1959-05-15

MR. SPEAKER  CORRECTION OF IMPRESSION CONVEYED BY RULING

Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the house will allow me to make a correction in Hansard, not to the context but to the impression which I may have given inadvertently in dealing with a point of order at page 3662. The particular point of order was taken by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate when the Minister of Labour was seeking to refer to reports given by the unemployment insurance commission in 1955, and when defending himself with respect to allegations about his use of what was known as a supplementary report in the debate that was then proceeding.
After hearing some argument I find that altogether there were 24 separate interventions before I finally came to the point of giving my view, which I expressed in these terms:
The Prime Minister has expressed effectively the view which I had formed.
I was of course referring to the Prime Minister's immediately preceding intervention that it was in order for the minister to proceed to refer to the report, and not to matters in the other interventions which occurred earlier, four of which I find upon reading the report were also interventions by the Prime Minister. My endorsement was of his argument on the point of order in the intervention immediately preceding my own in the second column of page 3662.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment on the report which has been brought to my attention of a statement made in Toronto yesterday by General Norstad, supreme commander of NATO, to the effect the Canadian brigade in the NATO forces was operating in a context where other units of the NATO forces in Europe have short range 66968-9-234J
tactical nuclear weapons while the Canadian brigade has not; and also that the role of the Canadian air division in Europe, according to General Norstad, should be modified to encompass a strike-attack capability.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to study the remarks of General Norstad and then make a reply after they have been fully studied.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you.


REQUEST FOR BRIEFING OF MEMBERS BY SUPREME COMMANDER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the great public interest in national defence at the present time, and in view of the considerable difficulty entailed in obtaining the facts with reference to both NATO and north American defence, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would arrange for General Norstad to give the members of this house an off the record briefing on Monday when he is here. I am sure the Prime Minister will recall that this was done on a previous occasion by General Gruenther when he was here, and it was extremely informative.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the correctness of any statement that was in the preamble of the question to the effect that the fullest information is not made available. However, in so far as the question consists of a request to have General Norstad follow the course that was taken by General Gruenther some years ago, that is a matter for consideration. After General Norstad has seen members of the cabinet, the question can then be determined.


COPYRIGHT ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the government given consideration to the recommendation of the Canadian Legion

Inquiries of the Ministry included in the brief presented to the Prime Minister of Canada and the cabinet last October as follows:
In view of the ever-increasing burden on the Canadian Legion by the levies of the Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada and Broadcast Music Incorporated (Canada), the Canadian Legion recommends that the government take steps to amend section 17(3) of the Copyright Act.
If so, is it the government's intention to introduce a bill to amend the Copyright Act in response to the representation of the Canadian Legion?


Hon. Henri Courlemanche (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. We are giving consideration to this request. No amendment will be proposed at this session.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the light of previous questions asked in the house and in view of the extraordinary developments in the province of Manitoba yesterday, has the minister any further information to give the house with regard to the flood protection plan for the city of Winnipeg?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think dike protection for the Liberal party would be in order out there.



REPORTED U.S. PROPOSAL FOR REDUCTION IN TEXTILE TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister comment on a United States news report that United States negotiators at GATT are ready to propose a general and reciprocal 10 per cent reduction in textile tariffs? Would the minister indicate whether he favours such a proposal?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, at the last session of congress legislation was enacted which empowered the United States administration to negotiate reductions in the United States tariffs of up to 20 per cent of existing rates over a four-year period in return for similar concessions on the part of other countries. The United States administration notified Canada and other GATT countries that they
[Mr. Herridge.l
would be prepared to enter on a first round of negotiations in the exercise of that power.
These negotiations cannot take place until the 1960 session of GATT, although it is contemplated at the 1959 session that there will be some preliminary discussions of a procedural nature looking forward to discussions in 1960 on United States proposals. These are not related to any particular commodity, whether textiles or any other. So far as these negotiations are concerned, and so far as the attitude of the Canadian government is concerned, naturally we would have to know what are the United States proposals prior to making any comment upon them. However, I can say that so far as we are aware there have been no proposals relating particularly to textiles.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    REPORTED &quot;DECLARATION OF WAR&quot; BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I must apologize for my superficial obtuseness. Has the alleged declaration of war put forth by the Minister of Justice yesterday in Newfoundland been of any assistance to the Prime Minister in the choosing of a minister of external affairs?



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingale):: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has any comment to make on a report from Newfoundland that he informed the board of trade there that $100 million was paid into the provincial treasury last year by the government of Canada, and whether he got this figure from the Department of Finance.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, inadvertently I used that figure in the text of my remarks, but at 11.15 last night, at the first possible opportunity after having completed my speech, I issued a correction showing that the increase in direct federal contributions to the Newfoundland treasury, instead of being from $55 million to $100 million, in round figures, should have been shown as from $24 million to $55 million, again in round figures. The error in the figures was caused by the fact that I inadvertently took the totals of all contributions from the dominion government to Newfoundland, whereas the reference should have

been to the total of conditional and unconditional grants, exclusive of payments to individuals and institutions.
I pointed out, however that the correction in the figures does not alter the statement I had made as to the proportionate increase in direct contributions to provincial revenues made by the federal government in recognition of Newfoundland's need for capital assistance, except that in fact these contributions have more than doubled instead of nearly doubled as stated in the text.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister aware, in the first place, that he included in the figure the increase made by the previous government under the tax-sharing arrangements, and second that the figure is not correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware, of course, that the figure is not correct. The figure, according to the calculations made by the Minister of Finance, is correct.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should have said, by the
Department of Finance. It was correctly calculated, and the statement I made reflects the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not aware that that figure includes many millions of dollars which have not been paid or provided by parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members had better await the proper opportunity to debate this matter.


Mr. Chevrier:: May I point out that in addition to the Martin statistics we now have the Fulton statistics.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and ask him whether he has been able to assess the temperature in Newfoundland to determine whether the cooling off period suggested by the Prime Minister has taken place?


Edmund Davie Fulton: had a very cordial reception from the people of Newfoundland, and I had a cordial reception from the premier of Newfoundland at a meeting I had with him at noon at his invitation. Any change in the atmosphere took place in the evening.


Lester Bowles Pearson: After your speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is perfectly correct; and since that matter has been mentioned I would point out that there was no justification for any such comment as that which was
Inquiries of the Ministry made to the effect that my remarks constitute a declaration of war. What really happened was that I presented to the people of Newfoundland-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Objections are being raised. Has the minister leave to continue his statement? I consider this to be a continuation of the earlier debate about the events in Newfoundland, which I had asked should not be continued.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The second question I asked was ruled to be the continuation of a debate, and I do not think there should be two sets of rules in the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was asked an earlier question regarding this matter by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and now another by the hon. member for Skeena, and I think I should be allowed to tell the house what actually happened.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I consider that the question which was asked was not a proper one for the orders of the day. It opens up a debate and invites the minister to make a reply which should not be made. I should prefer the house to defer this subject.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the minister ordered the destruction of the Iroquois engines and components under construction at Orenda Engines Limited at Malton?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member for Trinity is well aware, after this program was cancelled the work of destruction and scrapping of the Iroquois engine is continuing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a supplementary question. Does not the minister think it would have been advisable to leave the production line in existence until after General Norstad had been here, and until the government had a chance to consider its future policy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked one of those argumentative questions which are not in accordance with the rules and do not call for an answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY FOR RETURN



RETAINING WALLS, QUEBEC PROVINCE

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville):: Has the Secretary of State had time to compile the replies that came in from other departments with regard to my question No. 108, a reply to which I have been looking forward since early February?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, patience is one of the great virtues that the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville possesses in high degree.


Yvon Dupuis: Is the minister aware that procrastination is bad for a parliament that ought to be active?


Mr. Tremblay:: Does the hon. member
realize what has happened to the Liberal party?
(Text):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Fortin (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the increasing number of hit and run driving cases brought before our courts, I wonder if the minister will give consideration to the suggestion made recently by Mr. Justice Lamarre of Montreal. (Translation):
Justice Lamarre has suggested that section 225	(1) of the Criminal Code be
amended to provide for suspension of the driving permit of any driver found guilty of an offence against section 221 (2) dealing with hit-and-run cases.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: In
reply to the hon. gentleman I am glad to be able to inform him that the fullest consideration is being given to this suggestion, which has been made in a number of other quarters as well, in connection with the preparation of the bill to amend the Criminal Code as forecast in the speech from the throne.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce is in a position to answer the

question I addressed in his absence to the Prime Minister about a week ago on the results of the discussions on lead and zinc in New York?


Gordon Minto Churchill: A reply is being prepared, and I hope to have it ready for the Leader of the Opposition on Monday.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny 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.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Labour I have only a few more words to add to what I said last night when the committee adjourned. I was dealing at that time with unemployment fund questions and more general matters concerning employment. So far as the former are concerned, we on this side of the chamber will have an opportunity of asking questions in committee on this matter. We propose to take full advantage of that opportunity, particularly in regard to the management of investment funds, the evasion of the law in regard to reports and the status of the unemployment insurance advisory committee.
Not long ago I asked the Minister of Labour about the status of this committee, because I had previously made the statement that in my view it had no legal existence. The best I could get from the minister-and perhaps he will elaborate on the matter when he replies-was a reference to section 19, subsection 5 of the act, which states that a majority of members of the advisory committee constitute a quorum and a vacancy in the membership does not impair the right of the remaining members to act. With all due respect may I say that has nothing to do with the point I was making about the legal existence of the committee which is determined specifically in section 19, subsection 1, which say that the committee shall consist of a chairman and not less than six members, and there are not now six members of the committee.
I was also dealing last night with some questions arising out of a speech made by the Prime Minister on May 8 at Montreal which dealt with employment and labour matters among other things. It was a speech which was full of commercials and would have done credit to an advertising campaign.

Indeed, there is a very close connection between this speech and advertising, which makes it all the more unusual to hear the Prime Minister say in this speech that one of the faults of his party since it has been in office has been to take its good works too much for granted. If that is true, then the vice president in charge of advertising has not been doing his job.
On page 9 of this unusual speech the Prime Minister made a labour reference which perhaps should be put on the record. He said:
I can tell you that no group of men and women anywhere in Canada worked as hard or as many hours a day as the members of the cabinet.
The results of that work, according to the Prime Minister, were expressed in these words:
I have no hesitation in asserting at this time that I believe that the government has accomplished more in those two years than any other government at any time in our history.
He added:
The facts are on the record.
Indeed, that is true; the facts are on the record and the government can be judged by those facts put on the record in the last two years, facts which deal with unprecedented levels of unemployment since the thirties, unprecedented lack of confidence in government bonds and unprecedented tight money.
On page 15 of this speech the Prime Minister made mention of the unemployment insurance benefit question, to which I made a cursory reference previously. The Prime Minister referred to the dubious figure of $550 million in additional welfare funds that had been given to the Canadian people since this government came to office and said:
The $550 million does not include additional expenditures which will be made for unemployment insurance as a result of the extension of these benefits to more people and for longer periods. Here alone the additional cost will be $200 million more than in 1956-57.
I should like the Minister of Labour to explain where this $200 million in extra unemployment benefits came from. I should like the Minister of Labour to explain when he speaks, if he will do me the honour of giving me some attention while I am referring to him, what the Prime Minister could have meant when he said that $200 million more in unemployment insurance benefits were paid in the last two years than in the year 1956-57. If that figure is correct-perhaps it is correct; the minister will be able to check us on that-and if that additional amount of money was paid out for which the Prime Minister takes credit to his government, it was paid out because there were unprecedented levels of unemployment which
Supply-Labour
required these payments. However, to make a virtue of that is a very strange thing indeed.
Perhaps the minister will also confirm my statement that if this figure of $200 million is accurate as representing benefits received from the government, according to the Prime Minister, 80 per cent of these benefits came from the pockets of the employers and employees. It is a very strange kind of political advertising that takes credit to a government for contributions made by the employers and the employees to the insurance benefits of the unemployed employees.
Last night I also mentioned the strange statement of the Prime Minister in this strange speech-perhaps the minister will also deal with this when he replies-that our gross national product had increased 3 per cent last year. I pointed out last night, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister was only $160 million out in that figure on the basis of his own method of calculation. If he had adopted the method of calculation put forward by the Minister of Finance when he estimated the gross national product, that is a calculation which is based on stable prices and takes into consideration price increases, the Prime Minister would have been over $700 million out in his statement.
These are some of the matters which perhaps can be dealt with by the minister in the discussion of this item of the estimates, but there is one other reference I should like to make before I sit down. He will know, of course, that when I spoke on this item some days ago I addressed to the government through him some general questions on labour policy and unemployment policy. The hon. member for Trinity also put forward some suggestions which I thought were very interesting and constructive. We on this side are often charged by the government with not putting forward constructive proposals but when the minister replies at the close of the discussion of this item of the estimates, or whenever he feels like replying, we expect him to deal with the particular suggestions which have been put on the record.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the minister that I will not be very long. However, I should like to bring a number of matters to his attention. The first is that as our urban areas grow in population it is only natural that the staff of the unemployment insurance commission should also grow. It does not take long in terms of years for an office that had 15 or 20 employees to increase to 60 or more employees, not only because the increase in unemployment is a problem but also because of the growth in population. At this time I should like to make

Supply-Labour
the plea again that as much as possible, and in line with efficiency and the maximum output in these offices, the minister make every effort to keep the offices on as small a unit basis as he can.
I know that the officers of his department naturally like promotions, and as the offices grow so does their rank and their income as civil servants. Therefore each and every time the minister looks into the possibility of opening another office the advice he receives from his officers is usually against opening such additional offices because it affects their own position and income. There is a tendency for the officials to continue to advise the minister not to grant requests for the opening of additional offices.
This is of particular concern to those of us who live in rapidly growing urban areas. As population grows and as the need arises we hope the minister will understand the position and will agree a little more readily than he has in the past to the establishment of additional offices of the unemployment insurance commission. I do not like to see men become mere cogs in a machine, and when you have very large offices handling thousands of men a week I believe we make mere cogs in a machine out of men. So far as obtaining employment for people is concerned, I think this cause would be better served if there were offices in the local communities which would be aware of employment openings that might exist. They would be more aware of possible employment openings than a major office with a large hierarchy of civil servants. I also believe there would be more humane treatment of those who are unemployed and must use the facilities of these offices.
I have in mind particularly such expanding municipalities as are found around the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster. There are municipalities around New Westminster with a population three or four times that of the little city of New Westminster. Yet the unemployed in these surrounding municipalities must have their unemployment insurance needs attended to in the New Westminster unemployment insurance office, which is already larger than it needs to be in order to render efficient advice and help to the unemployed. Naturally the same criticism applies to the unemployment insurance offices in the city of Vancouver. I do not believe the government should sponsor the establishment of ever larger institutions when the matter of dealing with the needs of our unemployed is involved.
Another plea I should like to make at this time is that the minister use his influence
fMr. Regier.]
in the government to obtain much more money for the retraining of workers. We will never be relieved of the problem of unemployment as long as automation is with us, and I do not see the end of automation and its effects. I believe the minister will agree that as the years go by more and more money will have to be spent on retraining our workers.
In so far as a large number of them are concerned, we will have to make arrangements whereby we pay them a maintenance allowance while they are being re-educated in order to enable them to take other employment. It is very difficult for a man with a family to agree to attend a training course for six months or more if he has no regular income. The day may well have arrived when the government, through the medium of the unemployment insurance commission, ought to give serious consideration to the payment of a living allowance to those of our unemployed who want to obtain the education necessary to take other employment.
I should like at this time to appeal to the minister to take measures very early in the year directed toward launching the next winter works program. I believe the minister now wishes that he had begun these projects a little earlier last year. I think the time is now when initial moves should be made whereby we could have a vastly expanded and enlarged winter works program next year. I hope when the minister begins planning next year's winter works program he will devise ways and means whereby the municipalities do not have to assume such very heavy obligations in order to supply a limited number of men with work. The minister indicated some months or more ago how pleased he was with the fact that some 38 per cent of the money that was being expended was being used to pay wages.
I have statistics here to show what happened in Burnaby. I note that the headline on the article from the British Columbian of April 16, 1959 says, "Winter Works Bring $72,000 From Ottawa". It says:
Burnaby has spent $300,000 of the $557,720 allotted to eight public works projects that qualify for federal winter works financial aid.
Of this $557,720, the federal government is paying $71,926. This means that the municipality of Burnaby, in order to supply employment to roughly 100 men, had to go into debt to the tune of almost half a million dollars for these undertakings. If we are going to try to solve our unemployment problems in this manner it is my contention that we are going to break every municipal

government in Canada. The municipalities simply cannot afford to go out and borrow money, especially with interest rates as they are now, to the extent of $500,000 for every 100 men who must be supplied with employment. Our municipalities simply are not able to assume that kind of burden.
I should like, therefore, to propose that the minister attempt to persuade his colleagues in the government that when next year's winter works program is launched the municipalities be assured that the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act will be reactivated. This act is on the statute books, and under it the government has authority to give aid to the municipalities.
This act, which was introduced in the thirties, was specifically designed to provide employment through municipal organizations. I know the capital which is available under it is limited. However, the government might easily ask parliament to expand the capitalization allowed. I believe the present capitalization is $30 million, but in the light of Canadian problems and costs of today I think the minister would agree that our municipalities might easily use something in the nature of $300 million.
This act was a means whereby loans for self-liquidating projects were made available to municipalities at a very nominal rate of interest. I believe that if next year's winter works program is to be a success this act will have to be reactivated so these low cost loans are available to the municipalities, or the government will have to find other ways and means whereby the municipalities will not have to go into debt to the extent of half a million dollars in order to supply employment to 100 men for the five winter months.
The other proposal I have concerns the annuities branch. I know the minister is very much interested in the cause of labour. I know that he has heard much about industrial pension plans. I know the minister knows quite a number of the disadvantages of the present industrial pension plan arrangements, especially when a worker leaves one place of employment, either through no fault of his own or otherwise, and moves to another place of employment. The worker usually loses his pension rights in such instances. Once he reaches a certain age he has a difficult time in obtaining employment because he is told that for pension purposes he is too old.
I should like the minister to have the annuities branch look into the possibilities of establishing, under the annuities branch, a portable pension plan for Canadian workers. I feel that the annuities branch could be augmented and expanded in a manner which
Supply-Labour
would give employers and unions some encouragement to transfer their present pension arrangements into the government annuities branch. If they did that they would then be making a move toward the establishment of a portable pension plan for Canadian workers.
Many members in the house have made remarks about industrial unrest. We have often heard the blame placed on organized labour. Well, all of us regret industrial unrest. However, it is sometimes part of the system. Unless we want to establish a dictatorship I do not see how, under our present concept of liberty, industrial unrest can be avoided. However, I feel that there has been a lot of exaggeration in this regard. I should like to place on the record a limited number of remarks made in the legislature of British Columbia by Rae Eddie, M.L.A. for New Westminster. I read these as they were reproduced in the B. C. Lumber Worker, the first issue in March, 1959. Mr. Eddie was pointing out very effectively that strike losses are being magnified and are not as harmful as many people would have us believe.
He says the facts are these. He used March, 1958 as a sample because he says that was the month in which labour disputes were particularly heavy in British Columbia. He says the figures show that out of total man days lost, 86 per cent of that time was lost through unemployment and 13 per cent was lost through illness, leaving less than 1 per cent of man days lost because of labour disputes. In short, unemployment cost more than 95 times as much as did strikes in time loss, and illness cost 15 times as much. To me that does not sound like irresponsible use of a free man's right to use his ultimate bargaining weapon.
We in this house are greatly concerned about the growing needs of government in the way of revenue. The other day we had a proposition that would cost several hundred million dollars. However, may I say in conclusion that our present level of unemployment, with half a million unemployed in Canada, over a period of one year means a loss in wealth that has not been produced of $1,500 million. That is, $1J billion of wealth is lost in one year because of unemployment. That wealth is more than the cost of all family allowances, old age pensions and many other welfare enterprises added together. The cost of unemployment to the Canadian economy is today by far the greatest cost that the people of Canada are paying for having voted as they did in March of last year.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, I shall limit my remarks-and they will be brief-to my own riding. I discussed the matter I am about to

Supply-Labour
mention with the Minister of Labour on an occasion about a year ago. I refer to the question of employment at Petawawa military camp. As the minister knows, there is an employment office in Pembroke. I am now making a suggestion that will bring business to the employment office. The matter concerns government contracts. My criticism or observation will apply equally to other ridings in Canada where there are government contracts. I suggest to the minister that he consult with the Minister of Public Works and see to it that there is inserted in the contracts awarded by the government a clause to the effect that the labourers shall be drawn from that section of the country in which the contract has been awarded.
At the present time the situation in Pembroke or in the district is that the number of unemployed is about 2,500. This situation is extremely serious. If the contractors and the subcontractors as well-particularly the subcontractors-would draw their labour from the section of the community in which they have the contract, there would be considerable alleviation of the distress in my section of the country. I would ask the minister if he would discuss this matter with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and with the Minister of Public Works and ascertain whether there cannot be inserted in these tenders and in the contracts when they are finally signed a clause to the effect that the labour shall be drawn, as far as possible, from the section of the country in which the contract is to be carried out.


Lionel Chevrier: The other evening, Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing other matters concerning the Department of Labour it was not found possible, because of the rules of the house, to discuss certain matters which the opposition desired to discuss at that time. While I have no intention of repeating what I said in the debate then, there are however some things that I believe should be put on the record.
I have, of course, no complaint to make with regard to the ruling of the Chair by which all members of the house must abide. It is because of that desire on my part and on the part of all of us who sit here that we follow the decisions of His Honour the Speaker. The ruling was that anything having to do with the reasons for non-compliance with the statute should not then have been discussed. The statute, of course, is the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is why at this time I feel that I should put certain matters on Hansard which I was prevented from doing on the earlier occasion.
[Mr. Forgie.l
At the time I indicated that there were, on the part of the minister, certain violations. Perhaps that word was too strong; perhaps I should have used another term. Perhaps I should have said that the minister had not abided by the terms of the statute. But whether it is one term or the other that is used, I do not think it makes any difference in the effect.
There are two or three points in which I am interested. One of them is the report of August 26, 1958, which the minister tabled at the request of the hon. member for Essex East. My purpose at this time is to say that this report forms part of sessional paper 82A and should be incorporated therein by reference. My purpose in saying that is found in section 89 (1) of the statute which can be divided under two heads, and which reads in part as follows:
(1)	Within four months after the end of each fiscal year the advisory committee shall make a report to the governor in council on the financial condition of the fund-
Furthermore, over and above that obligation, the advisory committee may report at any time it sees fit, as I take it was its intention in the report of August 26, 1958. I have particular reference at this time to the paragraph in the beginning of this report which reads as follows:
In the meantime we respectfully draw your attention to our report of July 18, 1958.
My contention, Mr. Chairman, is that legally the moment the advisory committee, in any report to the minister, puts in a clause of this nature, then by reference any additional report is incorporated into the report required to be made under this statute. It then falls to the minister under section 90 (2) to lay that report on the table of the house. Section 90 (2) reads as follows:
(2)	The minister shall lay every report made under section 89 before parliament within thirty days after it was submitted to the governor in council, or if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first thirty days thereafter that parliament is sitting.
I say that the words "submitted to the governor in council" should be read with reference to the whole statute. My contention, with great deference, is that both these documents should have been tabled in accordance with section 90, subsection 2.
I think too, sir, that there has been an infraction, an evasion, of the statute in that section 19 (1) has not been complied with, because there is not now legally in existence an unemployment insurance advisory committee. I think that has been made quite clear in an earlier debate and I need not repeat it on this occasion. But because of the circumstances in which the committee finds

itself three members have found it necessary to hand in their resignations. Therefore that committee, because it does not consist of the required number of members, which shall be not less than six nor more than eight, does not legally exist.
Then, of course, there is the fact that there has been an infraction of this statute in its intention. I did mention this matter the other evening and I will not repeat it now except in passing. I would ask the minister if he will not tell the committee under what power he requested certain information and a report from the advisory committee. As I look at this act, and look at it as fairly as I can, there is a clear cut section, 91 (1), which gives the governor in council that power and that authority, but I see nowhere in the act any authority to the minister to act in the way he did.
In addition there is the unfortunate situation which exists between the minister and the labour movement at the present time. I say to the minister, with all the regard I have for him, that I am afraid he must assume full responsibility for this unfortunate situation, because in my modest estimation I believe he failed to carry out the required consultation with labour. I listened very carefully to the statement the minister made in defence of his position, but as I read section 19 (2) it is clearly set out therein that at least one of the members of the advisory committee other than the chairman shall be appointed after consultation with organizations representative of workers and an equal number, after consultation with organizations, representative of employers.
As a result of the failure of the minister to comply with that very clear and important provision in our legislation, the two most important labour unions have stated that they do not recognize the representative of the minister or of the government as their representative on the commission. The commission will therefore be composed of two government appointees and one representing employers. Although the minister may claim that the recent appointment does not constitute a technical violation of the act, I am sure he cannot deny that he did not comply with the spirit and the intention of this legislative provision in that respect.
As a result of that clear violation by the minister and the government of the spirit of the legislation, the three representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress and of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour on the unemployment insurance advisory committee have announced their resignations. There was no other course, I believe, for these men to adopt under the circumstances. Indeed, in addition to those specific
Supply-Labour
and important responsibilities which are contained in the act, the advisory committee must work in close collaboration with the commission. Since the labour movement cannot feel that it is properly represented on the commission, as it has the right to be so represented, its representatives could not continue to act as members of the advisory committee and to work with the commission. The minister, I am afraid, must assume the ultimate responsibility for those resignations and for the situation which, as I indicated, is in contravention of section 19 subsection 2 of the act, which clearly states that at least one member of the advisory committee must represent labour.
As a consequence of these three recent resignations, the advisory committee has at present only five members other than the chairman. Moreover, it is doubtful whether there is at present on the committee a member who has been "appointed after consultation with organizations representative of workers" in accordance with the section to which I have referred. The minister-


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Chairman, if I may just advise the hon. member, the labour representative after consultation, as the hon. member puts it, is still on the advisory committee, and that representative is Mr. McLean.


Lionel Chevrier: That is true.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: But the three others are not.


Michael Starr: The three others tendered their resignations and new appointments will be made within the next two weeks.


Lionel Chevrier: What the minister has said is quite true, Mr. Chairman, but that does not derogate from the point that there are still three members of the labour movement who have handed in their resignations-


Michael Starr: That is a fact.


Lionel Chevrier: -and because of that, the point I am making is that the unemployment insurance advisory committee has no legal status. The minister may disagree with that, but that is my interpretation of the act, and because of that I think an injustice is being done to the labour movement.
The point which I think is uppermost, or should be uppermost, in our minds at the moment is this. The minister may not agree with this, but none the less I think it is accurate. The minister's responsibility as Minister of Labour is to conciliate. I am sure that no one would agree with that statement more quickly than the minister; but under the circumstances, willingly or not, voluntarily or involuntarily, he did not con-

Supply-Labour
ciliate in this case. True, he gave the house an explanation of what happened, but that explanation is contradicted by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and clearly contradicted. It is contradicted, too, by the three representatives who handed in their resignations. Therefore I think I am safe and accurate in saying, first of all, that the advisory committee has no legal status as it stands today; and second, with all respect to the minister, I do not think he used his conciliatory powers or facilities in the manner in which they should have been used on the occasion.
I do not want to go into this unduly and pursue the matter ad nauseam, but I think there is one point which I must make and that has to do with the Quebec representative on that body, Mr. Jean Marchand, who is the representative or the secretary of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour. The minister, and again I say this to him with deference, stated that Mr. Jean Marchand was official affiliated to a political party which was not the Progressive Conservative party. That I submit is not an accurate statement. That is not a fact, and I challenge the minister to substantiate that accusation. Why should the minister have made that statement, if it is not in accordance with the fact? I have no doubt that Mr. Marchand is not in that position. If he were I am sure he could not hold the position which he holds at the present time. I am prompted to say that it might be because of the position Mr. Marchand held during the strike of the employees of the C.B.C. that the minister was prompted to make that statement. Be that as it may, I do not think the statement was accurate; I do not think it should have been made, and I do not think there is any foundation for it.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: Would the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) allow me a very brief question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Louis Fortin: Is the hon. member for Laurier aware that Jean Marchand is not only an active member of the Social Democratic party, but also one of the leaders of a political movement in the province of Quebec, which is called "Rassemblement"?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet may know of these facts, whereas I have no such information. I am, however, convinced that the minister's statement in this house was not in accordance with the facts and that, under the circumstances, he should not have made it because to my mind it is a responsibility

of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to reconcile the various attitudes instead of confusing them, as he attempted to do.
Furthermore, if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, without in the least wishing to cast reflections on the Minister of Labour, I think the attitude shown by Mr. Jean Marchand in the C.B.C. producers' strike had a great deal to do with the attitude taken by the government towards him.
That is the reason why I made my statement a moment ago. I have not the slightest doubt that the charges directed at Mr. Jean Marchand are not in accord with the facts- I am trying to use a phrase that will not be ruled out of order-and I am therefore inclined to believe that the minister should not have made such charges. In fact, I am certain that if the minister were to repeat that statement today, he would leave out the part dealing with the political connections, not only of Mr. Jean Marchand, but also of the two other labour representatives in this matter.
(Text):
Now, if I may return to the point I was trying to make-and I was trying to make it as calmly as possible in the circumstances, and I am sure the minister accepts it in that light -I was trying to point out that the minister failed to consult, in accordance with section 19 (2) of the act, the various labour organizations when the appointment of Mr. MacArthur was made, and that because of this failure an unfortunate situation has arisen as between the minister and the labour movement, a situation which I believe has led to the worsening of the relationship between the two.
I am sure the minister himself would be the first to recognize the need and importance of close and continued collaboration between himself and the labour movement for the proper and effective operation and administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The point now arises, how does the minister propose to secure this essential collaboration? When and how does he intend to extricate himself from the difficult, delicate and awkward position in which he finds himself? How does he intend to get out of the illegal position which exists today?
A moment ago the minister said he expected to appoint persons in lieu of the three who had resigned. No one can anticipate, of course, what the appointments will be, but will they be truly representatives of labour? Will they be appointed after consultation with labour? These are questions which I am sure cannot be answered at this time. So I conclude this part of my remarks by stating that in my opinion a serious mistake has been made because of the fact

that there was a failure to consult and because there was a failure to conciliate. This has set a bad standard for both employers and employees. I trust and hope that this situation will be rectified.
Before I resume my seat I would like to make a suggestion. I can speak only for myself, but the suggestion is this; that item 1 of the minister's estimates be allowed to stand, after the discussion thereof has been terminated, and that meantime we continue with the other items of the department in order that we may get from the minister a report on the winter works program. I make this suggestion with deference. I think it will hasten the consideration of the estimates, because I have a feeling that if this were done we could certainly dispose of these additional items very quickly.


Michael Starr: In response to the suggestion
that the first item should be deferred until the program is brought in, may I say that the winter works program has been carried on for five years-unless, of course, the hon. gentleman is referring to the municipal program. I do not know exactly what he has in mind. Perhaps he could tell me.


Lionel Chevrier: I was under the impression that we could have a statement from the minister as to what has happened with the winter works program involving assistance to the municipalities. This has been mentioned in the house from time to time, but no complete report has been made bringing us up to date. It seemed fitting, therefore, that between now and the end of the session we should have an opportunity to discuss that program.


Michael Starr: Is the hon. member referring
to a complete report on this incentive program which has gone on during the past winter?


An hon. Member:: And next winter.


Michael Starr: I can readily give the committee a report of what has gone on in the past winter. However, future government policy with respect to the program will have to be planned.
I am very happy about the attitude taken toward this municipal incentive program. It was initiated by the government following conferences we held last July with the municipalities. I remember the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite who characterized it as being too little and too late. They said it would not work out, and they criticized it month by month. In all modesty I feel I may claim that it is a fine program, and I cannot resist reminding hon. gentlemen opposite that it is a program that was instituted by this government. The government takes
Supply-Labour
the responsibility for the situation. The government will give consideration to the question as to whether or not it will be necessary to continue this program.
If hon. gentlemen opposite have any constructive suggestions to make that they feel would help the situation I would be happy to receive them and bring them to the attention of the government for consideration. Under those circumstances, however, I did not feel I could let that suggestion stand.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, in opening my brief remarks may I congratulate the minister for his opening remarks on the presentation of his estimates and say that I welcomed the announcement of consideration for older workers. I believe the minister well knows this is a subject of great interest to me as well as to many hon. members on both sides of this chamber. I am sure many were gratified to hear that steps were being taken to find a solution to the problem confronting older workers in Canada. I have spoken on this subject on previous occasions and do not wish to elaborate further on the point at the present time.
I wish to bring to the minister's attention the need for a change in the regulations at some future time. It may be, of course, that the objections I raise to the present regulations could be met by valid arguments, but I would hope the minister and his officials might give the matter some reconsideration. I refer to the regulations under section 172, subsection 3, paragraph (b) of the act. The regulations came into effect last autumn, I believe, and as a result the following notice was distributed through national employment offices to a number of people applying for unemployment insurance. The notice is specifically directed to farmers, and the pertinent part reads:
All earning must be declared (see paragraph 15 of "Information for Claimants" form 501D). This includes earnings from farm operations.
If you dispose of any farm produce (milk, grain, livestock, etc.) during a week for which you are claiming benefit you must include as earnings for that week one-half of the amount of money that you received or will receive as a result of the transaction.
The notice then goes on to make some reference to penalties. This has no reference to the point I should like to make. Just after the end of the last war we all know that the Department of Veterans Affairs under the Veterans' Land Act encouraged veterans to purchase small holdings of land, up to four, five or six acres or whatever it was, for the purpose of assisting the veteran and his family to become more or less self-sufficient. This was one of the purposes in any event. This policy was to assist those who became unemployed. They were encouraged to get

Supply-Labour
a few chickens, pigs or cows, and generally one might say veterans were encouraged to put their money into projects of this kind.
Nowadays many people among the farm population work in the cities and there are many persons who because of high tax rates in certain urban areas have bought small holdings out in the country. Their wives may keep a few chickens or they may keep some pigs or possibly even one or two beef cattle or a cow or something of that nature. This trend is becoming increasingly common.
If an individual is able to save some money which he invests in real estate and draws rent from his investment he is in no way affected by the regulations to which I referred. Neither is he penalized if he invests his money in stocks, bonds or securities. However, if an individual invests his money in any kind of farming operation from which he draws income he is penalized under this section of the act. I cannot help but feel this is a form of discrimination against those workers who live in rural areas and have invested their money in small holdings of land from which they draw a little income.
I know that one of the arguments in favour of the present regulations is that investment in real estate or stocks and bonds represents a consolidation of the past labours of the individual, and if they draw income from this source it is not considered as earnings. I realize that it is sometimes difficult to draw a fine line in matters of this kind, but I have difficulty in comprehending the difference between a person who has invested money in real estate which he has to repair and maintain and from which he draws income in the form of rent, and a person who on the other hand has invested in a small holding of land from which he draws some income through keeping a few chickens, pigs or something of that nature which he must feed whether or not he is working elsewhere. In the former case the individual is not affected by this section of the act but in the latter case the individual is penalized.
I believe these regulations would even go so far as to make necessary the declaration of money received by an individual from the sale of a cow, for instance, which he sold in order to purchase another cow. This is clearly capital, but he would have to declare the money he received from the sale and would be penalized as a result. I appreciate that it is difficult to administer some of the provisions in the act but I would hope that the minister and his officials would give some reconsideration to this matter.
My next remarks relate to what I have just said. Because of interrelated activities in our

economy today often there is a very fine distinction between city workers, those who are half working in the city and half in rural areas, and farmers. In other words there are no clearly defined black and whites but we have an increasing number of grays somewhere in the middle today. I refer to the distinction between industrial workers and farmers which used to be more clearly defined. Because of this I suggest to the minister that he might give consideration to appointing someone to the unemployment insurance advisory committee who has at least some knowledge of farm problems and can represent the views of people who may have small holdings in rural areas but who may work in a factory in the city. I feel that this is important, and I urge the minister to give consideration to this suggestion.
In conclusion may I say that in my opinion and in the opinion of many people throughout the country with whom I have discussed these matters the present Minister of Labour is probably the best minister of labour this country has ever had. I believe this view must be recognized by hon. gentlemen opposite. In fact the only conclusion to which I can come is that hon. members of the official opposition and the C.C.F. are becoming alarmed at the popularity of the Minister of Labour in the country. I am quite certain of this in view of recent speeches that have been made in this house, which cannot be interpreted in any way other than as attempts to tear down the excellent reputation the minister has acquired for himself, and very justifiably so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to bring certain complaints to the attention of the house and the minister by a good number of trade unionists in my constituency, a number of members of the Canadian Legion and some business people. I have also received considerable correspondence along the same line. In the national employment service we have a very excellent organization that provides an opportunity for employers to register their employment needs and for employees to register for employment. From my contact with the service I would say that generally speaking they are doing a very good job, sometimes under quite difficult circumstances.
As opposed to that we have the immigration department also undertaking the responsibility of seeking employment for immigrants. I am not criticizing the officials of the immigration department. They are undertaking their duties as they are supposed to according to the act and the regulations and their instructions. However, people to whom I have spoken think this creates an unnecessary



IS, 1959

[Stage Direction]
duplication of expenditure and a certain unfairness to Canadian citizens, and that the procedures create quite unnecessary ill feeling at certain times.
I have personal knowledge of an immigration officer who in some cases travels two or three hundred miles to find employment for immigrants. I am not blaming the immigrant who naturally wants to get employment. In fact this officer travels even greater distances on occasion. Funds are provided which give him the opportunity of travelling all over the district, visiting small places, quizzing employers and in some cases obtaining employment where the employer did not consider that he really needed an employee for the work in question. They are pretty thorough in that respect in going into every nook and corner of the Kootenays and trying to find employment for immigrants.
One or two managers of small lumber companies have mentioned to me how efficient the immigration officials are in that respect, in that they have suggested that the employer put the man on for a week or two even if he cannot provide work for very long. The immigration official says he has to get jobs for the immigrants somehow and that it will be a great help to him if the employer can give the man a job, and so on and so on.
The officials of the national employment service do not have the same opportunity. I know the local managers do what they can, within close range of the towns in which employment offices are situated, to come in contact with employers quite frequently, but the funds available and their duties are such as to make it impossible for them to travel the district in the same way as the officers of the immigration department. During recent years I have had it repeatedly brought to my attention by the people I have mentioned that there has been a certain unfairness.
I want to cite one case, which could be repeated many times. This man came to see me personally, having been sent to me by the secretary of the Legion branch and the secretary of his trade union. This man was born in a town in my constituency. He served overseas for six years in the second world war and had a very commendable record. He now has four children and had been unemployed for five months when he came to see me. He is an electrician and there was no employment in sight. An immigrant came into the district who was an electrician, was in the town one day and got a job because the immigration official just happened to arrive at a certain place at the right time, when the employer was about to notify the national employment service that they needed an electrician.
Supply-Labour
The criticisms of these people are quite sound that there is unnecessary duplication, and at times this brings about criticism of the national employment service which is not justified. I have heard people complain about the national employment service officials not getting out and rustling up jobs, and I have had to explain over and over again that they do not have the same opportunity because there is no financial provision and their duties will not permit it.
I could illustrate this complaint with a number of similar cases, but I will only refer to the one case. With respect to my own experience, may I say that after receiving complaints I am in the habit of investigating because I like to get the facts, and as a result of the complaints I have received and my personal experience I suggest that the registration of jobs and the seeking of employment should be the sole responsibility of the national employment service. All this work should come under one branch. In addition, there should be provision for appropriate officials of the offices to travel around the districts in order to visit employers in the same way that immigration officers now do. In that way it would be fairer to Canadian citizens and fairer to immigrants. They would not encounter these unnecessary hostilities which are very easily built up, particularly in small communities.
I have gone to considerable pains on two or three occasions to dampen the fires of resentment which were directed at the time at the national employment service and also at the poor immigrant in question because of the method of doing things at the present time. I have brought these views of my constituents to the attention of the minister, and I hope serious consideration will be given to some consolidation of the services that I have dealt with so briefly.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Laurier is extremely important. He has asked the Minister of Labour to allow the first item to stand so we will have some opportunity at a later date to ascertain what is likely to be the government's policy for attacking unemployment next fall and winter. The minister has indicated that he cannot accept the suggestion; consequently we are going to observe the traditional routine of dealing with these estimates. That is the responsibility of the minister, and apart from disagreeing with him for the reasons stated by the hon. member for Laurier I do not quarrel with his decision. But we therefore have an obligation to ask the government at this time what its policy with regard to unemployment is going to be for the ensuing period.

Supply-Labour
The minister understandably has taken some pride in the achievements under his winter work program. The program I am talking about is not the advertising campaign urging people to provide employment. Without belittling the value of that, though recognizing that it really has not cut very deeply, what I am referring to is the winter work program which involves contributions by the federal government together with the provinces to municipally conceived projects. The minister has said that obviously the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier are to be construed as an approbation of that program, and in understandable modesty the Minister of Labour says he is very glad to know that hon. gentlemen on this side approve the program and share his pride in its achievements.
I think the Minister of Labour is under a great misapprehension. We on this side of the house welcome the program in so far as it goes. Any program designed to assist men and women who are out of work to And gainful employment will receive our support, but the minister does not do justice to the record of debate this session when he suggests that we are satisfied with the program. We are not. This program was announced in the fall of last year but it was ill timed, and as a result was not capable of the productive results which it otherwise would have had. What we are now saying is that while we all hope there will be a real improvement in the unemployment picture, there are indices that suggest it is going to be a serious problem, though we hope however not on the same level as last year. Every indication would appear to support the view that unemployment nevertheless will be present with us next fall and winter.
What we are asking the government to do is not wait until Christmas or late fall to declare its policy, but to tell the country and the house now what its policy is going to be. Is this program going to continue? If it is going to continue, the municipalities ought to be told far enough ahead of time so they can make the necessary preparations through budgetary arrangements, through use of necessary facilities, personnel and the like to cope with the problem. The minister takes credit for this program. I think he is overstating the case when we recognize that as of the last reported period there were some 525,000 people without jobs, and that the number of unplaced applicants had increased by almost 4,000.
This is a picture that does not warrant the suggestion that we can coast along as the government has coasted along, during the past 18 months. Now we would like to know from the minister, has all the money that was voted for this particular project

been expended by the government? How many people have been put to work? When we are told how many people have been put to work under this program, we realize its limitations. The fact that 33,000 or 40,000 people have been put to work as a result of this program is in itself commendable, but it is nothing compared to the problem of unemployment that faces the country at the present time. I do not believe the minister is on sound ground when he takes great satisfaction from these figures, in the light of the total unemployment problem and in the light of the very limited achievements of this program of works.
Now, what we want to know is, what is the government now doing-


Michael Starr: Do you want us to drop this
program?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend
does not do himself justice. Of course we do not want him to drop this program. What I want him to do is announce this program at a time when the municipalities can prepare for it. Tell us now, are you going to embark on this program next year?


Michael Starr: The hon. member talks about
the preparation of budgets by municipalities. I think I should advise him that the municipalities have already set their budgets for this year, and a new budget will not be set until after the new year, in 1960. Budgets, therefore, have nothing to do with it.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ontario is not the whole country.


Michael Starr: I have had some experience in this connection. Preparation for any plan of this nature at this time would be a little premature. We will have to look at the situation later on to see what the position may be this winter. I realize the plan could have been announced a little earlier last winter, but there was no harm done by the announcement being made when it was. In the first week of this plan we received over 500 applications.
Now, most certainly, if it is found necessary later on this year that this program should be continued for another year, the experience we have gained during this winter will help us in deciding earlier, and the plan will be announced earlier

there is no question about that-if it is decided to go ahead with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister for incorporating my remarks in his. I believe he has only confirmed now what I have said. He has said that municipal budgets are already prepared. Of course he knows that is not the case nationally. As

a matter of fact on December 23 last the minister made a statement which confirms what I have just been saying. The minister said that the interest shown to date in this program and the favourable reception to it from municipalities all across the country are very encouraging, and this was particularly true since budgetary restrictions have prevented many municipalities from submitting projects until their 1959 works programs are approved by the newly elected councils.
This is surely an indication of the truth of my statements. My own city of Windsor is a pretty good illustration of the weakness of this program. Shortly after the program was announced last year we met under the capable direction of that devoted public servant Mr. John Sharrer, the director of the unemployment insurance offices in Windsor. The members of parliament, members of the legislature, representatives of the unions and of management met to discuss this particular program and ascertain whether it would be adaptable to the situation in Windsor. The mayor and the council of Windsor indicated that they could not participate in this program because their budgetary plans were already drawn up, and also, to use the language of the former controller, Mrs. Montrose, because the plan was inadequate in that it did not provide financial assistance from the two senior levels of government in connection with supplies.
I am sure my hon. friend knows as well as I do that if he wants to bring in a works program that is really going to put thousands of people to work, the federal share should be extended beyond merely assisting in direct employment. It has to encourage projects, and one way of encouraging projects will be for the federal and provincial governments to do more than merely share the cost of labour involved in those projects. In my own city of Windsor, where there has been heavy unemployment, we have not been able to take advantage of this program. I think the fact that in the province of Ontario this program has not put more than-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-9,000 or 10,000 to work-


Michael Starr: Over 11,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -over 11,000 people to work, in a province of 6 million people-


Michael Starr: But this program was not designed to put everybody to work.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -is a pretty good indication of the failure of this program. We admit that this type of program is valuable. What we are asking the minister to do is to announce, at the earliest possible date,
Supply-Labour
whether or not the program is to be continued; that is what we asked last year.


Michael Starr: I promised the hon. member that the date would be announced at the earliest possible time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister say that this program to cope with unemployment will be announced before we rise at the end of June or the middle of July? Will the minister promise us that?


Michael Starr: A decision will have to be made in the light of the situation in the month of August.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says the month of August, but parliament will not be sitting. We were caught that way last year. The Leader of the Opposition, in the month of June-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We asked for it in August last year.


Michael Starr: You did not know about it in August.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition, in the months of June and August, asked the Minister of Labour if he did not think that in view of the outlook for the fall and winter the government should take steps to do something about combatting unemployment. That request was supported by members of the opposition. Nothing was done between August and the time when, a week or so before the Prime Minister left the country, he announced the program in Saskatoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At a provincial convention.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, at a provincial convention. We do not want to be caught in the same situation, because we have had a very serious level of unemployment this year. Many thousands of people have suffered as a result. Having promised to do something about unemployment, this government owes to the unemployed and to this parliament the obligation to tell us, before we leave, what are its plans to meet unemployment next fall and winter.


Michael Starr: I just want to repeat to the hon. member what I said earlier, namely that the responsibility for action in this matter rests with the government and we are assuming that responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Parliament does not matter.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I am sure I understand my hon. friend's difficulty. I know that if he were left alone and were the only minister in the government he would announce today that this program was going to be continued, and that its features would be

Supply-Labour
refined and liberalized so it could be more effective. But I am not addressing myself only to the minister; I am addressing myself to all the members of the government who have the obligation of sharing with him the responsibility for action. Surely we are entitled to know, before this session closes, whether the municipalities can now start preparing programs that will at least put this same number to work, if not more. But if the hon. gentleman waits, as I am afraid it is his intention, not until August, September or October but until November, we shall have a recurrence of this same situation; and a year from now we shall be arguing in this house, just as we are arguing at this moment, and criticising the government for not having taken in the middle of 1959 preparatory steps to meet a situation in late 1959 and the winter of 1960. That is the reason for the proposal made by the hon. member for Laurier. It was made for the purpose of assisting the minister in the passage of his estimates and at the same time preserving-as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out a moment ago-the rights of parliament, in its right to ascertain government policy with regard to the most serious problem that confronts us in Canada at this time, namely that of unemployment. This government owes to this parliament and to this country, more than any other government in the history of Canada, action along these lines because this government made a solemn commitment to the unemployed of our nation as no other government has ever done. For that reason the government should not hesitate to give us now a clear indication of its policy.
The hon. member for Trinity the other day outlined a program which, if adopted, would put many thousands of people to work. What is the government's attitude with regard to that program? Does it accept what the hon. member for Trinity suggested? Does it think his suggestion had any merit? This is the opportunity for the Minister of Labour to tell us. If he does not, we can only conclude that this government is going to run a calculated risk and trust that there will be no unemployment of a serious nature next year. In running it, it runs the risk of adding, unwittingly or wittlingly, to the continued discomfort and distress of thousands of people.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, every time I rise to speak I always seem to be doing so against the clock. However, that may be a good thing. I did not intend to speak at this stage, but this morning I received from one of my constituents a letter which has

prompted me to do so. I should like to read a portion of this letter. It reads in part as follows:
Dear Doug.:
This morning's headlines are "steady workers to pay more employment insurance". Surely you can help to curb this. For 11 years I have worked for my boss and paid employment insurance. If I stop, I will get one year of insurance benefits that will not keep me happy. Why can't we have as the U.S.A. have, the security plan, forced saving that all comes back to the worker? After all, it is my money. I have already paid taxes. Why should the "steady" worker keep the numbers happy who never stay on a job longer than possible?
To me, Mr. Chairman, that letter indicates that there is some feeling of dissatisfaction among these workers who are steadily employed. They understandably feel that the money they have paid into the fund is theirs and that they are being penalized by virtue of being steady employees.
In order to remove this feeling of dissatisfaction may I make the following proposal to the Minister of Labour. Can some consideration be given to protecting the unemployment insurance fund by making the contributions of the employee payable to his estate if the contributor never draws on the fund? The estate created by his contributions might be a very modest one, but I think such a procedure might give some people the incentive to build up their contributions instead of thinking of ways and means of depleting the fund at every opportunity.
If such a plan were adopted the contributor would feel that his contributions would be a sort of savings fund. Even if the estate were a modest one I think it might be of some assistance to those in the lower income brackets who, after all, make up the larger number of people who pay into this fund. It might be of some comfort to the older workers who would know that some extra money is coming to their family if anything happens to them. By limiting the amount payable to the estate of the contributor to the actual contributions paid by him we could emphasize to him that it was his fund and that he is not being-if I may use the word-cheated out of his own money.
The minister may see disadvantages in my proposal. I have not spoken about it at great length because I can appreciate the tremendous administrative problems that would arise from such a scheme. However, I make this proposal because I think some consideration should be given to removing this understandable feeling which some of the people have that they are being unjustly penalized.



IS. 1959

The Chairman:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Douglas Jung: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that prior to the adjournment of this morning's session I had submitted a proposal to the Minister of Labour. This proposal was that in order to remove the feeling prevalent among many that those who are steadily employed subsidize those who are out of work, the contributions paid into the unemployment insurance fund by the steadily employed worker should be made payable to his estate.
I do not intend to repeat the remarks which I made this morning, and I shall conclude by saying that, in my opinion, such a scheme would not only make the contributor feel that he was really protecting his contributions to the extent that he will get all his money back if he has never drawn on the fund, but also I think that such a plan would slow the drain on the unemployment insurance fund because it would encourage people not to use their unemployment insurance benefits unless they really had to. This may be a very difficult plan to implement, and if I may be permitted to say so this is a very ambitious project. However, if the minister does not feel that this project can be implemented at this time, then I would urge that the government consider this plan on a broader basis so it will ultimately tie in with a national program of social security.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of delaying the passing of the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), but at the request of the Catholic and Canadian trade unions of Joliette, I should like to ask the minister to consider the possibility of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act in view of the fact that certain large categories of workers are not yet receiving the benefits and protection provided by the legislation. The Unemployment Insurance Act should be amended so that the benefits it provides might extend to workers in hospital and religious institutions. All that would be required would be to delete section 27 d and e of the said legislation.
Again at the request of farmers in the federal riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, and more especially cigar and cigarette
Supply-Labour
tobacco growers, I must say it would be of paramount importance that the minister consider the possibility of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, as soon as possible in order to make its benefits available to farm workers. So far, I have received many delegations of farmers from my riding who are having a hard time finding the farm help they need to operate successfully. I know that the government is looking into the possibility of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act and of making it easier for farmers to hire farm hands by allowing such workers to qualify for the benefits provided by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I admit that the administration of the legislation would be very difficult and complicated. It might be important, perhaps, to consider as soon as possible the possibility of extending the provisions of the act to farmers who grow special crops, such as producers of cigar or cigarette tobacco.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the Minister of Labour, as usual, will look into the possibility of introducing the necessary amendments so that farm workers may enjoy the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have several different topics I wish to say something about with regard to the first item of the labour estimates. First of all, I would like to say something about the winter works program following along the line taken the other day by my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo. In that context I would like to draw some attention again, as has been done once or twice before, to the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo about these municipal winter works projects, which answer is to be found in Hansard of April 22 at page 2928.
I am not going over the details of all these figures, but if they are compared, as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo compared them, with the latest available figures for unemployment in the different provinces and regions of this country, it will be found that this winter works program is effective in almost precisely inverse proportion to unemployment. This 50-50 arrangement has this effect in this field, as it unhappily has in so many others, that it follows the text: To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
That is particularly true in the case of the province, one constituency of which has done

Supply-Labour
me the honour of electing me to this parliament. It will be seen that unemployment in that province, according to the latest figures which the minister gave us, was very substantially higher than in any other part of Canada. The reasons for that have been given before and I am not going to go into them in greater detail now, except to say one thing. As the minister knows, there was a disastrous situation in the fisheries of Newfoundland last year, the kind of disaster which I am sure, if it had happened in any other province, would have been relieved by this parliament.
For some reason or other, however, despite the fact that it was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries in October before the date on which this winter works program was first announced at a political convention in Saskatchewan, nothing was done about it. That announcement was made, as I said, at a political convention of the provincial Tory party; the program which we were denied in parliament was announced at a Tory political convention with this fine disregard for the rights of parliament which unfortunately has been increasingly conspicuous in recent times. The government had promised to consider the suggestion which we put forward at that time and which was supported by all the members from Newfoundland. They promised to consider it when this question arose in the month of January; the Prime Minister told us on the second day of the session, I believe it was, that it was still under consideration. Two days later, or it may have been slightly longer, the Minister of Labour told us that the matter was not being considered.
At one stage of an earlier debate the minister said it was not considered because the proposal was made too late. That was the excuse he made. I point out that the suggestion was made earlier than the winter works program proposed to the municipalities, and that it would not have involved anybody except the federal government. There would have been no problem whatever about carrying it out had there been the will.
The alternative which the government followed-the alternative of making a start upon the building of community stages for fishing settlements-was a very good one, and I commend the government for undertaking it. It was very good for those settlements in which it was done. However, as my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo pointed out, of some 1,300 settlements around the coast of Newfoundland, 20 were affected by this plan to build community stages, and many of the individual projects could not be proceeded 
with last winter because the program was announced so late. Nevertheless, I may say that the people in those communities are grateful for what is being done.
I hope that next winter the scheme will be extended, and I hope the extension will be announced while we are still here. There is no reason why it should not be announced tomorrow. I can give the Minister of Fisheries a list of the settlements where these community stages would be of permanent benefit to the communities. I can provide him with that list any day he asks for it. The timber could be cut in the fall, and though construction cannot go on while there is ice in the sea, the work could be done early in the spring before the fishing season opens. That would be a real help. I know the Minister of Labour, who is genuinely interested in helping to alleviate unemployment, will at least give serious consideration to this suggestion.
With regard to the winter program itself, as the minister knows there are practically no municipalities in Newfoundland, apart from St. John's and Corner Brook, in the sense in which municipalities exist in other parts of the country, and this program in its original form, was not geared to conditions in Newfoundland at all, though this was the province with the greatest proportion of unemployment. It is true that a provision was subsequently made, as the minister pointed out one day in the house, and I want to be completely fair about this matter, enabling the province to act in lieu of a municipality.
Again, I do not intend to weary the committee by going back to the record, but if hon. members care to look at the speeches which were made by the Liberal members for Newfoundland on the last day of the session, or the day before the last day, and one day before that, they will see that we appealed to the government to implement term 29 of the terms of union without delay. I can tell the minister that if this had been done, and if that money had been paid at the time it should have been paid, and at the time the people of Newfoundland had a right to it, the treasury of Newfoundland would have been in a position to have done things under this winter works program which it has not been able to do. The denial by this government of money which rightfully belonged to the province under the constitution has already, I suspect, cost the province at least half a million dollars in unnecessary interest charges. That $500,000, if it had been spent on a winter work program, would have meant that instead of there being only 26 projects on which $49,000 was spent a very considerably greater sum might have been undertaken.

I myself know of many projects which were suggested but which the provincial government felt could not be proceeded with because there was just not enough leeway in the treasury. Why was this? It was because this government was not sufficiently interested to do something which would have caused very little debate in this house at that time. It was because the government failed to act upon a unanimous request of the house of assembly in Newfoundland asking that they should receive money to which they were entitled under the confederation agreement.
As the text said, to him that hath shall be given. And now we have insult added to injury, and a member of the present government goes to Newfoundland and claims, first of all, that the treasury has received money which has certainly not been paid. Even worse, he claims that the treasury has received funds whose payment has not yet even been authorized by parliament. The Minister of Justice told us this morning that $55 million had been paid into the treasury of Newfoundland last year. He told the board of trade last night that it was $100 million; then he found his arithmetic was all wrong, and changed it to $55 million. His arithmetic is still wrong, because as nearly as one can judge from the budget papers which I have in front of me the figures in respect of payments to Newfoundland including transitional and additional grants amount to $14.7 million. Of that $14.7 million, $13.5 million is called a special grant under the terms of union. Not only has that grant not been paid, but it has not even been voted.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: What has that got to do with the winter works program?


John Whitney Pickersgill: One of the reasons why the winter works program was almost a complete failure in Newfoundland was the neglect by this government of its duty to treat Newfoundland as the province has the right to be treated under the constitution, and if that is not related a great deal more to the minister's estimates than the debates about provincial matters we heard at earlier stages in this committee, I cannot think what would be.
Having made that point, I do not intend to continue on the subject because there will be another occasion on which to do so. I hope that occasion will not be long delayed, because this money has still not been voted. Until it is, and until it is made available, necessary services which would provide employment cannot be proceeded with.
I return to this 50-50 formula. The 50-50 formula makes it very easy for relatively
Supply-Labour
prosperous municipalities where the tax base is high and where unemployment is relatively low to embark on schemes for providing employment. But these projects do cause an additional strain upon areas which need help most, the areas where unemployment is highest. I say that this 50-50 method of dealing with this matter is utterly inadequate. It is not only inadequate in relation to the total number of unemployed in the country, but it is inadequate by reason of its method of application. I agree with the minister that we cannot expect this winter works program to provide for all the unemployed in this country. Nobody would be so foolish, I hope, as to suggest that. But to the extent that some employment can be provided in the winter time under this plan, the idea is a good one.
I believe that if an equitable provision is to be made for all Canadians, and if all are to be treated alike, a formula different from the 50-50 formula has to be provided. Indeed, it seems to me that particularly in the Atlantic provinces where unemployment has been regrettably at a much higher level than it has in any other part of the country and where there are in addition a good many very urgently needed federal works that, in some cases, could be timed a bit better-and I shall have something more to say about that when we are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Public Works, statements that have been made before in these debates- a greater effort should be made by the government to accelerate these works. The government should go on to provide a larger share of winter works directly in the form of federal works than has been done up to now.
I believe it was the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam who said he felt sorry for the minister because his colleagues in the cabinet who are responsible for economic policy were not here during the consideration of the minister's estimates. These hon. gentlemen have a much larger share of the responsibility for the level of employment and the consequent level of unemployment than has the minister. I quite agree with what was said in this respect. I agree that it is the policies above of all of the Minister of Finance and to some degree of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and certain other ministers that have a much larger effect on determining the level of employment. The Minister of Labour because he happens to have the responsibility of the unemployment insurance commission must bear the brunt of criticisms that most of us direct not against the Minister of Labour but against the government as a whole with respect to the question of unemployment.
In spite of the recovery that is very marked and, which we on this side hope is going to

Supply-Labour
be very much more marked as the year goes on, we are going to have from this recent recession, as we have had from every recession since the war, an increasing number of people who are left stranded by the recession and the technological changes that follow a recession. In my opinion, one of the most useful suggestions made in this parliament for some time was the suggestion made a week ago by the hon. member for Trinity that a massive retraining program should be undertaken and this problem should not just be tossed off on the provincial governments or local authorities.
This is something for which a good foundation has been laid over the years by vocational grants, the progressive improvement of vocational schools and the progressive training of competent instructors in these schools. While everything cannot be done at once it is perfectly obvious that a very great deal more could be done. If we are going to meet the problems of change, instead of trying to bolster up uneconomic industries in the places where they are, a great deal along this line is going to have to be done and in a big way.
There is another problem that is relatively new. I am not criticizing the minister for this because it is not his responsibility at the present time. I am suggesting in some way or other it ought to be a responsibility of the unemployment insurance commission to see that the names of those who are unemployed for lengthy periods are kept in mind for employment opportunities as they arise.
We have the regrettable situation now that once a man or a woman has exhausted his stamps and ceases to get unemployment insurance there is a progressive tendency for that person to be forgotten and I am not blaming the commission for this because it is just in the nature of things. Such persons then have to go on provincial or local relief and while, if they are insistent enough, their names are kept on the rolls of the employment service, after a time they may be forgotten. I know there are many instances where this has happened and I know of experiences of this kind in the case of my own constituents whose names are dropped as dormant because these people having no income to live on except relief do not like to spend what little they have on 5 cent stamps to keep writing in to tell the offices to keep their names on the rolls. The result is that the people who have been out of work longest and need employment most and who should get first consideration receive last consideration. This was pointed out by several other hon. members and it is a particularly serious problem in Newfoundland with the
[Mr. Pickersglll.l
difficulties of communication we have there. In some way or other a radical new departure has to be made in this field.
I think the minister's department should give serious consideration to establishing some machinery for making sure that they keep track of those people and that an effort is made to see that they get a fair share of the employment that turns up. When a job comes along I do not blame the officials for saying, "Here is someone in St. John's who can do it," and forgetting that there are people in Bonavista who are equally competent to handle it. I do not blame them at all. However, we in parliament and especially those in the government should see that there is established machinery to prevent that happening. That is the point I am seeking to make and it is a highly important one.
Just as the St. Laurent government during the little recession of 1954-55 provided unemployment assistance on a 50-50 basis with the provinces, so a new step forward is going to have to be taken if we are going to have any considerable amount of continuing unemployment. I do not think a 50-50 contribution to relief is going to be adequate if the numbers are going to continue on unemployment relief that in some provinces were on unemployment relief in the past winter. I think we will have to go back and take another look at these proposals made by the government of which the hon. member for Essex East was a member in 1945. Those proposals were not put into effect, as everyone knows, because in the first place some of the provinces would not agree on them and in the second place because over a long period we had enjoyed virtually full employment or even more than full employment and the unemployment assistance problem was of a minor character, even in the winter time, until about 1954-55.
If this problem is going to drag on, even with a considerable measure of recovery, steps will have to be taken to solve it. In part because of the nature of the thing and in part because of the fact that an increasing number of people who are now unemployed are older people who experience difficulty in obtaining employment, a number are unskilled people and a number are people whose mobility is very limited; in view of all these circumstances the whole problem has to be looked at anew and in a different way.
A serious problem exists in Newfoundland despite what the Prime Minister said just a little over a year ago at Brantford. I just happen to have that reference before me and I have lots more like it. This appears in quotation marks and was reported in the Toronto Star of February 18, 1958, and is

an extract from a speech made the day before by the Prime Minister:
"The humblest of our people will not be forgotten," he promised. "The people who are unemployed will not be put in the false position of being put on relief."
There were no if's, and's or but's attached to that statement. It was unequivocal:
The people who are unemployed will not be put in the false position of being put on relief.
That was the promise upon which a good many of the 207 followers of the Prime Minister were elected to this house. That was the promissory note given on their behalf.
What do we find in the province of Newfoundland? In the month of March this year 7,018 families involving 37,321 persons received assistance in kind. Of these, 6,078 heads of families are employable. They and their dependants total 34,359 persons. I admit at once that, because of unemployment insurance for fishermen, that does include a considerable number of fishermen who were not able to qualify last year for unemployment insurance because of the failure of the fishery and that it was abnormally inflated on that account. But regardless of whether or not that is taken into account, it is a very different picture from this promise. It so happens that that is the state of affairs in a province with, unhappily, the lowest per capita income in the country, a province which by this government was denied its just due, denied the means that it was entitled to to help cope with this problem, a province which was left with this problem despite that promise of the Prime Minister.
I do think the people of Canada are going to hold the Prime Minister to account for that promise on every occasion on which they have the opportunity to hold him to account, and I think he should be held to account because the people should not be encouraged with that kind of promise if there is no intention whatever to implement it. It is simply playing ducks and drakes with human lives.
In view of the financial position of the country after two years of Tory government I do not expect that we are going to have the government assuming the whole responsibility for unemployment assistance but I do think that in some fashion or other the government has got to find a way to implement that pledge at least in spirit if they cannot do it in letter, and I do not believe, of course, that they ever will do it in letter. I am not going to say that I do not believe they ever intended to but I say I do not believe they will in fact do it in letter.
Supply-Labour


Mr. Henderson:: Oh, they likely will.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You mean after the unemployed are all dead. Perhaps the hon. member might listen to this quotation from the Prime Minister. I had not intended to read it again. It has been read into the record a good many times but it bears repetition. It is from his Charlottetown speech and the report appeared in the Toronto Star of February 28, 1958, a promise in quotation marks which has never been denied.


An hon. Member:: It would be the authority.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it has been read over and over again and it has never been denied by the Prime Minister although he has had plenty of opportunities to deny it. The Prime Minister is pretty good at denying things. He denied the 15 per cent diversion of trade but he has never denied this. The report reads:
"I will make one more promise," the Prime Minister asserted.
"I have had experience, I know the lot of the average Canadian, I've gone through it," he said, dropping his voice and speaking in solemn tones.


An hon. Member:: Is that in there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that is right, "dropping his voice and speaking in solemn tones."


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, but this is a report by a very competent and reliable newspaperman.


Mr. Maclnnis:: There are reliable newspapers in Fredericton, too, Jack.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know there are a lot of members, especially from Cape Breton island, who do not like to be reminded about this pledge of the Prime Minister.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate does not want to be reminded of the affair in Fredericton either.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will deal with the hon. gentleman and his affair in Fredericton any time it is relevant to the rules and I will just tell the hon. gentleman right now-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, this is relevant. I am not going to deal with anything that is irrelevant. What did his leader and the maritime candidates promise at that great Atlantic assembly in Moncton in 1957? What did they promise? They promised that coal production would be increased in the maritime provinces and more employment would be given.


Donald MacInnis: No, they did not; that is not so.

Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: What has happened? They are now paying the fares of miners to go to northern Ontario. That is what is happening.


An hon. Member:: Talk about Manitoba.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I do not mind talking about Manitoba either. I will say this about Manitoba. Manitoba has suffered less from the recession than any other part of Canada because for years and years it had a good Liberal government running its affairs, a prudent government, and the lowest provincial taxation level in the country.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Why did they vote Tory then?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am going to come back-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must remind hon. members that one speaker has the floor at the present time and I would ask them to kindly refrain from interrupting too frequently. May I also remind the hon. member that we are discussing labour estimates and will he please relate his comments to the same.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be delighted to come back to this "let no one suffer" pledge. If hon. members have forgotten the beginning of it I can read it again but perhaps that would be trespassing unduly on the patience of the Minister of Labour. I continue with the quotation:
"I am not here for the purpose of telling of my experience in my early days until well into my late teens"-


An hon. Member:: What has that got to do with labour?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would like to listen he would learn that this is in 1958 when the Prime Minister was really concerned about the plight of the unemployed. I continue:
"I know, I know ... a man who is unemployed is a human being, not a statistic.
That knowledge is not peculiar or special to the Prime Minister. The rest of us know it too.
"I make this promise. We acted."
I do not know in what sense he used the word "acted" but I leave it to hon. members to imagine. Certainly it was not in the sense of doing anything about the matter. The way they acted was to send parliament packing before we could see what a financial mess there was in the country brought about by their policies. They acted to have an election in order to make promises like this that have not been kept. That is the way they acted.
"We acted. My pledge is to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed"-
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
To every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed.
-"so long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation."
There is lots more like this.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Martel:: Mr. Chairman, after all those long speeches by hon. members in the opposition, there is, of course, not much more to say. I thought that, somehow, there would be an end to the spate of words we have been hearing the last few days, first on the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and now on the estimates of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).
Mr. Chairman, I have little to add. I just want to make a few remarks of general interest, and more particularly with regard to the people in my riding.
Before tackling the main neglect, I would like to point out that, after listening to several hon. members who spoke about these matters, and especially hon. members for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who took part in this morning's debate, I fully endorse their remarks as to the special attention that should be given to the rural areas. It is a recognized fact that farming areas are faced with a very special problem, and I am convinced that the hon. Minister of Labour will seriously consider any suggestion that has been made to solve that problem.
Mr. Chairman, I know that there has been some improvement in the Unemployment Insurance Act, but I trust that future amendments will further improve it.
Mr. Chairman, I would also refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) last week, i.e. on May 8, which is to be found on pages 3476 to 3479 of the official record. I do not fully approve what he has said, but he nevertheless made certain statements with which I agree. They mainly concern seasonal unemployment which, as the hon. member said, is due to the climate of this country.
I also agree with the hon. member's remarks about the letter of His Eminence Cardinal Leger on the unemployment insurance problem. I believe that this distinguished figure of the Catholic church has set an example in that field, by asking the authorities to intervene and by personally organizing a works program, last winter, to help relieve the unemployment problem in the city of Montreal.
Many members of the opposition, including the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) and the one who just

resumed his seat, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), have stated that the winter works program of the federal government had not yielded favourable results; I believe those hon. members are ill-informed and do not want to admit the good results achieved by the Conservative government's initiative. In my area, at any rate, the winter works program has been fairly substantial and has given very interesting results. In many cities, the program helped reduce the number of unemployed and, in this connection, and for the record, I should like, Mr. Chairman, to refer to certain articles published in the newspapers of my area, particularly in the Val d'Or Star of April 15 last, page 4, or again to a more recent issue of that same paper, that is the one of May 7, as well as to the May 7, issue of the Echo Abitibien. In their summary of the work done by the employment office last winter, those newspapers report that in each of the winter months, the number of unemployed in my area has been less than it was the previous year.
Of course, there are still difficulties because of seasonal unemployment, when workers are without jobs in the wintertime. Of course, things would be the same every winter. However, in March and April, just to take those two as illustrations, the Val d'Or employment office reported a drop of close to 1,000 in the number of unemployed as compared with a year before, and things are much the same at the Rouyn office, whose territory covers a large section of my constituency, both for purposes of unemployment insurance and as an employment bureau. The Rouyn office is also responsible for the area north of the Pontiac-Temiscamingue constituency, and the western section of the Chapleau constituency.
In the light of statistics issued by the local office of the national employment service, it is found that unemployment has markedly decreased during the winter. There are still problems, of course, but I am sure the Conservative government will not evade them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the number of unemployed in your constituency at this time?


Jean-Jacques Martel: At the present time, according to the local N.E.S. office, figures for the month of April show that there were 3,446 applications for employment, as compared to 4,390 a year ago.
66968-9-235
Supply-Labour


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is serious.


Jean-Jacques Martel: It is serious enough, but at this time of the year, you have to realize that as in past years, construction work has not yet started, though things should be picking up any day now. It must also be realized that road, housing and public building construction jobs should be starting soon. According to a report which appeared in the Thursday, May 7 issue of I'Echo Abitibien, the local N.E.S. office has made the following statement in this regard, and I quote:
Resumption of logging operations, together with the various construction projects scheduled to start soon in the district, will certainly provide employment for many jobless workers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Labour -I have already submitted the matter to him in a letter I sent him-to a brief which was submitted in January 1955 to the former government, about a relief program for employable unemployed. May I put on record the following findings of the brief.
The Canadian Council of Social Welfare urges all governments in Canada, that is the federal, provincial and municipal governments, to take all necessary steps to bring about a conference on the matter of relief for employable unemployed, in order to best determine the sharing of government responsibilities in meeting the needs of the unemployed who are not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act, and to guarantee the establishment of a program for the above mentioned group, as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Unemployment Insurance Act covers the cases mentioned in the findings of the Canadian Council of Social Welfare, but I would like to call the attention of the minister to the conditions which exist in areas like mine, where many communities are not incorporated and where family heads must, occasionally, turn to this form of assistance because they are unemployed. Under this act, provincial and municipal authorities must co-operate, but in the case of unorganized communities, or communities without a municipal council, I believe that the federal government should consider the matter with a view to bringing about a solution and to help alleviate in these most difficult times the hardship suffered by the unemployed in those communities.
Before closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the statement made a few days ago by the hon. member

Supply-Labour
for Bonavista-Twillingate, a statement that rather surprised me. "When the discussion was concluded after many interruptions, I did not want to mention it, but I did make note of it and I merely wish to set the record straight. To avoid any misunderstanding, I shall quote from the official record-not, of course, the whole statement-because a lot has been said on this subject these last few days-and I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house, but the hon. member said, as reported on page 3598 of Hansard of May 12:
(Text):
... I recall to the minds of hon. members that this measure would not be on the statute books but for the fortunate circumstance that Mr. Mackenzie King was undiscouraged by the refusal of the present premier of Quebec to agree to an amendment to the constitution to make it possible. As soon as the Liberals won the election in Quebec in 1939 and agreed to a constitutional amendment this legislation was possible and was put on the statute books by a Liberal government.
(Translation):
Well, sir, what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate forgot to add is the manner in which Mr. Mackenzie King and the Liberal government had amended the constitution. That amendment was made by means of a telegram. He did not choose to mention that. And I am sure that if he checks on it, he will find that this amendment was made by the federal government by means of a telegram and that the provincial government's reply came the same way.
I believe it is unconstitutional to make an amendment in such a way.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a comment or two upon some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Oxford, who felt that the Minister of Labour was losing some of his popularity and who attempted to suggest that the reason for this was the critical comments of opposition members about governmental policy. If the minister's popularity is slipping, I submit it is only because of the people with whom he is associated in the cabinet. It is the entire Conservative cabinet attitude which is getting more unsavoury all the time. If the minister agrees with what was said by the hon. member for Oxford, he merely has to look around him and try to perk up the ideas and policies of his deskmates. Maybe then he too will be getting back on the pedestal to which he was climbing up a while ago.

I was interested in one thing that was said by my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in an off-handed remark in reference to something which happened in Manitoba yesterday. He said that the reason that they did not suffer in Manitoba to the degree that they had suffered in other provinces was that they had had a Liberal government out there for so many years, which government had some rather progressive policies and thereby had protected Manitobans against the policies of this particular government. Then in the next breath he turns around and complains about the poor economic conditions and the suffering that takes place in Newfoundland. I wonder whether he would associate his remarks with the Liberal government in Newfoundland as he did with the Liberal government in Manitoba? I am quite sure he would not say some things and say that Premier Smallwood is to blame for the suffering that takes place in Newfoundland. But nevertheless that rather paradoxical situation in which he finds himself is indicative of the general Liberal quandary that they have been in for quite some time.
I should like to give one indication of support to a suggestion made initially, I believe, by the hon. member for Laurier, and the request was supported by other Liberal members. I refer to the possibility of holding over the administration item until other matters in the department had been dealt with. I support that suggestion and I have done so for a long period of time. My support is not restricted to the request in so far as it applies to the Department of Labour but 1 think it could be also applied to other departments. Often times we find-and it may even be so in the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Labour now -that once you get past the administration item and get into some of the other items that follow and some of the details, questions arise either by answers of the minister in which he includes matters not specifically connected with that particular item that might be under discussion at that time and we find the desire arising in many members to speak about something that should have been dealt with on the administration item but they were not familiar with it because the information was not available or had not been given by the particular minister at that time. I believe this process was followed, if I am not mistaken, when we considered the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I believe we left the first item over and took it as the last item

for consideration in that department's estimates and it worked out very well.


Michael Starr: The suggestion was that the
first item be left over until the end of the session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Frank Howard: I misunderstood. I thought
it was until the estimates of the Department of Labour had been concluded. Then I must qualify the support I gave to the suggestion and say that I support that suggestion only in so far as putting it at the end of the estimates of that particular department in order to pick up the tag ends of questions that could be dealt with under general administration.
In so far as the winter works program is concerned, I have a comment or two to make about that matter. However, I should like to mention a series of things on the general matter. Some of them apply specifically to the constituency of Skeena. Others are of more general application. The suggestion has been made to the minister that when contracts are let for federal government public works projects a provision should be contained in those contracts to the effect that people from the locality where the work is being done be used to the greatest possible extent.
At the present time and during the last winter they were working in Prince Rupert on an airport. Because of conditions which were not specifically provided for in the contract or may not even have been under the jurisdiction of the minister we found employees being hired to work on that particular airport project coming out of Vancouver and coming up to Prince Rupert, while people who had lived in Prince Rupert a great deal of their lives were unemployed and were unable to get work on the airport job because of this situation that existed so far as the relationships were concerned between the contractor doing the work and the unions with whom he had collective agreements.
I realize that this matter could invade the jurisdiction of provincial governments in so far as their certification and bargaining processes are concerned. I certainly think the minister, wherever he possibly can arrange it, should ensure that local people are given the first consideration in jobs on projects that come under the federal government. If to another one of the promises which the Tories made when they were elected the minister had applied himself as assiduously as he applies himself to some other things, maybe we would have been moving in the direction where this situation could have been overcome with more ease than is possible at the present time.
66968-9-235J
Supply-Labour
We have a problem also with respect to the operation of the national employment service in keeping a record of jobs available and so on, in that this service does not seem to operate too effectively when it comes to attempting to provide employment for native Indian people. The attitude of some of the officials-I would not say a great number of them-in the N.E.S. offices that I have spoken of appear to look upon the Indian as being outside of their jurisdiction and they do not give the Indian the consideration that should be given to that person in seeking employment. I do not suggest that this is a matter of conscious discrimination on the part of N.E.S. officials against Indians. It may be part of our whole attitude toward Indians in that they may not even come to the N.E.S. offices as much as would nonIndian persons. But this attitude exists and I do not think the fullest possible consideration is being given by the N.E.S. offices in attempting to find employment for native Indian people. This means a great deal, of course, in the northern part of the country. It means a great deal in the constituencies of Skeena and Cariboo where there are a great number of native Indian people. When you get farther away from areas that are populated to any degree by native Indians the problem becomes less difficult. But I certainly think that some consideration should be given to that particular aspect of it.
I certainly endorse the suggestion that the too little, too late approach to the winter works program of last winter could easily exist again this coming winter. I am not sure whether the minister dealt fully with the argument from the Liberal members as to the preparation by municipalities, and the planning that is necessary in order to enter into certain types of projects. The minister mentioned the budgetary and fiscal arrangements which the municipalities must make and suggested that he had had some experience in this field, as I understand he has. I do not think it is a question of preparation of the municipal budgets and the levying of taxes and so on necessary to carry out certain types of work as much as it is a question of attempting-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I did not mention that.


Frank Howard: The minister mentioned the question of budgets and that these budgets had already been prepared this year.


Michael Starr: Because it was brought to my attention that budgets had to be taken into consideration.

Supply-Labour


Frank Howard: That is precisely what I am saying. This argument, I think, should not be given so much weight. You should not give as much consideration to budgets being an important factor in the preparation of winter works as you should to the planning of the work itself, the drawing of the plans, the survey work which has to be done, the contracts which have to be let, the bidding, searching around for materials, and so on. That type of planning is what I am talking about.
The municipalities should have as much notice as they can possibly get in advance, and today is not too soon for the government to indicate to them that next winter they will be participating in certain types of winter works cost-sharing programs so that the municipalities can start to prepare the necessary plans and draw up the sketches and see how much they can do and how much money they can allocate, and that sort of thing, rather than waking up in the middle of a November morning and saying, "We will go over the whole rat race again", merely because the government did not make this announcement sooner.
The minister mentioned something about August or September, and he said that at that time the government may be in a position to announce what things the winter works program might include for the coming year. That to me is not sufficient. Surely the government should have some opinion now, based on this experience which it has gone through in the last few months, as to whether or not it is possible to go into the question in the next winter. It does not appear to be too complicated unless-and this is the reason for the refusal of the minister to make any comment or any announcement so far as next year's work is concerned -the government is planning to greatly expand the field of types of works which the municipalities can go into within which the federal government will participate. If that is the reason and the government is going to expand it to include such things as municipal buildings and so on, then I wish the minister would say that so that the municipalities may have an idea where they might be able to expand the type of projects they are going to go into.
I would now like to comment about the attitude of the government and of the minister toward this question of the numbers of unemployed. Invariably during this session we find references are made to the comparison between the numbers of unemployed this year and those last year at a similar time. I understand that in some cases it has been lower; the number of unemployed has been lower than what it was, say,

a year ago. This is in effect saying that the government has accepted the principle that there should be twice as many unemployed as there were before they took office, and they are trying to create the impression, even by their own statistics-the ones they use which are most beneficial to the government-that half a million people unemployed across Canada is normal and that we should not worry too much about it, when they should know full well that it is something they should concern themselves with.
For two years we have been running at double, and more than double in some cases, the number of unemployed people which we had before the government took office. In all fairness to the people and to this parliament, the government and the minister should make references to or comparisons between the time before they took office and the start of the high level of unemployment after they took office, instead of trying to cover up and leave the impression with the general public that things are not quite so bad as last year and leave the impression that this government accepts the fact that half a million people unemployed is something which is normal and we should not worry too much about it. As long as we keep below the figure or not too much above it they think our economy is running along pretty smoothly. That is a pretty callous attitude to take toward these people who are unemployed and have been unemployed for many months, and who have not much to look forward to except unemployment again this coming winter.
I had a note to make a comment about automation and the necessity of a retraining program and a channelling of the services, abilities and skills of people lost to a given industry and moving into some other type of service or program. My friend from Bona-vista-Twillingate mentioned this and made reference to the hon. member for Trinity having been the first to espouse or propound the idea-this is absolute nonsense and my friends from Bonavista-Twillingate and Trinity know it-that the Liberal party came up with this suggestion first in the land, and so on. That is not so and they know it. All they have been doing in the opposition is carrying on the practice of thievery of other people's ideas, taking them as their own and saying, "We thought of this first." I do not mind. I have said many times when the Liberals were in office, and I say it now when the Tories are in office, that if you want to steal part of our program that is all right with us. But why do you not take the whole thing? We do not mind. All we are concerned with is putting these ideas into effect, and I do not care whether a Liberal government puts them

into effect or whether a Conservative government puts them into effect, or even a C.C.F. government. The only slight difference is that if a C.C.F. government put them into effect they would be done properly and not in a half-hearted fashion.
I want to make a comment about uniformity of legislation in so far as the labour field is concerned, and in particular as far as employing local people. At the present time, as the minister knows, and as I am sure every hon. member knows, we have eleven sets of varying types of labour legislation in Canada. We have those under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. Then we have each of the ten provinces with the authority by constitution to develop and pass their own particular legislation. This allows a very unwise, and I think unfortunate, situation to develop where we have eleven different sets of laws applying to people all across Canada, and applying to employers and to the working class people who deal through unions with their employers. We have industries which cross provincial boundaries. The meat packing industry is a prime example. The steel industry is another, the lumber industry and the pulp and paper industry in Newfoundland, for example the Bowater company; and the employees in those other provinces are treated more fairly than they are in Newfoundland when it comes to legislation. The point I am getting at is that the great necessity exists for the minister to concern himself less with going to Geneva and more with concentrating upon uniformity of legislation in the provinces in an attempt to-


Michael Starr: I am not concerned with going to Geneva. I think that is uncalled for.


Frank Howard: I beg your pardon?


Michael Starr: I say, I am not so concerned about going to Geneva. I think that is most uncalled for.


Frank Howard: The minister says, "I think that is most uncalled for."


Michael Starr: If my work requires me to be here I will be here, and I do not think it is up to the hon. member to determine whether I should or should not be here anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: It might not be up to me to determine whether the minister should be here or not; that is entirely his business. I made no reference to whether he should be here or not, or whether he has decided, rightly or wrongly, to be here at the moment. He is here at the moment and we are considering his estimates. If he likes to go some place else, that is his business. I do not
Supply-Labour
know why he is getting so excited or uppity about it, unless I touched on a sore point.
I will put it in a more delicate fashion as the minister seems so sensitive about it. If the minister would apply himself to some of these problems under his jurisdiction, such as the question of uniformity of legislation, more so than he has in the past, we might have some sensible type of legislation throughout Canada. We might see more desire on the part of the people who have to work under the act to operate in a more sensible fashion.
The minister was very concerned about this when he sat on the opposition side of the house and when he was campaigning around the country. It is well known that one of the subjects on which he and his friends campaigned was the uniformity of legislation. They said they would bend every effort in the direction of establishing uniform legislation in Canada. So far, nothing has been accomplished and we would appreciate an answer from the minister telling the committee exactly what he proposes should happen in the future with regard to uniformity of legislation. We hope he can do this before the present debate concludes, and before he leaves to attend whatever function he has in mind.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, like many other members, I was very much surprised and disappointed that the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) refused to let the first item of his budget stand so that we could come back to it later; while in the meantime we could examine any necessary legislation.
The minister told us that the 50 per cent share of the salaries paid to employees working on municipal winter projects has been of very great help. We readily agree. According to the figures supplied by the minister, winter work projects provided employment for 37,000 unemployed but that is out of a total of more than 550,000 people, which indicates that it is entirely inadequate and that we are right in asking the government to introduce a legislation capable of solving the biggest part of the problem. Whether there be 550,000 or 600,000 or 700,000 or 450,000 unemployed in Canada in the wintertime, that is too many. It is a situation which is abnormal for Canada, a young, productive and growing country. Therefore, we have the right to ask the government and the hon. minister to introduce some adequate legislation before the end of this session.
The minister tells us that he will wait until August or September to see how much unemployment there will be at that time.

Supply-Labour
I remember, that ever since they came to power, the Conservatives have never wanted to face facts. I also recall that, in the beginning, when we were speaking of the extent of unemployment, when we were saying that our position was serious, we were told that we were crepe hangers and that all we wanted was to create an impression of hardship in Canada. Yet, though they wanted to ignore it, unemployment has shown its real face and, at this time, even if we accept the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr Fleming) to the effect that there is a general recovery of business in this country, we cannot say that unemployment is going to vanish overnight. We are certain that, next winter, unemployment will be on a much larger scale than in the winters which preceded the coming into power of the Conservative party. The latter may not be entirely responsible for those conditions. But those conditions are here. We are facing a problem. There are more unemployed in Canada than there should be. At this time, official statistics give us a figure of about 500,000 unemployed, which does not illustrate the actual situation, because those figures do not take into account the many thousands of people without jobs, who, for the past year, have not been working enough to be entitled to benefits, and who, at this time, are falling back on the municipalities.
What is the government doing? What legislation has it enacted to help municipalities in that field? It is not sufficient to have some winter works done in order to help municipalities to get out of the situation that forces them, in the matter of relief, to spend the huge amounts that they did not use to spend.
To quote but one case, in the city of Hull, in 1955, the amount provided by the provincial government and by the municipality for public relief was $188,000. In 1959 the amount, including the provincial government contribution that the municipality will spend, will reach $588,000. The difference is extraordinary. We cannot ask the municipalities to assume responsibility for the present unfavourable conditions which are not their doing. Yet, the burden falls heaviest on them.
Can we blame the municipalities if Canada's foreign trade has substantially decreased? Can we blame municipalities for our production surpluses? Can we blame them if the cost of certain commodities is too high to compete with foreign products? Can we blame municipalities if the Prime Minister, when he came
	.
to power, announced that famous 15 per cent decrease of Canada's trade with the United States, a step which vexed our neighbours and made them take steps that are detrimental to Canadian trade? The municipalities cannot be held responsible for all those things. It is the federal government which is responsible for all the steps it has taken. Why does not the federal government admit today that there is a problem, one for the government to solve? Besides, the provincial governments admit there is a problem, but a problem which goes beyond normal winter unemployment.
A law has been enacted to increase certain taxes, or to impose new ones; but that will not solve the problem. The Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced to help those who are suffering from unemployment, on a temporary or seasonal basis. It was not drafted in such a way as to provide for an extraordinary situation like the one which we are now facing. A new law should be enacted, which would protect the unemployed who have not enough stamps to get their benefits, protect those who have not worked long enough to be entitled to those benefits, and protect the municipalities which are now in a deplorable situation, lacking the sources of revenue available to the federal government or its powers of taxation. And we have seen, this year, that the federal government indeed has powers of taxation.
The federal government should introduce adequate legislation which could alleviate the hardships suffered by the municipalities, and cure the prevailing disorder.
A moment ago, I heard the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) ask the minister to extend the Unemployment Insurance Act to hospital employees, to those who work in religious institutions, and to farm hands. If it is the minister's intention to suggest such changes, assuming they are needed-I am not as familiar as the member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm with the problem of farm labour-the Minister of Labour should be in a position, before the end of this session, to put forward new legislation to try to remedy the problem. However, we ask him to let the first item stand until the end of the session, on the understanding that we will pass the other items as quickly as possible, though giving them fairly close attention. Then we might hope that the government would come forward with legislation which

would help settle present conditions. But how does the minister react to our suggestion? He tells us to wait and see, and that there is no need to let the first item stand. Yet there is nothing extraordinary in such a request. It was granted in several cases when the Liberals were in office, particularly where Mr. Abbott, agreed to postpone consideration of a budget item to allow for its consideration at a later date.
I also recall that when I was a member of the Quebec legislature-again, it is true, this was under a Liberal administration-it was customary, though I am told this is no longer the case, to postpone consideration of the first item of every department until the last day of the session. So if anything came up before the end of a session, we were thus able to come back and explain to the minister why we were calling upon him to settle this or that problem. Today, however, the government is apparently afraid that the Liberal party, or the socialist party, may rise and bring up points which might cause embarrassment to the government.
But all we are asking for, all that we want, is an improvement of the situation for those who are in need. That is all we ask. We ask the government to introduce legislation, and if we find it sound and capable of curing the existing ills, we will help put it through.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that if the minister would let the first item of his department stand, we could certainly adopt it quickly at the end of the session.
If only the government would care to solve the existing problems. But far from it. The government wants to ignore the problem. They believe that the situation will solve itself, that those problems have cropped up by themselves and will disappear in the same way. Well, Mr. Chairman, we do not see it that way. We believe the government has a very great responsibility in regard to the situation prevailing at the present time, and that it must introduce legislation which would, first of all, help the department of public welfare and the municipalities to solve that problem. In fact, municipalities are now spending thousands of dollars which they would not have to spend were the government to adopt some legislative measure allowing the seasonal unemployed, and those who do not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits because they have not enough hours of work to their credit for the year, to get help from the present government.
Supply-Labour
Direct assistance to the unemployed is the federal government's business. The present situation looks very much like the one which prevailed from 1930 to 1935. We are of the opinion that we cannot afford to wait until this plague kills the population. The government must act at once. That is what we are asking. And yet, the minister is there lulling himself into the belief that everything will turn out all right. He seems to believe, indeed naively, that the statements made by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance outside the house are gospel truth and that everything will turn out all right, as by magic.
Well, Mr. Chairman, "to govern is to foresee": a government that does not foresee is remiss in its duty, and if the government is not remiss in its duty, then it is simply lacking in the necessary intelligence to govern the country at the present time, according to its needs. I believe it is rather that latter quality which is lacking in the government, since it does not seem to grasp the importance of the situation.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I urge the minister to kindly agree to let that first item of his department stand; the other items could then be adopted rapidly. If he agrees to postpone the consideration of that first item, I can assure you that we will not take advantage of that to press on our demands constantly, but merely to ask him to introduce the proper and necessary legislation.
If the government refuses to recognize the evil when it exists, they must expect us to ask them to assume their responsibilities, something they should have done, in any case, in the two years during which they have been running the country.
It is my contention that the government has neglected the situation. It has made some efforts towards solving the unemployment problem, finding jobs for 37,000 workers when there were over 550,000 unemployed across the country. That is just a drop of water in an ocean. Surely, the government must do more than that, because the figure of 550,000 unemployed does not represent the true situation; the number of unemployed was greater, because statistics provided by unemployment insurance offices included only people who qualified for unemployment insurance. However, the thousands of workers who do not qualify require special attention from the government, yet they are being overlooked.

Supply-Labour
Municipalities are being driven almost to bankruptcy as a result of such conditions. Can you imagine a city such as Hull, with a population of about 50,000, spending $588,000 on winter works? It would be doing more, proportionately, than the federal government has done across the country last winter. The result is that municipalities are forced to help the unemployed, because as human beings, we cannot allow people to starve in a country enjoying prosperity. Besides, those people would not be suffering hardship, and municipalities would not be driven to bankruptcy or very near it, if the federal government would just assume its responsibility and work out a solution to such problems.
We urge the government to introduce and adopt the legislation needed to solve this problem. We, in the opposition, have only one method open to us to protect our ability to carry out our duties, and that is to ask the Minister of Labour to allow the first item of his estimates to stand, so that we may renew our demands at some future date. However, if he refuses to grant this, if he is satisfied just to sit there and what for problems to settle themselves, let him take that responsibility before the people and the municipal governments.
(Text):


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words in support of the minister's program of winter work. We have listened to three speakers who have participated in this debate, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the hon. member for Skeena and to some extent the hon. member for Hull who said just about everything that could be said by one who had little or no appreciation of this program. But in the same breath they said, "We want more".


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, we do.


Frank Howard: The hon. member misinterprets what I said.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I take the position that this is one of the finest programs that has been put into effect by this government and I rise at this time to express my commendation of it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is good but it should be expanded.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: This program was introduced at the request of the common people and of the municipalities throughout this great dominion. They asked to be given the opportunity to suggest projects which would give employment to people in their communities. The municipalities of Canada asked for this winter works program and they were given it. They suggested various winter works 
projects, 50 per cent of the labour cost being borne by the federal government. In the province of Alberta the provincial government bore 25 per cent of the cost of the program and the local communities bore the other 25 per cent.
This is a good working arrangement which ensures that only those projects chosen are those in the best interests of the community, the taxpayer and above all the worker. In other words, by permitting these municipalities to choose these works projects they are able to get certain work done which otherwise would be left undone and at the same time give employment to those two or three or half a dozen people you so often find in small communities who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. In my constituency of Macleod this program has been very well received. Wherever there have been unemployed people the local communities have requested approval of such projects as stockpiling gravel, clearing roadways of brush and trees so that road work could be carried on in the following summer, and many other projects.
I should like to suggest to the minister that in so far as it is possible to increase the number and types of projects which will qualify under the program it would be greatly appreciated by the towns and municipalities of my constituency. In other words, in a cold climate where you cannot dig sewers in the winter and where it is not possible to do many of those things which would be done in the constituency of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate or those of others who live in areas where the climate is modified by the influence of the sea, we must have recognition for certain projects which we can do in order to provide winter work.
I may say that the preparation of historic sites and the building of roadways in connection with such sites are among some of the projects which I believe will be undertaken in my constituency in the coming winter. I hope that if and when the local people and historical associations enter upon this work that these projects will be given every consideration from the point of view of support under the winter works program.
In closing I want to compliment the Minister of Labour again for the work he has done and the excellent program he has brought forward. On behalf of those I have been working with in my constituency may I say that I have yet to find one municipal organization that has said that the program is not one of the finest that has been brought forward by this or any other government.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would the hon. member for Macleod permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Yes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Does he believe that the winter works program is sufficient in the face of the unemployment situation? We admit it is good but does he believe it is sufficient?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: The winter program is meant to take up the slack in certain areas where there are one, two, three or half a dozen people unemployed. The hon. member for Hull is talking about industrial development.
I will grant that there are communities where there has been a slackening of activity. In my area we have been faced with serious unemployment because of the closing down of the coal mines in the Crowsnest pass and we have been doing everything possible to create employment. It is a complicated problem which you cannot solve by any one particular measure. You have got to approach it from a number of angles. One way of approaching it, although it is not a complete solution, is the winter works program. It has helped to take up the slack. It has not met the whole problem by any means nor is it a long term solution. We have got to look to industrial development to correct the unemployment situation and give continuity to the employment of labour. But we must have these stopgap programs to take care of unemployment until such time as long term industrial development comes into being.


Alexis Pierre Caron: When there are so many unemployed who are not benefiting from the winter works program does the hon. member suggest that the government should try to settle the question in some other way or does he claim that the government should sit down and be satisfied with that legislation alone?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Order. I think that this exchange between the two hon. members has perhaps gone about as far as it should go.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I be permitted to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that we are in committee and once there is another speech I can rise and take another 30 minutes if I wish to. Even if the remarks are in the form of a question I am entitled to speak again.


Frank Charles McGee: I recognize that. I am not questioning the right of the hon. member to question another hon. member. I am wondering whether the discussion between the two hon. members concerned has not reached the point that we might pass on to the next hon. member.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think we are satisfied.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I really rise to ask one or two questions following up the
66968-9-236
Supply-Labour
questions I asked the minister last night about prevailing rates, but before I come to those questions I should like to make one observation about the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod. The hon. member for Macleod has said that the winter works program is a very fine one. We all agree that the idea behind the program is good but I think the hon. member has missed the point that we on this side are trying to make, that it is a better program for some provinces than it is for others.
It is a particularly good program for Alberta and I can understand the hon. member for Macleod being enthusiastic about all the work that was done, the projects that were started and the jobs that were created. But that happened in Alberta because Alberta is a rich province, and that is the burden of our complaint. On April 22 the minister gave me the information that for all Canada the cost of work under the program amounted to a little under $10 million, but out of that $10 million Alberta got $1,494,000. The hon. member, who is good at arithmetic, will realize that nearly 15 per cent of all the money was spent in Alberta. Compare that with what the maritime provinces got. All four maritime provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, together only got $736,000 or 7 per cent. All the maritime provinces together got less than half what the province of Alberta got.
I think that points up more than anything else the injustice of awarding grants on a 50-50 basis because it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. In addition, some provinces are rich because of the industrial development taking place to which the hon. member has referred. That is the source of their richness and because of that unemployment in those provinces is likely to be much less than in the maritime provinces where development is not taking place at such a rapid rate. That being the case, the least money is being spent where unemployment is the highest with more people out of jobs.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Would the hon. member say that the provinces he has mentioned were unable to obtain the 25 per cent, or the usual portion the provinces were required to put up, in order to co-operate in the plan, and that that was what made them unable to qualify?


Chesley William Carter: Exactly, because their treasuries would not permit them to match the grants. Do not forget that every province put up every dollar it could spare to match the dollar from the federal treasury. Together they could put up only $736,000. The province of Alberta alone, out of its riches, could put up nearly a million and a half dollars. There is

Supply-Labour
the difficulty, and there is the point we are trying to drive home. This type of proportion, this 50-50 proportion, is impossible for the maritimes. This formula reminds one of what the bible says in that it gives to him who hath and takes from him who hath not even the little which he has. Provinces like Newfoundland can be ruined by this 50-50 formula, and we think another formula must be developed if all Canadians are going to be treated alike.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is all I intend to say. These few remarks were inspired by the words of the hon. member for Macleod. I should like now to get back to the two questions which I want to ask of the minister. I quite understand that the minister may not have the information in front of him at the moment to enable him to give me an immediate answer. If that is the case, I will be happy if he will give the answer before the last item of his estimates is carried.
Last night the minister made a statement that his department recommends to other departments the prevailing rates for casual employees. The question I want to ask the minister is this: Has his department recently recommended a set of prevailing rates to the Department of Transport for the crew of the new icebreaker, I think she is going to be called the Sir Humphrey Gilbert, which is to be assigned to Newfoundland waters? If this is the case, would he also inform the house what those rates are for the different categories of men employed on the ship, and also if those rates were based on Newfoundland rates or if they were based on maritime rates generally?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two observations I did not get an opportunity to make before my time expired. I can assure the minister that, unlike some members of the committee, I do not intend to take three half-hour periods on the first item. No doubt this information will be a relief to some hon. members.
1 cannot forbear, however, to take a little notice of one or two observations that were made by the hon. member for Skeena. He purported to contrast the situation in the province where I was brought up with that of the province from which I was elected. He suggested that if I attributed the comparatively mild effects of the recession in Manitoba to a Liberal government, then I should impute blame for the greater effects of the recession in Newfoundland. In the first place, I would not give full credit to the Liberal government. We know that there were very great developments which came about in northern Manitoba which were partly responsible for this situation. What I
IMr. Carter.!
said was that the extraordinarily good administration, the low tax rates and general prudence with which affairs of that province had been administered, were in part responsible for the good economic climate.
In so far as the suffering in Newfoundland is concerned, of which there has been a great deal, unhappily, in this past year, I would say that I would hate to think what it would have been if it had not been for what the present premier of Newfoundland and some others were able to accomplish 10 years ago. In Newfoundland, right up until 10 years ago, there was a situation which did not exist, so far as I know, anywhere on the mainland of Canada. Up until the time of confederation the people who were unfortunate enough to be in need went on relief at six cents a day. This situation was all changed by confederation. The hon. member does not need to think that there is not a vast majority of the people in Newfoundland who know quite well who it was who took the Newfoundlanders, who unhappily were on the dole at six cents, off the dole.
I may say that the welfare system in Newfoundland, because there are no municipalities in the sense in which they exist in the rest of the country-except St. John's and Corner Brook-is entirely provincial. I believe it is operated, so far as I have been able to discover, quite efficiently. I am glad to say I have never had to get relief myself, but I have had a lot to do with people who have had misfortune and have had to get help. I think this welfare is administered with less red tape and just as humanely as anywhere in Canada because it is uniform all over the province. There are none of these residence requirements that are sometimes so vexing in the other provinces.
I can see the chairman getting restive and wondering what all this has to do with unemployment. Of course, you do not go on welfare unless you are unemployed, and you do not go on welfare if you are covered by unemployment insurance, or generally you do not unless there are some very special circumstances. It was precisely because the situation in Newfoundland, from a financial standpoint, was so much more unfavourable than even that of the maritime provinces-where it certainly has not been very good-that I ventured to say something about it before, and I intend to say a little more about it. I am sorry the hon. member for Macleod is not here at the moment. I do not want to cast reflections on him, because I know he attends the session assiduously. However, I do want to comment on one or two things he said.
As my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo has pointed out, the province of Alberta, where

unemployment in March was at least the average for the prairies-I do not suppose it was higher in Alberta than it was in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, probably about the same-was 4.4 per cent.


Mr. Speakman:: It is less now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No doubt, it is considerably less now, and yet they got the lion's share of help under the winter works program.


James Stanley Speakman: It was because the municipalities took advantage of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was because they had a wealthier government that they were able to take advantage of it. The hon. gentleman can make his own speech on his own time, and I shall be glad to shorten mine to give him the opportunity. I am not criticizing the government of Alberta or the municipalities of Alberta for taking advantage of this program, nor am I criticizing anybody else for taking advantage of it. What I am seeking to point out is that it does, in fact, as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo pointed out so well the other day and again today, provide most help where it is least needed and the least help where it is most needed. These figures bear that out. I should like to compare the two sets of figures because I say this is an entirely unsatisfactory way of dealing with this problem.
During the month of March in the province of Newfoundland, relief costs were $324,884, over twice as much as they were in March, 1958. This situation exists in this year of recovery as compared with the year in the deepest depression, when they were half as much. Now, that is the actual situation. I venture to say that if the level of unemployment west of the Ottawa river, and particularly west of the city of Three Rivers, were on the level it is east of that area, there would be a very different attitude to this problem in this house from what there is at the moment. That is why perhaps some of us who represent that area are taking more of the time of the committee on the minister's estimates than are some other members from some provinces that are somewhat better endowed with resources, perhaps somewhat more favoured by nature, and perhaps somewhat more influential in the councils of the nation.
I must say that I was rather disappointed that the hon. member for Skeena did not see fit to support fully the appeal of the hon. member for Laurier which was so ably seconded by the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Hull, and to which I am going to come back in a moment. Last year I am glad to say that his leader supported that appeal. But before I come to that matter-and I am coming to it fairly 66968-9-2361
Supply-Labour
quickly-I want to say something about another aspect of this problem. We were told this a couple of years ago. They did not say quite so much about it last March, I admit, a year ago, but a couple of years ago, in that great election of 1957, when the Tories discovered the maritimes, we were told that they were going to do great things. They were going to bring defence contracts there. They were going to bring new industries there. They were going to create two jobs where there was one before. More coal was going to be mined. The situation was going to be altogether different from what it was in the sad days when the Liberal government was in office.
What has been the consequence? I have here an editorial which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of May 2, 1959. It is entitled "Mr. Gordon Vindicated". I think perhaps hon. members should be reminded, particularly those on the other side of the house who have been fairly silent in this debate, of what really has happened.


Mr. Cardiff:: They do not get a chance to talk.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They get recognized every second time if they get up on their feet as the hon. gentleman does. But if they do not do that, of course they are not recognized. The editorial to which I have made reference reads as follows:
In the reports on its studies into Canada's economic prospects the Gordon royal commission suggested, as a sort of last resort for the adversity-stricken of the Atlantic provinces, the provision of federal aid for transplanting the affected families to other parts of Canada. The recommendation got such a bitter denunciation in political and other circles-
And especially by the Tory candidates in 1957. That is not in the editorial. That is an addition by me.
-that Mr. Gordon, himself, had to come back for a public appearance to try to explain his reasoning and cool the anger.
Three years later, however, the proposal seems to be in full implementation.
Under a Tory government. That is also an interpolation of mine.
Ottawa has just offered to unemployed iron ore miners and their families at Bell island, Newfoundland, the necessary funds for relocating elsewhere in the country. And this is not the first time such financial help has been extended. In fact, it now is a general policy that applies to any community or region officially declared by the government to be a "surplus labour area." It was brought into effect for Springhill after the closing down of the last colliery following the disaster of last fall.
And so on. It gives further examples but I will not weary the committee with the rest of the editorial because I have illustrated the point.

Supply-Labour
I am criticizing the government for doing this. If there is no other place for these people to earn their living, it is better that they should go somewhere else. But it is a much different realization from the glowing picture that hon. gentlemen and their leader painted in the Atlantic provinces two short years ago.


Mr. Hicks:: Short?


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that it may seem long to hon. gentlemen who sit here and who are gagged and not allowed to speak because the session may last a little bit longer if they do so. I am sure they may seem very long years to them but to me it seems but yesterday. Lest the Chairman think that I was getting away-


An hon. Member:: And getting nowhere.


Frank Charles McGee: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -from the point, I should like to say that there is one other point I wish to make before I come to my main point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is this. The hon. member for Skeena, in one of those essays into fiction for which he and his colleagues have a certain penchant, told us that the Liberals, when they were in office, were fond of stealing the ideas of his party.


Frank Howard: Mr. Harris told us that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1 did not understand the hon. gentleman to say that Mr. Harris had told them that. I had never realized that the so-called ideas of the hon. gentleman's party were copyrighted or patented or that they were not in the public domain.


Frank Howard: We never said they were.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, there have been very few of them, in my experience, except one or two socialist notions that nobody has stolen, that were not common coin of all progressive people and that were not in Liberal programs long before they were in C.C.F. programs. But there is this difference with regard to where these ideas come from. When the Liberals were in office ideas were translated into action. Now they are just words. That is the essential difference.
I now come to the point that I mainly rose to make. It will be recalled that last year in the month of August the minister's estimates were before the committee. They are earlier this year. Last year in the month of August we on this side of the house, both in the Liberal party and in the C.C.F. group, appealed to the minister to let item No. 1 of his estimates stand until he was in a

position to tell us what the government's winter works program was for the winter coming forward. The minister refused. We appealed to the leader of the house. He refused. The Prime Minister came into the house and an appeal was made to him. This was done on every occasion in my recollection when it was ever asked of the Liberal government when they were in office. It was done automatically as parts of the rights of parliament. But it was categorically refused by the government that is now in power, these champions of the greater rights of parliament. We are asking it again this year and we are asking it for this reason.
The winter works program did not appear until October-that is, the first announcement of it-until parliament had been away for nearly two months, when there was no opportunity to criticize it; no opportunity to point out how lopsided it was; how relatively good it was for Alberta as compared with the Atlantic provinces, not because of anything except the inherent better fortune of Alberta; and the other deficiencies. We think that parliament should have the right to discuss these things. We think that this problem is important enough to be brought before parliament, and we do not see that it is interfering with the proper carrying on of the business of parliament. In our opinion, the situation is quite the contrary. If the minister were to allow this item to stand until towards the end of the session the minister could come in and tell us what the government proposes to do about this problem in the forthcoming year as far as he knows it up to that time.
I suggest that anyone can predict, no matter how great the recovery is, that we are going to have a substantial seasonal unemployment problem next winter. There is no doubt about that matter now. There is no need to wait until August, September or October to find that out. Even if we get full employment during the summer time, as I hope we shall, there is still predictably going to be a problem next winter, and parliament ought to be told -parliament has the right to be told-what the government's plans are for dealing with that problem. I say that the minister should accede to this very reasonable request if parliament is to mean anything.
There is another reason. We not only have the precedent of last year. We have the precedent of this year. We have the adoption of the estimates of one department. What happened? The very day after those estimates were adopted an order in council was passed doing the exact opposite to what everybody on both sides of the house who had spoken suggested ought to be done about a particular matter, and parliament was deprived of the



IS, 1959

[Stage Direction]
normal opportunity to debate that action in the knowledge of the facts. I say to the minister that this government, which is supposed to have a great regard for parliament, whose leader professes to have a great love for parliament, should accede to this request.
I am going to resume my seat now and ask the minister to agree to this, and I think so far as our party is concerned I can assure him there will not be a great deal of time taken with the rest of his estimates if he is willing to do that.
Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labour estimates are estimates pertaining to the function of the Department of Labour. They have nothing to do with government policy with regard to unemployment. When the government is prepared to announce what it intends to do with respect to what I term actions of responsibility, then that information will be conveyed to the house, as it has been in the past. Most certainly the policy of the government with respect to unemployment has nothing to do with the estimates or the function or administration of the Deparment of Labour. I cannot see why the first item should be held under this pressure, and I would ask that we proceed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, my friend from Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned in two or three ways some of the remarks I made, and I hope he is not trying to misconstrue my position or misinterpret my position in so far as the winter works program applies in this case to the province of Newfoundland, or to the maritime provinces or any other province, and attempt to leave the impression that I might be partial to policies which are opposed to those which he has just enunciated, namely the question of taking into account the financial and economic conditions of the province if the federal government participates in any cost-sharing scheme. That is not so, and I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and other members will recall-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me? If I seemed to imply any such thing, I never intended to. I would not suggest for a moment that the hon. gentleman had said that or thought that, and I did not think he did.


Frank Howard: I am just saying how this misinterpretation of my attitude could result, and I do not want that to happen because I am sure hon. members will recall that one of the first things I dealt with in this house in so far as federal participation in the cost of municipal projects was concerned had to do with the trans-Canada highway. One of the first things I think was a proposal that
Supply-Labour
the geographic and economic conditions of provinces should be taken into account, and any program of the federal government based on a 50-50 basis is inequitable to some and beneficial to others at the expense of somebody else.
In so far as the application of the winter works program to the maritimes is concerned, I have no ideas about the division of cost, whether it should be 25-75 or whatever the proportion may be. But there is certainly a good case, not only in the winter works program but in other types of programs as well, for treating provinces differently so far as economic ability today is concerned. I do want to make that perfectly clear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Frank Howard: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will permit me, we have raised quite a number of questions for the minister to comment upon, and I am sure he would not want to let this general administration vote go without answering the questions raised from both sides of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was only going to raise the point that the Leader of the Opposition began the discussion by raising a number of specific questions, as did the hon. member for Assiniboia, and I am sure the minister will recall that it has always been the custom on the first item to reply.


Michael Starr: I will go ahead now if you will permit me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well, I will stop.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for what I consider to be some worth-while discussion on the first item. There have been some very good constructive suggestions put forward, and my officials and I have made note of them and some of them are reasonable enough to be given very serious consideration.
Before I go on with that I would like to give the information requested by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo regarding the rates on the new Sir Humphrey Gilbert icebreaker. This icebreaker has been operated, or will be operated, by the Department of Transport, and we recommended the rates to the treasury beard. When they are approved by the treasury board then they are applied by the Department of Transport. It is not our policy to reveal the rates which we have recommended to the treasury board, but they will be announced by the department under which that operation is carried out; in this case, the Department of Transport. I hope that is the information the hon. member desired.

Supply-Labour
I was struck by the approach taken by the Leader of the Opposition in this debate in dealing with conciliation procedures, and he wanted to know whether I was satisfied with them. Whether I am satisfied or not, Mr. Chairman, is hardly the issue, but I would like to tell him right away that in this world there is nothing perfect, and certainly we would want to evolve more effective procedures. The accent is on the word "evolve", and in dealing with conciliation procedures you are dealing with economic situations and economic factors. But above all you are dealing with people, and I do not think you can solve all these problems by statute. I am just wondering whether those who have been discussing this particular aspect feel that the present procedures leave something to be desired. Some of them no doubt do, and I can assure them that any suggestions that anyone would wish to make will be treated with great respect.
I would also add that the Leader of the Opposition asked a great number of questions dealing mostly with the theoretical and academic aspects of labour. I would like to tell him that in the time I have been in office I have not had much opportunity to bother with theory; I have been more interested in facts. The important thing is that I have not had time to bother with the intricate little things.
With regard to the amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, it was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition that some ten months have now elapsed since this matter has been before us. It is hardly that long because when I asked all the various organizations and labour bodies to submit their recommendations, in most cases it took up to about 14 months to submit them. This presents quite a great deal of work in sifting out the various amendments and putting them into some form. Unfortunately it would be impossible for me to bring in amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act this session, but most certainly it will be up for discussion during the next session of parliament.
As I say, I did note the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition regarding conciliation procedures. I am certainly amenable to any suggestions which could be put forward to streamline these procedures, but I feel that the conciliation procedures we have now are procedures which have been worked out over the years and are working pretty well. They certainly are not perfect, but the fact is that out of hundreds of cases the great majority of those cases have been settled at the conciliation

board stage, and in the last fiscal year out of 106 disputes only six resulted in strike action. I think this in itself is an indication of the way in which these procedures are working out. I want to point out, however, that they are not perfect. There are anomalies, and the department is trying at all times to work out better procedures.


Frank Howard: After amendments have been prepared to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act by the minister and his departmental officials, I wonder if the hon. gentleman could indicate whether he is willing to consult with representatives of both labour and management in order to obtain their views so that any differences may be resolved, and so that the act may be drafted to comply so far as possible with the ideas of the two groups who will be most affected by its operation.


Michael Starr: As the hon. member may know, we have already received all the suggestions, but I will consider what he has just said. We have not thought about that aspect of the question. I should like to add that with regard to these suggestions concerning the amendment of the act, very few proposals have been received as to the conciliation procedure-only two, in fact. I should have thought there would have been more.
I might say at this point that in common with the Leader of the Opposition, and in common with every responsible labour leader in Canada, I abhor violence and regret that the necessity arises from time to time for strike action, because we all know that a strike is very often a bitter and regrettable business. I feel that any action taken by any individual or group to bring about strike action until all other means have been exhausted is reprehensible, but as to changing the procedure in any radical way, let me tell this committee that labour in Canada guards jealously the collective bargaining privilege which it has fought so hard to obtain. However, I can assure hon. members and the Leader of the Opposition that in my brief tenure of office I have found that there is a great reservoir of goodwill and honest responsibility among our labour leaders in Canada. I agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia, for example, that there is a growing tendency to be critical of labour. I have been dealing with men in the labour movement who are honest, decent and sincere. They are doing their best to get a square deal for their members. I have also met with the same kind of people in management. With men such as this at the helm in this country I do not feel we need have too many misgivings.

As I mentioned, settlements were effectively-reached in a number of the disputes which arose during the year. I cite as an example the recent dispute between the firemen and the Canadian National Railways, and also the Pacific coast seamen's dispute. I think the record stands up well. Although the Leader of the Opposition is not here for the moment, I know that as an old baseball player and fan he would subscribe to the statement that you can't win them all.


Frank Howard: How much did you pay the mediator in the C.P.R. firemen's dispute?


Michael Starr: He has not yet sent in his bill. But we have won quite a few, by which I mean that the people of Canada were winners inasmuch as settlements were reached in so many cases.
On the subject of the winter works program, may I say that I think the program was a good one. It succeeded in providing jobs for over 40,000 people. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, some of the provinces were not able to take advantage of it, it may be for financial reasons. The same comment applies to the municipalities. We did try to help in these circumstances by designating the Department of Public Works as a contractor, and this worked out well in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
We are endeavouring to make our program for the training of manpower more effective, and are keeping in close contact with the provinces who must, under our plan, take the initiative in retraining unemployed persons. There has been a noteworthy increase in activity in this direction during the past year, and we must keep this up so that more and more people may be trained, rehabilitated and equipped to take other employment.
Automation is, perhaps, the factor which dominates our industrial development at the present time. I do not intend at this moment to attempt an exposition of this whole problem, but let me assure the committee that my department is well aware of this process. There are ten or eleven studies on automation proceeding in this country at the present time, and six of those studies are being undertaken by the Department of Labour. Some of them are now available and I will be glad to send copies to hon. members who request them. An advisory committee on automation has been established. I think it will be appreciated that the primary need at the moment is information on how automation will affect industry. This we are endeavouring to obtain. I think this is a very important subject and one which needs every consideration.
A number of hon. members have expressed concern about the position of older workers,
Supply-Labour
and concern has also been expressed with regard to other forms of discrimination. We are working on this problem to the end that it may eventually cease to exist. We are watching some of the legislation which has been introduced recently into the United States in order to see how legislation affects this question; whether it is likely to bring about the desired result or not. In any event, I am having a survey made throughout Canada through the medium of our employment offices to ascertain which employers are discriminating against, or requesting labour on the basis of a certain age or height or weight. Thus we should gather enough information to enable an accurate picture to be formed of what is taking place. We hope, then, to be able to bring to the attention of employers the value of older workers. I think something in the nature of an educational campaign is needed to prove to these employers the worth, the ability and the dependability of the older worker. By this means I feel sure a great deal can be accomplished.
I was, of course, interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia who has once again shown himself to be a fiery defender of the labour movement. With much of what he said, everyone can agree. In this connection I would say that most of the gains which have accrued to the working men and women on this continent and indeed in the whole free world, have come from the activities of organized labour. Anyone in the twentieth century who does not feel that we need unions has got an eighteenth century mind. In trade unionism there has been shown western man's genius for organizing, and his genius for using the collective principle for obtaining his objectives; while at the same time preserving freedom of individual action. It is this freedom and independence which must be preserved.
The hon. member for Trinity has commented on our program. Without going into great detail I have outlined some of the work carried on in our department and through our advisory committees more will be carried on. This matter is of great importance to us and I wish to assure hon. members of this committee that no stone will be left unturned in the course of bringing about the most desirable results.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, the minister was good enough to answer the first part of my question but he did not answer the second part. Can the minister say if the rates he recommended to the treasury were based on the rates in Newfoundland or in the Maritime provinces?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether they were based on the maritimes or

Supply-Labour
Newfoundland rates. I do not have that information but I shall be glad to obtain it and give it to the hon. member at another time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, under the proper item I should like to make some comments and ask some questions about the statistical press releases that are issued from time to time concerning the unemployed. The one in my hand is headed, "Unemployment Situation" and apparently was issued jointly by the dominion bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour.


Michael Starr: That release is a joint release but the field work is done by the bureau of statistics and comes properly under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Frank Howard: I am interested in the section concerning registrations at the national employment services. Is that a concern of the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman, that comes under the national unemployment insurance commission and I shall be glad to deal with it under the appropriate item.


Frank Howard: I will leave it until then. In the latter part of my remarks I made mention of uniformity of legislation as between the various acts under the minister's jurisdiction and similar types of legislation under provincial authorities. I wonder if any consultations have been held and if any steps have been taken toward meeting the question of uniformity of labour codes and labour legislation especially as they apply to corporations that have plants that are organized and consequently the same union is involved in more than one province. What have you been doing in that direction?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have given this matter quite a bit of thought. I am informed that in the past consultations did take place between the departments of labour of the federal and provincial governments. It is difficult to evolve a plan although I have been thinking about it and that is the stage at which it is now. I hope to be able to evolve a plan whereby it may be possible to achieve some uniformity with respect to vacations with pay and other labour legislation which is, I assume, what the hon. member has in mind.


Frank Howard: When the minister says he is getting around to thinking about these matters I feel he should be reminded of the election promises made in this regard in the last two election campaigns.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact I keep a list on my desk and I am continually crossing out these promises as they are fulfilled.


Frank Howard: Apparently the party did not keep you informed, Mr. Minister, of what they were letting you in for when they conducted the election campaigns because this was one of the promises made by the national Tory party and you as a candidate should have been advised as to what was happening. Perhaps they did not have you in mind as Minister of Labour at the time they developed this program. I wish to mention two points and while the opportunity presents itself I might as well mention some others. One promise made was that there would be co-operation with the provinces in an effort to achieve uniformity of labour legislation. That cannot be done just by thinking about it and there must be action.


Michael Starr: It takes time, too.


Frank Howard: Yes, I realize that, but this was two years ago in 1957. Two years have elapsed since then. I appreciate that the minister has been extremely busy.
Another thing the national Tory party failed to tell the minister about was the question of industries that cut across provincial boundaries. They were to pay special attention to the meat packing and steel industries to promote uniformity of labour legislation. I wonder if the party advised the minister prior to his appointment that they also promised to extend the provisions of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act to cover all federal government contracts and projects? I wonder if this has been done and if they have been able to accomplish their promise of eliminating delays in conciliation procedures? I also wonder what steps have been taken toward introducing new amendments to the Minimum Wages Act? The question of vacations with pay has been dealt with. While we are at it, I wonder if in fulfillment of the promises the Tories made they have been able to move toward eliminating the waiting period under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and extending coverage to the greatest possible number of wage earners or whether they are still just thinking about that one?
I bring these points to the attention of the minister because it is obvious he was not kept up to date concerning what the national Tory party was getting him into when conducting the election campaign of 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the item is carried I want to renew my appeal to the government-I see that the leader of the house is here now-to do what was invariably done by all other governments, to accede to the reasonable request of the opposition to let this item stand until the end of the session or until the government is in a

position to announce its winter works program for next year. This is a request that anyone, having any regard at all for the rights of parliament, would not hesitate one second to accede to and I might remind hon. gentlemen opposite that we heard a great deal about regard for the rights of parliament when we were in office. On no occasion in my recollection when such a request was made of the former government was it refused and on many occasions such requests were granted.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the floor.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty pursuant-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I think this is a most outlandish action the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate is now taking. He has made these charges just at five o'clock when there is no opportunity for me to reply. They are absolutely without foundation. I was house leader for the Conservatives when in opposition for several years and at no time did we ever ask to have the first item stand as he has done this afternoon. He has already delayed this first item for four days, I believe. I do not mind what he does and he could keep it going until the first of December if he wishes to, but to get up and intimate that we are interfering with the rights of parliament and all that sort of thing is to speak completely without foundation. It is absolutely unfair to speak in this way and I am most amazed that my hon. friend should have seen fit to do so.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: I am not
amazed; he did it yesterday in our committee, following the same principle.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall the item carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman.


Michael Starr: All right, sit down. You have made your point. It will not carry now.


Howard Charles Green: Five o'clock.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: With respect to the question of privilege that has been raised I must remind hon. members that although they can carry on a debate at length and at will on particular items there is also such a thing as undue repetition. When I have been in the chair in the last few days I have listened quite attentively to many of these debates and they have been repetitious. Whether there is a purpose in the constant repetition of things is not for me to judge but it would be appreciated by the Chair if hon. members did not delay the proceedings of the house
Private Bills
unduly by constantly coming back to the same themes and repeating the same sentences.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Public Works has suggested that I have kept these estimates going. I took no part whatever in the debate on these estimates until this afternoon and I took a very limited part. I addressed myself strictly to the estimates and I think that the remark of the Minister of Public Works is entirely and utterly uncalled for.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These lectures about the rights of parliament are getting very repetitious.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must remind the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that my remarks were not addressed to him so his remarks were quite out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the Minister of Public Works referred to me.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 15, section 3, to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills standing for second reading, is it the pleasure of the house to have these bills taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill SD-234, for the relief of Marcelle Flore Terreault Wright.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-235, for the relief of Daisy Naydia Pretula Link.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-236, for the relief of Alexander Hill Forbes.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-237, for the relief of Barbara Ann Mary Curran Albrechtson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-238, for the relief of Dorothy Vera Doyle Trudel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-239, for the relief of Mary May Helen McCormick Moran.-Mr. McCleave.

British North America Act
Bill SD-240, for the relief of Ethel Marguerite Nimick Hemmings.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-241, for the relief of James Donald McAllister.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-242, for the relief of Heather Joan Maxwell Firth.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-243, for the relief of Suzanne Mary Florence Peyton Young.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-244, for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Nelson Bissett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-245, for the relief of Moira Elizabeth Latham Bruce.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-246, for the relief of Audrey Edwar-deen Scanlan Grayburn.-Mr. McCleave.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps for a moment or two I might give a different complexion to the debate in the house from that earlier today. A while ago I brought to the attention of the house the appearance of lady detectives in some of these cases and perhaps I might be permitted for the next moment or two to give the house and the country information on the latest doings of these charming creatures, as I called them. They have appeared in several cases before us and are getting along rather well except in one instance where the front lady, that is, the lady who puts her foot in the door and then enters the apartment first, was given a drubbing by the boy friend of the erring wife. Apparently she was badly beaten for in every case in which she has appeared since then she has made it a point to go to the police station first and make her whereabouts known on the particular evening. I presume that is on the theory that if she does not come out alive the police will at least have some clue as to who did it and why it was done. I mention this merely to illustrate that women who demand equal rights as these lady detectives are now doing should remember the good old days when they occupied a privileged position in society.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-14, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last year when this bill was introduced I was fortunate enough that it was discussed for several hours and a relatively worthwhile debate took place in connection with its merits. I am not one of those who feel that a politician is suspect whenever he gets up and begins to talk about

the beauties of non-partisanship just as I do not suspect, when people begin to talk about the public interest, that there is possibly a scoundrel or a nigger in the woodpile somewhere. I should like to suggest that if one cannot be wholly non-partisan about this bill he should at least try to approach it with as little partisanship as possible.
The reason I have introduced it stems partly from my own experience and partly from following the activities of the house in this particular field over recent years and also in a historical sense. I made the point last year, and I do not need to repeat it, that the idea behind redistribution being put in the hands of an independent commission is one that has found favour with such people as the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the prime minister who was the leader of Canada for the longest period of time, an hon. gentleman in the other place who is a Liberal stalwart and with quite a number of other people, and that the idea of putting redistribution under an independent commission is one that has found favour in a number of other commonwealth countries that have the same parliamentary system as we have, although not necessarily with parallel problems, where it has been found to work well.
The basic idea of redistribution is, of course, simply one of representation by population or an attempt to assure that each individual vote in the country is worth relatively the same as any other individual vote. I would not say that the material I put on the record last session was so valuable that I want to hold it up as being something wonderful but I think the bibliography and other information connected with it opened up many of the problems concerning the matter and some of the discussion that followed was rather valuable in expressing critical points of view.
One factor in connection with redistribution about which I have thought more and more since last year is not the fact that we are getting closer to the issue all the time of a hurried redistribution in 1952 or that we will probably find an election held in 1962 upon the population basis of 1951 but the fact that it seems to me after a bit more experience in the house, and everyone is aware that my experience has not been too long, that a member more and more, if I judge the situation correctly, is becoming a constituency information and welfare officer to quite an extent for the population of his riding. I mean that the pressure upon him is in direct relationship to the size of his constituency. This is an argument which, in my opinion, calls for as fair a balance as



IS. 1959

[Stage Direction]
possible within provincial limitations, and for equality in terms of the number of people that a member of parliament represents.
During the debate on this measure last year, the lead-off speaker following my presentation was the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), who opposed the bill largely on the ground, as I take it from scanning his remarks, that the bill was a further derogation of parliamentary rights. He believed that in setting up an independent commission you were taking away from parliament and this house certain rights, and that was something he could not support. In so far as my argument was concerned that by so doing you would remove any chance for gerrymandering, both he and the hon. member who spoke later, the hon. member for St. Lawrence - St. George (Mr. Chambers), had the feeling that we had reached a new time in Canadian politics. Perhaps their views are coloured by the fact that they are members of the party in power. They felt we no longer have any worries about anyone trying to hurt anyone else. We have a population that is more alert, more informed, and this sort of thing would not be accepted any longer.
I cannot really comment on that particular point of view. It is going to be fun, during the next redistribution, to see what the members from Nova Scotia are going to do, since they are all Conservatives, in reducing the seats in that province. There will be a reduction of at least one, and it is going to be fun to see how much they hurt one another. In Saskatchewan, where there will be a loss of three or four seats, the Conservatives have only the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) upon whom to work in terms of gerrymandering. Then, too, I should like to see them work on each other in Manitoba, where they can only work on themselves. We could almost turn the problem inside out from the point of view of gerrymandering being an issue, and say that at least an independent commission would save government members from cutting each other's throats when redistribution time does come around.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) spoke on the bill, but I felt it was one of his poorer performances. He was thrown off by some of the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), and by our wonder interventionist from Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). The hon. member proceeded to read the members of this group a little homily about our too great preoccupation with planning and our too great trust in experts. He did, however, state he thought there
British North America Act should be some kind of independent body of experts or knowledgeable people to determine principles which should apply in so far as redistribution was concerned, then those principles should be left with members of parliament who would deal with redistribution. He seemed to feel that members of parliament, being more familiar with constituency problems, were the ones to be consulted. I should like to remind the hon. member for York-Scarborough or any other member, including myself, that much as we may look upon our constituencies as our personal possessions, our rights are very impermanent ones. There are other parties within our constituencies who have views that are just as valid and as pertinent as any we, as members of parliament, can offer. We are only one source of information or opinion, and there are other sources of information and opinion which are just as important in so far as determining the boundaries of a constituency and that sort of thing is concerned.
Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Frank Charles McGee: Is he suggesting-he seemed to me to be suggesting and perhaps he can tell me if I am right-that perhaps the defeated candidate should be consulted in determining the riding boundaries?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, I am not trying to suggest that at all. I do not believe the defeated candidate or someone who ran third, fourth or fifth or who is the head of a local organization, is in any better position than an M.P. to be consulted. My whole point is that they have as valid an interest as the member of parliament. I would say that any independent commission gathering information would want to hear representations from these people on this question of boundaries.
I seem to have forgotten the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who, along with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), concentrated on an argument which is very familiar to anyone who has watched the Quebec scene. In my opinion, the source of their argument can be found in the Tremblay report, in which the line of argument is strongly adopted that redistribution concerns one part of the British North America Act that requires provincial consultation. As a matter of fact, I think the hon. member for Joliette - L'Assomption - Montcalm adopted exactly the idea that is in the Tremblay report, that once the bases have been determined for general provincial representation,

British North America Act the whole problem should be handled by the province itself rather than the House of Commons. In my view this is an indefensible position, in that the House of Commons must continue to hold the right to set up, for example, this independent commission, and if the independent commission does not work, to make any other amendment or change that is necessary.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere was generally in favour of the idea of putting redistribution under a commission, but he did want this exception, that the commission should be determined on a provincial basis and the provincial authorities should enter into it. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George brought up a legal point as to whether or not the words "independent commission" were really valid because of the fact that parliament would always have the right to change a decision made some years ago about this section, and to change it or alter it at any time. In other words, you may set up an independent commission but it would not be there in perpetuity, so therefore it would not be an independent commission.
This is rather a difficulty in semantics. 1 agree with his point that if we do set up an independent commission as a consequence of the passage of this particular act, then we will have to remain ready to change the independent commission idea if it does not work out. I might point out in passing that the independent commission idea, for example, in Great Britain has worked extremely well. The same fears were expressed in Great Britain as were expressed by hon. members on the government benches here when this change was sought.
There were no speeches made by hon. members of the opposition when this bill was before us last year. This has become one of the hallmarks of their operations in this particular parliament, that is they do not express any opinion on public bills introduced by private members. I just want to touch on this particular aspect of the matter. The opposition members may not see the point or feel the need of this particular hour of the house activities, they may not feel that this idea of private members being able to introduce public bills is worth while. However, it seems to me that at some time we should have a statement from this particular party, not so much about this bill, but on this issue of whether or not they believe this sort of thing is even worth while. In my opinion, it is very worth while because it leaves to hon. members at least one avenue by which private members from any party can put a bill on the order paper expounding an idea

or conception, and ultimately the idea may become popular. If the members of the opposition feel that this is a bad thing, and that all legislation should come up through some sort of party channel in the government, then they are accepting the fact we have already had a transition in the status of a member of parliament and that the rest of us may be clinging to some ideal that has disappeared.
The final point I want to make is not a major one. It is just this, that the Canadian Labour Congress has advocated this idea of redistribution by an independent commission for some time. I could go further than that. I could also say that another body has identified itself with this idea of an independent commission. I refer to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I would suggest-and perhaps not push the suggestion too far-that when you get two bodies such as these that in the main contend with each other or are antithetical both going along with the same idea, the idea must have a little bit more than ordinary value.
I hope in the time there is left some of the members will be able to express further criticisms and offer further suggestions on the bill. I would hope that some of them might even move that this bill be sent to the committee on privileges and elections which I am sure is going to do an extremely worth-while job this session. I might say this about the chairman of that committee at the present time. Nothing has pleased me more than to know that in this particular field we have as chairman of that committee someone who has an academic background and with the broad values and detachment that I think that background brings to one of the most controversial fields that politicians can ever get into.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all grateful to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) for his summary of the arguments we dared to advance in the face of his final utterances on the subject. It seems to me to be rather typical of the hon. member sponsoring this measure and other members in his group. I have stated this previously in this house and shall state it again. There seems to be a theory that, once these omnipotent people have examined a subject and written down their conclusions, that is the end of it; that everything that needs to be thought about this subject has been thought and that everything that needs to be said about the subject has been said. The leader of the lonely eight earlier in this session went farther than that and suggested that owing to the fact that he had introduced a certain measure

into this house on three or four occasions there was no need for any further debate whatsoever.
However, to come back to the bill in question, may I say this. I would be derelict indeed in my duty as a member of this house if I did not rise on each and every appropriate occasion in order to draw attention to the plight of the people of York-Scarborough. As I have said before in this house, the pattern of growth in this particular constituencey is astonishing, to say the least. The population at the present time would be something of the order of 225,000 people. As far as I can gather, the annual increase in that population-apart from the birth rate which is substantial-is something of the order of 25,000 a year. I have given serious consideration to introducing a private bill which might be entitled "An act for the relief of McGee" or perhaps might be better described as "An act for the relief of the long-suffering and patient constituents of Y ork-Scarborough".
I should like to read into the record a statement by one of my opponents in the last election and the one prior to it, namely a charming and delightful woman indeed by the name of Elva Reta Sigen. Mrs. Sigen took advantage of the opportunity, she having been a candidate in federal elections, to write in August of 1957 to the chief electoral officer offering some suggestions. I will not deal with the specific suggestions and criticisms of the operation of the elections act because they are not pertinent to this debate-they might form part of the evidence of the committee in privileges and elections- but I should like to read into the record her first paragraph:
As a candidate in the federal election in June. I would like to take this opportunity accorded me tn section 58(2) of the Canada Elections Act to bring to your attention a few changes in the law which I consider desirable in so far as it affects the riding of York-Scarborough.
The first paragraph I refer to reads as follows:
(1) For an urban riding York-Scarborough is unwieldy, being the largest riding in Canada with a population at present of 167,500 people and with more families moving into the riding every day. If this growth continues, it will be an impossible task for any candidate to campaign and for any member to represent the riding and know the problems of such a large number of people.
As I say, these are the words of my opponent in the two previous elections. She is a woman of some ability and much charm. They were no doubt prompted by the fact that her father was a prominent Tory in the good old riding of Carleton.
As the hon. member pointed out, I agreed in principle with his bill but I expressed
British North America Act some doubts, after I survived the interruptions and banter that assailed me on that occasion. I thought at a certain stage the independent commission or group of so-called experts should come back to the house and to the members, having defined the broad areas and designated the principles upon which such distribution would occur. I am one of those optimists, like the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) and others in this house, who happens to believe that as far as political morality in this country is concerned, tremendous strides have been made in recent years. Everything that I see in the political life of my province and in my area in particular leads me to the belief that this trend and pattern will continue.
I was going to read into the record some of the delightful experiences and activities which took place in the early years in elections in this country but I am sure that most of the hon. members who have interested themselves in this bill and in this matter are already familiar with this subject. As Norman Ward says in his book, honesty is becoming compulsory in many parts of this country.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would you like to define the parts?


Frank Charles McGee: The problem, and the reasons advanced in another debate earlier in this session by the hon. member for Port Arthur as to why we might not have redistribution before the next election, I challenge. As far as its being possible is concerned, surely the methods and means are now available today, particularly as far as tabulation and computation are concerned, if some way can be found between the spring of 1961 and the beginning of the session in 1962, assuming that an election is called at the end of that particular session. Surely the basic material can be made available to this house and to the members of whatever body we ultimately decide will wrestle with this problem, and surely we can have redistribution before the next election. I see the hon. member is shaking his head.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the hon. member a question. Is the hon. member aware that it is technically impossible before March, 1962 for the bureau of statistics to complete its compilations of the detailed statistics which will be necessary to carry out complete redistribution, even though the total population statistics by provinces will be available much earlier in order to give a provincial breakdown? But you will not have the detailed figures which will enable you to actually carry out adjustments.

British North America Act


Frank Charles McGee: May I, in turn, ask the hon. member a question. What is the source of the information or opinion which he has expressed?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The information I have is from the dominion bureau of statistics officials.


Frank Charles McGee: Well, as one hon. member has just pointed out to me, a lot of things which perhaps were not thought possible under other administrations might very well be possible under the present.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Possible but improbable.


Frank Charles McGee: That is just about all I wanted to add, Mr. Speaker, to what I said last year, except I have to apologize to the hon. member for Port Arthur that I did not come up to snuff last year and I hope he will think I did a little better this year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, it is largely the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat which cause me to rise to say a few words in support of this bill introduced by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). This is not a new subject. Anyone who has read the records of the house will realize that there have been quite a few voices in all parties over a long period of years who have suggested some procedure for redistribution after the fashion of that mentioned in this bill. The member for Port Arthur referred to the attitude of the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, who I think on a number of occasions-if I remember correctly I heard him on one such occasion -said that while he personally was in favour of the principle of having redistribution undertaken by a commission, he would accept the opinion of the majority. There have occasionally been other voices raised in the Liberal party throughout the years, and I think on one or two occasions members of the former Progressive party suggested that this principle be applied with respect to redistribution in Canada.
It has been the policy of the C.C.F. party ever since it was formed to express its support for this method of redistribution, and that is indicated by the numbers of private bills which have been introduced on this question by members of the C.C.F. group throughout the years. However, I do want to bring to the attention of the house, in view of the comments made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that at one time there were quite prominent members of the Progressive Conservative party who supported this principle. On February 21, 1947 the then secretary of state introduced a bill for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons. That

provided for the appointment of a committee. During that debate Mr. Knowles, who was then a member of this house, introduced an amendment to the bill which read as follows, as reported on page 697 of Hansard for February 21, 1947:
-this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons should be referred to an independent commission to be appointed for that purpose.
Then later on certain members of the Progressive Conservative party spoke and indicated their support of that amendment. The interesting thing to me is that at the tune when the vote was taken on this amendment, who do we find supporting the amendment moved by Mr. Knowles which would provide for the appointment of a commission to undertake redistribution? Well, here are the names of some of them. We find Mr. Black, who was then a Conservative member for the Yukon; Mr. Blair, then a Conservative member of this house but who unfortunately passed away two or three years ago; Mr. Boucher, a Conservative member; Mr. Casselman; Mr. Cockeram; Mr. Fraser, who is still in this house; and Mr. Harkness, who is now the present Minister of Agriculture. Then, most interesting to me of all, is the name of Mr. Green, who is now the present Minister of Public Works and the house leader.


Howard Charles Green: How do you know I will not support this bill?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then we find Mr. Harris, a Conservative member of this house; Mr. Hatfield; Mr. Henderson; Mr. Homuth. Then we come again to another interesting supporter, Mr. Macdonnell, the present Minister without Portfolio. Then we find Mr. Merritt, a well-known Conservative, still residing at the coast. Mr. Senn, a very prominent member of the Conservative party at that time; Mr. Stirling, who used to represent the riding of Yale. That is all I see in the list, but I think it is very interesting in view of the support that that proposal received from those very prominent members of the Progressive Conservative party, some of whom are now members of the government.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that leads us in this group to the hope that possibly before the next redistribution we will see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) rising to introduce a bill for the appointment of a commission to undertake redistribution, seconded by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Macdonnell).


Howard Charles Green: It does not come under public works.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I quite understand that. It comes under the Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche); but I assume the Minister of Public Works might be so enthusiastic as to undertake that task, or at least speak of it.
Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in reading Hansard to note that the idea was also born within the womb of the Liberal party, because on February 21, 1947, Mr. Powers, who was then a member of this house and who is now an hon. member of the other place, informed the house that in looking over his files he had found a copy of a bill which had been drafted, and it was the intention of the government at one time to introduce this bill which made provision for the appointment of a commission to undertake redistribution. However, owing to the fact that in 1940 the phony stage of the war, as he put it, was over and the nation was fully occupied with the realities of war, the bill was not introduced. So, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that there has been considerable sentiment throughout the years in favour of a commission undertaking the task of redistribution.
That principle has been supported by prominent members of the Liberal party and it has been supported by prominent members of the Conservative party. It is a principle which has been consistently supported by all members of the C.C.F. group in this house throughout the years. As one of our members said previously this afternoon, we would not be at all offended if the present government, shall we say, stole this plank from our platform and gave effect to it before the next redistribution.
I do want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time we gave some consideration to this principle. It has been adopted by several other countries in the commonwealth and found to be most satisfactory, and in handing the task over to a commission it would remove the injustices and the doubts with regard to redistribution which exist at the present time.
We do hope that hon. members on the front benches will be consistent and give expression to their attitude first expressed in February 1947 by introducing legislation from the government side giving effect to the principles contained in this private bill.
(Translation):


Jean-Jacques Martel: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill, I wish only to add a few remarks to those made by members who spoke before me.
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) is most
British North America Act interesting. However, before allowing it to pass, I think we should at least have a closer look at it.
I have been going over the statistics quoted to us last year by the hon. member for Port Arthur, which gave specific information on the number of voters, the area and total population of every constituency in Canada. Such information is most interesting, and I often wonder how opposition members, and particularly C.C.F. members, manage to find time to make such elaborate research into various fields, and also to make lengthy speeches on practically every subject discussed in this house. In any case, this is not the question we are considering at present.
I would like to point out to this house that, in his remarks, the hon. member for Port Arthur admitted that the amendment he was moving under Bill C-14 would not reach its aim, which was to make redistribution independent by adding to the British North America Act the words "independent of the Canadian parliament". His suggestion to refer the redistribution of parliament seats to a body independent of the Canadian parliament is only theoretical, as parliament can, in fact, always amend the act. And in order to further clarify the reasons for which we should be very careful before passing such legislation, I would simply like to point out to hon. members what happens, for instance, when redistribution is made in vast territories in which population is perhaps not as dense as in our large Canadian cities like Montreal and Toronto, but which nevertheless are entitled to representation in this house, so as to make the Canadian government aware of the needs of people in those areas.
Let us take for instance the riding I represent here. The constituency of Chapleau was created in 1933 on the occasion of a redistribution and it covers 83,640 square miles. In 1937, it had 30,094 voters, out of a population of 65,456. The neighbouring riding, that of Villeneuve, covers 5,250 square miles. It had in 1957, 34,494 voters and a total population of 74,366. That riding was created in 1947. Further to the south, there is the constituency of Pontiac-Temiscamingue which has an area of 16,625 square miles with 20,480 voters and a total population of 42,432. Those three constituencies therefore cover 105,515 square miles, and include 85,068 electors out of a total population of 182,244, according to the latest available statistics. I should like to point out that before 1933, that area contained only one constituency, before the constituency of Chapleau was itself carved out and that, in

British North America Act 1947, part of the constituency of Pontiac-Temiscamingue was cut out, in order to give the mining area of Rouyn, Noranda, Malar-tic and Val d'Or, a representation in the house.
In establishing the constituency of Ville-neuve and in adopting the amendments which were proposed to readjust those territories, account was taken not only of the population but also of that northern territory which is developing rapidly, since, even if sometimes the population is not as large as in cities those territories are, just the same, entitled to representation in the Canadian parliament.
That leads me to say, in closing, that since confederation, and generally speaking, changes were made to several constituencies. Making a brief survey of the situation, I noted that in the maritimes, for instance, there were changes made in 22 constituencies. In the province of Ontario, there were changes made in 76 constituencies; in the province of Quebec, 60; in the western provinces, 46 constituencies and in British Columbia, 22 constituencies. Between 1892 and 1952 changes were made in 226 constituencies. Therefore, since confederation,
i.e. since 1867, only 37 constituencies have remained unchanged. In other words, readjustment of several constituencies is taking place regularly according to changes in population, from one end of our huge country to the other.
So, instead of agreeing to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and as was suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), it would be preferable, in my opinion, to set up a commission which would be responsible for the readjustment of electoral seats in the federal parliament.
(Text):


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I am happy to have the opportunity to participate briefly, as needs must at this hour, in this debate. I should like to say how much I appreciate the kind remarks of the hon. gentleman from Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who is, I suppose, spatially as far removed from me as anyone could be in this chamber, and to congratulate him for his efforts in this direction.
I remember quite well his contributions, both written and oral, during the last session. The hon. member also brought us up to date with an appraisal of the speeches which were delivered. He did not appraise his own, and

I noted his modesty in that connection, but he did comment on the others. He is quite right in saying there is today an overwhelming tendency to approach this important subject with a high degree of impartiality. It is, indeed, a subject which is of tremendous importance. And as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) pointed out, it is, of course, not a new subject.
For members of parliament to direct their attention to means and methods whereby they may improve their ability to express fully and honestly the opinions of the general public is certainly a very high form of endeavour, for we are here to express public opinion-in an indirect democracy this makes us the most important expressive institution in the land.
I have long been interested in the subject of independent commissions for distribution of electoral constituencies. I have had many reasons to see in them very favourable aspects. I believe that the province of Manitoba recently moved into the field with an independent commission and in recent hours I have come to the conclusion that this sort of device is not too bad and does allow for a very good expression of popular opinion on election day.
Some hon. members on this side of the house have expressed themselves quite well when they pointed out that the mores of the country have changed. I believe that the evil old days of the past cannot return. Certainly there are many historical instances which should bring to us a blush of shame. It is known that many an infamous old gerrymander occurred in the days of Conservative administration and instances of this have unhappily occurred in much more recent days. I am sure that if the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) were here he would tell us of some personal experiences. We might remember what happened in Parry Sound-Muskoka at one time. We could recall the marriage of the Brandon and Souris ridings and the death of the Lake Centre riding all taking place at one time. These were very unhappy examples of parliamentary activity in this connection.
Through the years I think it has been shown that gerrymanders are not a sure-fire recipe for success. Perhaps the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) was not altogether humorous when he said that honesty in this instance is proving to be the better policy. In the voting pattern of citizens I believe there are reasons for this.

Once upon a time we looked upon certain areas or constituencies in a province as being hidebound and devotedly attached to a given party regardless of candidate, issue or any other consideration. It was felt there were certain blocs of safe seats and if one could only attach and detach them in some logical mathematical proportion one could win political success. But we have moved far away from the days of hereditary voting. If you could squelch a party by manoeuvring political boundaries of constituencies the party which is now in power in Canada would have been kept in the shadows for years and years if not forever. The party, however, revealed its ability to fight in any constituency in Canada and it won nearly all of them. I say this in no sense of gloating or boasting but as an indication of the fact that the pattern of voting has changed. I believe this is a very good development and I am sure the promoter of this bill would agree that the hereditary pattern of voting is not an uplifting aspect of a political democracy.
There are some underlying issues in this matter that might be worth exploring. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) said on a previous occasion to the effect that any move to shift power and responsibility from the elective and responsible institution of government to one which is not elective and is irresponsible in a constitutional sense is not a step which should be taken lightly. Down through the years in the British tradition a great effort was made to bring under popular control the agencies of government, to bring the executive under parliamentary control and to move away from the earlier day when the rule of law did not prevail over these agencies and aspects of state sovereignty. In this instance I am not prepared to move to this too readily or gladly. I believe that the intervention of parliamentary responsibility is a very good thing.
In this connection I remember last year that the hon. member was good enough to put forward a very extensive and interesting bibliography and I was happy to see included in it the works of many of my former colleagues in the field of political science. I would not presume to tell anyone what he should read but had I more time at my disposal I had intended to make reference to a very important work which I am sure is familiar to many hon. members of the house, "The New Despotism" by the Right Hon. Lord Hewart of Bury, in which he deals with this growing tendency in these days of big government and of demands for
Business of the House
government to move into more and more avenues of daily life, with the dangers inherent in setting up regulatory bodies which are not directly responsible to the organ which in turn is responsible to the sovereign people.
Another aspect we must consider is that the mere counting of heads is not of itself a sufficient consideration. We in Canada are a pragmatic and practical people and we do not follow neat formulae. If we were to follow a certain precise formula under which a certain number of people had one member of parliament and this prevailed all across the country, it would be unworkable. I know that the hon. member does not have this in mind because I remember the thesis he put forward. There are also historic and geographic considerations which must be involved and I do not think that because one citizen lives in a constituency which has 50,000 voters and another lives in a constituency which has 25,000 voters the quality of the representation of the former in this sovereign parliament is any less and certainly no one would say it is only half as good.
This is not to say, however, that such complaints as the hon. member for York-Scarborough put forward with deep feeling are not to be considered seriously and do not cry for early remedy. At the same time I do not think there is any mystical efficacy in the mathematical computation of voters and the election thereby-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does the hon. member think there is any mystical efficacy in the practice that protects Prince Edward Island and keeps it with four members?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to talk about Prince Edward Island's membership. I think that is just one instance of what we have been talking about. Indeed, had our negotiators in 1873 insisted on a minimum of six seats I think they would have served not only Prince Edward Island but Canada better than they did. Six seats were accepted but this number was eventually and over many protests reduced to four.


Mr. Speaker:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the leader of the house if there is any change in the announcement he made last night?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to add to the items I listed last night the following: resolution No. 9 on today's order

Business of the House
paper concerning the convention on the nationality of married women; No. 11, the resolution concerning the Defence Services Pension Act; No. 12, the resolution referring to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and there will be a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Veterans' Land Act which will appear in Votes and Proceedings on Monday. We may ask to go on with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it that these measures would follow on Tuesday as well as the others the hon. member mentioned for Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: These represent a little addition to what I mentioned last night, Mr. Speaker.


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