1959-05-07

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Stabilization Act provides for the announcement of support prices on an annual basis, and I am now announcing that the existing price basis of 44 cents a dozen for grade A large eggs delivered to Montreal will continue in effect for another 12-month period ending May 5, 1960.
The volume of eggs marketed through registered grading stations to date this year is 7 per cent more than for the same period last year. However, this does not correctly represent the actual increase because of the steadily growing movement of eggs from large-scale producers direct to retail outlets. Because of this, a greater percentage of the eggs marketed through registered grading stations is offered to the agricultural stabilization board.
From January to June, 1958 the board purchased 354,412 cases. Up to April 27 of 1959 the board had purchased 503,073 cases, and shell eggs are still being offered in unprecedented volume. With many countries of the world developing larger surpluses of shell eggs, the disposal of the surplus accumulated by the stabilization board is creating an extremely serious problem.
The continued expansion in egg production can be largely attributed to the growth in numbers and size of large commercial producers.	Because	of	integration	in thisindustry and technological developments, the present support program is providing an incentive to commercial operators to increase production. I have therefore directed the stabilization board	to	develop as	soon aspossible	a method	of	providing price support for	shell eggs	by	means of a	payment
to producers-commonly described as a deficiency payment-rather than to continue the present method of offer to purchase.
The payment to producers would be calculated on the difference between the actual market price for shell eggs for the period concerned and the prescribed support price.
This method, as in the case of the arrangement proposed with respect to hogs, would make it possible to withhold payments from commercial organizations operating under the so-called vertical integration plan, or to restrict payments to a specific volume of eggs delivered by any one producer in a given period.
I wish to assure the house that every effort will be made to have an alternative plan ready to put into operation at the earliest possible date.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I have very little to say at the moment about this announcement of the minister, except to suggest that it indicates that the government is now adopting the principle of deficiency payments in respect of one agricultural commodity, yet refuses even to consider it in respect of wheat and other grains.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You do not understand what deficiency payments are.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the success of the policy announced by the Minister of Agriculture today can only be gauged when the government brings forward a specific program, as referred to in the last couple of sentences of the announcement. The main point of the announcement is first of all, that the basic price will not be changed but that under a deficiency payment plan certain producers or commercial organizations may be barred entirely from receiving the floor price by way of a deficiency payment.
We in the C.C.F. are not opposed to this being done. In fact we are very much in favour of large commercial organizations being barred from getting their hands into the public till. But we would like to warn the minister that in deciding the specific volume of eggs which may be delivered by any one person, we suggest it should not be so low as to prevent a producer from making his living by way of egg production. The pattern of the government's announcements as far as agricultural floor prices are concerned has always been either to hold the line or drop the price. In this instance, with the modifications as outlined in the latter part of the minister's announcement, we are glad there has been no price reduction.
3410	HOUSE OF
Food for Peace Conference EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



FOOD FOR PEACE CONFERENCE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give to the house a brief report on the outcome of the food for peace conference held in Washington on May 5 and 6.
The conference was convened by the United States secretary of agriculture, Mr. Benson, and the representatives were from the five major wheat exporting countries, namely Argentina, Australia, Canada, France and the United States. The director general of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Dr. B. R. Sen, was also present as a delegate.
On April 15 in the House of Commons the Prime Minister announced the calling of this conference and indicated its objectives. On several occasions in the past the Prime Minister had made suggestions for the establishment of a food bank for the assistance of countries whose populations are short of necessary food, and for long term reasons, such as the need for economic development.
The President of the United States, in his farm message to congress on January 29 of this year, made similar suggestions and subsequently instructed Mr. Benson to take the necessary steps to summon a conference to deal with the utilization of surplus food products.
The conference in the course of its two day meetings, which had been preceded by excellent preparatory work by officials of all the participating countries, suggested that the objectives in mind could best be achieved by considering projects to raise consumption of food among especially deficient groups in the population of the recipient countries; by projects to aid economic development, and by projects to establish national food reserves. There was general agreement that effective consultation was necessary for the success of any program for the utilization of surplus food products. In this way misunderstandings could be lessened and interference with commercial markets could be avoided.
Accordingly the conference agreed that a consultative committee should be set up to be composed of senior officials of the governments there represented. It was further agreed that Mr. Benson should be asked to convene the first meeting of the committee at an early date. It is expected that the meeting will be called in June.
The conference decided that the committee should, among other things, give consideration to the following:


1.	Possibilities of expanding the world's commercial trade in wheat, including the development of new markets.
2.	Ways of increasing and making more effective the utilization of wheat surpluses for the promotion of economic development and the improvement of nutritional standards.
3.	Co-ordination of disposal programs for economic development with other development activities in the recipient countries so as to ensure that such programs will contribute fully toward increasing consumption and commercial markets, and
4.	The establishment of guide lines for providing wheat to individual countries on concessional terms and the safeguarding of commercial marketings.
The conference invited Secretary Benson to convene the first meeting of the committee at an early date.
The conference resulted in a better mutual understanding among the participants of their countries' policies, problems, and proposed actions. There was discussion of the advantages of holding similar consultations on other food commodities and with other nations.
With the approval of the house I should like the communique issued in Washington yesterday to be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have the communique referred to printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of communique referred to above, see appendix.1


Lester Bowles Pearson: This five nation food conference dealing with the utilization of surplus food products was called some weeks ago, and the matter with which it dealt has been under consideration by the governments concerned for a good many months. Indeed, the President of the United States made his proposal for using food for peace some months ago. Presumably, therefore, a good deal of preparation had already been made with regard to the subject before the conference held in the United States last week.
The results of the conference seem to be very inadequate, though if they do lead to any progress in dealing with this problem that progress would, of course, be welcomed. From the minister's statement it appears that the main result has been the setting up of a committee-a committee, I take it, not of ministers of the governments concerned but of officials-to keep this question under review and to exchange information with regard to it. But this subject has been kept under review by officials of the United States

and Canada for a good many years. There have also been committees set up under the auspices of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, and these committees have already reviewed the problems which were dealt with at this conference. If a new committee can be of any assistance it will, of course, be welcome; but this, I repeat, does not seem to be a notable result from a conference dealing with such a very important matter.
I remember the Prime Minister putting forward about a year and a half ago-and this has been echoed by other ministers-his proposal for a food bank. There is no indication from the statement the minister has just made, or from his comments, that any progress has been achieved toward the realization of that idea in practice.
The minister mentioned that Canada's position had been protected at this conference. I have in my hand a report of the conference which appeared in the New York Times of today's date by its Washington correspondent, and this correspondent points out that at the same time that the report of the conference was being issued, the United States government disclosed that it would soon expand donations and sales of wheat abroad for foreign currency in a wider effort to provide economic assistance through surplus farm products and, indeed, in a wider effort to get rid of its own surpluses. That report goes on to say-and this raises an uneasiness in our minds which is not completely dispelled by the statement of the minister-
-there was confusion about the agreement reached by the conferees. On the major point of concessional, or bargain-rate sales of wheat for foreign currencies, Mr. Benson said the other countries had "expressed willingness to make" sales. However, members of the Canadian and other delegations foresaw little possibility of such a move.
If there is that difference of interpretation and opinion already in regard to the results of this conference, I suggest to the minister it is very important to get this difference of interpretation resolved now so that this conference, inadequate though its results may have been, will at least make some progress in regard to this important matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, anything that would provide food for peace is deserving of support. There is no argument about the fact that tremendous surpluses of food are building up on the North American continent, nor is there any argument about the fact that many people in the world are hungry, but there seems to be little of a concrete nature that has come out of this conference. There has been more consultation and discussion but little action and little by way of firm agreement.
Austria State Treaty
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that Canada's position is protected, and he spoke about our position with regard to wheat. Wheat is not the only commodity that is causing some difficulty now. As a matter of fact we are probably in a better position with regard to the disposal of wheat than we are with regard to many commodities. The Minister of Agriculture could have added other commodities including pork, eggs-after today's announcement-dairy products, large inventories of butter, large quantities of poultry meat and a possible impending surplus of turkeys. This points up the great seriousness to our economy of this ever-growing inventory in the production of agricultural commodities.
I believe in co-operation with the United States in disposing of these surpluses. I can remember when the Prime Minister was castigating the former government for undertaking special programs to dispose of their commodities. I said that a better alternative would be co-operation in the disposal of these commodities on an agreed basis.
There has been discussion but little by way of action. We suggest that there are many possibilities that should be explored and acted upon, including the acceptance of currency of other countries, the making of barter agreements, the selling of surpluses on the basis of long term contracts and the buying of goods from countries that wish to purchase our surplus produce. There are countries- Russia and Poland, to mention but two-that are anxious to buy our surpluses but because of lack of action and the inadequacy of government policy this is not being accomplished at the present time. We hope the consultations the minister has talked about will lead to action.



APPROVAL OF STATE TREATY FOR RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT AUSTRIA

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
May 5-The Prime Minister-The following proposed Resolution:-
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the state treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria signed at Vienna May 15, 1955, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Diefenbaker:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry ATOMIC ENERGY



INQUIRY AS TO U.S. ASSISTANCE RESPECTING NUCLEAR-POWERED VESSELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there appears in today's press the news of an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom under which, according to the report, the United States has agreed to furnish information to the United Kingdom regarding the design and construction of a nuclear-powered submarine. The United States has already agreed to provide a reactor for a British nuclear-powered submarine. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any arrangement for that kind of co-operation and assistance if required between the United States and Canada in connection with not only a nuclear-powered submarine but a nuclear-powered icebreaker if one were required?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman very well knows questions such as this cannot be answered without some notice. I shall simply accept his question as notice and answer in due course.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The reason I was not able to give the Prime Minister notice-I agree it is a very important subject-is that I got the report just before I came to the house.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) who reports to parliament for the C.B.C. Could he tell us:
1.	Whether he has read press reports or received protests following the nauseating production broadcast over the French TV network originating in Montreal on Sunday night, May 3rd last entitled La plus belle de ceansl
2.	Will an inquiry be made into the reasons which prompted the author, and especially the producer, to present such a play which constitutes an insult to Catholics and French Canadians?
3.	Does the C.B.C. intend to apologize to the Order of the Grey Nuns which was founded by the Blessed Mother Marguerite d'Youville?
(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have already read newspaper comments on this program which appeared on the French network of the C.B.C. last Sunday night. I have also discussed it with Mr. Ouimet, the president of the C.B.C. It is one which undoubtedly offended, and properly offended, not only French Canadians in this country but Catholics generally, and it is one which I have suggested to the president-and he agrees-is a matter of most serious concern. I can assure the hon. member and the house that the president is conducting an inquiry as to how this program could have originated on the C.B.C., and that appropriate disciplinary action will be taken against those who were responsible for the production of such a program.



PRICE SPREADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I at this time give an answer to the question asked on May 5 by the hon. member for Trinity. The question was:
Could the Prime Minister tell the house when the government expects to receive the report of the royal commission on price spreads.
The chairman of the commission has indicated it is expected that the report will be concluded some time about mid-September.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of one I asked yesterday in connection with the tabling of certain documents recording the arrangements covering individual loans made between the chartered banks and the Bank of Canada and other creditors. Perhaps my question was not clear. I admit that I was referring to the question which had been asked by the Leader of the Opposition as reported at page 1171 of Hansard, which was similar in nature, and to which the Minister of Finance replied by stating:
There are certain modifications which are under consideration at the present time, as I am informed by the inspector general of banks.
Later on, following a further question by the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Finance said:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to acquaint the house with those.

Really that is the information I was seeking to obtain, and I wonder now whether it would not be possible for the minister-perhaps not today but at a later date-to table those modifications, if there are any.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: They have not been concluded, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister table them when they are concluded.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If there is anything to table, if hon. members wish it, it will be tabled.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but the minister said-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not determined yet that there will be any new arrangement. There have been discussions going on from time to time between the inspector general of banks and certain chartered banks.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to pursue the matter unduly, but if there are, will the minister be good enough to table them?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will be glad to acquaint the house, but at the moment, in the light of the form of my hon. friend's question, it is rather conjectural.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: In my absence yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia directed a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture, arising out of reports with regard to the floor price for turkeys. In reply I may say there has been an exceptionally heavy increase in the marketing of turkeys. The volume marketed through registered processing plants in 1958 was 27 per cent greater than in the year earlier, and the volume marketed in the first four months of this year was 106 per cent greater than for the same period a year ago. By reason of this increase in the volume marketed there has been a progressive decline in turkey prices until they recently reached support level.
As a result the agricultural stabilization board met with representatives of the Canadian turkey federation. At this meeting numerous proposals were considered. The representatives of the Canadian turkey federation, and not the stabilization board, suggested lowering the floor price with retention of import controls. The Canadian turkey federation is now giving further consideration to this problem, and will be meeting with the board next Thursday, May 14.
The final action to be taken on this matter will in some measure depend on what the
Inquiries oj the Ministry turkey producers themselves feel should be done, in view of the tremendous expansion that has taken place and the implications of this situation.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Canadian post office noted any recent increase in obscene material passing through the mails, such as was commented upon recently by the postmaster general of the United States?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have encountered no problem in that type of material being produced in this country, and the reference of the United States postmaster general was to its increased circulation in his country which, again, we have not noticed in Canada recently.



INQUIRY AS TO WITHDRAWAL OF STAMP BEARING QUEEN'S PORTRAIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in order to bring speculation to a halt, may I ask the Postmaster General whether or not there is any intention of withdrawing the postage stamp which is now bothering so many people. I refer to the one with what is apparently the devil's picture in the hair of the Queen. Is it going to stay or is it going to be withdrawn?


William McLean Hamilton: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not know the difference between a dollar bill and a postage stamp.


Harold Edward Winch: I understood the minister had control of both.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I most definitely accept the rebuke of the Postmaster General, but may I ask whether both jobs are not done by the same bureau?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is scarcely a matter of urgency. I think it goes back at least 20 years.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry Defence Production. The question arises from a letter I received from the lakehead builders' exchange, an organization representing nearly 200 contractors, who were not given an opportunity to bid on the construction of three compressor stations at Geraldton, Ignace and Parthia.
Can the minister inform the house why Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation refused to let local contractors have the plans after the secretary requested these plans by wire to enable them to bid?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I will have to get this information; I have no information on this subject. There was one question asked by one company at Port Arthur. They had put in a tender and did not get the bid. That is the only information I have, but I will get the information.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce also look into this matter, because I believe the crown corporation is still under his control?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but it would be helpful if a question of this nature were placed on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: Why should it be put on the order paper?
(Translation):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, concerning a cheque in the amount of $400,000 which he recently handed over to the payee for the purchase of lots in the community of La Baie du Febvre and in connection with which his picture was published in the papers. I would therefore ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he intends to establish in the government of Canada, with regard to his department, the same system as is used by the Union National in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Pigeon:: This is perfectly ridiculous.


Hon. Paul Comfois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that in fact I did attend the handing over of a cheque in payment for the expropriation of lots in the community of La Baie du Febvre. The cheque had been sent to the attesting notary appointed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in settlement of this expropriation. I was merely a witness. I


had the cheque in my hand, but it had not been handed over to me by the government. I merely attended the delivery of the cheque to the president of the corporation. As for the picture, I feel no shame about it. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I felt a distinct pleasure in seeing that a matter which the previous government had been unable to settle over a period of five years has now been attended to at last.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member is rising to continue the argument or ask a further question. (Translation):


Adrien Meunier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a further question. I asked the hon. minister if the way in which the cheque had been sent was somewhat the same as the way it is done by the Union National in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Johnson:: It is like the way it used to be done by the one time secretary of state.
LLater;]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put another question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has the hon. minister also considered what a good thing it would be for himself and the country if he personally handed out his employees' pay cheques, with a press photographer tagging along?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Put this question to the hon. Roch Pinard, who used to go around his constituency of Chambly-Rouville carrying cheques in his pockets; and ask Jean-Paul St. Laurent, too.
(Text):



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. This question arises from a press report in today's Globe and Mail concerning Senator Neuber-ger's proposal for jointly sharing the cost of paving the Canadian section of the Alaska highway. Has the United States government sought the views of the Canadian government with respect to legislation pending in the United States congress concerning paving of the Alaska highway? If so, what comment has been made?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Should that one go on the order paper, too?


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear what the hon. member said.


George James McIlraith: I asked if that one should go on the order paper too.


John George Diefenbaker: The self-appointed guardian of the rules has interrupted.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as this question is concerned, the categorical answer would be yes. The government has indicated that the complex nature of the subject suggests the need for careful study and extensive consultation between the two countries before reaching any decision on the terms of an international agreement along the line suggested by the legislation introduced by Senator Neuberger in the United States Senate.
The problem of this highway is one that merits attention when it is considered that from 1945 to March 31, 1959 the cost of maintaining that highway has been $132 million. The whole question will receive consideration and, in so far as the legislation now before the United States Senate is concerned, it is unilateral in that it lays a foundation for a subsequent proposal for an international agreement. In any event it is subject also to the objection that the direction of the work would, in effect, be controlled by an agency of the United States government, which is something we could not accept.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the Prime Minister allow me to ask a supplementary question? Since this highway, or a part of it, is exclusively under Canadian jurisdiction, would it not be a matter for the Canadian government to determine whether or not the paving should be paid for by Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. In so far as the
highway is concerned, that portion of the highway system that lies in Canada is about 1,500 miles in length, of which 1,221 is the Alaska highway proper. There are about 800 miles in British Columbia and about 700 miles within the Yukon Territory. Obviously the answer would be yes.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of a number of communications I have received from Prince Edward Island. Can the
Inquiries of the Ministry minister say what consideration has been given to the proposal that in order to improve the present inadequate ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland the United States vessel Vacationland should be purchased for this service?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the
hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The government has under consideration several alternatives for further improvement of the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The suggested purchase of the Vacationland is one of these, but as yet no decision has been made.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question of the minister. Would not the best and most practicable method of improving the service be to construct the causeway between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, which has been promised now for some time?


George Harris Hees: That consideration is also going on, Mr. Speaker, and the Department of Public Works advise me that they hope soon to have reached a conclusion on that important subject.


Lionel Chevrier: Why is an item not included in the estimates for that purpose?


George Harris Hees: Because, Mr. Speaker, as the
hon. member knows, it is impossible to put an item in the estimates until a decision is made on an important matter of that kind.


Lionel Chevrier: We have been after it for
two years.


George Harris Hees: Twenty-five years now.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MANITOBA  FEDERAL AID IN PROVINCIAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister in the light of his answer to an orders of the day matter raised on May 5 last, and in the light of the desperate efforts of Premier Roblin of Manitoba. Is the minister now in a position to announce any extraordinary arrangement that may assist the people of Manitoba?


John George Diefenbaker: I think, Mr. Speaker, the reason
for the question is the desperate fears of the hon. gentleman and those associated with him.

Supply-Labour



POSTAL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
st. John's, nfld.-request for inclusion of

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to complaints from the patrons of the post offices of Glendale and Mount Pearl Park, suburbs of the city of St. John's, and the exasperation they experience in having letters and particularly bills sent to them with only 4 cent stamps on them. May I ask if the Postmaster General would consider including this area within the St. John's post office, as has been done in the case of many other metropolitan areas?


An hon. Member:: Write him a letter.


Mr. Speaker:: The question having been asked I suppose I should allow the minister to answer it, but I suggest that it is the sort of question that might well go on the order paper.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the extreme and obviously urgent nature of the question to which you have drawn attention, I shall be glad to look into the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have
a supplementary question I want to ask the Postmaster General. If the Postmaster General were obliged to pay postage due on all his bills, would he not consider that an urgent matter?

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


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, today is my second opportunity to bring the estimates of the Department of Labour and of the unemployment insurance commission before this committee. I feel that it is a privilege to do so.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I wonder if hon. members would please lower their voices when they are talking to each other. It is hard to hear the member who has the floor.


Michael Starr: As I was saying, I feel that it is a privilege to bring these estimates before the committee. At this time I should like to

say how appreciative I am of the understanding and co-operation I have received from hon. members on all sides of this house in connection with the administration of this department. The remarks I am about to make on the estimates will be fairly general. I will try to cover every aspect of the functions of the Department of Labour and also the responsibilities that come under the unemployment insurance commission.
The estimates of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission taken together total $90,734,240. The operations of both these departments enter into the economic and industrial streams of this country in such a way as to affect the lives of a great number of Canadians.
The unemployment insurance commission with its more than 8,000 employees, its approximately 200 offices across Canada and, of course, its great responsibility in the administration of unemployment insurance and in placement operations, is asking for $74,754,000.
The Department of Labour, with somewhat fewer than 650 employees, has responsibility for co-ordination of vocational and skilled training programs, civilian rehabilitation, women in industry, and for administration of the various federal acts governing wages, working conditions and collective bargaining and conciliation procedures. The Department of Labour is asking for a somewhat lesser amount, in the neighbourhood of $16 million.
I might just, with the permission of the committee, stress briefly the background against which these requirements are being presented. The fiscal year just past was, as hon. members know, an active one both in the fields of bargaining and of general employment. In the industrial field a number of two-year agreements came due and in the majority of cases these were satisfactorily concluded. Some proved more vexatious than others, but a final settlement was eventually reached in a great majority of these cases.
In the field of employment and placement, which applies particularly to the unemployment insurance operation, a number of positive steps were taken during the past year. It will be no news, I am sure, to hon. members when I say that we experienced a period of industrial softening in this country which I might well describe by the term "recession". Nor will it be news to them that this impinged strongly upon myself as minister in charge of the administration of unemployment insurance. Well do I recall, Mr. Chairman, the dire forebodings of certain hon. members opposite at this time last year. However, as everyone knows, the government

acted and acted quickly. The results of those actions are equally well known.
I may say that certain actions had to be undertaken at the same time in the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission. Both these departments had to be geared in line with the developing situation. Through the unanimous and wholehearted co-operation of the staffs in both departments this was done successfully.
Partly as a result of the winter work conference last year and partly as a result of suggestions from the federal-municipal conference, the municipal incentive program was developed and put into action this winter, with the result that jobs were provided for nearly 40,000 Canadians on sites where no jobs had existed before. As a result of these and other measures taken by my colleagues, employment this spring was 150,000 above last year and unemployment, according to the latest dominion bureau of statistics figures, was 72,000 lower. The administration of the municipal incentive program was largely in the hands of the Department of Labour, and this was accomplished with a minimum of complaints, so far as I know, and with no increase in staff. In short, not one single person was added to handle programs in excess of $90 million. At the same time our winter work program went ahead in much higher gear, and I would say it was far more successful than ever before.
In unemployment insurance the placement program was steadily accelerated. This effort will continue, and extra staff will be required this year on a permanent basis. This will at the same time permit the release of a number of casual employees with a consequent appreciable saving in administration costs. In unemployment insurance, which is in direct contact with a great many Canadians both for benefit and for employment purposes, the endeavour has been and will continue to be the elimination of delays and a positive emphasis on the principle of public service. All staff members are co-operating in this policy.
To come down now to the details of the estimates, the net increase this year over last, taking in supplementary estimates in both years, is of the order of some $1,113,107. This is largely accounted for by an increase of $1,300,000 in vocational training commitments to the provinces. At the same time, as I earlier pointed out, there is a decrease of $322,000 for administration in the unemployment insurance commission due to a lessening requirement for casual employees.
Perhaps I might at this point touch on some of the activities of the labour department. I think it is most important that members should grasp, at least in a general way, the
Supply-Labour
functions of this department. I sometimes fear that the impression is all too current that the minister and the department exist only to be summoned in the case of labour disputes. This is an impression which should be dispelled, since the day to day activity of the department, though it does certainly enter the field of labour conciliation, has very wide ramifications in many other aspects of industrial activity. The keeping of records, the setting of wage scales, the administration of fair wage and anti-discrimination legislation, as well as federal legislation in the collective bargaining field, the constant surveillance of the employment picture in order to anticipate future needs, the assessment of manpower requirements, the raising of the level of training skills in this country; all these are part of the very important functions of the department. They are functions which, in my estimation, are being carried out in response to a definite public need.
The role of women in industry is the responsibility of the women's bureau in my department. Recently the director acted as adviser to the Canadian government representative at the United Nations commission on the status of women. Government annuities, a form of social security for a great number of Canadians, are administered under the Department of Labour. Contracts in force number 180,000 for individuals and 247,000 group contracts. The annuity fund at March 31, 1959, stood at $1,106 million.
Conciliation of industrial disputes comes under the industrial relations branch, which in the past year has been most active indeed. Disputes numbering 108 were referred; in only six was strike action involved. Under fair wages legislation 9,000 cases were dealt with, and in October a new act, the vacations with pay act, came under the administration of this branch.
In the rehabilitation of civilians who have suffered disablement for one reason or another, new agreements with the provinces have been authorized this year, to extend a further five years. To give an example of the effect of civilian rehabilitation I might cite the case of some 2,000 persons who, before rehabilitation, were dependent upon relatives to the extent of $1,700,000 annually. After rehabilitation their earnings in the first year will total $4,660,000.
The problem of older workers is one which is receiving attention. It is receiving even more attention at this time, since it is becoming evident that a number of firms in this country have now approached the ridiculous in their attitude on this question. Recently it has been brought to my attention that certain firms are even going as low as 35 years as

Supply-Labour
the upper age limit of employment. As I have mentioned earlier, in years past this has been a problem which has touched me very deeply, and I have felt very concerned about it. Studies were recently undertaken by the economics and research branch of my department which show not only the downright fallacy but the poor economics of this position, and I hope to the able to bring these results home to employers across Canada very shortly.
I have mentioned employment and unemployment, and I think I can say that at least one thing has emerged from the events of the past year. This is that Unemployment is susceptible to a certain amount of control by direct government intervention. Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that I am proud to be a member of a government which had the fortitude, the vigour and the vision to come to direct and positive grips with unemployment. This next winter we shall continue to wage the winter employment program with vigour.
I would pay tribute here, Mr. Chairman, to winter employment committees across Canada to the various organizations such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Construction Association, Canadian Labour Congress, National Council of Women and others whose support has made this effort possible. At the same time I point to the excellent co-operation we have received in connection with the municipal incentive program from provincial and municipal authorities. It has been a delight to me to have had the opportunity of being associated with this program, because of this co-operation and because of the smoothness with which it has operated.
Let me say also that studies are continuing in my department in connection with this matter of seasonal unemployment. One of the studies currently under way is being undertaken by the unemployment insurance commission in co-operation with the dominion bureau of statistics on the characteristics of the seasonally unemployed. The study was suggested in the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress to the national conference on winter unemployment, and the results cannot help but be beneficial to an understanding of this problem.
In British Columbia, where the seasonal unemployment program has assumed special and distinct characteristics, a special study is being undertaken co-operatively by the British Columbia research council, the provincial and federal governments.
One of the more important aspects of industrial development in our society is the maintenance of a high level of industrial skill.

This may in fact be the most important problem before us now. Another aspect, tying in closely with this, is the equation of the human factor with rapidly changing technological demands. I dare say that upon the manner in which we solve these two problems will depend our industrial progress in the coming 15 to 20 years. There is no need for me to emphasize to the committee at this time the vital need for maintaining a high level of industrial skill in this country, and indeed in the whole free world.
One of the measures we are taking is the technical and vocational training program now under way in co-operation with the provinces. Under agreements signed in 1957 some $40 million is being made available to the provinces over a five-year period for the establishment of suitable training facilities. Through the national vocational training advisory council such activities are co-ordinated across Canada. Another important aspect of this program is the development of uniform standards in apprenticeship training across Canada. Other aspects include training of unemployed, disabled persons and so on. Vocational guidance material is also provided to high school students across Canada.
My department is also carrying out research into skilled manpower training which will throw considerable light upon this particular problem in the years ahead. There is also a study going ahead dealing with automation and its effects upon people employed in industry which should provide results useful in the solution of a number of pressing problems. I would also mention in this connection the assistance provided by the advisory committee on professional manpower, which has been of benefit to my officials in their assessments of these problems.
All these activities are designed to assist in keeping up a high level of training skills in Canada through co-operation on the federal, provincial and industrial levels. It is essential that this co-operation be maintained, and I am hoping that as time goes on an even more intensive approach may be made to the problems in this field.
As I have said, the unemployment insurance commission is asking for $74 million. I have already pointed out the increased burden of responsibility which the commission staff faced during the past winter. Personally I do not anticipate that the effects of recession will be felt as severely in this country in the immediate future. Nevertheless I am convinced that in order to provide the type of service to which the public is entitled, the permanent staffs of the unemployment insurance offices across Canada must be supplemented. Particularly is this necessary in the placement field.

I have been stressing for some time the importance of the placement function of the unemployment insurance commission. I cannot myself, subscribe to the theory that the main function of this organization is to hand out benefits. No less important, and perhaps more so from the point of view of providing service to the taxpayer, is the necessity of an effective and positive placement program. This program will seek out jobs wherever they may be found. It will place the right person in touch with the right job. In the long run, by putting people to work rather than handing them benefits it will add greatly to the productive capacity of this country, and it will save the taxpayer money. That is why we are asking for these extra positions. At the same time the elimination of certain casual positions will result in an administrative saving in the first year of $322,000.
Hon. members will note an increase in the amount provided for office stationery. Compared to last year, and including the final supplementaries of last year, the increase is $209,000. This results partly from the extension of the mechanization program which will entail the use of special forms. Other items in the administration vote are much the same as last year.
I would point out in closing, Mr. Chairman, that during the two years of the modified recession which was felt in this country perhaps less than in any other, unemployment insurance, as administered by this government, pumped $805 million into the lifeblood of our economy. In this respect unemployment insurance became a weapon against recession, and a weapon against suffering. The balance in the fund at March 31 of this year was $496,251,386.48. At the same time last year it was $744,200,124.87.
In closing I wish to assure the members of this committee that I shall be available along with the staff of my department to answer any questions which hon. members may care to ask, and to provide any information which may be required.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Consideration of the estimates of the Department of Labour gives members of this committee the opportunity to discuss labour and industrial problems in a general way. The committee will have listened with interest-though I think this interest was mingled with some disappointment-to the statement the minister has just made, I believe the disappointment felt by hon. members will arise not so much because of what he said as because of what he omitted to say about some of the labour problems which face us today.
Supply-Labour
If I criticize, as I propose to do, the policies of the minister and the government, the hon. gentleman will know that I have a high regard for the sincerity, the industry and the good will with which he approaches this subject. That is quite apart from the criticisms I may feel called upon to make.
I hope to deal with these matters in a general way and later some of my colleagues will discuss in more detail some of the topics the minister has just mentioned. The hon. gentleman began by making a reference to the unemployment insurance commission and the importance of its work. We all agree about its importance, especially in the months ahead. We have already had a difference of opinion in this chamber between this side and the government side concerning one matter connected with the unemployment insurance commission. Whatever side one may take in regard to the procedure followed by the government in this matter it must surely be admitted that the ultimate result of this particular appointment is unhappy and unfortunate in that the trade union representative, the workers representative on the unemployment insurance commission, one of three, has not the confidence of the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour.
To say the least, that is surely an unfortunate result. As far as I am concerned I do not believe it is genuine and effective consultation within the meaning of this particular act when a minister tells workers' organizations that a vacancy has occurred and invites them, as he did, to submit names, but also tells them that he himself is going to recommend to his colleagues in the government a particular person.
The point at issue, of course, is not the qualification of any particular person. Certainly in this case it is not that the recommendation of the government covers a man who I believe is qualified in every way to fill the post, nor is the point at issue the political views of a particular nominee, if he has any. The political views and loyalties of a government nominee or a nominee of the Canadian Labour Congress do not matter, it seems to me, if the qualifications of the nominee are satisfactory for the position and if the procedures for consultation as laid down in the act are genuinely followed.
The point at issue here, as we see it, is what constitutes this honest and effective consultation as required by the act for the purpose of ensuring-there can be no doubt but that this is the purpose of the consultation-that the workers' representative on this commission will have the confidence of the

Supply-Labour
workers' organizations as it faces-and I use the words of the minister in describing it-an increased burden of responsibility.
The minister in my view did not adequately deal with other extremely important matters, in the sense that he did not get down to principles and fundamentals in respect of at least two of the major problems that face him and that face Canada today in the field of labour, in the department over which he presides. One of those problems is that of labour-management and employee-employer relationships and the other, of course, is the problem of a continuing high level of unemployment in this country.
As far as the first problem is concerned, the minister mentioned with some satisfaction the working of the conciliation procedures of his department. No doubt he will be winding up the discussion on this item, and when that time comes I would like him to tell the committee if he will whether he feels that the present procedures of conciliation and mediation for the avoidance of wasteful and indeed anachronistic though often necessary strikes as a method of settling labour disputes are in his opinion satisfactory and adequate procedures in view of his experience in the last two years in this country. I should like him to tell us if he is satisfied as to whether these procedures are working satisfactorily in Canada at this time. If he is not satisfied, what is he doing about it and what does the government propose doing about it?
Last year when the minister opened the debate on his estimates on August 15, 1958, as reported at page 3593 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
Coming to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, may I say that I have given notice of my readiness to consider amendments to this act and that a number of suggestions have been received and are being considered at the moment.
Perhaps the minister ten months later will bring us up to date as to the views and intentions of the government in dealing with the act and the nature of the changes that have been suggested to date. I should also like to ask the minister if he will tell the committee in due course on what principle of intervention, whether mediation or conciliation, the government acts in labour disputes, intervention by non-intervention as was the case with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producers' strike, or intervention of the kind followed in relation to the railway diesel firemen's dispute. Also does the minister think that in the light of the problems of labour and management and the general industrial problems we are facing today the

method of protecting the public interest, which we all know is paramount, is adequate and satisfactory?
I should also like to hear the minister's views and those of the government on what can be done to reaffirm and strengthen the means of maintaining in this country the right of collective bargaining, subject always, of course, to the overriding consideration of the public interest. I believe hon. members of this committee will agree that any effort on the part of employers or of government or of anybody else to weaken that essential principle in the development of our labour relations legislation is inadmissible, just as violence and law-breaking in labour disputes is inadmissible.
Many trade unions, like corporations now have great power and efficient organization. Most of them are not the struggling groups of 50 years ago, when the right of collective bargaining was not established in this country in the way it is established now; indeed, when it was not recognized as essential by all sections of opinion as I believe it is recognized now. But along with this power, for both corporations and trade unions, must go responsibility. When that power is used irresponsibly, when there is corruption or lawbreaking, the unions themselves are the first and the greatest sufferers. I believe, and indeed it was pointed out in the debate last year by the hon. member for Skeena, that unions are the first to realize that they themselves should be the strongest guardians against that kind of thing, otherwise they would be giving ammunition to those in this country who would still like to see them weakened.
There is another problem with which perhaps the minister will be able to deal in this debate. Demands by workers for wage increases are bound to be limited and affected by economic considerations. Hence the relationship of those demands to increased productivity and to the danger of increasing costs creates a problem, thereby pushing up prices in a way which at times makes the resulting wage increase an illusory benefit.
What does the minister think of this relationship? I would like to hear his views on the most interesting proposal of one trade union-I think it was the steel workers' union -that its own demands for wage increases could be related to increased productivity in its own industry.
Of course labour, through wage demands of this kind, has its responsibility for holding back inflation which can nullify the benefits of wage increases; but perhaps there is a tendency at times to blame labour and the demands of labour too much for the effect of

increases on inflationary tendencies. There are other factors. At times we are perhaps tempted to overlook the importance of those other factors, but they are factors over which labour itself and trade unions have no control. I am thinking of the question of administered prices by corporations and groups of corporations. On this point the president of the Toronto-Dominion bank, Mr. Ashforth, had this to say on February 23 of this year, in an address before the Canadian club in Toronto. I quote one paragraph from his address:
Business, like labour, will have to make some sacrifices. It is interesting to note that corporation profits have turned buoyant again and this, of course, is a symptom of economic recovery. However, it may also be taken as evidence that management is proving fairly successful in passing on increases in costs by boosting its selling prices. It also means that business may be vulnerable to a new round of wage demands.
That, I think, Mr. Chairman, is a very wise and very significant statement, especially as coming from the president of a bank.
There is only one other particular aspect of these problems that I am going to discuss this afternoon, and that is the employment situation in this country. Last year when we debated this subject, a debate to which I have already referred, on August 15, after describing the employment and unemployment outlook for 1958 I said to the minister, and I am quoting from page 3598 of Hansard:
Perhaps he-
That is, the minister.
-will give us as clear and frank a statement as he can on this very important matter and on the policies the government intends to initiate in order to cope with what I believe to be a continuing and serious situation.
The minister replied, and I quote from page 3681 of Hansard of the same day:
In answer to that-
He was referring to my question:
-I have been advised by the officials of my department in comparing last year's conditions with the conditions this year-*
That is, 1957 with 1958.

that last year the economy was declining to a marked degree. In comparison, this year-
That is, 1958.
-the economy is on the upswing at this time.
That was in August, 1958. And he went on to say a little later on in the debate, at page 3683:
One of the best indicators is the fact that registrations at our national employment service offices were on the increase as of August last year-
That is, the increase over August, 1957.
-but we have shown that there is a steady decline week by week in the registrations at our national employment services offices in recent
Supply-Labour
weeks and although the dominion bureau of statistics figure for mid-July is not available yet-it has not been issued-I venture to predict that on the basis of the national employment service figure of 365,440 on August 7, there will be a very appreciable decrease in the D.B.S. figure for mid-July and even more so in the figure which will come out for mid-August.
The ministers optimism about the mid-July figure may have been justified by the figures as they then come out, but certainly not for the two succeeding months, I claim, Mr. Chairman, that the minister at that time took a too optimistic view of the unemployment situation in this country and that he did not at that time-though we pressed him very hard for it and we were criticized for introducing considerations of doom and gloom, as we always are when we talk about unemployment-introduce adequate policies to deal with what we thought was a continuing serious situation, and which indeed proved to be so.
When he referred to the recommendations of the conference on winter unemployment- I will have something more to say about that in a moment-which was held in mid-July, 1958 he said at page 3669 of Hansard, about a month later:
The recommendations have been made, and those recommendations are being compiled by the department for study.
That was in the middle of August. The minister went on:
I have not yet had an opportunity of presenting them to cabinet. I am going to do this because I consider this problem is very important. These matters will certainly be brought to the attention of the government for consideration.
That, Mr. Chairman, was the statement made by the minister on August 16, 1958. But not, as the minister knows-indeed, as he has already been reminded more than once until the end of October, 1958, did the government announce this offer to participate in the cost of certain municipal works designed to reduce unemployment during the winter of 1958-59. We have criticized this program, Mr. Chairman, as being too little and too late. I have already indicated in the date I have given why we considered it to have been too late.
Surely subsequent events have justified the criticism we made at that time and have repeated since. I claim, Mr. Chairman, that this program-though the minister takes a great deal of satisfaction from it-did not represent a well thought out and well planned attack on the basic problem of winter unemployment in that it was announced in October, so late that municipal authorities, without whose co-operation of course it could not have been successful at all, did not have enough notice in order to take

Supply-Labour
account of federal sharing in labour costs in preparing their own construction programs.
The program from the outset was too narrow in its conception to be of substantial aid in combating unemployment. At that time- and indeed the situation remains-certain areas had large concentrations of unemployment, and the figures show that these concentrations still exist. The successful application of this program in any such area of severe unemployment depended upon the financial resources which could be made available to the municipalities in such areas, and where such financial resources did not exist or where they were limited then the program could not operate at all, or at least could not operate to maximum effectiveness. Tying the success and the operation of the program to the financial capacity of municipalities was surely not a strong and appropriate basis for a plan that should have had as its sole basis the extent of unemployment.
When the Prime Minister announced the terms of this winter works program in his telegram of October 29, he said, and I quote from the telegram:
We believe that by co-operation these programs will create many thousands additional jobs this winter in Canada.


Mr. Fulton:: And they did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have some comment to make on that in a moment. Of course the program did create jobs, and in so far as it did create a single job we welcome that result.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Grudgingly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But naturally you have to take the effort made, the amount expended and the plans that were drawn and relate all that to the results achieved in order to try to show whether, through some other plan done in some other way, you could not have had better results.
On April 22 the minister gave the committee the figures. I am not sure whether he repeated the figures this afternoon, but they are on page 2928 of Hansard for that date. These figures show that this program had created 37,055 additional jobs. We are glad of that, and I am sure the 37,000 who got the jobs welcomed them. On April 23, the day after the minister spoke, and this will show how inadequate the contribution of this winter works program was to the total problem, the figures showed that there were 698,351 unplaced applicants registered at the national employment offices. I am using that figure of unplaced applicants because the figures calculated on that basis more nearly coincide with the date on which the minister gave the figures for the jobs created under the program.

The inadequacy, as we claim it to be, of this program of winter works is also well demonstrated by comparing the extent of unemployment in the various regions and the number of jobs created. The following table underlines this inadequacy.
Unplaced applicants, Additional jobs,
	April 23	April 22
B.C	64,441	3,059Prairies 	91,998	7,929Ontario ....	197,506	10,486Quebec ....	240,702	5,561Atlantic ....	103,704	9,924
These figures show that in many areas, notably in Ontario and the prairie provinces which had less than the national average of unemployment, there was a greater proportion of additional jobs created by this program. Well, what is the situation now in regard to this problem of unemployment. Although in our view the minister underestimated the seriousness of this problem in the last session, in the present session, some months later, with the facts before him, he has recognized that unemployment last year was unusually high. He has followed the example of the Minister of Finance in adopting this course. Last year in his budget speech, and later in August, the Minister of Finance said unemployment was declining, and he took a great deal of satisfaction out of that. Of course, we all did. Then, he drew the conclusion, and the minister supported him in this conclusion, that we were over the hump, through the woods, and everything was going to be much better this year. Some months later in his budget speech, and dealing with the same period, the minister said as reported at page 2409 of Hansard for April 9, 1959:
Throughout 1958 there was serious unemployment despite very substantial positive action by the government.
This year the Minister of Finance is again very optimistic about employment opportunities for 1959, just as he was last year in regard to employment opportunities in 1958. Nevertheless without exaggerating or without trying to take an unduly alarming view of the situation, because I am not doing that, we have evidence to support the view that unemployment in the year in which we are will still be unusually high. Perhaps if he is still Minister of Finance, in his next budget speech the minister will recognize that unemployment was a serious problem in 1959. Then, of course, it will be too late to do anything about it. We say that the unemployed in 1959 want jobs now. They do not want to be told next year that, unfortunately, there were too many unemployed in 1959.
Let us look for a moment at the basis of the ministers' optimism, that is the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour,

in regard to employment prospects in 1959. Let us look for a moment at the latest figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics in the daily bulletin for April 21. This bulletin includes this paragraph:
The substantial employment gains from a year ago were maintained but not increased during March . . . Unemployment, which usually rises slowly from February to March, declined this year. An estimated 525,000 were without jobs and seeking work-(8.6 per cent of the labour force)-
12.000	less than in February and 72,000 fewer than in March last year.
We rejoice in that improvement, but that improvement itself does not remove our worries about the continuing seriousness of the situation. Surely we cannot, as a nation, be satisfied that in March, 1959, by the dominion bureau of statistics method of calculation, which is the most conservative one,
525.000	workers or 8.6 per cent of our labour force were still seeking work. In case we are inclined to take too much satisfaction from the progress that has been made in regard to employment, we should also take a proper account of a factor which is responsible, I think, for a decline in the number of unemployed. This dominion bureau of statistics release goes on to say:
The drop in unemployment was associated with a slight decline in the labour force. Although this decline amounted to only 7,000, it was in contrast to the expansion that usually occurs at this time of year. In the past five years, the labour force has increased between February and March by an average of 22,000.
This quotation is from a D.B.S. report and it means that if the labour force had increased at its normal rate between February and March instead of declining there would have been 29,000 more unemployed or more than 9 per cent of the labour force which would have meant an increase in unemployment of 17,000 in March compared with February. As a matter of fact, the labour force increased by only 1,000 in March in comparison with January 1959.
While it is true, and we rejoice in this, that general economic conditions have improved recently, the fact remains that the recent decline in unemployment is not due so much to that improvement as to the unusual decline in the labour force, while our population continues to increase rapidly. I think last year we added to our labour force some 75,000 people. The minister will correct me if my figures are wrong. The fact that fewer people offered their services on the labour market, as they did in the last few months, could be explained by their expectation that they would not get jobs if they tried to join the force.
The minister could point out, and perhaps he will in reply, that claimants, both regular 66968-9-217
Supply-Labour
and seasonal, had unemployment insurance benefits on March 31 of this year, and they were 4 per cent less than on February 27, and 11 per cent below March 31, 1958. These figures are from the bureau's weekly bulletin. I should like to say here again that that figure, without analysis, could be quite misleading. It is true that regular claimants were, at that time, 8 per cent fewer than in February and 19 per cent fewer than in March, 1958. But this could be explained mainly by the fact that after many months of heavy unemployment, more unemployed are not entitled any more to receive regular benefits.


Michael Starr: They would still be registered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That explanation is substantiated by the other fact that seasonal benefit claimants who do not, as the minister knows, necessarily need any stamps, were in March 6 per cent higher than in February and 10 per cent higher than in March, 1958.
As to the unemployment situation for 1959 as a whole, as we see it, I had this to say in my speech in the budget debate, as reported at page 2914 of Hansard. Perhaps I can read one paragraph from it because it is our considered view as to what may happen during the forthcoming year. I said then and this is the main reason why we are not as optimistic as are the members of the government with respect to this matter: I quote:
If only a 4 to 5 per cent increase in the volume of the gross national product is achieved-
And the government is planning on the assumption of an increase of 7 per cent.
-and that is the estimate of the tax foundation- that would mean that during the current year we would have, on the average, more than 300,000 people unemployed in this country which would be the second highest level in the post war period.
Then I went on to say this:
Thus, notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's facile optimism on this score, the problem of unemployment remains and is likely to remain throughout the year.
On the basis of current economic conditions I do not think this estimate of 300,000, on the average, is unrealistic. If that is true, that would mean about 5 per cent of our labour force, on the average, would be unemployed in 1959. Compared to the 3.1 per cent in 1956, surely that represents an extremely serious situation throughout 1959 but especially, as we enter the winter of 1959-60. It is not easy to comtemplate the possibility-and I hope the possibility will not arise-that we may, if we are not careful and if policies are not put forward to prevent it, and if our economic conditions do not improve sufficiently, be entering into a period when we will have something like a hard core of

Supply-Labour
unemployment of about that figure. I am sure that is not a prospect that any hon. member of this house contemplates with any satisfaction at all.
We feel that the government approached this problem last year by inadequate measures put into effect too late. So we ask now what are the government's intentions and policies for this year. We do not know but I think we have the right to know. Surely the provinces and the municipalities should know without delay what the government is prepared to do, what the government is planning to do for next year. It is time now to plan, to discuss, to arrive at concrete decisions. It will be too late next fall to do very much about it.
Is it the intention of the government to participate in the cost of certain municipal works next winter? If so, should not the minister announce that decision immediately? Is the minister-and to be fair to him I think he gave some indication that he was doing this in his statement this afternoon- examining last winter's program with a view to seeing how it can be improved, how its shortcomings can be removed so that it will be more effective next winter if the government participates in a similar type of program.
Would it not be highly desirable to call another meeting with the provinces and representatives of the municipalities-call it without delay, not next October, not next September but now-in order to review the winter works program in the light of last year's experience. I feel perfectly certain that the municipalities, in the light of that experience, would have some extremely helpful suggestions to make to the government as to the timing and the scope of that program as well as to their view of the degree of participation of the federal government in it. Hence I repeat that this meeting should be called immediately. I hope the minister will have something to say on this particular matter in the course of the present debate. I am content that with adequate advance planning and the effective co-operation between the provinces and the municipalities a great deal could and should be done to reduce seasonal unemployment which has been such an extremely serious problem, especially during the last two years. We have always had it in this country and I suppose we shall always have a measure of seasonal unemployment because we cannot, at least as yet, alter our climate. But the magnitude of that problem has been greater in the last two years than it was previously.
As we move on the road of economic recovery-and we all hope we are moving on

that road-we can, I suppose, expect what the economists call cyclical unemployment to decline. But we will realize, surely, that a hard core of unemployment still exists, not only because of the climate but because of the action of certain structural factors, as the economists call them. Even if we enjoy intense prosperity in the next two years- and I hope we do so-we will still have this structural unemployment, if steps are not taken to prevent it, due to technological progress and automation and to an unfavourable economic climate in certain depressed areas in this country, as we may perhaps almost refer to them. The minister touched on some of these matters this afternoon. Perhaps he will give us a slightly more detailed analysis when he comes to reply.
There is one other aspect of the unemployment problem which should receive the careful attention of the government, and I hope the minister will have something to say about this matter as well. In our own party program which we put forward with inadequate results a couple of years ago there is included this paragraph and I am glad of every possible opportunity to put on the record of Hansard what we said then during the election campaign.


Mr. Fullon:: Why? Because it was so
wrong?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because it was so right, as
the country is now beginning to find out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Here is what we had to say about the development of automation and technological progress.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Persistent self-delusion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister is whistling
to keep up his courage in the face of declining popularity. We were right then and we are right now. Here is what we said:
To help in dealing with the long-term problems of production and employment, the Liberal party will establish an advisory board with representatives from labour, industry, agriculture and the universities. (It would be called the national advisory board on economic development and automation). One principal duty of the board will be to study the long-term measures required to assure a high level of employment and to minimize for workers the consequences of automation by providing for retraining programs, for better mobility and other progressive measures. A second duty of the board will be to plan programs for long-term investment and development which will ensure the steady progress of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Chairman, it would have been expected, of course, that in the planning of such long-term development program any board of this kind would have to give special

attention to depressed areas, as I have called them, across Canada but especially those areas in the Atlantic provinces which are suffering so greatly from unemployment, as the regional figures prove.
This problem of automation should certainly receive special attention on a continuing basis. I thought that the minister dealt with it in a casual and rather desultory way this afternoon. A very interesting study was made by the Canadian Labour Congress for the Borden commission, I think in 1956. It is entitled "Probate Effects of Increasing Mechanization in Industry". The Department of Labour, as the minister knows of course, initiated a few years ago special studies of this problem in specific industries. The automotive industry was one. I wonder if the minister could make these studies available to us and tell the house if his department is going to continue with them. I am sure that they would prove most useful. I am also sure that like many others they will not be adequate to cope with the growing problem of unemployment resulting from automation and other technological developments which cannot be held back without harming the economy of the nation as a whole, but the impact of which must be cushioned by the government to ensure that these changes when they are made will be made with a minimum of dislocation and disturbance to the working man.
The minister talked this afternoon about some of the work which is going on in the Department of Labour. He also talked about that a year ago, and I have quoted from his speech delivered on August 15 last where he said that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act was being considered with a view to making amendments thereto. He also said on that date, as reported on page 3593 of Hansard:
It is my intention to set up a consultative committee representing interested groups to advise upon the administration of the fair employment practices act as it relates to discriminatory practices in industry.
Well, what has been done in that regard? The minister went on and touched on this problem, and I agree it is one of the most important problems which faces the field of labour relations. He said:
In the civilian rehabilitation branch, in order to carry on the services rendered we are making provision for two additional employees to assist in the placement of older workers.
I would like to say that I could not agree more with what the minister said this afternoon with regard to that problem. One way perhaps in which it could be alleviated, and this is also something that we have put forward, is to bring into existence legislation 66968-9-217i
Supply-Labour
or regulations by which the working man's pension belongs to him when moving from one job to another. The hon. minister went on to say:
This has been an aspect of labour problems in which I have been very interested for quite a number of years.
He repeated that interest this afternoon. He went on:
Because of the practice of certain industries of specifying certain ages, they have thereby eliminated many useful persons from employment. We are concentrating on this aspect of the matter by endeavouring to institute an educational program for employers, and by pointing out to them that the ability of a person is in no way diminished as the result of age but that in some respects the workmanship of an older person offers a great deal to a prospective employer.
The hon. minister repeated his interest in that matter this afternoon and gave us an assurance that the matter was under study. When the minister gets up to reply to some of the points raised this afternoon perhaps he will give us some indication of the results achieved in respect of this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I have endeavoured to cover some of the aspects of the problem on item No. 1. There will be other hon. members on this side who will have something to say and we hope that when the minister rises he will put all our worries at rest.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the remarks of the Minister of Labour with great interest. The Leader of the Opposition said that the minister is a most genial person, a most disarming person, and I think some of his colleagues will agree with those remarks. We all hope that we will expedite this matter and bring the session to an early conclusion.
I was disappointed that the Minister of Labour, in his statement this afternoon was not able to assure the Canadian workers that the central problem of unemployment was being tackled and would be solved. No matter the amount of soft soap, there is little comfort in the fact that 525,000 persons are without jobs and seeking work, according to the joint release of April 21, 1959 of the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics. We face a serious unemployment crisis in Canada at the present time. There may have been some small improvement in recent weeks, but it is still a very serious crisis. The Canadian people did not expect to have this problem with them at this time. They were led to believe by the Conservative party that they had a program which would solve the question of unemployment. The Canadian people were assured that this government had a policy, and in the pamphlet entitled "Labour" which they issued during

Supply-Labour
the recent election campaign, the first words on the opening page are:
Labour: Progressive Conservative Policy. We will:
1. Maintain full employment and the highest possible standard of living.
That commitment has been broken. We are a long distance from full employment. We are a long distance from the highest possible standard of living. The Minister of Labour in introducing his estimates this afternoon has outlined no program to deal with the half million unemployed in the country at the present time. In the recent election campaign much was said about unemployment. The Prime Minister spoke on this subject at almost every meeting. He spoke about it on television, and on March 4, 1958 in a Toronto telecast he had this to say, as reported in the Montreal Star of March 5:
As long as I am Prime Minister, this government will not rest while one Canadian remains out of work. No one will be allowed to suffer.
Does the Minister of Labour say that no one is suffering today because of unemployment? Is that the position he takes? The Prime Minister spoke about this subject many times. In Halifax on March 24, with the election campaign drawing to a close, the Prime Minister had this to say: He said that his government-
-was launching "one of the greatest public works programs this country has ever seen" in order to stimulate employment. "I am able to tell you that we're over the peak as the result of our policies. I can see the light ahead-"
He was just getting the vision.
"-and employment reasonable and complete, over the next few months."
On March 24, 1958 the Prime Minister was seeing the light. He was being shown the vision of employment "reasonable and complete" within the next few months. Over one year later we are facing a great unemployment crisis in this country that the government has not solved and is not dealing with in an effective manner. The Prime Minister went on:
"I know what unemployment is. They don't have to tell me secondhand," he added. "But as long as I am Prime Minister, deficit or no deficit, no man or woman is going to be allowed to suffer because of unemployment."
With more than half a million unemployed the government reduces the deficit, but still no program to deal with this crisis. The Minister of Labour spoke in glowing terms of the government's winter works program, and it has been of some benefit. As the hon. minister pointed out, it is a demonstration that the provincial governments of this country and the federal government are able to co-operate on specific projects of value to

the nation to put people to work. But how many people have been put to work? The minister says over 40,000. That is a commendable effort. But surely that is not the thing that should be concerning the minister in the main, the accomplishment of putting
40,000	to work when half a million are out of work. This is just a flea bite compared to the major effort which is needed.
The government last year held a conference. The conference was itself delayed and the report of the conference was delayed. We asked for its report many times; we expected that when published it would be a substantial report including specific proposals. What we were given at that time was merely a record of the words spoken at the conference. We shall have, next winter, I am certain, a difficult unemployment situation. We are facing a difficult unemployment situation even now, with summer at hand. And still the government has no program for dealing with this crisis.
The Leader of the Opposition said his party has a program, and he quoted his program. The Conservative party, does not lack a program either. What could be a better program than full employment? What could be a better program than employment at a reasonable level, no one being allowed to suffer? The fact is that the financial interests which dominate the thinking and actions of this Conservative party, just as they dominate the thinking and action of the official opposition, are not prepared for government action and government intervention to the degree necessary to provide full employment in this country.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: May I ask
a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: When I have concluded my speech I will be very glad to answer a question from the hon. member.
That is the reason why there has been a failure to deal with this problem. This is a situation which requires government action. It requires a government program, and it requires government intervention into the so-called free enterprise system which hon. gentlemen opposite love so much. These gentlemen are not prepared to accept the necessary intervention by government which alone will assure the welfare of the people of this country.
The provinces have co-operated with the government in its plans. They have done all they could. Some provinces have agreed to pay, not only 50 per cent of the cost of the wage component of the winter works program but 75 per cent. I think this points to an improvement which the minister could make

in the winter works program for another year. The federal government should step up its contributions to these projects because, after all, it is not paying the total cost but merely paying a part of certain specific items in that cost. Since unemployment continues to present such serious difficulties, I suggest to the minister that now is the time to act. I suggest that now is the time to call the provinces together. They have been waiting for many months for a call to discuss financial matters. The government should call the provinces into session to discuss this central problem of unemployment as well as the financial problems which they face. These two issues are very closely related. I do not think they can be separated. They should form the agenda of a special federal-provincial conference called to deal with these important questions.
The federal government should not be satisfied with a winter works program dealing only with a specific area of employment. The government should be prepared to embark on a great federal program of its own. There are many areas in this country which need assistance. There are many industries which are languishing-the coal industry, the fishing industry, the agriculture industry. These are all industries which are sick and which need treatment, and if the government could, through its program, provide a better economic situation for these industries, that in turn would help create the kind of economic climate where full employment might be a possibility.
The government was very much interested in labour before the election. The government at one time was much interested in co-operating with labour and settling disputes whenever possible. But an entirely different attitude seems to have come over the administration since the election. Now that they have this tremendous majority- this crushing majority-now that they can use their steamroller tactics, they are not interested in settling labour disputes wherever possible. The dispute in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a case in point. The Minister of Labour was not prepared to act. It was necessary for a backbencher to come to the rescue and do what the minister himself should have been doing, namely try to settle this dispute. It would have been settled many weeks earlier, I am certain, if the government had not maintained what in effect was an anti-labour attitude.
Labour today in this country is being maligned. Labour today is being attacked on every front, and one of the worst attacks,
Supply-Labour
one of the worst interferences with the freedom of trade unionists in this country has, of course, occurred in the province of Newfoundland. This, I suggest to the minister, is direct interference with free collective bargaining.


An hon. Member:: On whose part?


Hazen Robert Argue: On the part of the government of Newfoundland. This is a direct interference with human rights and fundamental freedoms in the province of Newfoundland. Mr. Chairman, I realize that under the rules I am not allowed at this time to ask the government to disallow this act, and therefore I am not going to do so. But it is possible to raise the question on the estimates of the Department of Labour and to call attention to this unnecessary interference, this unwarranted interference with free collective bargaining in this country. I think the Minister of Labour would be doing a service to the trade union movement if, on his responsibility as minister, he pointed out that the international woodworkers of America in the province of Newfoundland was a union properly certified under the law, a union which had not broken the law but which has, nevertheless, been decertified because a provincial legislature had interfered and changed the law. This is something with which the Minister of Labour must be concerned. It is something with which the Prime Minister should be concerned, and that is why we in this group say it is time we had a bill of rights embodied in the constitution of this country which would protect individual freedoms in this country-the freedom of association, the freedom to organize and the freedom of collective bargaining.
I know the government takes the attitude that its jurisdiction is very limited, but there are important constitutional authorities which disagree very strongly as to the basis for that position. There have been other instances this session when the position of the workers of this country was not taken into consideration. There was the case of Avro where
13,000	workers were unceremoniously dumped on to the streets following an announcement in this house. Since that time the Minister of Labour has said that his department is doing everything possible to have those workers placed in new jobs. He says the department is working on it, but the situation is difficult and they have not been having very much success so far.
On April 16 the Minister of Labour in reply to a question of mine said this, as reported at page 2738 of Hansard:
At the time of the lay-off there were registrations totalling 11,582. The number who have been

Supply-Labour
placed by the national employment office is 622. Those who have found work on their own total 1,179.
More than 13,000 workers lost their jobs and in the words of the minister himself, the number who have been placed by the national employment office is 622.
Let me continue my discussion of what seems to be the cavalier attitude of the government, an attitude that has brushed aside organized labour and is in fact failing to obey the spirit if not the letter of Canadian law. We have the case of the appointment of the commissioner to the unemployment insurance commission. As I said earlier in asking a question about this, it is not my intention to discuss any political considerations at all either one way or the other.


Mr. Grafftey:: I do not blame you.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe the principle is very clear. The Unemployment Insurance Act laid down a method of procedure under the law and the minister failed to follow that procedure because before any consultation took place with organized labour the president of the Canadian Labour Congress was told that the Minister of Labour and the government had in mind Mr. A. F. MacArthur and we all know he is now in the job in spite of representations that have been made since then.


Mr. Small:: What is wrong with that?


Hazen Robert Argue: I said I was not discussing the person but the principle. I think the government made a great mistake in failing to carry out the letter of the law. I have no reason to think that the three labour nominees were well qualified but if the minister decided they were not well qualified for some reason, since they were endorsed by the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, I believe it was incumbent on the minister to open the door for the appointment of some person who would have been mutually satisfactory. Instead, however, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress wired the minister on March 24 asking for an appointment to discuss the matter and as far as we know there has not yet been a reply to the telegram. What an absence of good public relations.
This government had the best public relations before the last election but since it got its tremendous steamroller majority the public relations people apparently have been dropped and public relations is no longer a part of the operations of this government. It does not care whether it obeys the law set out in the statutes and it apparently cares

less whether it has the confidence of organized labour in the people that are appointed to this important board.
It is very easy for members of parliament to be taken in by the hysterical campaign that is being directed against organized labour at this time. It really amounts to a smear campaign. According to reports one reads in the newspapers it would seem that organized labour-your friends and mine, your neighbours and mine-are a greater menace today than communism. I see in the newspapers today far more complimentary statements about Premier Khrushchev than about organized labour in Canada. I think that is a damnable and disgraceful attitude. I believe that organized labour is an extremely important part of democracy. I believe that the right of people to associate themselves together in an industry to bargain with their employer is something all of us should protect and cherish. I do not think it results in great conflict in the industry or in a breakdown of our economy. I believe it has the opposite effect of maintaining and increasing productivity.
If we read the newspaper, listen to the radio or observe television we would be led to conclude that half of the workers in the country are striking all the time. Let ten people go out on strike somewhere and that is national news which is hysterically shouted across the country. The Labour Gazette of February 27, 1959 sets out the facts at page 190, as follows:
There were 260 work stoppages arising from industrial disputes in 1958 compared with 245 in 1957; time loss was somewhat higher and more workers were involved in 1958 than in 1957, according to a preliminary summary of strikes and lockouts released last month.
Let us see what that amounts to? I continue:
The 260 work stoppages in 1958 involved 107,497 workers and a time loss of 2,879,120 man-working days. -the time lost in 1958 amounted to 0.24 per cent of the estimated working time-
That is all; less than J of 1 per cent. On the assumption that a person who was on strike worked a 40-hour week this would mean that on the average, day in and day out, in all the strikes that were on in 1958, there were just 1,440 persons on strike. That is the great news, the source of complaint. The fact that one-half million people in Canada are unemployed apparently is a much smaller problem and considerably less newsworthy than the fact that a few hundred people were out on strike.
I presume that from time to time irresponsible people find their way into the trade unions but this is bound to happen. It happens in political parties too. For instance,

there is one well-known member of the Conservative party who this year is taking quite an opposite line from the government. There are bound to be people who take an opposite view in any large organization. We see labour maligned today by the phony accusations that labour organizations are controlled outside of this country and that the strikes here are manipulated and managed in the United States. I wish to quote one sentence from page 213 of the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, that portion relating to Canada-United States economic relations. It reads:
Not a single case has been found where a Canadian local has gone on strike under orders from international headquarters.
I would suggest that hon. members of this committee who doubt the integrity and the independence of the Canadian labour movement could do no better than read this very important finding. Labour has a good name which has been maliciously and wrongly maligned. Labour is not interested only in improved working conditions in industry; labour organizations have a great interest in the welfare of their members. Those involved in labour organizations are as good Canadians as the rest of us. They are interested in what is good for the nation. They have brought certain proposals to the government which I hope the government has under consideration.
For instance, the automobile industry through its Canadian director has asked the government to interview the automobile companies-the big three-to see if they will make a small car in Canada. Would that not be a good thing for our nation? I ask the minister if the interview has taken place and if the government has made any contact with the automobile industry to see if these companies are prepared to embark in the field of small car production.
The steel union through its Canadian director has also made a highly important submission to the government. Here is a union which is offering the government a method by which prices in this country could be held down. It is asking the government to have a public inquiry into the steel industry and I am certain the steel industry needs a public inquiry. It is very largely a monopoly. It shows a very rapid increase in profits; and although wages in the industry have gone up substantially, productivity has increased at a much more rapid rate. I would suggest that in the name of fair play this proposal by the steel workers should be accepted, and there should be a thorough inquiry into the steel industry of this country to find out
Supply-Labour
why steel prices are so high and whether or not, in the view of the steel workers, they are unduly high.
As free citizens in this country, Mr. Chairman, many people in the trade union movement at this time are looking to the field of political action. This has not come about by a decision that was taken overnight; this has come about because of frustration, because of inaction by both Liberal and Conservative governments. I would suggest that the trade union movement of this country, believing it necessary, will do everything in its power to replace the old parties, to see that the kind of economic program, in the interests not only of labour but of all Canadians, is in fact placed on the statute books of this country.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: May I
ask a question? The hon. member referred to the economic program, and he referred to it before. Is he including in that the nationalization of industry in order to bring about his program?


Mr. Howard:: The hon. member asked me that question three months ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: I made a 40-minute speech on that single subject in the budget debate. It is in Hansard. I do not want to try to avoid answering the hon. member's question. I believe in a mixed economy. I believe there is a field for public ownership and a growing area where public ownership is required. I believe-and I am certain that he believes and also his party-in private ownership where it is really competitive and not the great corporate ownership of which he is such a strong supporter.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: May I ask
one other question? The hon. member says that he would nationalize certain industries. Would that include the steel industry and the rubber industry, for example?


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend will also find a specific answer to that question in the speech I made this session which is reported in Hansard.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, much has been made during the past few days about the appointment of Mr. MacArthur as labour's representative on the unemployment insurance commission, and much has been made of the protests of the Canadian Labour Congress about the appointment on the ground that Mr. MacArthur was not one of the names which had been submitted by the congress. I should like to take a few moments to deal with the attitude of the C.L.C. in this regard; but before doing so I should like to bring to the attention of the committee the answer I received from the hon. member for Essex

Supply-Labour
East to the question I put to him. When I put a question to him about the appointment of Hal Banks to represent the Canadian workers at a convention in Geneva, the hon. member for Essex East replied, as reported at page 3368 of Hansard:
I should be glad to answer that question. I understand that Mr. Banks was appointed by the workers as their delegate; and the government of the day respected the wishes of the workers of the country.
I further understand that he got his understanding from his deskmate. At that time the Leader of the Opposition was satisfied with what he thought was a proper answer to my question because he said:
Are there any more questions?
I would like to deal with his remarks and the answer to the question that I received the night before last. It is a shame and it is a disgrace to the former administration that they would submit to any representation on behalf of any group or any individual that Hal Banks, a known American gangster, could represent Canadian workers outside of this country. It is also a disgrace to the former administration that he should have been given the status of a landed immigrant in this country and should represent Canadian workers at a convention.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald MacInnis: I will adopt the same attitude as was adopted by the hon. member for Essex East and not permit any questions at this time, because my questions were avoided the other night.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald MacInnis: I was not permitted that privilege the other night. I will continue with my remarks, as other hon. members have done, and at the end of my remarks I will answer questions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When hon. gentlemen get tired I shall continue with my point of order. If the hon. gentleman thinks he can be so discourteous as to refuse questions I would remind you, sir, that we are discussing-


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is not a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour for 1959-60, not the appointment of Mr. Banks by a trade union organization to the international labour office delegation some years ago. I would not have

taken the slightest exception to what the hon. gentleman was saying if he had had the courtesy to permit the question that the Leader of the Opposition wished to pose to him. But I submit to you, sir, that the hon. gentleman is completely out of order in discussing something that happened several years ago and had nothing to do with the hon. gentleman who now administers this department.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: There is no point of order here. It is a well known fact that on the first item any hon. member can speak on general items with regard to the department which is under discussion. This is what the hon. member is doing. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is always on his feet speaking about points of order and questions of privilege. There is no point of order here at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman is out of order because he was discussing not only the appointment some years ago but an appointment which was an appointment made by a trade union to the I.L.O., and not a government appointment in any way, shape or form.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not a point of order; it is a statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A true statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition is taking advantage of the Chair.


The Chairman:: Order. I ask hon. members to please permit the hon. member who has the floor to -carry on with his remarks, and not to speak all at once. It is extremely difficult to try to understand what the point of order is when many members are speaking at the same time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be very happy to repeat it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I suggest the hon. member be permitted to continue.


Donald MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make just one observation on the point of order. I have not learned, and I do not think I ever will learn in this house the meaning of courtesy from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. My objection to answering any questions at this time is just the same as the reason I received a couple of nights ago from the hon. member for Essex East. I feel that the appointment of an American gangster to represent Canadians was a discredit to anybody who had anything to do with appointing him.

The Leader of the Opposition has also made the statement that appointment to the I.L.O. conference is not a government appointment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, I did not say that at all. The hon. member is misquoting me. I am sure he wants to be right. I said that it was a workers' appointment to the I.L.O..; it was not a government appointment. That is what I said.


Donald MacInnis: It is a strange thing, but we have had this particular question up in the last couple of weeks. I will quote from the constitution of the I.L.O. to prove that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong and that this is a government appointment in agreement with organized labour.
My own union is not affiliated with the Canadian congress, although there are many workers in my constituency who are. Recently there have been delegates appointed to the I.L.O. coal committee meeting at Geneva. The procedure followed in the appointment of these delegates is that the Minister of Labour is required, according to I.L.O. regulations, to consult with the Canadian Labour Congress, which is the largest representative group of labour in the country, who in turn appoint these delegates to go to the meeting.
The practice followed in the United States by the A. F. of L. and C.I.O. is that they turn over these appointments to the united mine workers. The point I should like to bring out here is the attitude of the C.L.C. on appointments. Rather than turn over the appointment of delegates to the largest group of coal miners in the country, the C.L.C. saw fit to appoint a couple of their own men to attend this conference in Geneva. I should like to read the paragraph of the I.L.O. regulations under which these appointments are made. It reads:
The members undertake to nominate non-government delegates and advisers chosen in agreement with the industrial organizations, if such organizations exist, which are most representative of employers or work-people, as the case may be, in their respective countries.
The minister consults with the head of the C.L.C., who then appoints these delegates to go to the conference. In this case the C.L.C. completely ignored representations made by the largest organized group of coal miners in this country, namely the united mine workers, district 26, Nova Scotia, and instead they appointed delegates who had no more coal mining experience than working in what would be termed a bootleg mine. However, the delegates just happened to be affiliated with Mr. Jodoin's union. This gives you an idea of how they handle appointments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why did the government not stop that appointment?
66968-9-218
Supply-Labour


Donald MacInnis: The government fulfilled its obligation when it went to the C.L.C. and asked for nominations. The same situation applied with respect to the matter of the unemployment insurance commission, although the members in the opposition would like to deny that. The C.L.C. executive should be very careful, in view of these two different situations, to see that the attitude they are exhibiting is one which will stand up to honest scrutiny. I have made reference today to the attitude toward the appointment of these delegates to the I.L.O. coal committee meeting in Geneva and the attitude they have adopted toward the Minister of Labour. The mine workers of Nova Scotia were not properly recognized for the simple reason they are not affiliated with Mr. Jodoin's congress.
If I may return to the subject of the congress' recommendations, it would be interesting now to find out their attitude toward Mr. Banks since they have been joined recently by Mr. Stanley Knowles. Representatives of the united mine workers of America have been corresponding with the Minister of Labour on this matter and, because of his own political affiliation, the president of the union at home would like to leave the impression that this situation is all the fault of the Minister of Labour. I was in communication, personally, with Mr. Jodoin on this matter. He has indicated no intention of doing anything about it this year, but he would be happy to consider the representations made next year by the united mine workers. This would depend, of course, on the attitude of the united mine workers toward his congress and whether he could ever hope to have them affiliated.
The C.L.C. speaks about political patronage and the fact that their advice was not followed. I might say that so far as I am concerned C.L.C. headquarters is just a nest of their own personal patronage. This has been made evident by the recent appointments made to the coal miners' meeting. There are more politicians down at C.L.C. headquarters than there are in this House of Commons.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that a man with Mr. MacArthur's background in the labour movement ought to do a good job. He was sufficiently respected in the movement to be a candidate against this same Mr. Jodoin a few years ago. I cannot understand why the other labour representatives would think this appointment was so detrimental to the interests of labour that they should resign. I should think that if there were likely to be some detriment to labour, and I were in a position to offset it or fight it, the last thing I would think of would be to resign. I would think it would be very

Supply-Labour
much better to stay there and fight any detrimental effect they might think Mr. Mac-Arthur would have. The fact that Mr. Mac-Arthur was at one time in a position to run against Mr. Jodoin for the presidency of the trades and labour congress is an indication that he must have been well qualified in the labour field. Otherwise, he would never even have been considered for the leadership. I do not believe that Mr. MacArthur is any Johnny-come-lately to the labour field as others have been.
The other evening the hon. member for Timmins made reference to the back door of labour. This back door of labour never got such a going over as it did during the recent appointment of Mr. Stanley Knowles who was taken into the Canadian congress by way of the back door. I say this because of my knowledge of labour unions. I know that certainly in my own labour union I could not qualify for committee work if I did not have a certain attendance record at my own local union. If I were to qualify to go to a district convention I would have to have at least 50 per cent attendance record over the period of the last six months. How could Stanley Knowles, therefore, walk into the Canadian Labour Congress convention and be appointed by any fair means? How could he receive an appointment in the Canadian Labour Congress when he had spent the last number of years far removed from any affiliation with labour? He claims an affiliation through the typographical union and his union card. Perhaps he has one, but I understand he did not get it from the Winnipeg area. He had to go down to Ontario to pick that up.
I know that a great number of professional men in my province were some time or other, affiliated with either the steelworkers union or the miners union. They earned the money at these occupations to continue their education and go into the other fields. However, these men do not go around talking about their affiliation of 15 or 20 years ago with these unions, nor do they take this sanctimonious attitude toward labour. How interested in labour was Mr. Knowles during the 1957 session when the hon. member for Kootenay West chaired a four-party meeting on the matter of Mr. Banks? We had Mr. Knowles' attitude towards labour then.
I could ask some questions of the hon. ember for Essex East. He was the champion of labour here a couple of nights ago and he might be the champion of labour here this time next year. But it is not a consistent attitude on his part and it is not very well taken when he gets to his feet and likes to champion such a cause.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I just arrived. Don't be too hard on me.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member for Timmins had great criticism to offer with respect to the appointment of Mr. MacArthur. He must have been quite badly taken aback when the Minister of Labour had cause to rise and read telegrams that he had received from his own president and his own secretary-treasurer. It has been said that the confidence of labour has been lost in this appointment of Mr. MacArthur and that his appointment is a great defeat to the labour men in this country. That is ridiculous. Because Claude Jodoin or Stanley Knowles or a few other people are elected heads of the union in this country does not necessarily mean that they are representing the views of labour on every issue that might be before labour. The situation is the same in my own union back home. We will always have our Bankses, our Hoffas and our Dolhantegs. In case you do not know who Dolhanteg is, Mr. Chairman, I may say that he is an officer in my own local back home. I could expound on his attitude on unions here for hours and tell you a few things about what this man's attitude is on unions. But because they are elected representatives of unions, it does not necessarily mean that they are at all times voicing the opinions of the union or of labour. I am quite well aware of how these labour conventions operate. It will be extremely interesting to observe how many fellows within the next number of years will be put up to run against Mr. Jodoin and to see how democratically he handles his labour congress in that regard. It will be interesting to see how many men can rise up in the ranks of labour.
Speaking of rising in the ranks of labour, may I say it is a shame what happened. Just about a year ago the automobile workers were up from Windsor; there was a delegation. They had a committee there which spoke for Canada. The hon. member for Essex East was present that day but he did not expound too much on his theories of labour that day, as I recall it. These men were here. It was clearly evident that among them there were delegates who could very well speak for the ranks of labour and do so more effectively than any Stanley Knowles, any Donald Maclnnis, or any other member of parliament, especially when dealing with their own particular problems. Why should Stanley Knowles be taken in the back door of the Canadian Labour Congress over and above such people who have spent their lifetime working in the interests of labour? Why should he be shoved in there? They need men like Stanley Knowles to talk for them. But at the same time, among their own men there are any number who can do a better

job of talking than can the same Mr. Knowles. At least, when they talk, they talk with sincerity, something which I doubt very much he has when it comes to labour.
This idea of criticizing the appointment of Mr. MacArthur was carried just a little bit too far, in my opinion, in view of the fact that his qualifications for such a job were outstanding. As for members associated or affiliated with the labour congress resigning, that is just another way of lying down. I feel that these fellows should stand behind the fact that they have already been appointed, should look after the interests of labour and should not resign because the game is not going to be played according to their rules. The fact that the Minister of Labour does consult with the congress does not necessarily mean, as has been pointed out in this chamber several times, that he is going to take without question recommendations put forward by them. It must be understood that the Canadian Labour Congress which I understand has a strength of over a million men, still does not represent the entire working force in this country.
Before resuming my seat I should like once again to say, now that the hon. member for Essex East is in his seat, that the answer I received with regard to the appointment of Hal Banks as a representative of Canadian workers to the conference in Geneva was anything but proper. Again I repeat that it was a most shameful thing to have any government appoint a man who represented American gangsters to represent Canadian workers.
(Translation):


Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Chairman, during the debate on the budget, I referred to certain newspaper headlines which might be used in writing the story of the present Conservative administration. In some of those headlines there was reference to a deficit unequalled in this country's history; in others, to unprecedented taxation.
In yesterday's edition of La Presse, I found still another headline which might also help write the story of this Conservative government. Indeed, in its issue, of yesterday, May 6, La Presse had a heading which ran:
Worker's unemployment insurance contributions are going up.
The item then went on to say, among other things:
Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act just introduced by the cabinet in the House of Commons, will result in increasing the worker's contribution without increasing the weekly benefits of the insured.
Thus in the case of a man earning $51 a week the insurance premium will be 72 cents instead of
66968-9-2181
Supply-Labour
the present 56 cents. The weekly benefit, however, will remain at $21 for the single man, and $30 for the man with dependents. The increased contribution applies to all workers.
During the budget debate, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) did no end of juggling with words. He toyed with them so much that the people of Canada had the impression that the government was not raising taxes very much on small salaries.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the report I just quoted, and of what happened yesterday in this house, we can see that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, this government has indirectly increased the taxes that will be paid by the small wage earner.
During the last two elections, we were told that the Conservative government would cut down taxes and government expenditures too. What happened since the Conservative party came into power is exactly the opposite. Present conditions further subtantiate my argument: The small wage earner is being, as I said, indirectly taxed, and workers who will be paying increased contributions to the unemployment insurance fund will not be getting increased benefits. It is even stated, in the schedule of contributions which will have to be paid by small wage earners that a person who gets a wage as little as $9 a week will have to pay in an extra dime a week into the unemployment insurance fund.
That, sir, is this government's achievement. I mention this just by the way and my purpose in rising today is to put before the house a plan which has been dear to me for many years.
For the last three years, Mr. Chairman, I have had put on the order paper a resolution designed to help people of 45 years or more, who want to find a job. I should like to quote this resolution which I put on the order paper on January 15 last, and which, I am afraid, will not be discussed during this session:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing, during the current session of Parliament, legislation that would facilitate the employment, in federal works, undertakings or businesses, as defined in section 2 of chapter 38 of the Statutes of Canada, 1956, or in any corporation set up to perform some function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada, of male or female persons over 45 years of age who, on account of their age, find it difficult to secure proper employment at the present time.
It is most imperative, Mr. Chairman, that the federal government urgently introduce some bill to stop a discrimination which is

Supply-Labour
sowing discontent and raising a problem which is already extremely serious and is growing increasingly so in Canada.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, if such legislation were passed by parliament, it would fall short of its full effect until a similar one was passed by the various provincial legislatures.
As I suggested during the budget debate, a federal-provincial conference should be called as soon as possible in order to settle many issues concerning the central government and the various legislatures. And those issues should include the matter I am again submitting this afternoon. It is a matter of the utmost significance, Mr. Chairman, and should be settled at the very earliest opportunity.
In a question that went on the order paper some time ago, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), how many people 45 years old and over were at that time looking for work. The answer I got was that, for the week ending January 19, 1959, there were 143,000 such people, i.e. about 35 per cent of all people then unemployed. As I mentioned, the problem of those people 45 or over who are being refused jobs because of their age must be settled without delay.
You can imagine, sir, the anxiety, the distress of a man with dependents, a man in the prime of life who, though only 45, 50 or 55 years old, has all kinds of trouble finding a job because of his age. Imagine fathers who need employment to support their family and provide for their children's education and who, at a time when they need it most, cannot find any work, and are being discriminated against because of their age. Imagine those jobless men with dependents, wandering from plant to plant, from office to office, trying to find a job and earn an honest living for their families. A man 45, 50 or 55 is still well able to support his family, and wants nothing so much as a chance to do so. But there is discrimination I just referred to which constitutes a crying injustice toward a large sector of the population of this country.
I have had occasion in recent years, to discuss the matter in this house; and as a result of my representations, I have received many letters from people in that category, describing their plight. I should like to quote from some of those letters.
On August 19, 1958, I received a letter from a citizen in Longueuil who says in part:

Dear Sir:
I had a job with the Canadian Pratt & Whitney Engines, in Longueuil. I was told that, when over 45 we were laid off, and I went a long way in order to find another job; I was always turned away, too old even at 40. Mr. Rouleau, we will have to wait for the old-age pension or operate a blind-pig in order to make a living.
I am sure the person who wrote me that letter will not operate a blind-pig in the constituency of Longueuil, because that riding is well represented. But, when a person writes a letter of that kind to say he will have to resort to dishonest means to make a living because he cannot find a job any more, I think it is an indication that the problem is really serious and must be considered and solved as soon as possible.
On February 26,	1959, Mrs. Bensmiller
wrote to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), to say, among other things:
(Text):
My husband passed away in November 1958. Since that time I have found that it is impossible to find work because I am 49.
(Translation):
The Leader of the Opposition replied to that letter on March 3, as follows:
(Text):
Dear Mrs. Bensmiller:
I agree with you that this is a matter which deserves the attention of governments, both at the provincial and federal level, and I have been giving a great deal of thought to it myself.
(Translation):
Another letter was sent to the Leader of the Opposition on February 23, 1959, by Miss Grace M. Parker, one paragraph of which reads as follows:
(Text):
I believe the government will first have to pass a new law regarding company benefits. It appears that firms will not hire females over the age of 45 years and males-the age limit is 35 years. I have been told by businessmen that benefits are not transferable in case one wishes to make a change and that the insurance companies have set the age limit for hiring. The new law should change this to permit a firm to hire older people and either grant benefits on a lower rate or else without benefits. Also that benefits should be transferable. There are many thousands of people out of work through no fault of their own.
(Translation):
Those are, Mr. Chairman, some of the numerous letters which the hon. members sitting on this side of the house or myself have received.
Among the letters sent to me, there were really pathetic cases, and it is with tears in my eyes that I read them. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the government to do its utmost to check this social unrest.

The premier of Ontario pointed out that situation, not very long ago, and stated the problem had to be solved. Well, as premier, he should have introduced some legislation to solve it at least in so far as Ontario is concerned. On the national plane, it is up to the federal parliament, in the first place, to introduce the type of legislation I have just referred to.
A short time ago, the member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) himself asked in this house that such people be helped through the granting of a tax reduction to firms employing a certain percentage of workers over 45 years old.
Mr. Chairman, if we keep on with this discrimination, there will be more and more social unrest. What would happen if we set an age limit to people seeking public office, to those who strive to get themselves elected in the various fields of public endeavour, either here in the Canadian parliament, or in the provincial legislatures, or in municipal councils? We would be deprived of people of ability, of men who can render services to the country, if an age limit of 45 were set for those who seek public office. First of all, we would be deprived of the services of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and thus the Canadian people would not know what is a Conservative administration such as the one we now have. Thus the Canadian people would be deprived of the services of great statesmen who are anxious to serve the Canadian nation. Half the membership of the house, and more, and half the membership of provincial legislatures, would be ruled out, and thus we would lose the precious contribution of able men.
It has never occurred to anyone, Mr. Chairman, to set an age limit on those seeking public office. So why set an age limit in the field of business? Such a discriminatory practice is contrary to human dignity, and we have a duty, as members of the federal parliament, just as members of the provincial legislatures have a duty, to find some solution to this serious source of social unrest. To achieve this, as I was suggesting, the matter should be discussed at a federal-provincial conference.
I have been very carefully going through legislation of this type that has been enacted by a number of American states. I have studied with particularly close attention legislation aimed at ending discrimination against people of 45 and over, which has been adopted by the states of New York, Mass-achussetts, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Generally, such legislation makes it illegal for an employer to require applicants for employment to state their age. Under such
Supply-Labour
legislation, an employer is forbidden to mention, in classified ads published in daily and weekly newspapers, and in radio or television broadcasts, such a requirement as "aged from 21 to 35". It is also illegal to require that an applicant be under 45.
This legislation even prohibits the use of the phrase "young men or young women". Every application, under such legislation, has to be considered on its merit, without regard to age.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that is a measure which shows concern for humanity and which should be adopted without delay by the Canadian parliament and even by our provincial legislature in order that those benefits be made available to all. It is our duty, as members of parliament whatever our political allegiance, to find a solution to the problems which confront the Canadian nation and especially the people I have just mentioned.
During the past years, when this country was being administered by a Liberal government, I have had occasion to support a bill introduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-she was not of cabinet rank at the time-providing equal pay to women for equal work. Feeling that the bill was premature, the liberal government defeated it. However, although I was a member of the Liberal party, I supported the bill then introduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Some years later, under the St. Laurent Liberal government, the hon. lady who is now Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had the satisfaction of seeing the legislation she was advocating endorsed by the parliament of Canada. I therefore urge the minister today to do likewise about a legislation which would remove all discrimination against people of 45 or over. I wish with all my heart, in the best interest of the population and of all Canadian families, that the government, during this session or a later one, will introduce a bill which will forever eliminate this discrimination so that all these family heads, all those deserving workers, may have a chance to make a living unhampered by such discrimination.
(Text):


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to begin what I have to say by referring to the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I regret he

Supply-Labour
is not in his place at the moment to hear what I have to say about them. First of all, he made the comment that at the present time there were more active politicians in the Canadian Labour Congress than there were in this house. That is possibly the conclusion which the hon. member may have drawn after participating with his colleagues in the work of this parliament, but it is certainly not the impression I have gathered working with the C.C.F. group in this corner. The hon. member also made a great to-do about the fact that at one time Mr. MacArthur ran against Claude Jodoin. I do not know the organization and the constitution of the local union to which he belongs, but for the hon. member's information I may say that is the privilege which is held by each and every delegate who attends the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress. Any delegate attending that convention has the privilege of running against the president or against any other officer if he so wishes.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South also made a specific reference to remarks I was supposed to have made about backdoor entry into the union. If he will look at the record in Hansard I think he will find I made no mention of any backdoor into the union. I did mention backdoor politics and I intend to say something more along that line today. The hon. member also made the statement that Mr. Stanley Knowles was appointed as executive officer of the congress. That is not correct. An executive officer of the congress is not appointed; the post is filled by election at a democratically-held
convention. As	a	matter	of	fact, theremarks	made	by	the	hon.	memberwere an	insult	to	each	and	everyone
of the 1,700 delegates who attended the last C.C.L. convention in the city of Winnipeg. The hon. member also made reference to Hal Banks and of his great concern in this matter. I ask the hon. member for Cape Breton South: what has he or the members of the government which he supports done about it over the last two years since they were elected?
The hon. member also made reference to a couple of telegrams which were read by the Minister of Labour the other night, and I should like to quote them briefly, now. The first was a telegram from Mr. Walter Childs, president of the provincial federation of Ontario professional firefighters, saying: "Your appointment MacArthur shows exceedingly good judgment." I think that in order to assess correctly the value of this telegram one should know a little of the background of this particular officer. I have known him
[Mr. Martin (Timmins) .1
for many years, at least since 1949. I know he was president of the Brantford local. I also know he ran three times in his own district for vice-president of the district, and that he could never make it. I also know that even though he had never served on the provincial executive he was the only man on whom the various factions concerned could compromise in the city of Fort William in 1955 in order to keep a C.C.F.'er out of the president's chair. I also know something else, and I think this is very important, if we are properly to assess the value of this particular telegram. I will recall one day at an executive meeting, recommending a former attorney general of the province of Ontario as an arbitrator for the firefighters throughout the province. I may say that this man was also a former Conservative cabinet minister. And then this president of the provincial federation said he could not recommend him. I wanted to know why, and he said: "He is in the black books of the government". I was puzzled, and asked: "How could a former cabinet minister be in the black books of the government?" "Well," he said "He is too pro-labour". I think we should remember that when we assess the value of those two telegrams.


Mr. Palleit:: Why not give us the name?


Murdo William Martin: The name is already there-Mr. Walter Childs, president of the provincial federation of Ontario firefighters.
The second telegram was from Mr. Bob Gilbert and it reads as follows: "Congratulations on your appointment of MacArthur."


John Cameron Pallett: Who was the former cabinet minister? Put it on record.


Murdo William Martin: I have no objections. Mr. Leslie Blackwell, who contested the leadership of the Conservative party in Ontario against Mr. Frost.
I also have on my file a letter from this same Bob Gilbert which is very interesting and very enlightening. It followed that same convention in 1955. At that time, the executive dispensed with the services of its provincial solicitor. It was said he was not competent to remain in office. In his place we engaged another solicitor on the recommendation of one of the biggest locals in the province. When I returned after a short vacation following that convention I received a letter from this same individual the contents of which indicated that they wanted the decision reconsidered. The new appointee was a Liberal and they wanted reconsideration of the appointment of the other man because he was a Conservative and a friend of the government even though he was not competent. It is small wonder that there should have been congratulatory telegrams on this latest Conservative appointment.

Over the years I have attended a number of annual provincial conventions of this organization and it is interesting to note the speakers who were selected to address those meetings. In 1949 in St. Catharines the speaker was a Conservative cabinet minister. In 1951 in Hamilton the speaker was a Conservative cabinet minister. In 1952 in Oshawa the speaker was a Conservative member of parliament who sat in the opposition and who is now Minister of Labour. In 1953 in Brantford the speaker was a Conservative premier. In 1955 in Fort William the speaker was a Conservative cabinet minister. In 1956 in Brockville the speaker was a Conservative cabinet minister. In 1958 in Niagara Falls the speaker was a Conservative cabinet minister. Never to my knowledge have we had a speaker address this organization who was other than a Conservative member of parliament, a Conservative member of a provincial legislature or a Conservative cabinet minister or appointee.
There is an interesting and significant point to be made in regard to these two telegrams. Possibly hon. members are not aware that the Ontario firefighters as a unit have no particular interest whatever in the unemployment insurance fund. When a man joins the staff of a fire department of a municipality in the province of Ontario unemployment insurance contributions are deducted for the first two years of his employment. After two years of service with the department he is qualified as a permanent employee and his contributions cease. He cannot draw unemployment insurance in the event he is laid off. The organization as such, therefore, has no real interest in the fund. Why then should such an organization through its president and secretary send congratulatory telegrams to the Minister of Labour? I am not going to accuse the minister of soliciting these telegrams. I will merely suggest that he received congratulatory telegrams from two very close political friends of long standing. I wish to make it clear that I did not raise this issue. It was first raised by the Minister of Labour and then by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
Then there is another point of even greater importance. There has been no specific reference made to the fact that working people across the country have a big stake in the unemployment insurance fund. Approximately 50 per cent of that fund is money they have paid in; it is their money. Certainly they are entitled to have their representative on the commission that administers this fund and unemployment insurance as a whole. I suggest that is the basic reason for the section in the act that
Supply-Labour
provides that the labour representative is to be appointed to the commission following consultation with labour. I do not see that it is proper to go through the motions of consulting labour and then proceed to appoint the individual you had selected in the first place.
It is true that Mr. MacArthur has the confidence of some people in the labour movement. Proof of that is perhaps to be found in the telegrams to which I made reference. I do not deny that. The fact remains, however, that apparently Mr. MacArthur does not have the confidence of the majority of the people in the labour movement and I do not think the labour representative on the commission should represent a minority of the labour movement.
I do not know what the purpose of this appointment was but unfortunately I believe I can foresee what the results will be. It is going to cause disunity and confusion within the ranks of labour across Canada. I hope that was not the purpose of this appointment.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks let me assure hon. members of the committee that I do not intend to review the past today. I wish, however, to place before the committee a few thoughts with regard to labour in my constituency.
For many years labour in Canada was suppressed by big business. During the twenties and thirties people were pushed out of their jobs. After the war labour completely organized and became a very powerful group in the country. Today we have what might be called two sectors of the labour movement, the group of business people in management and the group of union leaders, jockeying for position, I believe they are using the rank and file members of the unions for gain.
I should like to discuss today the demerits of the new political party the wedding of which has been announced and is to take place shortly. I do not feel that the rank and file people in the unions want this merger to occur. Mr. Knowles in talking about the new political party indicated that it would represent the workers, farmers and similar groups of people across the country. May I point out that the Conservative party already does that. Our membership comprises a miner from the east coast, a fisherman from the east coast, people in various occupations and trades from the west coast and people from all walks of life and a variety of ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds. Some members of this party came from homes that knew poverty during the depression and had

Supply-Labour
to rely on charity to see them through. We are by no means the people of the big business interests, the people who are scheming to control the economy of Canada. The people who are scheming in this way are the Stanley Knowleses of today. People who think in that way have lost the farm support and so they cannot become a truly national party. My understanding is that even within the little group of eight in this house there is a great deal of dissension about the methods whereby the new political party may come into being. Surely a man like Stanley Knowles who could not even plan his own election could not plan the economy of the country as a whole.
I suspect that at the convention of the Canadian Labour Congress in Winnipeg last year a group of barefaced politicians tried to sneak in the back door and take over. I also suspect, however, that they have taken over the Canadian Labour Congress only on the surface; perhaps only in the newspapers. I conclude from letters written to me by people in my constituency that the average worker wants an honest living, the right of free collective bargaining. The average worker does not want to be suppressed by big business. He does not want any politician to come in and tell him how he is going to vote and where he is going to vote.
Mr. Knowles in elaborating on the theme of the new political party has said that there is going to be a planned economy. What he really means is a controlled economy or the nationalization of industry. I asked the hon. member for Assiniboia today a question about nationalization and he told me to read the speech he made on the budget. I have now had an opportunity to examine his speech and I found that in it he was again walking down the middle of the nice red line and would not commit himself.
Much reference has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite to broken Conservative promises. During the last election campaign I heard some statements made by C.C.F. candidates in my constituency, including statements made by a C.C.F. member of the legislature of Ontario, on public platforms. In effect they said that if the party came into power they would take over the steel companies, the rubber companies, Proctor and Gamble which is a soap company, and various other organizations. They proposed taking them over completely. I was rather amazed by this statement and asked how they would do it.


Harold Edward Winch: I am amazed too.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Well, you had better go down to Hamilton and talk to your socialist friends there who are scheming just as you are with the Canadian Labour

Congress in an effort to hurt the little man in this country, to push him around and tell him how and when and where to vote. You boys have a rude awakening in store for you, you can be sure of that.
What is happening with respect to the taking over of industry? I asked the question; "How do you intend to take it over?" He said: "We are going to buy the industry." I replied: "You are going to buy all the large industries in Canada?" He said: "Oh, yes." This is what the C.C.F. representative of the district said. He said: "We are going to buy all the stock of all these big capitalists; we are not going to steal them". I said: "If the stock of Dominion Foundries and Steel is worth $30 today, are you going to pay $30 for it?" He said: "No, we are going to pay the price of the stock when it first started off." Today the great percentage of the holders of stock in industry are the little people of the communities, the people who are buying the stock. They are going to steal the stock of these people when they come into power.


Harold Edward Winch: That is damned eyewash, and you know it.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilion South):: I remember the hon. member for Vancouver East back in 1943. I remember reading some speeches that he made. He said that when they came into power they would scrap the British North America Act; they would make this country a police state.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a dirty lie; I never said that in my life. I said it would be reviewed and revamped.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I will have to ask the hon. member for Vancouver East to withdraw that remark.


Harold Edward Winch: Sir, when a persons utters a dirty lie what do you say? I withdraw the word "lie". I said it would be reviewed and revamped and in my six years in the House of Commons I have made my position on the British North America Act very clear.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I thank the hon. member for his interruption. I am not the long-winded politician type. I probably will not go until six o'clock.
With respect to the labour-C.C.F. amalgamation, I feel it is a great mistake for the average trade union movement in Canada. The hon. member for Assiniboia spoke a few minutes ago and in two or three paragraphs of his speech he talked about what trade unionism was in Canada. He said it was a banding together of a group of people to put forth their views and to get the best deal possible over the collective bargaining table. It was not to have political hatchetmen like Stanley Knowles come in the back door and

having a check-off of money to sponsor a political party for people who wanted to vote the other way. In a labour magazine that came out just recently Mr. Knowles said that there were people in the labour movement who were Conservative and Liberals. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, if there were not I would not be here today. I make these little references to gentlemen who are trying to get in by the back door. They have talked to Mr. Jodoin and a few of their associates in the back rooms. They have schemed as to how they are going to analyse the situation, how they are going to play the labour classes of the country against the big businessmen, trying to squeeze the small businessman in the middle and give a variety of things to everyone.
Since this government has taken office it has instituted a national health scheme with the provinces who want to participate. The policy of the C.C.F. in the past has been- the hon. member for Essex East frowns. I remember also that according to the Liberal platform of 1919 they were going to bring in a health scheme in 1920, as soon as they got elected. But in all the years that he was in power, and he was in power for 22 years, the hon. member for Essex East did not do it. I know in the last part-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I hope the hon. member will come back to the Department of Labour.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I was
just trying to say, Mr. Chairman, that in the policies of the C.C.F. party, which they are putting forth with labour, they are mixing the two.
This government has taken decisive steps to help the working man. They are not all the steps that I would like to see taken; I would like to see more, but I do not want to see under any circumstances the possibility that my children will be living in a socialistic, nationalistic state such as has been schemed for by the socialist people around my area. I do not like it. I do not think it is the proper thing. I think it would be the ruination of the economy. Mr. Reuther, president of the automotive workers in the United States, was asked by a group of people if he thought that the trade unionists in the United States should get into the political business and he stated in a magazine, the U.S. News and World Report, of December 9, 1958, that the American labour movement is committed to work within the framework of the two-party system, the republican and democratic parties in the United States. Hon. members can see the way in which our economy-as we saw in the 22 years that the Liberals were in power-is tied in with that
Supply-Labour
of the United States. If this country were to become a socialist state under C.C.F. domination, just think of the political implications there would be with the steelworkers of America on the one hand bargaining and Canadians on the other with the steel industry because, if you took over the steel industry, as the hon. member for Assiniboia said they would do during the budget debate, if you took over this industry, what would happen to the voice of the trade union boys? They would be working for the government and not for a group of collective people sponsored to bargain for their rights?


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question? How do the employees of the Ontario hydro bargain with their employers now?


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I am glad the hon. member asked that question.


Harold Edward Winch: Answer it.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I will answer it the way the hon. members for Essex East and for Assiniboia answer questions. Do you agree that the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Essex East do not answer questions in the house properly? I have a certain conception about energy and about hydroelectric systems. 1 am trying to make a point with respect to United States control and the steelworkers of America control over the steel companies. If the steel companies were told that possibly the C.C.F. party would take over this country they would be bargaining with a steelworkers union in the United States which did not believe in the taking over of industry. Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member this question? Does he also have any interest in the United States companies in his own riding which control companies to such an extent that they cannot sell outside of Canada because of this United States control?


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Yes, I have a lot of them in my riding.


Harold Edward Winch: I will give the hon. member the names of the companies if he wants them.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I know
them.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I was trying to discuss in a very humble way the delusion

Supply-Labour
that the C.C.F. party has about forming a new political party in Canada. Before I continue with my remarks I want to say that
I	made a statement about the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I am sorry he is not here right now. I do not want to misrepresent what he has said so I have the press clippings here. There is a statement reported in the Calgary Herald of November 10, 1943:
Asked about the position of the police and military forces in the event of a move for a change, Mr. Winch replied, "When we become the government, we will institute socialism immediately, and would use the power of the police and military forces to force those who oppose to obey the law."
Well, that would happen anyway, I suppose. That is just what he said.
Those who defy the government will be treated as criminals. If the capitalists say no, then we will know the answer and so did Russia.
He was asked another question, and he replied:
We are going to scrap the British North America Act.
These statements were reported in the Calgary Herald of November 10, 1943. Then, as reported in the Vancouver Province of February 14, 1944, he said this:
I did not say one thing in Calgary that other C.C.F. people have not been saying for the last
II	years.


Charles Edward Rea: I wonder if the hon. member who is speaking can show me how remarks of this kind which he is now making are relevant to the labour estimates?


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I thank you for correcting me, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to point out that the remarks I made before recess were not made just to embarrass the hon. member for Vancouver East. I have the facts and I just wanted to bring them to the attention of the committee.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder if the hon. member would indicate the source of his quotations?


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I have all kinds of quotations here. I have been quoting from the Calgary Herald for November 10, 1943. These statements were made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I can send the newspaper clipping over to the hon. member.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I just wanted to identify it for the record. I am sure that the record will show the hon. member objected to that and said he never said it.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I should like to sum up my speech with a few observations concerning the trade union movement in Canada today. The trade union

movement today actually has four things to fear. They are, first of all, communistic activities in the trade union movement; racketeers; political interference by the C.C.F. party; and a lack of interest on the part of rank and file trade unionists. If the people in the trade union movement band together to fight for those things for which the trade union movement stands, then I am sure that these people will be able to put their views strongly before any government in the country. I think it is suicide for them to affiliate with a political party because they would be getting away from the things for which the trade union movement was designed. I would humbly submit that the C.C.F. party, in affiliating with the Canadian Labour Congress, will have a very difficult job.


Murdo William Martin: I have just one question which I should like the hon. member to answer before he sits down. He has painted a very gloomy picture of what the trade union movement would become under a C.C.F. government. Does the hon. member know that the only civil servants in Canada today with bargaining rights are those employed by a C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan?


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I am glad the hon. member enlightened me about these facts. I am putting my views forward, and that is the purpose for which I was sent here by my constituency. If those views do not suit the hon. member, I am sorry about it.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that taking part in the discussion on the first item is bound to shorten to a very considerable extent consideration of the estimates, because whatever the subject dealt with, we have only half an hour at our disposal to express our views on various subjects, and so, when the different items, come up later on, we can pass them after a fairly brief discussion because they have already been gone into.
Mr. Chairman, representing as I do a riding made up largely of workers, I think that all labour legislation passed by parliament is of concern to the voters in my constituency. That is why I am taking part in this debate, to acquaint the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the government, with the thinking of the workers of my riding.
There is one thing I asked the minister to do last year, at this stage of the study of his estimates, as I had also asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MAY 7, 1959
Churchill), and that was to separate, in the preparation of their statistics, the Hull side-that is the Quebec side-from the Ottawa side. However, today the statistics still include both Ottawa and Hull. Now, the situation there is quite different, since the population of the city of Ottawa is nearly entirely made up of civil servants, while that of the city of Hull is made up of workers.
A study of the latest statistics issued by the department for the Ottawa-Hull area shows an increase in unemployment. I am convinced that unemployment has not increased on the Ottawa side, but that it did mostly on the industrial side, which is the Quebec side. So, if the department would kindly comply with my request and separate statistics between Ottawa and Hull, in order that we may have a better idea of what goes on both on our side and on the Ottawa side, I would be very grateful indeed. Besides, we
afe-	j uli
(Text):


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit me to interrupt him at this point to say that I am inclined to agree there should be a distinction. I want to point out that the system was set up by the government of which he was a member, and we have only carried on what we inherited. We have been hoping to be able to separate these so that there will be a distinction between what the situation is in Hull and what it is in Ottawa.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I want to thank the minister for telling me that it was the system which was organized under the former administration. It has been the same story all the time, Mr. Chairman; when it is good or they think it is good, they accept it, and when there is something going wrong they blame the former government. Why not accept your own responsibility at the present time? I am not speaking of the present time, I am speaking of the future; you are responsible for the future and you should decide for the future.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I propose to discuss the future, and not to dwell on the past. However, before going into my main subject, may I be allowed to deal with certain assertions made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), parliamentary leader of the socialists in this house, who stated that the Conservatives, as well as the Liberals, cared little for Canada's workers because of their connections with or subservience to big business, and thus were prevented from giving to labour what it has a right to expect from a government.
Mr. Chairman, such charges are unfair both to the Conservatives and to the Liberals,
Supply-Labour
because in my view, the political parties represented in this house each have a different philosophy. The Conservatives think they can lead Canada to prosperity by making industry prosperous, on the grounds that once industry flourishes, it will lavish benefits on the masses and, in this way, workers and farmers will profit.
On the other hand, we Liberals, believe that to achieve enduring prosperity, we must first bring prosperity to the people-workers and farmers-and as a result this prosperity will redound to industry and make for happy conditions all around.
As for the socialists I am sure they look forward to the downfall of capitalism, to be replaced by some sort of welfare state, based on irresponsible state management which, in their view, would promote prosperity in all classes of society.
Sir, this seems to be a clear indication of a great difference too in the philosophy of the Conservative party, and that of the Liberals and of the C.C.F. I claim that the hon. member for Assiniboia was not being quite honest, intellectually, in trying to make us believe that Liberals have done nothing for the working people.
In fact, if we have a minister of Labour at all in Canada, it is because the labour portfolio was established by the Laurier government, and long before the socialist party ever came into being in Canada. If we have good social legislation, we owe it to the Liberal party, which planned and enacted it long before the socialist party came here to preach its doctrine. Indeed, at a general convention held as far back as 1919 the Liberal party set up its whole program and carried it out gradually as and when Canada's resources allowed.
That policy is being carried on, and I admit that, in certain departments, the new government has possibly made certain improvement. Credit for this achievement cannot be claimed by the socialists but by the Liberals. As for the Conservatives, by continuing this Liberal policy, they have made a few improvements.
It was also a Liberal government which established the first provincial department of labour, in the province of Quebec, under the Hon. Mr. Taschereau. The Liberals sought in this way to give workers the protection they required to grow and to prosper in Canada. As you know, around 1907 and 1908, when the Department of Labour was established, an attempt was made to set up trade unions in Canada, and in the United States. Today those

Supply-Labour
(Translation):
That question has been asked for the last two years or so. We want to know from the minister the same thing he asked us. And we receive no answer.


Mr. Martel:: What did your government do?


Alexis Pierre Caron: What did it do? Plenty! When the government saw in 1955 that unemployment was rising, we hastened to find new markets, and industry began to hum again. As a matter of fact, in 1957, things were going really well, until the day when the Conservative government came into power.


Jean-Jacques Martel: How is it that the number of unemployed has risen since that time?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Because of Conservative party inertia.
And the present minister said-this is from page 826 of the 1955 record:
(Text):
It is this utterly unrealistic added burden of taxation on one of the most important and, I might add, most expensive necessities of normal life under modern conditions in this country, which should be removed.
( Translation):
He was referring to federal taxation. Well, at the present time, not only is the Minister of Finance taxing the country, but the Minister of Labour himself is taxing the whole labour class, that class of people which occupy a commanding position in this country, a tax which increases by 30 per cent the unemployment insurance contributions. That is a new tax which will affect most Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, the minister was complaining about taxes in 1955, and yet, today, the Minister of Finance, and even the Minister of Labour would like to impose a new tax. Why? Because of a lack of foresight on the part of the administration. Things were so bad, that the unemployment insurance fund ran dry, and the minister had the choice of either getting $400 million out of the consolidated revenue fund, or imposing an additional tax on Canadian workers.
The Department has decided to levy a tax. One more tax, what's the difference? It has decided to tax? Well, we are being taxed, and overtaxed.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest the people has had enough of that system of new taxes piling up one on top of the other. What we want now, is for the government to plan ahead so that we may know what to expect, and whether it intends to help municipalities in the future.
I suggest the government should tell the municipalities what it intends to do next winter, so that they may, with their engineers, plan their works programs. The

government should organize in such a way as to help municipalities and their unemployed. But no, it refuses to do anything of the sort. It is sheer lack of foresight, from start to finish. Lack of foresight everywhere and always. Then, when they come face to face with rather serious difficulties, they turn around and say: it was your fault, Liberals, when you were in office.
However, you Conservatives have been in power for two years. In those two years, what positive, constructive measures have you brought forth to help Canada's working class? We have seen nothing but makeshift measures.
Meanwhile, the cost of living has been going up: the gap between wages and the cost of living has been widening steadily. Within a few months, things will be even worse, because of the new taxes. A month from now, because of the lack of foresight...


Some hon. Members:: You have lacked foresight.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certain new members lack foresight because they are totally lacking in administrative experience.
They raise taxes in all fields, they burden Canada's working class with taxes. Workers have to pay a tax for the right to live at home. With the cost of living on the increase, such a situation will necessarily give rise to demands for higher salaries and higher salaries will necessarily mean higher production costs. And if productions costs go up, we will not be able to sell our goods abroad, and our inability to sell abroad will mean a halt or at least a slow down in production, with consequent increased unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, it is high time that the government paused and gave serious thought to its policies, so that we will not have to suffer for many years to come. The government should wake up, while there is still time to improve the situation. That is all we ask. Our sole concern is the welfare of the people of Canada.


Mr. Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, it has sometimes been said that the definition of effervescence is an extreme overflow of bubbles, and I should like to say at the outset that I do not intend to follow along the lines of what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I am sure that the ridicule which he has thrust upon the Minister of Labour would, if all the people of Canada could be present here tonight, make us all to go over to Hull.
1 should like to say that this afternoon and this evening and, indeed, on another occasion not many evenings ago, our Minister of Labour was subjected to the most unkind ridicule that any hon. member has

ever had to endure in this house. Hon. members laugh at that suggestion, but I remind them of the words used by the hon. member for Assiniboia when he said: "the government made a great mistake in failing to carry out the letter of the law". The hon. member was speaking with regard to the appointment of Mr. MacArthur to the unemployment insurance commission. Those are the words he used. In that connotation he could only have meant the Minister of Labour.
Again, a couple of evenings ago, the hon. member for Essex East, although he did not use the same words because he is a lawyer and a little more careful, made a similar observation and said: "It would seem he did not carry out the letter of the law". The hon. member for Assiniboia has accused the Minister of Labour of ignoring the law of his country, and the hon. member for Essex East has implied that the Minister of Labour has ignored the law of this country. In other words, those two hon. gentlemen who occupy places in this house have accused the Minister of Labour of being a criminal as far as the law of this country is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Murray Smith: I, being a supporter of the government, will stand here and refute any such suggestions or claims made by any hon. gentleman in this committee. The Minister of Labour has followed the law. He has consulted. To quote an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail, if anything he has consulted too much. The minister was under no obligation to inform the head of the Canadian Labour Congress that he had a name he would like to propose. Nothing in the statutes compelled him to do that. But he informed the head of the Canadian Labour Congress as a matter of courtesy, a courtesy which is shown to people and to organizations across this country at any time this government has occasion to do something.
Some hon. members may have wondered why I have risen to speak on the estimates of the Department of Labour. For their edification, and particularly for the edification of hon. members to my extreme right, I should like to put a little statistical data on the record. I was elected to represent the constituency of Winnipeg North and that is where the labour movement began. Mr. A. A. Heaps, in 1925 was a labour member of the House of Commons and before him in 1921 in Winnipeg North Centre, came Mr. Woodsworth, the founder of the C.C.F. And then in 1933, I believe, the Regina manifesto was brought into being and in 1935 Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Heaps ran as C.C.F. candidates.
Supply-Labour
What do we see today? We see the successor of Mr. Woodsworth, Mr. Stanley Knowles, who has tried the C.C.F. and who is now busy forming another party which in all probability will be called the labour party. There is no question about his forming it, or his attempting to form it. An article appeared in the Canadian Commentary for March 1959 under the heading "The New Political Party". It was written by Mr. Stanley Knowles the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. And who in Winnipeg does not recall the day when Mr. Knowles decided to accept his present appointment? Hon. members on my extreme right in the C.C.F. group may well say that the C.C.F. has always been pro-labour and that it was natural that Mr. Knowles should end up where he is. But I have never seen any other executive vice-president announce his intention to run for this office accompanied by the fanfare which accompanied the nomination of Mr. Knowles. Every radio station in the city of Winnipeg was represented; every television camera was there the day he made that announcement.
I ran against a C.C.F. sitting member and I followed the philosophy and the platform of the Conservative party in both elections, in 1957 and 1958. And I, on behalf of the government which I have the honour to support in this house, promised the people of Winnipeg North that this government, on my representations, whatever value they may have, would give each and everyone every break no matter what decision came to light.
The C.C.F. candidates in both election campaigns made no bones about their position. They stood up and said, "We represent the farmer and the labourer". I in turn rose and said, "If you want to put the farmer and the labourer ahead of everyone else in our society then the C.C.F. is your party, but if you want a fair break along with every other Canadian including the fisherman, the corner grocer the shoemaker and everyone else in this great country of ours then I believe the Conservative party is what you want".


John Whitney Pickersgill: More taxes for everyone.


Mr. Keays:: He said "fisherman", so be a good boy.


William Murray Smith: The Conservative party has in the person of the Minister of Labour a man who has given to labour in this country what it has never had before. The hon. member for Assiniboia has placed his opinion on Hansard. He stated in effect that the government made a great mistake in failing to follow the letter of the law. He was referring to consultation under

Supply-Labour
the Unemployment Insurance Act in respect of the appointment of the new commissioner. He has accused this government in general and the Minister of Labour in particular of being criminal and the hon. member for Essex East has implied the same. That hon. gentleman, however, prefaced his remarks with the words, "Indeed, it would appear". Those are the words he used; but then he is a lawyer and the hon. member for Assiniboia is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, under the rules of this committee, of course, no hon. member has the right to say that an hon. member has referred to another hon. member as a criminal. I am not aware that any hon. member in this debate has suggested that the Minister of Labour was a criminal.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: You were not here long enough.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia, the Leader of the Opposition and myself was that the Minister of Labour had violated the statute. There was no suggestion that he violated the Criminal Code. I think the hon. member does the Minister of Labour a great injustice when he keeps referring to him in the language which he has used when he characterizes him as one who has been accused of a criminal act.


William Murray Smith: Mr. Chairman, being a relatively young member in relation to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and being relatively unlearned in the law contrasted to his fine grasp of it, far be it from me to argue the point he has just made. I shall merely refer hon. members of the committee to page 3362 of Hansard and invite them to draw their own conclusions from the words the hon. member for Essex East spoke.
The hon. member for Essex East in his speech the other evening put a great many words on the record but did not-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Say anything.


William Murray Smith: -impress
too many people, in my opinion, because he beat around the bush and refrained from answering questions directly. With respect to the unemployment insurance legislation the hon. gentleman, as reported at page 3362 of Hansard of May 5, said:
The issue which is immediately before us is that the replacement which the government has announced is not, it would seem, fully in accordance with the requirements of the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


William Murray Smith: In that sentence, Mr. Chairman, I contend that the hon.

member for Essex East has tried to leave the impression that the Minister of Labour violated the act and thereby did not comply with the laws of Canada. In other words, he is stating in that sentence that the Minister of Labour does not comply with the laws of this land. Despite the opinion of the hon. member for Essex East I am still prepared to stand in this chamber and say that the present minister is the best Minister of Labour this country has ever had.
I would suggest that the hon. member for Essex East read over his own words because I am sure that a man of his integrity and outstanding scholastic reputation in this country would want to correct the false impressions he has placed on the records of this house. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is another gentleman who-


Mr. Baskin:: He is reading the paper now.


William Murray Smith: Yes, he is,
but that is nothing unusual. However, he is one when he is not reading the paper who is-


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Knocking labour.


William Murray Smith: -prone to
getting on his feet and issue challenges. I in turn in my humble position as a backbencher in this parliament will issue a challenge. I will challenge the hon. member for Essex East to resign his seat along with me and stand for re-election in the constituency of Winnipeg North on the platform of the ethics of the Minister of Labour of this government.


Harold Edward Winch: And you will both lose.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I believe it
is always good to relieve tension with a hearty laugh.


Mr. Drysdale:: I agree. We are glad you
are up.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Of course, I cannot help laughing every time I look across at hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house but I am not looking at you, Mr. Chairman, when I say that.
Inasmuch as the Minister of Labour has been in office for only a couple of years I suppose one might say he is the highest paid apprentice in Canada because he is just starting to learn, as he says, and so far as the administration of his department, his ability to present his policies and ideas to the committee and his geniality are concerned, he is progressing very well in this direction.
I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he had better stay in the committee this evening because as sure as heaven if he steps outside the hon. member for Winnipeg

North who just took his seat will have him arrested for all the dastardly things he has been accused of doing. If the minister had done what the hon. member for Winnipeg North suggested he would have broken the law and completely violated the statute and would not simply be deemed to have done so nor would it just have appeared that he had done so.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg North suggested was that the minister did not have to consult anybody but in an outburst of spontaneous graciousness and from some deep well of kindness in his heart he advised the Canadian Labour Congress with respect to this appointment. However, we have perhaps heard enough on this subject because it has been kicked around a great deal today.
My personal views are that I do not care one way or the other whether Mr. MacArthur is a member of the unemployment insurance commission. I do not think it matters one iota in so far as the discussing of personalities of the individual is concerned. This is a question of principle.
This afternoon and this evening, Mr. Chairman, we have had a tremendous display of fear-unconscious, maybe-on the part of the hon. members who have spoken of something new developing in the political movement in Canada. I suggest it could be nothing else but fear that prompted them to make all those comments that they did; and many of them, using their protected position in the house, Mr. Chairman-


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: As
you have.


Charles Benjamin Howard: -to slander and malign
individuals outside the house who have not the opportunity here of protesting or of protecting themselves. This is not in keeping with any sense of fair play, of justice or of decency.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Do
you know what it means?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I hope the Tories have relieved themselves of their ulcerous pains so that we can carry on with something constructive on these particular estimates. So far, we have had nothing but a great deal of trash and tripe discussed or debated in the house.


An hon. Member:: You should talk.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Apparently my hon. friend was not listening because I said so far, thereby including everybody who has spoken. I hope my hon. friend who has his tongue wagging so profusely down there will realize that I have never yet attempted to say that I know anything about a great many things. I am the first one to admit that on occasion things that I have to say may be incorrect.
Supply-Labour


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Which is entirely different from the attitude of my friends down in the other corner of the house, as you know yourself, Mr. Chairman, because on occasion you have had to correct them for some of the things they have said.
We have had a great deal of discussion here, and certainly there has been a great deal of discussion in the country in the past two or three years, with respect to unions and the activities of unions, and there have been special references to international unions or unions that have their international or head offices in various parts of the United States. There has been a feeling that this should not be so; that it is not a pleasant thing to have international unions. We should have unions completely run in Canada; we should have Canadian unions. All sorts of people participate in this type of program, of advocating what they classify as Canadian unions, without having the faintest idea, many of them, just precisely what they are talking about or what they are trying to advocate-


William Heward Grafftey: Speak for yourself.


Charles Benjamin Howard: -except that the idea sounds good.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know where that blurb came from.


William Heward Grafftey: I made the comment "speak for yourself".


Charles Benjamin Howard: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, this attitude that exists and the propaganda that has been spread for the last couple of years in so far as not having international unions is concerned is probably the natural follow-up to the attitude that has been developing in Canada for the last number of years respecting anything connected with the United States. We have had election campaigns conducted by all parties on the basis of anti-Americanism. It has been said that we should not have United States control of our industry; we should not have Wall street control of our finanical structure. Our defence program is developed in Washington and when it comes to external affairs we have to consult with the secretary of state of the United States. All sorts of ideas along these lines have been developed. We do not like control of Canadian affairs resting in the hands of people in another country. I agree with that suggestion.
In so far as the development of so-called Canadian unions is concerned, the phrase that is used by others, I do not know what it means. I have my conceptions of Canadian

Supply-Labour
controlled unions and there are many in Canada which are completely run, democratically operated and every penny of the dues paid by members in Canada is spent in Canada. I am partial to that approach to things.
I should like to illustrate to the committee if I may one particular union with which I am familiar. I think this union can set a criterion or a pattern to be followed by quite a number of unions. It is an international union with offices and locals in the United States. I refer to the international woodworkers of America. This particular union -and it is not an isolated case; there are many like it-is completely autonomous in Canada. The international officers have no authority to come into any local union, to come into any district council or any subdivision in Canada unless they are invited there by the Canadian officers elected by the membership in Canada. That state of affairs has been in existence for quite a number of years. Every penny in dues that is paid by members to the I.W.A. in Canada is banked and spent in Canada for international purposes or district purposes or for what have you, but every penny is spent in Canada.
The officers of that particular union are elected by secret ballot of all of the membership. The constitution is amended in the same way. Every six months the local union that I was attached to, and others in British Columbia, had an audit of their accounts, of their books by a firm of chartered accountants. Griffiths and Griffiths was the firm. Every six months that chartered accountants' audit was submitted to the membership, to every sublocal. Every member of the organization had access to it. It is completely democratically run, completely membership controlled, and there is a close liaison between the question of authority and responsibility. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, this is a pattern for some other unions to follow in so far as autonomy is concerned and in so far as democratic membership control of trade unions is concerned. I mention this-


Mr. Chown:: Why do you not preach it, then?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Perhaps the hon. member would like to explain his question.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Why do you not advocate that kind of union across the line?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not know what my hon. friend is doing over there but I have just been suggesting that. It is unfortunate if he was contemplating other things and not listening to what I said. That is what I said. And anybody who knows me and knows of the things I save said within the union-


An hon. Member:: We know you.


Charles Benjamin Howard: -and at any political meeting that I have attended where this question has been discussed knows I have used this approach exactly.


Gordon Campbell Chown: And out on the hustings, too?


Charles Benjamin Howard: On the hustings, too, yes sir. So that, I assume, answers the questions that the hon. member asked and I also imagine it answers the remark, whatever it was, of my hon. friend over there, a while ago.
Like the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I am proud to belong to my particular trade union. I worked in that industry and I suppose any union member would feel precisely the same way as I do. This is the union, Mr. Chairman, that-I will not use the word "gentleman", it sticks in my throat -the premier of Newfoundland outlawed by political domination or by by-passing the labour relations board of that province. This gentleman and the hon. member for Hamilton South suggested a while ago that unions had a number of things to look out for. He mentioned the infiltration within their ranks by communists as one. He mentioned the apathy of the membership of the unions as another. He mentioned political interference or domination by the C.C.F.


Azellus Denis: That is the worst.


Charles Benjamin Howard: He mentioned one other thing. Exactly what it was does not come to my mind. But my friend who just said that was worse is a person who belongs to the same political party as the one which did the most dastardly and unkind thing to a union in Newfoundland that has ever been done in Canada. He is sitting there and saying, that is the worst thing that could happen. These people from the Liberal party who are talking about the things that unions have to fear will find that the Liberal party in Newfoundland is doing the things that will create the need and the desire on the part of working people of that province for political action. Heaven knows what might result from it. It will be a good thing if the people will take more thought about political action.
I, for one, do not care too much about which particular party an individual in the trade union movement supports; that is his business. In so far as the thoughts we have had in regard to this new political party are concerned, it would still remain his business. There is no intention of changing that and forcing people to vote this way or that way. Anyone who suggests otherwise is talking through his hat or exhibiting his own fear of something new in a political party developing in Canada.

It is not a question of international unions; that is incorrect. It is not the international unions toward which people should be directing their thoughts today. In practically all unions today there is responsibility through the executive, through councils, through annual meetings and conventions to the membership. It does not matter whether unions have their head offices in Cincinnati or Portland or Montreal or Ottawa; it does not matter whether it is an international union or not an international union, but there may be incorrect things that creep into the organization. I am speaking about a minority element in the trade union movement-I mentioned this during the last session when these estimates were under discussion-but conditions exist in some unions under which members are denied their democratic rights within an organization.
One of the places in which we find this condition, where there is a juggling of the affairs, where there is a hiding of financial records and books, is where there is a great preponderance of supporters of the communist party in a particular union. These unions are in the minority, but this is the thing which is causing a great deal of difficulty and concern, not only outside of the trade union movement but inside as well. It is this question of not allowing the members of the union to have complete control, for one reason or another, which is causing concern. If the principles which I outline at the outset and which are followed by the union to which I belong, the international woodworkers of America, were adopted by some of these unions in which free speech does not now exist, we would have a much better attitude toward unions in Canada, whether they be international or not international. I know my friend the hon. member for Vancouver South has some knowledge of the operations of this union on the west coast, as has the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who is also in the lumber industry. I am sure that they would generally agree with the things I have just mentioned.


Mr. Broome:: You are quite right; we agree with you 100 per cent on this.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Here is where the effort must be developed, in so far as the unions themselves are concerned, if they are to make any progress toward ensuring that every possible degree of democracy exists within the unions, and that every possible allowance is given for freedom of speech; that chartered accountants audit the books and that financial returns are made to the union members.
Supply-Labour


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Wait a minute, and then I will. This minority section of the trade union movement in which these conditions do exist has to clear up these problems itself. One of the difficulties is the apathy of the membership. Certainly, this condition must be cleared up or, just as sure as I am standing here, public feeling will gather steam; legislators will hear more and more things, and there will be a demand for legislation in order to curb all these practices. The only way to prevent what might be classified as governmental or political interference in the internal operations of unions is for the unions themselves to set this goal, and to generally adopt the internal organization, the democratic procedure, that exists within the international woodworkers of America.


Ernest James Broome: I quite agree with everything the hon. member has said about the I.W.A., about it being a very democratically run union. Would the hon. member agree that no trade union should be allowed to affiliate with the Canadian Labour Congress or be given recognition by the government unless that trade union meets a minimum standard in its constitution by way of democratic organization, and that there is control of the leadership by the union body? In other words, a union ought to have a minimum democratic set-up before recognition is given by the federation?


Charles Benjamin Howard: There are two parts to that question, and it may be rather a lengthy one to answer.


Ernest James Broome: It just means, should all unions be as democratic as the I.W.A. before they are allowed to become members of the Canadian Labour Congress?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not think I can speak for the Canadian Labour Congress, but I will say this: I know the attitude of that body toward its affiliated unions. They have taken measures-and this thing is continually under review-


Ernest James Broome: Like the S.I.U.


Charles Benjamin Howard: -just as the C.I.O. and A.F. of L. in the United States have done.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Charles Benjamin Howard: Wait until I answer the first one. In so far as whether or not a union should be, as I put it and as the hon. member puts it, as democratically operated by the members themselves as is the I.W.A., I would say that would be an excellent condition to have in existence.

Supply-Labour


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member agree that the trusteeship of a union local should be outlawed?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: 


Mr.   Chairman-Mr. Howard@: Just a minute. There may be a sound reason for trusteeship in some instances. I do not think it should be used in a way in which it has been used in some instances where the local was placed under trusteeship, where the bylaws were absolutely waived, where membership meetings were cancelled for months ahead, and that sort of thing. However, for one reason or another, a local union may not be able to stand on its own feet. There may be a financial reason. Then, there is quite likely a good case for trusteeship. It is the application of trusteeship, when it goes too far, that creates difficulties.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: have one question I should like to ask and I ask it in all seriousness. The hon. member comes from British Columbia. I should like to know whether or not he agrees with all the implications or part of the implications of the recent bill passed by the British Columbia legislature with regard to labour. I think it is Bill No. 43. I should like to know how the hon. member stands on the various implications.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this a quiz program?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not mind going into that matter. I think it probably verges on the question of the jurisdiction of the provincial government. I might get part way into it and find that I am out of order and then would not get the thing cleaned up. I should be quite willing at some other time-


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: The
only reason that I raised the matter was the fact-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must ask hon. members please to limit their comments and questions to matters under the jurisdiction of this house.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would say to my hon. friend that at some other time outside of this chamber where the rules are not so strict we could sit down, for instance in an office, and discuss the matter and I should be more than pleased to do so. But from some of the remarks I will set out here later on in my discussion of the federal labour code and its relationship to union-management negotiations, you might get some idea of what my feelings are toward that particular statute.

We have the question that we hear so much about, namely the question of strikes. The minister today, in some of the statistical information that he gave to us, said that during the year ending March 31, 1959 his department had handled 108 industrial disputes. I assume that figure relates to disputes which were not settled in direct negotiations, but got to the conciliation officer stage. So there may have been in addition to the 108, some other disputes which were settled by direct negotiations and which would not necessarily come to the attention of the department. Of these, 63 were settled at the conciliation officer stage and another 24 at the conciliation board stage. Six of them ended up in strikes.
I am going to submit that, generally speaking, the development of labour laws in Canada and the provinces where there is a similarity in the process of negotiations, has not kept pace with the changing moods and attitudes of unions and management in their negotiations and in their feelings toward negotiations and that the law is out of date in many respects. Here, for instance, in some cases, the question of illegality arises.
If I may, I should like to make a brief reference to the labour relations act of the province of British Columbia, previously the industrial conciliation and arbitration act. Under that law in British Columbia and because of the manner in which the international woodworkers of America-and the international brotherhood of carpenters and joiners is another union-have received their certificates of bargaining authority, because of the structure of industry and the manner in which they negotiate with the group of employers rather than with each separate employer; because of that system and the law, if and when the international woodworkers of America in the province of British Columbia finds it necessary to go on strike, it is not possible for that union to conduct a legal strike.
The minute they go on strike, it can be classified as an illegal strike if the courts want so to determine or if the minister wants to refer it to a judge of the supreme court out there. The law is written in such a fashion that it is absolutely impossible for the I.W.A. to conduct a legal strike in the province of British Columbia. What happens is this. The minute a strike takes place there is a big hue and cry about illegality and the general public says, "If you cannot conform to the law, then there is no sense of your even being in existence." Yet the lawmakers said in the first place, "We are not going to let you comply with the law." That is one instance of what happens if you end up in a strike. You get into a difficult legal position because

of the manner of the negotiations, the manner in which the Department of Labour has issued its certificate and the wording of the act itself. Here we have, as given by the minister under the federal code, a number of cases that have been settled at the conciliation stage, and a number that have been settled at the conciliation board stage, and since March, 1959, I think one that was settled by the minister would not be included in this set of statistics. But if it was included, I do not know whether he would say it was one dispute settled by the minister or just how he would classify it. In any event, from time to time strikes take place because of the law itself.
I submit the law is far out of date in this instance. This happens in some sense in negotiations. It has happened in the past and probably will happen in the future. It happens probably under the federal act because of the manner in which it is worded. It sets out that the first steps in the negotiations between union and management will be direct negotiations. Each side sits down on the opposite side of a table or in a room or wherever they want to meet. They sit down and try to bargain. Neither side, neither the union nor management will give too much. They want to feel each other out at this stage and see how much they might get on this point and give on that. That is the process of collective bargaining, giving and taking. So at the end of the time set for direct negotiations they have not reached a settlement.
So they go before a conciliation officer. If the conciliation officer is not astute and able, and an acceptable mediator and is not tactful and diplomatic-and many of them that I have come up against are not-they will not reach any settlement there. They will put off the negotiations or the collective bargaining until they get to the conciliation board stage. In many cases both management and union will then say, "We will submit our briefs to the board". The board will weigh them and will issue a report. They will say, "Well, we will not make a settlement". If the report of the board is not acceptable, one side or the other will reject it because the union has to take a strike vote. Management will say, "We will wait and see whether they will get a good strike vote, it will indicate how solid their members are behind them, and we will know how far we can go". The union might say, "We will not accept the award but we will wait for the results of the strike vote and then we will know what position we are in so far as our membership are concerned and
Supply-Labour
we may be able to get a little bit extra or another word in the contract or something of this nature".
The legislation that exists now tends to promote and foster the idea of delay and protraction and putting off collective bargaining until it is just too late and then the matter ends up in a strike. I submit that it is necessary to eliminate or drastically revise these sections of your labour code where it has reference to conciliation procedure. A prime example of a good conciliation officer is the Minister of Labour's actions just a few days ago in so far as the C.N.R. and the railway employees were concerned.
I do not know what went on in the room. I do not know the words that were used or anything else. But I know the attitude of the minister. We have seen him in this house a number of times. We have spoken with him personally. We know his attitude. A diplomatic and tactful approach, is the one that should be used by a conciliation officer and that conciliation officer or mediator, or whatever you want to call him, should have the authority to make union and management sit down and bargain instead of saying, "Well, I will not do too much because we have another step, namely the conciliation board". A certain amount of authority and power should be given to the conciliation officer. Revise your act. Select good conciliation officers. Give them the authority to mediate, to conciliate, to get people to sit down together. Make sure you pick the right people, people like the minister with diplomacy and tact, people with honesty and openness just oozing out all over them so that no one can accuse the mediator of having an axe to grind. Then you will get more settlements in that way than you will get under our present system.
I would like to make reference, if I may for a short while, to the strike vote which is nowadays conducted. Many union constitutions including that of the I.W.A. say that no strike can be called unless a majority of the members by secret ballot vote to call such a strike. I submit that that is the manner in which all strike votes should be conducted, namely by secret ballot. The way a strike vote has been conducted in some cases is that you have a number of people standing in a hall and a motion is put to them: "We are going on strike; all in favour say aye". But during the course of that procedure a number of people may still desire to vote no. Union officers thereby have no clear idea of the actual feeling of the members. I also think that the secrecy of marking the ballot should not be violated. I submit that this, the secret ballot, is the method by which all strike votes should be conducted.

Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, I have concluded that phase of my remarks and I have only a few points to add.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member's time is up. Has he unanimous consent to continue?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think there are some hon. members who would like to take part in the debate.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am sorry; the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Chambers:: Mr. Chairman, I will leave time for other hon. members to speak this evening. I would like to speak at this stage because the riding which I represent, St. Lawrence-St. George, is to a great extent composed of working people, including many members of unions recently actively engaged in union activity. I must say I was somewhat surprised at one suggestion made by the hon. member for Skeena, namely that a mediator should be given more power of negotiation. It seems to me that he was getting very close to the anathema of the labour movement, compulsory arbitration.
There has also been some criticism in the last few days, particularly from the hon. member for Essex East as well as from members of the C.C.F. party, on the question of appointments to the unemployment insurance commission. The shorter Oxford dictionary defines "to consult" as "to confer about, deliberate about, to consider". There are a few other definitions not too applicable to this case, but nowhere is the definition given as "to dictate". Yet it did seem to me from the remarks of some hon. members that what was wanted was that the C.L.C. should have dictated this very appointment. I repeat "to consult" means "to confer about, deliberate about, to consider". This was done. But as has also been mentioned, the C.L.C. is at the moment working on the formation of a political party in consultation and co-operation with the C.C.F. with the object of forming, presumably, a government in this country. If we accepted this idea that the C.L.C. had to appoint, in effect, the labour member of the unemployment insurance commission, what we would be saying is that you could not get this appointment without being a supporter of the C.C.F., or that party which presumably is to be its heir.
1 think, Mr. Chairman we should consider which party in this house represents labour. In my view the Conservative party at this very moment represents the majority of the labour people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Egan Chambers: In constituency after constituency where labour was the dominant vote

the Conservative candidate was elected. We intend, or at least I intend, to go on doing my best to represent the views of the people in my riding who are in the labour movement. They support the Conservative party because the labour program put before them by the Conservative party is what they want. The Conservative party has a record throughout the history of this country of being the leader in legislation beneficial to labour. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said today, we have provided this country with the best Minister of Labour in Canada's history.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Hull was accusing this government and the Minister of Labour of having done nothing about unemployment. With his usual heat he overlooked the fact that one chronic problem in this country with regard to unemployment, which has been a chronic problem for many years, is the problem of winter unemployment. I could mention just briefly four separate things which this government and our Minister of Labour have done to alleviate that problem. There was a conference held with representatives attending from all parts of the country from all interested bodies. Then there was the winter works program. There was the aid to municipalities for their winter works; and there was the general government program of accentuating those government undertakings which could be done during the winter months. Yet to my knowledge this problem was not even considered by the previous government. So it is difficult to see what justification there could be for the statement of the hon. member for Hull that nothing has been done. Mr. Chairman, 1 have only mentioned a very small part of the undertakings of the government, and in particular the Minister of Labour, in this field.
Mr. Chairman, I said that 1 would be brief, and I would like to end my remarks again on the question of the proper representation of labour on government bodies, and to put before you, sir, and the other hon. members present in the house that with the present situation in this country, different as it is from the United Kingdom, where there is not and never has been any likelihood of a party formed by the labour movement being successful, it would not be in the interests of the rank and file of labour to support this new group or to support recommendations or nominations by them, because if they did they would not be properly represented in government and government bodies.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena while he had the floor said some very harsh things about the premier

and the government of the province of Newfoundland. I am not going to take the time of the committee to reply to his charges one by one, but I do want to make a point, and it is this. The leader of the party to which the hon. member for Skeena belongs, as well as the party to which I belong, asked the Prime Minister to set up an impartial inquiry to find out and make public all the facts in connection with the labour dispute in Newfoundland. That inquiry was not set up and these facts have not been ascertained or made public. On what basis can the hon. member for Skeena get up in this house and make such charges? I ask him on what basis can he make charges and pass judgments of that sort when nobody knows the facts, because the facts have not been ascertained by an impartial body? The facts have not been made public as a result of a public inquiry. Besides, the hon. member for Skeena has not been to Newfoundland, and so he does not know what he is talking about. He cannot judge by hearsay, yet on that basis he has set himself up as a judge. In doing that he has given the lie to the very democracy for which he claims to stand.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You are very incorrect, you know.


Chesley William Carter: That is all I have to say on that subject. I will let hon. members judge for themselves.
The unemployment situation in my own province has been very serious for the past two years. The level of employment in 1957 was far below the average for previous years. The 1957 fishery was far below average and during that year there was also a falling off in construction work so that there was far less opportunity for people to supplement their earnings from the fisheries. Last September, when the house was in committee of supply, those of us who have the honour to represent the province of Newfoundland in this chamber drew attention to the conditions which existed at that time, and in order to refresh the minds of hon. members I should like to quote what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said on that occasion as reported in Hansard for September 4, 1958, at page 4616:
In view of conditions in Newfoundland, which have been particularly adverse this year because of the failure of the fishery and because of the difficulty of disposing of the pulp and paper products of the only other large Newfoundland industry, there is no question that the economic situation is very serious. Maintenance of existing services is going to be more difficult this year than it has been any year since confederation, particularly during the coming winter. Capital works are very urgently needed indeed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: How then could you have granted this large wage increase at all?
Supply-Labour


Chesley William Carter: You get up and make your speech in your own time.
In supporting the plea which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made at that time, I had this to say, and I should like to quote a few lines from page 4618 of Hansard of the same date:
Every province wants to improve its services. But if this money is not forthcoming, Newfoundland will be obliged to divert funds from the special grant from its original purpose intended by this parliament in order to maintain existing services, and the result of that procedure is going to be to retard progress in Newfoundland for at least two or three years. Not only will it retard progress but it will also nullify the plans of the government which were intended to cope with the unemployment situation in Newfoundland which today is double what it has been in the worst year since confederation.
The money we referred to was, of course, the grant recommended by the McNair commission which, however, was not made available as requested and which has not been made available to the province even today. As a result, the situation in Newfoundland is still serious in the light of an analysis of the unemployment figures for March which are the latest I have been able to study. The Minister of Labour very proudly announced in this house that the March figures showed an upward trend and a general improvement in the employment situation in Canada. For Canada as a whole, that is true. The percentage of unemployed declined from 8.8 in February to 8.6 in March, but if we analyse those figures we find that this improvement took place in Ontario and in the western provinces. In Quebec and in the maritime provinces the situation was worse in March than it was in February. In Quebec the percentage for February was 12.1 and for March it was 12.5. For Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the figure for February was 12.2 per cent, and for March 13.2 per cent.
What were the figures for Newfoundland? In February the level of unemployment stood at 30.8 per cent and in March it was 31.5 per cent. The government and the Minister of Labour did not see fit to act on the suggestions which we made on this side of the house for coping with the unemployment problem. Instead they set great store by their winter works program and their funds for housing and public works. I commend them for what they tried to do in housing, and on their winter works program, but it may be recalled that on April 22 I asked the Minister of Labour the following question as recorded on page 2928 of Hansard. I propose to read this question into the record again because I think it will be useful for readers of Hansard and for hon. members to

Supply-Labour
have it before them when they analyse these figures. My question was:
1.	How many municipal winter works projects under the Department of Labour have actually been in operation up to date in each province?
2.	What is the estimated cost to the federal treasury in each province?
3.	What is the estimated number of additional jobs provided in each province.
The minister replies as follows:
No. of	No. of
Province	projects Expenditure jobs
British Columbia .	292	$1,191,000	3,059Alberta 	238	1,494,000	4,557Saskatchewan 	123	481,000	2,050Manitoba 	76	661,000	1,322Ontario 	641	3,565,000	10,486Quebec 	254	1,818,000	5,561New Brunswick ...	208	242,000	2,324Nova Scotia 	205	445,000	7,184Prince Edward	Island 	Newfoundland 	26	49,000	416Northwest	Territories 	8	12,000	96
If you total the expenditures which I have just read out you will discover that they amount to $9,958,000, or just a little under $10 million. When you analyse those figures you find that the people who benefit from these projects are those who live in the wealthier provinces and not those who live in the poorer provinces where unemployment is highest. For example the province of Ontario alone gets almost exactly one-third of the total expenditure. The three wealthy provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta receive over $7J million or roughly 71 per cent. The maritime provinces including Newfoundland receive only $736,000 or roughly 7 per cent.
Although the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George took exception to a statement made by the hon. member for Hull that the government did nothing, I think in view of these figures that as far as Newfoundland is concerned if the government did nothing it certainly did next to nothing. The amount of $49,000 was the total expenditure for Newfoundland and it provided 416 extra jobs.


Ernest James Broome: That is because you did not apply for projects.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is because the money was not paid under term 29.


Ernest James Broome: You did not apply for projects so it is your own fault.


Chesley William Carter: I have quoted these percentages-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Without understanding them.


Chesley William Carter: -in connection with the winter works program but the same proportion and percentages apply with respect to all these matching grants regardless of whether they

relate to housing, public works or some other projects. Any 50-50 grant set out by the government is always divided in that proportion and the wealthier provinces get the lion's share while the poorest provinces that are in the greatest need get the crumbs.


Donald MacInnis: What about the proportion of the population?


Chesley William Carter: The other project which the government undertook as a winter works project in Newfoundland was the community stage program. I believe that this program is a splendid one but it should never be put forward as a works program. Although it is an excellent idea that should be encouraged and enlarged it should not be a make-work program but rather should be developed as an integral part of the fisheries development program.
What were the effects of the community stage program? In Newfoundland we have approximately 10,000 or 12,000 fishermen living in 1,300 communities spread all across the province. The government provided 20 community stages. It may be said that there is an equal need in each community. In each community probably 20 people got work; let us say a total of 400. In my own riding there were two projects providing work to approximately 40 people.


Robert Hardy Small: You were lucky.


Chesley William Carter: Before leaving the subject I wish to suggest to the minister that now is the time to make plans for next winter. The making of plans should not be left until next September, October, November or December. Unless well-developed plans are made now we will have the same thing happen next year. I urge the minister and the government not to make any more 50-50 grants. Such grants may be all right for Ontario but they could ruin Newfoundland and the other maritime provinces.


Rémi Paul: What do you want, 90-10?


Chesley William Carter: Yes. I want the grants distributed on the basis of need and not on the basis of wealth.
I wish now to turn to the subject of prevailing rates. The Department of Labour has a division which takes samples of wages paid in various parts of each province. I do not know what formula is used or whether the average is taken. In any event they set up what is known as a prevailing rate which is used as a standard of wages paid to government employees-


Michael Starr: Prevailing rate employees.


Chesley William Carter: Yes. This is what happens. The hydrographic survey in my riding a

year ago operated two small boats of exactly the same size that were doing exactly the same work. The crew of one was recruited in Halifax and the crew of the other was recruited in Newfoundland. The Halifax crew doing exactly the same job and living side by side with the Newfoundland crew was receiving about 20 per cent more wages for the same job. The same thing is true of our public works programs. This year in St. Lawrence on the community stage, about which the Minister of Public Works knows something, the wages that were paid for the jobs were lower than the union rates that obtain in the community.
I suggest to the minister that as a matter of government policy provision should be made for equal pay for equal work, certainly for people employed by the government of Canada in the same region. If we divide Canada into three regions, the central, maritime and Pacific regions there may be differences in rates between the regions but certainly people doing similar work for the government should get the same pay within a region. The least that could be done would be to take the average for the province as a whole when the department is taking samples. The department should not take a sample from half a dozen small communities.
,, A" hon- Member: How many years has that been going on?
. ^arter: I do not know how many years it has been going on. I discovered it only two years ago. That does not alter the value of the suggestion. If a practice is wrong it does not matter whether it has gone on for two years or twenty years. Hon. gentlemen opposite were elected on a platform based on a high level of righteousness that promised to eliminate every injustice in Canada.


Donald MacInnis: How long have you been a member?


Chesley William Carter: Before I sit down I wish to say a word about the unemployment insurance program. Two years ago we set up seasonal benefits for fishermen. That has been the subject of a great deal of criticism in mainland newspapers. I read something about it in the latest issue of the Financial Post. It has been referred to as a welfare program for loggers and fishermen. I do not know why mainland papers always have to pick on loggers and fishermen because they are not the only ones. Long before the loggers and the fishermen ever got into the scheme it was a welfare plan for all the lake seamen, for all the lake stevedores and for everybody who handled freight up and down the great lakes, and there are many other categories as 66968-9-219
Supply-Labour
well. But nobody remembers that. All they are concerned with is that the fishermen are getting something out of this.
There is a need to review this scheme for fishermen because it is not working out on an equitable basis. In the western part of my riding the fishermen fish all the year around and the winter season is the best time for fishing. Because they have to fish in the wintertime the stamps they earn then cannot be counted for unemployment insurance in the slack season when they need it. Therefore, that section of the fishermen is deprived of it altogether and I should like to make that known to the editors of the Financial Post and to the editors of all the other mainland papers who are interested in this subject.
There is a need to review this. It was my understanding that the present government gave an assurance that it would be reviewed and revised. Certainly, we have had it in effect long enough to know what the difficulties are and how to iron the bugs out of it.
The latest suggestion of the Financial Post is worthy of consideration. It was that perhaps the time has come when we should have two unemployment insurance funds, one for seasonal workers and one for regular workers, which perhaps could be put on an actuarial basis. I have not had time to give too much study to it but it looks reasonable to me and I do hope the minister will give some consideration to it.


Michael Starr: It is being studied now.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I have an idea that I shall speak for the full five minutes that are left. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think I intend to speak for more than the full five minutes, although I want to make it clear that it had actually not been my intention to speak on this item at all. But, after listening this afternoon to the remarks made by the hon. member for Hamilton South, the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Winnipeg North I most certainly have a few remarks to make.
I admit I was a little bit surprised to find the first vote of the Minister of Labour being used by two members on the government side and one on the official opposition side to pillory the trade union movement of this country and to make some rather amazing, fantastic and startling statements relative to some outstanding trade union leaders of this country, but notably to pillory the C.C.F. and, of course, at last to bring out in the open just how much both old line parties are scared stiff of the political future because of a democratic and almost unanimous move by the useful people of our country, the working people, to have their own political expression. Yes, all three members made it very clear

Supply-Labour
how the Liberals and the Conservatives are shaking in their political shoes because of what they can see coming up in the future.
It was, of course, very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North-


Mr. Henderson:: An hon. member says you are still wearing your overalls.


Harold Edward Winch: If I am still wearing my overalls it is a damned expensive suit I have on now. I am told that it suits me.
I have said, Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, when he was trying to tilt a little bit with the hon. member for Essex East, and to hear him say he was a complete novice when it came to tilting with an hon. member of the legal profession. But yet, at the same time, as a complete novice as, he admitted not only in legal matters but in this House of Commons, he attempted to give us a trade union historical review when he told us, as he did, about how in Winnipeg North we had started the trade union movement under A. A. Heaps and J. S. Woods-worth, two very renowned names in the trade union and political history of this country.
May I tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North that the trade union movement did not start in Winnipeg in 1921, which was the date he gave. There was a great trade union movement long before 1921. Not only that, but may I say this-because of his interest in that he named J. S. Woodsworth- J. S. Woodwsworth did not learn his trade unionism in Winnipeg in 1921. He learned it in Vancouver in 1917 and 1918. I can not only pinpoint J. S. Woodsworth's trade unionism and socialism in Vancouver, I can
point out 1218 Howe street in the city of Vancouver, because that is where he lived, at the home of my father, who was the business agent of the international longshoremen's association. I am proud of the fact that it was at 1218 Howe street, in the west end of Vancouver, in the home of my father, that the man who later was the chief and the founder of the C.C.F. learned his trade unionism and learned that socialism and Christianity are one and the same thing.
I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are going on with these estimates tomorrow. I wonder whether the leader of the house could throw any light on the business for next week?


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct about the business for tomorrow. On Monday we shall commence with the budget bills with the exception of the amendment to the Income Tax Act; then take the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister be continuing with that on Tuesday as well?


Howard Charles Green: Probably, but I cannot be sure. I would hope that we would get all of this finished on Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is optimistic.
At 10.02 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The conference of major wheat exporting nations convened by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, implementing President Dwight D. Eisenhower's instructions to explore means of utilizing food "in the interest of reinforcing peace'' took place in Washington May 4-6, 1959. The governments were represented by the following cabinet members or heads of delegations:
For Argentina: Rafael Garcia-Mata, under secretary of agriculture, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
For Australia: Sir John Crawford, secretary, Department of Trade, Canberra, Australia.
For Canada: Hon. Gordon Churchill, Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada; Hon. Douglas S. Harkness, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada.
For France: His Excellency Herve Alphand, Ambassador of France, Washington, D.C.
For the United States: Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; C. Douglas Dillon, under secretary of state, Department of State, Washington, D.C.; Clarence L. Miller, assistant secretary of agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; Laurence B. Robbins, assistant secretary of the treasury, Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C.
The director general of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations,
Dr. B. R. Sen, participated in the discussion.
In addition to the delegates, senior officials of the five governments and F.A.O. were present.
In opening the conference, Secretary Benson emphasized the need for the food surplus nations to increase their already considerable efforts to assist those peoples in need of additional food. He invited the participants, in the broad definition of President Eisenhower's statement, to join with the United States in studying possibilities for improving existing programs and engaging in new understakings to increase the utilization of food.
Secretary Benson outlined plans of the United States to achieve more effective utilization of wheat to alleviate hunger, promote economic development, increase world consumption and expand commercial markets, which will be the subject of a separate U.S. release. He pointed out that there would be close consultation with the other wheat exporting countries to ensure 66968-9-219J

[Stage Direction]
adequate protection of their commercial marketings. At the same time, he emphasized that this did not in any way imply a change in the administration's policy to seek ways to reduce incentives which result in overproduction and the accumulation of surpluses.
The conference examined, in the light of principles established under FAO auspices, a wide range of subjects related to world trade and the use of food, particularly wheat, for humanitarian and development purposes in the less developed countries.
The conference recognized the importance of adequate food supplies to all nations. These exporting countries share a feeling of responsibility to assist, within their capabilities, the efforts of other nations to achieve this goal.
In a review of food availability and world food needs it was recognized that the commercial export marketings of wheat by the countries represented, even though expanded somewhat, probably would be considerably below their combined capacity to supply for the next few years. In fact, unless there are striking changes in wheat production patterns and trends in the major exporting and importing countries, it will take larger movements of wheat than in recent years to prevent further accumulations of surplus supplies in exporting countries. The conference also recognized that the real food needs of many underdeveloped countries exceed their ability to buy, and could only be satisfied commercially after a period of economic development. The wheat exporting countries do, therefore, have a very real interest in market development, in sound economic development, and in the possible use of surplus wheat in ways which will contribute to healthy economic growth and assist in emergencies.
All these wheat exporting nations, according to their individual capacities, have contributed wheat to assist other countries in past emergencies, or are doing so now.
The importance of commercial trade in wheat as a desirable force in world development was stressed. The conference discussed means of promoting the growth of such trade to mutual advantage of exporting and importing countries. There was agreement on the necessity of safeguarding the interests of all wheat exporters in their existing commercial markets and of assuring the natural growth of the commercial world market.
[Stage Direction]
In the review of existing and possible means of utilizing wheat supplies in excess of commercial marketings, it was recognized that many of the surplus disposal measures developed to date have had, as important objectives, the promotion of specific economic development projects in the recipient countries and the improvement of nutritional levels-objectives to which all major wheat exporting countries subscribe. It was agreed that these objectives are not always easily attained; that there is a need for considerably greater study of the manner in which efforts in this direction can be made most effective; and that studies and actions in this field should be directed toward;
1.	Projects to raise consumption directly among specially deficient groups in the population, as, for example, through direct feeding programs, such as school lunch projects, refugee feeding and resettlement, and related economic and community development projects.
2.	Projects to aid economic development, on a basis which will permit most effective use of national currency funds accruing from sales of surplus foods.
3.	Projects to establish national food reserves utilizing existing idle storage facilities or newly constructed ones.
The conference took a realistic view of the situation. It recognized that the world wheat supply situation and levels of prices are disturbed by the stimulation of production, in most importing countries as well as in some exporting countries, by high price supports and other measures. In this connection, it was noted that some exporting countries have made, and are making, efforts to reduce incentives to overproduction.
It was realized, also, that moderate increases in total distribution and utilization of wheat can be attained within the next few years with increased efforts by exporting and importing nations. There are physical and administrative limitations to the importation and distribution of wheat in many importing countries. Inadequate distribution facilities and lack of trained personnel can create bottlenecks which can
prevent adequate food from reaching people who need it. Balance of payments problems may require consideration also. It will take time and effort, in addition to food and investment, to offset these limitations.
The conference attached great importance to arrangements for ensuring the consultation required for attainment of the agreed objectives. It was decided therefore to establish immediately a wheat utilization committee which will be a consultative body of governments represented at the conference and which will be composed of officials having policy responsibilities.
The committee will consult, as appropriate with representatives of recipient and other countries. It will maintain a close working relationship with the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.
The committee activities will include consideration of the following:
1.	Possibilities of expanding the world's commercial trade in wheat, including the development of new markets.
2.	Ways of increasing and making more effective the utilization of wheat surpluses for the promotion of economic development and the improvement of nutritional standards.
3.	Co-ordination of disposal programs for economic development with other development activities in the recipient countries so as to ensure that such programs will contribute fully toward increasing consumption and commercial markets.
4.	The establishment of guide lines for providing wheat to individual countries on concessional terms and the safeguarding of commercial marketings.
The conference invited Secretary Benson to convene the first meeting of the committee at an early date.
The conference resulted in a better mutual understanding among the participants of their countries' policies, problems, and proposed actions. There was discussion of the advantages of holding similar consultations on other food commodities and with other nations.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 8, 1959