1959-06-16

AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day I should like to call the attention of the house to a notice of motion at page 11 of Votes and Proceedings of today, which has given me some concern as to its disposition at this point. Normally it would go on the order paper tomorrow, and the question is as to what is its proper place on the order paper. In accordance with some of the precedents in the past, if it is a proper motion dealing with a matter of privilege it would appear on the order paper tomorrow under routine proceedings and be dealt with at that point.
What I have in mind is directing that it be placed on the order paper for tomorrow under routine proceedings, and when it is called and before the motion is put I would like to ask the house for advice as to the propriety of that course, namely whether it is a proper motion on a question of privilege, so that a decision can be made then, if that course recommends itself to the house, and the motion disposed of.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to report upon the discussions which took place recently, concerning the Montreal-Ottawa-Kingston pilots, between the minister's officers, those of the shipping federation and the pilots themselves, concerning certain grievances about which questions were asked earlier? Is the minister in a position to say what has been the progress of these discussions and the negotiations?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Just to say this, Mr. Speaker, that the discussions have been going on, as the hon. member for Laurier has said, and we consider that very satisfactory progress has been made.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the minister any information on the awarding of a contract to a Canadian firm for the overhaul and repair of 100 of the so-called flying box cars?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, one Canadian firm has been asked by the United States army to submit tenders for the repair of the flying box cars. It is Northwest Industries, Edmonton.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister in a position to announce a support price for Canadian-produced honey, as the honey producers are approaching another crop season?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to provide a support price for honey produced in Canada and delivered by producers to registered packers in the 12 months starting July 1, 1959.
The support price authorized will allow the board to make up the difference, if any, between the average Canadian price to producers and 13$ cents per pound, basis white No. 1 grade extracted honey. The authorized price of 13$ cents per pound is a national average based on the return to the producer for honey delivered in bulk at the plants of registered packers. This prescribed price is equivalent to 104 per cent of the 10-year average, compared with the provision of a price support of 12 cents per

Inquiries of the Ministry pound for the 1958 crop, which was equivalent to 91 per cent of the 10-year average price.
The number of colonies of bees in Canada has shown some decline in recent years. In 1958 domestic disappearance of honey was about three million pounds greater than Canadian production. This assistance should help maintain and stabilize the Canadian honey industry.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: should like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. Would the minister tell the house whether or not the new oil and gas regulations for the Arctic islands have been approved by the cabinet and, if so, would he care to comment on these new regulations?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is, no.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the answer given to me a moment ago by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I wonder if he would tell me whether or not the "no" answer he gave was applicable to both questions I asked, or applicable only to the question concerning whether or not cabinet has approved the new oil and gas regulations which have been under consideration now for over two weeks?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question was no, and the answer to the second was not applicable.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the house as to the latest figures of the dominion bureau of statistics in regard to unemployment in Canada as a whole and in the Pacific region in particular?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Figures for May released today by the dominion bureau of statistics show that there were 188,000 more people at work in Canada than there were in April. There were 102,000 more Canadians at work than at this time
(Mr. Harkness.)
last year. Job seekers, at 334,000, are 111,000 less than last month, and 36,000 fewer people are seeking work than were seeking work this time last year. The labour force, at 6,186,000, probably constitutes a record for the month of May. It is 66,000 higher than last year.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oitawa West):: Would the minister give us the figures for the corresponding dates in May of 1958 and 1959 as to the number of unemployed in Sydney?


Michael Starr: Figures issued by the bureau do not give a breakdown by municipalities or even by regions.


George James McIlraith: It is on the third page of the report from which the hon. gentleman has just read.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Would the minister give the
percentage of the labour force seeking work as of that date in May?


Michael Starr: It was 5.4 per cent, compared with 6 per cent.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: In view of the fact that the number still out of work is very large, is the minister in a position to announce at this time whether or not the government has any plans for winter work or any other plans to put this large number of men and women who are unemployed back to work?


Michael Starr: The figures I have quoted are for the middle of May. I know they are much lower now, and I am sure that when the next figures are released they will be much lower than these figures I have quoted. This is the result of the work which has been done by this government and the plans that have been formulated by this government to bring the figures down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the Prime Minister of Canada said that as long as there was-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must ask hon. members to give the hon. member who has the floor an opportunity to ask his question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can very well understand the concern of hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Labour not aware that the Prime Minister of Canada said that as long as there was one person out of work in Canada no one would suffer as a result of the policies of this government? I would suggest by way of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East, I think has gone-


Mr. Fraser:: Too far.


Mr. Speaker:: -further than I would normally have allowed by reason of the statement the Minister of Labour made, but he has asked a complete question and I suggest that it be dropped there. It strikes me this is not the sort of question that calls for a reply.


George Harris Hees: It was a speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the question of the hon. member for Vancouver South was in order, my question was equally in order because it reminded hon. gentlemen opposite of solemn promises made to the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is some doubt about the regularity of the whole proceedings at this point. I allowed the hon. member for Essex East to pose his question, which was really an argumentative question not calling for an answer, because the Minister of Labour had replied in the same vein, but I think the subject might be dropped at this point.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether any plans have been formulated for a winter work conference with the provinces and, if so, when it will be held?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the Leader of the Opposition is so keenly interested in conferences, especially after this government initiated them, which is something the former government had not undertaken previously.
For the hon. gentleman's information, in case he does not know this, I may say we did hold such a conference in July.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day in the midst of an answer to a question I had asked I made an interjection when the minister gave the reply that he did not have the information. I said the information was on page 3 of the document he was reading from with regard to the unemployment situation. The information is to be found on page 5 of the document.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to a question raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on June 9 regarding an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press to 66968-9-302
Inquiries of the Ministry the effect that customs officers at the port of Boissevain, Manitoba, are obliged for financial reasons to send their children to school in North Dakota, I actually had in mind another article appearing in the same paper. I answered in part and said I would obtain further information, and I wish now to clarify the matter by referring to the article to which he had reference.
The facts of this case are that the situation is not as represented. Authority had been granted by the department, with the concurrence of treasury board, to pay a car mileage allowance to the officer for the transportation of his children to and from the school at Horton, Manitoba, a distance of 9 miles. The officer, however, made arrangements to send his children to school at Dunseith, North Dakota, a distance of 13 miles from the international border.
The reasons given by the officer were that the road to Horton was hilly and heavily wooded, thus causing hazardous driving conditions; that the school board at Horton classified the children as non-residents, resulting in the officer having to pay tuition fees; also that Horton, being a rural school, taught only grades 1 to 7, which would result in the officer's eldest child having to attend school at Boissevain with the resultant tuition fees charged non-residents, as well as board and lodging. Furthermore, the North Dakota school bus proceeds to the border each morning and returns each evening, making it very convenient for the children as well as the parents.
The customs buildings and residences are located in the Turtle mountain forest reserve and are not included within a municipality. Consequently the officers are not required to pay taxes but pay rental to the department, amounting to $30 or $40 per month, depending on the type of house in which each officer lives.
The department makes every effort not to place officers with young families at isolated border offices, but when it is realized that we have 125 offices located along the international boundary it will be appreciated that it is not always possible to arrange this, having regard to the competitive system of filling positions.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingaie):: May I ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary question. Can he give us the number of border crossings at that particular point?


Mr. Fulton:: That is hardly a question for the orders of the day.
l.rtoKer* .-Ml

Prime Minister's Residence Act POLYMER CORPORATION



INQUIRY AS TO STRIKE SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to tell us if any progress has been made in the strike at the Polymer Corporation at Sarnia, in connection with which many men have been out of work for such a long time?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, very favourable progress is being made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are still out of work.



PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE ACT


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the schedule to the Prime Minister's Residence Act to bring certain property in the township of Eardley, county of Gatineau within the scope of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will notice that this resolution is preceding the introduction of a measure to amend the schedule to the Prime Minister's Residence Act to bring certain property in the township of Eardley, Gatineau county, in the province of Quebec, within the scope of the act. As the Prime Minister's act was originally passed it contained in the schedule only one property, namely the house on Sussex street in the city of Ottawa. The bill which will follow this resolution merely adds to the schedule the property in the Gatineau hills which is ordinarily referred to as the Harrington lake residence.
It will be remembered that about three weeks ago the hon. member for Kootenay West asked a question on the orders of the day in the following terms:
In view of the general concern that the historic and beautiful Harrington lake residence and property be preserved and used to the best advantage, will the government recognize this concern and interest by the introduction of legislation that will establish this property as an official government country residence for use by the Prime Minister, his distinguished guests and other appropriate persons?
To that question I replied as follows:
I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The suggestion he makes will be given serious consideration by the government. and should it be the wish generally of hon.

members that such a course be followed I should think legislation could be introduced at this session.
I mentioned this proviso because legislation of this kind is not the type that any government wishes to introduce, and in particular that no prime minister wishes to have introduced, unless members are agreed that such steps should be taken. I remember the reaction of Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent when the Prime Minister's Residence Act was introduced originally, and it was just the same as the reaction of the present Prime Minister to this proposed amendment.
These men, in a position of great responsibility, think of themselves last. If it were not the wish of the house generally to have the amendment which I am moving today passed, the government would not, of course, proceed with the measure. May I hasten to add that the other members of the cabinet, and I am sure the members of the last cabinet, feel very keenly that this measure is appropriate and, as a matter of fact, is badly needed in order to help ease the burdens of whoever may happen to be the prime minister of this nation.
The property which will be placed in the schedule if the bill carries is not the whole of the Harrington lake property, but merely 13.4 acres with the house which is on that particular portion. This property is part of a much larger property consisting of some 4,286 acres which was purchased by the federal district commission in 1951 as part of a program for the acquisition of property for the Gatineau national park. The 4,286 acres were jointly owned by Colonel C. M. Edwards and Hon. W. D. Herridge and included, the Edwards home, which is on the property now being included in the schedule, and also the Herridge home, and two farms which will remain under the administration of the national capital commission. I should like to make that clear that all the 4,286 acres, with the exception of the 13.4 acres which would be placed in the schedule to the act will remain the property of, and under the sole jurisdiction of, the national capital commission.
There has been some suggestion that the intention was to take the whole 4,286 acres and restrict anyone from fishing in Harrington lake, and a lot of such rumours, but such is not the case. All that is being done is to place the house, together with the surrounding grounds, totalling 13.4 acres in the schedule to the Prime Minister's Residence Act. The home would be available for the use of the prime minister in the summer months and also for the entertainment of distinguished guests visiting this country. Hon. members will recall that last year Her

Royal Highness Princess Margaret, during her visit to Ottawa, spent a very happy time at this residence on the shore of Harrington lake. I am sure that from time to time there will be other distinguished guests coming to Ottawa who could be entertained there during the warm summer weather.
In the course of my negotiations with members of the other parties someone made the suggestion that perhaps the leader of the opposition could have the use of the house for one day a week; and the house leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Laurier, thought he might have the use of it once very two weeks. I wondered where that left the house leader on the government side, and thought he perhaps might be able to use it once every three weeks.
In any event, indication was given from both the opposition parties that they were heartily in favour of a measure of this kind being introduced; and because of that understanding, and of the original suggestion by the hon. member for Kootenay West, I place this resolution before the committee this afternoon.
(Translation):


Mr, Leduc:: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green 1 when he brought forward his resolution to annex the lake Harrington property to the present summer residence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker). Personally, I am very pleased with the government's decision and I can assure the house that the people of Gatineau riding are very happy about it. Moreover, the official opposition supports the government's policy.
The choice of this property as permanent summer residence for succeeding prime ministers of Canada is a most happy one. The site is marvellous. I know that few members had the opportunity of visiting this wonderful place in Gatineau park.
A former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, had a summer residence at Kingsmere in the Gatineau park. It was a modest residence. So is the residence where the Prime Minister spends the summer months at present, but with respect to the site, there is no comparison between the two places. In fact, that spot at Harrington lake is the most beautiful that I know of as a summer residence, and I don't mean in the Gatineau constituency, because I am sure we would have to search through many other constituencies and many other provinces before we could find an equally picturesque spot. Not only are the mountains a pleasant sight but, as the Minister of Public Works stated, 66968-9-302i
16, 1959	4765
Prime Minister's Residence Act there is also beautiful Harrington lake, about 3 miles long, where the fishing is very good and where splendid salmon trout and big bass can still be got.
It is a wonderful spot, where the person who occupies the position of prime minister will be able to rest and invite the distinguished guests of Canada.
I am sure the other ministers will also have access to it. I am also certain that the new Secretary of State for External Affairs will have the opportunity of staying there a while to rest and, at the same time, to discuss important problems with distinguished visitors from other countries.
Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased with this government measure and we, on this side of the house, support it very heartily.
(Text):


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to express the support of this group for this measure, which provides a most fitting and appropriate use for certain property owned by the government of Canada, namely Harrington lodge and approximately 13 acres of land. Before proceeding I must say that I was extremely pleased to hear the explanation by the Minister of Public Works concerning this measure, and was pleased to hear him scotch the various rumours that have prevailed largely because of one vivid imagination projected through a pen onto paper.
The act to provide an official residence for the prime minister of Canada was given unanimous approval by the House of Commons on January 18, 1950. At that time Mr. Cold-well, the leader of the C.C.F. group, as reported at page 3345 of Hansard of that year, said:
I think our country is doing the proper thing, in conformity with what other countries have done, in providing the first citizen of this country with a residence in which he may receive distinguished guests from at home and abroad.
I might say on this occasion, Mr. Chairman, that we in this group think our country is doing the proper thing, having a knowledge of all the circumstances, in providing Harrington lodge as an official country residence for the present and future prime ministers of Canada.
The prime ministers of Great Britain have long enjoyed an official residence and an official country residence since 1921. I might say that so long as we follow in principle the precedents, the practices and the customs of the mother of parliaments we shall not

Prime Minister's Residence Act go very far astray in this parliament. With respect to our prime minister's residence in Canada, public response and experience have proven this was a wise decision.
The whole world knows No. 10 Downing street in London. Every morning one can find the Londoner, his country cousins and overseas visitors from other parts of the commonwealth and various parts of the world gathered in front of No. 10 to witness the departure of the prime minister for the House of Commons, or for his office when the House of Commons is not in session. I should like to say that in performing this daily ritual these people are using the loom of sentiment to weave the tapestry of national strength. No. 24 Sussex drive in Ottawa is the Canadian No. 10 Downing street.
During the first world war the prime ministers of Great Britain found it increasingly necessary to leave London and find refuge in the country homes of their friends on numerous occasions. On that account the need for an official country residence for the prime minister under the trying conditions of political life in modern circumstances was increasingly recognized.
This need was met by the gift to the nation in 1921 by Lord and Lady Lee of Chequers Court in Buckinghamshire, to be used as the official residence for the prime ministers of Great Britain forever. I am going to read the beautiful inscription that was placed on the front of that residence, because I am very interested in this sort of thing. The following gracious inscription commemorating this munificent gift is found on the front wall of Chequers Court:
"This house of peace and ancient memories Was given to England as a thank-offering For her deliverance in the great war, 1914-1918, And as a place of rest and recreation For her prime ministers forever."
Since that time Liberal, Conservative and Labour prime ministers have found rest and solace in that beautiful residence during times of stress and strain.
One former prime minister of Canada, namely Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, had his Kingsmere; another former prime minister, namely Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, enjoyed his Quebec retreat. We believe, as apparently do all members of the House of Commons, that the : time is now ripe for Canada-with a knowledge of all the circumstances and the availability of this property -to provide an official country residence for Canada's prime ministers and their distinguished guqsts.	[DOT]-	: -
This Harrington lake property, situated among woods and hear water and within a reasonable distance of Ottawa; will provide [Mr. Herridge.l
a most suitable retreat for Canada's prime ministers and their distinguished guests forever. From my personal experience since coming to Ottawa, particularly during the hot and humid days of an Ottawa summer, I might say as someone has said-I cannot recollect at the moment who it was-that at times all human beings, particularly those with heavy responsibilities to their fellow men, need the opportunity to witness the resonant far listening dawn, to enjoy the honey light of noon through leaf-laced greenery, to listen to the sounding silence of forest solitude.
Mr. Chairman, Harrington Lodge provides this opportunity. It belongs to the nation. We are pleased to know it is going to be used to the best advantage. Not only the members of the House of Commons in all parties but other people in Canada have the same opinion. I want to quote in part from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of June 11 which I thought was most appropriate. This is what was said in this editorial on this question:
Summer Home for Prime Minister
The use of Harrington Lodge as a summer residence by Canada's prime ministers is now in prospect. A move to convert to that purpose should receive wide support in the Commons, for every indication has already been given that there is no substantial opposition to such a measure. There should also be broad public support for this move.
Harrington Lodge, on Harrington lake, was acquired by the federal government several years ago as part of Gatineau park. To convert it to a summer home for the nation's prime ministers would require no large capital outlay ... It is only common sense to place the property at the Prime Minister's disposal . . . The country will benefit, because whoever is its prime minister can enjoy relaxation during the summer in a location virtually on Ottawa's outskirts.
Mr. Chairman, let me say in conclusion that we in the C.C.F. trust that the present and future prime ministers, including we hope future C.C.F. prime ministers, will find in this sylvan glade recreation, repose, rest and restoration of mind, body and spirit.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, everybody in this house is happy that the government has decided to offer a summer residence for the prime minister, and I have only one question to ask the Minister of Public Works. When I was a kid we used to spend our summers at Meach lake, and at that time the lake was called "Mousseau". Could the minister tell us why and when the lake was rebaptized and named "Harrington"?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have heard of Harrington lake having another name.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All good fishermen recognize it.


Howard Charles Green: However, I will make inquiries.
I was afraid the hon. member for Hull was pulling my leg.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the "moose's" leg!


Howard Charles Green: I would just like to say a word of thanks to the hon. members who have spoken, Mr. Chairman. I believe the hon. member for Gatineau represents the loveliest constituency in Canada, outside of those in British Columbia. I really had to add that in self defence. The Gatineau valley and the Gatineau hills are wonderful spots at any time of the year, and I do not think there could be a finer location for a national park in the vicinity of the national capital than the Gatineau national park. I am sure those of us who have been privileged to spend much time here down through the years have learned to love our visits to the Gatineau valley and the Gatineau hills. As to the hon. member for Kootenay West, he comes from a constituency which is full of beautiful spots, and I can quite understand his words this afternoon when he spoke so feelingly and so eloquently of this site at Harrington lake.
The government is very grateful to the members of the two parties for their support of this measure, and I am confident that the result of this action will be to give great encouragement and renewed physical strength and vitality to whoever may happen to be the prime minister of this nation in the years which lie ahead.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Green thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-64, to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, now.


Howard Charles Green: second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Lionel Chevrier: May we have the bill?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Has the bill been printed?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I gave a copy last night to the leaders of the opposing parties.
Prime Minister's Residence Act


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I see it is again referred to as Harrington lake. To my recollection the name has always been, at least up to a certain time, Mousseau. I really believe it would have much more appeal when the prime minister moves from his residence in Ontario to Quebec if it would come back to its old name of Lac Mousseau. I think they have robbed us of a name and I would like restitution, and that is what I ask the minister for now.


Michael Starr: It was done when the Liberals were in power.


Howard Charles Green: I presume that in drafting the bill the law officers have referred to the name which appears on the maps. This question would really come under the jurisdiction of the national capital commission, as all the property in that vicinity is part of the Gatineau national park. I shall be very glad to bring the hon. member's suggestion to the attention of the chairman of the national capital commission.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I may be mistaken, but I would like the minister to find out. I know it was called Mousseau lake for over 50 years. It may not have been the official name but it was the name. If you go to Masham or any of these places today the old residents over there will still call it Lac Mousseau. I do not want to interfere with the passage of this bill. The only thing I ask now is that if it happens to be declared that Lac Mousseau was the official name, would the minister promise to try to bring it back to what it was before the change was made?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the only place the name of the lake appears in the bill is in the metes and bounds description of the property. This bill would have no effect in perpetuating any name at all. As I have said, these names are merely used in order to work out a description of the property. However, I shall be glad to bring the hon. member's suggestion to the attention of the officials whose responsibility it is to see that the proper names are used for these lakes and other geographical descriptions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister consider having his colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, under whom I think the geographic board comes, move an amendment to put in brackets "Lac Mousseau" right after "Harrington lake" wherever it occurs? That is the way it is on the maps.


Mr. Lennard:: How does the hon. member know that is correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have seen it on maps many times.

Prime Minister's Residence Act


Frank Exton Lennard: That does not say it is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is just a suggestion. I was trying to be helpful.


Howard Charles Green: There would be no objection to that, to adding the words "Lac Mousseau" after the words "Harrington lake" where they appear in the schedule.


Mr. Comiois:: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I think that within the limits of a province, the names of lakes should be chosen by that province which, in this case, is the province of Quebec. I think that only Quebec has the jurisdiction to change those names.


Mr. Comtois:: Mr. Chairman, I think I am in a position to say a few words about this, because this matter is a responsibility of the Canadian board on geographical names.
I do know that, before changing a name on our maps, we have to get in touch with the provinces concerned and come to some understanding with them before we are authorized to proceed. I may add that it will be a pleasure for me to communicate with the committee on geographical names, in order to have the name of this lake changed. Still, I doubt very much that the name was changed within the last two years. It probably was changed before this government came to power.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I admit that the name probably was changed before the present government took over, and I even recognize that, to change a name even within the limits of the national capital, provincial authorities must be approached. But the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) does not actually change anything; it simply purports to have the name "lac Mousseau" put in brackets after the name Harrington, in order to clarify the situation.


Mr. Denis:: I fully appreciate the offer of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) to communicate with Quebec authorities, but I am afraid he will find it rather hard to meet with the premier of that province, because when other matters were raised in this house, we never got any reaction, either by letter or by telegram from the Quebec premier. This was the case for fiscal relations and hospital insurance.


Mr. Ricard:: Please hold your tongue!


Azellus Denis: May I point out to our friend, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) that there is in Ottawa a board which has the responsibility of finding names for newly discovered places, whether they be lakes, mountains or any-

thing else. Every province has a representative on that board, save Quebec. Now, if a representative of that province had been present when a new name was chosen, the hon. member could not now complain that Quebec was not represented-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They are going to discover you!


Joseph-Roland Comtois: I have to disagree with my hon. friend from St. Denis (Mr. Denis), for the province of Quebec actually is represented on that board.


Azellus Denis: I have neither the jurisprudence, nor the facts nor the act before me.


Mr. Dubois:: You lack many things indeed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There are quite a few other things you lack!


Azellus Denis: However, I have here some
press clippings about the choice of geographical names, etc. and the province of Quebec is never represented on that board.


V. Florent Dubois: As long as we have the organization, it is all that is needed.


An hon. Member:: You still have a great deal to learn.
(Text):


Mr. Matthews:: I am very anxious that the present Prime Minister should get this house, but may I say that if he would like a lake out in our beautiful Nanaimo area he could name it anything he wanted.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am not quite sure whether I understand this correctly, or whether this is what is desired. An amendment has been moved by Mr. Comtois that the words "Lac Mousseau" be inserted in brackets after the words "Harrington lake" where the same appear in the bill.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
(Translation):
Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, just a further word. As all hon. members have admitted, that lake and that residence will be one of the finest sites in the province of Quebec, and even in the whole of Canada. The people of Quebec are happy to learn that the Prime Minister, and especially those who will succeed him, will spend some time at that place. As the government is no doubt grateful it should be generous towards the province of Quebec and, in my opinion, the only way to reward the province of Quebec for that fine site, which will be of benefit to the prime ministers from now on, would be to see to it that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), as well as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), find jobs for the unemployed in the province of Quebec, who are more numer-

ous than anywhere else and who do not even benefit from the advantages available to the other provinces.


An hon. Member:: Sit down. You are merely displaying your ignorance.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Keep quiet. Sit down. Order!
Clause as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-43, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act- Mr. Starr-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Alexis Pierre Caron: To conclude the remarks I began last night, I should just like to point out that last evening, before I had received the latest statistics on unemployment from the dominion bureau of statistics, I said I was afraid that next winter would be very bad. I have now the confirmation of that, because the figures show that on May 14, 1959, in a beautiful season for construction work, there were 585,489 people unemployed in Canada. These figures are much higher than we would have expected.


Michael Starr: Are those dominion bureau of statistics figures?


Alexis Pierre Caron: These figures have been given in a joint press release by the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member is misrepresenting the figures. What he is quoting from are the registration figures of the national employment service.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, but they were published and released today.


Michael Starr: That is only an appendix to the release. It is not part of the dominion bureau of statistics release.


Alexis Pierre Caron: But it was published and released today under the responsibility of the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics, so we have to accept these figures as they are. They are registrations at national employment service offices;
I admit that. The figure given here is 585,489,
Unemployment Insurance Act so it is much higher than we expected to find during the month of May when employment is supposed to start anew and build up for the summer work. If this situation continues, and the government do nothing else to increase the rate of unemployment insurance contributions I do not think they can go very far next winter on the small amount they will get out of the funds in the portfolio. The sum of $3 million-odd will be about the best they can get, and they will not be able at that time to cope with the expenses that will arise out of the fact that unemployment will be much higher than expected by the minister.
Let us consider what was said by the Minister of Labour when he sat on this side of the chamber as a private member. As reported at page 827 of Hansard of February 3, 1955, the present minister said:
It is this utterly unrealistic added burden of taxation on one of the most important and, I might add, most expensive necessities of normal life under modern conditions in this country, which should be removed.
The minister was speaking about a proposed increase under the Excise Tax Act. At page 3937 of Hansard for May 19, 1955 the present Minister of Labour is reported as having said:
I feel that the Department of Labour and this government should make strenuous efforts to alleviate the present condition of those who find themselves unemployed.
This is what we have been saying. It is not so much a question of increasing the amount spent under unemployment insurance as a question of it being the duty of the government to try and get work for those in Canada who are in need of employment.
I have in my hand briefs and memoranda from the executive council of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the board of trade of metropolitan Toronto, the Vancouver board of trade, the Canadian Retail Federation, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Construction Association. All these put together represent the most important part of the population of Canada. If we take into consideration the families of those interested in these associations we can see that this represents almost the entirety of the Canadian people. They are all opposed to the bill as it is now proposed to the committee. I do not understand how in the face of so much opposition from various important groups in Canada

Unemployment Insurance Act the minister feels he can impose his own views on the Canadian people, or perhaps the views of the Minister of Finance or of Mr. Coyne, who was a Conservative.
We can find in history examples of people who have sought to impose their will on the majority, who thought their views better than those of the rest of the world. There is one particularly dramatic example which comes to mind of one who followed this course of action. He enjoyed brief success for a limited time, but finally was defeated and licked. If the minister does not want to be defeated and licked with the present government he should do as we ask and suspend the study of the bill and allow an independent commission to study it so we may come up with legislation that will be acceptable to the majority of people in Canada.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have two reasons to take part in this debate. First, I should like to make some general remarks with regard to this legislation and, second, I should like to set the record straight about the statements made by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron).
The object of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure greater protection for labour as well as to provide for the stability of the unemployment insurance fund. The bill, of course, indicates to what extent this government thinks in terms of the have-nots; it follows upon the improvements introduced since the Conservative government came to power, and improves the unemployment insurance act in various ways.
The improvements brought about since June 1957 mean that $68 million have gone to the workers under various types of protection, when they were without jobs.
Mr. Chairman, the negative attitude of the Liberal opposition is inadmissible, since it is directly contrary to labour interests. All the noise made by our friends has but one purpose: to distract public attention so that people might forget about our friends' indifference towards labour.
The Liberals, as you know, in the course of the last two sessions, kept drumming into our ears: "What is the government going to do to help the unemployed whose unemployment insurance stamps are now exhausted?" Well, sir, we now have before us a bill designed to improve the situation. But, through their obstruction, Liberal members are merely delaying its adoption.

They objected so much that it has become impossible, Mr. Chairman, to adopt this bill for the 1st of July. As a result, the unemployed, that our Liberal friends want to hold so close to their heart as to stifle them-will be deprived, because of the lack of co-operation of the Liberals, of the aid that we, the Conservatives, wanted to give them.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the working people will not easily forget the lack of co-operation of those who criticize us for not doing enough for the working class.
Besides, because of their obstruction, according to the press, the delay in adopting Bill No. C-43 has deprived Canada of a great honour that was being done to it this year. In fact, according to the press, we know that our Minister of Labour had been asked to preside at the International Labour Congress which is to meet in Geneva. It is clear that our Liberals friends, who never had a similar honour offered to them, were quite disappointed about it. So, they went out of their way to force the minister to decline this invitation.
Mr. Chairman, I spent nearly twenty-five years of my life among workers, and I do not think I am boasting when I say that I know something about the sentiments of labour. Every weekend, so as to keep contact between grass and brass, I have interviews in my St. Hyacinthe office with workers of various classes and manufacturers of my city. I discussed this bill with them and all of them, without exception-whether they represent the textile or metal industry or any other industrial branch-recognize the necessity of this legislation and are unanimous in their support. The workers are pleased with the concern shown them by the Minister of Labour who can claim to have been a real workman himself. Therefore they are ready to play their part, knowing that if they do not personally benefit from the bill, some fellow-worker will. And I may add, Mr. Chairman, that our workers are indignant about the Liberal attitude.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee on industrial relations, I attended practically all meetings save one or two, when business kept me away. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Hull shows that some people want to create in this house the same atmosphere that prevailed when this bill was considered in committee.

We witnessed some pretty disappointing performances. Indeed, we had expected a better example from the-I might say distinguished members of the opposition. We only need, Mr. Chairman, to refer to the press of May 27 or 28 and June 4 and 5 to realize that this was due to two men only who wanted to steal the show and get their names in the papers. That exhibition, Mr. Chairman, was most discouraging for us younger members who have been here only a short time.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday we saw the member for Hull play the martyr, claiming that the Liberals were given a raw deal by the chairman of the industrial relations committee. In an attempt to mislead people of good faith, he built up a pack of lies so as to have people believe that the Conservative members, and especially the chairman of the industrial relations committee, had been unfair to the Liberals. Mr. Chairman, it was quite the contrary. In fact, the hon. member for Danforth did an excellent job as chairman, but he had no choice when Liberal members-especially the member for Hull and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-were out of order.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that members who have been sitting in this house for some time know quite well that those two members are no novices and have more than one trick up their sleeves when it comes to making their views known to the public, even when they know that they are out of order.
At this point of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the speech that the hon. member for Hull made yesterday. Here is what the hon. member had to say, according to page 4754 of the English Hansard:
In fact, twice we had to leave the meeting in protest, because we were being denied the required information, and this as a result of the line followed by the hon. member for Danforth who was chairman of the committee. Therefore, we missed part of those sittings and the opportunity was taken to rush things through.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that when the Liberal members left the committee meeting for the first time, we were discussing the bill. However, when they left the room for the second time, the committee was studying the submission of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour. Therein lies the falsehood advanced by the hon. member for Hull when he claimed that we had refused the required information.
May I refer to report No. 4 of the industrial 669G8-9-303
Unemployment Insurance Act relations committee and read the following from page 169:
(Text):


Mr. Maclnnis:: I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, and to that of the clerk of the committee, that the Conservative members alone with the C.C.F. members of this committee have stated that we should continue this discussion at the desire of Mr. Marchand who said he would like to continue and finish the business of the committee.
The fact that the Liberal members have walked out is in no way a reflection on the Chair, and is not in accordance with your wishes or those of any member of this committee because we, along with Mr. Peters of the C.C.F. are abiding by the wishes of the gentleman presenting this brief.
(Translation):
As witness page 296 of the 8th report of the committee on industrial relations, the hon. member for Essex East was saying:
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have to leave now. We have this other engagement. It is most unfortunate. But would you care to put that on the record?
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, in the light of those facts, it is obvious-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was it a question that I was putting to someone?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I will answer your questions when I am through with my remarks, if you don't mind.
It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the facts, that the Liberals did not leave the committee meeting because they were being denied information, but because they wanted to be dramatic and attempt to divert public attention, knowing full well they were wrong in so leaving.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is no argument.


Paul Comtois: They are veteran actors.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, this bill is of such merit as to command the good will and the co-operation of all members of the house. I therefore ask all hon. members to co-operate in putting it through as soon as possible, for the benefit of all who are unemployed.
(Text):


Mr. Peters:: In rising to speak to this bill, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be only fair to the members of the industrial relations

Unemployment Insurance Act committee that an answer be made to some of the charges that have been levelled by the previous speaker, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. He pointed out that delays which took place were brought about by the opposition-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I was referring to the Liberals only, not the C.C.F.


William Arnold Peters: We are part of the opposition.


Michael Starr: One and the same.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Is the hon. member for Essex East your leader?


William Arnold Peters: Not necessarily the same, but I think we are subjected to somewhat the same pressures as are exerted on the official opposition, and certainly the conduct of this particular committee bears some investigation.
I should like, first of all, to comment on this particular committee. It seems to me that perhaps this is a good time to suggest that the chairmen of the various committees be given some instruction in conducting the operations of committees so that those committees will produce what the committees were set up to produce, and so that they will handle business referred to them. It seems to me that in discussing these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act we were entitled to a full discussion of all the aspects, all the ramifications of the amendments, and to receive all the advice possible in order to make the best decisions for the Canadian workers.
It has been said that in asking these questions and in making this appeal we were assisting in the delaying techniques. I should like to make it very clear that we did not delay on this particular matter. There is no hurry to pass this particular legislation which is going to affect a lot of people and which is going to confer upon the workers of Canada very limited benefits. In my opinion these amendments will result in not over a 5 per cent increase in the three categories to which the amendments apply, while at the same time there will be a 30 per cent increase in the contributions to cover this small increased benefit.
I am unhappy that this bill has to be introduced at this time, and that this has prevented the Minister of Labour from attending the conference in Geneva. I think he will be aware of the high regard in which he is held by the Canadian people generally and he will be also aware that his personal magnetism and appeal have carried him into a position where he was offered this honour. It is unfortunate that the members of his party did not see fit to delay this legislation to allow him to attend this conference. I think we are all very happy at the honour which was 
accorded to him, and certainly we will not oppose the postponement of this bill if he wants to get on a plane this afternoon to attend that conference. I do not believe it can be fairly said that we wish to delay him here and prevent him from accepting this particular honour.
This particular industrial relations committee, Mr. Chairman, was conducted in what I consider to be a most unparliamentary manner. I think it was being run like a fraternal order, and the chairman, having had some experience in that field, followed the procedure he learned in these other organizations and certainly did not follow parliamentary procedure. I should like to refer to some of the instances in which this was quite obvious. I have always believed that a chairman's duties were to conduct the meetings in a parliamentary manner and that his duties as committee chairman did not include direction. He is not supposed, in my opinion, to be giving directions, according to Roberts' rules and orders or any other book on parliamentary procedure that I have seen. I should like to give one example which is found on page 20 of the evidence of the committee, and I quote:


The Chairman:: You are asking him for two opinions, you are asking his opinion as a representative of the Canadian Construction Association and then you tie it in with his appointment as a representative on the unemployment insurance advisory committee. That has political implications. I will rule it out.
Then, there is some discussion about whether or not there is anything wrong with political implications. Later, on the same page, we find this:


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Just a moment. I rule that the individual himself has the choice as to whether he will represent the construction association or represent the unemployment advisory committee. When he has made that choice, then I will rule on whether or not he will answer the questions.
This ruling was not questioned because the hon. member for Essex East asked whether we would be allowed the opportunity of questioning the members or the chairman of the advisory committee and at that time the chairman of the committee said that would be all right; there was nothing wrong with that. On other occasions, when rulings of this nature were made, they were challenged. On page 40 of the evidence of the committee, we find this:


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Let me make this clear. I made a ruling and I wish it distinctly understood that when I make a ruling it will stick. There will be no argument at the time as to whether it is right or wrong.
I agree that it is up to the committee to make a decision. It is quite all right for the chairman to make a ruling if he wishes, but

that ruling is subject to the committee's decision. There is no discussion permitted at such a time, and the question has to be put immediately. There is no point in arguing the matter by the hour, and then finally having the chairman suggest you withdraw it or do something else. This is not the duty of the chairman, yet that continually happened. Again, on page 154, we see that there was a lot of discussion and then we find this:


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: You have asked a question and I maintain it is a leading question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That does not matter; this is not a court of law.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It does not matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest to you that you learn the rules of how to conduct the chairmanship. To suggest this reveals your incompetence to sit in that chair.
There is some further discussion and then the chairman says:
I am going to exercise my rights as chairman to the best of my ability.
There is considerable discussion, which there should not have been, and then the chairman says:
I am asking now that the Chair's ruling be sustained.
There was a motion before the committee at the same time, but these matters never came to a vote. They were usually decided by the chairman himself. He made the ruling and he was always quite willing to do these things. I do not believe that that is the duty of the chairman of any committee. I have sat as a member of a number of committees of this house, but this one was about the worst conducted committee of them all. In fairness to the chairman I will say that he was dealing with several people on that committee who had a great deal of experience in committee work, and they took full advantage of their experience. I do not believe that is a bad thing, but it may make it very difficult for a chairman. I believe some training should be given to chairmen of committees so that this does not happen again because, in my opinion, such happenings reduce the value we receive from committee work. If the chairman of the committee is going to decide what is going to be asked, who is going to ask it and many of these other things which are not proper duties of the chairman, then it seems to me we are going to eliminate a great deal of the value of committee work.
It seems to me there were two implications in these amendments. In the first place, the officials of the department had taken a particular position, which I would expect them to take. Having been advised by the senior officials of the government, they made certain studies which resulted in certain figures and facts. These men are civil servants and 66968-9-3031
Unemployment Insurance Act therefore have to pay attention to the dictates of the government or they will get the axe, just as many people in the past have got the axe for not following the dictates of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: There is no point in naming
them. The same thing has happened since this particular government has been in office. Quite a number of people have been resigning with a little help. I do not think that there is any need to go back farther than a day or two when we were informed that one was resigning. I do not know whether or not he has done so.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you get down to the bill?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion
we had this type of interjection all through the committee discussions, such as "Why don't you get down to the bill?" "Why don't you leave the advisory committee alone?" and, "Why don't you quit asking these people embarrassing questions?" I maintain that one of the major sources of information was the advisory committee. At no time were we allowed to discuss this matter. In my opinion the chairman misrepresented some of the decisions that had been made in the house. He misrepresented the contention that the advisory committee was not to be called or was not allowed to be discussed.


Mr. Grafftey:: I rise on a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. I should merely like to suggest that Mr. Speaker has already made his ruling in the house on the calling of the advisory committee. I suggest that the hon. member is out of order in raising the matter again at this time, as His Honour the Speaker has already made his ruling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman,
we do not want to take time away from the hon. member who has the floor but 1 want to say that this intervention is not correct. The Speaker of the house never ruled on the discussion of the report or the actions of the advisory committee whatsoever. I am sure that on reflection the hon. member will realize that he has made an error. I think the hon. member who now has the floor is in order.


Charles Edward Rea: As I understand
it, the hon. member is referring to what happened in the committee. Is that right?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Charles Edward Rea: The proceedings
of this committee have been reported to the house. They are now in the hands of the house. The hon. member for Timiskaming may continue.

Unemployment Insurance Act


William Arnold Peters: I think this is the type of
interjection-exactly the same as the one you have just now witnessed-that we were continually faced with, not only by the chairman but by certain members of that committee and they misrepresented and gave incorrect advice I would suggest to the chairman of that committee.


Mr. Spencer:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on
a point of order. The hon. member has made an allegation that the chairman of this committee misrepresented to the committee what occurred in the house. In my opinion that statement is out of order, is a reflection on an hon. member of this house and should be withdrawn. That is my point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a point of order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that it was proved in the committee that what the chairman said was not exactly what the Speaker of the house had said on the matter that was being discussed at the time. If that is not misrepresenting the words of the Speaker, I do not know what you can call it. I believe it was misrepresented.


Charles Edward Rea: I do not care for the word "misrepresented" I do not think that is quite fair. One might say something similar. I hope the hon. member will withdraw that word.


William Arnold Peters: Probably the word "misinterpreted" would be a more parliamentary word although probably not quite as accurate.


Norman Leonard Spencer: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it is quite right for the hon. member not to make a complete retraction of that word. There is no doubt that he represented to this committee that the hon. member had misrepresented something in the committee. If he wishes to use the word "misinterpreted" in its proper sense I would think that would be quite in order. However, I do not think it is proper not to retract the word "misrepresented".


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I have never previously heard it argued that the word "misrepresented" was unparliamentary. If it were imputed to an hon. member that he had deliberately misrepresented something, I think that would create for that hon. member a question of privilege but that it would not create for some extraneous hon. member, a friend of the hon. member, any question of privilege. It seems to me that the only hon. member who would have a question of privilege is the hon. member who is chairman of this committee.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


William Arnold Peters: In referring to this matter at all, Mr. Chairman, I was trying to point out that we have maintained-and I think it was certainly maintained by the minister himself when he tabled one of the minutes of the advisory committee-that they have a bearing on the matter under discussion. I should just like to read from the submission made to the committee by the Canadian Manufacturers Association in which they point out the functions of the unemployment insurance advisory committee. They state as follows:
What was Intended to be and might well have been the most effective safeguard for the unemployment insurance fund is the unemployment insurance advisory committee. The act provides that it shall consist of a chairman and from six to eight other members. At least one of the members other than the chairman is to be appointed after consultation with organizations representative of employees and an equal number after consultation with organizations representative of employers.
The main function of the advisory committee under the act is to make a report to the governor in council on the financial condition of the unemployment insurance fund at the end of each fiscal year and at such other times as it thinks fit. If the fund is or is likely to be insufficient to discharge its liabilities or is more than reasonably sufficient to do so, the advisory committee is required to recommend appropriate amendments of the act or the regulations (Sec. 89). The governor in council may also direct the advisory committee to investigate (1) the provision of unemployment insurance for any excepted employments either by extending to it the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, modified if necessary, or by special or supplementary schemes: and (2) the rates of contribution and benefit of insured persons having regard to their earnings (Sec. 91).
The constitution of the advisory committee is based on the recommendations of the final report of the Gregory royal commission on unemployment insurance in England which in 1932 inquired into the provisions and working of the British unemployment insurance scheme.
Unfortunately the government has not always asked or paid attention to the advice of the advisory committee on the many important financial and other problems which have arisen during the eighteen years which the Unemployment Insurance Act has been in operation.
Because of the importance that has been attached to the advisory committee it was felt that this committee's findings and its deliberations were going to be heard by the committee. I think this procedure would only be fair if people were really interested in knowing what the situation was and what the situation was with regard to the recommendations of people appointed by various organizations to help decide on what amendments were necessary because of the unsatisfactory condition of the fund. I think that is only a fair assumption.
But if the government believes that political implications would accrue from such an investigation, then I can well understand the attitude taken. Having knowledge of what

its deliberations were the government and the chairman of this committee may well have decided that it would be advantageous to prohibit the investigation or the interrogation of the members of the advisory committee. However, when investigating and hearing the presentation of the first organization, namely the Canadian Construction Association, it was extremely interesting and most informative to note that their representative Mr. Urquhart also informed the committee that he was a member of the advisory committee. In discussing this matter with him and what he as a member of the advisory committee thought of the various amendments being proposed to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I think many facts were obtained by the small amount of discussion that took place before this matter was ruled out of order.
It was at that time pointed out that you could not sit on these two organizations, and I was given to understand we would be able to call him at some later date when he could represent not the Canadian Construction Association but the advisory committee which he sat on. I think it is not fair for the chairman to say he could not represent two organizations, because he was appointed to that advisory committee by the government as a representative of this other organization. They just did not go out onto the street and pick up John Doe and say, "You are a member of the advisory committee". They chose him because he was a representative of this large body, the Canadian Construction Association.
So I think the committee was not given all the facts. They were not given an opportunity to discuss with these people who have a working knowledge of what was to be accomplished by the unemployment insurance fund what advantageous amendments might be made, and what the extent of the contributions must be to maintain the fund. They could have suggested, as he suggested every time he had the opportunity, that there were other fields of unemployment insurance besides those which were covered or expected to be covered under an actuarial basis. I think we would have found out that our contention made a few weeks ago when this bill was introduced at the resolution stage, because of the fluctuation and the boom and bust in unemployment and employment, was correct and that it was absolutely necessary to establish now two separate funds rather than trying to fit everybody into the unemployment insurance fund.
It has been pointed out that this fund had reached the sum of $900 million. When we asked this representative who had sat on the advisory committee if he felt that this was too high, he said that in his opinion
Unemployment Insurance Act he thought it was a suitable figure. He went on to point out, as did very one of the delegations which came before the committee in my attendance, that the fund now a little over $400 million was in an unsatisfactory position financially. Everyone, with no exception, pointed out they were opposed, and violently opposed, to the amendments now being introduced to the method of obtaining an increase in that fund by the contribution ratio of 40 per cent from the employees, 40 per cent from the employers and 20 per cent from the federal government treasury. In every case they suggested the contributions have to be rebalanced so that a bigger share of the contribution would come from the federal government treasury itself.
In the previous suggestion that two funds be set up, I think from the discussions that took place in the committee this is the only type of recommendation that the industrial relations committee should have brought in, that there has to be established from actuarial figures how many people are employed in a normal period of economy. It has been suggested that the unemployment in the years 1954-55 and 1957-58 was abnormal, and that even balanced out over a period of five years we would have to have sizeable increases in this fund which has now dropped from a figure of close to $900 million to a figure of $454 million. These figures do not take into consideration the unemployment in the period 1958-59. I think it is plain to all hon. gentlemen that if we are going to compensate for large scale unemployment which is not in an insurable category, then we are going to have a different type of fund, a fund which is to be taken out of general revenues and would put into circulation the amount of money we are not able to carry. If this fund, with the unemployment which has taken place in the two periods 1954-55 and 1957-58, excluding 1958-59, has been reduced by one-half, then I suggest we would not be able to carry the fund no matter what the contributions were increased to over the next two or three years, if the fund continued to be depleted at the rate it now is.
It has been suggested that these contributions, the 30 per cent we are being asked to grant, are going to produce something like $78 million. There has been a great deal of discussion, Mr. Chairman, as to whether that is the right figure or not. We have heard many discussions about what are the actual figures. The director of insurance has pointed out on several occasions that these figures are estimates. Apparently if you estimate it one way you get one set of figures, and if you estimate it in some other way you get a completely different set.	1

Unemployment Insurance Act
Mr. Humphrys, the assistant superintendent of insurance, stated that instead of the 78 per cent figure given to the house previously the amount of increased contributions would amount to $97 million. He also pointed out that rather than the $20 million that was going to accrue to the workers in benefits, it could be as high as $24 million. He pointed out that the benefit in extending the period from 36 weeks to 52 weeks was only going to cost $11 million. Those new categories would receive an estimated benefit of $9,400,000, and those in the higher earning categories would receive a benefit of $3,100,000. It has been pointed out by all the organizations that it is unfair to ask the people who are employed in steady employment, the people who are not going to be unemployed, the people who will in most cases not receive any benefits at all from this measure, to raise their contributions to pay the extra 30 per cent to raise a total of $97 million. This is not fair when the workers can at the maximum only receive in return a sum of $20 million or $24 million.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this matter be returned to the committee and that the committee be empowered to investigate the reports-yes, and the resignations-of the advisory committee, and that we should go very carefully into their recommendations and find out at least why they were unanimously opposed to the decision that the government has now taken in moving amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In a matter of this kind, following the prolonged discussion we had in this house on this bill and the discussion which took place in the committee, one would have thought, particularly in the light of the almost unanimous representations made by national employers' and employees' organizations in Canada, that the Minister of Labour would have taken advantage at the earliest opportunity to put forward the government's point of view on this very important proposal, which imposes a burden of almost $80 million a year more on the workers of this country and on the employer groups.
However, the minister is responsible for his own policy. He is responsible for his own actions, and I have no alternative but to indicate that thus far the only speaker from the government side who has addressed himself to this matter was the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot who said it was welcomed by the labour groups of this country, although, of course, such was not the case as has already been amply demonstrated, and as I will join my colleagues in proving.
We discuss this amendment now against a background of representations which have

been made by a number of national organizations representing both the employers and the workers of this country, all of whom, in a remarkable display of unanimity, expressed their keen dissatisfaction with this particular bill, a bill which has received at the hands of the opposition both before and during the discussions in committee, and now, in these proceedings, an expression of objection consistent with what we believe to be the merits of our case and of the representations made by these various national organizations.
We now have further information which was denied to us during the course of the debate on second reading, information which was made available to us by officials of the unemployment insurance commission, in particular, during the committee proceedings. We now know that the proposed additional contributions now run, on the average, not as we thought up to 30 per cent more, but from 25 to 56 per cent more, and this without any change in the pattern of benefits. We now know that while an additional $100 million by way of revenue will be derived from the additional contributions by the workers and employers and by the additional contribution of the government of Canada, there will be less than $25 million by way of benefit. We also know some of the reasons why the government, faced with the perilous state of the unemployment insurance fund, was obliged to come before parliament this year and recommend some particular method by which this perilous state of the fund-this trust fund, as it was referred to by the governor of the Bank of Canada-could be replenished, keeping in mind possible unemployment in the fall of 1959 and the winter of 1960.
We now know that the losses suffered by this trust fund practically equal the additional contributions which this measure seeks to impose on the two main groups of contributors, the workers and the employers of Canada. We know that there was an actual loss of over $10 million-a realized loss-as a result of the investment by the investment committee of some of the securities held by the unemployment insurance fund. We do know from the evidence which we were able to adduce from the governor of the Bank of Canada that there was, and that there is, a book loss at market valuation as of about a week ago of $62 million, which makes, at the moment, both in terms of a realized and an unrealized loss, a loss of $72 million. Undoubtedly that, together with the heavy drain on the fund as a result of serious unemployment-a problem which this government was going to correct-has placed the government in the difficult position, in the light of its future obligations, of seeking to replenish a

fund contributed to by the three main partners in Canadian society, a fund which at one time stood at over $800 million and which, when we began our deliberations, was revealed as having a book value in terms of its securities of about $496 million. But, as the hon. member for Welland pointed out last night, that fund at the present time, taking into account book values and taking into account what its securities will realize, stands at well below $400 million and closer to $350 million.
When one takes into account the amount of money which was required this year to provide maintenance for unemployed people who could qualify for benefit, it is clear that if we have comparable unemployment next fall and next winter there will not be sufficient money in the insurance fund to provide what these contractual arrangements, dedicated by an act of parliament, were intended to provide for the unemployed, for the workers of this country who made provision, along with the employers and the government and the people of Canada, for this measure of insurance in preparation for such a high level of unemployment as we have experienced during the past 18 months.
That is the situation. Hon. gentlemen opposite say we are holding up a bill which would bring great benefits to the workers of this country. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that there was validity in that proposition, let it not be forgotten that this bill was referred to in the address from the throne last January. Let it not be forgotten that on this side of the house on four different occasions we urged the government to introduce this legislation in the early stages of this session. Let it not be forgotten that this bill was reported out of the committee on the ninth day of June, and we were told in the committee by the director of the unemployment insurance offices that in order to make its benefits applicable by June 28 the bill would have to be passed and considered in parliament by June 11.
What reason did the government have, assuming the validity of its arguments, which I deny, for not bringing this measure forward at once when the bill was reported? Why did not the government bring in this bill in the month of January, or in February? The reason, I suggest to you strongly, Mr. Chairman, is that notwithstanding all the advertisement in the speech from the throne, the government had not settled on a policy at all. That was the reason for these delays and now in the dying days of this session, in the face of the opposition which exists all over the country to this measure, hon. gentlemen opposite suggest that we have been holding up the legislation which they pretend
Unemployment Insurance Act will be of great value to the workers and the employers of this country, although it is a bill which does not change the pattern of benefit at all, a bill which provides benefits of less than $25 million and which exacts further impositions from the workers and employers of this country to an extent of almost $80 million. The hon. member for Welland was correct. What this government has done, faced with this serious situation, is to saddle on the workers of Canada and on the employers the responsibility of doing something which this government itself has failed to do. That is the real proposition that confronts us now as we begin in this chamber the discussion of this bill.
In this committee we were supposed to be given an opportunity of knowing all of the facts involved in this matter. "When we get to the committee," we were told by the minister "you will be able to inquire about this and about that." We went to the committee. I want to indicate how inconsistent were some of the positions of the majority of the members of that committee who made it impossible for the small minority represented by this group and the group sitting immediately to the left of Mr. Chairman to carry on their work and to ascertain what were the facts.
We had asked that the members of the unemployment insurance advisory committee, the men who by experience, representing labour and representing the employers, would have been in a position to tell us why they were opposed unanimously in the summer of 1958 to this particular formula of increased benefits unless the government contribution was made to represent one-half of the total contributions of the workers and of the employers. Were we given an opportunity of examining the members of the advisory committee? No. On two distinct occasions we tried pursuant to the suggestions made when we were debating this matter on second reading and pursuant to the reports that were tabled by the Minister of Labour-one of which was tabled with great reluctance by him-to arrange to interrogate the members of the advisory committee as to why they could not accept the formula proposed by way of additional contributions. No, that was something that had been denied the members of the House of Commons when this was discussed on second reading, it was alleged this allegation was contrary to the facts. No, this advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission had nothing to do with the bill and because of that no opportunity would be afforded to the members of this committee to ascertain from five employers

Unemployment Insurance Act and from five labour men and the chairman of that commission why that particular body was opposed to increasing the contributions without changing the pattern of benefits.
And to show how inconsistent was that position taken by the majority of the committee, a motion was made by the hon. and respected member for Hamilton South that we be given an opportunity to examine the members of the investment committee, the governor of the Bank of Canada and his two colleagues, the deputy ministers of labour and finance. That motion supported by the opposition was, of course, carried. What difference in principle was there in allowing us to examine, as we were properly entitled to examine, the members of the investment committee and at the same time denying us the right to examine the members of the advisory committee?
This government and the majority of the members of the government party on that committee will undoubtedly pass this bill by sheer force of numbers but in so doing the record will be clear that they denied the minority of the committee the right to examine the members of the advisory committee who more than any other group were seized with the reasons which justified or failed to justify this additional imposition on the workers of our country. That no hon. gentleman in this chamber can deny and there is no escape from that situation now for hon. gentlemen who sit to Mr. Chairman's right.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Essex East a question. Did the hon. member confer with the advisory committee in 1950 when he piloted a bill through parliament to include seasonal workers and when he raised the rates of contribution by 15 per cent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be very glad to answer that at some point but my time is very limited-


Michael Starr: Now, if you will.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, my time is limited and I am going to get this over.


Some hon. Members:: We will give you the extra time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At five o'clock we have to proceed to the consideration of private bills. However, I shall deal with it. Not only were we denied the right to interrogate the members of the advisory committee but we were denied-


Ernest James Broome: Answer the question. Say "yes" or "no".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Here is the old
steamroller again, the same kind of obstruction that attended us throughout the thirteen sitting days of this committee.


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I am through. The record will let the workers of this country know that now when we are discussing this measure in the chamber the same tactics are once again being employed by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Michael Starr: You are employing them now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We were denied the opportunity of seeing the report of the actuary. One report of the actuary, Mr. Humphrys, was placed before the committee. I complained at one point that we were not given the report and the chairman in a display of great generosity said, "Oh yes, here is the report; you may have it." Sure enough, it was a report of the actuary, but it was not the report for which we were looking. It was not the report referred to by the advisory committee in the month of July, 1958.
What are the facts? The advisory committee in the month of July, 1958, when it took the position that it could not agree to this particular formula of increased contributions, asked for a further report from the actuary. That report was given to the advisory committee at a subsequent date. Why was that report not made available to the members of the committee? If the previous report was properly tabled and properly open to the scrutiny of the members of this committee, why were they denied the second report? Is there something in that report that further confirms our apprehensions about the invalid and untenable position taken in this bill, when the government seeks to impose contributions without arranging for an improvement in the pattern of benefits, seeking to impose on the two main contributing groups the responsibility which I say rests with the government in the face of the large unemployment that has prevailed in this country over the past two years?
The fact that men who have exhausted their benefits have continued to receive assistance out of the insurance fund rather than out of public assistance means only one thing, as the hon. member for Welland properly indicated last night, and that is that the government faced with a heavy deficit position in the country as a result of the budgetary picture given to us by the Minister of Finance on April 9, seeking to minimize its difficulties in that particular has sought

to replenish the fund at the expense of the workers and the employers of Canada. That is the gist of the representations made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question at this point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well-


Michael Starr: Did not the hon. member for Essex East vote for the extension of seasonal benefits?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course I did, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad I did. But when we provided seasonal benefits, unlike this government we replenished the unemployment insurance fund out of consolidated revenue on three occasions. This is the whole nub of the argument.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, what the hon. member for Essex East has said is not true. The hon. member piloted a bill through this house which included seasonal workers and raised the contributions by 15 per cent-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is argument and my hon. friend can deal with it on the proper occasion but I am afraid he will find he is wrong.


Michael Starr: I am simply trying to set you straight on the facts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the three occasions when that course was taken by the government I gave the dates and I gave the amounts.


Michael Starr: It was $1,800,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government consolidated revenue fund was used to replenish the fund.


Michael Starr: The statements the hon. member is making are all malarkey.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can well understand how anxious my hon. friend is because he-


Michael Starr: Is just giving the facts, and the hon. member cannot repudiate one of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -knows that it is not a very popular measure with labouring groups in our country. I call his attention to a statement which may have escaped him. He and I live in constituencies where there are automobile workers. One of the members of the advisory committee representing labour was Mr. George Burt, the director of the united automobile workers. Here is a telegram he sent to the committee.


An hon. Member:: What page?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Page 321. The chairman read it out. It reads as follows:
Deeply concerned about proposals made to your committee by Honourable Michael Starr concerning
Unemployment Insurance Act amendments to Unemployment Insurance Act. As a former member of unemployment insurance advisory committee I am fully aware of the discriminatory result of such proposals upon insured population if they are put into effect. Urge your serious consideration of proposals made by Canadian Labour Congress to your committee recently most of which have been supported by opposition members of your committee.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman,-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon.
member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot still suggest that the labouring groups of this country welcome this measure? Let me remind him of the words of Mr. Marchand of the Catholic syndicates and see whether or not he supports the view of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot?


An hon. Member:: Page?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Page 4 of the brief presented to this committee by Mr. Marchand.
(Translation):
Finally, for the reasons we mentioned in the previous paragraphs, we are opposed to the proposed increase in the amount of the contribution. In our opinion, it is unwarranted and saddles the insured with a financial burden which should be taken care of by another fund than the unemployment insurance fund.
We wish to stress here that we are not opposed in principle to higher contributions provided they are designed to increase the benefits of the insured.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the approval of the Quebec workers.
(Text):
Then, we have the observations of the retail merchants association, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Never were labour and management so united in a common position against a measure taken by any government, I believe, in the history of our country.
It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to say that this measure is one which deserves to be passed quickly. It does not matter they say whether it imposes almost a third by way of additional hidden taxation on two segments of the people of Canada that is proposed in the recent budget; it does not matter whether 25 per cent to 50 per cent by way of additional contribution is going to be imposed upon the workers of this country. This fund has to be replenished, says the government. We have heavy unemployment. The fund is running out and although we have used a good part of that fund for purposes of public assistance we, nevertheless, because of the financial situation facing us in the country, must impose

Unemployment Insurance Act that burden on the workers and the employers of this country. That is what this bill means in so far as clause six is concerned.
Let us examine some of the features of this bill. The increase in benefits, we are told, derived from the addition of two new classes of benefits, will come to something between $9 million and $10 million. The estimate of additional benefits to be provided by the extension of the benefit period from 36 to 52 weeks will be somewhere between $10 million and $12 million. The estimate of new benefits which may result from higher allowable earnings will amount to something between $2 million and $3.3 million. Therefore, the total additional benefits provided by this bill will vary from $21.9 million to $25.3 million.
Now, let us look at the added revenue that is going to be derived from this measure. What is the expected additional revenue resulting from the addition of two new classes of contributions? Something between $15 million and $17 million, we were told. What will be the additional revenue derived from the raising of the income ceiling from $4,800 to $5,460? The answer is somewhere between $2 and $3 million. What will be the additional revenue provided by the increase of between 25 per cent and 56 per cent in the level of contributions? It will be somewhere between $75 million and $80 million. The government's contribution will be roughly $16 million. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the total increase in contributions of about $100 million, of which the government will pay about $16 million, is the revenue position. The workers and industry will pay $85 million more annually and will receive a little more than $20 million in additional benefit. That is in general the reason, one of the main reasons, why the opposition groups, representing in this instance the employers and labouring groups in Canada, are vigorously opposed to shouldering on labour and industry the responsibility that belongs to the government of Canada.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15 (3), to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-23, respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the second reading of Bill No. S-23, respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert. As sponsor of this bill, it is my privilege to provide information to this house and reasons why favourable consideration should be given to its passage. The area served by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert comprises 135,000 square miles between the 53rd and 58th parallels of latitude and from the Pacific to the Alberta border in British Columbia, including the Queen Charlotte islands. The total population of the area is between 85,000 and 90,000. The catholic population of 12,500 includes about 4,000 Indians. There are seven schools with four more in the process of being built, together with 12 churches and 12 rectories. This compares with four churches, four rectories and one school at the time of incorporation in 1924. Most of the towns in the area have doubled their population in the last five years. This recent increase and the anticipated increases in population are the reasons for the removal of the restrictions on the value of real estate held by the corporation and the period during which it may be held.
As to subclause 3 of clause 4 of the act in its present form, several recent statutes incorporating religious or eleemosynary bodies contain no limitation on the value of the real property which may be held by such bodies. Moreover, in several recent instances private acts have contained provisions removing such limitations not only for the future, but retroactively. Provisions imposing a time limit on the holding of unused real estate, such as are contained in subsections 4 to 7 inclusive of section 4 of the act in its present form have been omitted in some recent incorporations of religious bodies, such as the act to incorporate Oblate Fathers of Assumption Province and Bill No. S-18 which received third reading in the Senate on April 23 last, an act to incorporate the Lutheran Church of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills standing on the order paper for second reading. Is it the pleasure of the house that these bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-302, for the relief of Roger Myre.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-303, for the relief of Lee Dacks Moscovitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-304, for the relief of Lillian Gold-bloom Howard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-305, for the relief of Giovanni Cavallero.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-306, for the relief of Lorna Frances Hutchinson Kerr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-307, for the relief of Jessie Balfour Mains McCartney Manson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-308, for the relief of Guy Charbon-neau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-309, for the relief of Meade Alexander Morgan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-310, for the relief of Carol May Campbell Williams.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-311, for the relief of Adela Hawthorne Pattison.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-312, for the relief of Samuel Currie Millar.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-313, for the relief of Helen Mary Margeson Ransome Scudamore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-314, for the relief of Claire Anna Theresa Verdon Monette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-315, for the relief of Constance Erna Medcalfe Blood.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-316, for the relief of Norma Margaret Martin Raymo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-317, for the relief of Audrey Bar-rasford Milburn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-318, for the relief of Sandra Stoll Goldenberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-319, for the relief of Edith May Driscoll Jeffrey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-320, for the relief of Joyce Ethel Commerford Brewster.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill	SD-321,	for	the	relief of	Hirsch
Glaser.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-322, for the relief of Maria Gagne Cote.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-323, for the relief of Gail Patricia Northrup Brazauckas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill	SD-324,	for	the	relief of	Gilbert
Forest.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-325, for the relief of Yvon Poulin. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-326, for the relief of Karl Wilhelm Oskar Bartels.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-327, for the relief of Joseph Aime Paul Guy Genest.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-328, for the relief of Allan Ray Wright.-Mr. McCleave.
Canada Elections Act
Bill SD-329, for the relief of Michael Kala-biha.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-330, for the relief of Joyce Ann Breaker Lee.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-331, for the relief of Zina Goff-man Filler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-332, for the relief of Omula Karn-itis Rakauskas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-333, for the relief of Joseph Bernard Alberia Gustave Lahaise.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-334, for the relief of Michael Palangio.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-335, for the relief of Grace Evelyn Heggtveit Richter.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-336, for the relief of Ross Kevin Ladd.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-337, for the relief of Georgina Horne Parsons.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-338, for the relief of Esther Paula Beernaert Martindale.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-339, for the relief of Audrey Bruce Laborgne.-Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fisher for the second reading of Bill No. C-10, to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting at advance polls).
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) introduced a similar bill at the last session of parliament, and at that time I supported the bill. I think it is rather significant that this bill was under discussion last year on June 17, one year ago tomorrow. I have not discovered any reason during the past year for changing my opinion about the bill in principle. The proposal by the hon. member for Port Arthur is a sound one.
I believe that the provision for voting at advance polls must be enlarged. I have certainly no intention, Mr. Speaker, of repeating the speech I made last year in connection with a similar bill. At that time I did mention various cases where the narrow provision of the act as it now exists prevented people from voting at advance polls who should have voted. I pointed out the provision which limits the class of persons who may vote, and there is a restriction even within that class. I felt also at that time that the ninth and tenth days before polling date were actually too early to give the voters a proper picture and a proper opportunity to evaluate their candidates.

Canada Elections Act
In view of the discussion we had last year, I took very special note of the voting in the recent Ontario provincial election, particularly with regard to advance polls. We all know, I believe, that in Ontario the privilege of voting at advance polls is very much the same as proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur. In other words, any person who is otherwise qualified to vote, and who has reason to believe he will not be present in the riding on polling day has the right to apply for and receive a ballot at the advance polls. There is no class of persons specified and there is no limitation on the persons who may vote. If a voter has good reason for believing he will be absent, then he may vote. I also noted during the provincial election that there did not seem to be any great rush of voters to the advance polls; there did not seem to be any snarls. I must say that I, myself, took advantage of the opportunity of voting at the advance poll in my home town when it appeared that I would be absent in Ottawa. I was rather pleased to have the opportunity of seeing how the voting was carried out and how it would work out if we used the same provision in federal elections. I certainly was unable to see any objection to it.
There have been objections raised to enlarging the class of persons who may vote at advance polls. One such objection is that too many people would vote and that, in effect, we would have four polling dates instead of one. This seems to have been an objection raised by the electoral officials, and it is one which has been raised from time to time by other persons. We have a rule that there shall be one polling day in Canada, and the fear is that we might have more than one if a large number of persons were to vote at advance polls. Certainly the experience in the past has not indicated that would happen in federal elections. The experience in the last provincial election has not indicated there would be that large number of persons voting so that there would be, in any way, an infringement of the rule against more than one polling day. I observed that the D.R.O. and the poll clerk seemed to have plenty of time to handle the votes, and in fact could have handled a great many more without any difficulty. For these reasons, I feel that this objection would not be valid.
I have heard it stated that enlarging the advance poll provision might make an election more expensive. This may be true to a very slight extent. I would imagine more forms would have to be printed, and so forth, but I cannot see that such a provision would necessitate any additional polls being established. The present provision for advance poll and those who present themselves the 
advance poll staff could handle three, four or five times as many voters as they do. I cannot see that any great increase in expense would be required.
There has not yet been sufficient time to analyse the results of the advance polls in Ontario during the recent election. From what I have been able to learn from electoral officials and others, I would say that no great difficulty was experienced and a lot more people could have been handled if they had appeared.
In so far as the hours of voting are concerned, the present act requires that the polls shall be open from two o'clock in the afternoon until ten o'clock in the evening. I am prepared to agree that this provision is proper and that there is no reason for changing it. I think that many people who are going to be away on voting day are people who would work during the day and who would have to have the privilege of voting in the evening in order to take any advantage of advance poll arrangements.
I should like to discuss for a moment the actual days when the advance poll should be held. I have done a great deal of thinking about this matter since it was raised last year and also since it was raised recently in the committee on privileges and elections. There are really three possible days or three possible sets of days on which the advance poll could properly be held. As proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur, the poll would be held on Friday and Saturday, the tenth and the ninth days before polling day. I said last year-and I am still of the same opinion-that this is quite a long time before polling day on which to hold the advance poll. It has, however, the advantage of including Saturday; and I think Saturday is an important day on which to hold an advance poll. Those who will be away during the week on voting day will have the advantage of voting on Saturday and I think that is essential.
We could also have the advance poll held as at present, namely on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday immediately preceding the polling day on Monday. Last year when the matter was discussed I felt that these were preferable dates and I still think so. I think this is the case in view of the fact that the actual number of people who will vote should not increase too much merely because of enlarging the class of people who may vote.
There is the difficulty that the advance poll is very close to the polling date and that if any cross-checking of lists is to be done as between those who have voted at the advance poll and those who present themselves the

following Monday it certainly does not leave much time for checking lists from the time when the advance poll closes on Saturday night until the time when the regular poll opens on Monday.
There is a third possibility which I should like to put forward and which I think would be worthy of consideration, namely that the advance poll might be held on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the seventh, sixth and fifth days before the polling date. This time would appear to be most suitable. It is in accordance with the practice in Ontario and it is a reasonable time before polling day. It allows three days in which lists may be cross-checked, if such cross-checking is required, and it still is not too close to the voting day. The only difficulty with regard to Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday is that there is no Saturday voting date and there may be a class of persons who cannot vote on the Monday because they are away working and who would still be away on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the previous week. I think the actual voting day is a subject that could very well be considered in the committee on privileges and elections. But pending any such decision I would feel that the present date-that is, Thursday, Friday and Saturday before polling date-would be the most suitable one.
The privileges and elections committee is now discussing the whole situation with respect to the elections act. However, the committee is at the moment considering only those suggestions that have been made by the chief electoral officer, ft is rather interesting to note that the chief electoral officer has not recommended any changes in the advance polling arrangements. What is being discussed-and what he has proposed-is mainly a series of procedural changes brought about to tighten up the provisions of the act and to prevent certain fraudulent and improper practices that prevailed as a result of two certain elections in recent times. I believe these amendments are suitable and will be adopted.
However, owing to the late date on which the election act was referred to the committee, the whole consideration of the act has not been undertaken and probably it will not be undertaken at this session. I am hopeful that next year the privileges and elections committee will have the act referred to it in its entirety and that we shall have broader terms of reference so that the act can be studied and revised throughout in preparation for the next general election.
I would also hope that next year the committee would be set up earlier so that it can get at this most important amendment and
Canada Elections Act
take some time at it. One of the difficulties of this committee this year has been that we were late in starting. We have been competing with a large number of other committees for attendance and it has been most difficult to get down to a serious discussion of the broader terms of the elections act. I think there is no point in referring the present bill to a committee at this session, particularly the privileges and elections committee. I know it is the intention at the next session to consider advance polling arrangements along with various other substantive changes in the act. If the bill should come to a vote today I would vote in favour of it because with the principle of it I am entirely in agreement. However, I do not think that this is a case where any particular advantage would be gained by bringing the bill to a vote.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house this afternoon is one of those hardy perennials that appear on the order paper from year to year. It is inevitable, of course, that all hon. members should be interested in the subject matter of the bill, namely increasing the interest and the percentage of the electors participating in our regular federal elections. One of the problems of democratic government is, the tendency for a large percentage of the voting population to be lukewarm in their interest in the electoral process. In recent years from time to time we have had drawn to our attention the fact that a relatively small number of voters, as compared with the total possible, exercise their franchise. In the past two federal elections there has been an encouraging increase in that percentage; but as we get down to the lower levels of government, particularly to the level of local government, we find that there has been unfortunately a declining interest. I think the hon. member for Port Arthur who is responsible for sponsoring the present bill before us is to be congratulated, because it is an attempt to deal with a small segment of the general difficulties arising from the operation of our democratic process.
In addition to the solution proposed-and I will go into further details in regard to the suggestion of enlarging the opportunities for advance polling-there are other ways and means of increasing interest in the electoral process and encouraging our voting population to exercise their franchise. In some countries, for example, resort has been made to the system of compulsory voting. I am always interested to hear comments from the chief electoral office in regard to suggested reforms of this kind. Our chief electoral officer for Canada is a man of vast experience.

Canada Elections Act
As a matter of fact, the post has been in the one family for two generations. The present incumbent worked alongside his father in that post and acquired all the experience of his father in that position, and now he carries on on his own from that broad perspective. In the recent meetings of the committee on privileges and elections it is interesting to note-and the previous speaker referred to this fact-that the chief electoral officer, the one who understands thoroughly the operations of our election machinery, is rather lukewarm to major reforms even of the kind indicated in the bill before us. With reference to the suggestion of compulsory voting, of course the major objection is that it is contrary to the spirit of the free exercise of the right to ballot, the right to exercise the franchise.
We have had other suggestions from time to time from members who have been subjected to the electoral process on one occasion or another. There is a feeling abroad today that we would create a broader interest in our federal elections if we shortened the duration of time occupied by elections. The modern means of communication and the improvement in the mass media of publication make it possible to put the issues much more quickly and effectively before the electorate, with the result that a long, drawn-out election period seems to dull the enthusiasm rather than increase the interest of the voter. These are merely two additional methods that have been proposed from time to time to encourage greater interest in the electoral process and to help in some measure to overcome the apathy that is unfortunately all too common in the responsibilities of democratic citizenship.
Coming specifically to the subject matter of Bill No. C-10, the suggestion that the privileges of advanced polling be broadened is one of the reforms that I think most obviously occurs to the candidate who has had at least one election experience. It has been my privilege to have stood for election during four campaigns. I recall in the first campaign that one of the most distressing reactions I received from the electorate in my constituency were the urgent complaints on election day that they had been involuntarily disenfranchised because of the restricted advanced polling privileges. As a newcomer to the political field I immediately made my protest in the only form available at that time-letters to the chief electoral officer. I have been interested to note as I have gathered more experience in campaigning that one of the most frequent and common complaints presented to the chief electoral officer is this one of the restricted advanced polling privilege. But the more experience acquired

in the field, the more one becomes aware that it is not so easy of solution as first glance would indicate.
I think the most glaring recent experience of the inequities of the restrictions occurred during the famous summer election of 1953, I believe it was, when the election occurred for the first time in many years on August 10. The date, of course, came at the peak of the Canadian holiday season and there was a great barrage of complaints from Canadians who were absent from their constituencies and were unable to cast their ballot. An interesting group in this class were teachers, who usually take a most active part in our democratic process. They found themselves studying at various universities across the country, taking summer courses to improve their qualifications in the teaching profession, and they were most incensed to discover that they could not exercise their franchise during that important election. At that time, being intelligent citizens keenly aware of public issues, they got together and made a concerted protest over the problem that this bill attempts to deal with. I imagine that subsequent to that occasion there was more discussion on this point in the House of Commons than we have had in a good many years.
I think the sponsor of this bill has laid this fact down as the main reason for the reform, and that is the increased mobility of our population under modern conditions of living. It is not uncommon to find segments of the Canadian population hundreds of miles away from the various constituencies during election period. This arises from the improved means of transportation as well, of course, as from the great expanse of geography in Canada.
While there is a solid case for a reform of this kind, and most hon. members who have spoken in the debate have generally expressed their support for the principle, there are some real technical problems arising from changes in the operation of the electoral machinery which have caused the chief electoral officer, the authority on these matters, to have rather a negative opinion as to its effectiveness. The problem of setting up a sufficient number of advance polls to cater adequately for voters in our larger constituency areas is one that must cause serious second thoughts. The privilege of voting at advance polls would, of course, have to be extended universally, if at all, and some of the areas involved cover hundreds of miles. The provision of adequate advance poll facilities would obviously mean a considerable financial outlay. In my own constituency, which is an average western prairie constituency, we have two advance polls only, and even in present circumstances

the distances involved are great enough to disenfranchise some of those who would otherwise be interested in casting their ballots.
Then, too, we must consider another difficulty, namely that all the issues would, probably, not be presented to the voters before the day of the election. In my experience in four election campaigns I found that very often the last two days before the election were the crucial days. The most successful campaigns are those which begin slowly and build up to a climax on the eve of the election. Sometimes basic issues are withheld until the final days, or even hours of the campaign for the specific purpose of stimulating interest in the election and reaching the climax of the campaign just at the precise psychological moment. These are all matters which have to be taken into consideration when we are contemplating making amendments to the Canada Elections Act as purposed in Bill No. C-10.
Returning to my original theme, I take it that the sponsor of this measure has as his main purpose in proposing the amendment a desire to increase the turn-out of the electorate at the polls, a desire to make it possible for every Canadian to exercise his franchise. If that were the basic motivation behind this amendment, the present bill would, of course, have only a relatively small impact on this problem, because even with extended advance poll facilities there would still be a large number of voters in Canada who would not be able to exercise their right to vote. That situation arises mainly because of increased mobility. The present arrangements restrict advance poll privileges to a relatively short period of time. As has been said by the former speaker, it might be desirable, if the house contemplates proceeding with amendments of this kind, to change the present days prior to the election in which it is possible to vote at an advance poll-to advance it by several days. Even this, of course, would exclude some people who might be absent from their constituencies at that particular time.
One way of approaching this problem might lie in extending absentee voting privileges. All members of the armed forces who served overseas during the second world war will recall that absentee voting was carried out efficiently in all parts of the world. For example, I remember casting my ballot in the city of Cairo in the election of 1945 which, I believe, took place in June of that year, and I had no difficulty at all in obtaining information concerning the candidates and their qualifications. The principle of absentee voting has been established in connection with
Canada Elections Act
the armed forces and if the technical difficulties were overcome its more general adoption would increase to a substantial extent the ability of Canadians to participate in elections no matter where they were on election day.
This matter, together with the general subject of amendments to polling privileges, has been under discussion in the committee on privileges and elections. The previous speaker indicated that this committee, of which I happen to be a member, got under way at rather a late date in the parliamentary session, with the result that we will not be able to come to grips with some of the complexities of this subject. However, there is still ample time before another election to investigate thoroughly these proposals. It is my wish and hope that during the next parliamentary session considerable time will be taken in examining the proposals of the chief electoral officer in this regard and in examining the implications of amendments such as this which we have before the house this afternoon. I say this because I think it is vitally important that this house should make it possible, as far as we are physically able within the restrictions of the electoral machinery, for every Canadian who desires to do so to cast his ballot.


Mr. A. R. Webster (St. Antoine-Weslmount):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very wise practice to review and, if necessary, amend the Canada Elections Act every ten years, otherwise we shall probably be stuck with a lot of outdated rules and regulations which would not coincide with the changes in the manner in which we are trying to live. At the present time I understand the committee on privileges and elections is holding meetings, and although this year the committee started a little late I have no doubt that when the report comes in it will contain several proposals, some of which will possibly have to do with advance polls.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) when he was explaining the bill and my reaction to this proposed legislation is somewhat along the following lines. If the privilege of voting at an advanced poll were extended to include all the people who are entitled to vote instead of just to restricted classes as at present such as commercial travellers, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, fishermen and others, we would require a greatly increased number of advance polls.
If I may become personal for a moment I should like to refer to my own constituency of St. Antoine-Westmount where we had one advance poll in the last two federal elections. If the privilege of voting at advance

Canada Elections Act
polls were extended to all eligible voters the number of polls required in each constituency would vary. Approximately ten advance polls would be required in my constituency. I am doubtful however, that they would serve any great purpose. Approximately thirty votes were cast at the advance poll in my riding in the last two elections. It seems to me that the extension of this privilege would result only in increased expenditures for the crown without serving any great need. It is true that my constituency is urban and it may be that rural ridings would require a different set-up to take care of the matter.
Another consideration is that if this proposed bill were to become law, instead of a general election lasting one day it would last perhaps three days. Most of us are nervous enough having to sustain a one-day election and I do not know how we could suffer through an election lasting three or four days.
My understanding of the act as it now stands is that it requires a returning officer to notify the deputy returning officer as to the number of people who have voted at the various polls. The extension of the privilege proposed by this bill would put a considerably increased load on the shoulders of the returning officers in ensuring that all the deputy returning officers have been notified and that there are no cases of fraud, intentional or not.
I understand that advance polls exist in Ontario for the benefit of any voter and that in introducing this innovation the number of advance polls had to be increased from approximately 240 to approximately 1,100. This was an expensive propositon. As the result of the increase in advance polls the province of Ontario managed to merely double the number of voters from approximately 5,000 to approximately 10,000. This would appear to be an indication that the public is not much interested in having this privilege. The people who do not want to vote are not going to vote in any event and I do not know that we are right in worrying too much about them. I might say that the figures I used for the purposes of this illustration were taken not from the election held on June 11 last but from the previous one. The figures concerning the June 11 election are not available as yet.
I would suggest that instead of advance polls it would be much better if it were possible to establish a permanent election list so that everyone could have, as it were, a voting credit card or something of that nature and thus a voter from Halifax could vote in Vancouver at an advance poll. It is true that if this suggestion were implemented

it would cost in the neighbourhood of $4 million or $5 million to maintain the list up to date, but it is perhaps deserving of consideration. One disadvantage I can readily see is that there would be a delay in obtaining election results. One would have to wait for ten days or two weeks before the full results came through. The armed services have an absentee voting arrangement but they begin voting three weeks before the general public and despite that early start there is a delay of a week or more in tabulating and returning the results.
I suppose it is trite to say that the privilege of voting is one given to all citizens of Canada who have reached age 21 and that we should not stand in the way of anyone exercising his right to vote no matter what it cost the country but I think we sometimes are inclined to go a little too far in the direction of allowing people to take advantage of statutory provisions that are laid down and perhaps we should encourage them to take the initiative with respect to the basic freedoms.
As I say, approximately 30 votes were cast at the one advance poll in my riding in the last two elections and on the basis of my observations I fail to see how the proposed bill would serve to increase the number of votes cast to any valid degree in proportion to the total cost not only in dollars but in the expenditure of man-hours and energy. It was suggested by some previous speakers that the advance polls be opened a week or ten days in advance. This would give you less time in which to conduct your election. There is already talk of attempting to shorten elections but if the time were reduced to five or six days it would not give a candidate very much time in which to place his views before the people.
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Montmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to state my position with regard to the matter raised by consideration of bill C-10 now before the house. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I regret that, because of the limited time at my disposal, I shall not be able to go into any details.
However, I want to tell this house that the franchise is obviously a sacred right, one on which our whole democratic system rests, and any legislation designed to promote the exercise of that right should obviously be encouraged by those very people who represent the nation. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, you will realize that, if we have the franchise, we should also consider it our responsibility to avail ourselves of this right, and that the exercise of a duty necessarily implies some degree of personal sacrifice.

Bill C-10 tends to promote the use of the right to vote, but there are, nevertheless, car-tain technicalities to observe when carrying out such duty. Therefore, I wonder how we can go about establishing a large number of advance polls throughout the country unless certain restrictions are imposed in respect of the exercise of franchise. Obviously a privilege is always granted for very special reasons or in extraordinary circumstances.
For instance, there are advance polls for commercial travellers, for seafarers, for fishermen or railway employees. Those people's life-work force them to be away from their home for long periods of the year. It is therefore reasonable that the law should grant them some special privilege in the exercise of their franchise. However, as far as the citizens of this country in general are concerned, I think we should think twice before passing a bill like the one introduced this afternoon.
In brief, this legislation provides that for some reason or other, a citizen should have the privilege of voting in an advance poll.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I think that if we approve such a bill, without further specifying the reason which a voter who wants to avail himself of his franchise might put forward, we might run into complications that might be very hard to get around, and, in addition, as mentioned by the previous speaker, because many rural ridings in Canada are so large, the establishment of advance polls would give rise to a good number of technical difficulties and also mean a tremendous expense.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the committee responsible for studying part of the Canada elections act should continue its research work so as to determine more clearly the elements of this bill while not losing sight of the fact that we should encourage Canadian citizens, whatever their country of origin, to use their franchise and thus actually share in their country's government. Moreover, those technicalities should be clearly set out and the privilege only be granted for very special reasons and in extraordinary circumstances which, I think, should be defined in the bill.
(Text):


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am in general agreement with the intent of this bill. I
Canada Elections Act
have spoken on this matter in the house before. I have in my election campaigns found people who were deprived of their franchise through no fault of their own. They had to go to hospital. In one case I know of, an auditor was accompanying his salesman. If he had had a letter saying that he was a salesman he could have voted, but he could not; he was an auditor. Therefore, he did not vote but the salesman did.
As far as the expense referred to by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Webster) is concerned, I checked in my own riding on the advance poll which was open for two days between the hours of two and ten p.m., and there was hardly anybody coming in. The total advance poll would have been about 150 and they could easily have taken care of eight times that number. Therefore, although there might necessarily be more advance polls set up in a riding, I do not think it would be of the order of the magnitude that the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount indicated.
I do agree with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere) when he said that expense is not the criterion in regard to whether a person should have the right to exercise his franchise or not. Parliament is an expensive institution. In many ways it is an inefficient institution; but the people of Canada and the people of the western world are willing to pay the monetary price to have parliament because through parliament they have democratic government. Therefore, it is not a question of how much it will cost but it is a question as to whether we are depriving any citizen of a right which is his and which any government should be most anxious to maintain and to make it possible for that citizen to exercise that right if he wishes to do so.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Musko-ka (Mr. Aiken) did point out that the time- and this is one place where I find myself in disagreement with the bill-at which the advance polls are held is on the tenth and ninth days before the regular polling day. I assume that is because in many ridings the returning officer has to send the lists to the deputy returning officers, and give time for those lists of people who have used the advance poll to get into the hands of the deputy returning officers. It does seem to be an excessive length of time.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being six o'clock the house will now revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

Unemployment Insurance Act UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT



AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE RATES OF REMUNERATION AND CONTRIBUTIONS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-43, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act-Mr. Starr-Mr. Rea in the chair.	.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Chairman, I understand that your watch establishes the fact I have but 2J minutes to go, and as we are in committee and I shall have the opportunity of speaking further if I think there is occasion so to do, I thought I would simply say to the Minister of Labour that if he has any questions which he wishes to put to me now I would be only too anxious to try to deal with them. I would not want him to believe that I was discourteous today, but I was anxious to have as consecutive an argument as possible.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Essex East was speaking I availed myself of the opportunity to ask him a question as to what happened in 1950 when he was the acting minister who piloted the unemployment insurance amendments through the house to bring the seasonal workers under the act? This had the effect of increasing the rate by 15 per cent, without any consultation with the advisory committee.


Murdo William Martin: In answer to the hon. gentleman, I would simply say, and I would underline that he himself has mentioned I was at that time a parliamentary assistant, I think, to the minister of labour, or perhaps I was acting minister, I forget which. In any event, I was acting in the place of the minister of labour who for one reason or another was not available at that time. Whether or not he had consulted the advisory committee, I do not know. I certainly had not. I was simply charged with the responsibility of piloting the measure in the house.
I would say, however, by way of additional reply, that the introduction of seasonal benefits by a Liberal administration was followed on that particular occasion, as on three others, by the replenishment of the fund from the consolidated revenue account. It is true that the amounts were not at all comparable with those which confront the hon. gentleman in this day of heavy unemployment. I can only say in answer to that, of course, that while we
[The Deputy Chairman.]
were in office there was not the high level of unemployment and consequently not the same necessity of providing seasonal benefits on so large a scale.


Michael Starr: Is it not a fact, Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the hon. member, that in that instance the fund was not replenished from the consolidated revenue fund, but was later replenished by increasing the contribution, in some cases as high as 50 per cent in certain categories, and that during all the years the fund was in existence all that was put into the fund from the consolidated revenue fund was an amount in the neighbourhood of $1,800,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Which represented the amount of seasonal benefits paid out.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon hon. members saw the hon. member for Essex East wind up his remarks and they thought they saw a pretty good show. However, let me tell hon. members in the committee this evening that they saw nothing to compare with what we saw as members of the industrial relations committee.


Mr. Robichaud:: Was it drafty?


William Heward Grafftey: I admit I am a comparative newcomer to this place. Just about the time I began to think perhaps we could use committees in a bipartisan sense, and that perhaps committees would be a good place in which we could examine legislation and estimates on a bipartisan basis, I was proved wrong, because out of the wings came the hon. member for Essex East who proved my approach was a hollow one.
This afternoon the hon. member for Timis-kaming made some remarks and cast some aspersions on the chairman of the industrial relations committee. He made certain accusations. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that the difficulties caused in that committee were caused, in my frank and sincere opinion, by the longest series of diabolical political behaviour I have ever seen in my life. Before that committee came expert witness after expert witness. Were they asked questions? No, Mr. Chairman; we had a series of statements, one after the other. We had top experts from the Department of Finance. We had top experts from civilian agencies. We had top experts from the Department of Labour. However, statement after statement was made. Up went the strawmen. Up went the smokescreens, and all of a sudden there came the heat from the hon. member for Hull and the strawman caught on fire. His pompous forensics got so heated that they often burnt the logic out of the fabric of his diatribe.
I should like to say this about the few remarks made by the hon. member for Essex

East. I should like to return the sincere compliment he paid to me, and in all sincerity too. He said that outside the political arena he held me in a certain amount of affection. This feeling, I will say sincerely, is mutual. It is mutual for a very good reason, because I regard the hon. member opposite as the only true politician on the front benches of the opposition. I have often wondered whether the hon. member for Laurier was running the seaway or was in the political arena. The same holds true with regard to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I often wondered whether he was advising the Right Honourable Mackenzie King in the privy council or whether he was in politics. This is not true of the hon. member for Essex East; for from beginning to end, he is a true politician, and I cannot help but admire him for it.
The hon. member for Essex East, Mr. Chairman-I admit I am getting a little off the point but I shall be right back-in his conversations with me often wonders why the youth of this country left the Liberal fold. He made that remark in a speech the other day. Well, in the industrial relations committee, he made such remarks-


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I think the Chair is being quite lenient in this personality discussion, but we are discussing Bill No. C-43.


William Heward Grafftey: I was only going to refer to the fact that at one time or another during the committee hearings the younger members of the government were called schoolboys; told to please be quiet; to stop this juvenalia-I thought it was relevant.
Now, the time has come to deal with the merits of the actual bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah!


William Heward Grafftey: We have heard a lot of remarks by hon. members opposite, but let us flip the coin over for a moment because I feel certain there is another side to it. The hon. member for Essex East said that this legislation was going to help nobody. Last night the hon. member for Hull tried to leave the general impression that no brief which was brought before the committee was in favour of the proposed legislation. Mr. Chairman, such is not the case. I would be the first member to admit that many of the briefs disagreed with this proposed legislation in detail, but I would be the last to swallow the arguments of the hon. member for Hull. The hon. member for Essex East said that every brief that was before us was, holus-bolus, against this legislation, but such is not the case.


An hon. Member:: Name one?
Unemployment Insurance Act


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member said this proposed legislation is not going to help anybody. He has neglected to mention the extended benefit period. He has neglected completely to mention the new class of wage earners who will be benefited by this legislation. But there is an apparent contradiction in the arguments of the hon. member for Essex East.
First of all, in the beginning of his speech he told this house that the proposed legislation is going to help nobody, that it is going to help none of the working force of Canada. Then in his analysis he went on to say and admit-although I am not ready to agree with the figures he arrived at-that the labourers of this country will be helped to the tune of approximately $25 million. While we were in opposition we had the old tune of Mr. Howe "What's a million?". Now we have the tune of the hon. member for Essex East "What's $25 million?".
I should like to return to another point. In 1950 legislation similar to this legislation that we have before the house was passed quickly. We never even talked about it in committee. The hon. member for Essex East well knows that that legislation was shoved through quickly by parliament. It was not even submitted to a committee, let alone there being a committee calling for briefs from private agencies. Yet it was legislation similar to this. Let me hark back to remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East in 1950 when similar legislation was being discussed in the House of Commons. He said:


Paul Joseph James Martin: My information is that there is about $17 million in cash, for obvious purposes, and that the rest is in government securities. That is a trust account. That is the way it should be. That is the way the act provides it should be, and there is no intention on the part of anyone that it should be treated otherwise. That money belongs to those for whom it is held in trust; and I know that no one would want to give the impression that the situation is not as I have stated it.
Today we hear quite a different story, do we not, Mr. Chairman in comparison with their behaviour back in 1950. The present government in committee has consulted with the committee itself and with civilian or private agencies.
There is another smokescreen, another strawman that was whipped up in the air, although I notice that it was not raised in the house today for obvious reasons. The opposition in this committee kept asking for information. They tried to give the people of this country the impression that we were withholding information. Mr. Chairman, I ask them this question now, as we all asked them from the government side of the committee: What information was withheld from

Unemployment Insurance Act hon. members opposite which they wanted to have and did not have? This question was put repeatedly. It was not answered and I rather suggest that it is going to stay unanswered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has asked a question and I should be glad to answer it. The information that was denied us was the information that could have been supplied if we had been given the opportunity of interrogating the members of the advisory committee to the unemployment insurance commission.


William Heward Grafftey: I suggest to the hon. member for Essex East that a good part of the membership of this advisory committee had resigned. Had we requested them to appear before the committee we would only have been requesting management to attend and I feel that such a procedure would have been a gross injustice. What the hon. member for Essex East wanted was the minutes. What hon. members opposite really wanted was the minutes of the unemployment insurance advisory committee, a privileged document. Moreover, there would have been found in those minutes no information that was not in the report that was tabled a long time ago.
Then we have another strawman, another smokescreen and this one really caught fire. Do you know what it was, Mr. Chairman? I will tell you. Here is what it was. The hon. member for Essex East tried to give the impression that we were really overburdening the employers and the employees of this nation. Oh, this was a terrible thing, according to him. Why? I will tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members opposite, in past years during the Liberal administration, when things really became tough with the unemployment insurance fund, said that they came to the rescue of it by whopping big transfers from consolidated revenues. I thought that might have been a good point so on my own behalf I did a little bit of investigating and do you know what I found? Do you know what these whopping big transfers were? In a fund that sometimes reached practically $1 billion, the whopping big transfers amounted to $1,800,000. That is the way in which they came to the rescue of the workers of this country. Let us keep the record straight and things in proper proportion.
Mr. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada, appeared before this committee. By hon. members opposite he was subjected to exactly the same treatment as that accorded to other witnesses: no questions. Here we had one of the senior civil servants of this country appearing before a committee in order to help us make legislation for the
[Mr. Grafftey.l
benefit of the workers of this country and what did we have? We had one political statement after another from hon. members opposite. Up went the strawman; up went the smoke. It all caught on fire and chaos reigned. Then they have the temerity to tell us that the chairman allowed things to get out of order. The hon. member for Essex East was wily but I suggest that there are two sides to every story. I hope I am exposing the other side now.
They talked about losses in the unemployment insurance fund. I suggest that they talked about losses before they were ever realized and that they arrived at the calculation of these losses, even in the face of the expert testimony given by Mr. Coyne of the Bank of Canada, without taking into account any interest gained from the bonds. I suggest that that is another side of the coin which they might have looked at.
In analysing the position of Mr. Coyne on this investment committee hon. members opposite tried to point out that his position was incompatible. I think it was an interesting argument and I am going to try to discuss it in as cool and objective a way as possible. They tried to point out to the committee that his position on the investment committee of the unemployment insurance fund was incompatible with his job as a senior adviser to the Minister of Finance. I should like to point this out to you, Mr. Chairman. Time and time again Mr. Coyne told the committee that a fund of this nature could not be considered outside the principles of sound national debt management.
But I was not surprised because this is not the first time that hon. members opposite have tried to divide labour's interest from the national interest. I well remember sitting in that committee when one of the hon. members opposite said this, "Mr. Chairman, we have heard the brief of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Tomorrow we shall hear the other extreme, the other side of the story". I say that the attitude here is wrong. Hon. members opposite went into that committee and tried to show the people of Canada that they were the champions of labour and that we, by this legislation in particular and by our attitude in general, were against labour. Such is not the case, Mr. Chairman. That is part of their game of divide and rule. As everyone well knows, this government has created a marvellous atmosphere of co-operation between management and labour and in turn between management, labour and government. In the future I should like all members of this house to refrain from trying to use measures of this type for political purposes and for political gain. I would have

thought that bipartisanship should have been underlined in touching upon measures of this nature.
Mr. Chairman, remark after remark was made in the committee, as it has already been made in the house during the debate, to the effect that since this party came to power the fund has gone into a terrible decline. The first question I put to hon. members opposite is this. Would they suggest that the government should have withheld payments from the unemployed men in Canada during the recent recession? I ask that question because, let us be frank, forthright and sincere, that is the major and only reason why there was a drain on the fund. But we were told that since we came to power there has been a terrible decline in the fund. We were told this in spite of the expert testimony we were given by officials of the Department of Labour, who told us in their report that the per capita value of this fund started declining back in 1953 and 1954. Another straw man burned.
I think it is obvious why this legislation has been brought forward. I am not going to get caught up in what I call a philosophical argument as to whether it is a welfare or an insurance fund. I put the question on repeated occasions to witnesses who appeared before the committee, and even they were not clear in their thinking. No more do I feel should I get into a debate at this point as to what constitutes putting the fund on a sound actuarial basis. Admittedly many of the briefs brought before the committee, which I think treated the matter logically, did suggest that those parts of the fund which smacked of welfare notions perhaps should be handled under a separate management; and the Minister of Labour repeatedly replied to hon. members on the committee that this question was being given careful, active and fast consideration by his department. I would suggest that especially when the government pays the administrative costs of this fund it will be difficult to determine when, how and if you can put it on a sound actuarial basis. This is only a personal observation, but it is more than an insurance fund; it is an insurance-welfare fund, and I think we should be realistic and regard it as such.
I would like to say it is my view that, if the committee was not subjected to such a long filibuster this legislation would have been passed long ago ;find the workers of this country would long ago have been able to take benefit of the 52 week period. But such is not the Case. I suggest we saw in that committee one of the all-time great political filibusters, and I think it is about time the workers of this country knew. I would say again to the hon. member for Essex East
Unemployment Insurance Act that he asked us to get witnesses before this committee in their capacity as members of the U.I.C. advisory committee. He knew as well as I did that a good part of this committee had resigned and we would only have been able to call the management side of that committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about Mr. McLean?


William Heward Grafftey: What was that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about Mr. McLean, the representative of the railway brotherhood?


William Heward Grafftey: What about him?


Murdo William Martin: We would have liked to call him as a continuing member representing labour.


William Heward Grafftey: Such obviously did not seem to be the case, Mr. Chairman. Many propositions were advanced by the hon. member for Essex East. I would like to make a confession before hon. members of the committee right now. I was not able to follow his figures. I tried hard. Maybe I am slow at catching on, but by the time he got in and out, in and out, and then round and about, I was lost. At any rate, some of the figuring I have here on one of the plans he advanced before the committee showed that a saving would be made to the employers of approximately $28 million. This seems strange to me on the part of one who was trying to court the labour vote in this committee. He seemed to mention the briefs of the Canadian chamber of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Canadian Construction Association, but not too much mention was made for the case of labour.


Mr. Benidickson:: What about the united auto workers and the C.C.L.?


William Heward Grafftey: I know the Minister of
Labour would have liked to have this legislation go through quickly tonight, but I do feel that certain arguments and delaying actions were put forth by members opposite which most certainly had to be answered, and for that reason I claimed the floor this evening only to say that there is another side of the story. I sat on that committee and I sincerely feel that the workers and the employers of this country do not want taxes to go up by any hidden methods through taking funds out of the consolidated revenue. Unknown to hon. members opposite, the workers of this country are willing at all times to shoulder their responsibilities; they welcome this legislation as do the employers and the people of Canada, and for that reason I feel that it should commend itself to all hon. members of this house.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Ratelle:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in the debate on this bill. However, after listening to certain speeches by hon. gentlemen opposite, I thought it my duty to rise and state my views. I represent the riding of Lafontaine, which has a sizeable labour population in addition to people in other walks of life and I think I ought to say a few words tonight on this bill.
After I had read and re-read this bill, I heard the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) tell us that the working class, who are excellent people, recognized this legislation to be in their own best interests.
It is true that I do not represent the people of St. Hyacinthe nor, in particular, the working class of that riding. But I am speaking on behalf of the workers in my own riding.
I am the member for Lafontaine, but I have to represent in this house all the people in this country. When I sit here in the Commons, I am conscious of my responsibility. I know that when some issue arises in parliament, I have to face it as it is, with all its consequences. Therefore, when I cast my vote, I do so in all sincerity, in the best interest of the people of Lafontaine riding, as well as of all parts of Canada. Indeed, it is impossible to represent just one riding, even if we should attempt to safeguard the interests of the people who sent us here. The bill which has been submitted to this house must be considered on its merit with regard to the people of each province, and even more so when it does not favour the whole Canadian working class.
After listening to the hon. member. I feel I am in a position to tell him that he is ignoring the facts when he says that we wanted to delay the adoption of this bill. Besides, I disagree with him all the more because the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe knows perfectly well that the social measures introduced here in the house to help labour, such as the Unemployment Insurance Act, were indeed introduced by the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King.
You will probably say that, after the measure became law, amendments were made as needed to meet certain cases which could occur. But, when it is suggested that the Liberal members on this side of the house are delaying the adoption of a law which
[Mr. Grafttey.l
provides for the welfare of the population, I say: "No! you can't get away with that" because only the Liberal party, my hon. friend, from St. Hyacinthe, can introduce legislation to help labour. Furthermore, I challenge you to name one which has not been introduced for that purpose. So, now that you are part of the government, go ahead and introduce logical measures in the interest of the population and we will support them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Don't venture too far in that direction, because we might have something to say too.


J.-Georges Ratelle: Mr. Chairman, it was wrong to suggest any such thing. Moreover, what had been done for labour was being ignored when the members on the committee were refused all the required opportunity to gather the information necessary for a detailed study of the bill. Really, I could not make head or tail of the reasoning of the member for St. Hyacinthe when he tried to explain what happened when he was sitting on the committee.
Mr. Chairman, what is going on here at present seems to me very strange, especially since the Conservative party has been sitting on the other side of the house, not so much from a political standpoint as from a legislative standpoint.
When the Conservatives were on this side of the house, everything was allowed, and now that they are on the other side, nothing is allowed. But, good heavens, why doesn't the government accept our opinion when we have something significant to offer, as we used to do when we were on the other side? Isn't that so, Mr. Chairman? You were here and you know that under the Liberal administration, when the opposition suggested an amendment calculated to improve a bill, we accepted it. We did not act in a narrow partisan spirit, like the government members do now.
It is time to put a stop to this policy of strife because it is not in the public interest. The public needs protection, and if you do not protect the electors, tomorrow the electors will not protect you. It is time to put a stop to those fights that are not in the interest of the population.
I was telling you a while ago that I was astonished. Listening to the speech made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe this evening, I remembered the speech made on March 27, 1957 by the present Minister of

Finance (Mr. Fleming) during the budget debate for the fiscal year 1957-58 where-I only took a few notes,-as reported on page 2557 of Hansard for March 21, 1957, he criticized his predecessor. The then minister of finance, Mr. Harris, had predicted in 1956-57 a surplus of $112 million which at the end of the fiscal year increased to $382 million. However, taking into consideration the budget introduced by the present Minister of Finance and on the basis of the same expectations we are justified in believing that he will end the 1958-59 fiscal year with a $422 million deficit. If we had so much money, how is it that the deficit should be so high now and that we should be showing such heavy losses?
Mr. Chairman, if there was so much money in the fund and if, in spite of that we have become so poor, it is because unemployment has increased. However, I regret to say this, but that has not happened under a Liberal government and the Conservatives are responsible for it. I know what I am talking about because I have noticed that in my constituency and in the neighbourhood, an industry which had 6,000 employees on its payroll in March 1957, had only half as many by September of the same year. In another industry where there were 6,800 employees, there were only 2,000 a few months later. That has happened because those industries lost contracts they had held, and consequently, work had stopped. Therefore, it is time to react.
I must add that if the unemployment insurance fund is absolutely in need of aid- as I have already indicated during the debate on the speech from the throne, last year- the government must take care of it. I think the existing deficit should not be hidden, and should not be made up by contributions extracted from the employee and the employer. It should be divulged so that we may realize the full extent of the deficit of the unemployment insurance fund, and of the financial difficulties that this country must face.
I will be brief, because I do not like long speeches. But I think it is a pity that, after so many years of prosperity, there should be so much hardship, so many people destitute looking for work and unable to earn a living. I believe that we should draw the required money from the consolidated revenue fund, and not from the employer's and employee's pockets.
The time has come to put an end to it. That is my last word.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear! Hear!


J.-Georges Ratelle: But in heaven's name, let us put an end to this fratricidal strife and let
Unemployment Insurance Act us get together in helping out the poor people! Let us try to draft sensible legislation, in the best interest of society. If we were living in contentment in 1956-57, why should the years 1958-59 be years of discontent? Let reasonable legislative measures be introduced and if you ever happen to make a mistake, be honest about it, and we shall help you. But do not carry on as you do now.
Even if I am alone to do so, I will not support this Bill C-48 unless some amendment is introduced in favour of the employer and of the employee. I am prepared to do my very best, provided the government is sincere. I am the workers' servant, I know unions and I know their needs. I have never been in favour of paying $12,000 to someone who earns only $10,000, or $110 to a man who earns only $1,000. I have always supported the workers' fair and reasonable claims and I have fought for those people at the city hall. I even fought my own party for the sake of the working population whom I represent. As a candidate, I did not come forward as a labour man, but as a representative of labour, aware of the responsibilities of his mandate.
That is all I have to say tonight. For the common good of the people, I would like to see an end to all this strife, so that we can all lead a happier life.
(Text):


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I can
assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not intend to take up much of the time of the committee this evening, because there has been so little argument put up by the opposition that I am sure the committee will be ready to put this measure through without delay.
However, in the industrial relations committee we did receive a number of briefs, and I think it is only fair that something should be said about those briefs in answer to some of the representations which were made.
One of the big cries of the opposition has been that we should increase the contributions and that they should come out of the consolidated revenue fund but no argument has been put forward to support why this should be done. Hon. members of the opposition merely keep on screaming and raving in this respect hoping to create the impression that in their suggestions they are favouring labour. I think this represents a dangerous suggestion and during the course of my remarks I shall attempt to make a comparison between our unemployment insurance fund and the unemployment insurance fund of the United States where no

Unemployment Insurance Act proper contribution is made to that fund by employees. I shall offer this comparison in an endeavour to illustrate some of the dangers that can arise when the fund is not properly financed and is not paid into to a proper extent by the people who are going to benefit from it.
I have gone over the annual reports for the past three years and taken from there figures showing the contributions that have been made to the fund in Canada. In doing so I have been eager to ensure that my figures would be better than those we have been accustomed to hearing from the Martin bureau of statistics and to this end I have checked my figures with an adding machine. The contribution of the government for the three years 1956, 1957 and 1958 amounted to $197 million in round figures. I shall ignore the small amounts and express the figures to the nearest million. The three-year cost for administration and seasonal benefit was $184 million. In actual fact, then, the government has paid for the administration of the act and for seasonal benefits.
One of the arguments advanced has been that seasonal benefits have been a drain on the fund. That is the reason advanced for the government increasing its contribution from consolidated revenue. Another argument put forward was that the advisory committee made the recommendation that the government should increase its contribution. I dealt with this matter in the committee but I should like to bring it to the attention of hon. gentlemen now.
While the advisory committee is an admirable board and is able to offer advice to the unemployment commission on many matters it must be remembered that the board is made up of four members representing management and four members representing labour. When the witnesses from the Canadian Labour Congress were present in the committee I made the following suggestion. I said that if there was going to be a suggestion made that the burden should be taken from the employees and placed on the general taxpayers of the country, would they not agree that some representatives of the general taxpayers should be present in order to have some say in the matter? I indicated that I felt it was rather beyond the scope of the advisory committee to make a suggestion of that nature. Mr. Jodoin said that that is what the members of parliament are here dor, to protect the interests of the general taxpayers. That is why I make the suggestion now that the fund has to be properly paid into by those who are going to benefit from it.
In the United States the government makes no contribution whatever to the.fund:i They

have a tax of 3 per cent on all payrolls in the United States. Of that tax 0.3 per cent is taken for the administration of the fund so they pay nothing into it. As a result the United States legislation is not nearly as effective as ours. There are many reasons for this. In the first place the Canadian Labour Congress suggested that the ratio of the benefit to wages is not sufficient and that it should be approximately 60 to 75 per cent. In the United States, because employees do not pay a proper share of the fund, it has steadily been reduced and at the present time the ratio is only 30 per cent compared with 50 per cent in Canada.
I wish now to refer to a booklet entitled, "Comparison of State Unemployment Insurance Laws as of August 1954", a publication of the United States department of labour on page 72 of which we find the following:
Ten states have more specific provisions for reducing benefits in one or more respects when the fund falls below a specified amount or a specified ratio to benefit payments for a given period. California's is the most general of these provisions: if the commission determines that the fund will be unable, within six months, to pay probable benefit liabilities in full, it may, by rule, reduce or cease such payments.
Drawing the information from the above publication, let me point out some of the other actions that may be taken by various state governments in the United States whenever they see fit. They may reduce the minimum weekly benefit, reduce the duration of benefit, increase the waiting period, change the qualifying requirements, eliminate part of the benefits and reduce dependants' allowances. That is the sort of thing that happens when a fund is not properly financed.
A leading spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. member for Essex East, feels that many people under the act should be on some form of relief and should not be under the act at all. I believe he made that clear in his remarks this afternoon. I can see no reason for taking that attitude at the present time. The people that are included under the act in the present amendments are not going to be any detriment to the act. He could therefore have been referring only to those who have been covered by the act for some length of time. As I said in the committee I had rather hoped that the thought today would be that we wanted to give the Canadian people these benefits as a right and not have them given at the whim of a government which could change its mind or increase the benefits for election purposes and reduce them at another time. I am sure the people of this country do not want to go back to some1 system of relief which is the only alternative ,to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the Public Assistance Act?


John Ferguson Browne: That is only another form of relief. That is exactly what I believe the Canadian people do not want. They want something that will give them a guaranteed amount. The labour force as a whole wants to be assured that they will receive benefits when unemployed as a right and not at the whim of government.
As to the argument that all the briefs referred to were opposed to the present amendments I should like to dispel that idea at once because most of the briefs were in favour of the amendments or some of them-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: That is not true; none of them was.


John Ferguson Browne: Just hold on a minute. I said that they were in favour of most of the amendments. The only thing they did not want was to pay the increased contribution. I suggest that this is a natural position for them to take. Representations are made to parliament from time to time by various groups. Everybody wants something lowered. That is a natural attitude to assume. However, when I put the question directly to Mr. Jodoin as to whether he would prefer nothing at all or the opportunity of taking the present amendments as they were he said he certainly would take them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would my hon. friend show me the exact statement that Mr. Jodoin made and will he refer to the point Mr. Jodoin made in his brief in that very context, which was exactly the opposite?


John Ferguson Browne: I appear to have misplaced the reference for the moment but I can assure the hon. member it is in the committee proceedings. I will come across it in a moment.


Murdo William Martin: He said it was an iniquitous bill.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway give us the page?


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, I refer hon. gentlemen to page 216 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 6 of the standing committee on industrial relations dated Friday, May 29, 1959. I shall read from the evidence:


John Ferguson Browne: I understand that if we do not feel we could accede to the requests made by you, you would still prefer that the bill should go through?


Mr. Jodoin:: Certainly.
Those words appear in the centre of page
216. .
66968-9-304
Unemployment Insurance Act


Murdo William Martin: Would my hon. friend read what Mr. Jodoin said on that point in his own brief?


John Ferguson Browne: I have read directly from the report of the committee and the hon. member can examine it for himself. I suggest that he make his point afterwards.
What was the position Mr. Jodoin took? I think it is clearly indicated by what I have read. He said that he came here wanting certain things. He was making representations and it is natural that people representing labour and doing a good job on behalf of the working people of this country would try to get a better deal for them. Nevertheless these people realize that all these measures have to be paid for.


Murdo William Martin: What did Mr. Burt say?


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Burt did not appear before the committee, as I recall it.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Burt sent a telegram in which he stated his position.


An hon. Member:: Who is Mr. Burt?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Make your own speech.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. Hon. members are privileged to ask the member who has the floor a question but not to get into a debate. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


John Ferguson Browne: I just did not quite catch what the hon. member for Essex East said, but he was referring to Mr. Burt, I believe, and I also believe that Mr. Burt sent a telegram as a private individual. It was not sent on behalf of any organization. Mr. Burt is a very competent man but he is still one man. Apparently he did not have the support of his organization in making the representation.


Murdo William Martin: He had the support of his organization and you know it.


John Ferguson Browne: Just to show what I mean when I say it is natural that the Canadian Labour Congress would not want to pay more money, here is one of the suggestions taken from the official organ of the Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Labour of January, 1959. Here is what they had to say and why I think it would be natural that they would not want to pay any more money. This will show what I mean:
Some editorial comment on the statements made by the congress and by president Jodoin indicate that the congress has done nothing more than to criticize the government for its failure to meet the challenge of unemployment. The fact is, however,

Unemployment Insurance Act that, almost a year ago, at its meeting in February, 1958, the executive council of the congress gave special consideration to the problem of unemployment and outlined a positive program for action on national, provincial and municipal levels, as well as by employers and labour unions.
This was their recommendation to the federal government:
Among the proposals for action by the federal government was the provision of a greatly expanded program of public works: the provision of funds to subsidize housing and thus permit N.H.A. interest rates to be lowered, and the introduction of a budget which would reduce taxes to provide increased purchasing power.
In addition, the government was urged to increase unemployment insurance benefits and lengthen benefit periods for unemployment insurance; increase the federal share of unemployment assistance from 50 per cent to at least 75 per cent; increase old age pensions, family allowances, and other social security payments; raise farm purchasing power, and adopt a generous program of aid to underdeveloped countries.
We are getting along pretty well with this program but it is going to take a little more time. I think the general membership would realize that if we are going to do all these things we are going to pay a little more money to get them. This is my opinion from the contacts I have had with the average working people in my riding. The maximum amount that is going to be paid under this proposed scheme is 94 cents a week by way of contributions from the employee. This is the amount that will be paid by anybody who is making over $70 a week. I am quite satisfied that every working man in this country is quite willing to pay that amount to protect himself and get 52 weeks benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
One of the other matters which came up in the committee was the one which the hon. member for Timiskaming raised this afternoon, namely that there should be two funds and that some people should be taken out of this fund. I do not know how he is going to describe a seasonal worker. He indicated in the committee that seasonal workers should not be in this fund, although I have already pointed out the government pays more money into this fund than is necessary to cover the seasonal benefit and the administration of the act.
I went out the other day to the offices of the unemployment insurance commission and looked very carefully over the result of the operation of the fund in the last few years. At the committee I asked repeatedly who was described as a seasonal worker and we got varying answers. Some said fishermen; some said loggers. What I would like to know is where anybody would draw the line. I started to go down the list and I found that construction was very close. It was third behind the loggers and the
[Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Klngsway) .1
fishermen. It seems to me that if we started to follow that principle all down the line pretty soon we would be getting to the point where those who were working would not have to pay into the fund at all, and the end result would be that we would not have any Unemployment Insurance Act at all. That is the only conclusion one can come to. You are going to have to build up the fund. Obviously, there would be no sense in not having it because if we did not have it we would have to go back to some system of relief.
What I am pointing out is this. The opposition are presenting these arguments that the money should come from the consolidated revenue fund. They must know in their own minds that if the federal government started contributing to this fund as a welfare scheme it would not be very long until we would have people from one end of the country to the other demanding that there should be a means test. That is a thing the working people of this country do not want. They want to know that when they are out of work they are going to be protected as long as necessary. These representations were made to me in my own riding when I was home between sessions last year, that we should extend the benefits of the act.
I pointed out to the Canadian Labour Congress in Vancouver at that time that it was all very well to have this, because I was perfectly in favour of that, and I said, "We shall also have to increase the contributions". Nobody raised any objection at that time. I am sure they do realize the dangers of putting this thing on some sort of a welfare basis with the government doing all the contributing. They see the dangerous elements that I have referred to in the United States where the rates of benefits are lowered, where they are not even guaranteed any payment and where at the whim of the state government the payments can be cut off tomorrow. I am sure the working people of this country will be very well satisfied with the amendments we are putting through here.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to mention what the
C.L.C. has done in this country. Last year, when they made the announcement that they intended to get into the political field, they certainly perked up a couple of old parties in this country. I think there has been more attention paid to labour throughout this session than I have ever seen or read about before this parliament.
Before I come to my main remarks I should like to deal with one matter raised by the

hon. member who just resumed his seat. He was very careful to read one question and answer on the page from which he quoted, but he failed to go a little farther down the page. I think if he had gone a little farther down the page after the word "certainly" where he left off quoting from the minutes of the industrial relations committee he would have found this. Mr. Jodoin was asked another question by the hon. member for Cape Breton South who said, and I quote:
You are in favour, rather than seeing it dropped- you would rather see it go through as is?


Marianna Beauchamp Jodoin: We have indicated that there are some improvements. There is no question about that. For instance, from 36 to 52 and so on. But if a question were asked, pertinently and directly, whether we favoured it or not, my answer is that our position is clear by the suggested amendments we have made before you, and our position would be the same.
A little farther down he said:
I know that you favour answer of yes or no, but you cannot always answer in that way. You will realize that for obvious reasons.
Still further down he had this to say:
I might have another suggestion with respect to the bill; I think the term you used in the house is hoisting; the bill might be hoisted to give an opportunity to the advisory council, for instance, to make a complete study of it, and to come forward, perhaps with some other recommendations.


Murdo William Martin: Quite different.


Murdo William Martin: It gives an entirely different picture from the one given by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


William Heward Grafftey: Not much.


Murdo William Martin: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: From whose
remarks is the hon. member quoting?


Murdo William Martin: These are my own
remarks made on May 15, last year.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister has answered the question I asked last year, from what source is this money coming? We see the answer in this bill now before us. The money necessary for the implementation of the legislation passed last year is being charged to future contributions. I feel, that this action, along with the action taken last year, has contributed very greatly to the confusion that we see reigning in this country today. Probably it has had a good deal to do with the resignations of members from various government committees. In fact, this is just another in a series of confusing events that have been caused throughout this country by this government.
There has been confusion in the bond market. In spite of the brave words of our Minister of Finance, the last quotation I saw for the famous conversion bonds of last year was something like $90. Confusion has been caused throughout the country by the ever-climbing interest rate. Confusion exists with regard to defence in this country. Now, we have the answer to this problem in the bill before us, and the reaction of this government, as we see it, has certainly accomplished one end. We have the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Labour Congress both agreed on one thing. It is not very often that happens, Mr. Chairman, and it takes an action by this government before we can bring about that situation. We have all this demonstrated as well in the briefs presented by the various organizations.
What is the action of this government in the face of all this criticism, and in the face of all these suggestions by the various organizations representing the majority of the people in this country? Their answer is very simple. They say, we have a majority of 208 and we will put the measure through regardless of
4798	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act what anybody in this country thinks about it. We have three years left in which to patch up things before the next election. This action, along with the others I have mentioned, was mainly responsible for the phenomenon we saw last week. Certainly, if anything should make this government stop and think, that should, because apparently the people of this country are turning back to the Liberals. What a horrible thought! Even Tory Toronto is turning back to the Liberals-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Murdo William Martin: -for the first time in 22 years. That is something that should make this government stop and think.


Walter Clarence Henderson: All you need is another pillow to get right into bed with them.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think that if this government is going to carry out the job it should be doing it should remember just what this fund is. This is an unemployment insurance fund. I feel it is about time it was put back on an insurance basis or else the name should be changed. If you are going to change the terms of the measure, then you should change the name of it. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this government has caused enough confusion in this country. Is it not time to turn this fund back into a proper insurance fund and not try to make it into a glorified welfare fund? It should be put back on a proper basis, and instead of all this camouflage we see here, and in place of these amendments we have before us, some amendments should be introduced to look after the unemployed of this country better than they have been looked after in the past.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, there are some other aspects of this matter which, I believe, require discussion in this committee. It was indicated this afternoon that the unemployment insurance fund must be regarded, in every sense of the word, as a trust fund. We have had pointed out to us that when this government took office the unemployment insurance fund was over $800 million, and that at the present time, taking into account the securities in the unemployment insurance fund and their related market value, that fund is now under $400 million, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $350 million.
We are called upon to deal with a proposal for increasing the contributions made by three contributors, notably the employers and employees, largely because of the depleted Character of the fund. It is our duty and our responsibility to inquire why the fund has reached, to use the language of the advisory Committee, the perilous state in which it is

now to be found. Undoubtedly the main reason for the drain on the fund is the fact that during the past 18 months this country has experienced the highest level of unemployment since the days of 1930-35. While we are all happy in the thought that we did have a fund, created largely as a result of contributions by employers and employees, we all regret that circumstances, some of which were within the control of this government, have been such as to cause the fund to reach this present stage of dangerous depletion.
Not only is the fund in this dangerous state because of the heavy drain made on it during the past 18 months by a high level of unemployment but because, at the same time, there has been an obligation imposed on the government, and on parliament, to provide ways and means for the maintenance of unemployed workers and their families, unemployed workers who were no longer able to qualify for the normal unemployment insurance benefits. We sought in this parliament to give assistance to this group by seasonal benefits.
This practice, as the Minister of Labour pointed out earlier tonight when he interrogated me, had been established by the previous administration. However, the difference between the situation in that regard in relation to the fund under the previous administration and under the present government is that the former, on three distinct occasions when it did provide for assistance by way of what were called then supplementary benefits out of the fund, took occasion to replenish that fund out of consolidated revenue. This was done on three occasions. The Minister of Labour pointed out that this was done on the first occasion only in the amount of some one million and several hundred thousand dollars. That is true. But that situation arose because that was the extent of the replenishment that was then required. But as the Minister of Labour also knows, on the two subsequent occasions the amounts refunded to the fund were larger proportionately to the amounts paid out of the fund.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member tell us on what occasion there were these two extra supplements?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will look at my statement when we debated this matter on second reading he will find the exact amounts and the dates. I gave them then.


Michael Starr: Is it not true that all the money that was ever put from the consolidated fund into the insurance fund amounted to only $1,800,000 which is correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I regret to say that my hon. friend is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen say "Oh, oh". Of course, if they can point out that I am wrong, I shall be happy to be shown. However, in my statement in chief I have given the three occasions, the dates and the amounts.


Thomas Miller Bell: One occasion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend the hon. member for Saint John-Albert who is an authority on this matter, says "one occasion". If he can point out that I am wrong, I should be happy to be shown. I ask him while I am speaking, to look at what I said previously. If he does so, he will And the dates and the amounts. Then we can deal with the matter by way of interrogation at the conclusion of what I have to say.
In the industrial relations committee we dealt with an extremely important aspect of this matter that has not been fully dealt with yet. The government comes to parliament and says that the fund is in a perilous state; the labour representatives and the employer representatives on the advisory committee have said that the fund had reached an extremely perilous position. The government now says we must replenish the fund because we may have unemployment on a serious scale next fall and next winter. In order to make sure that we have enough money to provide for our contractual obligations-and that is what is involved-we must see to it at the present time that this fund is replenished by the contributors.
We say that it is not fair, just or in keeping with the traditions of this legislation-which was introduced by a Liberal administration in the dark days of war-to impose on the two main contributing groups an obligation which, just as in the case of public assistance, must be widely shared. No hon. gentleman from the government benches who has spoken in this debate thus far has dealt with this point. What justification is there for imposing on these two particular groups the responsibility of providing assistance to men and women in this country who, having exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits, require assistance from the national community? Why should that burden be imposed upon those two groups? That is the main point of our opposition to this measure; and no one speaking on behalf of the government has yet addressed himself to this point.
Mr. Chairman, we contended on second reading of this bill-and it is the argument which we made in the committee and which we make now-that if there were mistakes in the way in which this particular unemployment insurance fund was handled with
Unemployment Insurance Act regard to its investments, the consequences of lack of judgment or incompatibility of function should not be laid on the shoulders of the two main contributing groups.
We were told by the governor of the Bank of Canada, an able and competent public official-as we would have been told, I am sure, by the deputy minister of finance and the spokesmen for the Department of Labour who share with the governor of the Bank the responsibility for the investment of the unemployment insurance fund-that in the exercise of their responsibilities they had sought to display, to demonstrate and to exercise the best possible judgment. I have no quarrel with their good intentions nor do I in any way suggest bad faith on the part of any one of these three gentlemen. But the fact of the matter is that with respect to this fund they had the responsibility-just in the same manner as any trustee of any fund has a responsibility toward the fund he administers-to make as their exclusive concern the problems of and all the circumstances attending the trust fund. Under any trustee act in the administration of any estate in the discharge of any responsibility as trustee there is imposed, both by way of the written and the unwritten law, an obligation on the part of the trustee to regard as his exclusive concern the interests and the integrity of the fund of which he is the trustee.
What I say is this. Under section 20 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, a section which endows these trustees of the fund with full responsibility for all of its investments, there has arisen since this government came into office a situation that did not confront these gentlemen as trustees previously under the former administration. They were not then confronted with a situation in which the government had a large and dangerous deficit. They were not then confronted with a situation that revealed an extremely high level of unemployment making serious drains on the fund. So after this government came into office in the fall of 1958 or, I will say, in the summer of 1958, there arose an extremely important development, a responsibility of which this government should have been aware and which they should have discussed with the members of the investment committee. When the government decided to embark upon its bond conversion scheme there at once arose, as between the governor of the bank and the members of the investment committee as gentlemen responsible in part for the debt management policy of this government, an incompatibility in the face of their responsibility as trustees of the unemployment insurance fund.

Unemployment Insurance Act
This fund is not something that belongs to the government of Canada. This fund is something that belongs to the employers and to the workers of Canada in the main. It is not money that is the property of the people of Canada through the government of the nation. This is property that belongs to the workers and to the employers of the nation. The same regard that one would display with regard to any private trust fund or any private estate must attend the administration of the unemployment insurance fund. I say that there was on this government a responsibility to free the members of the investment committee from the dual position in which they found themselves a few months prior to the introduction of this government's well known, doubtful and controversial bond conversion scheme.
It was in the interests of those responsible for the debt management policy of the government to see to it that the Canadian public were encouraged to invest, or having invested to continue their investment, in long term securities. That was the main characterization of the plan, and inducements were given to those holders of victory bonds to convert their victory bonds into long term securities, characterized by the bond conversion scheme covering some $6 billion, $1 billion of which was held in the hands of private individuals and the rest for the most part by institutions in one way or another.
I say, and in the committee it was so revealed, that it was not in the interests of this fund that the securities of the fund should have been invested in long term securities, and particularly in the bond conversion scheme proposed to this country by the Minister of Finance. I am not now concerned with the merits of the bond conversion scheme, but I am saying that the interests of the government in respect of its debt management policy and the interests of this fund were diametrically opposed. First of all, when the bond conversion scheme was announced the government made it clear that the holders of victory bonds, those bonds which it was encouraging the Canadian public to transfer or to convert into the bond conversion scheme, could be sold on the market, and because the Bank of Canada was supporting that market from July 1958 to the end of October 1958 any seller of those bonds in that period would have received par or its equivalent. The bond market was, as I say, being supported at that time by the Bank of Canada, and if the investment committee of this unemployment insurance fund had decided, to enable those securities to be sold, to take advantage of the market opportunities at the moment, the fund would

have very considerably benefited in the appreciation that would have flowed from that kind of sale. But it was not in the interest of those responsible for the debt management policy of the government to encourage such a sale. There was clearly a conflict of duty between the members of the investment committee, who also had a responsibility as important government officials in the debt management policy of the government.
Is it conceivable that the governor of the Bank of Canada or the deputy minister of finance, in respect of a fund so large, the largest trust fund in the nation, could have taken a step contrary to the admonitions and the urgings of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada?


William Moore Benidickson: And the advice they gave.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the advice, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River points out, which they gave to the Canadian public. Of course the members of the investment committee were in a difficult position. They were in a dilemma, and I have no doubt that each of them must have been greatly concerned about the position in which he found himself as a result of the policy of this government. If those five issues of victory bonds held by the unemployment insurance commission, totalling over $300 million, had on a day to day basis-I do not say all at once-been sold on the market, a market which was supported by the Bank of Canada, then instead of reporting now a book loss of $62 million marking the level of the unemployment insurance fund at this time of $350 million, that fund would be up very considerably and would have provided the Minister of Labour with a less justifiable reason for coming to parliament and asking that this fund be replenished by imposing additional burdens on the workers and employers of this country. That is the situation which the facts as revealed in this committee clearly establish.
But they did not sell the victory bonds. They converted these bonds, $380 million worth of them. I say that at that time the interests of the fund demanded it be in liquid state. The governor of the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada must both have known at that time that the unemployment situation in our country demanded that this unemployment insurance fund be in a state of great liquidity. Unemployment was confronting us. It existed all during the summer of 1958 and it was clear from every index that it was going to persist in 1959, as we now know it did in the unusually high proportions that we all saw during the last winter. Because of that condition, does any

hon. member, including the Minister of Labour, care to argue seriously that it was in the interests of the unemployment insurance fund that its securities should be invested in long term instruments at a time when it should be liquid so as to meet the continuous heavy drain imposed upon it as a result of high unemployment in our country?
That is the situation that confronted the investment committee, and I say to the Minister of Labour that he and his colleagues had the responsibility of discussing this with the investment committee, of recognizing the duality of their functions, and saying to the investment committee, "Obviously you are placed in a difficult position; we have no right to ask you to be placed in a position where you have to select between two duties, between two trusts." Under the act as it stood and as it now stands no one else but these three or their nominees could act as members of the investment committee. Parliament was sitting in the summer of 1958. We met here shortly after the elections of March, 1958. There was no reason why the Minister of Labour could not have suggested an amendment to section 20 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and we could have had placed, in the place of these three, three other trustees of competence and of knowledge.


William Moore Benidickson: Two others.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two others, the Department of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada-whose duties as trustees would not have conflicted with their obvious duty to the government and the people of Canada as a whole. Because that was not done, this unemployment insurance investment committee having to make the choice it did, made a choice that was not in the interests of the fund, and it was not in my judgment in full compliance with what one must exact from any one exercising his trust toward a fund of this character. This was a fund in which the over-all concern was what is in the interests of the fund, even if that interest conflicted with policy of the government or with the welfare of the concerns of a wider constituency of the Canadian people.
That is the situation, and because these bonds were converted and they are long term bonds, we are faced with the position as the hon. member for Welland pointed out, that as a result of current market values there is a book loss of at least $62 million. Let no one say that because it is merely a book loss that it is not a serious matter. At any time this fund may have to be liquidated. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if I am wrong in suggesting that when the government of Canada decided on April 2 to extend
Unemployment Insurance Act for the first time cash loans to the unemployment insurance commission there was not a requisition from the unemployment insurance commission for the sale of certain securities.
I hope the Minister of Labour will deal with that question at some time, because we were informed, with some reluctance by the Minister of Finance, readily by the Minister of Labour, that there had been loans extended under two different orders in council bearing interest at 5 per cent under section 96 of the unemployment insurance act to the unemployment commission. To give some indication that these victory bonds, supported by the Bank of Canada, could have been sold at par and more some time between July and October, I point to the fact that on September 15, 1958 $17 million worth of the same victory bonds which had been converted were sold on the open market at the instance of the Bank of Canada. If it was possible to sell that group-and they were sold, as I indicated, at a profit, because those bonds were at that time being supported by the Bank of Canada-there is no reason why a careful policy of investment during this three-month period should not have seen to it that a larger proportion of these holdings were sold so as to benefit, by way of increased appreciation, the unemployment insurance fund.
Not only that, but at the time just prior to the bond conversion scheme the unemployment insurance fund could have had these securities invested, as did the large insurance companies, in treasury bills, short term securities or something which would yield a principal value close to par, bearing some rate of interest, and certainly producing a revenue greater than was produced in the situation which now confronts us in our analysis of the security position of the unemployment insurance fund. Treasury bills and short term securities would have been more in keeping with the demands, the needs and the problems of the unemployment insurance fund than the purchase of these long term investments.
There was no reason for the investment committee deciding on the course it did simply because it would serve as a means of encouraging the sale of conversion bonds, the prized possession of the Minister of Finance. It was contrary to the interests of the unemployment insurance fund to use this particular investments as a means of trying to encourage a wider participation in the bond conversion scheme of the government of Canada, because, 1 say again, this was a trust fund, and the only consideration should have been the question of what was in the best interest of that fund.

Unemployment Insurance Act
But it was not only in regard to this particular situation that circumstances of this kind arose. We had, in 1958-and this was mentioned yesterday when we were discussing the financing of the Canadian National Railways-another example of this kind. And I may say that when this matter was discussed yesterday I was precluded from pursuing it further because it was argued that it was out of order. I was told I would have to wait until this matter came before this committee. I said that if this was the position I hoped the Minister of Finance would be in the chamber when we discussed this question on the unemployment insurance bill. This was a borrowing on the part of the C.N.R. in January, 1958, with the knowledge and full approval of the Minister of Finance, providing 4 per cent with bonds maturing, I think in 1980.


An hon. Member:: A silly argument.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone said: "a silly argument". I hope whoever did so will rise immediately after me and point out where this argument is silly. The investment committee decided to invest $15 million of the securities of the unemployment insurance fund in this $300 million C.N.R. issue. I say to the Minister of Finance, as I said yesterday, that this was a difficult issue. It was not readily accepted by the people of Canada. And it would seem that one of the reasons why unemployment insurance securities were invested in this issue was so as to encourage a wider participation in that issue by the Canadian people, and I think the situation one year later confirms what I have said.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to take a few moments to straighten out one matter to which the hon. member for Essex East has referred. The impression was, I think, wrongly created by the hon. member that on three separate and distinct occasions amounts were taken from consolidated revenue and placed in the fund. I have read the hon. gentleman's remarks on second reading, and they are exactly the same as were made during the discussion we had as reported on page 170 of the industrial relations committee reports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Have you got the
remarks I made?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you read them out?


Thomas Miller Bell: This is the great statesman, the hon. member for Essex East, speaking as reported at page 3540 of Hansard for May 11:
I said that when we invaded the fund for the purpose of providing supplementary benefits we took steps to replenish the fund. That was done in the years 1949-50, 1950-51, and in 1951-52.
And Mr. McGregor, speaking in the standing committee, referred to exactly those amounts. And then, as reported on page 170 of the committee proceedings, the hon. member for Hamilton South said:
You were just keeping up with the balance.
To which Mr. McGregor replied:
That is right; keeping things cleared up.
The rest of the exchange on this point reads as follows:


Thomas Miller Bell: What was the reason for those two small amounts?


Mr. McGregor:: This went into effect on February 28, 1950 which was pretty close to the end of the fiscal year. $1,728,964.94 was carried into the next fiscal year before it was reimbursed to the fund.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would it be fair to say there was just this one large $1 million odd payment, but due to this particular time of year it was spread over into other payments?


Robert Henry McGregor: That is right.
In other words, there was just the one, single and distinct payment from consolidated revenue into the fund, but due to the fact that it came at a bad bookkeeping time during the year there was a little spread before and afterwards of a few thousand dollars.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the hon. gentleman has asked me a question, may I refer to what I said?


Thomas Miller Bell: There was no question. I made a statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I presume the hon. member wants the full facts. Let us get this straight. As reported at page 3540, my remarks were:
I said that when we invaded the fund for the purpose of providing supplementary benefits we took steps to replenish the fund. That was done in the years 1949-50, 1950-51 and in 1951-52. In 1949-50, vote 585 provided for reimbursement to the fund under section 87(f)(1) of the act in the amount of $1,500,000. The actual expenditure amounted, however, to only $13,425.56. The following year, vote 597 provided for similar purposes the amount of $1,780,000, which was fully expended. In 195152, vote 717 provided for $40,000, of which $35,438.35 was spent.
Now it is not the fault of those who sit on this side of the house if when we were in power unemployment was not as great as it is now under hon. gentlemen opposite.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East who just spoke introduced something there was not an opportunity to pursue in the committee because,

as I recall it, the information was not available. He asked the Minister of Labour whether or not just prior to the time of the April 2 order in council, under which it was decided to borrow from the government henceforth rather than sell securities on the market, there was a normal monthly requisition from the unemployment insurance commission to the Bank of Canada, their agents, asking them in the forthcoming month to provide to them certain cash funds.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, neither the investment committee nor the unemployment insurance commission conferred with me at all in that regard.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not the point, Mr. Chairman. The minister is quite familiar with the procedure under which on a monthly basis the unemployment insurance commission indicates by requisition-I believe that is the word-to the Bank of Canada what its cash needs are likely to be in the forthcoming month. The minister knows that I was by no means satisfied that the provisions of section 86 of the Unemployment Insurance Act had been complied with in the flimsy, informal manner which we heard in the committee was utilized and which resulted in this cabinet decision, not on the part of the unemployment insurance commission, as I gather it, but on the part of the government, and not even the experts in the field, the investment committee, as contemplated in section 20. It was astounding to me to hear that this investment committee composed of the governor of the Bank of Canada, the deputy minister of finance and a nominee of the Minister of Labour were not consulted in any way, shape or form in this decision.


Michael Starr: What decision?


William Moore Benidickson: I am just explaining. In this decision to henceforth desist from selling government bonds in the fund but to borrow from the government.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what transpired in the earlier sittings when the investment committee was present but I do know that I attended with the chief commissioner and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River personally questioned us on that and we gave him information to the effect that the decision was made after consultation with the commission.


William Moore Benidickson: That is perfectly correct, Mr. Chairman, but I pointed out to the minister at that time, as I have indicated to this Commons committee, that I have very grave doubts concerning whether the language of the statute in section 86 of the Unemployment Insurance Act was complied with through this informal, flimsy procedure of conversation between the chairman of the 66968-9-305
Unemployment Insurance Act unemployment insurance commission and the Minister of Labour and another conversation which was referred to in the evidence between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour. The language of section 86, subsection 1 of the Unemployment Insurance Act is as follows:
Where the amounts standing to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund in the consolidated revenue fund are not sufficient for the payment of benefits under this act, the Minister of Finance, on the requisition of the commission-
May do such-and-such.
"Requisition" is a formal word. I do not have a dictionary in front of me but there are a great number of lawyers in this house and I think they would question whether or not "requisition" would be satisfied by a mere statement on the part of one member of a board of three, the unemployment insurance commission, to the effect that the minister to whom the board reports engaged in a conversation with him and then in turn that minister had some conversation with the Minister of Finance. This statute says that the direct contact must be from the commission by formal procedure and I believe that "requisition" involves some formality directly from the commission of three to the Minister of Finance. That was not done. A decision was made and the amazing thing is-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at this point to say that it is doubtful that I could convince the hon. member or even endeavour to prove to him that everything was done in the right way. Possibly I should not have entered into the matter at all but I was concerned about the fund just as I am concerned about all the responsibilities I have. Although I have not followed the procedure the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is convinced I should have followed, none the less whatever was done was done in good faith.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I am not one of those who would ever question the good faith or good intentions of the Minister of Labour.


Michael Starr: But you are.


William Moore Benidickson: No, I am not.


Michael Starr: You say the whole procedure was wrong.


William Moore Benidickson: I am saying there is a duty on the part of every member of the cabinet because they are always supported by a great number of legal and other types of advisers to make sure that in matters of consequence of this nature that a statute, a parliamentary direction, is observed in the utmost respect. I say that the language of this statute is very clear.
4804	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act
In examining the members of the commission in the committee we did find that there had been nothing more than a word of mouth conversation on the part of one member of the commission and his minister, the Minister of Labour, that there was some anxiety about these losses.
We have had the evidence that there were capital losses last year of some $10 million. They were also aware, of course, that the market value at about this time in relation to the book value was down by $62 million, as several hon. members have said in this debate. A decision was made of utmost importance. I do not blame anyone for bad faith in this but I do cast blame for not following the procedures parliament lays down. Some decisions are matters of judgment. I know a decision would be taken in good faith and there is no question about that. I have the same feeling with respect to the investment committee. However, I share the views of the hon. member for Essex East when he asserts that when times are difficult for the government and when two members of the investment committee have dual responsibilities and when $8 out of every $10 represents trust funds and not government funds, we should be considering at this time the possibility of relieving admired civil servants or government officials of the type that are on this investment committee of any question about dual responsibility or incompatibility in connection with their investment responsibilities for this fund.
The point I am concerned with at the moment is that a decision was made by order in council on April 2 to desist from selling further of the bonds in the portfolio of the unemployment insurance commission. It is not astonishing to think we have an investment committee in charge of an investment portfolio-even though depleted as it was by $62 million in terms of the market value- still totalling something in excess of $360 million. These were experts, the governor of the Bank of Canada, the deputy minister of finance and a third member, a nominee of the Minister of Labour who had been on this committee for almost a year and who presumably had experience, who attended, although I am rather doubtful about how many meetings anybody on the investment committee attended. None the less, certainly two out of the three were experts in the investment field.
We had evidence from the governor of the Bank of Canada before our committee that he was not asked whether or not it was propitious, wise or unwise, to follow the course set out in that order in council. That was a decision made politically by the government. We have no evidence that under 

section 86 there was on the part of those three members of the unemployment insurance commission, acting in concert, acting officially, a decision that the time had come to requisition the Minister of Finance and get from him certain funds on loan rather than by utilization of the capital funds that belonged to the unemployment insurance commission.
I think this has never been cleared up either in the committee or in any explanation we have had subsequently. As far as I know, another usual type of requisition was made by the unemployment insurance commission late in March indicating in the customary way they would need net cash requirements in the month of April of whatever the amount was, perhaps $50 million. This had been the customary procedure, and within a matter of a few days it is the cabinet that decides by order in council, after informal conversation between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance. Are they the experts in this field? Are they the technicians? They never spoke to the governor of the Bank of Canada about this. Apparently they never consulted the other members of the U.I.C. investment committee with financial long time background, such as the deputy minister of finance, as to what should be done in the interests of the unemployment fund, $8 out of every $10 of which were trust funds from outside government sources. This of course is hindsight and I know the decision that was made was made in good faith. I am challenging the authority for making this decision and the procedure under which the decision was made. I say that the cabinet over rode the statute. It did not consult the investment committee; it did not get from the unemployment insurance commission a requisition. It cannot produce in this house what is called in this section a requisition from the unemployment insurance commission saying that the time had come for the Minister of Finance to do something by loan rather than the regular procedure of liquidating the assets they still had in the fund. I think this has to be answered by the Minister of Labour.
Let me come back to the point I made. They pledged rather than sold, as outlined in the order in council of April 2, some $80 million-plus of 4J per cent conversion loan bonds maturing in 1972 as security for a loan, through the Minister of Finance, upon which the unemployment insurance commission was obliged to pay 5 per cent interest. 1 indicated that hindsight is very easy, and I want to be fair. But the result is they reached this decision without expert advice; they did not consult the investment committee.

We have the evidence of the governor of the Bank of Canada on that. The fact is that market-wise the very securities that were pledged for those loans have in the next seven or eight weeks depreciated further in value beyond the $62 million that was referred to by the hon. member for Essex East, by another $6 million or $7 million. In addition, the unemployment insurance commission, whose funds are 80 per cent trust funds, is obliged to pay 5 per cent on $72 million or $73 million that they have received by loan since April 1 in connection with this order in council.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think this committee and the average member of it-and I include myself as one-surely knows a minimum about business to think that we would expect that if there was an investment committee in which the administration says it has supreme confidence, that no cabinet minister amateurish in big finance or otherwise, in a little conversation with his colleagues would decide on something as momentous as this which has resulted in a $7 million loss in seven weeks, without consultation with someone with experience. In addition, the moneys were trust funds. They were not funds that were contributed to by government departments, although these are still trust funds in that they are contributed to by taxpayers. They were insurance funds $8 out of every $10 of which was contributed by employees and employers.
These informal conversations should be inquired into further by this committee. I
Business of the House
refer to the conversation between the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission and the Minister of Labour and next the conversation of the Minister of Labour with the Minister of Finance, which resulted in this order in council. I suggest this order in council was superimposed beyond the conception of section 86 of the statute, superimposed on the commission which I challenge the minister to suggest did formally requisition and decide that this procedure should take place.
In the statute the onus is upon the commission of three to make a decision of this kind.
I see that it is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with this debate. We will go right on through with it for the rest of the week if it is not finished in the meantime.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We should finish it by next week.


Howard Charles Green: If we finish it tomorrow we shall then take the order of business I listed last night. If we finish it on Thursday we shall then take the estimates of the Department of Justice, followed by those of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
66968-9-305 J
4806	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

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

Mr. Meunier: 1.	What amount was paid each year, since 1953 to 1957 inclusive, to each province which signed the dominion-provincial tax rental agreement?
2.	What amount would the province of Quebec have received in each of the said years had it signed this agreement?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1952-53	1953-54	1954-55
1956-57


Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia...
10,735,033
3,262,631
18,127,623
14,986,427
123,327,363
23,087,257
23,583,638
27,312,973
40,354,837
11,824,613
3,657,465
19,507,991
16,178,111
134,447,814
25,038,772
25,253,662
29,802,544
43,516,016
12,547,103
3,912,863
20,475,440
17,047,327
142,746,809
26,200,968
26,646,501
31,816,130
46,051,964
12,483,742 3,680,762 19,856,134 16,630,001 138,345,269 25,656,149 25,986,269 31,592,934 45,392,814
13,805,028
3,073,264
22,333,082
17,806,998
160,558,129
27,888,568
27,431,898
37,310,747
55,730,441

284,777,782	309,226,988
327,445,105
319,624,074	365,938,155
Ontario did not rent the succession duty field.
2.
1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57Quebec	
112,562,875	121,824,632	127,908,098	126,680,838	140,433,508
The amounts specified assume that Quebec had rented all three tax fields.
The amounts specified in questions 1 and 2 above exclude the payments made to all provinces under clause 6 of 1952 c. 49 which payments involved the remission of 50 percent of the net income tax collected from corporations whose main business was the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam. These payments were not in the nature of tax rental payments.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS- TEMPORARY LAY-OFFS
Mr. McWilliam: 1. Are members of Canada's labour force who have the necessary contribution stamps, and meet other requirements, who are temporarily laid off from their employment, eligible to draw unemployment insurance benefits?
2. Do unemployment insurance benefits cease if a beneficiary engages in repairs to his own property from which no cash revenue is derived?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	Yes.
2.	Each case has to be considered on its own merits after the full facts are known.

Wednesday, June 17, 1959


AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION
[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.