been found. First, sockeye salmon will not tolerate delay in upstream migration and there is no known system for transportation of large numbers of adult salmon over a dam without delay. The problem is not primarily one of engineering. Fishways or lifts, locks or pumps, tank trucks or trains can all be engineered to accommodate large numbers of fish, although the cost would be high. The difficulty lies in convincing the fish that the facilities are designed for their benefit, i.e., getting the fish to go into them without delay and to proceed through them without stress or panic. The answer to these problems lies with the research biologist studying behaviour and physiology. Recent findings in this sphere have been significant and there is some basis for optimism that they will lead eventually to much more successful design of apparatus for directing salmon from the broad expanse of turbulent spill into the fish facilities. None of these developments have reached the stage where a solution based on them could be considered a calculated risk in a mammoth application to the Fraser.
I interject at this time, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member for Coast-Capilano made some brief reference to the research facilities. While I was a member of the fisheries committee 1 took the opportunity to ask Dr. Pritchard whether there was sufficient money and men available to do the necessary research to try to solve the problem. He explained to me the problem was not one of the number of men. He said that at the present time they have approximately 75 scientists and engineers working on this fish-power problem. There is a joint outlay between Canada and the United States of approximately $3 million every year on this problem.
Returning to the article, I find it states:
The second problem is centred on the safe transport of hundreds of millions of young fish down over spillways and through turbines. A large and well co-ordinated research effort has gone into both the design of spillways and turbines to minimize losses, and engineering and biological studies to probe the possibilities of directing or guiding the young fish into safe downstream bypasses. Where river flow is extremely small, guiding by electricity or light has been used with success. In small 66968-9-227
Fraser River Fisheries
forebay installations mechanical screening may be a feasible though costly protection. None of these techniques has measured up to the problem posed by large mainstem developments in which the freshet discharge accompanies the downstream navigation of the fish. For instance, effective mechanical screening on the Fraser would necessitate maintenance of approach velocities of less than 1 foot per second in the forebay of dams which with existing design would have velocities of 13 feet per second during freshet periods. It is obvious that in addition to the tremendous costs of screening, physical conditions in the Fraser canyon make it impossible to meet such standards.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, both the fisheries association and the united fishermen and allied workers union have opposed power development on the Fraser river. Although both organizations recognize the need for flood control they have steadfastly been in agreement that power dams should not be erected on the Fraser river. This is one of the few occasions on which they have been in agreement. I must commend the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. for bringing forward this legislation although I must reiterate that, as for myself, I do not feel that it goes sufficiently far.


Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house on this bill. It has been fairly well explained pro and con by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Payne) and the hon. member for Bur-naby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale). I should like to thank the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. McPhillips) for his interest in the Fraser river and to congratulate him on bringing forward his bill.
As all hon. members of this house know, the Fraser river is the greatest salmon river in the world, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. From experience we all know what the power dams on the lower Columbia river did to the salmon runs of that great river. We also know that the United States government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to bring back the salmon runs of the Columbia river but has met with little success.
I understand that the value of the fish pack from the Fraser river run last year was between $80 million and $100 million. That resource has added a terrific amount to the economy of the province of British Columbia. It is not altogether the monetary value which we are considering when we think of the fish; it is the great food value that will eventually be lost if that salmon run of which we are so proud is ever decimated. With the development of the upper Columbia river and with the power potentials of the Peace and other non-fish bearing rivers of British Columbia, I believe we shall have for many years all the power that we need in our

Fraser River Fisheries
province. With the great development of atomic energy and nuclear power I think the time may be near when the need for development of the Fraser river for power will be past and that we shall have plenty of power and also the fish produced in that great river.
I am convinced the time lies a long way in the future when we can have both fish and power. From all the experiments that have gone on in the past, there is no sign that we can have both on this great river.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Fraser river is about three miles from my constituency but in my riding I have a great number of fishermen. On behalf of myself and the fishermen of my riding I can say that we appreciate the interest of the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mc-Phillips) on Vancouver island some 75 miles away, in the maintenance of the fishing industry in general and the salmon industry in particular on the Fraser river. However, I want to say this most emphatically, and I think I understand the problems of the fishermen and the importance of the Fraser river. I want to say that I cannot agree with the terms set forth in Bill No. C-23. Clause 1, without any question of doubt whatsoever -and here I completely agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Payne)-completely slams the door on any development whatsoever of the Fraser river because it contains this provision:
1. No hydroelectric power shall be generated in the Fraser river in the province of British Columbia, nor shall any dam, weir or other obstruction to navigation or to the spawning run of the Pacific salmon, be constructed in or over the said river.
I am afraid that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) does not understand the development and the resources of the Fraser river. It was not too many years ago that nature itself, by means of land slides, almost completely obstructed the Fraser river in what is known as Hells canyon or Hells Gate. What happened? The federal government of that day spent a great deal of money in the construction of a fish ladder at Hells canyon. I think it cost in the neighbourhood of $1J million, although I may be wrong in the figure. From the hon. member who just sat down, Mr. Speaker, you heard about the Adams river run which is of only a certain type of salmon. There are four species that go up the Fraser river. This year the greatest run that British Columbia has ever known on the Fraser river, on the Adams river run, got over what? It did not get through Hells Gate directly but it got through the fish ladder constructed at Hells canyon or what is known as Hells Gate.

According to reports millions of fish died because there were so many. There was there, as there is now, complete proof that when nature caused an obstruction and when a government took action of a scientific nature, the run was not only maintained but was of such a nature that millions of fish, when they reached their spawning ground, died in large numbers. I saw pictures of them only the other week. You could almost walk over their bodies on the Adams river.
In addition to that, as I say, with the principle and purpose of this bill I completely agree. However, it closes the door to scientific knowledge and proof by the federal government, even up to now, that at Hells Gate you can take care of the fish.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: That was just a few feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Starr for the second reading of Bill No. C-43 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the contributions made to the unemployment insurance fund by the government, the employers, the employees and by those who will benefit under this measure. In other words, it is sought by means of this legislation to increase the rates of contribution by the employer and the employee by about 30 per cent without at the same time increasing the benefits to the employee.
For every dollar put into the fund before this measure was brought before the house, 40 cents thereof was paid each week by the employer, 40 cents by the employee and 20 cents by the government. This contribution will hereafter amount to 52 cents from the employer, 52 cents from the employee and 26 cents from the government. Why has it been found necessary to do this? The minister, in introducing this measure, stated in effect that it was because the fund is depleting. The hon. minister said this was required in order to maintain the fund in a stable position during the next two years.

During the last two years of recession the minister has indicated that there has been a heavy payment out of the fund. He has stated, further, that it is the responsibility of the government to see to it that this fund is able to meet whatever eventualities may arise. But I say to him that it is also the responsibility of the government to protect the fund. The government did not discharge that responsibility, and because it did not discharge that responsibility it is now asking the employer and the employee to pay the shot by means of this measure.
This, sir, is just another tax; it is just another method of imposing taxes on the people of this country which should have been announced during the budget debate. This, I say, is another way-a backdoor method, if you will-of collecting taxes. By means of this additional tax to which no reference was made in the budget speech It is expected to raise between $80 million and $100 million over a period of one year. That is a substantial sum of money having regard to the increased taxation which has already been placed upon the people of Canada.
I say that the unemployment insurance fund has not been properly administered. Last year the fund suffered a loss of $10 million in the sale of securities. According to sessional paper 82A which was tabled in the house it appears that the fund held about $400 million in victory bonds and we have good reason to believe that a substantial portion of those bonds were conveited. Later when cash was required to meet the calls made upon the insurance fund by the unemployed, the government was forced to sell government securities, and as a result of these operations it made a loss exceeding $10 million. The administration of this fund is an example of how the conversion loan worked out. The government lost this money and it is now calling upon the workers to pay a portion of the bill.
What are the facts? The facts are contained in a document known as sessional paper 82A. I will not repeat what was said last night by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), but there are a number of things which I believe should be drawn to the attention of the house and which are to be found in this document. As of March 31, 1958 the balance to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund was $744 million, approximately, which was a decrease of $134 million over the 12 months period. The revenue for the fiscal year 1957-58 totalled $250 million, roughly, and benefits paid in the year 1957-1958 totalled $385 million. This represents an increase over the previous year of $153 million in total benefits. The operations of the year 66968-9-227i
Unemployment Insurance Act resulted in an excess of expenditure over revenue of $134 million. I think it is important that this should be brought to the attention of the house, because repeatedly, not only in this report which I hold in my hand but also in the other report of August 26 which was tabled yesterday by the minister, there is reference to this drain upon the unemployment insurance fund. Here it is stated that the staggering increase in benefit payments is mainly due to the large number of unemployed workers during the period and to the extension of the period during which seasonal benefits were available.
There are at this time 525,000 unemployed persons seeking jobs in this country, and more than one-third of those are in the province of Quebec. In the province of Quebec alone that represents 12.5 per cent of the working force, and I remind the minister that it is because of this unemployment that the drain on the fund which is referred to in this and in the other report is mentioned by the advisory committee.
The advisory committee also calls attention to the serious situation in which the fund finds itself. "It is a fact, however," states the committee, "that the burden of this expense, in the opinion of the committee, should not be imposed on the unemployment insurance fund unless the loss to the fund is made good." The committee goes on to state:
We trust the government will take action to replace the drain on the fund, by reason of the extension of the seasonal benefit period by a grant.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member goes further, I think it well to remind him that the house has decided the question which was raised by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) which called upon the government to make contributions to the fund and to that extent the debate is limited from this point on because of the disposition of that matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I wanted to do was to incorporate the report which was tabled yesterday by the minister and which I think forms part of this sessional paper with reference to section 89 (1) with which I should like to deal if I may be allowed to do so. What I was going to bring to the attention of the house was the last recommendation of the committee and then I am through with sessional paper 82A-which states that:
The committee respectfully recommends that the division of responsibility for revenue to the fund as between employers, employees and government be adjusted so that the contribution from each be made equal. In other words, that the contribution from the government be made equal to one-half that of the combined contribution from employers and employees.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Speaker:: That is just the point where the hon. member reverts to the motion which was made by way of amendment and was disposed of. He is free to deal with the report but not in so far as it relates to the matter we have disposed of.


Lionel Chevrier: I will not labour the matter. If I may be allowed to make one other reference to it I will pass on to another matter.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have seen this type of debate steadily increasing in the last few weeks.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: What is the point of order?


Howard Charles Green: Under this bad practice a point of order will be raised, Your Honour will make a ruling, and then the hon. member of the opposition who has the floor will go on to make his point as though Your Honour had never said a word. This is a practice which is being followed, I suggest, deliberately by the opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Are you lecturing us?


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour has ruled that the hon. member could not deal with this question. He said, "Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, but I have just one more point I want to make". I submit he should be forced to follow your ruling and should not be allowed to evade it in that way. He has already done so twice since I have been here in the last five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure what the final point is which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) wishes to extract from the report or the sessional paper from which he is reading but I expect him to observe the limitation which is a clear one.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: The hon. member wants to be out of order just once more.


Thomas Miller Bell: He is trying to beat the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who holds the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment that was disposed of dealt specifically with the question of government contributions to the fund and to my mind that point is closed as far as this debate is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. What I was going to do-


Richard Albert Bell: And we see that you are now going right on to do it.


Lionel Chevrier: -was not to continue but simply to ask a question.


Richard Albert Bell: Oh!


Lionel Chevrier: The question was this. Why was not the recommendation of this committee, a copy of which I hold in my hand, accepted by the minister or by the government? Having said that may I now proceed to another matter which I think is equally-


An hon. Member:: Out of order?


Lionel Chevrier: I hope Mr. Speaker will not find it so, but if the Speaker does think I am out of order I shall quickly abide by his decision. My hon. friends may not like what I intend saying and they may not be so anxious later to make the interruptions which they made a moment ago.
If they will only bear with me and be patient I shall come now to another part of my remarks. I turn to the most amazing thing, in my opinion, about the subject matter of this measure, and that was the report dated August 26, 1958, which was tabled in the house yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). This is a report which should have been tabled earlier and which in my mind is in clear violation of section 89 (1).


Mr. Speaker:: I had considerable difference with the hon. member for Essex East, on that point last night and I hope I will not have the same difficulty with the hon. member for Laurier.


An hon. Member:: You will.


Mr. Speaker:: I agreed quite readily that it was open to any hon. member to use the report which had been tabled and to use it in the debate but it is not open to hon. members to go into a collateral debate on whether or not this report is of a certain character which requires its tabling by law. That is something that can be brought up at another time but it is not relevant to the bill which is now before the house for second reading. Therefore I hope the hon. member for Laurier will keep within the limits which I tried to define last night.


Lionel Chevrier: Will Your Honour hear me on the relevancy of the point which I seek to
make?


Mr. Maclnnis:: That point was determined last night.


Lionel Chevrier: No, this point was not determined. I wish to refer to what is contained in the report of August 26 and establish its relevancy before I am told not to go any further.


Mr. Speaker:: I of course will hear the hon. member briefly if he wants to indicate that that particular line is relevant but I hope he will not debate it in the course of making his statement concerning its relevancy.


Lionel Chevrier: I will do it as briefly as I can, Mr. Speaker. The point I want to make is this. In the report of August 26 there are three paragraphs which deal with the fund and I shall not bother Your Honour with them but the last paragraph consists of one sentence which reads as follows:
In the meantime we respectfully draw your attention to our report of July 18, 1958.
My contention is that the report which the minister tabled, sessional paper 82A, together with this report of August 26 forms the recommendations to the governor in council and therefore is debatable. I maintain that I can refer to it within the terms of section 89 (1) which says that the minister shall lay before parliament every report made by the unemployment insurance advisory committee. I say that by incorporation and by reference those two reports are debatable now.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member appreciates that the minister has laid them before parliament. What he is asking to do is get into a collateral debate on quite a different matter than is before the house under this bill. As I understand it the question of whether or not the handling, disposition, and tabling of these reports and so on is in compliance with the act is not an issue on the second reading of this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: May I point out to Your
Honour that this matter was not before us at the resolution stage because when the minister introduced the resolution he had not tabled the report and it was only afterward that we were able to consider the report. I feel that on that basis since-


Mr. Speaker:: I still have not made myself clear. I do not suggest that the hon. member is not free to complain that he has not had the report in fact but what I do think he should avoid is a debate on the legal responsibilities of the minister with respect to these reports because to my mind such observations are not pertinent at this time. They would be pertinent if the question were raised as a supply motion condemning the government for not tabling the reports in accordance with the act but they are not relevant in this debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are now, of course, dealing with the second reading of a bill which deals with the
Unemployment Insurance Act unemployment insurance commission and the operation of a fund and measures taken by the government to strengthen the fund. In respect of that we now have before us a report, which was tabled last night at six o'clock, of the unemployment insurance advisory committee giving certain views of that committee on how all this might be done. Surely, Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of this bill we can refer not only to this report but to the circumstances surrounding the tabling of it and, as we see it, the fault of the government in this matter which is borne out by the report. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this has a bearing on the principle of the bill which is before us.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, last evening Your Honour dealt with this point at some length and under some difficulty when the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was speaking. I submit that the hon. member for Laurier and the Leader of the Opposition have absolutely no right to go back tonight and argue that same point of order and ask to be allowed to go on with the same type of debate which was not allowed from the hon. member for Essex East last night. I urge upon Your Honor that the rules of the house be enforced in respect of these three hon. members and that they be restricted from dealing with this point on which Your Honour ruled last night.


Mr. Caron:: Closure.


Howard Charles Green: When these people across the way talk about closure I say there is no doubt about who are the experts on closure in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker,-


Thomas Miller Bell: Let's not make a joke out of this.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: What the minister says is quite true. The point of order which I raised last night was debated at considerable length and I thought I made it quite clear what were the limits of the debate which could take place on the background of this report. I have no objection and there is no rule that I know of which would prevent the hon. member for Laurier from complaining that he had this information only last night, and that that does not give him time to use it appropriately. What I do reiterate-and I feel I must, of course-is the point which I made last night, namely that the regularity of the government's action with respect to this report is a matter entirely outside this debate.

Unemployment Insurance Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is a slightly different point actually, it seems to me, that the hon. member for Laurier was trying to make. Your Honour will recall that, according to May's sixteenth edition, it is competent to members to move amendments which may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of a bill. I apprehend that if it is competent to move an amendment about it, it is certainly competent to debate it and it seems to me that what the hon. member was seeking to do was not to debate a specific point, as perhaps the hon. member for Essex East may have been doing last night, but to debate the circumstances connected with the introduction of this bill, and particularly the circumstances that we did not have this information at an earlier stage.


Mr. Speaker:: The simple answer to what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says is that the amendment must be relevant. The debate is not relevant and an amendment which would open up the debate which the hon. member is seeking to introduce is not relevant.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the second reading of this bill are we not competent to debate the relations of the government to the unemployment insurance advisory committee? Its relations have been explained in part at least in this particular report. Those relations surely, have a bearing on our attitude toward this particular bill and those relations, surely, cannot be discussed unless we discuss this particular report and the circumstances surrounding its introduction in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member must be under a misapprehension that the whole Unemployment Insurance Act is before the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the second reading of a bill to amend an act. It has been very well established, and the practice has been very closely followed in the house, that a bill to amend a particular act opens up only the sections that it seeks to amend. Now, there are three or four principles or purposes in those amendments: one has to do with the numbers who may benefit; one has to do with the amount of benefits; one has to do with the amount of contributions. That is a fairly broad range of the unemployment insurance scheme, but it does not open up the whole act by any means, and it does not open up debate on the contents of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the advisory committee and its relations with the government.
[The Speaker.!

It only opens up the principles which I think were reasonably correctly stated, as I understand the bill, by the minister when he introduced the bill yesterday and referred to the four principal changes which are the purposes and principles of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I suppose then that I would not be prevented from discussing what the minister said in his opening remarks yesterday. I presume, then, if I may be allowed to go on, I can at this stage deal with some of the statements that he made and to challenge those statements.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: And take an hour and a half to do it.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I did not take an hour and a half to get at this.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have another hour and a half.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I have 40 minutes in which to speak and I would like to take the 40 minutes unless I am interrupted.
At page 3538 of Hansard of Monday, May 11, 1959, the minister said:
I asked the unemployment insurance advisory committee to give some study to some of my suggestions for amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which they did.
The minister said in this statement which I have just read that the report was given to him at his request; that he asked the unemployment insurance advisory committee to give some study to some of his suggestions, which they did. He considered the report as confidential but the report which was tabled yesterday is not so marked. The point that I make now, is that it should have been tabled long before yesterday, along with the sessional papers.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order,-


Lionel Chevrier: It should have been tabled-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order,-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor is questioning the regularity of the acts of the minister and of the government with respect to this report. That is what I indicated last night was outside the ambit of this debate. This does not mean he is not able to refer to the report or to the time it was tabled. To make a debate on the subject of whether or not the government should have tabled it when it did, or whether it was required to table it under the act, is the limit that is being set and that is what I have been trying to tell the hon. member. I hope he will keep that in mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister permitted to make a statement regarding the circumstances of the production of this report? He said last night that this report was produced at his request, but the report itself shows that that is not so. Are we not allowed to comment on that statement of the minister, he having been permitted to make it last night?


Lionel Chevrier: That is really the point, sir. If I am not allowed to make any comment on what the minister said, then I might as well resume my seat and not go on with my remarks. The minister did this. Surely, if the minister is able to make certain statements, then I ought to be able to reply to those statements and that is what I intend to do, unless I am interrupted by Your Honour, because there are statements here which I think demand explanation and which I think the minister should explain before second reading of the bill is proceeded with.
One of the things I believe he should explain is this. Did the minister actually ask the advisory committee for these suggestions?


An hon. Member:: He said so.


Lionel Chevrier: He said he did but if you read the sessional paper dated August 26- I doubt if I am able to refer to it-there is not the slightest indication in that paper that the minister asked the advisory committee for suggestions as he said he did. What are the suggestions that the minister made? I think the house is entitled to know what those suggestions were. We know what the answer is. We know what the report of August 26 is but we do not know what the suggestions are which the minister made. Why are we being denied this information?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: Why is it that we have not got the information? Where are the suggestions? The House of Commons is entitled to know what these suggestions were. We should not have just half of the picture. We should not have the report of August 26 without, on the other hand, having the suggestions which the minister made and which brought about the report. The house is entitled to this information and I say that we are being denied it. We have a right to have that information, and I challenge the minister here and now to produce the minutes of the meeting which will indicate what the suggestions were.
Why is it, that in the last part of this report there is not only no indication that the minister asked for suggestions but on the contrary there seems to be clear-cut
Unemployment Insurance Act evidence, and it appears from the last paragraph, that although at least three members of the advisory committee were not in accord with the minister, the minister had not notified the committee of his intentions. The minister says that he asked the advisory committee to study some of his suggestions for amendments to the act. I say, that the minister has no right to do that. I say that there is no provision in the act for such action. I say that the minister acted in contravention of the Unemployment Insurance Act when he asked for this report.


An hon. Member:: Whoo, whoo!


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says, "whoo, whoo". Let us see what the act says.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Trained owls.


Lionel Chevrier: Section 91 (1) of the act reads as follows:
Whenever the governor in council, after consultation with the commission, considers it expedient to do so, he may direct the advisory committee to investigate and to report upon,
(a)	the provision of unemployment insurance-
(b)	the rates of contribution and benefit-
Parliament has not given the minister the power to ask for the report which he said he asked for. The minister took that power and he had no right to take that power. The minister acted in contravention of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I say that the minister should explain to the house why and under what authority he did ask for this report because I have been unable to find anywhere in the act any statutory authority that gives the minister jurisdiction to ask for a report of this kind. The governor in council and the governor in council alone has the right to demand an additional report, and that is why I say with all respect that I was in order a while ago when I asked to be able to consider these two reports alongside the act because it is the governor in council alone who has the right to demand this and it should be tabled in accordance with the request of the governor in council.


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed the hon. member to follow an inquiry as to the circumstances of asking for this report but I will not allow him to continue on the specific point to which he is now reverting.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will go on to another point. I say, that not only has the minister contravened section 91 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act but he has also violated section 19 (1) which states:
There shall be a committee, called the "unemployment insurance advisory committee", consisting of a chairman and not less than six nor more than eight other members, appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure.

Unemployment Insurance Act
That unemployment insurance advisory committee does not exist at the present time and it does not exist because of the conduct of the minister. I say that there has been a violation by the minister of section 19. The Minister of Labour has violated four sections of the act and he is in contempt of parliament under four heads. He has violated section 89 (1) by not producing the report of August 26 until yesterday. He has violated section 91 (1) by asking for a report of the advisory committee which he has no right to do. He has violated section 19 because there exists no legal unemployment insurance advisory committee today as provided for by the act. Lastly, he has violated the spirit and the intention of the act because he failed to consult the advisory committee and failed to carry out the major recommendations made by that committee in connection with the matter now before the house.
What the minister has done, is not only unjustifiable but inexcusable and it is in contravention of the statute. It is in contravention of principles going back to the bill of rights which declares, among other things, that no government or executive can suspend the law in any particular without parliament. At this point, I desire to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this house declines to proceed with this bill because its provisions were formulated and introduced without any consultation by the government with the advisory committee and before receiving the annual report of that advisory committee on the financial condition of the unemployment insurance fund for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, and its recommendations thereon."


Mr. Speaker:: I have very grave doubts
as to the regularity of this amendment but I take it there are others who wish to participate in the debate and I will give consideration to it while the debate proceeds.


Lionel Chevrier: I had not finished my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to continue, if I may. I want to say that it is unfortunate that this bill is submitted to parliament at a time when relations between the Minister of Labour and the labour movement have been broken for all practical purposes. The minister, of course, must assume full responsibility for the unfortunate position which has brought about a contravention of section 19 (1) of the act in that we find ourselves at this moment without an advisory committee having a legal status. As a result of the failure of the minister to comply with that section, as I stated earlier, a clear and important provision of that legislation, the two most important Canadian labour unions

have stated that they do not recognize an appointment made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure how
the hon. member relates the appointment of officials to the committee to this bill which is now before us. Before he proceeds to deal with that matter, I feel he should satisfy me it is relevant to the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: I have been discussing
section 19 (1) for the last five minutes, and Your Honour has not stopped me. Section 19 (1) says:
There shall be a committee, called the "unemployment insurance advisory committee", consisting of a chairman and not less than six nor more than eight other members, appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure.
I say that that committee does not exist at the moment. I was going on to deal with subsection (2), which says:
At least one of the members of the advisory committee, other than the chairman, shall be appointed after consultation with organizations representative of workers-
Surely I have the right to discuss and deal with those two sections of the act at this time.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to Your Honour that once again we have an evasion of Your Honour's ruling. You have ruled-


Lionel Chevrier: The Speaker has made no ruling.


Howard Charles Green: A few moments ago you pointed out the principles of this bill which is under debate. Now you have said that the raising of this question of the appointment to the advisory committee is not relevant to the discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Laurier is going right on to make that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Close parliament; let us go home. Let us have a dictatorship, that is what you want.


Howard Charles Green: You know all about dictatorships. If the hon. member for Laurier is not prepared to follow the rulings made by Your Honour, then he should stop speaking.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not rule, of course; I asked the hon. member for Laurier how he could relate the appointment of the members of the board to the bill. I see no connection myself, and unless he has some means of bringing the question of the appointments to the advisory board or the conduct of the government in that respect into the scope and purpose of this rather limited amendment to the act, which does nothing to the provisions for the advisory board, I cannot allow him to

proceed. I was asking him how he could justify the relevancy of the course upon which he was obviously embarking.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point you have just made, may I be permitted, with great respect, to say this: We are dealing with a bill which amends, in some very important respects, the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Unemployment Insurance Act is administered by the unemployment insurance commission, and another important agency in the administration is the unemployment insurance advisory committee.
How can we discuss intelligently the second reading of a bill which amends the act in these important respects without discussing the commission which deals with the administration of the act, as it will be amended. We are giving new responsibilities and new duties to this commission. Yesterday when the minister, in a very short speech indeed, explained these amendments he found time in that very short speech, as recorded on page 3538 of Hansard, to refer to the unemployment insurance advisory committee, and I think quite properly. He referred to that committee in respect of suggestions which he said he had made to that committee. If we are going to deal intelligently with these important changes in the bill, surely we are entitled to deal with the machinery which has been set up by parliament to administer this act.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot accept that argument. There would be no limit to the debate, the whole field of unemployment insurance would be under review, if the hon. member's contention were correct. There is no attempt made in this bill to deal with the machinery for the administration of the act. There are four or five relatively clear changes, but there is no change in the machinery. It is open to hon. members to debate the subject on a supply motion, if they wish, but they cannot debate it during the debate on second reading because this subject goes beyond the scope of the bill that is before the house.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask Your Honour for some guidance, then? In that case, is Your Honour ruling that I cannot deal with the contents of section 19 (1), which indicates that there should be an advisory committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I am ruling that the appointment to the advisory committee, and all that machinery of administration, is irrelevant.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the minister has referred to that matter by tabling sessional paper No. 82A,
66968-9-228
Unemployment Insurance Act and by tabling yesterday the additional document of August 26, both of which referred to the advisory committee. If I cannot deal with nor discuss the advisory committee which is referred to in the report now before the house, then of what use is this debate?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will not see the limit I am trying to draw, I am afraid I have only one course open and that is to ask him to resume his seat if he wishes to go on with that line of argument. The fact that the minister referred to there being an advisory board and he sought its advice and filed its report does not open up the constitution of the machinery of administration.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall not continue the matter-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Talk about closure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I respect your ruling, sir, but I now want to say, without any hesitation and without any doubt, that in my opinion there has been a clear violation of the statute under four heads by the Minister of Labour. I want to add that the Minister of Labour has withheld from this house information which this house was entitled to receive. I want to quote, from an hon. gentleman who sat on this side of the house at one time and who afterwards became the Prime Minister of this country, when he dealt with a situation similar to this.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member referring to the quotation which the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) sought to quote last night?


Lionel Chevrier: No, sir. I am now dealing with the words spoken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the debate of January 20, 1958, which has nothing to do with the matter which was discussed last night by the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Speaker:: At what page?


Lionel Chevrier: At page 3526 of volume 4 of the session of 1957-58, the Prime Minister then said this, and I quote:
He said we must not conceal facts, but I put it to the hon. members opposite-every one of them in the official opposition-that they hid the facts; they concealed the record; they did not let the Canadian people know what was taking place.
I say to the Minister of Labour that he withheld information from this house when he did not tell this house what the request was that he made of the advisory

Unemployment Insurance Act committee. Then, a little farther on, the Prime Minister said:
Did they give us such information? They had it in the report but they did not give it to parliament.
The information I submit the Minister of Labour had or has, and he must be able to tell the house what these suggestions were which he made to the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission. Then at page 3530 the Prime Minister, still continuing the debate, stated:
You concealed the facts. That is what you did.
And a little later on:
What did they do? They concealed the facts.
And again at page 3533:
I think of the fact that the hidden book reveals that they did nothing.
And at page 3534:
However, the point I made was that they did have that document and they did not act upon it but, instead of acting upon it, they actually placed before the House of Commons at the time of the budget a picture of a buoyant economy, hopeful for the future-
I say, that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) brought down his budget he should have given some indication that this additional taxation, ranging anywhere from $80 million to $100 million, was to be brought in by his colleague the Minister of Labour. But not one word was said by the Minister of Finance. Neither did the Minister of Finance say anything about the loans which are alleged to have been made and which the hon. member for Essex East asked him about on the orders of the day. His memory did not seem to be too clear in so far as they were concerned. His memory seemed to be confused in so far as they were concerned. Nonetheless, the hon. member for Essex East put on Hansard details of the two loans.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He put on the
record a great many misstatements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance says he put on the record a great many misstatements. I ask him this question: Why did you not get up and challenge the misstatements? Why did you not get up and reply? No; you did not do that. You sit there and you interrupt; and you interrupt because you have a bad conscience.


Mr. Walker:: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker is in the chair. The hon. member for Laurier should address the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; I must remind the house-


Lionel Chevrier: I did not catch that gem from the hon. member for Rosedale. I would ask him to repeat it.


David James Walker: The hon. member should know better than to do what he has been doing; he should address the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosedale was properly reminding the house that I am still in the chair. I would remind the hon. member for Laurier that he was directing his remarks to a new chairman down there.


Lionel Chevrier: I extend my apologies to you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier will also appreciate the fact that I have given him the benefit of a substantial amount of time which was consumed in the debate between himself and myself. However, I find that his time has now expired.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit to you that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Laurier is out of order. You will observe that the operative part of the amendment reads as follows:
This house declines to proceed with this bill because its provisions were formulated and introduced without any consultation by the government with the advisory committee and before receiving the annual report of that advisory committee-
And so on. Mr. Speaker, I know that I do not need to submit to you that the mere insertion of a reason for any particular course set forth in an amendment is out of order. The only amendment that could be in order at this point is one which would set up a principle contrary to the principle of the bill. In my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not set up a principle contrary to the principle of the bill. What it says in effect is that the house should not proceed to give the bill second reading because certain things were done in relation to the bill without consultation with the advisory committee and before receipt of the annual report of the advisory committee. These are obviously procedural questions, something outside of the scope of the bill. The amendment says that something should have been done or that the introduction and formulation of the bill should have been delayed until certain things were done. This is not the assertion of a principle contrary to the principle of the bill.
After the discussion that was had in this house last evening and today, I do not need to say anything further about the principle of this bill. The principle of the bill you have yourself discussed in the course of the rulings that you have already made. But, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in these two points

of a procedural nature which relate to the principle of this bill. There is nothing here that is set up that is contrary to the principle of the bill at all. All this amendment says is that something should have been done entirely outside the bill before the bill was formulated and submitted to the house. That certainly is not the assertion in the amendment of a principle contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, in my respectful submission, this amendment is clearly out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this point of order. I would quite agree with the Minister of Finance that this amendment was out of order if it fell within the ambit of the first citation in May's 16th edition which Your Honour will recall, and I am reading as little as possible:
A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories.


An hon. Member:: What page?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 530, at the bottom of the page and at the top of page 531. The citation continues:
(1)	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
(2)	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
It seems to me that this amendment falls absolutely, completely and categorically within the ambit of that citation.
The other question, of course, that has to be decided, as I understand it, is that of relevancy; it must be relevant to the bill. I think the question of relevancy was decided last night by Your Honour in a decision you made in reference to the point on which you decided adversely to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) when you agreed that he could discuss the report of the advisory committee but could not discuss the narrow point of whether or not that report was made at the right time. If it is competent to debate the report of the committee and the advice of the committee, then I submit they are relevant to the bill and therefore are a relevant subject for an amendment. As this amendment is an amendment expressing opinions as to the circumstances, it seems to me that it falls completely within the ambit of this citation of May. It is, of course, in that respect, as Your Honour will recall, similar to an amendment that was moved and found to be in order at the last session of parliament on the Customs Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as the acting leader of this group-
66968-9-228J
Unemployment Insurance Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: A change for the better.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: While I greatly appreciate the applause, I want to remind hon. members that my star will be in the ascendent only temporarily. However, I want to make a few general remarks. I am not going to be repetitious, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member speaking on the point of order?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was hoping that the hon. member was going to give me some words of wisdom which would help me to deal with this proposed amendment. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) has asserted that there is a relevancy to this assertion of principle. However, I am afraid that I cannot follow him in that assertion. It seems to me that this is not an assertion of principle contrary to the principle of the bill. It is a statement of fact relating to the conduct of the government. It is a condemnation of the government for something it is alleged not to have done, namely to consult the advisory committee and receive the annual report of the advisory committee. I do not think it is in the same category as the amendment which was submitted by the hon. member for Essex East last night. It does not assert a principle contrary to the bill, but seeks to introduce extraneous and irrelevant matter in the form of a condemnation of the government for its alleged conduct in not having done this or that, preliminary to the bill, and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
an effort to regain my temporary ascendancy as the acting leader of this law abiding parliamentary group, I wish to make a few general remarks. I am not going to be repetitious, and I am not going to be verbose. Our views and criticisms with respect to this bill were ably placed before the house by the very good-looking member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the equally good-looking member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
I discussed this unemployment insurance legislation with a number of my constituents. They were very interested in the operation of the act, and very interested in amendments which were even then, as it were, in the air. I must say before I proceed that I find it somewhat difficult to work up a suitable political head of steam when I look at the genial and very much respected Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). I may say that we in this group do not blame him entirely for the deficiencies of this bill. The hon. gentleman is one of a

Unemployment Insurance Act cabinet. We are of the opinion that if he had had his own way all the amendments which the official opposition and we in this group are proposing would have been already incorporated in this measure.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is a very sound piece of legislation, and one which has been of great benefit to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I think we are sometimes inclined to overlook the days when there was no Unemployment Insurance Act and when people who, for one reason or another, lost their employment were obliged to rush around for a few extra dollars or go on relief. This legislation represented a big step forward. I do want to remind the house that this legislation was placed on the statute books of this country after men like Mr. J. S. Woodsworth and Mr. William Irvine had urged the government of that day year after year to make provision of this kind. I think when we are discussing this legislation we should not fail to remind ourselves of the pioneer work done in this respect by former members of the C.C.F. party in this house-


An hon. Member:: And Liberals, too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, and by some other hon. members of that day. There were a few of the more progressive Liberals who supported us in those efforts.


An hon. Member:: New leader.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see that hon. members are trying to interrupt me.
While these good people of the past-members of this house, representatives of the labour movement, and people in other sections of our society-were urging the adoption of this type of legislation, there were other people who strongly objected to it. I am sure there are members of this house who remember the heated criticism made by some Tory-minded people of that day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have them right in this house, too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is correct. I am not suggesting that they were all members of the Progressive Conservative party, but there were some Tory-minded members of this house, and some members of the other place, too, who regarded this legislation as a dole rather than as legislation based on the principle of insurance in order to provide against days of adversity.
Experience in changing circumstances has clearly demonstrated the necessity for periodical amendments to this act. This is one of the times when amendments are indicated and justified. While there are some improvements in the measure, some things which

this group welcomes, there are also reasons for disappointment because of the omission of certain things which this group thinks should have been in the bill before us at the present time.
The extension of the benefit to 52 weeks is excellent, and we support that wholeheartedly. The protection of people earning up to $5,460 is also an excellent amendment. There is also some improvement in the rates of benefit; not as much as we should like to see, but some improvement. Higher earnings are also permitted for certain persons before they are considered ineligible for benefits and this, too, we consider to be an improvement because it provides an opportunity for exercising initiative and helping oneself while receiving unemployment insurance benefit. And then there is the question of extending the benefits to persons who are in a penitentiary for up to two years. That is an excellent improvement.
We support the protest made by many hon. members at the use of the greater portion of the increased contribution for the rebuilding of the capital of the fund. We think that is most unsound in principle. We think it is a decided departure from the insurance principle upon which the act is based. We have been informed that only 1 per cent of the 80 per cent increase expected is required to pay for the extension of benefits up to 52 weeks, and that the balance will largely be used to rebuild the capital of the fund. When the minister replies before the conclusion of this debate on second reading I hope he will give the house some figures in this connection. I repeat, that we have been informed that it only requires 1 per cent of the 30 per cent increase expected to meet the cost of the increased benefits and that the balance will be used largely to rebuild the capital of the fund. I hope the minister will give us some figures in this connection in order that we may know whether we are dealing with facts. We want to be accurate in this respect, because to criticize on unfair or incorrect facts is only to render invalid the argument one is trying to make.
I want to deal with three omissions from the bill from our point of view, three things which we regret have not been included in this measure. I intend to be quite brief. First, we regret that while the minister was amending this act provision was not made for the inclusion of farm labourers. This question has been discussed repeatedly in the house, and I know that there are a goodly number of members who support the government at the present time and who, when

they were in opposition, felt that the government of the day should include farm labourers under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We are very sorry they have not been included, because it is most unfair to the farmers of the country. I am repeatedly having farmers come to me and say how difficult it is for them to get labour on the farms because, naturally, men prefer to seek employment in fields where they have the protection of the Unemployment Insurance Act; they are not anxious to work for a farmer for two or three weeks if they are not to have the benefit of this protection. I shall have more to say on this subject when the estimates of the Department of Labour come before us for consideration. I think there will have to be a much more accurate definition as to what exactly a farm labourer is. I was talking to the local manager of the unemployment service-
Surely I am not out of order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed the hon. member considerable latitude in going into the background of this bill. It is in order to say that the bill does not go far enough, and that it could do something else, but I would ask the hon. member to make his contribution on what is omitted a recital rather than a debate of the matters omitted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At your request, Mr. Speaker, I shall carry on in the form of a recitation, not a debate. I want to bring to the attention of the minister the unfairness suffered at the present time by farmers because of a failure to include farm labour in this act. This problem is constantly being brought to my attention. My detailed remarks with respect to farm labour I shall reserve until we are discussing the estimate concerning the unemployment insurance commission.
Another matter a number of people have discussed with me is this. We in this group regret there is no provision in this act for students who would be eligible for unemployment insurance if they were to remain at home but who cannot draw it if they attend university or technical training school. We in this group say that these young people are better off learning than lounging. We urge the minister to give consideration to introducing an amendment of this nature to the act. It would enable a number of young men and women to carry on with their education and it would be of assistance to others if they were allowed to draw to the fullest extent possible the unemployment insurance to which they would be entitled if they were not attending a university, technical or other school of learning.
Unemployment Insurance Act
As the final paragraph of my recitation I would say I think some consideration should be given to bringing under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act members of the armed forces who are on short term service. It has been brought to my attention and to the attention of other hon. members in this group that men who are in the armed forces for short periods up to five years and are then discharged, as men were within the last year or eighteen months owing to the recession and lack of employment, have found themselves unemployed and without any unemployment insurance protection. We think that men who have joined the armed forces and served their country should receive on their discharge the protection of unemployment insurance.
We would urge consideration of an amendment to protect those persons discharged from the armed forces of Canada. I know there is some objection to that from the Department of National Defence. In an issue like this I do not think the decision should be left to the senior officers of the Department of National Defence. Senior officers have a prejudice about things like unemployment insurance. Some may even think it somewhat degrading. This decision should be made by the Department of Labour and this protection given to those young Canadians.
We in this group think the time is ripe for a thorough review of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We urge the minister to give consideration to our criticisms of the present bill and to our suggestion for the inclusion of other groups so we can build up in this country on the foundations already laid a complete, just and sound unemployment insurance system to protect those who suffer adversity through temporary unemployment. We cannot evade the fact that owing to our climate and other circumstances in the country with all the best arrangements there is bound to be a measure of seasonal unemployment in Canada. We must provide for that. We in this group believe in building up this act so it is based on sound insurance principles to cover those who pay for their own protection and in so doing provide for their own security.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, of this we may be sure, that the unfortunate Canadian man or woman who today, tomorrow, next week or next month may be a beneficiary under this act will be totally unimpressed with the debate in this house this evening if indeed they ever hear of it. We are dealing tonight with human relations. We are dealing with an act introduced into this parliament many years

Unemployment Insurance Act ago, amended from time to time, requiring further amendments, an act that brings great benefits not only to large numbers of men and women but also to many children.
1 am totally unimpressed with the argument that there need not be increases in the levies on the part of employers or employees for this reason. If they are honest I believe that my hon. friends opposite will admit that the fund originally was created in the buoyancy of a wartime economy and of a postwar economy. Today we live in a different age-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is true.


Edwin William Brunsden: We live in a different age by reason of our inheritance from the previous administration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: An inheritance of buoyancy.


Edwin William Brunsden: As time marches on and conditions change this act, like many other acts, will require survey and amendment from time to time.
A moment ago I mentioned that we are dealing with human values this evening. Let us rest this debate with respect to this bill not on legalities relating to papers, reports or precedents, but on the basic human factors of Canadian manhood and womanhood.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with close attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden). He says he has not been in the least bit impressed by what the opposition members had to say on the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) because, as he says, within a week, a month, or two months, there will be women, men and young people benefiting from this legislation. And I believe this. In fact, I not only believe it, but I am sure of it, because never more than under a Conservative government have so many Canadians been on unemployment insurance. Things have reached such a pass that, according to the famous report of August 19, 1958, which has been referred to here-


Mr. Johnson:: It was not our fault if we were not in office in 1953.


Augustin Brassard: If the hon. member wants to repeat what he just said, I shall give him an answer.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: We cannot be blamed for not being in power in 1953.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker,
we are always served the same argument: we inherited those conditions. Yet, when


anything good happens in this country since they came into that legacy, they give the whole credit to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the cabinet's vision. On the other hand, when anything goes wrong, the inheritance and legacy left by the former Liberal administration takes the blame.
Mr. Speaker, I shall go back to what I was going to say when I was interrupted by the hon. member for Bagot-


An hon. Member:: It was not the hon. member for Bagot.


Augustin Brassard: The name does not matter, for the hon. member's quality is the same.
Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted I was going to say that, in the report dated August 19, 1958, the unemployment insurance fund is indicated as having been reduced by $234,283,645 and a few pennies-which I shall spare the hon. member who just interrupted me. Mr. Speaker, we have here the proof that, under a Conservative administration, Canadians really need unemployment insurance.
In answer to my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who was saying that the legislation was passed in 1944, I shall remind him that the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed by parliament in 1940 at the instigation of a Liberal administration. Even if it was introduced by Liberal and C.C.F. members, I think that the credit for it is to be attributed to the then prime minister and his Liberal cabinet, i.e. the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who had truly enough vision to see that the Conservatives would be in power in 1958, and the unemployed Canadians might benefit from such good legislation.
(Text):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Let's talk about the crystal
baU.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, if you want to let those people rise who spend their time interrupting me, so as to catch the cabinet ministers' attention, I am ready to sit down, and pursue my remarks when they have finished with theirs.
In that same report of August 19-when I say August 19 I am not referring at all to the Conservatives-in that same report of August 19, 1958-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Leave such play on words to the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis).


Augustin Brassard: The following may be noted:
The excess of payments over revenue, persuades the committee it would be improper to recommend

major changes at this time. That is changes which would very materially increase the deficit; or in the alternative would necessitate a tax on industry and workers.
The committee wishes to reserve its opinion on the "benefit formula proposal" of July 24, 1958, until the commission and actuary, have had more opportunity to give it careful consideration in the light of further experience with the existing act.
There you have, Mr. Speaker, a recommendation which should have been taken into account by the hon. Minister of Labour. After all, the unemployment insurance commission advisory committee is composed of businessmen having real vision, men of common sense and experience, representing both labour and industry. I believe their recommendations should be seriously considered, and be taken into account by the Minister of Labour when he contemplates amending the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In that same report, Mr. Speaker, on page 2, the committee recommends the following:
The committee respectfully recommends that the division of responsibility for revenue to the fund as between employers, employees and government be adjusted so that the contribution from each be made equal. In other words, that the contribution from the government be made equal to one-half that of the combined contribution from employers and employees.
I would have liked to discuss the matter Mr. Speaker, but I know it was made the basis of an amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who, incidentally, discussed it most ably and intelligently. I hope I shall have the opportunity of dealing with this point later, but I wish to point out that the Minister of Labour failed to take into account-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Augustin Brassard: Young members, elected in 1957 and 1958, who think parliament came into existence when they were elected, do not even bother to follow what goes on here in the house, at a time when we are discussing problems which are of direct concern to the people suffering from unemployment at the present time.


Azellus Denis: Tell us about the frogs of Roberval!


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: He didn't say anything about the toads of St. Denis.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members seem to be starting a private debate. I would ask them to leave the floor to the hon. member for Lapointe.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I hope the official stenographer of the house has had the time to make a note of those remarks, which stigmatize the intelligence of some members of the house.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Tremblay:: You mean the member for Hull (Mr. Caron).


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Such modesty!
(Text):


Augustin Brassard: Is the hon. member through with his remarks?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Get on with your speech.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who has the floor persists in engaging in these private debates I am afraid I cannot protect him.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: (Lapointe): Mr. Speaker, a man who is nettled cannot help jumping up.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: It takes time.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to refer to a question that the hon. member for Essex East asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), about certain loans purported to have been made to the unemployment insurance commission.
Not later than yesterday, the hon. member for Essex East asked the Minister of Finance whether the government had made loans to the unemployment insurance commission. The Minister of Finance, who usually has a good memory when it suits him, replied that he did not recall it. The member for Essex East then read a copy of Order in Council 1959/383, approved on April 2, 1959, by His Excellency the Governor General. Among other things, the hon. member has quoted the following:
The committee of the Privy Council advise that your Excellency may be pleased, pursuant to section 86 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans from time to time to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in an aggregate principal amount of $50 million.
A little later on, the hon. member pointed out that those loans had been made at a rate of interest of 5 per cent.
That is, Mr. Speaker, another of the many about-faces-they are too numerous to be counted-of the Minister of Finance in another field, that of loans made by the government to an agency of the Crown-the unemployment insurance commission.
This government has loaned money at a rate of interest of 5 per cent. And what has the Minister of Finance not said-when he used to sit on this side of the house-about the rate of interest.
What criticism did he not make, not only in the house, but on all election platforms of the country, when he used to speak of the high cost of money or what he used to call in his language, the "tight money policy" which was supposedly so detrimental to the industry and to the workers of this country.
Now that he administers-

Unemployment Insurance Act
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will not find anything in the bill relating to advances to the unemployment insurance commission nor to the subject of high interest rates which he is discussing. We heard last night exactly the same speech which the hon. member is now making only it was made by another hon. member.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker,
behalf of the Minister of Finance, I thank you for having come to his rescue.
I realize you have heard a debate on that matter yesterday evening, but I feel the matter is so glaring, compared to what has been said and done until now, that it needs to be stressed and emphasized as often as can be done.
Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Kootenay West, I deplore-
(Text):


An hon. Member:: Order.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has something to say, I am ready to let him take over for a few seconds, because I trust he will not be able to speak longer than a few seconds.
I want to join the hon. member for Kootenay West in deploring the fact that the new amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act do not take students into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I know of several cases where young girls in my riding, or in my area had been working for corporations or in local offices for 5, 6 or 7 years, and later decided to leave their work in order to take a nursing course. Those girls then tried to collect their unemployment insurance benefits, but, obviously it is provided in this act that if a person making an application for benefits is not unemployed, the request cannot be granted. I am sorry the minister failed to consider that aspect of the matter, before introducing his amendment. I would also urge him to consider it seriously the next time he brings other amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, as I feel that from now on, until the next general election, several other amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will be submitted to us, for unemployment will keep on growing-not that we wish it to grow- but because it is the business policy and national policy of the government, in other words, bad administration by the whole cabinet, which has led us to the chaotic condition in which we now find ourselves.

(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Is the the house ready for the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I should prefer to take part in it non-competitively if that is possible. As I say, I had not intended to take part in the debate until we heard some of the fables of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). It so happens that almost from the first moment when I came to Ottawa I had a good deal of association with the act which the minister is now asking us to amend, and I hope I will not be any more out of order than the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) was, who made no reference to the bill at all in his intervention, if I recall to the minds of hon. members that this measure would not be on the statute books but for the fortunate circumstance that Mr. Mackenzie King was undiscouraged by the refusal of the present premier of Quebec to agree to an amendment to the constitution to make it possible. As soon as the Liberals won the election in Quebec in 1939 and agreed to a constitutional amendment this legislation was possible and was put on the statute books by a Liberal government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He made some reference to my talking fables. Is it not correct that Mr. J. S. Woodsworth and all the members of the C.C.F. group in the house at that time had urged this legislation for years prior to the Liberal government taking action?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It so happens, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) will bear me out in this because he was first elected to that parliament, that that parliament was elected in March of 1940 and the constitutional amendment was put before the house some time before the middle of the summer so that there could not have been very many years consumed in this advocacy of which the hon. member speaks. It is quite true that Mr. Woodsworth long before there was any C.C.F. advocated unemployment insurance and so did Mr. King long before Mr. Woodsworth did.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Robert Hardy Small: Did not R. B. Bennett put it on the statute books first and was it not declared ultra vires?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is almost right. Perhaps he is quite right. Perhaps that government was like this government. If the Prime Minister did it you did not bother about parliament, but in 1935 it was parliament, not R. B. Bennett, that did it. It was the whole parliament that did it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see I have been in error in allowing the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) the latitude I did in discussing the general origins of unemployment insurance. It is permissible as an introduction to a discussion of the bill but I would not like to see the debate develop into a debate on the origins of unemployment insurance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hate to discourage the rather unexpected thirst for knowledge of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small), which I was seeking to satisfy, but if Your Honour would prefer me to discuss something else, say, for example, the bill, I am equally prepared to do that. I am prepared to discuss the bill in terms of the totally inadequate and really rather pitiful introduction to this measure that we listened to in a very few minutes yesterday from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). Here is a measure that, according to the Minister of Labour, is necessary to replenish the unemployment insurance fund, but more than half of his speech dealt largely with the illusory additional benefits which were dealt with very capably by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) this afternoon as well as by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) last night and which will be of some benefit to a very few people compared with the totality of the people covered by the act. They are mostly camouflage in order to bring in a large group of contributors who will, of course, contribute many times as much as they can ever expect to derive from the fund.
But what I do intend to do is to give some reasons why I intend to vote against the bill. I apprehend that on second reading of a bill, it is permissible for a member to give any reasons he wishes, as long as they are not blasphemous, as to why he intends to vote against the bill, and if those reasons appear in the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite to be foolish, nonsensical or even repetitive it is not for hon. gentlemen opposite to object to them on the alleged ground they are out of order. Unless I am ruled out of order I intend to give my reasons for voting against the bill.
Unemployment Insurance Act
One reason I have for voting against the bill is that we have not been told the facts. They have been hidden from us by the government. They concealed the facts. As the hon. member for Essex East showed, they concealed the report of the advisory committee. That is one reason I have for voting against the bill, because they hid the report. They kept it from us and they intended to go on keeping it from us to use in the words that were read so eloquently by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) a little earlier, words that had a ring that some of us will not forget for quite a long while.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: No, I would think you would not forget.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not the only thing that was hidden from us. It was only the beginning of what was hidden from us. We also had hidden from us the order in council of the second of April. I understand that the Prime Minister tabled the orders in council for the month of April but that order in council was not, I am told, among those tabled. I am not accusing the Prime Minister of having broken the law.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. gentleman to what he is referring? Does he say that any order in council that was supposed to be tabled along with all orders in council during the month was not tabled? Is that the statement he makes?


Lionel Chevrier: You should have been in the house and you would not have been interjecting.


John George Diefenbaker: You are here irregularly.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister should have been in the house and he would not ask that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John George Diefenbaker: You should never talk about absence from the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I am free to talk; I have a perfect right to say what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: I am telling you that you are the last person who should talk about absence from the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister has asked me a question and I have said what I understood. I have not checked to see-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Prime Minister and hon. members are not anxious to hear the

Unemployment Insurance Act answer to the question, all right. I say I was told. I did not look it up myself to see if the Prime Minister had-


An hon. Member:: Look it up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps hon. gentlemen would like to let me finish my sentence.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a fact that every month under the Regulations Act certain orders in council, not all of them, are tabled. I was told they had been tabled for the month of April. Maybe they have not been tabled. I have not checked through Votes and Proceedings to see.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Why talk then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: But, strictly speaking, I do not suppose that these two orders that were produced by the hon. member for Essex East yesterday fall in that category because from the look of them I do not think they have statutory effect. In fact, the hon. member for Essex East went a little farther. He suggested that, not only did they not have any statutory effect but he was unable to find any statutory foundation for them. I would have thought that in the face of a statement like that from so eminent a member of the bar-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -so experienced a parliamentarian as the hon. member for Essex East, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) would have been anxious to assure parliament at the opening of the house today as to what the legislative foundation of these orders was. I do not pretend to know whether there is any statute, but I take it that the hon. member for Essex East, having looked for the statutory foundation, was unable to find any statutory foundation for these orders in the unemployment insurance commission legislation itself.
The hon. member asserted he could find none, and I think parliament is entitled to be told on the basis of what statute, what vote, what appropriation or what other authority of parliament, the Minister of Finance disposed of $80 million, if in fact he has disposed of $80 million. In any event, we should be told on what legal basis these two orders in council were passed. We used to hear a lot from the hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of this country about government by order in council, but we are told nothing about these orders in council; about what statute they are based upon; about what the legislative foundation of them is; about where it came from; about when parliament authorized it. Surely, if the Minister of

Finance, who said he could not even remember them yesterday morning, did not know about them-only $80 million, and he did not even know about it yesterday morning-


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is $80 million?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say inflation seems to have proceeded quite rapidly in the past few years since hon. gentlemen went to the other side of the house. It seems to me it is an outrage for the minister to have disposed of $50 million out of the treasury in this fashion, and for the governor in council to have disposed of it seven days before the budget, and yet according to the information of the hon. member for Essex East-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The misinformation, you mean.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -according to the uncontradicted information; of course, if the minister wants-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It certainly is
contradicted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister wants to reply, instead of interrupting, and put the facts on the record, then I do not want to debate something that is not debatable. The minister has had all day. I waited until Your Honour rose before getting up myself, because I thought the Minister of Finance, even at this late hour, would show enough respect for parliament to get up and tell us what the facts were. However, there was not a word. Not only did he hide the orders in council, not only did he say the orders in council had no foundation, but he said they were misleading. He said it was misrepresentation, and he said that in one of his interruptions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are you talking about?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about one of the interruptions made by the minister. He will find it is in Hansard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are having hallucinations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He will find that the hon. member for Laurier referred to these orders in council and the minister said they were misleading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said the statements from the other side of the house were misleading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These orders were read into the record last night by the hon. member for Essex East. Does the minister say these orders in council do not exist?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, but I say the
hon. member for Essex East uttered untrue statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I only asked the minister one question. He said no. He does not deny that these orders existed, and therefore we can assume that these orders do exist. Six or seven days before the budget we find $50 million paid out of the treasury.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We find not a word about it in the budget speech. We find a rate of usury of 5 per cent, and such confidence in the bonds-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, is doing what he set out to do, is exercising his alleged right to be repetitive, because the hon. member for Essex East dealt very fully with this matter. Furthermore, I fail to see any connection between loans made under this order in council and the bill which is now before the house. Perhaps the hon. member could indicate how he relates this discussion to the second reading of the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, and then I would not feel so badly about it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, may I say we are now dealing with a bill which purports to replenish the unemployment insurance fund. The minister took steps to replenish it by $80 million in his own queer way, by order in council. Surely, we can talk about that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: More misstatements.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I submit on that basis-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is untrue.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Then, get up and
defend yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement is untrue.


Peter Francis Martin: Then, get up and
prove it as untrue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no difficulty in
relating these orders in council to the bill. The bill before us, according to the minister, is for the purpose of replenishing this fund and for the purpose of putting this fund, which is in a dangerous financial position-


Robert Hardy Small: Watch out you don't choke.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in a dangerous financial position, in a better position. Step one in the replenishment, the hidden step which we only came upon by accident because it was not revealed in the budget and was not revealed at the resolution stage of the bill- it was only revealed because of the research of my hon. friend-was to replenish it by this amount. Now, this bill is asking-
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member talks about replenishing the fund and he has mentioned loans that have been made which neither increase nor decrease it. If the Leader of the Opposition suggests that this is relevant, then it would be relevant to discuss all the transactions in and out of the fund from the time of its inception.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would apprehend that it would be.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been trying, without a great deal of success, although I must admit hon. members have accepted my efforts, to keep the debate on this second reading of the bill within the confines of the bill and not allow it to range over the whole administration of the unemployment insurance fund.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to point out what the minister said last night or at some stage, perhaps it was the resolution stage. He said, I feel it is good business to place the fund on a sound actuarial basis. It is also my opinion that the government's responsibility is such as to see that the fund will be able to meet whatever eventualities arise. When the minister can talk about the fund in that way, surely we can talk about the fund, how it got into that position, and the steps taken by the government, as well as the steps we propose to take to get it out of that position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the Leader of the Opposition has said, this loan has to be repaid. I assume that it is going to be repaid by these people on whom the extra impost of 30 per cent is being imposed by this legislation. Now, that is how it is relevant. This hidden loan, this secret loan, hidden from parliament at the time of this $80 million transaction, which took place at the time of the budget and was concealed from parliament, it seems to me is a very good reason why we should have no confidence in a minister who brings in this kind of legislation. The minister never told us about this loan. He never told us about the report that he had received last August during discussion at the resolution stage when we were debating whether or not it was expedient that a bill should be introduced.
All this information was concealed from us, and we were not told the facts. We have to drag them out in this way, and when we seek to debate them we are harassed by hon. gentlemen opposite raising phony points of order, and attempting to prevent parliament from carrying on a debate in the true British fashion, attempting to prevent us from stating our side of the case, or in other words attempting to gag us with their huge majority.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: Unmitigated rot.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Lester Bowles Pearson: Bring in the bill ol rights.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that because of these transactions alone, that is one of the reasons -and I come back to that matter-that I am going to vote against this bill. I am giving the reasons why I am going to vote against this bill and this is one of them.
Another reason is that we have not before us the statutory report for the year ending March 31, 1959 on the fund itself. Surely on May 12 or at the date on which this measure was brought before us in the form of a resolution the least the government could have done was to give us the up to date information which the government is obliged by statute to do on the state of this fund. Here we are being asked-and this is certainly relevant to the bill-to put another tax on the producers of Canada, the workers and the manufacturers and other employers, to raise the cost of living in Canada; to raise the cost of production; to weaken our competitive position in world markets, because all these things flow from the increased imposts.
We are being asked to do this blindly and without the information to which we are entitled under the law, because the government chose to hide it from us when they found it embarrassing. It would have given a different appearance to the whole financial transactions, to the whole budget. One can understand why the minister did not want anyone to see these orders in council, did not want anyone to see how much confidence there was in their bonds, with the insistence on 105 per cent security and a 5 per cent rate. It is relevant because this charge is being imposed under the guise of insurance upon certain specific contributors, not upon the generality of taxpayers. The poor general taxpayer is obliged to pay and pay and pay for the pleasure of having the present Minister of Finance. But at least when it is straight taxation it is supposed to be imposed equitably on the whole body politic, and when we have good government it is so imposed. But here under the guise of insurance the contributors to the unemployment insurance fund-of whom I am not one but many of whom I represent are-are being asked to pay an additional tax to pay this interest rate to the minister. That is what is happening.
Surely it is a most elementary thing that the minister should rise in his place and tell us why, when there is some $400 million still in the fund in the form of bonds, it was necessary to make this loan at all at this high rate of interest. Why was not the fund managed in such a fashion that it was in a liquid state so that these loans would not be


necessary? As to 5 per cent on $80 million, I am not very good at mental arithmetic but I know it is a great deal of money. When the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) talks about human relations and gives us this heart-bleeding stuff that we listened to from him, he should not forget that this is really a fraud being perpetrated on these people under the guide of insurance. That is what it is and the minister knows it perfectly well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other reason why I intend to vote against the bill is this. I must say I voted with more satisfaction for the amendment of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). If that proposition had not been decided in the negative, there would have been even greater force to my argument than there is now. But it is unfair, unreasonable and unjust to ask the insured contributors to pay for these welfare benefits that the Prime Minister described in his last television show as these payments that came from the government for human betterment. They did not come from the government at all. They came from the insurance fund which belongs to the people who are insured. It does not belong to the government.
It is true that this parliament passed these various statutes that were brought down one after another last year extending the period of seasonal benefits until the winter was extended into June. We all know that. On every occasion the hon. member for Essex East rose in his place in the house and appealed to the minister and to the Minister of Finance to do the honest thing. He said that we were in favour of these seasonal benefits but that they should be paid for out of the treasury, that they should not be charged against the fund because they were not actuarially sound, and everybody knows they are not. It is this extension of benefits that are not actuarially sound, paid for out of the payments that were made by those people who were under categories that were actuarially sound, that has created the difficulty which the minister is now proposing to ask parliament to cure by this method of increasing the contributions of the workers and the producers, with all the deleterious economic effects that will flow from it. It is imposing a special tax on a select group of people. That is all it is. In my opinion, that is an adequate reason for voting against this bill. But it is not the only reason for voting against this bill. There is another reason and it is this.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. member for Essex East pointed out last night and as my friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) pointed out again today and as I think the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) also pointed out- and I have no doubt that I shall be accused of repetition; but I do not think there can be too much repetition about this matter- the fund lost $10 million last year. That is a great deal of money; $10 million is a great deal of money. That amount was not paid out in benefits; that amount was lost in the sale of securities.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: We shall continue with this debate tomorrow and for the rest of the week, if it is not concluded. Otherwise, if it is concluded tomorrow, we shall go on with the program which I announced last night.


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