1959-05-14

WELCOME TO PREMIER OF STATE OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit me I should like to refer to the fact that present in the Speaker's gallery today is Premier Henry E. Bolte of the state of Victoria in Australia. We welcome him to this assembly. We welcome him for himself as well as for the fact that he is a representative in the best parliamentary sense of our sister dominion, the commonwealth of Australia. We hope his stay with us will be one of joy and as much pleasure to him as it is a matter of appreciation to us to be able to welcome him.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 associate myself and those of us on this side of the house with the words of welcome which the Prime Minister has just addressed to our distinguished guest, the premier of Victoria. We welcome him not merely because of his own distinguished contribution of service to his state, his country and the commonwealth, but because he reminds us of the close and friendly relations that so happily exist between his country and Canada as two nations within the commonwealth.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I wish to endorse the words of welcome, best wishes and good will expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to this distinguished gentleman.



STANDING ORDERS


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


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, in reply to a question asked by the
Leader of the Opposition, I confirmed that negotiations were in progress for the sale of transport planes by a Canadian company to two United States companies. Canadair Limited have today announced the successful conclusion of negotiations and have made sales of 5 CL-44 turboprop cargo aircraft to Seaboard and Western Airlines Inc., and 10 of the same planes to the Flying Tiger Line, Inc. These two lines are reported to be the largest air cargo carriers in the world.
A few weeks ago Canadair Limited approached the Export Credits Insurance Corporation asking for insurance in connection with the proposed sale of these 15 aircraft. The amount involved is approximately $70 million. The terms of payment are 10 per cent cash with order, a further 10 per cent on delivery, and the balance of 80 per cent spread in instalments over five years after delivery. The policies will protect Canadair Limited against non-payment by the buyers for up to 85 per cent of the amount owing.
It should be noted that the Export Credits Insurance Corporation does not finance. It insures against non-payment. In the normal course of events the exporter arranges for any necessary financing with his own bankers, and I understand that such arrangements have been made by Canadair through Canadian banking channels. These two orders for 15 aircraft will provide employment over a period of two and one half years for 4,500 men, many of whom are professionals or in the skilled category.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL    SPECIAL SCHEDULING FOR BULK CARRIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the report over C.B.C. news last night that a system of priorities is being established for ships moving through the seaway, which appears to me to be in contradiction of a statement made the day before yesterday by the minister, will the minister tell the house how the system operates and what ships and cargoes will be affected?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear yesterday in the statement I made. However, I shall try to clarify it. In order to
make sure that North American industries using such bulk materials as iron ore, coal,

Inquiries of the Ministry pulpwood, grain and so on are adequately supplied, we have decided to alternate ships carrying these bulk cargoes, irrespective of country of registry, with package freighters, irrespective of country of origin, so the industries of this continent may not be short of the materials they urgently need for the successful continuation of their operations.



WELLAND CANAL


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister give the house any information on a serious accident which took place today in the Welland canal involving a Panamanian vessel? If so, could he confirm or deny whether the pilot of the vessel was licensed?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question just before coming into the house. The ship under Panamanian registration was the Gan-net and was upbound, but there was no delay as a result of the accident. I do not know whether a pilot was aboard, but I will make inquiries and let the hon. member know as soon as possible.



WELLAND CANAL-REPORTED SHORTAGE OF PILOTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, based on the suggestions in the press that some of the hold-up in the Welland ship canal is due to the shortage of authorized pilots. I should like the minister to comment on that statement and ask him whether, if it is true, he will employ more authorized pilots?


George Harris Hees: There are a great many more pilots required this year because of the greatly increased volume of shipping which has been in evidence in the last few weeks, causing a delay at Port Weller. We have considerably increased our establishment of pilots, both temporary and permanent, and we are doing our very best to get more pilots on the job. We have the situation very much in mind at all times.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the
minister tell us the status and position of Captain Crawford, and explain just what his relationship is to the department and to the pilots who are being engaged?


George Harris Hees: I think that is a question for the order paper. I cannot give the hon. member that information offhand.


Mr. Winch:: You ought to know that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister comment on the view that one of the reasons pilots are difficult to obtain at the present time is that Captain Crawford was the leader of the strike-breaking organization in the dispute last year?


George Harris Hees: I would say that had no validity whatsoever.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has as yet had any reaction to the suggestion he made to management and the union with regard to the dispute at the Polymer Corporation in Sarnia. At the same time is he in a position to tell the house what his own reaction is to the suggestion made by the workers that he ought to call management and the workers together here in his office in Ottawa for the purpose of seeking to settle this dispute, which has been outstanding for such a long time?


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minisier of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They acknowledged my communication, in which I requested that both sides get together and resume negotiations. I do not think it is necessary for me to call them here to Ottawa. I expect that these negotiations will go on, and I will extend the facilities of my department. I hope to have someone to help them in these negotiations within the matter of a day or two.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any progress has been made in the appointment of a secretary of state for external affairs?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisier): Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the interest of the hon. gentleman in this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a professional interest.


John George Diefenbaker: I can tell him that
progress is being made.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise

us as to when an order for return passed many weeks ago and inquired about some three weeks ago and not yet made will be filed so it will be available?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into the matter. I am sure there is an excellent reason for any delay that has taken place, but I will find out what that reason is.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say that is the same answer that I was given three weeks ago.


George Harris Hees: Then I am sure the situation is exactly the same.
(Translation):



RETAINING WALLS, QUEBEC PROVINCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State if he has made inquiries regarding question No. 108 placed on the order paper since February and to which no reply has yet been given? May I ask him also if he could supply me with this information before the house takes up the estimates of the Department of Public Works?


Hon. Henri Courtemanche (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, the fullest possible attention is being given to this question and as soon as the reply is ready, it will be made known to the hon. member.


Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a further question. The question of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville was placed on the order paper last February, that is more than three months ago-


An hon. Member:: Ask your own question!


Maurice Bourget: It seems to me that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), who has claimed that his department is efficient, could see to it that a reply is given to this question as soon as possible.
(Text):


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: May I ask the hon. member to which question he is referring?


Maurice Bourget: I was referring to the question just asked by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). He asked a question about protection works about three months ago, and I am surprised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is supposed to be asking a question, not giving information.


Lionel Chevrier: He is answering the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: I notice in yesterday's Hansard a reference to this question. I am hoping it is the Department of Transport that is delaying the answer and not the Department of Public Works.


Maurice Bourget: That was a question that had to do with protection works. Unless there is a new policy in the Department of Transport to the effect that this matter comes under the jurisdiction of that department, I would think it came under the Department of Public Works. I should therefore like to see the efficiency of the Department of Public Works.



FEDERAL GRANTS TO NEWFOUNDLAND AND OTHER PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he expects, before the debate is resumed on the tax-sharing bill, to be able to comply with the order of the house asking for certain information about payments to the provinces which those of us who wish to debate that bill would like to have.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The return has been in course of compilation ever since the house ordered it. It is quite a comprehensive task, as I think the hon. member will appreciate, but whenever it is ready it will be tabled. I may say that it is of itself not immediately relevant to the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements amending bill, because it includes a great many things which are not relevant to that particular bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman aware that there are many hon. members who feel that this information is relevant and that parliament is entitled to it?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport following the announcement the minister made yesterday concerning the United Kingdom bilateral air agreement amendment in which he announced United Kingdom rights in Toronto on the north Atlantic service. The question I would direct to him is this. Does that amended agreement mean that all or some of the services of B.O.A.C. which now terminate in Montreal will henceforth terminate in Toronto?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing whether B.O.A.C. will move any of its present services from Montreal to Toronto. The agreement permits them to fly to Toronto as well as to Montreal. How they operate is up to them.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette to the effect that the statement was made in Montreal that the Prime Minister, in answer to a request for a grant for research in neurology, and so forth, had turned down the request on the ground that the members of the House of Commons would not agree to it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what the hon. member is referring. I have not read the item in question, but there certainly never was an explanation given such as the hon. member implies in the latter part of his question.



RUSSIA-STATEMENT RESPECTING EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about the renegotiation of the trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.S.R. Discussions are proceeding with Soviet representatives to establish a mutually satisfactory basis for renewal of the trade agreement. It would be inappropriate to comment at this stage on the progress of the discussions or on the reports to which the hon. gentleman has referred.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked a question concerning an application by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited for the export of gas to the United States, and at what point or points Trans-Canada Pipe Lines proposed to export to the United States.
[Mr. Chevrier.l
The answer is that an export application dated April 29, 1959 has been received from Trans-Canada Pipe Lines by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This application is for licences to export natural gas at two points on the international boundary. The company proposes to export a firm supply, not exceeding 200 million cubic feet daily, to Midwestern Gas Transmission Company at a point near Emerson, Manitoba. In addition, permission is requested to make interruptible sales to the Tennessee Gas transmission system near Niagara Falls, Ontario, at the option of Trans-Canada and only to the extent to which Trans-Canada may from time to time have gas available in excess of its Canadian requirements.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I
ask a supplementary question. Can the minister give the house any information as to the new price or prices at which these companies intend to sell this gas in the United States?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question can be answered at the time these applications are considered. The application I have mentioned here has only just been received.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question which stems from a report in the Fort William Times Journal of May 12, in which Premier Frost comments on the Bomarc guided missile and its position, and goes on to say:
The obvious thing for Canada is to make arrangements with the United Kingdom and the United States to build interceptors under licence in Canada.
Has the minister received advice on this aspect of defence policy from Premier Frost and, if so, what consideration is being given to it?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I have received no such advice from Premier Frost.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether he can confirm that the Bank of Canada rediscount rate today reached its highest level at 5.30 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the time of the house is being taken unnecessarily if every time there is a change in the rediscount rate it is made the occasion for a question. That information is available to all hon. members. If there is some question arising based on the altered rate, that is another matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What could be more important or urgent than an increase of this type, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The reason I considered the question to be out of order is that it is information which is available to all members of the house. Simply to ask what the rediscount rate is, in my view is not a proper question to ask on the orders of the day.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government planning any action to halt the ever-rising interest rates in Canada, including the rediscount rate?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government is following wise and sensible fiscal policies within the realm of government action. The Bank of Canada, as I pointed out in a debate not long ago, is by statute law enacted by this parliament, in charge of monetary policy.


Erhart Regier: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance another question. Is the minister aware that he is, on behalf of the people of Canada, the only owner of the Bank of Canada and that according to the act the Bank of Canada is the agent of the government of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has been making a statement rather than asking a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not a statement, but a gross misstatement.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister aware of the fact?


Mr. Caron:: He is not aware of anything.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Starr for the second reading of Bill C-43, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I was replying to the reckless misstatements and false charges that the members of the
Unemployment Insurance Act official opposition have been making during the course of this debate. They have said that there were on the part of the government violations and evasions of the law. We say, Mr. Speaker, there have been neither violations nor evasions of the law. Everything that has been done has been done within the law. Nothing has been done in excess of the powers conferred by law enacted by this parliament. There is nothing mysterious-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -nor unlawful in what has been done, and I will proceed now to indicate precisely what has been done.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I was asking whether the minister would permit a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will have to ask the hon. member and others to reserve their questions until completion of my remarks because I am faced with the time limit today, Mr. Speaker.
Just before the adjournment yesterday I was referring to the provisions of section 85 of the act, which is one of the provisions of the act of which we are charged with violation. I pointed out that this section provides that contributions to the unemployment insurance fund go into the consolidated revenue fund, and payments made out of that fund are charged against the unemployment insurance fund. The section also provides that obligations of the Dominion of Canada may be purchased; that is to say, obligations either direct or guaranteed by the government of Canada, and when those obligations are purchased on behalf of the fund the cost is charged against the unemployment insurance fund within the consolidated revenue fund.
Then subsection 5 contains this provision:
Obligations purchased under this section shall be held by the Bank of Canada and are subject to the inspection of the Auditor General.
Section 86 then proceeds to provide, Mr. Speaker:
Where the amounts standing to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund in the consolidated revenue fund-
That is to say, the credit balances in the consolidated revenue fund. I continue:
-are not sufficient for the payment of benefits under this act, the Minister of Finance, on the requisition of the commission, may,
(a) obtain advances from the Bank of Canada on the security of the obligations acquired under section 85 not exceeding the par value of the obligations secured, and credit to the unemployment insurance fund an amount equal to those advances, or
3G44	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act
(b) on the security of such obligations, credit further amounts to the unemployment insurance fund not exceeding the par value of the obligations secured, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council determines.
Those are the impprtant words for this purpose, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon.
friend permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are two
forms in which the assets of the unemployment insurance fund are held.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; I just said to the hon. member-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On this very section?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -for Bonavista-Twillingate that I will take the questions at the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the same question? You do not want to-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there are two forms in which the assets of the unemployment insurance fund are held. First, there are the obligations. Those are government obligations which are held by the Bank of Canada; and there is as well the amount standing to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund in the consolidated revenue fund. You have the two types of assets of the fund, the obligations and the amount in the consolidated revenue fund.
Now, here is where the Leader of the Opposition has completely confused himself. He seems to regard it as necessary that the obligations should have been exhausted before any application is made for a loan under section 86. He has completely overlooked the fact that-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never said that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -section 86 contemplates loans on the security of the obligations. The obligations that are held by the Bank of Canada for the fund are used as security for those loans. The lending power written into this act was put there for a purpose. There have been two orders in council passed in pursuance of the provisions of section 86. At the beginning of this new fiscal year, on April 1, the fund still had approximately half a billion dollars of obligations to its credit-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that in cash?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in the hands of the Bank of Canada, as provided by section 85, but it did not have enough cash to pay the benefits that were to be made week by week.


There was not enough to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund in the consolidated revenue fund to meet those recurring obligations. This situation brought section 86 of the act immediately into play. Naturally the commission did not wish to sell any more of its obligations, in the light of the weakness of the bond market at that time. They therefore applied to the Minister of Finance for a loan in pursuance of the provisions of section 86. To accommodate the unemployment insurance commission in this situation I recommended the loan, which was approved by the order in council No. P.C. 1959/383 of April 2. This was done to accommodate the unemployment insurance commission and the fund-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. My point of order is this. The minister has said that this loan was made pursuant to a requisition from the unemployment insurance commission. Will the minister table that requisition to substantiate this point?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of order at all. I hope I will have time to say the things that hon. members opposite have been challeging me in the last three days to say and which, ever since I started yesterday afternoon, they have been doing their best to prevent me from saying.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just as you did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Table the document.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And so, Mr. Speaker, in response to this request from the unemployment insurance commission, I made this recommendation and the order in council was passed. This order in council did not constitute a loan; it constituted an authorization for a loan of $50 million. There were drawings, Mr. Speaker, under that order in the month of April, and before the end of April a similar request was made for another loan, the situation remaining unchanged; in other words, the sum to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund in the consolidated revenue fund not being adequate to meet the maturing obligations, another order in council was passed on April 23, order in council 1959/495, authorizing another loan of $30 million.


Mr. Benidickson:: Which could have been foreseen by the investment committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This again is an authorization. The unemployment insurance commission is not prevented from selling any obligations which it chooses to sell. This is another mistake made by hon. members opposite. There is nothing at all to prevent the unemployment insurance commission from proceeding to sell any of its obligations and

repaying this loan. That is contemplated by the provisions of section 86 subsection 2, of the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read section 4 of the order in council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here again the hon. member for Essex East was completely mistaken in what he had to say in his remarks on May 11. As recorded at page 3552 of Hansard he said:
In the month of April we had two loans made by the government to the unemployment insurance commission in the amount of $80 million-
That statement is untrue. The fact is that to date, in pursuance of these two authorizations, the loans aggregated just $55 million. Here are the dates and the amounts: April 7, $10 million; April 9, $10 million; April 16, $10 million; April 22, $10 million; April 30, $5 million; May 7, $10 million. There has not been any loan of $80 million. There is an authorization, which is a very different matter. The hon. member for Essex East in his stormy remarks on Monday evening also said, as found on page 3552:
Why was not the unemployment insurance commission allowed to cash its own securities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The unemployment insurance commission could have cashed its own securities had it wished to do so. There is no obstacle in its way if it chooses to do so. But if it did that hon. members opposite would be the first to complain that it would be selling bonds on the market and taking something less than the par value of the bonds. They would be critical of the commission for doing so. They would be the first to criticize.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Robichaud:: What happened to the bond market?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You see, Mr. Speaker, I was asked to give information and I am trying to give it but hon. members opposite do not want it. All they wish to do is stretch their own lungs. The balance of that authorization, another $25 million, is there if it is needed. These are the only orders in council providing authorizations for loans.
When the hon. member for Essex East referred to the question that he asked me on Monday on orders of the day may I point out that he asked me if there were loans made in April and May. He did not give me any notice of the question in advance. If he had I could have given him the amounts, but in his question he asked about April and May. I am not going to make offhand statements,
Unemployment Insurance Act Mr. Speaker, as to particular periods or particular amounts in matters of this kind. If the hon. member had wanted information, if that was his real purpose, he could have had it very simply by giving me notice a short time in advance. I could have had the information and would have been very glad to give it in full at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I say it is incompetent to the minister to impute motives to other hon. members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is incompetent to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate to act in this house in any other way than as one who regards himself as above the rules of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My honour as a member of the house has been impugned by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has said in his usual irresponsible way that I do not abide by the rules of the house.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure Your Honour will ask him to withdraw so unfair an imputation.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I heard the minister reflecting on the hon. member's observation of the rules. I do not know what the exact words complained of are, but it did not seem to me that the hon. member should take it seriously because it is in line with the observations made back and forth across the floor from time to time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope these deliberate interruptions on the part of hon. members will not be deducted from my quite limited time today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The rules will be applied, I hope.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Evidently every effort is being made to prevent me from giving information that I was challenged to give and which I am endeavouring to give the house now. The hon. member for Essex East, not having gone about obtaining the information seriously, then went ahead and splattered the record with his reckless statements.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Other hon. members of the opposition then followed his example, a very doubtful thing to do.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not mind the hon. member going on with his superlatives, but when he suggests that I did not pursue this matter seriously he is impugning my motives and conduct in the house and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw that statement. If he cannot make an argument addressed to the subject under discussion I hope he will not indulge in insulting personalities in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a well established rule and observance of the house in most instances that reflections are not made on the motives of hon. members. I do not know exactly what the words complained of are, but I am sure the minister does not wish to reflect on the motives of the member and will say so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have made it obvious time and again in the house that out of my affection for the hon. member for Essex East I have let him down lightly time after time even when he makes statements in the house that have no foundation in fact, as he did on Monday evening.
The next complaint was that certain terms had been attached to the loan. The section I have read, Mr. Speaker, contemplates that very thing. It speaks about that very subject in section 86 (1) (b)-"on such terms and conditions as the governor in council determines." Surely there cannot be any question about the regularity of what we did there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a question I should like to put right now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: According to the provisions of the act the security that has now been placed with the Minister of Finance consists of $61,386,000 of obligations of Canada, 4J per cent bonds of 1972.
The other complaint concerned the interest rate, which they said was 5 per cent. Every hon. member of the house, except hon. members opposite, knows that the interest rate is established every six months. It was established on April 1 in connection with all loans made by the Minister of Finance to crown companies and others concerned for the six month period following and the rate for this period is 5 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An all-time high.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The terms that were established by this order in council are proper and in accordance with the act. The next suggestion was that information had not been given to the house that ought to have been given. Orders in council, Mr. Speaker, are communicated to the house in the ordinary way. The orders in council for one month are tabled in the house by the Prime Minister around the middle of the following month as


a matter of course. There has not been any departure from that rule, as was alleged by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate without any foundation at all, in his empty speech the night before last.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: This rule is being followed and will be followed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I am rising-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another interruption.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -on a question of privilege. The minister has stated that I made a false statement to the house. He knows perfectly well that is not correct. I said I had been informed. I was very careful to say that I had not verified it myself, and the minister, by saying that I misinformed the house, is himself misinforming the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood that the words used were that the statement was made without any foundation at all. Unless the minister wants to modify that I do not think it is something I should ask him to do, because it is a very common expression.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not ask the minister to modify anything.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the house will pass its own judgment on the statements of the hon. member who undertakes to base charges upon statements made on information which he is not prepared to back up and that he cannot back up.
Now, Mr. Speaker, do you know how the hon. member for Essex East got hold of these two orders in council? A request was made for them by Mr. Lamontagne and that request was complied with. Mr. Lamontagne, a well-known official in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, made a request for them and the request was complied with. That is how the orders came into the hands of the hon. gentleman opposite.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely the minister knows that it is at least inappropriate to mention the names of people in other members' offices who act on the authority and at the request of that member. It is not customary to mention civil servants, and I suggest the minister might show the same courtesy to the members of my office.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition raises a point of order. I know of no rule or authority that prevents an hon. member-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just courtesy.


Mr. Speaker:: -mentioning any person by name except a member of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The ordinary decencies of parliament are now disregarded.


Some hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it was said that Mr. Lamontagne is a civil servant-


Some hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member who has the floor should have the opportunity to reply to the debate which has been going on for some days in fairly animated and active form. Those who have spoken on one side of the bill have been heard, and it seems to me that the minister should be allowed to continue the debate. He has only 40 minutes, and he should be allowed to continue without interruption by members who do not take the floor and do not rise on appropriate points of order or privilege.


Erhart Regier: I should like to rise to a question of privilege. This is a matter that affects the rights of every member in this house. We have various means of obtaining our information, and if those means are going to be exposed by members of the government then I feel that affects the effective work of opposition members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Another form of closure.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, I take it, raises this matter of privilege seriously?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I have never heard of such a matter of privilege. As I understand what took place, the minister who was speaking mentioned the name of an official who asked him for certain information. I see nothing derogatory in that to the official, to the house or to anyone. Unless some member can indicate where the privileges of the house are affected, the minister should continue.


Erhart Regier: It shows how cheap he can be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must say that in my opinion there is no matter of privilege involved.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this: no rule forbids a member to spit on the floor, yet nobody here does spit on the floor.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: I mentioned the
name of this estimable gentleman to indicate why it was regarded as a request made on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and why it was complied with. Copies of the orders in council were promptly made available to this emissary from the Leader of the Opposition. They talk about hiding information, yet a request was made through 66968-9-231
Unemployment Insurance Act an emissary from the Leader of the Opposition and the request was complied with and copies of the orders in council were immediately supplied.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why shouldn't it be?


Donald Methuen Fleming: And why should
hon. members opposite seek to distort the facts by pretending that there was any attempt to hide something?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was a definite
attempt.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Next, there was
a reference to the budget. It has become quite evident now that no debate can be conducted in this house without a reference to the budget. We were told by the hon. member for Laurier that I should have announced in the budget a new tax, as he calls it. Had I undertaken to discuss a resolution that was on or about to be put on the order paper, you know I would have been out of order.
He is talking of this as though the bill proposes a tax increase. In practice what the increase in the contribution amounts to for a person with a salary or wage of $60 per week is 3 cents per day. But that has nothing to do with the budget.


Lionel Chevrier: You should listen to what
the people say about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of
Finance does not control the operations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Minister of Labour proceeded in the proper way, by resolution, and this point was not raised at the resolution stage of the present measure.
Now, let me test the nonsensical arguments put forward by the opposition by citing what they did in relation to this unemployment insurance measure. They introduced the measure in 1940. Did they bring it in as part of the budget? Did they mention it in the course of the budget speech? No, sir; this measure was preceded by a resolution which was introduced into this house on July 15 and debated and passed on July 16-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and the bill was given second reading on July 19.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not be able to hear
the point of order unless hon. members remain quiet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is that we on this side were precluded from discussing what we considered to have been
3648	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act a breach of the Unemployment Insurance Act on the ground that it was not relevant to this bill now before the house. Surely a debate upon the circumstances attendant upon the enactment of the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1940 is in no way relevant to the bill now before the house, and the Minister of Finance should not be entitled to privileges in this house that are denied to hon. members on this side.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to be very careful, as I was earlier in the debate, to see that the minister does not go beyond the scope of this bill or the charges that have been made. I have very definite recollections that in the course of the debate it was alleged that the increase in rates was a form of taxation and should have been disclosed in the budget. I understand the minister is trying to deal with that allegation, which is quite proper and relevant to the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I pointed out that on July 19, 1940, the bill was given second reading. The budget that year was introduced on June 24 by the late Mr. Ralston, and it was completely silent on any reference to the intention of the government to introduce the unemployment insurance measure. This statute was consolidated and re-enacted by the former government in 1955. What happened then? The resolution was introduced in this house on March 30 and debated on April 5 in the afternoon-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a further point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the budget was introduced in this house on April 5 in the evening-


Mr. Speaker:: Did the hon. member wish to raise a point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even if the minister can make an allusion to something to establish a point, to enter into a debate on the whole history of the unemployment insurance legislation when we were restricted to very narrow limits does seem to me to be improper. It does seem to me the same rules should apply to the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another interruption, of course.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the hon. member does not assert, I take it, that this matter has not been the subject of debate so far?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: He is complaining of the extent of the reference being made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do, sir. I say there was no reference made to the increased contributions being announced in the budget. What was referred to was the fact that the loans should have been disclosed in the budget, and that is an entirely different matter to which the minister is not referring.


Mr. Speaker:: I could refer the hon. member to the pages of Hansard where this bill was connected with taxation, the budget and similar matters. I have a summary of the debate to this point, and there appear to have been a great number of speakers who took that line. I would think that, within limits, hon. members cannot reasonably object to the minister meeting the arguments which were advanced.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was done in this debate was that members referred to loans made by the Minister of Finance to the unemployment insurance commission, the minister says in the amount of $55 million. The allegation made by hon. members on this side was that in the presentation of the budget this kind of transaction, the first of its kind in the history of our country, should have been disclosed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a different point, and I will come to that if hon. members will ever stop their interruptions and allow me to come to it. The hon. member for Laurier was the one who said this should have been announced in the budget because it was a new tax. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, as I said, that in 1955 a resolution contemplating the consolidation and revision of this act was introduced on March 30. The resolution was adopted on April 5, in the afternoon, and the budget was brought in that night, after the resolution was adopted. Now, Mr. Speaker, surely hon. members opposite should make some pretence to consistency in connection with their baseless charges in this house.
I now come to the other allegation that was made concerning the budget. It was said that we should have reported the loan to the house, and that I should have done this in the budget speech. Mr. Speaker, whoever made that allegation evidently was not familiar with the act or with the facts. I have pointed out already that the order in council was passed on April 2. One loan of $10 million was made on April 7 and one of $10 million on April 9, the date of the budget. The budget presentation laid before the house all the information available for the fiscal year that was covered in the white paper, namely the year ended March 31, 1959. Had there any loans made in that period they certainly would have been

reported to the house. There was no loan to be reported in accordance with the provisions of the budget or the terms of the white paper. Mr. Speaker, the act deals in section 87 with the reports that are required. That section provides as follows:
87. The Minister of Finance shall report annually to parliament the state of the fund as of the 31st day of March last preceding and the transactions under section 86 during the fiscal year ending on that day; and the operations of the fund shall be set out in the public accounts in such detail as the Minister of Finance may decide.
Mr. Speaker, that section has been adhered to and obeyed literally.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Literally" is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the reports are submitted to the house for this present fiscal year they will show not only the state of the unemployment insurance fund but all transactions of the kind that have been discussed. That will appear in accordance with the provisions of the act, just as was done by my predecessors in this office, who submitted information to the house in the public accounts. That is what the act prescribes. That is what has been done in the past and that is what will be done on this occasion. The budget, Mr. Speaker, is certainly not the report prescribed by the terms of section 87 of this act.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are accused of maladministration in connection with the fund itself. We are told first of all that there has been compulsion on the part of the government, applied to the unemployment insurance commissioners in relation to their conversion of victory loan bonds into the conversion bonds of 1958.
Mr. Speaker, that statement is untrue. There is not a tittle of truth in it. Those upon whom the responsibility in this matter is laid by the act reached this decision of their own free will and accord and they made a wise decision, Mr. Speaker, to convert their holdings of victory loan bonds into conversion loan bonds because thereby they obtained a higher rate of interest for the benefit of the fund and contributors to it. They obtained in return a bond that has consistently sold in the market at a higher price than the victory loan bonds have sold at any time since then. In addition, they made a profit for the benefit of the fund and for its contributors in so doing. We are charged with making a mistake in that respect. I think those who were responsible for the decision to convert ought to be congratulated.
Then finally, Mr. Speaker, we are told that there have been capital losses. I wish there were time to document the denials and
66968-9-23 U
Unemployment Insurance Act the contradictions that should be made to the hon. member for Essex East for the misstatements he put on the record in this house on May 11-and there are a number of them- when he said there was compulsion and that there were capital losses due to the conversion. That is not true. I am coming now to the final point, and talking about capital losses. He said this, as reported at page 3551 of Hansard:
-as a result of its forced participation in the bond conversion scheme of this government had lost over $10 million.
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. It did not result from the conversion at all. It resulted from sales, Mr. Speaker. This is another sample of the Martin twisting of the facts.
Mr. Speaker, this loss, an aggregate loss of $10 million, is not the first loss the unemployment insurance fund has sustained. If hon. members opposite did not have such weak spots where their memories and consciences are tender, they would recall that the last loss before they went out of office occurred in May, 1957. In that month, which was the last complete month during which they were in office, the unemployment insurance fund sustained a loss of more than $2 million in the course of their administration. Did they say then that fact ought to be made public? Did they go out through the country in that election campaign, at that crucial stage of the campaign, and announce that there had been a loss of over $2 million to the unemployment insurance fund as a result of the transactions in obligations? No, Mr. Speaker; they did not do that.
I am obliged to hurry over these facts, with all the interruptions. Let me say this in conclusion. This house has had to sit and listen, during the course of a three-day debate here on the part of hon. members opposite, to the most shallow, hollow, unjustified, trumped up charges this house is ever likely to listen to. Hon. members of this house will know in future about how much attention to pay to charges by hon. members opposite based upon the variety of statements, misstatements and distortions in which they have indulged here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance a series of questions which will be found at page 3552 of Hansard. I ask him now to address himself to all those questions but the first two.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All but the first two?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You dealt in part -not satisfactorily, I may say-with the first two questions, but you have made no reply whatsoever to my question as to what issues
3650	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act of government bonds were pledged by the commission to secure these loans.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I answered that question.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: No, you did not. With great respect I say that my hon. friend did not answer that question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I did give that information. I said that the commissioners had pledged with me $61,386,000 of the 44 per cent 1972 bonds.


Murdo William Martin: My second question was this:
At the time these loans were made was there outstanding to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund not sufficient for the payment of benefits under the act as required by paragraph 1 of section 86 of the act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I also dealt with that question. I said both with respect to the first order in council of April 2 and also with respect to the date of the second order in council of April 23, that there was not in hand a sufficient amount in the consolidated revenue fund to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund to meet the obligations that had to be met in accordance with the provisions of the act.


Murdo William Martin: I regret that my hon. friend apparently really does not want to answer that question. Will he answer the next one, which was this:
Will the Minister of Finance report to the house on the amounts of various securities including treasury bills held by the unemployment insurance fund as of March 31, 1959?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly do so. At March 31, 1959 the investment position of the unemployment insurance fund indicated that the obligations it held aggregated in par value $490,067,500. I can give the detailed holdings if it is of interest to the hon. gentleman.


Murdo William Martin: That was information I asked for and which I was denied about four weeks ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that is an untrue statement which the hon. gentleman has made.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, no hon. member-


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not ask
for that information four weeks ago or at any other time until he spoke in this house on May 11. He knows the rules of the house very well. He is one of the most senior members of the house. If he wants information he knows he can put his questions on the order paper at any time.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member for Essex East is referring to a question he asked in the house and which is reported in Hansard.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On a question of privilege, may I say this. My hon. friend said I was guilty of an untruthful statement. Under the rules of this house no hon. member has the right to make such an allegation, and I ask him to withdraw it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. gentleman is suffering from difficulty in hearing. I did not say "an untruthful statement". I said "an untrue statement". That is quite in accordance with the rules of the house and also in accordance with the facts of this situation.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend will recall that about a month ago I asked him what losses the unemployment insurance commission had incurred as a result of the bond conversion policy of this government. My hon. friend told me in this house that it was not in the public interest to disclose the details of portfolios of this kind. When I could not get that information I addressed a written question to the Minister of Labour, and I got the information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman has not stated the facts correctly at all. This is getting to be a habit of his, and I would recommend now, before he makes any more unfounded charges, that he should read the text of Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister's time has expired, and I do not know whether I should, except by leave of the house, permit questions to be asked at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did agree to answer one question of mine.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would be glad to complete the answers to the questions put by hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Essex East asked a question at page 3552 of Hansard, and I will be glad to answer him if that is the wish of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to answer the questions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next question I was asked, Mr. Speaker, was:
What were the purchases and sales of various obligations of or guaranteed by the government of Canada including treasury bills for each month of the last fiscal year and at what prices were these transactions made?

Mr. Speaker, that will involve a very lengthy table. I have the information and it can be made available, but I can tell the house that it is a very lengthy statement indeed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the information be made available by tabling it, because we have gone past our time and we are out of order at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister be prepared to answer a very brief question which I would like to put to him?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will table that information, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say by what statutory authority the fourth paragraph of the order in council of April 2 was passed, which gave the minister the sole discretion to direct the sale of government of Canada direct and guaranteed bonds, when it would appear from section 20 of the act that that authority was vested by parliament in the investment committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the language of section 86 is very clear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about section 20.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Section 86, subsection 1(b) provides, in the opening words:
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 . . . may
(b) on the security of such obligations, credit further amounts to the unemployment insurance fund not exceeding the par value of the obligations secured, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council determines.
Those concluding words are the governing words for this purpose. The power is vested by this act in the governor in council to determine the terms and conditions upon which the Minister of Finance may make loans to the unemployment insurance fund, and that is the power which was exercised, and properly and responsibly exercised, in the terms of these two orders in council.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether he does not feel that section 20 of this act has been violated, which section says that investment transactions shall be made only on the authorization of the investment committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have that question from the Leader of the Opposition, because it gives me an opportunity to say that he was quite confused in his interpretation of this point in his speech yesterday. Section 20 relates to investments.
Unemployment Insurance Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: Investment transactions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, investment transactions are the investments constituting the use of moneys standing to the credit of the fund for the purpose of acquiring obligations. If you look at the marginal note opposite section 85 (1), there you will see the word "investments". When you come to section 86 it is "advances" which are talked about. You are in a different realm there. Section 20 and section 85 relate to investment in these government obligations. When you come to section 86 you are dealing with amounts. You are not dealing with investment there at all, but with amounts in the fund. Then when the amounts are not adequate, provision is made for a loan.
Now, a loan is not an investment transaction within the contemplation of section 20 at all. It is not an investment. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, so far as any suggestion of investment is concerned, under section 86 it is an investment on the part of the Minister of Finance, and the statute deals very precisely with the terms upon which the Minister of Finance may make a loan for the benefit of the fund to enable it to meet its obligations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, is the minister trying to argue that the authority of the investment committee under this act is limited to the purchase of government securities and does not extend to the sale or to the conversion of such securities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, so far as the purchase and sale of securities not related under section 86 to loans are concerned, that of course is done by the investment committee appointed in accordance with the terms of section 20, and that has been done with strict adherence to the terms of the act. But when you come to section 86, this is not a matter of investment by the fund or the commissioners. This is a matter of borrowing by the fund and by the commissioners. The investment here is on the part of the Minister of Finance in the form of a loan, and the statute has dealt with this in the plainest terms. The statute says that the Minister of Finance may in the given circumstances make this loan on the terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, and that was done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A good deal of latitude has been given to most of the questioners and the minister. If the house is not yet ready for the question I must recognize the next speaker.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have just a remark or two. After listening to the discussion which has been going on between the Minister of Finance on the one
3652	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act hand and three or four of the hon. gentlemen along this side on the other, I think if Cervantes were still alive and preparing his book "Don Quixote" he could very well have had all four of them in his book as characters.
The Minister of Finance, if nothing else, I think, has certainly given some truth to the old saying that figures do not lie but liars ofttimes figure.
It is unfortunate, I think, that in considering this particular bill which is before us, which relates to unemployment insurance, unemployment insurance payments, benefits and so on, the whole discussion should be cluttered up, as I think it has been, with references to hidden or secret reports and references to charges of lawbreaking on the part of the Minister of Labour. Whether the minister did or not, I do not know; but the fact that such references are made does nothing but confuse the entire issue and the whole principle contained within the bill, if there is a principle there in the first instance.
All these points about the budget, secret documents, hiding reports, breaking the law and so on have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself. I think that is what we should be addressing ourselves to; we should be looking at the bill in the light of exactly what it is and why such a bill needs to be introduced at this time. I certainly think the reckless use of the unemployment insurance fund by the minister without any consideration for safeguards and proper methods of replenishing the fund is the reason we are in this position today. I would like to put a few short statements on record to indicate the position of the C.C.F. party with regard to this particular bill.
The bill, in effect, asks the working class people of this country to subsidize the unemployment policy of the government; it imposes an additional tax burden on workers without any comparable benefits accruing to them. It is certainly an indication of the government's lack of intestinal fortitude-or to use plain terms, guts-to replenish the fund in a sensible way from general revenue, and to declare this heavy drain on the fund as part of a national disaster rather than asking the working classes themselves to bail the government out of its difficult position.
I am sure the minister does not seriously expect members of this group, particularly, to support this bill. We have no intention of supporting it, because we regard it as a back door, sneaky method of imposing taxation on second reading of this bill. If the minister wishes to withdraw the bill and introduce something which is more in keeping with ethics and more in keeping with


a sound moral attitude toward the working class we would be prepared to look at it again, but we are certainly not prepared to accept the measure as it stands in the light of the principles which it contains.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-Si. George's):: should like to make one or two comments on this bill at this time, and I should prefer to stick closely to the principles of the bill rather than raise a verbal smoke screen of the type we have had from the Minister of Finance this afternoon.
There are some things in this bill with which I agree. That clause which refers to the increase in the wage ceiling is one which I think has a great deal of merit. Over the years the workers of this country have enjoyed the benefit of increased wages, and it is understandable that some of them should have exceeded the limits which were imposed in the original act. I think raising this ceiling from $4,800 to $5,460 is a good thing to do, because it will bring into the insurance scheme, according to the statement made by the minister, another 80,000 wage earners who will become eligible for the benefits of the unemployment insurance plan.
I think, too, that the proposed increase in the benefit period from 36 to 52 weeks has some merit. If a worker can qualify under the terms of the regulations for benefits throughout a period of 52 weeks, I see nothing wrong with that. I can understand that a situation may arise in which a worker may be unemployed for this length of time. I hope that such would not be the case, and I certainly hope there will never be a large number of people in Canada who will require unemployment insurance for 52 weeks; but for the small number who do need it, and who are able to qualify, I think this will be of great assistance, and I certainly have no objection to this proposed amendment.
Again, I have no objection to the revision of the allowable earnings. I agree with the minister in his division of allowable earnings into two classes-those paid to workers with dependents, and those paid to workers without dependents. I should think, however, some thought might be given to consolidating the two or three lower classes. After all, it is understandable that a man who receives $6 in unemployment insurance for a week will need $4, $5 or $6 just as badly as a person who receives $12 or $15; and if during the winter time a worker gets $6 or $8 a week and is able to obtain a day or two shovelling snow, I see no reason why the amount of benefit he is able to obtain should be limited by the fact that he receives a lower rate than another man who lives nearby. However, I have no objection to this amendment.

The main purpose of the bill, however, is to stabilize the unemployment insurance fund. Over the last two years this fund has been considerably depleted. It has been depleted by an amount estimated to be $400 million. I agree that this money has been paid out to those who were suffering from the effects of unemployment, and that it has helped to relieve a large measure of the distress felt by those who have had the misfortune to be unemployed. These benefits went out not only to those who were seasonally unemployed but also to a large number who were qualified for regular unemployment insurance benefits.
But if the main purpose of this bill is to stabilize the fund, let us look at the manner in which this is being done. First of all, the contributions made by wage earners are being increased by anywhere between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. In return for this larger contribution they are receiving no extra benefits, nothing more than they have received in the past. Again, employers will be obliged to increase their contributions by between 25 and 30 per cent.
We are living in a country where prices are high, and any charge which is going to increase the cost of living, or any charge which will have the effect of increasing the cost of production and particularly the cost of articles which we sell in foreign markets, will only result in our being placed in a less competitive position. This amendment will certainly increase our cost of production at a time when corporation taxes in this country are at the highest level in our history. I feel sure that this bill will give little encouragement to those who wish to improve or extend their industrial interests.
For example, I have here a clipping taken from this morning's Montreal Gazette. The headline says "Industry Asks Tax Be Eased" and the first paragraph reads as follows:
The federal government was urged today to grant substantial tax concessions to Canada's forest industries to enable them to remain competitive in world markets, particularly in the field of pulp and paper.
And the last paragraph reads as follows:
Canada has become less and less attractive for major investment in this field. Investment is flowing elsewhere. There is obviously something seriously wrong with the economic climate for the pulp and paper industry in Canada.
Yet despite this, in addition to the high level of taxes which industry already has to pay, the minister is imposing this extra charge by way of the employer's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. Speaking the other day on the resolution I said this was nothing more than an extra tax of something over $70 million which will be imposed on the workers and employers in this
Unemployment Insurance Act country. I still think that is so, because no extra benefit is being received from it.
As far as the administration of the fund is concerned, there can be no doubt that a great deal of information is needed regarding the handling of the fund in the last two years. The Minister of Finance may quibble all he likes about the $10 million that was lost due to the cashing of some of the bonds held by the unemployment insurance commission, but the money is lost, nevertheless. One might ask, are the workers of this country now being required to make up this $10 million? Is that what the government is doing?
We could ask a number of other questions about the investments of the commission. The minister says the commission is quite within its rights in cashing any of its investments at any time it wishes to do so. If that be so, why was it necessary to borrow the sum of $55 million from the government? I do not know the reason; but one might ask the government, if the question does not embarrass them, to what extent it was due to the bond conversion operation and its effects upon the bond market.
After all, as unemployment increases there comes a critical point beyond which benefits paid to our people begin to move from the realm of insurance into the realm of welfare. Because of the large amount of unemployment we have had in the last two years it is my belief that the government should have made up this deficit in the unemployment insurance fund by a direct grant. What we are now doing is asking a certain proportion of the workers of this country to pay for that which more properly should have been considered as a welfare payment. I might say, to quote Kipling, that we are "robbing a selected Peter to pay a collective Paul".


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a few brief remarks on the second reading of Bill No. C-43, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. To my way of thinking, this bill is nothing else but another measure introduced by the present government which takes away so much from the taxpayers but offers so little in return.
We listened for a while before the adjournment yesterday afternoon and again for over half an hour this afternoon to the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). We learned at last in the course of his remarks that the minister himself is admitting the present weakness of the bond market. We also received from the minister certain information which up to now had been kept away from the members of this house. For obvious reasons, reasons known to any hon.

Unemployment Insurance Act member who was in the house in the spring of 1956, the present Minister of Finance should be the last member to accuse members of this house of not abiding by the rules of the house. We certainly have not forgotten his attitude on that occasion.
In introducing the resolution preceding this bill, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) clearly stated that the purpose of the amendment was to give stability to the unemployment insurance fund. The unemployment insurance fund was built up of contributions from employees and employers, together with certain contributions from the federal treasury, and during the regime of the former administration had exceeded the sum of $900 million. The fact remains that after fewer than two years of administration by the present government the workers' fund has been reduced to a sum under $500 million.
We have been asked to approve the second reading of a measure which has been introduced by the present administration to cover up its failure to provide sound and consistent policies in the administration of the affairs of this country. This is a clear illustration of the greater concern of the present government in trying to keep some of its election promises than in giving the country sound management. In moving the second reading of this bill the minister stated, as reported at page 3537 of Hansard:
The present amendments in this bill will provide coverage for a greater number of wage earners.
No one on this side of the house has any objection to the fact that a greater number of wage earners will be included under unemployment insurance benefits; but the main class of wage earners who are now being included are the class of wage earners who are earning salaries ranging from $5,000 to $6,000 a year, and they are the ones who are in less need of unemployment insurance benefits.
Further on, the minister stated that these amendments will increase benefits and allowable earnings. They certainly will not increase the rate of benefits which are being given now under the present regulations. In order to get increased benefits the wage earners will have to earn larger salaries and they will have to make larger contributions.
The minister also stated that these amendments will also increase contributions. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that one of the main amendments of this bill is designed to increase contributions. This is why I say the measure introduced by the present administration is another one which will take away so much but it will offer so little in return. In fact, it will ask the wage earners

of this country and the employers of this country to pay 30 per cent more in their contributions to the unemployment insurance fund.
The amendments also propose to increase the benefit period from 36 weeks to 52 weeks. At the resolution stage preceding the bill the Minister of Labour stated that this is one of the promises made by this government during the last two campaigns. The minister appeared to be proud to be able to advise the house and the country that they were increasing the unemployment insurance benefit period of 36 weeks to 52 weeks; but the minister did not state that when they promised the electors of this country to extend the benefit period from 36 weeks to 52 weeks that at the same time they would ask them to contribute 30 per cent more to the unemployment insurance fund by way of premiums.
These additional premiums, Mr. Speaker, are an additional tax added to the taxpayers of this country. As was stated the other day by my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten), it is an additional tax of $72 million over and above the increased taxation of $352 million which was included in this year's budget. Its direct effect will be to increase by that specific amount the price of consumer goods. By adding another $72 million a year to the cost of manufactured goods to be exported, in competition with other countries in the international market, we shall again be adding to the problem of inflation.
We of the opposition cannot accept this increase of 30 per cent in premiums without additional benefits to the employees. It is true that 80,000 more contributors will be added to the fund. By adding 80,000 more contributors and by choosing those contributors, as I said earlier, from a class which earns from $5,000 to $6,000 a year, the government is doing nothing else but setting up a pretext to get out of the dilemma in which it finds itself.
What about adding to those who should receive benefits from the unemployment insurance fund those that the government promised during the last campaign would be added? What about adding the workers employed on Canadian farms? What about those eastern Canadian farmers who have to employ lumbermen to cut pulpwood on their privately owned wood lots. In my constituency of Gloucester and in other sections of the maritime provinces farmers have substantially large wood lot holdings and they depend on the sale of pulpwood and lumber for their cash revenue. They cannot get any

help to cut this wood because they cannot guarantee unemployment insurance benefits?
We have heard at different times that one of the reasons why the unemployment insurance fund was being depleted is that fishermen have been made eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The total amount paid to the fishermen during the winter of 1958 or 1959 is much less than the $10 million which was lost by the sale of bonds in 1958. This, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance tried to explain a few minutes ago, is nothing else but pure robbery of the workers' savings in the unemployment insurance fund. Any insurance company which operated on such a basis would certainly not be in business very long.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) addressed a question to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). He suggested that on several occasions a minister of labour had asked the advisory committee to produce reports and make summaries in respect of amendments to the act and that these were not tabled because they were not required to be under the statute. But the Prime Minister did not draw any difference between the reports made in 1955 and the one referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the Leader of the Opposition.
It is true that the previous minister of labour asked the advisory board on certain occasions to produce certain reports and make summaries in respect of amendments to the act and that these were not tabled because they were not required to be under the statute. But the previous minister of labour did not hide from members of the house the fact that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were submitted to the unemployment insurance advisory committee for its approval as provided under the act. On January 11, 1955, when speaking on amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Mr. Gregg, the then minister of labour, said, as found on page 80 of Hansard:
There is just one other point I wish to mention. It is something which I forgot to include in my first remarks. This bill has been submitted to the unemployment insurance advisory committee which is provided for under the act, and has been approved by them. Very shortly, of course, the larger bill will also be submitted to them.
The then minister of labour advised the house that the advisory committee had been consulted with respect to the amendments. Again, on April 4, 1955, Mr. Gregg, speaking on amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, said, as found on page 2663 of Hansard:
When the unemployment insurance advisory committee met on December 14 last to review the
66968-9-232
Unemployment Insurance Act amendments regarding seasonal benefits, it was of course necessary for the committee to have before it the views regarding this general revision as they were then held. Later when plans had further crystallized to the point where they were nearly the same as the amendments now proposed, a further meeting of the advisory committee was held on February 15. In order to review these final recommendations, as reflected in the actual bill, the committee has called a further meeting for tomorrow, April 5.
This is further evidence, Mr. Speaker, that the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission was consulted and the house was advised accordingly without the minister having to be requested to do so by the members of the opposition. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance should be reminded that under the previous Liberal administration the unemployment insurance fund was never in the precarious position it is today because, I repeat, of the mismanagement of the present government. This is why parliament is called upon to approve amendments which will place an extra burden on employers and employees without giving them any worth-while benefit in return. I might also add that when amendments were made to the Unemployment Insurance Act by the previous administration provision was made to obtain from the consolidated revenue fund the additional amount required to meet the needs of such amendments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it will be impossible for the opposition to vote in favour of second reading of the bill.


Mr, W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the impression in the country is that in order to replenish a fast depleting government account we must pass these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. When I think that this actually amounts to an increase in taxes, when I think of the increases in taxes in the budget, I cannot help but think of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in Brantford on February 17, 1958, that "the humblest of our people will not be forgotten." I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is helping him to keep that promise.
The other day the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said that the purpose of the increase in rates was to bring the unemployment insurance account into better balance, but these particular facts strike me. First, there is no actuarial accounting to indicate to us whether the minister is raising rates too much or is not raising them enough to bring the account into much better balance. Second, there is a further great obligation or tax on employers and workers equal to one-third of the total tax increase imposed in the budget. This all occurs at a time when the Prime
3656	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act Minister himself said not long ago in Montreal that Canada was emerging from the recession more rapidly than any other country of the western free world. It also occurs at a time when the Minister of Finance has predicted a 7 per cent rise in the gross national product.
I should like to know why such conditions in the country would not bring about a building up rather than a depleting of the account. Under the former government the funds in the account certainly rose very rapidly under similar conditions.
I think the minister should be able to give us an estimate of the percentage increase in payments to take care of the extension of benefits from 36 to 52 weeks. We could then see how much of what will be raised will be needed to pay for the other increases in benefits which, after all, are very little. I think most of the increase is meant to look after seasonal unemployment. I met an executive of the pulp and paper industry the other day and he told me it was his opinion that it would cost that industry an extra $li million to $2 million in order to make the additional payments into the unemployment insurance fund. The workers in the industry will also have to pay a similar amount and will have it lifted from their pay envelopes.
The former government put money into the unemployment insurance fund from consolidated revenue to take care of seasonal unemployment and I think this government should do likewise. The workers who will have to contribute this money also have to pay more taxes because of the tax increases in the budget. They have to pay more sales tax. They have to pay increased cigarette and old pension taxes.
Now they are asked to assume all the taxes under these amendments in order to pay for seasonal unemployment. In spite of the promises made by the Prime Minister there has been no elimination of the waiting period. Today, I think for the first time, I heard a minister of the crown say that the government should be congratulated because of a $10 million loss in connection with a government account.
When the Prime Minister was in Welland he said that the government did not want relief and that is why they launched the winter works program. Certainly, I think there has been more relief paid, in my district at least, than there has been for a good many years. Unemployment insurance benefits certainly were not received by all the people.
I think, myself, that there has been a great


depletion in that account, and yet the municipalities have had to assume a great deal of the responsibility for people who were out of work.
While listening to the Minister of Finance a few minutes ago, two or three questions occurred to me. I heard him refer to the fact that there were $490 million in government securities in the fund-I may be mistaken, but I thought he said at face value or at current face value. I should like to ask him what par value is?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said par value.


William Hector McMillan: You said market price, and I should like to know what the par value of these securities is. I should like to know also, at the time of the-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, but I gave the investment position, as of March 31, 1959, in terms of par value. That was the expression I used.


William Hector McMillan: I understood the minister to say face value. I should like to know who made the decision to sell $400 million worth of victory bonds held by the fund, and convert those into conversion bonds?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The investment committee took the decision, of course, but that was not the amount.


William Hector McMillan: Who made the decision to sell securities held by the fund throughout the last fiscal year, and under what provision of the act? Were loans or credits extended before by the government under this act and, if so, when and under what conditions? If in paragraph 1 of section 86 credit means cash and therefore does not include securities that could be sold, and if at any time the commission has not sufficient credit for the payment of benefits, then surely it means that the investment committee has authorized too much purchasing of securities.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I should like to add a few words to the remarks already made on this bill. The principle of unemployment insurance is, of course, sound and humane. It has made a substantial contribution to the freedom from want which was one of the principal clauses in the Atlantic Charter, the code on which the post-war policy of the free world was in fact based. During the past two years of recession the unemployment insurance fund was one of the main fenders between many people and penury. The establishment of this fund reflects the farsighted wisdom of the Liberal government which introduced it, and the forward looking statesmanlike approach which that government had.

However, it seems to me that the present bill will create an imbalance. While it is obviously desirable to stabilize the fund, it seems to me that the cost more than offsets the benefits. The increased benefits include a longer receiving period, increased from 36 weeks to 52 weeks. The wage level is raised, but the cost in premiums is also raised, yet the unit amount of the benefits remains the same.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are two kinds of unemployment. There is the unemployment which in normal times results when workers are temporarily out of work, but who normally would after a while be re-employed. Then there is the wholesale unemployment caused by the complete disappearance of jobs during an economic recession, such as that which has been historically associated with Tory times, and which has vexed the country for nearly two years. The former can be insured against, but the latter should be dealt with by an outright government grant. It is because of the fact the bill does not provide for outright government assistance, so that the cost can be borne by all, that I shall oppose this bill.


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


Michael Starr: Unemployment Insurance Act all the winding by-paths through which they have been straying. I feel that I have a duty to the unemployed in this country to deal with these amendments in order that they may come into effect as quickly as possible. In that connection I am glad to say that the unemployment situation is now improving even more rapidly than I had hoped for or expected and that the picture for April will be a much happier one than those prophets of doom have led us to expect. I say that because as a Canadian I have great faith in this country. I believe in the the future of this country. I believe in the industry of Canadians. Through that industry and through that endeavour to bring about a stronger economy I know that this will be accomplished. It has been accomplished time and time again in the past and it will be accomplished in the future as it will be accomplished now.
I am happy that the supreme high prophet of doom who sits opposite in the person of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martini has taken such a great interest in this debate. He has certainly shown a greater interest in labour than he ever took when he sat on this side of the house. I also commend the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) made a contribution to this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. As Your Honour will recall, we were restricted very severely to the terms of the bill now before the house. It seems to me that the minister has strayed even beyond the Unemployment Insurance Act itself into realms of fancy that are of no relevance to this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my hon. friends are becoming extremely touchy about a little bit of criticism.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Howard Charles Green: They are very good at handing it out but they are beginning to show that they can't take it. I think the Minister of Labour has been extremely temperate. I am sure that if we cannot say even these mild things about the official opposition, there is not much life left in this parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a good remark.


Mr. Speaker:: Strictly speaking, personalities are always irrelevant but they seem to be a more or less inevitable part of our parliamentary system. If the hon. member


does not confine himself to that kind of debate, I would not want to condemn him.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, it is not my reputation to do so continuously. But may I say that in days gone by I have heard remarks to the effect that a little bit of indulgence in personalities in the House of Commons adds a great deal to the debate. I must say that during the course of this debate many charges have been levelled against me by way of personal attack.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Why do you not deal with the charges?


Michael Starr: As these charges have been published in the newspapers I think I should be permitted, with the indulgence of the house, to answer them. I assure you that, with the great respect I have for the position you hold, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to confine myself to the matter at hand. When I was interrupted I was, as a matter of fact, making complimentary remarks about the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which would suggest that I was not annoyed.


Michael Starr: -and also the hon. member for Laurier. I want to say that they were equally distinguished in the way in which they carefully avoided any reference to the amendments before the house. To me, Mr. Speaker, that was a demonstration of real devotion to the cause of unemployment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not called to order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to adopt the tactics which my hon. friends have adopted, as I said a few seconds ago. But when a minister is attacked on the grounds of violating a statute, when he is described as acting in a manner contrary to parliamentary privilege, there is a question of personal privilege involved in such accusations. While I do not intend to reply in detail to the picayune and meaningless accusations piled up by the official opposition, in their anxiety to avoid discussing these measures, I wish to leave no doubt in the minds of the hon. members of this house or of the people of Canada with regard to the low level they have reached in making personal attacks on myself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising now to a point of order which is much more serious than the one I raised before. The hon. gentleman has raised a question of privilege. It is a well known rule of the house that if there is any question of privilege it must be taken up immediately at the first opportunity. The hon. gentleman did not

do that. If he is going to discuss the question of whether or not he violated the statute, may I say this. Your Honour will recall that we were not permitted to discuss that question. It was ruled out as being irrelevant. I hope the same ruling will be applied to the minister as was applied to those on this side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is that the minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That the minister is out of order in discussing this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: -is discussing something that is irrelevant-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: -in dealing with the charge that he violated the statute. I certainly restricted the hon. member for Essex East in his allegations that the statute had not been observed with respect to the filing of reports.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope it will not be necessary to discuss that matter, but there were other allegations of non-compliance, a great many of them, made in the course of the debate, and I expect that no hon. member would question the right of the hon. minister to deal with these allegations which were made.


Michael Starr: The allegations I referred to appear in Hansard and were publicized. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for restricting the hon. members from going further, because I did not know how far they would be prepared to depart from these amendments. However, you have restricted them to the allegations they made.
Coming back to the hon. member for Essex East, I do not want to say that his remarks were any more significant than any of the others, but he sort of set the pattern, I think, in leading this debate. The hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) contented themselves with just parroting the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East. I clocked the hon. members opposite speaking for a combined total of over three hours but devoting approximately only 45 minutes to the amendments before the house. Again I say that this is an indication of their devotion to the unemployed of this country. This time was occupied by a series of devices which I might describe as the hidden report trick, the violation of the statute trick, and the mystery of the hidden loan. None of these devices, as you, Mr. Speaker, attempted to point out several times during the course of the debate, had anything
Unemployment Insurance Act to do with the present bill or had any reference to reality except in the frenzied minds of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely there must be a strong sense of guilt in the front benches opposite, especially in the minds of the four shattered remnants of the former Liberal government.
Ever since a celebrated day about 18 months ago they have been busily looking for a hidden report. This time they thought they had found one. What they really did find was a special report dealing with a matter which had been referred to the advisory committee by the unemployment insurance commission and myself for an opinion. That was what this report contained. As required under the statute, the annual report of the advisory committee was duly tabled in this house. The matter which was referred to in this special report to the Minister of Labour was a new benefit formula. That formula was dropped at the suggestion of the advisory committee. On this occasion may I say that we took their advice, and I maintain that because of that, this report is irrelevant and obsolete.
The hon. member for Laurier says that the report never should have been made, and he also says that I should never have asked for it. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, then it should never have been tabled and hon. members opposite certainly should not refer to it in this house. But to clarify the whole issue I should like to refer to other similar reports which have been made in the past. I refer to these reports now in order to relate the opinions and views of the advisory committee as to revisions and amendments to the act which have been made at other times, and also to the present amendments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They did not deal with the fund though.


Michael Starr: No; they dealt with unemployment insurance revisions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a different matter. Look at the act.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have repeated at least four times that the statutory report of the unemployment insurance advisory committee relating to the status of the fund as prescribed under the act was duly tabled in this house last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the
second report?


Michael Starr: The second report was of the same nature as other reports made to the Minister of Labour under revisions to the act.
What emerges from a study of the reports of the advisory committee in the past few
3660	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act years is that recommendations of the committee were sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected. In the case of the present amendments, some of them relate directly to recommendations made by the committee. Others were not specifically recommended.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister-I think it is irrelevant, but I will let that pass-mentioned certain reports in the past dealing with the matter. I suggest that under the rules he is now required to table those reports which he has referred to as having passed through the previous administration.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to that and I have every intention of so doing. As an example of what the practice has been, Mr. Speaker, on November 22, 1955 a special report was made by the advisory committee addressed to the then minister, the Hon. Milton F. Gregg, in these terms:
The unemployment insurance advisory committee at your request met on November 21, 1955, to consider the recommendations made by the unemployment insurance commission relative to regulations applying to seasonal benefits-
I stress the words "at your request". This report was never tabled, Mr. Speaker. I will table it today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It did not have to be under the act.


Michael Starr: It was exactly the same kind of report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it was not. It was nothing to do with the fund.


Michael Starr: I do not know how many times I must repeat myself to the hon. member for Essex East who does not want to listen to reason. A report was tabled duly as required by the act, which report had to do with the status of the fund.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right. They all have to be tabled.


Michael Starr: In accordance with the act it was tabled last year and was for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958. The other reports to which the hon. member refers are here and were never tabled by the former government, and I am prepared to table them now after a period of four years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But that was not required under the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has nothing to do with the fund.


Michael Starr: I would also like to note that a report was made by the committee on February 17, 1955, which relates directly to the


matters we are now discussing since it deals with the revision of the act which took place then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not the fund.


Michael Starr: I want to point out that it dealt not only with specific amendments to the act but also with the complete revision of the whole act.


Murdo William Martin: But does it deal with the fund?


Michael Starr: The report which was tabled at the request of the hon. member for Essex East does not deal with the fund.


Murdo William Martin: Yes it does.


Michael Starr: It deals with the new formula which is an amendment to the act. This report of February 17, 1955 which I have just mentioned, was made directly to the minister of labour, but it was never tabled. It gives the views of the committee on the proposed amendments. For the information of the house, the committee was by-passed by the then government and a special interdepartmental committee was set up to consider these amendments in February, 1955. I do not recall any complaint from the hon. member for Essex East at that time, not one single, solitary complaint, although he was at that time a member of the government.


Murdo William Martin: Because it had nothing to do with the fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Murdo William Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. The hon. minister says that when I was a member of the government I failed to observe a particular duty. He alleges in proof thereof that I did not insist on the tabling in this house of a report which was required to be tabled under the statute. I say that the report now characterized by the hon. gentleman was not the kind of report envisaged by section 90 subsection (2), of the Unemployment Insurance Act dealing with the fund, and therefore did not have to be tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not yet indicated how privilege is involved. It appears to me that he is disagreeing with the hon. minister who has the floor, and that is not a matter of privilege. If there is some correction necessary it should be made when the hon. minister who has the floor has finished his address.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I insist that I am within my rights in this house. The hon. gentleman has said that when I was a member of the government I failed to do my duty, and I am now answering that charge, as I have the right to do under the rules of this house with regard to a question of privilege. I say to the minister that the reports to which he is now dealing had nothing to do with section 90, subsection 2. They did not refer to the act, and did not, as the second report which was brought up on August 28


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is saying as a matter of privilege that he has been charged with a breach of his duties as a minister of the crown. If the hon. member would state the words he complains of, I will ask the minister-


Murdo William Martin: It must be obvious from the context. What the hon. gentleman said was: here were certain reports which should have been tabled which were not tabled by the government of the day; the member for Essex East was a member of that government, and he should have seen to it that those reports were tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is being unduly susceptible. He has been making the same charges, in the course of this debate, against the minister, and it seems to me a case of the retort courteous.


Michael Starr: The hon. gentleman has a habit of twisting and turning the facts. I did not say they should have been tabled.


Murdo William Martin: No, but we say
your reports should have been tabled.


Michael Starr: That is exactly the same kind of report as those I make reference to, and when these reports are tabled they can be compared to see if there is any difference. Cetrain suggestions were brought forward. They were referred by me to the unemployment insurance advisory committee. One or two officials suggested that the present formula of contributions and benefits could be looked at to see if it could be changed. That is what the formula refers to. The unemployment insurance advisory committee rejected the suggestions and we dropped them. Hon. members opposite say this has something to do with the fund. Certainly not. It has nothing to do with the fund.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister not realize that the title of the report he is talking about is: "The status of the fund"? That is at the head of the report.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Michael Starr: This report was made to me personally, and the report on the status of the fund was filed and tabled in this House of Commons-the official statement. I want to draw the attention of the house to the report made to the Minister of Labour on April 7, 1955 dealing with proposed amendments to the act. The last paragraph is significant, and I intend to quote it. This is a report made to the former government of which most of the four remnants were then members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order. Your Honour will recall that we were severely restricted to the contents of this bill. I cannot see how this talk about what happened in 1955 is related in any way to the present bill, and I do not think any hon. member who looks at the matter objectively can hold any other opinion. I maintain that the minister should be restricted as we were restricted.


Mr. Ricard:: It hurts too much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recall that I have already dealt with that very point. It seems to me that the minister is proceeding in a perfectly legitimate way to answer charges and accusations which were made against him. The point he is dealing with is a report in connection with which a great many allegations were made, and he is attempting to meet them by referring to the handling of similar reports in the past. It seems to me he is quite in order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I say a word on that point?


Michael Starr: I am making a speech and I have no recollection of having interrupted the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition or any of the other members-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Leader of the Opposition, though I have no doubt about the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to recall to Your Honour that yesterday when I brought up the question of this report you told me, and I did not argue your ruling, that it was out of order because it was irrelevant. I, and the hon. member for Essex East and others on this side of the house, would, had it not been for your decision, have tried to relate this particular report in August to earlier reports which we knew about, but we were not able to do so because they did not deal with the unemployment insurance fund. We were not permitted to go into the history of this, and I suggest that although the minister has the right to reply to statements we made about that particular report last August entitled "Report to the minister on the status of the fund," that

Unemployment Insurance Act surely does not give him the right to go back to deal with other publications which were not concerned with the fund, as he himself admits.


John George Diefenbaker: We have had for the last two days continual evidence of the nature of the attitude of the opposition. It has been shown over and over again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is this, a lecture or a point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Dictator.


John George Diefenbaker: I would be the last to speak of dictators after the attitude of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Prime Minister is speaking to the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is lecturing the house.


John George Diefenbaker: He is trying to restore
some sense and reason to an opposition which has got out of control. I have sat here and maintained silence, but I have a responsibility in the house, and the attitude shown has been as unreasoning as-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister is speaking to a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is not; he is lecturing us.


Mr. Speaker:: May I just say a word before the Prime Minister proceeds? I did give the Leader of the Opposition the floor to speak on the point of order. Now the Prime Minister, as everyone knows, has a responsibility in this house, and I am prepared to hear him speak to the point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I will be the last to
try to lecture those to whom a lecture would prove entirely ineffective. They spend their time arguing over facts-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: Hear the man speak, at least.


John George Diefenbaker: They say that certain
reports should have been tabled-that they were hidden reports-and I can understand their feelings with regard to hidden reports. They say the reports should have been tabled, and the minister is now showing that the report in question is identical with similar ones which were not tabled in 1955 and 1956 by the last government, either because there was no legal requirement to table them or for some other reason. Surely we have not

reached the point where any group of members in the house can make a series of assertions that are not justified by the facts and then when those statements are answered, and the truth is about to be brought before the house endeavour to seize an opportunity to prevent that information being given.


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister has expressed effectively the view which I had formed. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition, and just to conclude this matter may I recall that this supplementary report, which is the subject of the debate which the minister is now proceeding to carry on, is referred to at pages 3542 and 3549, 3586-3592, 3596-3599, and 3628-3631 of Hansard. There was very considerable discussion, and I do not see how any member of the house in fairness could object to the fullest opportunity being given to the minister to meet as he sees fit the case which was made by several members of the opposition. I hope hon. members will hear him in reasonable silence so that the matter can be proceeded with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a matter of principle and finally to clarify it, Mr. Speaker, do I understand that you stand by the ruling you made at page 3544 of Hansard, when you said:
I am not objecting to the hon. member using the report, but what I am objecting to, or what I am asking him to desist from, is a discussion of the production and manner of production.
That was the ruling you gave on May 11, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I did restrict the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in that way, but the debate went far beyond that as it progressed. There was a good deal of reference to the tabling and the production not only of the report of August but of a supplementary report. I was trying to confine this debate so that there would be no reference to the legality of the action of the government with respect to the tabling and the obtaining of these reports, but in fairness I could not-


Harold Edward Winch: How about stopping all this and getting down to the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: -stop the minister in the line he is now taking, in view of the course the debate took.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted I was about to quote from a report which was made to the minister of labour on April 7, 1955. In my view the last paragraph of this report is quite significant. I quote the following:
Under paragraph 89 of the present act, the committee is expected to review recommendations

for changes, bringing excepted employment under coverage. Under the new proposals the committee is not mentioned. Members expressed the view that the committee, if it is to function properly, should be consulted before changes are made, especially those which involve additional payments out of the fund.
I have two comments to make. This report was made on April 7, 1955 when the former government was in power. These are the two comments I have to make. First, when I was asked to refer the present amendments to an interdepartmental committee which would have had the effect of bypassing the advisory committee I declined to do so.
Second, when these amendments were being discussed in the preparatory stage we made our submissions to the advisory committee in order to get their views. I have before me also the minutes of the advisory committee for July 24 and 25, 1950, in which the chairman explains why the government declined to consult the advisory committee on the question of seasonal benefits before introducing draft legislation. I refer also to the report of the advisory committee for the year 1957, in which the following statement appears on page 4:
Incidentally, your committee was not consulted before the provisions for fishermen's coverage were introduced and passed.
By this time, Mr. Speaker, they were so used to this sort of tactic that it was merely incidental. This report, I might say, Mr. Speaker, was tabled in this house but the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) seems to have missed seeing it. If he read it I would only conclude that he did not make it available to his colleagues. By July, 1957 the situation had reached a point where it was considered necessary to have the president of the Canadian Labour Congress appear before the committee and make the following statement:
Finally, we believe, in view of the importance of this committee and of its representative nature, that the status it enjoyed before the amendments of 1955 should be restored.
This is the statement of the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. This is the way in which the former government treated the advisory committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what we over here were not allowed to debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not considered the functions of the advisory committee relevant. There has been debate, but it has been on the report and the minister's action with respect to the report.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Michael Starr: With the permission of the house, I would like to table the reports to which I have made reference up to now.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these reports?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be very interesting to look at them.


Michael Starr: The hon. member saw them many times but he did not want to refer to them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be very glad to look at them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will be interesting to have them on the third reading of the bill.


Michael Starr: Now we shall be able to have the benefit of the advice of the committee which castigated the former government for its bypassing of its function.
With respect to the present amendments, the minutes of a meeting of the advisory committee-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are now coming to the bill?


Michael Starr: Yes. I have spent approximately 10 minutes of my time on this and I did that in order to reply to the hours that have been spent in this house by the members of the official opposition in discussing everything else but these amendments.
Now with respect to the present amendments, the minutes of a meeting of the advisory committee for August 19, 1958, urge the elimination of the ceiling of $4,800. The same minutes show strong opposition to the principle of extending benefits to fishermen. I mention this for the information of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Again, with respect to the recommendations, the special report which was presented to me, dated August 26 of last year, suggested two new classes at the top of the range and provided for adjustments of the wage ceiling being made from time to time by the governor in council. These recommendations are also shown in the annual report which was tabled last August in accordance with the statute.
I think what I have put forward fairly well establishes the position of the advisory committee and I hope deals once and for all, with the matter of tabling reports. But before leaving the subject, Mr. Speaker, I would refer hon. gentlemen opposite to section 19 of the act. I think this is the information they asked for. Section 91 provides for certain other reports to be made from time to time

Unemployment Insurance Act by the advisory committee. There is no requirement as to tabling. Section 91, subsection (2), reads:
The commission may from time to time refer to the advisory committee for consideration and advice such matters relating to this act as the commission thinks fit.
This is done in consultation with the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is the minister responsible to the members of this house for the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read that section again.


Michael Starr: One of the curious objections which was made by them the other night was the criticism that my remarks on this bill have been very short. I wish I could say the same for hon. members opposite. They were neither short nor clear; they were windy and wordy-and that is spelled w-o-r-d-y.


William Moore Benidickson: W-o-r-t-h-y.


Michael Starr: The hon. gentleman from Essex East-I almost said "the big wind" from Essex East-had me violating quite a number of statutes. His colleague, the hon. member for Laurier, had me violating every statute in the book. I am afraid this only showed their complete unfamiliarity with the act. Like my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming),-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Big wind finance.


William Moore Benidickson: What about "wordy"
there?


Michael Starr: -I was struck by the ignorance shown by three former cabinet ministers of the ordinary administrative procedures of the unemployment insurance commission. I do not intend to labour this point, Mr. Speaker. I would simply refer them, for their information, to section 19, paragraph 5, which permits the advisory committee to function despite absences or resignations of members.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, that is not right.


Michael Starr: Section 19, paragraph 5, reads as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: I did not allow a debate on the constitution of the committee, the lack of membership of the committee or appointment of the committee, and in all propriety I think the minister should omit that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the minister, I did say that I thought that this committee had no legal existence, and I take it the minister is trying to reply to that by reading the section which he thinks does give it a legal existence.


Michael Starr: I refer to section 19, subsection 5, which reads as follows:

A majority of the members of the advisory committee constitutes a quorum, and a vacancy on the membership of the advisory committee does not impair the right of the remaining members to act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will you read subsection 1 now?


Michael Starr: The advisory committee is constituted as follows:	There are four representatives of labour, four representatives of industry and a chairman, making a total of nine. At the moment there are four vacancies which leaves a majority to function.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister read section 19(1)?


William Moore Benidickson: The "not less than" provision.


Michael Starr: My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has dealt with section 86 which authorizes the making of these mysterious loans which have been deplored so dramatically in the past few days. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has declared himself against these amendments. But what really hurt was when he gave as his reason the fact that he had lost confidence in the Minister of Labour. This kept me awake all night. A great smokescreen has been thrown up around these amendments, a smokescreen behind which have skulked the hon. member for Essex East and his somewhat less portly colleagues from Bonavista-Twillingate and Laurier.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is nice personal observation.


Michael Starr: In reality these amendments are quite simple.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am sure I weigh more than the hon. member for Essex East.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Only in a physical sense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Donald's first good joke.


Michael Starr: In reality these amendments are quite simple. We are extending the benefit period to 52 weeks, and this has been done in answer to repeated requests from labour organizations. We are increasing allowable earnings in answer also to repeated requests from labour organizations. We are adding two new additional classes at the top level and these are in answer to repeated requests from labour organizations. We are making certain easements in favour of persons who have had the misfortune to serve a prison sentence.
To support these extensions we are increasing contributions, as recommended by the actuary of the fund. I gave the substance of the actuarial report at the beginning of my

remarks. Against this the official opposition have suggested that we support these changes by a grant from the consolidated revenue fund. That is also the position of the C.C.F. group. This would place upon the taxpayers of Canada a burden of $112 million. It would perhaps tend to remove some of the burden of these changes from the large corporations-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order-


Michael Starr: -and distribute it among the taxpaying public. Presumably this is what the hon. member for Essex East had in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is that the minister is now embarking on a debate on the amendment of the hon. member for Essex East which has been decided by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: As to the amount of the government's contribution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment called for a larger government contribution and the maintenance of other existing contributions. That point has been decided.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister could have spoken at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And should have.


Michael Starr: If I had spoken at that time I would have closed the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not on the amendment. The minister does not know the rules.


Michael Starr: Let us look at the record of the former government. The annual report of the advisory committee for 1957 shows that a recommendation was made to the government to support the cost of fishermen's benefits from the consolidated revenue fund.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister to be allowed to proceed to debate a question that has already been decided by the house in this session?


Mr. Speaker:: I have not heard enough since I decided the last point of order to know what his line is.


Michael Starr: I think if I say a few more sentences you may get the drift of what I am trying to say. I had just mentioned that the annual report of the advisory committee for 1957 shows that a recommendation was made to the government to support the cost of fishermen's benefits from the consolidated revenue fund. This was turned down flatly by the cabinet of which the hon. member for Essex East was a member. No doubt he and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate were the leaders in the turning down of this recommendation.
Unemployment Insurance Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was certainly a leader in getting unemployment insurance for the fishermen.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, when the members of the official opposition were the government, when they were in that position in 1950, when they had to finance seasonal benefits they did exactly what we are proposing to do here. They raised the contributions by 15 per cent and more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the fund was not imperilled as it is now.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Essex East was a member of the government at that time. Surely he knew what was going on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I did.


Michael Starr: Why does he make all these speeches, why does he talk so much now-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will answer.


Michael Starr: -that it should be paid from the consolidated revenue fund? I am not asking a question-


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: You are afraid of the answer.


Michael Starr: -because he has already
answered that question by saying repeatedly that it should be paid from the consolidated revenue fund.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but after making due allowance for points of order and interruptions his time has expired and I must now put the question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the minister ought to be given all the time he needs to finish his speech.


Mr. Denis:: Not three hours like the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: I wish to thank you and hon. members opposite for giving me a little more time. I want to assure you that I will not take any more than is necessary. Not one of these members opposite, and I refer particularly to the four former cabinet ministers, was aware of how the former government regularly ignored and disregarded the recommendations of the advisory committee. This government has not done so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister permit a question? He has just mentioned the advisory committee. Would he tell the house how many times the advisory committee has met since the report of last August 25?
3666	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act


Michael Starr: The advisory committee only meets once a year. It only meets to deal with the statutory report on the condition of the fund. It may meet at other times when it is requested by the commission or the minister to consider certain amendments. This is an indication of what was known by these former cabinet ministers as to what went on in the government. Not one of them was aware of reports which were made and never tabled. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this must have been an absentee government indeed. In this as in other matters in this house the hon. member for Essex East has shown himself to be a master of misinformation. He has laboured mightily trying to make Martin mountains out of Martin molehills. But mother Martin has laboured in vain. Instead of a mountain he has brought forth a mouse.
The opposition has resorted to every possible device to avoid discussing these amendments. They have even objected to expenditures made from the fund last winter in pursuance of the object for which the fund was set up. The object for which this fund was first proposed by the late R. B. Bennett was the alleviation of human hardship. This fund is more than a series of actuarial tables. Certainly we have an obligation to keep the fund stable. Certainly we will keep it stable. We also have an obligation to those people of Canada who are unfortunate enough to suffer unemployment. This is our first obligation on behalf of these people and their families. I reject entirely the cold and callous position of the hon. member for Essex East, followed by his two colleagues.
Last winter the fund was put to the purpose for which it was set up. It was devoted to the alleviation of human hardship. I have no apologies to make.
Today there are 150,000 more people at work. Unemployment is more than 80,000 below last year. We are going into next winter with confidence. If our hopes should prove wrong, let me tell the hon. member for Essex East that this fund will be used next winter for the same purpose it was used last winter. This government will not see Canadians suffer in order to preserve the actuarial tables intact. They say in this debate, we are for this; we like these amendments, but we are going to vote against them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Against the tax.


Michael Starr: They are going to vote against
amendments of benefit to the working people of Canada.


Michael Starr: that the bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-[DOT]
163. Departmental administration including grants as detailed in the estimates and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,105,745.
Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, at the time of adjournment of this debate last Friday night I was pointing out that our economic recovery depends to a very large degree on the employment of human resources, and that inflation and unemployment were the twins of misery besetting our communities today. The government is no doubt aware of the consequences of the evils of unemployment, but what are they doing about it? They certainly are not doing what they did when in opposition; that is plain when one reads their speeches in Hansard of 1955, 1956 and 1957, I do not wish to belabour the point by reading excerpts from these speeches at this time because I realize that my friend the minister, who has had a rough time during the past couple of days, is anxious to have the estimates approved without delay to enable him to proceed to the Geneva labour conference. May I extend to him sincere best wishes for an enjoyable time and safe journey.
However, I have here an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of January 24, 1959 which has a bearing on the situation and which I wish to read. It is as follows:
Mr. L. B. Pearson's colleagues in the House of Commons have been at some pains to reply to the personal attack made on their leader by Prime Minister Diefenbaker. The Prime Minister had lectured Mr. Pearson on his statistical references to unemployment and to the economic situation generally, saying that such remarks were "not in keeping with his responsibilities as Leader of the Opposition at a time when world conditions are difficult and trying, when the communist world
Supply-Labour
attacks the free world economically as never before." Mr. Pearson, in a word, was rocking the boat.
On that occasion Mr. Diefenbaker had scoffed at Liberal warnings about the state of the economy. Last year, he said, Canadians "worked more, earned more, spent more and saved more" than ever before. A few days later Mr. Paul Martin had an opportunity to comment on this statement, finding on the basis of official figures that Canadians had actually worked less, earned less and spent less, in terms of real dollars, than in the last year the Liberals were in office.
As for the charges that the opposition leader was talking in such a way as to instil fear into the Canadian people, Mr. Lionel Chevrier pointed out that some highly responsible men had expressed quite similar views. One of these was Cardinal Leger, who in a recent pastoral letter said that the unemployment situation "requires the intervention of government to take new and audacious steps." And Mr. Martin listed half a dozen heads of Canadian banks who had all spoken in the gravest terms of the problem of inflation.
In his own days in opposition, as Mr. Chevrier reminded the house, Mr. Diefenbaker had been less cheery about preaching "doom and gloom". In March, 1955, when there had been a fairly sharp, though temporary, upsurge of unemployment, he had accused former Prime Minister St. Laurent of remaining silent "in the face of a problem that wrings the hearts of the people". But if the Prime Minister feels that the people ought to be spoken to soothingly so as not to get them all upset, he does not always set a good example in that respect. When meeting a delegation from the Canadian Labour Congress, for example, he told it that the Russians are staging a "terrifying" trade offensive aimed at undermining the economies of western countries.
This is more apt to give a listener the chills than anything uttered by the leader of the opposition.
Just a few moments ago the Minister of Labour made reference to the present employment situation and claimed that it was much better than it was. I am very pleased and happy to hear about that, but unfortunately his statement does not apply to the city of Fort William. Here I have the figures with respect to unemployment in Fort William. I am quoting from the weekly statistics compiled by the unemployment insurance office of the city of Fort William. On December 5, 1957, there were 2,075 people seeking employment; on December 4, 1958, there were 2,522; on January 2, 1958 there were 2,975 people seeking employment, and on January 21, 1959 there were 3,343; on February 6, 1958 there were 3,297 people seeking employment, and on February 5, 1959 there were 3,836; on March 6, 1958, there were 3,639 people seeking employment, and on March 5, 1959, 3,822; on April 3, 1958 there were 3,727 people seeking employment and on April 2, 1959 there were 3,882; on May 7, 1959 there were 2,619 people seeking employment.
All these figures indicate that so far as the city of Fort William is concerned the employment situation is no better than it

Supply-Labour
was. In fact it keeps getting worse, unfortunately. It is obvious the statistics are not likely to inspire any degree of confidence in the present state of our economy. Therefore, it is imperative that something should be done immediately to lay the foundation for the cure of unemployment.
One of the puzzling paradoxes of our time lies in the fact that while the personal incomes of Canadian workers in 1958 reached the highest figure in their history, averaging an annual income of $3,534, and while farmers, too, enjoyed their biggest earnings on record, with $2.8 billion, an average of 405,000 Canadians were out of work in 1958, while all those billions of dollars were being made and spent. The average still holds at that rate today. Some 24,000 fewer Canadians were employed last year than were employed the year before-5,722,000 against 5,746,000.
The appointment of an advisory board with representatives from labour, industry, agriculture and the universities to help in dealing with the long term problems of production and employment, as advocated by the Liberal party under the leadership of the hon. member for Algoma East, should be considered by this government without delay. A much needed service to the nation would be rendered if action were taken to implement this proposal. I submit that the problem of unemployment transcends any other with which the government is faced. We of the opposition would be delighted to co-operate with the government in any measure designed to bring about a solution to the cancer-like curse of unemployment.
One cannot speak of labour without giving some consideration to that army of workers known as the civil service. These men and women, working silently and efficiently, dedicated for the most part to the service of their country, very much like an army disciplined by an archaic code which deprives them in many instances of a voice to vent their feelings or opinions because of fear that their jobs may be placed in jeopardy, should be granted a new charter. I suggest the Minister of Labour should recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the time has come to place all workers of the civil service below the executive rank on the same footing as workers who are employed in industry, and that they be given the same bargaining rights as any other group.
There should also be a study made to determine whether or not there are infringements on labour rights to organize in Canada. I believe that a clear-cut policy by the government on the rights of labour and

management should be made plain for all to understand, in order to avoid unnecessary labour disputes.
I have received letters from my own constituency reflecting dissatisfaction within the staff of the Post Office Department. The information I have is that their shift work is placed on a seven-day week. One letter disclosed that grievances which were taken up with the district director of postal services were not taken care of and that in consequence, the morale of the employees has suffered considerably.
Perhaps the minister would use his good offices in order to have an investigation made of the situation in the post office in Fort William.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, at the hour of adjournment I was indicating that the labour relations in the Fort William post office are not what they should be. I, therefore, would ask the minister to have an investigation made and if there is something wrong at that point I am sure there must be other places with similar complaints. It must be borne in mind here that the average civil servant will not complain for fear of discrimination.
I appeal to the minister to consider giving all our civil service employees a new charter in which there should be an outline of the rights of an individual to join any organization or political party of his choice. While this government claims that it does not favour patronage, it has been guilty of causing honest working men to be fired from their jobs because of political leanings or affiliations.
The charge has been made on more than one occasion that the Liberal government when in power were far more patronageconscious than the present government. Be that as it may, I for one would not make a single excuse for any government using their power to fire a person because of political affiliations. I look upon such an act as one of the most despicable outrages that anyone could commit, regardless of political stripe.
There is one particular question which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour and that is the premises occupied at the present time by the unemployment insurance commission at 123 north May street in Fort William. It is the former post office building, erected in 1904. The unemployment insurance commission has been

occupying the premises since August, 1946. Since that time the steady growth and development of Fort William and the surrounding area find the premises occupied at the present time totally inadequate as to space, and unsuited structurally for handling the heavy volume of traffic peculiar to the unemployment insurance commission. The foreseeable space required for the next 10 years by the unemployment insurance commission office is 14 to 16 thousand square feet. The present 5,800 square feet reveal the lack of adequate working facilities, the congested conditions, which clearly indicate the present need for new premises as soon as possible.
The site occupied at the present time by the armouries, a federal government building, at 323 north Archibald street, would provide ample space for a new building to house the unemployment insurance commission office staff. The armouries building has been condemned and is to be torn down. Crown Assets Corporation has advertised for offers for the demolition and removal of the building from the site. The property belongs to the federal government and all that remains to be done is for the Department of Public Works to inspect the site and the unemployment insurance commission to approve the plans. This project should not present any difficulty to the government, financially or otherwise. I express the sincere hope that the minister will look upon the project with favour, as the present accommodation and facilities are totally inadequate. All one has to do to be convinced of the necessity of a new building is to go by on north May street, next to the premises of the Fort William Times Journal, to see long double queues of unemployed people lined up on the sidewalk waiting for something to come. Perhaps the minister may indicate that a new building is under consideration.
Finally, I submit that the greatest problem facing this government is the problem of checking rising costs and prices by creating more jobs and by producing more.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is true that we live in a country where winter unemployment has been traditional. I come from a province where there is probably on the average more winter unemployment than is experienced in any of the other nine provinces of Canada. I suppose generally we give the excuse that winter unemployment is a matter of winter weather; but perhaps over the last four or five years we have come to realize that winter unemployment is not altogether a matter of winter weather in
Supply-Labour
Canada. It may now be a matter of our thinking and it also may be a matter of habit.
In my own province of Newfoundland winter unemployment is a situation that we have had for many, many years. It is true it is largely due to winter weather but it is also largely due to the type of economy which we have, a type of economy which has been partly accepted by us and partly imposed on us. I suppose another reason why we do have more winter unemployment across Canada is the fact that many of our primary industries are outdoor industries.
But I believe that the time is at hand when winter unemployment will be reduced a good deal. Our secondary industries will catch up with the outdoor primary industries and there will also be a change in our thinking due to the fact that more people are becoming concerned as to the ill effects of unemployment during the winter months. I believe that the winter unemployment we have in this country can be reduced a great deal by concerted attack on the problem not only by the federal government but by provincial governments, municipal governments, employers, all those who are directly and indirectly concerned and all those who feel that for every man day that is lost in Canada some part of the country must suffer.
We have examples of how winter unemployment can be reduced. Take the construction industry which normally composes between 7 and 10 per cent of all industry in Canada. Yet its contribution to winter unemployment in years gone by has been much greater than those figures. Nonetheless over the last two or three years we have begun to see that by the use of different methods winter unemployment even in this segment of our economy can be reduced. Today jobs are being carried on in the winter time. Concrete is poured in zero weather and construction is carried on under cover with the result that the construction industry today is not hampered by winter weather as it used to be years ago. A very good example is the paint industry. In years gone by the paint and painting industry did most of its work in the spring and summer with very little during the winter months. But lately we have seen a larger percentage of employment in this industry during the winter months. Various methods have been introduced by which winter unemployment can be reduced.
But I say again that it is not altogether a matter for the federal government. It is a matter for the provincial governments also and everybody else interested in seeing

Supply-Labour
that every man in this country is employed for as long as it is possible for him to be employed. All phases of the economy must co-operate if we are to reduce winter unemployment to the level to which I believe it can be reduced.
During the past winter and in other years gone by the unemployment insurance commission endeavoured to set up committees all across the country to devise methods to decrease winter unemployment. In my own area a committee was set up under the manager of the unemployment insurance commission and I know that a great deal of effective work has been done. At this time I should like to extend to him, the members of his committee and the staff hearty congratulations for the work they have done under most difficult circumstances. I believe that with the encouragement of the federal Department of Labour they can continue their work and produce better results in the years that lie ahead.
In the field of labour the past year has been a most difficult one for my brother Newfoundlanders. The fishery has brought in far less returns to the fishermen than is the case in an average year. There is far less employment in the pulp and paper industry with the result that many men living along the coast of Newfoundland have not had the employment possibilities that have been open to them in years gone by. We have not been able to take advantage of the winter works program in the same way that many other provinces have for the simple reason that we do not have the same municipal set-up that is found in the other nine provinces of Canada. The 50-50 deal, for example, imposes some hardship on municipalities that even in the summer months have not sufficient money to be able to do the work that needs to be done. Under the regulations of the present winter employment program our municipalities are far less able to take advantage of the offer of the federal government.
The Department of Labour, of course, has agreements not only with municipalities but also with unorganized areas through the provincial governments. There are many places in Newfoundland where I think it would be very difficult to organize any winter works program and I suggest to the Minister of Labour that possibly it would be much more effective to endeavour to get what works can be started under way as early in the spring as possible. That is not only true in the case of federal works but all other types of works that are carried on.
Last year when we were considering suggestions for a winter works program I thought that one winter works program

which could have been undertaken on the west coast of Newfoundland was the improvement of Canadian National telegraphs service in that section of the province. If improvements had been decided upon a good deal of winter employment could have been given to loggers who would have been able to cut the necessary poles and at this time of the year considerable employment could have been given by Canadian National telegraphs in constructing a line down the west coast of Newfoundland in an area where communications are worse now than they have been at any time in the last 30 years. There was a time when communications existed all down that coast but over the years of the depression and the years of commission government the service was allowed to drop. It is necessary now to restore it and I believe that a winter works program could well be provided in this area by agreement between the Minister of Labour and Canadian National telegraphs to cut the necessary poles during the winter months and then later in the year have the line rebuilt along that section of the coast.
I say again that in those places where it is not possible to carry on a regular program of winter works it might be a very good thing indeed if those works that are to be started could be commenced very early in the year. I am going to give two examples. I cannot say that I am giving them merely as examples and am not complaining because in actual fact I am complaining to a certain extent. Last year public works began to build a harbour at Codroy on the west coast of Newfoundland and during the latter months of the year a good deal of work was done. When winter came the work was stopped. Even though we have had pretty fair weather in that section of Newfoundland for the last four weeks there has been no sign to date that the work will be resumed on this project. I believe this is a fairly good example of what could be done if work that is to be carried on during the year could be started as early as possible.
I give another example and while I am using it as an illustration I am also complaining. The Minister of Fisheries, who has been very kind in his efforts to attack our problems in Newfoundland and has always given a sympathetic hearing to our suggestions was able to have a portable bait depot sent to Norris Point in Bonne bay last year. The bait depot has been there since last fall. The fishermen are now ready to take up the lobster fishery after a long hard winter when they had very little income. Yet, they are not able to take advantage of the lobster fishery at this particular time because

they are still hampered by a lack of bait. While this particular bait depot has been there for nearly six months now, it is still not in operation. I hope that it will be very shortly.
I say again that this has been a very difficult winter in Newfoundland. Although the latest figures on unemployment are beginning to go down, and 1 am grateful to be able to say that, in my area at the moment there are 6,132 unemployed, and that is a reduction of about 600 from a week earlier. Nevertheless, we do have a large percentage of the population of Newfoundland on relief. During the whole of the month of March the number of heads of families unemployed amounted to 7,018, representing a total of 37,321 persons. When one realizes that the population of Newfoundland is 420,000, one recognizes that 37,000 is a large percentage of that population to be on relief. Of this number who are on relief, 6,078 are employable, that is the number of employable heads of families, representing 34,359 people.
During the debates on unemployment and employment that we have had in the last months one or two references have been made to election promises made by members of this government as they went across the country during the campaigns of 1957 and 1958. When the Prime Minister was at Brantford on February 7, 1958, he said this:
The humblest of our people will not be forgotten. The people who are unemployed will not be in the false position of being put on relief.
Yet here, even in the middle of the fifth month of the year, we still have almost 10 per cent of the people of Newfoundland on relief.
May I pass on now, Mr. Chairman, to one or two other points which I should like to make. I should like to mention very briefly vocational training and training for the unemployed. I believe that these two services provided by the federal government, by agreement with the provincial governments, are at this time particularly important. We have seen in the newspapers during the last few weeks numerous references to the relationship which exists between the level of education and the rate of unemployment. This is a task not only for the federal government, but for the provincial governments, for education officials and for all employees.
I suggest we do live in an age of automation, an age when greater demands are being made for trained personnel. I suppose it is true, too, that automation does produce temporarily a certain percentage of unemployment. But I think in the long run it does produce more jobs for those who are qualified to take them.
Supply-Labour
I would suggest, therefore, not only to this government but also to the officials in my own province, that more attention be paid to the program of vocational training and to training of the unemployed.
We live here in Canada in a country which has many natural resources, and the greatest will be its people, particularly the young people. The population in Canada has one-third of its total composed of people less than 20 years of age. All these young people can make a great contribution to the future of Canada if they are properly trained to take part in those things which they are equipped to do.
I was glad to hear the minister refer to the older worker. I believe that here we have a very serious problem facing this country, when a man or woman at the age of 40 can be debarred from certain classes of work and referred to as an older worker. I was pleased to hear the minister say he was going to give some attention to this problem. I would suggest to him he not only give attention to the older worker of 40 years of age, but also to the older worker in his sixties. We are living in a land where the span of life has been lengthened. 1 am sure that many people who are considered older workers at 40 years of age or who are discharged from their jobs at 65 years of age still have contributions to make in some fields.
May I refer to unemployment insurance again? I bring up a pet problem of mine. It is not one that involves a large number of people, but I think it is grossly unjust. During the past winter of 1958-59 and also the winter of 1957-58 I did have a number of young men in my constituency who were not able to find work in the fishing industry or the lumbering industry. They were living in small settlements where there was absolutely nothing to do, so they decided that for two or three of the winter months they would go back to school and attempt to improve their standing in English, arithmetic and perhaps history and geography. They were not taking the whole course that was given at the local school, but just taking those subjects that would be of help to them. I thought it was a very commendable thing for young men past school age to do. There was nothing else left for them to do, except sit at home and draw their unemployment insurance. If they went back to school to improve their educational standing, I thought it would be a sound thing to do. However, the moment they entered the school door their unemployment insurance benefits were cut off. I believe that this is eminently unfair, and I would present this problem to the Minister of Labour, not as a problem which involves a large number of people but as one

Supply-Labour
that is very serious from the standpoint of justice. I hope that on some future occasion he will be able to give some attention to a problem which, after all, is serious for those people concerned.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that during the coming months, and before too long, the Minister of Labour will be making plans for his unemployment program for the coming winter. I hope that the plans will be made far ahead of time and they will be as effective as possible in reducing the number of men who are unemployed in the wintertime, many of whom have been unemployed for a large part of the year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, as it was not possible under the rules of this house as interpreted by the Speaker yesterday and today to deal with one of the matters relating to the debate which preceded this one, at this particular moment when we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Labour we are forced, indeed we have a duty to refer to a matter which we on this side of the house regard as a one of importance. I refer to the failure of the government and the Minister of Labour to table in this house a report of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission relating to the unemployment insurance fund.
In his speech today the minister sought to indicate that what he had done was no different from what had been done on four other occasions by his immediate predecessor. He referred us to a number of reports of the advisory committee which were tabled by him during the course of his speech. I had an opportunity of looking over these four reports of the unemployment insurance advisory committee during the dinner recess. From examining these four reports I think it is clear that these were reports of the committee that do not cover matters that come under sections 89 and 90 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. These were reports that had nothing whatsoever to do with the fund, certainly with the fund in the context of sections 89 and 90. Any hon. member who wishes to take the trouble to peruse these reports will find confirmation of what I have said.
The situation is briefly this. A report was made by the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission on August 18, 1958. That report was tabled in this house. That report dealt with matters having to do with the fund and the perilous position in which that fund seemed to be, in the judgment of the advisory committee. In so far as this particular report is concerned, the act was fully complied with. Section 89 is explicit on this point and it

bears repetition in this particular in this new debate. Section 89, subsection (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act reads as follows:
89. (1) Within four months after the end of each fiscal year the advisory committee shall make a report to the governor in council on the financial condition of the fund as of the end of that fiscal year and shall also make a report to the governor in council on the financial condition of the fund whenever the advisory committee considers that the fund is or is likely to become, and is likely to continue to be, insufficient to discharge its liabilities, and may make a report on the financial condition of the fund at such other times as the advisory committee may think fit.
As I say, this report was tabled in accordance with the act. The other day I asked the Minister of Labour if there was another report of the advisory committee. I gave notice of my intention to ask that question and on the orders of the day the minister indicated that he had not had time to prepare the reply to my question of which, as I say, notice had been given. I readily understand that the minister who is a busy man could justifiably and readily offer that reason for not having a reply ready at the time. After all, the minister is a man with great preoccupations and responsibilities. But later in the day, after I pressed him again or interrogated him again during the course of his speech during that afternoon, when he was explaining the principles of the amendments which he proposed to the Unemployment Insurance Act, he indicated that there had been a second report. He explained, however, that it was a report of a different category from the one to which I have just made reference; that it was a report that he himself had initiated; that he had asked the advisory committee to look into certain matters previously covered in their report of August 18. That report, however, he insisted was not a report of the same kind as the report which required tabling. During the course of the debate we endeavoured to pursue this matter but, as I said, under the interpretation of the rules by the Speaker we were precluded from so doing. It is now our duty to proceed further in connection with this matter.
There can be no doubt about the statutory obligation. I call the attention of the committee to section 90, subsection (2) which reads as follows;
(2) The minister shall lay every report made under section 89 before parliament within thirty days after it was submitted to the governor in council, or if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first thirty days thereafter that parliament is sitting.


Michael Starr: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Michael Starr: May I ask whether the report to which he refers was addressed to the governor in council?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. I am going to deal with that point. My hon. friend asked me whether the report about which I am now registering a complaint was addressed to the governor in council. My answer is no. It was addressed to the minister. I will comment on that point in a moment. The significance, Mr. Chairman, of this subsection (2) of section 90 is that if the report of the advisory committee has to do with a matter that comes within the purview of section 89 (1), then there is an obligation on the minister to table that report within 30 days after it was submitted or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I wonder whether I may ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: Will he read subsection (1) of section 90?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I shall be glad to do so. Subsection (1) of section 90 reads as follows:
(1) The advisory committee shall give such public notice as it considers sufficient of its intention to make a report under section 89 and shall receive any representations that may be made to it with respect thereto.
That section, of course, would apply to certain situations but no situation that is now before us, as my learned and hon. friend, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne), with his great knowledge of the interpretation of statutes, must fully understand.
The question that I think confronts us at this time is whether or not this particular report of the advisory committee is the kind of report that comes within section 89, subsection (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Does it refer to the fund? From the earlier comments in this report it is clear that it does refer to the fund because after referring to the balance in the fund which it puts at $234 million roughly or, to be specific, $234,283,645.05, it then goes on to say this:
The excess of payments, over revenue, pursuades the committee it would be improper to recommend major changes at this time. That is changes which would very materially increase the deficit;-
The deficit of the fund. These last words are mine.
-or in the alternative would necessitate a tax on industry and workers.
Supply-Labour
This clearly is a report that had to do with matters covered under section 89 (1).


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Michael Starr: Was not the status of the fund reported in the statutory report that was referred to the governor in council in August, the official report tabled in the House of Commons? Did it not deal briefly with the state of the fund, and in this case does it not say that because of that situation-these matters that had been referred to it-amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act would not be advisable?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not quarrel with my hon. friend's statement because he has correctly stated the situation. The report of August 18 does cover the matters to which he has just referred. What I am now saying is that this report deals with the fund and at the end of the report, as we were reminded the other day, three of the labour members of the advisory committee, namely Messrs. Burt, Andras and Marchand wired to the chairman as follows:
Reur proposed report dated August 20 of unemployment insurance advisory committee regret do not find it possible to attach signature. Feel committee should be reconvened to review benefit formula proposal of July 24 possibly in October with view to modification or in light of further study by actuary.
Feel also committee should withhold comments until minister has notified it of intentions regarding recommendations contained in our report dated July 18.
Mr. Marchand wired to the same effect: Mr. McLean, the other labour member, was absent. Now it is clear that this report does deal with the fund. The committee did not feel they could make proposals or accept proposals because of the deficit position of the fund.


Michael Starr: May I ask another question if the hon. member would permit? Is there not a reference directed particularly to the new formula?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Michael Starr: And that the formula is not an amendment to the act at all? Therefore there is no need to go further.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There may not be
any need to go further. All I am saying is that the report deals with the state of the fund, and under the act, where a report of the advisory committee deals with the state of the fund there is an obligation to table such a report in parliament. Now, the minister seeks to answer this argument by observing that this report is different in form from its

Supply-Labour
predecessor of August 18 in that it is addressed to the "Hon. Michael Starr, Minister of Labour, Ottawa". That is true; it is clearly addressed to the Minister of Labour, as this other report is clearly addressed and properly addressed to his excellency the governor in council. But my contention is that this report, for reasons which I do not know, should have been addressed to the governor in council, because under the Unemployment Insurance Act the advisory committee must report through the minister to the governor in council. That is clear from section 91 of the act.
But lest there be any doubt about the character of the report about which I make complaint, all one has to do, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated this afternoon, is to refer to the title at the head of this report, "Status of the Fund". Can there be any doubt that this particular document which instead of being addressed to the governor in council is improperly addressed to the minister, does come within the provisions of sections 89 and 90?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member another question, if he would be kind enough to express his opinion on the matter. Is there not only the reference to the status of the fund on which the report has been made because of the new formula which I have asked him to study, but also an indication whether the committee thinks the formula should or should not be accepted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. The very words of the minister indicate that what I have said is valid. The minister himself refers to the governing phrase, "the state of the fund". My argument is that once the advisory committee reports on the state of the fund in any way, that report under the statute must be tabled in parliament just as any other report which requires tabling by authority of the statute.
The minister made something of the fact that the report is addressed to him and not to the governor in council. I would refer the minister and the house to section 91 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, in particular subsection (1), where it says:
(1)	Whenever the Governor in council, after consultation with the commission, considers it expedient to do so, he may direct the advisory committee to investigate and to report upon,
(a)	the provision of unemployment insurance for any excepted employments, either by extending thereto the provisions of part III, with such modifications, if any, as may be found necessary, or by special or supplementary schemes, and
(b)	the rates of contribution and benefit of insured persons having regard to the earnings of such persons.
Then subsection (2) reads:
(2)	The commission-
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
Not the minister, but the commission-
-may from time to time refer to the advisory committee for consideration and advice such matters relating to this act as the commission thinks fit.
I say that under this act the minister as such has no authority to refer matters to the advisory committee. Matters of such kind can only be referred by the governor in council. This is for a very good reason. Parliament intended that the administration of unemployment insurance should come under the governor in council and that the minister should report on the operations of the commission to parliament and to his colleagues, just as the Secretary of State does with regard to the civil service.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit another question at this point? Is the hon. member conveying to me the fact that my predecessor did not correctly conduct himself in this respect on similar matters?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not aware that my hon. friend's predecessor carried on his administration improperly. My hon. friend may know of instances. I would not be surprised if-


Michael Starr: I tabled reports this afternoon addressed to him from the advisory committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What my hon. friend did not do when he tabled those reports, and what he has not done tonight, is to listen correctly to what I have said. I said that those reports which he tabled today were of a different category from the report of August 26. That report had to do with the fund. Those reports had no comment to make on the fund and consequently did not require to be tabled. That is the difference.


Michael Starr: The report addressed to me was a new formula which meant an amendment should be made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would suggest to my hon. friend who has before him his deputy minister of labour, a lawyer, that when this night session is over both ought to get together.


Michael Starr: He agrees with me now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But obviously he is not giving you at the moment the kind of advice which I think his great legal training should warrant. Now section 92 provides:
The governor in council may direct the commission to investigate and report upon all questions that the governor in council deems advisable or necessary.
Throughout this section there is no reference whatsoever to the minister. Throughout this act the reference is to the governor in council.

If the minister assigned a particular responsibility to the advisory committee, I am not going to quarrel with that except to say that the report is not the kind of report envisaged by these sections, and if it reports on the fund it must be addressed to the governor in council. Consequently under the statute that I have just referred to it must be tabled in this house.
Hon. members who are new to this house may wonder why we in the opposition place such emphasis on this matter. We do so for two reasons. First, because it is our duty to point out if, in our judgment, an act has not been fully complied with by the government. Not that we charge the minister with any criminal act, as was suggested the other night; that is not the intention. Everyone knows that the Minister of Labour did not for any sinister purpose fail to comply with the act. That is not the point. But if under our system of government we are to adhere to its principles, we must as the opposition take every opportunity to see that the law is fully observed.
That was done in this house in 1949, and those of us in this group and other members who were here at that time will well remember when we had a protracted debate in this house centered on an allegation made by the present Prime Minister, as well as by the present Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood, that the minister of justice of that time had not tabled a report pursuant to the obligations imposed on him under the Combines Investigation Act. They pointed out that the then minister of justice had failed to comply with the statute. We had endless days of debate and we had placed on Hansard words that undoubtedly have much to do with the inspiration which has persuaded the present Prime Minister to introduce in this house a bill of rights, which ultimately I understand is to come, a bill which has been so widely criticized because of its inadequacies and its failure to take into account the obligations of the provinces, and to recognize the constitutional difficulties involved in the bill of rights as a result. What does it mean? I will paraphrase the words of the Prime Minister. This means something that is fundamental to the preservation of this free parliament. These are the words of the Prime Minister.
Let us see what the Prime Minister had to say about this. Oh, it is all right for the Prime Minister to rise today and give us a lecture and tell us it was his duty to point out to us that we had no right to persist in debate. He acted as the custodian of the rights and privileges of this house, but he forgot to remind us that when he was sitting on this
Supply-Labour
side there was no one more persistent, day in and day out, in reminding us of our obligations as members of parliament to live up to the letter of the law. On the occasion I refer to he was criticizing the minister of justice because he had not tabled a report; because, seemingly, he had violated the act. No one was saying, as the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood, was fair enough to point out, that there was any dishonest intention on the part of the minister of justice any more than anyone is suggesting to the Minister of Labour that he had acted dishonestly. Anyone who knows the Minister of Labour knows that all we are doing is simply to point out that in our judgment the act has not been observed by him.
I think it would be useful to note, for the benefit of posterity and of those hon. members who have come to this parliament for the first time, these words of the Prime Minister, these memorable words, as the right hon. gentleman said referring to some words of mine in another context the other day.


Mr. Montgomery:: I think it will be well for the hon. member to read the law which required a report to be made by the minister of justice before he gives us the quotation, because I am satisfied that the reports are different, and therefore the two cases are not on the same footing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman is quite right. The law is different, because different matters are involved. But after I have finished my statement, the hon. member can get up and express his opinion. What I am doing is putting on record the words of the Prime Minister and some other hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. gentleman, who is a good lawyer, can assign himself that particular function which time will not permit me to discharge at this moment. Here are the words of the Prime Minister as reported at page 1504 of Hansard of November 7, 1949:
Parliament has the right to expect that ministers of the crown shall live up to the provisions of statutes passed by parliament; for if these be not lived up to, parliamentary responsibility ends, and a contempt of parliament occurs which should not be permitted to pass uncensured.
The minister stated that the facts and conclusions in this report were, in his opinion, unjustified. That statement does not answer or justify the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) failing to discharge his obligatory responsibilities under the provisions of an act passed by parliament. Only three years ago in this house I was one of those who stated that in my opinion-and I know there were some who criticized me for this view-we should alter the provision with regard to publishing these reports in order that no one should be found guilty before the bar of public opinion without having the opportunity of answering in the courts.

Supply-Labour
Then Mr. Coldwell, then leader of the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation, said at page 1508:
I do not propose to cover the same ground as that which has been so ably covered by the hon. member for Lake Centre-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who is now the Prime
Minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister, who proposes, shortly, to introduce a bill of rights. Mr. Coldwell continued:
I merely want to say that I agree with him wholeheartedly when he says that no government, no minister, has any right at any time to disregard a statute adopted by parliament, and the provision in that statute for the publication of a report within 15 days for the information of the people of Canada.
Then, many days later-almost two months later-the hon. member for Greenwood, now Minister without Portfolio, and a very respected member of this house, reminded us of the words of that great authority on the constitution, Mr. Dicey. And, as reported at page 2065 of Hansard of November 22, 1949 the hon. member for Greenwood, quoting from that authority, pointed out:
With us every official, from the prime minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen.
And then the hon. member spoke some words which, I think, really touch this situation. I am not going to complain about the personal attacks made by the minister today. I am sure that upon reflection he will find that that has not helped his case. Any physical disability which belongs to me or to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate surely has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of this argument.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some members say "oh" but they will remember that the minister so strongly attacked me-


Michael Starr: You made attacks on me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made no attacks on you. I simply stated that it was our duty in the opposition to point out things of this sort, and the minister does not do himself any good by considering this as a personal attack upon himself. Our complaint is not of that category.
Here is what the hon. member for Greenwood said:
Let me remind hon. members that in respect of the ordinary citizen the law moves automatically, and it calls for him to account for what he has done. But, so far as I understand the constitution, the only bodies that can move against ministers when they break the law is, first of all, public opinion-and I shall come to that later-and, second, this House of Commons, which rejoices in the title of the High Court of Parliament.

Yet I suggest that in spite of all, in spite of the wise things that have been said here, the public of this country has not yet registered what has happened.
And the hon. member for Greenwood continued:
I said a moment ago it is hard to believe that men whom we like-
And that applies to the Minister of Labour
-and meet happily-
And that applies to the Minister of Labour
-and who have much good to their credit-
And that certainly applies to the Minister of Labour
-could do this wrong thing. And it may be that in some curious way they did not quite intend to do what was wrong.
I certainly believe that of the Minister of Labour. But what I am pointing out is that the failure to place this report on the table has deprived the public and parliament of the opportunity to be fully seized of the considered opinion of the advisory committee whose business it has been for some years to advise on these matters.
But the hon. member for Prince Albert, now Prime Minister, did not stop at one single speech. He came back to this matter, and I find that on November 22, 1949 he went on to complain once more about the failure of the minister of justice. He said, as reported at page 2091:
It was fairly obvious-and as I listened to him I sympathized with him-
He was referring to the minister of justice
*-that he realized what he had done was unjustifiable, inexcusable and a contravention of principles going back to the Bill of Rights, which declared among other things that no government or executive can suspend the law of the realm in any particular without parliament.
What the Prime Minister said that day certainly applies today.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Michael Starr: Could the hon. member be
allowed to continue?


Some hon. Members:: By consent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has intervened. I do not want to ask that right-I think I have that right now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should to say that I completely agree with what the hon. member for Essex East has said up to now-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The minister has asked whether the committee would give unanimous consent to the hon. member for

Essex East continuing. First, I should like to ask whether the committee is willing to do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the committee. I will not take very long. I just want to complete those memorable words of the Prime Minister. He said at page 2092 of Hansard of November 22, 1949, in concluding his argument after a speech that lasted I suppose the usual time permitted under our rules:
That is no justification. Indeed, if anyone in this country had known during the 10 months' period that the minister had broken the law, as he did, His Majesty's courts could have been applied to in order to protect His Majesty's subjects, under a writ of mandamus, which would direct the minister to live up to the law. He concealed the report, and one explanation is this: we did not agree with the terms of the report. Is there anything in section 27 of the act that gives the government discretion to say they may break the law because they do not agree with the terms of a report; that they may break the law because after consideration, even honest consideration, they feel it should be broken? If that be an excuse for breaking the law, how many people in this country would feel like breaking the income tax law, or any other laws passed by parliament? Expediency, or the desire to prevent argument between high civil servants, afford no excuse in extenuation or otherwise for what has taken place in connection with this report.
I say to the minister, even assuming for purposes of argument that he was correct in saying that the four reports tabled today by him and addressed to his predecessor came under section 89 of the act, that would not justify or provide him with a satisfactory reply to the allegation and to the arguments that we have made in this context regarding this matter. However, I have indicated that these four reports do not refer to the state of the fund, and consequently do not come under section 89, or under section 90 (2). Therefore, I say to the Minister of Labour that if the advisory committee, when it is properly constituted once again, when the labour representatives are returned to their function, if they are going to be or if new ones are going to be appointed- the committee is not now legally in existence under section 19 (1) of the act-do make a report with regard to the state of the fund in any way the minister, I know, will not hesitate to table that report so that parliament will have the benefit of the judgment of the members of the committee and so that we can make an assessment as to whether or not the recommendations of the committee are satisfactory.
How valuable it would be to have had the report tabled on August 18 last and to have known that the committee felt that because of the perilous condition in which the fund was it was thought that the contribution
Supply-Labour
of the federal government should be increased. That is in conformity with the stand that we have taken with regard to this measure, a measure which will go to a committee where we hope it will be possible to improve the bill and to remove some of the burden on the employers and on the employees which we feel has been imposed upon them unjustly.
The minister has tabled not only the four reports but the minutes of some of the meetings. He certainly tabled the minutes of the meetings of July 24 and 25, 1950. It would be of the greatest value certainly to us in this house and to the committee if we had the minutes of the meeting of August 18, so we could find out whether or not the advisory committee detailed the reasons for the statements it made when it observed that there should be an increase in the federal contribution so that there could be an adjustment and so that the contributions from each of the contributing parties would be made equal; in other words, that the contribution from the government would be made equal to one-half that of the combined contributions from employers and employees.
I simply have this further observation to make, Mr. Chairman. The way to preserve the rights of parliament is not by a bill that does not take into account the constitutional responsibilities of other levels of government in Canada. It does not consist in general statements declaratory of one's belief in the freedom of the subject. The way to guarantee civil liberties and the rights of parliament-and these words I address particularly to the Prime Minister-is by seeing to it that the law of the land is observed by everyone.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the main reason why I want to make remarks on this particular estimate has to do with something that has been debated very much in the last while, namely the unemployment insurance commission. The aspect that I wanted to touch on is one which I do not think anyone has been after as yet. In effect, it is a request to the minister or to the department to consider the possibility of getting some outside agency-perhaps one of the groups that is making efficiency studies-to come in and look at the unemployment insurance commission operation, to see how the operation would stand up to the general accusation that I think every member of parliament hears, namely that there is a great deal of abuse of this particular welfare arrangement.
I should like to make it very clear that I do not believe there are very many abuses, but these are the stories that are tending

Supply-Labour
to be exaggerated at all times. I do believe that when you get a situation where there is largely false propaganda being made about the operation of a fund such as this, the thing to do is to scotch it wherever possible. I notice that from representatives of management I get representations that the unemployment insurance idea is fine but there are very many abuses in relation to it; there are all sorts of people taking advantage of the fund who should not take advantage of it and we must wipe out those abuses. I think every once in a while it is important that the commission and those people who guide and administer it should tackle this particular problem which to a degree is one of public relations. I think the time has come to do that.
I notice that in my constituency during the past winter up to 25 per cent of the labour force was registered for unemployment insurance benefits. In the neighbouring constituency of Fort William, which is linked to it, the rate was not quite as high but almost as high. At the same time in my constituency I heard so often from people who are unemployed that there were a great many abuses. All my contacts with the unemployment insurance commission officials and with labour representatives in the area indicate that there would be a denial of this; but there is in existence this popular conception, or misconception, and I think it is one of the responsibilities of the minister, if he feels the fund and the whole concept are as worth while as he expressed in ringing tones this afternoon, to do the job. It is largely his responsibility to see that this type of false propaganda is scotched, if it is false propaganda, as I believe it is.
One of the other brief remarks I wanted to make about this particular department has to do with the Canada labour relations board. I am probably one of the few members of parliament who has ever been at a hearing of that board in any capacity, and I was not impressed with what went on there. It seemed to me that the proceedings were perhaps rather more informal than I think should be the case with such a body. I happened to appear before the board with a group making a representation which was turned down. The reasons for it being turned down were probably quite valid. I have no quarrel with them. But the mood or atmosphere of the hearing was something that I think would be considered by many people to be regrettable. When you have the kind of hearing where first names are being tossed back and forth between the members of the board who are judging the matter and people who are there with an interest in the case 
one cannot help but have the feeling that the person who is not on a first-name basis is on the outside and in a difficult position.
This is a minor complaint. I only saw one example of the workings of the board but as the minister has a direct relationship with the board I feel it is something that he might take into consideration. I would not want to suggest that the proceedings should be made a great deal more formal so that they would be like a court of law with all its formalities but if my experience is typical I suggest that there could be room for some of the people who appear before the board to feel that they are pretty well on the outside if they do not happen to know the members of the board on a first-name basis.
One other point I wish to make in connection with the department has to do with the question of annuities. As I think all members know, I brought up in the house not too long ago the subject of increased recompense for members of parliament. Since then I have had a number of communications and this particular one brings up a point in connection with annuities that I think is fairly valid. The letter is from Mr. J. F. Brister of 2323 Inglewood avenue, West Vancouver, B.C. The first part of the letter is nothing more than a condemnation of members of parliament who would go after more pay when old age pensioners and people like that are having a difficult time. This is not the place to answer that but he does go on to deal with the falsity of the whole government annuities approach as a result of inflation. He says in his letter:
I am bringing this matter to your notice because this matter of Canadian government annuities is one which simply screams for some sort of justice to be done on behalf of those who have been so hard hit due to having placed their faith in these government annuities and tried to provide for their own welfare in their old age.-
Regarding government annuities, the attached outlines some of the incentives and assurances which were embodied in an official brochure entitled "Canadian Government Annuities-Backed by the Whole Resources of the Dominion." From cover to cover this brochure extolled the great advantages and the security which would accrue to those who placed their trust in these annuities.
I suggest to you that it is the solemn duty of any government to honour the obligations which are clearly outlined in this official brochure and that justice in the most elementary sense demands that at least some of the enormous increase in government income should long ago have been channelled back to those unfortunates who placed their good dollars and their trust in these annuities.
The next paragraph may interest the minister.
I wish to make it clear that the responsibility for the plight of government annuitants today lies squarely on the shoulders of the late Liberal government who permitted inflation to creep upon

them while as a government no action was taken to arrest or offset the dangers which were gaining momentum with the passing of time but I repeat no action was taken. The onus to correct a grave injustice does fall upon all succeeding governments.
In conclusion and with regard to the present plight of government annuitants it will be noted as per attached that it is stated:
"In offering you now the benefits which Canadian government annuities provide, the government does so with one purpose in mind, that of making it possible for all within the borders of Canada to spend their old age in comfort and ease, a fitting and well-earned reward for an industrious life. This assures you a safe and profitable investment . . . with the certainty of a definite livable income when your working days are over."
The maximum permitted under the Annuities Act is $1,200 per annum.
Obviously there are difficulties in this particular regard. This gentleman is suggesting that people who put good dollars into annuities that have depreciated very much in value have in a sense been "suckered" by the overoptimistic advertising of the annuities scheme. It seems to me that the other point he is making is that the maximum of $1,200 for an annuity is nonsensical in the light of inflation and what has happened to the dollar. All I can suggest is that we should have a statement from the minister when we get to the annuities branch as to the views of the government on what has happened to these long time holders or builders-up of government annuities and, on the other hand, what is the government doing about acceding to the request of many people that the level of government annuities be raised above $1,200.
I know that the charge I have heard repeatedly is that the insurance company lobby is so powerful that the government is frightened to go ahead and raise the ceiling. I should like a yes or no or an explanation of that particular charge. I do not make it from my own knowledge. I am just repeating something I have seen in labour publications.
The final point I want to touch on is a personal one. It has to do with criticisms that have been made in the debate about one of the executive vice-presidents of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Stanley Knowles. He has been referred to by the young member for Hamilton South as a political hatchet-man and the hon. member for Winnipeg North had some very derogatory things to say about Mr. Knowles. It is not my position to state that Mr. Knowles is not open to attack. It is not my position to defend whatever he may be doing in his particular post, but I should like to remind the members who accuse him in such derogatory terms that for many years he was a member of this house, a member whose 66968-9-233
Supply-Labour
conduct and integrity were of such a standard that he was offered, we gather, the most senior and honourable post in this house. I should like to say to those who have made these vicious criticisms of this particular gentleman that his conduct throughout the time he was in the house, in terms of probity, integrity and fair dealing, should have been good enough to protect him from this worst kind of invective that he seems to gather in another post.


Mr. Martel:: Why don't you resign and give him your seat?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. gentleman suggests that I resign and give him my seat. Quite frankly, Mr. Knowles could not take my seat simply because he could not get enough votes there. Several times in debate the remark has been made, "Come and run in my constituency." I believe some of the members on the far side made this challenge. That is one of the most nonsensical challenges that can be made. I think most members in the house should be aware that in a particular constituency where you have local situations outsiders have a very difficult time. That is a most ridiculous suggestion by the hon. member.
In summing up this particular point, I repeat that hon. members should examine the record of Mr. Knowles for probity and integrity, a record that was recognized by the Prime Minister, and I think it is unfortunate that he should now become sort of a whipping boy for some of the members of the government party who seem to feel that his actions are really remiss or poor or bad.


Mr. McGee:: Will the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat? Is the hon. member suggesting in his remarks that a gentleman who has been a member of this house, and who then moves into another area of political activity, is immune from criticism?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, nonsense; I did not say that. I do not care what remarks are made about Mr. Knowles. I am just suggesting that the members who make them should consider this point about his activities before they paint him too black. He had a very fine record in the House of Commons to put against this, and I am not saying that he should not be criticized. There is just this one point to keep in mind.


The Chairman:: I must remind hon. members that we are talking about labour legislation, and not one particular member. Shall item 463 carry?


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I should like to comment briefly on this item. First of all, I should

Supply-Labour
like to again express my regret that special arrangements were not made last fall to make unemployment insurance benefits available to all fishermen who suffered from the disastrous failure of the cod fishery in Newfoundland last year. I would ask the minister to keep in mind the possibility of making provision to look after such a contingency, if we are unfortunate enough to be faced with it again. The winter works program did not work out so well in Newfoundland. This was simply because the program was not applicable to Newfoundland.
However, there was one aspect of the winter works program which deserves commendation, and I refer to the construction of community stages. From an employment standpoint, this program was limited in its benefits, but from a utility standpoint the idea was sound and worth while. These community stages are needed, and with the loss of fishing property in southern Labrador and northern Newfoundland, the need is greater than it ever was before. A continuation of the program is very desirable. I would suggest to the minister that it is not too early to start to plan for another program to build community stages, the work to be done next fall and the following spring because work in the fall and spring is more important in the part of Newfoundland which I represent than work in the middle of the winter.
There is one type of industry which lends itself to winter work. I refer to the cutting of timber. I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's. The cutting of telephone and telegraph poles for the C.N.T., the cutting of railway ties for the C.N.R. and the cutting of timber for wharves and breakwaters to be constructed by the Department of Public Works could be organized in a way that would give planned employment during the winter. The cutting of this timber could be organized in the vicinity in which the various projects are to be constructed.
There is another matter I should like to mention and that is the question of servicing the more remote areas in Newfoundland by unemployment insurance officials. This has been discussed before, and I was happy to hear a while ago that a program was being organized to supply fieldmen who would travel from outport to outport to assist people with their unemployment insurance problems. These officials could give advice and straighten out these problems at the source. I should like to say this is a fine, forward step, and I presume the program is being implemented as quickly as possible.

I should like to make a suggestion whereby I believe the service of existing unemployment insurance offices might be extended. The officials from the centres could, from time to time at set periods visit the nearby places. I have one place in mind which will serve as an illustration, and that is the seaport of Botwood, which is about 20 or 30 miles from Grand Falls. Grand Falls has a permanent unemployment insurance office. Last year the management of a union at Botwood requested that officials from the Grand Falls office spend a day or two in Botwood from time to time, timing their visits to coincide with payday, and thus assist people with their unemployment insurance problems. The union suggested that they would provide an office rent-free, light-free, and so on. Some plan of that nature, I think, would extend the services-


Michael Starr: I would say to the hon. member that if he would come at his leisure to see me privately, and give me all the details, I would be glad to look into that for him.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Thank you very much, sir; I shall be glad to do it.
There is one other point which has to do with employment rather than unemployment. There is a tendency in Newfoundland for those who are living near the large centres of population in which employment offices exist to get preference over those living in the remote areas when there are jobs available. This is only natural because they are on the spot. One way to offset this, I think, would be to keep the names of those who apply for jobs on file longer. I believe, as it stands now, after the names are on file for a while they are declared dormant and the newer applicants get consideration while the older ones are dropped. In view of the distances involved, and the fact that some people looking for work are living in the remote areas where communications are slow, I would suggest that a little special attention be given to these applicants from the distant places so they would get an equal chance.
Not long ago I was talking with an employment official, not connected with the government I hasten to add, who told me that the applicants from nearby were generally considered first because they were more readily available. They could be questioned as to their status, when they could commence work, their qualifications and so on. I imagine the same conditions would apply to employment officials of the Department of Labour. In conclusion, I would ask the minister to consider these few remarks and see that proper consideration is given to those who are handicapped as a result of living some distance away from the employment offices.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions tor the minister, about which I should like him to give the committee some information. The first question I should like to ask him is whether he can give the committee an up to date report with reference to the reemployment in other industries of the Avro and Orenda Engine workers who were laid off. I know the minister has received a letter from Mr. D. McAllister, business representative of the aeronautical industrial union, district 717.
Mr. McAllister starts out by drawing to the attention of the minister the fact that many former employees of these two companies are finding considerable difficulty in obtaining alternative employment. He goes on to say it is nearly three months since the hon. member for Peel and the minister predicted most of the skilled employees would be hired by other industries. He observes that such has not been the case because there are still about 8,000 workers who have been unable to find suitable employment. In his opinion, one of the reasons for this is the fact that a number of them are aged 40 or 45. There are a number of reasons given as to why these people are not hired by other industries. Mr. McAllister then suggests the consideration of legislation which would prevent this discrimination or alleviate it and asks the minister's consideration.
I must be fair. At the close of his letter he compliments the minister for assigning an employment officer to the Avro plant and he hopes that the employment officer will be left there until most or all of the 8,000 workers are successfully employed. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to give us an up-to-date report.


Michael Starr: I received such a letter today. Unfortunately I have left it in my office. Immediately upon receipt of this letter I asked for a report on this situation. I cannot quote accurately from memory but in round figures-and I can assure the hon. member this is fairly close-there were 11,600 registrations when the lay-offs took place. The latest report that I have-and I do not know the exact date of that report-is that there are still 5,900 on the register or rolls in our office. In other words, the others have found employment elsewhere. A little less than 50 per cent are still on the rolls. The number of aplicants for employment taken in the local office on the Avro lay-offs-that was on February 20-was 12,019. A number of placements have been made. Some have found jobs on their own and others have been placed by the national employment service office. As of May 7 there are still registered 5,937 or between 40 per cent and 66968-9-2331
Supply-Labour
50 per cent are still left on the rolls. We are not going to relax our efforts on their behalf, I can assure the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister have any idea as to how many left Canada for the United States or the United Kingdom?


Michael Starr: No, there is no record of that number.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is another question I should like to raise. I wonder whether the minister can give us a report on the computers which have been installed in the Winnipeg office and as to the effect there as a result of the installation?


Michael Starr: We had some difficulties. They take care of about one-ninth of the total applicants in Canada, that is, those in the prairie region. We put in this mechanization -I think that is what you are referring to -for processing claims. They look after all the prairie region. That is, all claims must be sent in to the Winnipeg office. Unfortunately, we had a breakdown. There was a period of time when delays occurred in the processing of these claims and of course we had many complaints. However, I am glad to say that this situation has been rectified and we hope that we shall not run into the same problem again.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is this system or some variation of it going to be installed in other offices?


Michael Starr: Yes. We hope in time that we may be able to instal this mechanization in all our regional offices.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: During this period of breakdown to which the minister referred I assume one of the things that went wrong was overpayments, or that type of error.


Michael Starr: No. It would be delays in paying claims. That was the only complaint we had.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it a fact that the records of the payments are kept in a different office and that the vouchers are prepared by the machine in advance and for this reason, as the vouchers are prepared before the actual report is turned in by the claimant, there were a large number of errors and overpayments?


Michael Starr: No complaint on the matter of errors has been lodged with me. The only complaints that I have received with respect to this mechanization or the breakdown of the mechanized process was the delay in the processing of claims.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether the minister could tell us how many employees there were in the Winnipeg office before the installation was made and how many there are now?

Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: I have not that information now but when we get to the item on unemployment insurance, if the hon. member would be good enough to refer to that question again, I should be glad to get that information for him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should be pleased if the minister would do that. Would he also get supplementary information as to the cost of the computers, stationery and other things involved in the change-over?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief remarks that I should like to make at this time. They are about a subject that has been touched on tonight but I think possibly a little bit more attention could be given to it. This matter was drawn clearly to my attention by an article I noticed in the paper today. It has to do with a situation that occurred in my own riding where three men had been convicted-in one case I believe there were 16 charges-of fraud in collecting unemployment insurance improperly. In fact, I believe they took time off from their work in order to collect their unemployment insurance cheques.
I think this is an extremely important matter. I do not know just how widespread this offence is across the country; but certainly if there were only these three cases, they are far too many. All this offence amounts to is nothing more or less than chiselling. Certainly even the people who a few years ago were extremely opposed to the idea of unemployment insurance and indeed to some other social benefits have come around now to the understanding that they are good and beneficial things for the working people of this country. But situations such as this one certainly give the opponents of unemployment insurance and other social benefits good ammunition with which to carry on their attacks on these social benefits.
There are two ways of dealing with this matter. One is a continuation and possibly an improvement, if possible, of the present method which is, of course, policing these things to the best of our ability. The other one, of course, is the one that is proposed by the opponents to this plan who say that, because this plan is being abused by a few people it should be abolished. We have seen that attitude in respect of this item and many other items of social welfare. It is said that people are going to abuse it, and that it should be abolished because people are just taking advantage of it.
I think we must look a little deeper into the matter in order to find the reasons for these abuses. I think a great deal of the difficulty is because of this theory that is so prevalent in our society, this something for

nothing idea. Certainly political parties are not free of guilt of proposing this idea. We are always going to give something for nothing and people are inclined to go along with this idea. Certainly our advertising across the country is to a great extent based on this false statement. We are always giving prizes for this and something else for that, and everybody is led to believe that he is getting something for nothing. There is no such thing in society, and I think the sooner we tell the people this, the better off we are all going to be. In fact, I sometimes think that this is the reason why the party I represent has not been more successful than it has been in this country. One of my colleagues in Timmins told me one time that the reason the C.C.F. has not been more successful is that we appeal to the unselfish side of people whereas the other parties appeal to the selfish side, and that is why they are so successful.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are thinking of the selfrighteous side of people.


Murdo William Martin: However, I think that this is something that the minister should take into consideration. I think something could be done through the public relations branch of the department. I think a greater effort should be made to appeal to the basic honesty in people and to make them realize that in chiselling on the unemployment insurance fund and other benefits of that nature they are not only cheating the other people but are in fact jeopardizing the whole plan and defeating the very things that have taken many years to build up to the advantage of the Canadian working people.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions on two different topics which I would like to put to the minister before this item carries. My first question deals with the community stage program or fishermen's stage program in Newfoundland. This program was put forward as part of a winter works program, and to that extent it involves the Department of Labour. But it is complicated in that it involves not only the Department of Labour and the Department of Fisheries, which makes some recommendation in this matter in connection with these projects, but also the Department of Public Works, which builds these stages.
Due to the fact that three departments are involved here, I do not want to miss an opportunity of getting some information about one aspect of this program which I should like to bring before the house, and it is this. There seem to be two kinds of programs in connection with the community stages, both going on at the same time. I know of two communities about ten miles

apart. In one community the stage is being built and the people are being paid by the department for their labour in connection with the building of it. In the other community only a short distance away the same thing is happening but the fishermen have to donate their labour; they are not getting paid for their labour at all.
I do not know to what extent this involves the minister's department, but I think it is something which should be brought to his attention, because if we are going to have a program of community stages, even if it is a winter works program and credit is taken for it as a winter works program, we should have the same treatment for all fishermen. We should not have the position where some donate their labour and some get paid for their labour. I see that the Minister of Public Works is in his seat and he can be sure that when his estimates come before the house I will have some important questions to ask him too; but I would like the Minister of Labour to clarify now to what extent his department is involved in this program, and whether he is at all responsible for this position.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, my department is not involved in this program at all. This program is being worked out in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Public Works. As regards the position the hon. member mentions, where some people are asked to donate their labour free of charge while others are paid for it, if the hon. member knows of an instance of that kind I would appreciate it very much if he would bring it to my attention and I, in turn, will speak to my colleagues about it


Chesley William Carter: I thank the hon. minister for giving that reply, and I can assure him I will give him the details tomorrow.
My other question has to do with prevailing rates. I know this matter does involve his department, because it is his department which makes the survey upon which the prevailing rates are based. But what I do not know is who in the various departments determines what employees shall be employed on a prevailing rate basis? Does the Minister of Labour or his department make any recommendations in that respect?


Michael Starr: The hiring department has the right of designating positions.


Chesley William Carter: Do I understand the minister to say that for all the other departments of government it is his department which recommends which employees shall be employed under prevailing rates?
Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: No, the hiring department. For instance, if an employee is an employee in the Department of National Defence, then it is that department.


Chesley William Carter: Each department determines for itself?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: Thank you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I realize, of course, that the minister has had a long and hard day, but I hope he will not take it amiss if I occupy his attention for a few moments as we discuss the first item of the estimates of the labour department, which gives us an opportunity to deal with general problems relating to labour. I do not think we in the opposition need apologize for our preoccupation with these problems. We certainly have been concerned, and very deeply concerned, with one aspect of these problems in the operations and the economic health of the unemployment insurance fund. We have condemned the investment policies governing that fund. We have complained about the inadequacies of measures taken to strengthen that fund; and while we have supported some of the changes made, we have tried to point out that as a result of increased contributions from the workers and employers who have to make up 80 per cent of the contributions, even as a result of those increases, which average I think about 30 per cent, no single unemployed worker will himself get higher weekly benefits.
However, the unemployment insurance fund, important as it is, is only a reflection of a far more important aspect of the problem, and that is employment itself, and more particularly, Mr. Chairman, unemployment. When we talk as we do in the opposition, and as we will continue to do on every possible opportunity about the employment and the unemployment situation in this country we always, of course, leave ourselves open to the charge which the minister made this afternoon of being prophets of doom and gloom. The minister said this afternoon, although he did not give the figures, that the figures for April will be much better than those for March.


Michael Starr: It was my hope they would be.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was the minister's hope and we share that hope, and if they are better we will rejoice with him in that improvement. But, Mr. Chairman, that does not exempt us from the duty and the right to point out some dangers and difficulties ahead in regard to employment in this country, because if they are not pointed out by the opposition perhaps the government may



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader
of the house could give us any indication of the business for next week? I take it there is no change in the business arranged for tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Labour, and then take those of the Department of Public Works. On Monday we will commence with the first item of today's order paper, which is the house in committee on the freight rates measure. Then we will go on to consider item 11, the resolution preceding an act to set up a national energy board; then item 8, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act. After that we will take item 9, amending the Income Tax Act; item 14, the resolution concerning the abolition of forced labour; and item 18, the resolution concerning the Bretton Woods agreements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the same order be followed on Tuesday, or is the minister able to say?


Howard Charles Green: This will be the order for
Monday. On one of the later days in the week, Tuesday or Wednesday, to suit the convenience of the members of the official opposition, we would want to include in the list the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. There has been some delay in getting money to the provinces because this act has not been passed.
At 10.03 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions