1959-05-08

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) presented the third and fourth reports of the standing committee on estimates, and moved that the third report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXCISE ACT

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-45, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-44 to amend the Customs Tariff and the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I intimated to the house that my department's next regular report on strontium 90 levels in milk powder samples was expected shortly. This has now been completed, and is being distributed through the usual channels. In view of the widespread interest in the subject I should also like to table it for the information of hon. members. The report contains new data on milk covering the period April to December, 1958. It is the second in a series of reports which will deal with the
measurements of radioactive fall-out in air, rainfall, soil, various foods and in human beings.
While the report speaks for itself, I think certain points warrant special mention. Of first importance is the fact that our findings indicate no basis for alarm about this matter. Although it is evident that the strontium 90 levels have continued to increase, it is made clear that they are well below the stringent standards suggested by international authorities.
I am also aware that there continues to be concern about the stress given to milk in this regard, and I would emphasize again that milk was chosen for sampling because of its convenience and because it is an important item in our daily diet. In addition, dairy products provide most of our food calcium, the absorption of which by the body is closely associated with the absorption of strontium 90. At the present time our findings, taken together with other available information on the biological effects of radiation, provide no basis for curtailment of the use of dairy products.
At this point I would remind the house that radioactive fall-out constitutes only one of several sources of radiation exposure for Canadians. Other man-made radiation sources have been in use for at least half a century and, moreover, the human race has always been exposed to radiation from natural sources. Estimates have been made of the relative contributions to the average radiation exposure from each of these sources, and it is apparent that radioactive fall-out contributes only a small part of the total.
In order to evaluate more completely the over-all situation we plan to expand our radiation protection activities in several ways. Currently we are extending our fall-out sampling program to include analyses of air, rainfall and soil. We are also engaged in a study of the genetically significant dose resulting from the medical use of X-rays. At a later stage we propose to investigate the variations in natural radiation levels. The results of these studies, as they become available, will be the basis of further reports.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: This is a matter which is, of course, of the greatest importance. The minister has said in effect that the strontium level does not appreciably increase any danger to human health. How-

Inquiries of the Ministry ever, he has pointed out that strontium levels themselves continue to increase. That is a matter, of course, of great concern to the minister and I am sure to his officials, as it is to scientists generally. The house and the country would expect the government and the minister to give this matter their closest attention.
The minister has mentioned that there has been an expansion in the radioactive detection facilities and activities of his department. I presume that includes the purchase of new equipment, reference to which was made by Dr. Watkinson about two months ago. Perhaps the minister might supplement his statement by advising whether or not the facilities of the government have been reinforced by the employment of at least one additional geneticist.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this group are interested and pleased that the minister has tabled this very important report in view of the increasing concern of the Canadian people about dangers from this source. We are glad to know that studies will continue, and we hope no avenue will remain unexplored in an effort to get the facts and present the truth to the Canadian people for their protection.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can confirm the report which appeared this morning that the government had agreed to guarantee 80 per cent of a loan by two United States corporations to buy transport planes from the Canadian subsidiary of a United States corporation.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in general the answer is no. I cannot give the hon. member full particulars because the minister is away today, but the course of securing an opportunity for Canadian industry to share in contracts such as were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition is a course we have followed. The full particulars will be given on the return of the minister to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, it would be whether or not it is true that this particular transaction has nothing to do with defence contracts but rather with ordinary commercial contracts.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is true. As yet we have simply given notice of

intent with a view to providing an opportunity for full consideration as between the vendor and the would-be purchasers.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister comment on the new record rate established for three month treasury bills at 4.91 per cent and the bank rate at 5.16 per cent?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the figures have been published and are well known, and I do not think they require any comment. We had an extended debate on this subject in this house last week.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Otiawa West):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment on the recent use of the six month treasury bills, and tell us when these were last issued by the Bank of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this issue yesterday was in the amount of $20 million. It was subscribed, and the average rate on it is 5.27 per cent. It has been the custom for some time past to issue treasury bills with a 91-day maturity only. In this issue there was $115 million of a 91-day issue and $20 million of a new six month issue. I should say this is not the first time a six month issue has been offered. That has not been done recently, but it was done some time earlier by the former government.



ALLEGED PURCHASE BY BANK OF CANADA OF PART OF C.N.R. BOND ISSUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment on the report that owing to depressed conditions of the market for government bonds the Bank of Canada was obliged to purchase one-third of the current Canadian National Railways issue of $150 million?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it has not and I believe never has been the practice to disclose the subscriptions for any issue of government bonds, let alone bonds of the Canadian National Railways. This is a Canadian National Railways issue bearing the guarantee of the government. The issue is for $150 million. It was subscribed, and I think the public interest would not be served by disclosing details as to particular subscriptions. It never has been the practice to do so.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question:
There appears in today's press the news of an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom under which, according to the report, the United States has agreed to furnish information to the United Kingdom regarding the design and construction of a nuclear-powered submarine. The United States has already agreed to provide a reactor for a British nuclear-powered submarine. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any arrangement for that kind of co-operation and assistance if required between the United States and Canada in connection with not only a nuclear-powered submarine but a nuclear-powered icebreaker if one were required?
As I stated on April 21, negotiations have been proceeding with the government of the United States with a view to modification of the 1955 agreement on the exchange of atomic information for mutual defence purposes, to take account of the amendments to the relevant United States legislation which was passed in July of 1958.
I am very glad to say that the government is confident that as a consequence of the bilateral agreement which is now being negotiated, the way would be open to make arrangements for the kind of co-operation and assistance which would be required if the government of Canada were to decide to build a nuclear-powered submarine. However, the cost would have to be taken into consideration. I understand the cost runs to something like $60 million.
So far as a nuclear-powered icebreaker is concerned, information regarding a project for the non-military use of a reactor such as, for instance, to supply power for such a vessel could be exchanged by mutual agreement between Canada and the United States within the scope of the agreement on co-operation in the civil uses of atomic energy.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Labour if he can give any report on the dispute between workers and management at the Polymer Corporation, which has been in existence, as he knows, for some considerable length of time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Another meeting was held this week, convened by the conciliation officer of the Department of Labour. At the moment we are looking over the situation to see what further steps can be taken in order to bring about a meeting between both parties with a view to a settlement being brought about.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since we are in the midst of the house-building season, will the minister ask Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to speed up their current semiannual review of building costs and release their new basic rates as soon as possible-as he knows, this was formerly done on July 1-with a view to making more realistic appraisals in those areas throughout Canada where reductions in basic rates of appraisals were made on January 1, 1959, which has resulted only in a reduction in the level of National Housing Act loans.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take up this question with the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I would point out to the hon. member and to the house that the loans under the insurance provisions of the National Housing Act are even higher this year than they were last year at this date. The figure for requests for undertakings to insure up to May 1-that would be for the first 17 weeks of the current year-is 12,092. Last year there were only 11,741.



VISIT TO WINDSOR AND WHEATLEY BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries based on a report in the Windsor newspaper to the effect that 24 members of the House of Commons visited Windsor and Wheatley on Thursday. Was the transportation provided through the Department of Fisheries? Can the minister advise the house as to how air transport was provided, and at whose expense?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the standing committee on marine and fisheries visited some fisheries

Inquiries of the Ministry plants in the Wheatley area yesterday. The transportation was not provided by the Department of Fisheries.


Mr.   Mc@: Was it provided by the government at government expense? How was it done?


John Angus MacLean: I think that is the case, but I am not in a position to say.


Mr.   Mc@: Will you get the information?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member put the question on the order paper. It is asking for statistical information.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I feel rather uncomfortable about my position in connection with the national hospital scheme. Can something be done to see that the regulations are amended so that I and others can be in Ottawa, away from our home province of British Columbia, for more than three months at a time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I might point out that within the last few days we have been informed by British Columbia authorities of their intention to amend their regulations regarding out of province benefits. As a result of these changes, which are expected to be made in the near future, I understand that an insured person temporarily absent from British Columbia will be eligible for a total of three months' hospitalization benefits during the year following his departure from the province. In other words, if he has to go to hospital during the year of his temporary absence because of acute illness or injury, he will be covered up to a maximum of three months' stay in hospital. I imagine this will take care of the situation.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Finance if he is having difficulty finding suitable candidates for appointment to the chairmanship of the tariff board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member is interested perhaps he would submit his application in writing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman I am interested, but not in the appointment for myself. I am interested in seeing that an appointment is made, and I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. If he has had no difficulty finding candidates, why does he not fill this important post?


Mr.   Mc@: He cannot make up his mind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will be filled in due course, and in the meantime the work of the tariff board is proceeding. They have been hearing a number of appeals.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Without a chairman?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The tariff board can function with a panel of three, and it has been functioning quite satisfactorily.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to advise the house as to what attitude the government has taken with regard to the reported request by India and Poland for a reconvening of the international supervisory committee on truce arrangements in Laos.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there have been differences of opinion over the possibility of attempting to reconvene the international commission for Laos which was adjourned sine die on July 19, 1958. Early this year a request for the reconvening of this commission came from the Poles, who urged resumption of the commission's activities in Laos on the ground that the commission should continue to carry out its supervisory functions there. North Viet Nam and communist China also requested a resumption of the Laos commission's activities. In December, 1958 north Viet Namese incursions into Laotian territory occurred. The Indian government, following upon this frontier dispute, urged a meeting of the Laos commission to deal with this specific problem.
Hon. members may also have seen press reports to the effect that the Soviet embassy in London handed a note to the foreign office on April 29 requesting the return of the international commission to Laos. The Canadian government received a similar request

from the Soviet ambassador on April 28. It will be recalled that the United Kingdom and Soviet foreign ministers are the joint co-chairmen of the Geneva conference, and in that capacity act as a channel of communication with the international commissions in Indochina.
During the negotiations leading up to the adjournment sine die of the Laos commission in July, 1958 the Canadian position was that with the achievement of the political settlement in Laos and the integration of the dissident Pathet Lao into the national community, the commission had completed its supervisory task and should be dissolved. Because the Indian representatives did not accept that view, Canada agreed to the compromise formula of an adjournment sine die against the opposition of the Poles. However, the Canadian commissioner was instructed to make it quite clear, at the final meeting of the commission, that Canada could not agree to any further commission action which would infringe upon Laotian sovereignty.
I understand that the government of Laos is opposed to the reconvening of the commission. The Polish request, in the view of the Canadian government, did not bring forward adequate reasons for reconvening the commission, and since it called for a reconstitution of the commission secretariat in Vientiane, it would have been an obvious infringement on Laotian sovereignty.
I think that in general represents the situation at this time.

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


The Deputy Chairman:: This item will be found at page 35 of the blue book, the details at page 231. Shall vote 163 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to make a few remarks on this item-and I shall try to be brief-with respect to the problem of unemployment which exists at the present time and may be worse next winter. We in this group consider that unemployment in a country like Canada is a serious injustice to those who suffer by it. In the second place, it is an unnecessary waste of human resources. In the third place, it is a challenge to governments in general at all levels, to industry, to labour and to the people as a whole.
66968-9-220
Supply-Labour
Personally I believe it is unthinkable to accept the dictum that we must accept a hard core of unemployment in Canada throughout the year, and that that core should be larger during the winter because of seasonal unemployment.
During the last session of the British Columbia legislature the labour committee gave considerable consideration to this problem as it affects British Columbia. That committee was composed of representatives from all parties, and I am informed that it made a unanimous report to the legislature. I want to bring to the attention of the committee at this time a portion of that report with respect to its recommendations concerning the national government.
The committee invited representations from labour, industry and other sections of the community. It received briefs and representations from the British Columbia federation of labour; the mine, mill and smelter workers representing the miners of British Columbia, and other unions. It heard from various sections of industry through employers' representatives. It heard from the alma mater society of the University of British Columbia, which organization in my opinion made a thoughtful presentation. It heard from the research council of British Columbia, and finally it heard from some of the minister's officials in the regional offices at the coast.
In dealing with this question, Mr. Chairman, the committee considered all aspects of the problem-and I thought they did so in a constructive way-and dealt with the extent of unemployment in British Columbia from January, 1957 to January, 1959. They then sought to find the major causes of unemployment in British Columbia during 1958, and then made certain proposals as to the responsibility of the national government, the provincial government, the local governments, the trade union movement and industry.
I want just to place on record the recommendations of the committee with respect to responsibilities, from the committee's point of view, of the national government to meet this situation. In the report of the committee on labour of the legislative assembly of British Columbia, dated March 18, 1959 this is what I read with respect to the responsibilities of the national government. The committee had this to recommend:
I.	The national government
By virtue of its control over the collections and disbursements of unemployment insurance funds, as well as constitutionally within the framework of the British North America Act as accepted by the national government when taking over certain taxation privileges from provincial administration, the primary responsibility for employment in

Supply-Labour
Canada rests with the national government. With that authority lies the power to sustain a climate conducive to industrial expansion and the creation of new industries with a consequent high level of employment of the working force. Specifically, your committee considers that the national government of Canada should:-
1.	Materially assist in a large-scale works program at appropriate times of the year on such projects as:
(a)	Forest access, transprovincial, and interprovincial roads:
(b)	Park and campsite improvement;
(c)	Diking and drainage projects;
(d)	Stream clearance projects and the creation of artificial spawning areas;
(In this latter connection it is contended that, since the improvement of fishways on the Fraser river eight years ago at a cost of $2 million, the salmon yield has increased by $127 million at cannery prices, and it is therefore evident that such projects would in time be self-liquidating because of the tremendous dollar market value increase in a comparatively short period of time.)
(e)	Fraser river flood control consistent with a policy of fish conservation.
Then No. 2; the committee recommends that the federal government:
2.	Institute an enlarged program of apprenticeship and trades training during adverse seasons of employment by extending the scope of the unemployment insurance commission.
Mr. Chairman, I have had a good number of representations along those lines which I intend to deal with when we are discussing the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It goes on:
3.	Adopt a carefully screened immigration policy on the basis of the stated needs of industry and agriculture thus ensuring the planned assimilation of immigrants into the national working force.
4.	Encourage and promote the construction of coastal shipping and national defence requirements in Canada.
5.	Foster the expansion of a research program designed to encourage the use of coal and coal by-products in our industrial economy.
No doubt that recommendation, Mr. Chairman, springs from the fact that the coal industry in British Columbia, particularly in the Fernie area, is suffering a decline at this time.
6.	Initiate the formation of a joint federal-provincial trade investigation team to the republic of China for the purpose of inquiring into trade possibilities with that country.
I would like to bring to the minister's attention that this recommendation was made both by industry and labour, because the working people of British Columbia as well as the industrial interests realize the great possibility of expansion of our markets for primary products if we can obtain greater trade in that direction.
7.	To provide the ways and means to extend low cost credit in order to:-
(a) Promote and expand economic development and stimulate revenue, income, or self-liquidating projects or works by the province and its municipalities; and to
[Mr. Herridge.)
(b) Assist and encourage the establishment and growth of local industries.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the last recommendation is:
8.	Give leadership and co-operation in the calling of a federal-provincial conference to seek a Canada-wide solution to the unemployment problem, requesting representation from all levels of government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while I heartily support the proposal of the committee for a federal-provincial conference including all levels of government, I think for such a conference to be effective in providing a clear picture of the situation, and at the same time adequately representing the view of the Canadian people generally, that conference should also include representatives from labour, from industry, and from agriculture across this country.
When I say representation, I mean decentralized representation. I am a great believer, Mr. Chairman, that in the development of our domestic society we should decentralize authority and administration. I would like to see all sections of labour have the opportunity to be represented at such a conference. For instance, I think all sections of labour from the Atlantic to the Pacific, such as the forestry industry, the mining industry, the steel industry and the oil industry, should be represented. Then you would have a conference where the government would get the rank and file point of view in dealing with these day to day and very important problems.
The same thing, I think, Mr. Chairman, applies to industry. It is not sufficient just to call in the Canadian Manufacturers Association and have two or three big shots express their views. We have a diversified industrial structure in Canada, and I would like to see at such a conference representatives of various sections of industry, including the small industries, from every province in Canada, and in that way you would get all the information these people would be able to give.
Then with regard to farming, I would like to see a diversified representation in the same way, so that the grain farmers, the general farmers, the dairy farmers, the fruit farmers and the poultry farmers would be all represented at such a conference on a diversified basis, instead of having two or three people speaking for the whole industry. That would give the conference and the government a clear picture not only on a national or a provincial basis but also on a local basis.
Before taking my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring another matter to the minister's attention. I see he is busy chatting at the present time but I hope he will read my remarks later on. I am not blaming him

entirely for this, because I think the blame can rest in other quarters too. But I would like to bring to his attention the success which has been achieved in this direction in the little country of Norway. I have recently been reading some books about the Norwegian government, for which I have a great respect. I have a great respect for all Norwegians. They are a simple and resourceful people who have had to meet some great problems both in peace and in war, and they have met them successfully, and I think countries of our size can learn from such lesser countries, countries with more experience and possibly more maturity when it comes to handling the organizations which represent the various groups of society.
I have been very interested to note how they have formed just such an advisory council representing industry, labour and agriculture in order to deal with the problems of inflation, monetary fiscal policy, unemployment, industry and economy generally. Their conferences have been called somewhat on the basis I have suggested this morning, so they get the local rank and file touch in meeting these problems.
I think that is a principle which can be explored to advantage in Canada. In this way not only does the government get the opinion of various sections of labour, industry and agriculture, but the persons who have the opportunity to represent these people also learn the problems of government and the difficulties which have to be faced. Out of this blending of ideas, this association of different interests, which has such a constructive approach to the problems facing us at this time can be evolved, as was done in Norway, a program which will receive the support of all classes of the people. I do urge the minister to give consideration to a conference of that type.
In addition I think other advantages flow from that type of conference. All programs have to be financed, and when it comes to bond issues for capital investment in self-liquidating projects, I think flowing from such a conference would come an understanding of the problems which face the government and a greater understanding of the program the government may desire to carry out. But it is desirable to have this local interest.
For instance, if I may refer to a local industry in my own district, say the government intended to do certain things with respect to access roads or provincial roads as the result of a program designed to meet the challenge of unemployment. In that case, if you floated a bond issue I think even in the smallest communities of Canada there would be people who would, under those 66968-9-220J
Supply-Labour
circumstances, willingly purchase government bonds to assist in such a program because of their greater knowledge of the circumstances and the need, and also because of their interest which would spring from local participation in the development of that program. I think it would be most beneficial in designing a program to get an understanding of it, and from that I think would flow quite an interest in assisting to provide some of the funds which are necessary to give effect to such a program. Many more people would then feel that they were a part of this program and that they should accept some personal responsibility by making what financial contribution they could toward any bond issues which were offered to meet any of the challenges of national development at this time.
That is all I have to say at this time, and I put the suggestion forward as a constructive approach toward meeting the problem of unemployment as it faces us today.


Mr. Hellyer:: Like other members of this committee I am very much concerned about those Canadians who are unemployed. I am afraid we refer to them some times rather blandly as mere statistics, forgetting that they are human beings with human problems and human needs. I think the time for taking practical steps in an effort to alleviate their position is overdue. It is not my intention to give a lecture on economics or to talk about the situation in a general sense. I wish, rather, to put forward a specific proposal.
I am becoming more and more distressed about the situation of the unemployed. When I go home at week ends I talk to many people, some are young, some middle aged, some of them older, some of them skilled, some of them without any skill or training at all. Each has a common problem. Each is unemployed. Many of these people have mortgage payments which are overdue. Many of them have doctor bills and other bills to meet. Many have family responsibilities and must keep a roof over the heads of their children. Almost every week end I talk to some person who has just lost, or is just about to lose, his home because of inability to meet the financial obligations connected with it.
Chronic unemployment makes cynics, petty crooks and communists out of decent people, and in a rich, young and dynamic economy such as we have in Canada it should be a fundamental right of any able bodied man to be able to work at a wage which will keep body and soul together and provide not only for himself but for his family. Our task as elected representatives who come here to take cognizance of the needs of the people we

Supply-Labour
represent is to try to determine what solutions are best able to meet this grievous situation. Our task is to maintain employment and, through employment, the values of human dignity and decency.
The problem is very difficult to solve completely. As is well known, a significant proportion of our unemployment is seasonal. Many improvements have been made in this respect in the last few years. There have been great strides in technology, and dislocation due to seasonal unemployment is, I think, diminishing. Great strides will be made in the future, and we should press forward in research and study in an effort to find every means possible of mitigating still further the effects of seasonal unemployment.
I think, however, it would be too much to expect that we could ever completely overcome this problem which is indigenous to our climatic conditions. We experience, in addition, the type of unemployment which is called frictional, by which is meant people changing their jobs in the normal course of events. This is something we will always have with us, and something which need not cause us too much concern.
In our search for a solution to this whole problem we require the fullest possible information. The statistics available at present do not give us the whole story. I think we need more detailed information and a more careful study. In approaching this question seriously I feel that the first step required would be a national manpower survey. How extensive this survey ought to be should be left to the experts to determine, but the survey would have to accomplish certain things. It would have to give us a complete analysis of the unemployed labour force, it should determine into which age categories the unemployed workers fall, and give us a more complete breakdown of a variety of information including marital status, training, educational background, vocational training background and, perhaps, job history; sufficient information to enable us to tackle the problem in an all-out manner. It should not be difficult for the national employment service and the unemployment insurance commission to obtain all this information. It would, of course, be an additional job for them at a time when they are already overtaxed, but it is one which is within their capacity and one for which they have the machinery in being.
If such a survey were made, we should then know accurately how many of those people registered as seeking employment were actually unemployed. We should know whether they were plumbers, carpenters, nurses, stenographers, unskilled labourers.
We should know just what their background happened to be. We should know the extent of their educational background, whether they had completed grade school, high school, college; whether they had received apprenticeship training or vocational training; whether they had been self-taught, or whether they had received no training at all. I am sure it would be possible for the commission to obtain sufficient information along these lines to provide material for a very careful and detailed analysis.
At the same time it would be necessary to make a study of the extent and nature of job openings in this country. We should seek to determine what skills will be required not only at the present time but in the months and years which lie ahead. Employers can give a great deal of assistance in this respect. Most of them can forecast their requirements at least for a year or two ahead, and know the type of jobs they are likely to have available. Such information as this is, of course, essential. Whether or not it would be necessary to cover the entire working force in connection with this survey is something I am not prepared to say. That is a decision which can be taken by the people who make these matters their day to day business. The survey should be just as broad as is required to enable us to obtain all the information necessary to meet the situation fully and do the job properly.
The question may be asked, if this is a good suggestion why was it not done some years ago? I think if it were a good suggestion then, it is a good suggestion now. Moreover, the problem is of greater urgency today than it was previously, due to the increase in unemployment since the summer of 1957. Besides, this is a matter which is far too important for quibbling. Completion of such a study as I have suggested would provide facts and eliminate reliance on hearsay.
We are told, for instance, that a great number of those who are at present unemployed are of a mature age and that as a consequence they find a great deal of difficulty in obtaining employment. We are told day after day that people over 40 find difficulty in obtaining employment due to company pension plans. I have no doubt that this is true, but we should know specifically to what extent it is true. If necessary we should examine individual pension plans and find out which provisions make it difficult for employers to engage people over 40. It may be we shall need to do some rethinking and take the initiative in making changes in the pension plans which now exist.
I am sure, and I know the minister agrees with me, that it was not the intention of

either management or labour to set up these pension plans in such a way as to constitute a deterrent to the employment of mature and experienced workers and keep them from rejoining the labour force. This is something which might have been done inadvertently; it would not have been done deliberately. If this should be the case it is our responsibility to find out about it and take the initiative in changing whatever has to be changed.
Another common complaint we hear is that many of the people seeking employment are incompletely or inadequately trained. It is difficult to know to what extent this is true. One suspects from interviewing people that there is considerable validity to this statement. Our survey would show whether or not there is correlation between training and employment, and to what extent lack of training is responsible for unemployment.
Many people in the unemployed labour force went into the labour market in the early post-war years. This was a natural thing to do. Many went in without finishing their schooling. The attraction at the time was very great; high wages prevailed, and it was easy for almost anyone to get a job. This tended to seduce people from their academic or professional studies and persuaded them to enter the labour force perhaps earlier than they would have done in other times. These people now lack the training which they would have had in the ordinary course of events, and for them there is a special problem.
We hear from day to day that for the employment opportunities that do exist there are not skilled applicants. I have personal knowledge of some of these cases. I mentioned earlier this session a period last summer when there were not sufficient trained plasterers to meet the demand. Just two weeks ago in Toronto I was talking to a coat manufacturer who had openings for three machine operators. He was unable to hire adequately trained machine operators. I also know that in the construction industry there could be openings for highly skilled estimators, inspectors, material handlers, material expediters and for other classes of people if they had sufficient technological training to fill openings of this kind. There must be many other trades and vocations where there are employment opportunities if the people were available who had the training and skills required.
In the unemployed labour force at the present time there undoubtedly are a number of skilled workers whose skills may be in overabundant supply or for whose skills there may be continually contracting requirement. This is a situation that is likely to continue in
Supply

Labour
the wake of automation. Inevitably there will be change, and our responsibility is to face it and use it to our national advantage.
We should not attempt to impede the progress of automation, from which a great deal of dislocation can be expected and much adjustment will be necessary. Automation will be a great boon and a blessing if we are prepared to plan for it and use our displaced personnel to the best advantage of the total economy and channel their productivity and creative talents into new, productive enterprises and outlets. This is a program that will require some imagination. It is a problem that has not existed for very long and one to which we perhaps have not given sufficient attention. It will require imaginative and well-planned study. This is a problem which I know we can and will face and solve if we really set our minds to it.
Once the facts had been determined by our survey the next step would be to launch a massive rehabilitation program. It seems ironic that during wartime big men present big plans and achieve big success with almost universal public support, whereas in peacetime we seem reluctant to face big problems and procrastinate sometimes almost interminably in seeking solutions. If we could just maintain some of that sense of urgency which we feel during wartime we could achieve miracles.
This program of massive rehabilitation could be patterned on the experience gained by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the early post-war years. At that time, as you will recall, the government made it possible for veterans to undertake academic or vocational training at government expense. More than 60,000 veterans took some university training under that plan, and almost 100,000 were approved for vocational training. Many, of course, did not complete their studies, but there is no doubt but that they have been able to contribute much more to the growth and potential of the Canadian economy as a result of the opportunity made available to them.
The massive rehabilitation program would, in effect, be a massive program of adult education. It could be set up in various centres right across Canada from Newfoundland to British Columbia. The number of trades and subjects taught would, of course, be related both to the demand for these particular courses and to the result of the survey and future surveys held from time to time, indicating the extent to which any trade or skill would be required in the economy. Participants would be given complete freedom of choice in their selection,

Supply-Labour
but it would probably be advisable to provide counselling service. In addition, though I personally am somewhat leery of them, aptitude tests could be given if requested.
I do not know why persons drawing unemployment insurance and for whom there is no immediate prospect of job openings should not take advantage of the opportunity to increase their knowledge or improve their skills. I am confident that many would welcome the opportunity. In many cases, no doubt, it would be a first introduction to vocational or technical training; in other cases an extension or supplement to previous courses. For others it would be the commencement of acquiring a new skill as an alternative to one already possessed which is in oversupply. Such a plan, of course, would not necessarily be limited to those persons drawing unemployment insurance but should be available to those on municipal relief, etc.
It may be said that there is a constitutional problem involved, and someone may wish to argue that such a program may be outside the federal jurisdiction. I doubt if this objection would be seriously raised. The veterans rehabilitation program was designed to give Canadian veterans an opportunity to better fit themselves for return to, or absorption by, the Canadian labour force. This proposed plan would be for exactly the same reason, to take people from the rolls of the unemployed and prepare them for return to and absorption by the Canadian economy. When a person trained in Newfoundland, for example, is able to obtain employment it will relieve, indirectly, the tax burden on every other Canadian from coast to coast. For each person able to obtain employment as a result of such training it would reduce the burden on all the Canadian taxpayers.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that whether this plan is administered by the federal government or by the provinces is not too important. However, I feel the federal government must take the complete financial responsibility and not load any part of the responsibility on the provinces, and not make the implementation of the plan dependent on additional provincial financial responsibility. I know some of the background as to why it is suggested that the provinces should participate, but I feel the provincial governments already have such a heavy burden that we could not reasonably expect them to participate financially. Particularly would this be true of some of the smaller provinces such as the maritimes, and some of the other provinces which are not as wealthy as the central provinces. I would hope that it could be done completely on

federal initiative. Whether or not it is administered by the federal government is a matter of detail that I would have to leave to the administration.
Notwithstanding the constitution, unemployment is by its very nature and because of its relationship to federal policies particularly federal fiscal and monetary policies, a federal problem, and no federal government can escape its over-all responsibility in this regard. Unemployed people can pass freely from one province to another and they are the concern of all Canadians, and as such should be the concern of this parliament and of this House of Commons. Our labour force must not only be trained but mobile. A pocket of unemployment anywhere in Canada is the concern and responsibility of people in every other part of Canada. I expect the provincial governments would welcome any proposal which would tend to reduce the ranks of the unemployed and to mitigate, whether directly or indirectly, those many economic and social problems connected with unemployment.
I wish to compliment the minister on the increased emphasis he is putting on vocational training. I note the increase in expenditures for vocational training under item 170; but most of this money is being used to train new people who are coming into the labour force, young people who are just making their way into the labour force. A very small proportion of it is being used for the rehabilitation and training of unemployed workers. The increase in this year's estimate specifically on behalf of unemployed workers is very small.
I think modern society accepts the responsibility, though not adequately, for people without jobs. People who are unemployed must not be denied food, clothing and shelter. We have reached a state in our evolution where we believe we are our brothers' keepers at least to the extent that we have to provide them with the basic necessities of life. It would be incredible if we in a great, rich, growing country such as ours could not supply our unemployed people with at least sufficient of the basic requisites of food, clothing and shelter.
Whether these are paid for through unemployment insurance, municipal relief, or through some other means, they are a charge on the community at large and are paid for by the taxpaying and consuming public. We find ourselves, I think, believing that this money comes out of some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If we trace it back we find that it all comes from the same source, namely from all of us as workers, from all of us as consumers, and we all have to pay the shot.

The unemployment insurance fund and relief are just two more of those fixed costs which we talk about, costs which raise the prices of our products and make it more difficult for us to compete in world markets. Expenditure for a rehabilitation program- and it would be a considerable expenditure; I do not deny that-would be in the nature of an investment. It would result ultimately in very handsome dividends, not only in the self-respect and dignity of the individuals themselves but to the community at large. This is a program which, though not self-liquidating in the normal terminology of self-liquidating, would be far more than self-liquidating in the ultimate and total effect on the Canadian economy. More important, Mr. Chairman, would be the tens of thousands of individuals who would regain their dignity, self-respect and independent place in the community.
This plan, Mr. Chairman, is complementary to the one put forward yesterday by my leader. These are both partial solutions to a very serious problem. They could be studied. At the same time they could both be discussed with the provinces at a conference such as that suggested yesterday by my leader, the leader of the official opposition.
In conclusion, I would suggest that the government give serious consideration to this proposal. I can assure them that they would receive wholehearted support and backing from members on this side of the house. This is the type of progressive peacetime policy which we as members of parliament and as representatives of the people have an obligation and a responsibility to put forward, and not only just to put forward but to implement.
I suggest with deference to the government that, just as with the proposal for next year's winter works program, they do not leave consideration of this until next fall but that they consider it urgently and immediately, because the days and weeks have a habit of slipping by so quickly that before we know it next winter will be upon us, and only plans which are commenced now can possibly be achieved and implemented by the fall of the year. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, provision could be made in the supplementary estimates which would enable a start to be made and the machinery to be set up. It is obvious that it would not be possible to achieve maximum enrolment at once because of the difficulty of obtaining and perhaps training the teachers, the supervisors, the instructors and other personnel necessary to organize such a large scale enterprise. But once it was started it
Supply-Labour
would grow and would be a permanent and dynamic fixture of our economy in a growing technological age.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for listening so carefully to this proposition. Again on behalf of those on this side of the house I recommend it to the sympathetic consideration of the government, and I can promise that if they would implement this, or some scheme based upon similar lines, they would receive enthusiastic and considerable support from all of us over here.
(Translation):


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, as I represent a riding where workers account for about 50 per cent of the population, I feel I must take part in this debate so as to acquaint the house and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) with the views of the people in my riding as regards unemployment insurance.
But before doing so, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in rebuttal of some arguments advanced in this house, more particularly last night by hon. members for Hull (Mr. Caron), and for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau).
I should like to ask the house to look back on conditions as they were at the time when hon. members of the Liberal party were managing the affairs of this country. They would have us believe that Liberal times were invariably prosperous times, whereas under Conservative administration, Canada lapsed into unrelieved hard times.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should hark back to the late twenties, when a Liberal government was sitting on the government benches. Farmers remember, for instance, that butter, at the time, was selling for 18 to 20 cents a pound; eggs, 12 to 15 cents a dozen; hogs $10 to $12; and milk about 80 cents a hundredweight.
On leaving college, I spent a few months looking for work, because it was a period of unemployment, although, it will be noted, this was under a Liberal government. Finally, I found a job that was paying me $6 a week. The facts, therefore, are somewhat different from what hon. members in the opposition would have people believe. But these gentlemen have so taken advantage of the good faith of the public that, sooner or later, they are bound to regret their irresponsible statements.
I also like other citizens of St. Hyacinthe, witnessed practices bordering on inhumanity resorted by the town's mayor, a Liberal. During the depression of the 30's, people were being hired at 10 cents an hour

Supply-Labour
to break up stone with a sledge-hammer. Please note, sir, that this was under a Liberal administration, for it was the Hon. T. D. Bouchard, mayor of St. Hyacinthe, who was responsible for those conditions.
In 1933, the business picture brightened up somewhat. However, at that time, when I was working for the Goodyear Company, men were being paid $6 and $7 a week. This went on until 1939. Now the conditions I have referred to were those that existed during the years 1936, 1937 and 1938, therefore under a Liberal regime. Yet, according to our good friends, whenever they were in power these were years only of prosperity and even of opulence.
I am pointing this out Mr. Chairman, so as to give a complete picture of the conditions then prevailing in Canada. It is easy to brag about prosperity while looking at only one side of the picture, but in these matters, as in any others, it is necessary to look at both sides.
Since the beginning of this session, and especially since the house took up the estimates of the Department of Labour, our Liberal opponents have been painting a very dark picture of the present situation and of unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And they have been right.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, we shall look in retrospect at conditions which prevailed under the Liberal regime.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were not as bad.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In so far as my constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is concerned, figures which I got directly from the local unemployment insurance office show that, in January 1953,	1,896 unemployed were registered
there. The figures also show that 2,835 were registered in January 1954, 2,438 in January 1955, 2,553 in January 1956 and 2,809 in January 1957. That was the situation under a Liberal regime. On the other hand, according to the latest statistics supplied by the same local office, 1,298 unemployed registered in the city of St. Hyacinthe in December 1958.
As reported on page 2 of the English Appendix to yesterday's Hansard, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) stated:
In yesterday's edition of La Presse, I found still another headline which might also help write the story of this Conservative government. Indeed, in its issue of yesterday, May 6, La Presse had a heading which read:
Workers' unemployment insurance contributions are going up.

To that, I would oppose a heading from another newspaper. In its editorial of today May 8, Le Devoir has an item headed:
A commendable extension of the social security idea.
And the item goes on to say:
It is feared that news agencies have not understood a thing about the new amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In their dispatches they emphasized only what was bound to make the greatest impression on people's minds, i.e. the higher contributions, but left in the dark the increased protection guaranteed to each contributor.
Mr. Chairman, any unbiased person will agree that the present Conservative government has done much to help those who are unfortunately out of work. At this stage of the discussion, I should like to remind the house of some of the measures taken by this government at the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who, is everywhere recognized as the best minister of labour the Canadian parliament ever had.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is a good man, no doubt, but I think you are exaggerating a bit.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, let me first of all draw the attention of the house to the restrictions which applied to married women and which were removed during the very first session. The elimination of such restrictions has had the happy effect of putting $5 million more into the hands of married women who, under the old act, did not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
I would also point out to the house that this government twice extended the benefit period, by six weeks and two months respectively. In each case, it was at the suggestion of the present hon. Minister of Labour.
(Text):


Michael Starr: Two months and six weeks. (Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The first amendment provided for a six week extension, and the second an extension of two months in the duration of seasonal benefits. About 100,000 workers were helped by this wise measure, and received additional payments amounting to approximately $48 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result of their own contributions.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes certainly. The hon. member for Essex-East, just as hon. members to his right, apparently expects to get everything

for nothing. However, I do not think we have yet reached that stage, and we hope with God's help that present conditions will go on improving as they have done until now.
Meanwhile, our Liberal friends keep on saying that this government has done nothing to alleviate hardships. They are not the only ones who feel sorry for the unemployed. We on this side of the house are concerned with human suffering and are just as anxious as are our opponents

perhaps even more concerned, because we are proving it-to alleviate the regrettable effects that are being felt by these people.
Just to go on with my enumeration, let me also remind the house that it was through the actions of this government that unemployment insurance benefits were granted to fishermen. Following an amendment introduced by the Conservative government, 13,000 fishermen received an amount of about $15 million.
And finally, at the suggestion of the present Minister of Labour, the duration of unemployment insurance benefit payments will soon be extended from 36 to 52 weeks per year.
If you add up all the money spent by this government to help the unemployed, you reach a figure of $68 million. I think our Liberal opponents should at least be realistic and admit that the payment of such an amount certainly deserves the gratitude of the people concerned.
And now, Mr. Chairman, what about the winter works promoted by this government? Such works, amounting to $97,903,000-or almost $98 million-provided employment to close to 40,000 people-39,961, to be exact.
In the province of Quebec, this winter works program reached an amount of $33,450,000 and provided employment for 6,229 persons. I therefore suggest to our Liberal friends to take a good look at the present situation and to represent it in its true light, instead of raising the cry of depression and trying to have everyone, including people in employment, believe that there is a shortage of jobs.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the house that, as a consequence of the tireless efforts of the Minister of Labour, Canadian workers can certainly look forward to happier days.
(Text):


Mr. Howard:: Last evening I had occasion to make a few comments on this particular item, but because of the time limitation I was unable to complete and give expression to the thoughts I desired to express.
In the latter part of my remarks I was making reference to the effectiveness, or
Supply-Labour
lack of it, of the conciliation arrangements in effect under the jurisdiction of both the federal government and the provinces, which are in most cases somewhat similar. The suggestion was that following an initial period of negotiation between the representatives of the workers themselves and the representatives of management, if no settlement is reached in this direct stage of negotiation every effort should be made at the conciliation officer stage to effect a settlement and to insist upon collective bargaining taking place to the fullest possible extent.
At the moment we have the system of a conciliation officer and then a conciliation board. In many cases the conciliation board does nothing but duplicate the activities of the conciliation officer. It may be that because the conciliation officer failed to effect a settlement for one reason or another, the conciliation board finds itself in this position of having to perform the duties and the functions which are properly those of the conciliation officer.
I look upon this situation as we look upon most matters of duplication, namely as being nothing more than a waste of the money of the federal treasury in the payment of the costs of the chairman of the conciliation board. I am sure we could scrap the conciliation board procedure without too much difficulty, thus realizing a great saving in costs to the Department of Labour for those particular services, and probably channeling that money in the direction of conciliation officers, if more of them are needed, or in terms of additional money to them in order to get the right type of person for a conciliation officer.
I believe the minister mentioned that last year 24-I have not the figures right before me at the moment but I believe that is the figure he used-negotiations were settled before conciliation boards last year. Here then are 24 cases of duplication, 24 industrial disputes or negotiations that could quite well have been settled at the conciliation officer stage.
Another failure which I believe exists in our conciliation procedure is that-as has happened in a number of cases, especially major industrial disputes affecting large corporations and a large number of workmen- when these industrial disputes get beyond the conciliation and strike vote stage, either preceding the time the strike is to take place or after a strike has taken place, the minister invariably is obliged to go outside of his own departmental officials and call upon private citizens to assist in the conciliation or mediation process in order to effect a settlement.

Supply-Labour
I do not think this is giving due credit to the officials within the department. It maybe that they are not capable of performing their duties in that sense and at that stage of negotiations; that I could not say. But when we have a conciliation structure; when we employ conciliation officers whose duty and responsibility it is to effect a settlement, to mediate, to get both sides together, to ensure that collective bargaining, give and take takes place and a contract is signed, it seems rather senseless that we should be obliged to go outside and call upon the services of private citizens to do the things that Department of Labour officials should be doing in the first place.
Another unfortunate matter that arises from the operation of conciliation boards is in the selection of people as chairmen of conciliation boards who are not departmental officials. This is so in practically all cases. Some private citizen is asked to be chairman of the conciliation board. He may be a judge of some court, as happens in a number of cases. He may be a retired individual. He may be someone who has done a considerable amount of work in conciliation and arbitration procedures, such as university professors, lawyers and so on. But in some cases it has happened that the appointment of persons as chairmen of conciliation boards has been nothing more than a recognition of the contribution a person has made to a political party in one way or another over the years, and political hacks are appointed as conciliation board chairmen.
I have participated in conciliation boards where this has happened, and that procedure is extremely detrimental to labour-management negotiations and to peace and harmony in those negotiations, and in regard to effecting a settlement at that stage. In many cases the individuals appointed in this way are not too interested in the process of negotiation. They do not have too much of a conception of the industry itself or the play of human psychological forces in labour-management negotiations; therefore the process of conciliation falls down at that stage where these things happen.
I would certainly suggest to the minister that when he does take steps to amend the present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, if he would do so along the lines I have suggested I do not think he would find there would be too much argument or rejection of those proposals by the people affected by them. Certainly as far as I am concerned, as well as others on this side, the minister would not find much objection.
One of the other difficulties which arise in the enactment of legislation governing the relationships between the working people,

through their unions, and management is that those laws are often enacted in the dark. Legislators in many cases do not have too much of an understanding about the forces involved in the process, as well as the psychological factors at work. In this instance we have legislation along these lines which has been in effect for too long without any revision being made to it, and without it being kept up to date.
Legislation oftimes is restrictive. I point again to the case in British Columbia under our labour relations act where in some cases it is absolutely impossible to comply with the provisions of the act, and if a strike does take place the union is automatically on an illegal strike because the law says so. The law is restrictive in that event, and consequently causes difficulties and much trouble. Then the lawmakers come along after they have caused these difficulties and trouble and say, "We will have to put even greater restrictions in the legislation. You people are not complying with the law; we will impose such drastic penalties that you will be required to." But they do not deal with the problem at its roots by designing the proper legislation in the first instance which would, in the first place, be acceptable to both sides, and second, take into account the human factors involved.
I hope when the minister does get around to it, though I do not imagine it will be until next session, he will introduce amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act somewhat along the lines I have suggested, and that he will not fall into the trap into which other people have fallen of making the legislation so restrictive and damaging that it will defeat the very purpose which it is supposedly designed to accomplish, namely promoting labour-management harmony, promoting collective bargaining in the true spirit of give and take, and promoting peaceful relations between the two groups who are directly involved in the negotiations. As I say, I hope he will not fall into this trap but will have the foresight, which I know he is capable of exercising, to introduce legislation which will not only not be too drastic in this light but will also, in effect, have the result of promoting labour-management harmony.
Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to comment on some of the remarks made last evening following my remarks. First of all, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George spoke directly after I did, and he made the suggestion that the proposals I had put forward with respect to the power and authority of conciliation officers was bordering on compulsory arbitration. Surely the

hon. member, especially in view of the experience he himself had when he bailed the government out of its difficult position with respect to the C.B.C. in Montreal, cannot reasonably expect anyone to think that this is bordering on compulsory arbitration. Far, far from it.
Then my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo, who also spoke following my remarks-I regret that he is not in the house at this moment so he would have the opportunity, if he so desired, to reply to what I am about to say-made some comments in connection with certain remarks of mine to which I would particularly like to make reference. I say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I have a great deal of respect for the honesty, ability and integrity of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, and I am sure if many other hon. members in the house had the same openness and sincerity, not only internally but also outwardly, we would have much less difficulty with the problems which face us at the present time.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo started off in a very impassioned and emotional way which was apparently occasioned by the remarks I had made originally, and I cannot for the life of me see why he started off on that tack because I do not think I said anything untoward in my comments so far as the recently enacted labour legislation in Newfoundland is concerned. My remarks were confined specifically to that legislation and were not bordering on the question of article 29, and so on, about which I have other views. But I did make two comments which I think were quite factual and had nothing to do with whether I was in Newfoundland or whether the facts had all been brought out or not. One of my comments was that the premier of Newfoundland had instituted legislation, which incidentally the legislature subsequently passed though I did not say so in my remarks last night, which in effect decertified and outlawed two locals of the I.W.A. Mr. Chairman, that is a fact; there are no two ways about it.


Mr, Pickersgill:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would prefer the hon. member to wait until afterward, but if he insists-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is on the definition of a word. I would like to hear the hon. member's definition of the word "outlawed"?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not want to make any unkind remarks about you, sir. I did not use the word "outlawed"; I used the word "decertified".
Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. The hon. member will find on checking Hansard that he said both decertified and outlawed just now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Just now I said decertified and outlawed, but last night I just used the word decertified, and I used it in this context and in the same way because that is precisely what happened. In this instance the two words are synonymous. It is factual. The act which I have before me, of which tne hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was kind enough to let me have a copy for my own information, makes no reference to "outlaw", it is true. It refers to decertification.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly; and that is all.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. members carry on their private conversation outside the house?


Charles Benjamin Howard: My hon. friend wants us to carry on our private conversation outside the house. I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I did not make the interjection; the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did. I am only trying to accommodate other hon. members by giving as full as possible a discussion of this particular question.
The other comment I had to make last night was in my opinion another factual matter, except that it related to something which might happen in the future. However, I do not think even that remark should have provoked the comments made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. The suggestion I made was that this type of action by a group of political people outlawing a union-or decertifying it, if the hon. member likes a euphemistic term better-could have the result of provoking working class people into taking political action. It could, and that is a factual statement.
I could go further into this question if the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo-and again I am sorry he is not here-wished me to do so. I could discuss this question of the invasion of the rights of individuals, of the by-passing of the labour relations board, of the removal of jurisdiction from the administration's own quasi-judicial board which deals with certification, and with political interference in the conduct of union affairs. I would be quite prepared to do this, for the act is right here before us. Any hon. member can get a copy, and it represents nothing more than a group of politicians denying to the people of Newfoundland their just and moral rights under the law.
What would be thought in this parliament if, for instance, the Minister of Labour, who has under his jurisdiction a board which issues certificates to unions, were to introduce

Supply-Labour
a specific piece of legislation stating that the brotherhood of locomotive engineers no longer had the right to represent the firemen on the C.N.R.? Yet that is precisely, in effect, what was done in Newfoundland. Suppose the Minister of Agriculture were to introduce a specific piece of legislation to the effect that a particular farmer no longer had the right to sell his wheat to his own elevator. Yet precisely the same principle is involved. If we accept this legislation saying that certain people no longer have the right to belong to a particular union, it is no different from accepting the principle that a law may be passed saying that an individual no longer has the right to belong to a particular religious organization because it is not one which the government likes.
I imagine that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo had reference to the economic position of the Anglo-Newfoundland company and its ability to pay certain wages and taxes, if in fact the company pays any taxes to anyone other than the federal government. I do not wish to become involved in discussing the economic affairs of the company. Information on that subject is readily available from the company's own annual reports. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from this information, the fact remains that as soon as Premier Smallwood got rid of one union and established his own politically dominated union, the company was able to pay to its employees the wage increase which earlier it had said it was unable to afford.
I should like also to make reference, if I may, to the relationship which exists between wages and prices, because that is certainly part of our economic system. The general cry in the last couple of years has been that every time there is a wage increase prices to consumers must immediately rise. It has been accepted that the company affected by the wage increases was obliged to increase its prices. Consequently the working people who received the increases were labelled as irresponsible by the rest of society.
I think the facts themselves in no way bear out this attitude. In some cases, it is true, increases in wages could have an effect upon prices, especially if a company is in a marginal position or if the company concerned cannot afford to pay wage increases without raising prices to the consumers of its product. However, I submit that in the great bulk of cases this is not the situation. Then again we constantly hear the cry that we are pricing ourselves out of world markets because of high wages, because the working man desires a sufficient income to provide for himself and for his family. It is said that the only way we can get these markets back

is by cutting wages so we can produce more cheaply and compete with other suppliers of world markets.
This is the gist of the arguments we hear. But let us take the case of the aluminum industry. In Canada the notable company is the Aluminum Company of Canada, which for a long while has been virtually in a monopoly position. It was not too long ago that the Aluminum Company of Canada, or Alcan as it is briefly referred to, found itself in difficulty in so far as the United Kingdom market was concerned because aluminum from Russia was being sold in the United Kingdom at a price lower than that at which Alcan was selling to the United Kingdom. The cry went up that because of high wages the Canadian aluminum industry had priced itself out of the market, and that consequently we should be obliged to curtail production, lay people off and so on.
One of the first things we have to determine, if we can, is how the cost factor in Russia is calculated. I myself believe this to be impossible. How do the Russians determine their cost of production? What is it based on? We have no idea. I am sure the manner in which the economy of that country operates would make it impossible for us to compete with them even if we were in a position to find out how they compute their labour costs. So that argument has not too much validity.
Again, one of the facts about this industry which few people seem to realize-or if they do realize it they do not say too much about it-is that for more than 50 years the aluminum industry has operated in the world market in a monopoly position, protected by cartels and price fixing arrangements. The price of aluminum has never had anything to do with the wages received by the employees in that industry or in a particular company. Alcan or Aluminium Limited, the holding company which owns Alcan in Canada, was for many years the agency through which Alcoa in the United States entered into these international arrangements in so far as price fixing agreements were concerned.
I wonder if I might call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I gather that I have about five minutes or more at my disposal in which to conclude my observations. At one o'clock I was dealing with the question of the effect that wages may have

on price increases and said that this is an insignificant part of the pressure on price increases. In fact, I made mention of the aluminum industry in general and the Aluminum Company of Canada in particular. The question of price fixing arrangements, of combines, of participation in international cartels and the question of price increases without any relationship between the amount of the increase and the wages paid and other costs of the industry form one of the major factors affecting an increase in price or the devaluation of the dollar or inflation.
For some twenty years Canadian farmers were at the mercy of a price fixing combine in the steel industry. The Steel Company of Canada, Dosco, New Brunswick Fence, Lundy Fence and Canadian Fence are a few of the names that come to mind as being companies that were engaged in a price fixing combine and that were subsequently charged and found guilty under the Criminal Code just a short while ago. This served to point up the fact that over a twenty-year period farmers were at the mercy of these corporations that charged whatever they wanted to charge. It was found that the wages paid to the employees in the steel industry had absolutely no connection with price levels and price increases with respect to farm fencing and other fencing.
There have been a number of prosecutions in the Canadian courts with respect to other combines. Some of the industries and names that come to mind are the rubber industry, the electrical industry, the E. B. Eddy Company's match factory, the pulp and paper and fine papers industry, and so on. Case after case arises across Canada involving corporations that engage in price-fixing arrangements with other corporations in the same type of industry the design of which is to charge the highest possible prices they can, there being no connection whatever between the wages paid in the industry, the other costs which industry had to meet and the prices which they charged.
There are many other cases which have not yet been considered by the courts but which have been reported by the restrictive trade practices commission and which as far as we can gather from information gleaned from the press and from questions raised in this house the Department of Justice is considering prosecuting under the Criminal Code. We cannot deal with this question at any length because some of these cases are presently before the courts or under consideration.
Time after time in industry after industry and in corporation after corporation attempts were made to enter into price-fixing arrangements. The larger the corporation the
Supply-Labour
easier it is to do so. There have been pricefixing arrangements, instances of uniform bidding on government contracts, uniform price setting and uniform increases introduced which constitute one of the major factors in the increasing cost of living and one of the major factors in prices having reached the level they have now attained. I mention these illustrations only to show the other side of the coin to those people who spread propaganda from one end of the country to the other saying that the working-class people are responsible for the increased cost of living because of demands for wage increases or other adjustments in their remuneration.
The working force is not entirely to blame although they may be to a slight degree or in some individual instances. Certainly, however, they are not entirely to blame. By far the greater part of the blame rests with those corporations that engage in price-fixing schemes, combines, monopolies and international cartels with companies in other countries. If we would attack this problem with the same energy that is devoted to spreading propaganda about the working class being to blame more significant strides would be made toward meeting the problem than have been made up to the present time.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few moments of the time of the committee. It may seem strange that a member from what is almost entirely a farming community should rise in his place to speak on a labour vote but there are plenty of precedents established in this committee of people-as it were-talking out of their natural habitat.
The first thing I want to do is tell the Minister of Labour that the people of my constituency as well as the members of this party are 100 per cent behind him. We approve very much of his actions and are happy to have as the minister in charge of this portfolio a man who is so naturally unruffled, even-tempered and keen-minded. We know that he has the interests of labour at heart because he has been a member of a union for many years. We also commend him for the appointment of Mr. MacArthur to the board of commissioners of the unemployment insurance commission. The minister's decision indicates that he does what he knows to be right and that political considerations do not influence his actions.
I wish to make particular reference to the addresses made yesterday by two hon. members, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Hamilton South. I thought they were very able addresses.
The thing that I want to talk about particularly this afternoon is the situation in

Supply-Labour
so far as farm labour is concerned, at least in western Canada. It is very difficult to get sufficient help on the farms and I do not know what possibly can be done about it. People do not seem to want to work on the farms any more. I know why perfectly well. You cannot run a farm on a 40-hour week or less. While there are alleged to be half a million more or less unemployed people in this country, yet at the same time there are probably 250,000 or 300,000 jobs available on farms. I will admit that everybody who is unemployed is not suitable for work on the farm but a great many of them could work there if they wanted to.
The people who work in industry have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund, and rather than work on farms they are satisfied-I do not say contented-to draw what unemployment insurance they can and not work on the farm. This is something that farmers find difficult to understand. They cannot understand why, when there are so many jobs of one kind or another that perfectly physically fit people could take, they do not take them. This lack of help on the farms is one thing that is causing the situation that has been called vertical integration to take place on the farms. The farmer cannot get sufficient help to carry on the way he should and the way he wants to; therefore, he is forced into this situation.
Another thing that farmers fail to understand is why so many of the unions in this country are controlled by people from a foreign country. It does not seem right that the national economy of Canada should be controlled by perhaps a gangster or gangsters from a foreign country.


Mr. Peters:: Does the hon. member know of one instance where there has been a foreigner in a union in Canada?


An hon. Member:: Hal Banks.


William Arnold Peters: Give us the name of any union which has an executive officer who is a citizen of any country other than Canada.


Frank John William Fane: How about Banks? How about the teamsters union?


William Arnold Peters: Hal Banks is still a United States citizen.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what he says.


Frank John William Fane: Or, he was. A great many people do not seem to know that of the unemployment insurance which the unemployed workers collect, five-twelfths of what is in the fund is paid into the fund by the workers. Another five-twelfths is paid in by the employers, leaving only two-twelfths, or one-sixth of the amount contributed to the fund by the government. Therefore, that is

one reason why some organizations, or people in some walks of life, are averse to unemployment insurance. I have heard it many times. They do not seem to realize the proportion that is contributed by the workers.
A short time ago I was very happy to hear the minister say that unemployment insurance for farm workers is being considered. It might make a great difference to the farm labour situation if farm labourers were eligible for unemployment insurance, although it is very difficult to think of anybody who is a farm worker being unemployed.
Last winter we had a winter works program initiated by this government under the Minister of Labour. For the few who were unemployed and who were not on a farm basis that was a very good thing in my constituency. For example, in Elk island park alone jobs were made for 100 men all winter, and that really did help the situation out there.
I have now had my little say about the farming angle of the unemployment situation and again I want to tell the minister how happy the people in my constituency are to have him in charge of this department.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take too much of the committee's time in order to deal with labour conditions on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Labour. I mentioned the matter briefly during the budget debate, but I want to recall certain points and, more particularly, to make a few suggestions to the government.
I have pointed out before in this house, that labour conditions in the riding of Lapointe and throughout the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, are on the whole pitiful. Just about one family head out of four is without a job and, considering that next week, that is in mid-May, supplementary benefits paid out to the jobless will come to an end, I think this is a very deplorable situation, urgently in need of attention. It is all right to help the unemployed so that their wives and children may eat, but I am of the opinion that this is a short-sighted solution from those who are responsible for administrating this country's business.
As I said, there are in my constituency of Lapointe, and in the neighbouring area about 17,000 people-fathers or heads of families-who will be out of work and most of whom will no longer receive supplementary unemployment insurance benefits. Among the many people affected by

unemployment in my area, there are a good many young men, and to me, this is one of the most tragic situations that can exist.
Unemployment can foster all the seamiest aspects of society. Young people of 17, 18, 20, 25 or even 30 years, who have no work can engage in any adventure, even in crime, because of the despondency they feel when they find that, as they have no work, they cannot help their family to subsist and to eat when they are hungry.
I am aware of such cases as are, I am sure, many of my colleagues.
During the Easter holidays-I am not setting myself as an example, I am merely stating a fact, and I am sure many of my colleagues have had the same experience- I had to send out several hampers of food- paid out of my allowance, since I have no other source of income-to families whose fathers and older children were out of work, even after they had desperately tried to find jobs. I called on those families; I did not content myself with receiving the heads of families at home to give them money directly; on the contrary, I rented cars and paid them a visit, thus seeing with my own eyes that there was hardship in many families of my constituency. I am of the opinion that this is the problem that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) should try to solve for next fall and next winter.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from the words of His Eminence Cardinal Leger, but before I do so, I should like to make a statement. There are many politicians who like to quote church authorities or hobnob with the clergy, in order to gain more prestige with their constituents. I should like to state here, and very categorically, that I am not quoting His Eminence Cardinal Leger, merely because he is the highest Catholic church authority in the province of Quebec. I do so, because he wrote a letter about unemployment which, in my opinion, is a genuine charter from which the federal government could derive inspiration in its search for a solution to the evils from which we are suffering today, and to those which threaten us in the future.
Concerning unemployment, here is what His Eminence Cardinal Leger said:
It has been stated by an economist that, if a man suffers from unemployment for an extended period of time, morbid reactions will almost certainly affect his quality as a man and as a worker. Not only will his technical ability be impaired through disuse but he will lose the habit
Supply-Labour
of working, with consequent loss of self respect and self confidence. So when an opportunity later arises, this man, who previously was merely "unemployed", will have become "unemployable". Meanwhile, his private life may have been shattered, and the atmosphere in which his children grow may have been poisoned.
Though full employment theories remain a subject of discussion among economists, unemployment is no longer considered a natural necessity.
Unemployment places the social order in serious jeopardy, because it can foster, among the unemployed, feelings of discontent and bitterness towards a society which has proved incapable of making use of vital forces crying for an outlet.
The experience of foreign countries tends to prove-
And I want to draw the attention of the government and of the Minister of Labour to that last sentence-
The experience of foreign countries tends to prove that agitators and demagogues always find there a choice field to promote class struggle. Because of the lack of stability from which it rises, unemployment becomes one of the great scourges of mankind.
While impoverishing its victims, unemployment decreases consumption, leads to economic stagnation in other branches of the economy, and paralyses progress. Not only does society not benefit from the development of resources, which are thus truly sterilized, but it has moreover to meet the needs of the unemployed.
The situation has become so serious, as I was saying a few days ago in this house, that throughout the province-and I thought it was only happening in my riding-young people are forming groups in order to rouse public opinion and appeal to the leaders of this country.
I have here an excerpt from La Presse of March 24, 1959, which is preceded by the following headline:
In a pool room, young men are forming an association of jobless.
We also have in my riding such groups of young unemployed men, as well as in the three other ridings of my area.
Mr. Chairman, there is no need to quote statistics, because I know that the Minister of Labour and all hon. members can see, through those statistics, the plight of those who are unable to earn their living and provide for their families. That is why I ask the Minister of Labour to think not only of unemployment insurance benefits, but to try and find some formula to alleviate the terrible scourge which affects not only my own riding, my area and my province, but the country as a whole. There has been some progress I admit, but the situation is still intolerable and the government must do more.
In a letter about unemployment-and I shall come back on this later-His Eminence Cardinal Leger spoke of the responsibility of our leaders with regard to unemployment. I want to quote a passage on page 2897 of that pastoral letter entitled:

Supply-Labour
Those chiefly responsible
Social justice asks all those who are responsible for our economy to create general economic conditions in which it will be possible and easy to exercise the natural right to work. Leadership and economic responsibility are divided among individuals, professional groups and the state. Each must intervene in his own way according to the function he assumes within the economic system.
In our economic system, the responsibility for maintaining existing jobs and for creating new ones rests chiefly with employers and their professional associations.
But the public weal requires much more urgently than in the past that the state intervene in "the division and the distribution of work". Thus, the state in this regard must take new and daring steps, while respecting what Pope Pius XI called "the suppletory function of the state". It must encourage intermediate organizations to take the necessary steps; it must facilitate their action and, if necessary, remedy their deficiencies.
I believe that, in this regard, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefen-baker) said something that came close to the statement of Cardinal Leger about the economic field; but the Prime Minister of Canada has the means at his disposal and can take the necessary steps to carry out what he has advocated.
I have here a clipping from La Presse of July 9, 1958-that is during the visit of the President of the United States to the parliament of Canada-where I find these words from the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada:
"I believe that the nations of the free world, now united for defence, must, on a world basis, initiate in the field of economy, a new and bold policy designed to ensure prosperity everywhere. It is urgently needed. The communist forces will not wait. Time is against us".
The Prime Minister of Canada understands the problem quite well-I know that, on account of that quotation-and he, more than anyone else in this country, can put in concrete form the ideas he put forward at the time of the United States President's visit. He has colleagues with whom he can discuss the matter. I know it cannot be settled overnight, by why, for instance, a commission could not be set up which would be composed of employers, labour representatives and representatives of certain well-known public organizations, whose devotion to the national common interests is well known? Why could not the government set up such a commission? I am not suggesting anything new to the government, since my leader, the hon. member for Algoma-East (Mr. Pearson) proposed the setting up of such a commission during the 1958 election campaign. That commission could, with the help of both employers and especially workers

study the effects, in several fields of automation in our industry. It could, after such a study, make recommendations to the government which could bring about, over a period of time, concrete results which, each fall and each spring, would save us from the evil of unemployment which affects so many Canadians and so many Canadian families.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take more of the time of the house, but I do want to ask the Minister of Labour to consider that matter. I agree he has no time to consider it himself, but why-and I emphasize this point-does not the government think of setting up a commission to consider that problem? It has set up similar commissions in several other fields. It is setting up, for instance, commissions to avoid certain subjects being discussed here in the house. Why not set up a commission to consider the means that could rid us of that spectre of unemployment which afflicts us each fall? That suggestion is not my own, but it seems that next fall and next winter, the unemployment situation will be very serious in Canada, because by next fall many people out of work at present will not be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to close my remarks by quoting again a suggestion made by His Eminence Cardinal Leger, in his letter on unemployment:
We hope that the unemployment problem, as well as so many other urgent matters today, will bring the opportunity of proving by concrete action that overriding community of interests. Would it not be advisable that such a solidarity, which must unite all factors of economic life, take shape through the setting up of joint commissions, grouping labour and employer leaders, in an undertaking of common study and concerted action? Such organizations could also seek efficient means of alleviating the present crisis, of offering concrete plans and obtaining from the state the support and the services deemed necessary. Only such an initiative of employer-labour co-operation, taken in a spirit of co-responsibility with the state, could protect our economic life from the abuses created by either unlimited liberalism leading to anarchy, or by oppressive state control.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out in closing that I have not quoted the words of His Eminence Cardinal Leger in an attempt to cover myself with the cloak of religion, or to try to give more weight, as it were, to the words and suggestions I have offered to the government. I have read this letter from Cardinal Leger at least five or six times, and I think it contains some advice which the government should follow. Here are suggested solutions which would benefit not only the

people of my constituency, or of my area and province, but the whole country, and indeed all the free world.
And let me add this. The other day, the hon. Minister of Labour suggested that Mr. Jean Marchand, who has resigned as labour representative on the unemployment insurance advisory committee, was perhaps a C.C.F. supporter or a Liberal, but was certainly not a member of the Conservative party. I think that has absolutely nothing to do with Jean Marchand's resignation from the unemployment insurance advisory committee. Mr. Chairman, Jean Marchand should be considered only as a representative of labour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Augustin Brassard: I know Jean
Marchand. He is one of the people most devoted to the cause of labour in the province of Quebec.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: Jean Marchand is a very able man, and has devoted the major part of his life to the cause of labour, though he is still young. Ever since he left university, he has devoted his full time and his moments of leisure to the workers. He is now employed full time by the labour unions, and he looks after the labouring people. No one can say that Jean Marchand is attempting to mislead the people. Jean Marchand has a very keen mind, he is quite unselfish, and I believe he is a sensible man. I was somewhat taken aback the other day when I heard the Minister of Labour accusing Jean Marchand of being perhaps a C.C.F. supporter or a Liberal, but not a Conservative. I think a man can disagree with the views of the Conservative party and still be an able and intelligent man, and Jean Marchand is one who has always worked for the good of his province and his country. I hope the Minister of Labour will take back what he said about Jean Marchand, and will withdraw his statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear. (Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour on the job he has done over the years, particularly when a number of his colleagues rise in this chamber and show their ignorance in labour matters, his job must be that much harder and the work that he is doing that much more difficult. It has been said today
Supply-Labour
that a number of unions have officials from other countries. I would defy any member of the house to cite more than two instances where any Canadian union or any union operating in Canada has foreign organizers or official representatives.
I think something must be said about this matter of gangsterism. It is all very well for Joey Smallwood from the province of Newfoundland to make these charges, irresponsible as he is; but it certainly is not in keeping with the facts for these statements to be made in the rest of Canada. I know of no individual trade union official in this country who could be classified as a gangster, with the exception of the one that has already been mentioned. I think the Minister of Labour is not completely unaware of what happened in this specific case. Certainly the Liberal party can take no credit for the fact that Hal Banks is in this country. I think that this is one of the things that the Canadian people should know.
One of the problems arises when the government will co-operate with unions that are not doing the job that a union is organized to do. One of them was this particular case where Hal Banks was brought in from the United States with the assistance of the government through a crown company, namely the Canadian National Railways. He was brought in, set up, a backdoor agreement was negotiated and there were all types of manoeuvring and manipulation by the employer and by the government in allowing this to take place. I therefore do not think that labour unions in general can be criticized for something for which they themselves are not responsible. Judging from the remarks that have been made by several of the members, one or two of them representing large labour ridings, I think they should take a close look at what unions are supposed to do and what they do.
I think a great deal has been said over the past few years, particularly since the investigations in the United States concerning one particular union, which would have been better said in its proper context or with the emphasis which it deserved. I think it would be very difficult for any Canadian, yes probably any American, to name half a dozen Americans who are in key positions in the unions and could be called by the name gangster or rowdy, or any of the other names which have been applied or could be applied to trade union officials. In the main, where the investigations took place in the United States-


Mr. Henderson:: On a point of order. The hon. member is absolutely wrong when he says there are no gangsters in the United States in these unions.

Supply-Labour


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Has the hon. member a question to ask the member who has the floor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you did not hear. The hon. gentleman raised a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: What is the point of order.


Walter Clarence Henderson: The point of order is that there are gangsters in the United States.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I fail to see the hon. member's point of order. Will the hon. member who has the floor proceed?


William Arnold Peters: I am sure the hon. gentleman is right. In that particular investigation there were quite a number of people whom I would class as gangsters. However, what I said was that I thought it would be very difficult for a Canadian citizen or even a United States citizen to pick out by name more than half a dozen in the United States. I repeat that I would defy anyone in Canada to name two in Canada, although one of them has been already discussed.


Walter Clarence Henderson: What government brought him in here?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not listening very well. I leave that question on the doorstep of the Liberal government. If we go into the history of this particular case, although it is not a matter I wish to speak about, this subject was investigated and consideration given to this particular immigrant, and the Conservative government has taken no action against him and has said that probably no action is intended against him.


Walter Clarence Henderson: I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. gentleman, but the Conservative government has tried to get him out. He is a murderer and a gangster.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I think it is generally agreed that this particular gentleman comes under the category of a gangster, but I repeat that the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever to eliminate this unwanted immigrant in Canada. The trade union movement did not ask for him. He was invited to come here by a crown-controlled company.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Pardon me. Does the gangster belong to the C.L.C.?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a good question!


William Arnold Peters: I understand his union is affiliated with the C.L.C.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


William Arnold Peters: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, my union belong to the C.L.C., but I do not know that I am a member of the C.L.C. I said his union is affiliated. These charges have been made continually over the years, yet the people who have the opportunity to do something about it have no intention of doing anything but are glad to make use of him. The Minister of Labour is also aware of another situation, although there have been very few cases in Canada where there has been bad unionism.
This matter also rests pretty well on the doorstep of the government. Last year, or two or three years ago, when the trans-Canada pipe line started crossing northern Ontario we found that the workers who were being hired were already in a union which had a contract already signed. This contract was negotiated between the crown corporation on the one hand and another union on the other, obviously with the government's knowledge and without any objection from them. This is the type of thing which gives unionism a bad name, because it is a sort of backdoor agreement where you sign the contract without having any employees. It means, of course, that the workers themselves have no say in this situation.
But this is always good for news. If there is anything happening which is not happening just the way it is supposed to, then the newspapers play it up. When investigations take place in the United States, although they have no similarity to those in Canada, then we see great big headlines in all the papers. We are not always very helpful to management but I would like to suggest to them that if they continue to do this type of hatchet job on organized labour and do not realize that trade unions are here to stay-they are probably the most democratic organization we have in the country-and if they fail to see the function which a trade union has in industry and in our national affairs as a whole, then they will force those organizations and the various unions into taking other steps to protect the things which they were set up to provide. A union is fundamentally set up to provide its membership with a higher standard of living and to maintain it, to obtain wage increases if they are necessary, to continue to fight for better working conditions, better conditions in the plant and in the community. No union functions only in the plant; all trade unions are publicly minded. More than that, the membership have obtained an education in practical democracy which makes them in many

cases much better fitted for taking their position in the community than many others.
Mr. Chairman, I belonged to the united steelworkers of America in Timmins, and when I was president of the local there we engaged in many things about which I think the country should know but does not normally pay much attention to. We assisted in setting up such things in the community as blood banks. We set them up because there was a need for them, not only for our own members but for all citizens in the community. We supplied the blood to the hospital free on request. We did some of the administration which was necessary to see that this blood was supplied to the needy at a very nominal cost.
We also participated in such things as community betterment, beautifying the town and trying to change the course of a particular creek through the town which had drowned a number of children. In that particular case we did try very hard to get the creek diverted. We were always very interested in civic elections, not only as trade unionists but as individuals. We also took an active interest in the affairs of the community. We helped in addition many welfare organizations, and a lot of trade unionists throughout Canada have headed some of the largest welfare agencies in the country. I think it is safe to say that in Toronto, Windsor and Hamilton they are very proud of the trade unionists who take their places and carry their share of the load in the welfare agencies and in the raising of money for these agencies.
I think these things are too often forgotten. Some fear has been expressed in the last day or two about a third party, the new party, whatever its name might be. I suggest this party will come into being if the trade unions are forced to take action because the need is there. It will not be imposed from the top as has been suggested; it will come from a desire on the part of the worker, because when a worker listens to the budget and legislation he is immediately in politics. Fears have been expressed by people, who in my opinion should be more familiar with the operations of the trade unions than they are. They have been expressed by a number of people who, I suggest, should take a closer look at the operations of their local unions.
I am sure that the hon. member for Cape Breton South would be quite welcome to attend a trade union meeting in his own riding-it would presumably be a meeting of the united mineworkers-and I believe the same would apply to the hon. member for Hamilton South, both of whom discussed
Supply-Labour
trade union operations in a very cursory manner. If the hon. member for Hamilton South would drop in at a meeting of the steelworkers union in Hamilton, I am sure he would learn a great deal about parliamentary procedure and about the democratic working of an organization. I am certain, too, he would find that none of the officials was behaving as a United States citizen or as a citizen of any country outside Canada.
Some concern has quite properly been expressed about the manner of the election of a commissioner to the unemployment insurance commission. The unemployment insurance fund is not as simple in its workings as some people believe it to be. It is not a fund which can be pulled out of a hat to end the recession. It is a fund set up to help cushion the effects of seasonal unemployment, to tide over workers employed in industries which do not operate all the year around. All the workers in Canada contribute toward this fund. In fact, they contribute almost half the money, and a portion of the other half is contributed by management.
Management does not hesitate to tell the workers: this is the amount of money we have to spend as our contribution toward your unemployment insurance fund. This contribution is taken into account in the total wage picture which the companies put forward at negotiations. The companies also include other things such as contributions to medical plans, pensions, where they exist, and benefits of that nature, but unemployment insurance enters directly into the wage picture of all employees. So it adds up to this, that the workers are, in effect, paying nine-tenths of the money which goes into the fund. I suggest that if there was not this contribution coming from the employers, the workers could get its equivalent in the form of wages. Labour has asked, through its democratically elected organizations, for some voice in the appointment of these commissioners, and this was granted in the act. I maintain that more consideration should have been given to the representations which were made on this occasion than was in fact shown. This fund, which is operating for the benefit of Canada as well as of the workers who contribute toward it, should always be managed with the utmost consideration for the representations made by labour with regard to it.
The fact is that in the last two or three years, this fund has had two main objectives. One has been the relief of unemployment- the job it was set up to do-and the other has been its usefulness as a means of stemming the tide of the recession. In my view the fund was never set up for that purpose. The fund should be divided into two parts

Supply-Labour
so that it may be clear in which areas it is functioning, and to the extent that it is being used to carry out part of the government's financial policy, contributions should be made to it from the consolidated revenue.
I think the minister might well take some of the advice which has been offered to him. Fortunately, the Minister of Labour is one who has always sought advice and given it some consideration. I think he could follow his well known pattern of behaviour in the past and give some further consideration to this question of the unemployment insurance commission and the representations which have been made to him with regard to it. Knowing, as I do, the attitudes taken by some of his colleagues, I am surprised that the minister has been able to accomplish what he has with regard to unemployment insurance. The workers will certainly appreciate what he has done, though they will not appreciate having to raise the increased amount of money necessary in order to continue the benefits which they are to receive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are referring to the proposed rates of contribution?


William Arnold Peters: These are the changes which will be made in the unemployment insurance regulations.
We had hoped that the minister would by now have indicated his intention to introduce changes in the federal labour code. We had hoped he would have announced his intention to revise this code. Changes in the code are even more necessary now, in the light of events involving labour in the province of British Columbia, and in Newfoundland than they were some time ago. They are also necessary in view of the situation in Ontario. The other day I was discussing with officials of a union in Toronto some of the problems with which they were faced under the industrial relations act of that province. It was pointed out to me that the labour board by stalling and delaying its decisions was making it almost impossible for a union to function. They told me of a situation which had arisen at a plant where some 33 workers were engaged. A request was made for certification. Six months later the board got around to asking for a vote because one employee had, apparently, objected. When the vote was finally taken, only four people were there, the man who had intervened and three of the union people. This is one of the problems they are facing.
As another example, I recall a strike which took place in a small lumber mill at Field, Ontario. Decertification was applied for and the union, as I think the membership would confirm, was ready to agree that any decision taken would be binding on both parties; if the
IMr. Peters.]
decision went against the union, they were willing to leave that particular plant. The period for entering into negotiations was drawing close, and some decision needed to be taken. Mr. Chairman, that strike was over a few months ago, and only the other day the union concerned received a letter saying that it was hoped in the near future to be able to render a decision on the decertification hearing which had been held six or seven months earlier. These delays cause problems in many of the industries enjoying labour contracts.
I wish to thank the Minister of Labour for the assistance he gave to some of the people in my part of the country. In his diplomatic way he intervened in a serious situation in the gold mining industry. I believe he suggested that it would be a good thing if they sat down and negotiated but I am not sure if he sat in on the negotiations. Shortly after that a settlement was reached in the dispute. A few years ago an identical situation developed involving an eight-month strike resulting in the loss of all concerned of thousands of dollars and the settlement reached at that time was not much better received than was the recent one which the minister assisted in obtaining by intervention.
The minister on a number of occasions has said he is investigating all the aspects of the labour code. This is necessary in Canada. If we are going to have a bill of rights I think we should also have a bill of rights for trade unions.
The situation in Newfoundland was probably more dramatic than that which develops in most cases. The results in British Columbia, as the hon. member for Skeena pointed out, will not be much better and it will be longer before we find out what those results are.
The minister must ensure that Canadian labour is guaranteed certain fundamental freedoms under the labour code. The Newfoundland situation illustrates the need of this. It must be remembered that the international woodworkers of America did not go into the province uninvited. The president of district 2 of the I.W.A. was invited to speak at a convention of a company union in 1956 which he accepted. During the course of the convention a motion was put on the floor recommending that this particular union join forces with the I.W.A. As was the case in some of the constitution mentioned by other hon. members who have spoken, the membership did not have the right to affiliate with I.W.A. at that time.
The loggers themselves invited the president to bring the organization into the province which he did. In 1957 organizational work was started in the bush. Eighty-seven per cent of the loggers in the A.N.D. company signed

up in the I.W.A. They applied for certification under the labour relations board and the government turned them down on a technicality. They re-applied to the board in June 1957. I think hon. members should know that in most provinces a bare majority or a majority of 55 per cent will grant certification automatically. In this instance a vote was ordered and held with 86.4 per cent of the loggers voting. It had to be conducted by referendum, I am told. Committees were set up and there are many union committees in the outports and small communities where the loggers live. The I.W.A. in Newfoundland is democratically constituted, has set up committees and holds conventions of its membership.
The union opened negotiations with the Company after certification but these broke down. They applied for conciliation services but these too, broke down. They then applied for a board. The surprising thing is that this board comprising a representative of management, of labour and an impartial chairman voted unanimously in favour of their being granted a 5 per cent increase over a period of two years. The hours were to be reduced from 60 to 54. The company then refused to negotiate and the strike resulted.
My time is nearly up although I should like to continue.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the Minister of Labour present his estimates to the committee yesterday I realized he was not dealing with the basic causes of unemployment at all but with the results and with his work in trying to overcome those results. I want to compliment him because I think he is doing the best he can in the circumstances. If the minister wanted to help eliminate unemployment I should think, however, he would speak to the Prime Minister and ask him to forget about the diversion of trade.
The last time the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke in Port Colborne he said there had been a great deal of trade switched from United States to England and that more would be switched but he has not made a pronouncement to this effect in this house.
I want to relate a few remarks to unemployment in my area. Hon. members will recall that in December 1957, the government sent a trade mission to England comprising 40 or 50 men. They went over to buy but not to sell. That was at a time when England had almost full employment and Canada had considerable unemployment. It will also be recalled that the mission was headed by Mr. Duncan, chairman of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, and that the Prime Minister went to Montreal to wish them bon voyage. He said at
Supply-Labour
that time this mission would reap rich rewards. One of the rich rewards obtained for my district was an increase in unemployment.
Hon. members will recall that before departing with the trade mission Mr. Duncan announced a $10 million order for large turbines, generators or something of that nature. Whatever it was, we were told in this chamber that they had never been made in Canada before. I was informed by an engineer that this was true but also that they had not been made in that size in England before, either. Canadian industry expected to have an opportunity to bid on that order. Canadian subcontractors were working on components for that order but Mr. Duncan's announcement killed it altogether. I am not saying that if it had bid Canadian industry would have got the order but I believe Canadian industry should have had an opportunity to bid. If Canadian industry did nothing else, or if Canadian industry was incapable of building that particular turbine or generator, why did it take 40 or 50 men to go to England to buy it, because we have never heard of anything else that they have bought?
It is true that the mission cost Canadians well over $500,000, and when they came back they gave work to some printers down near Toronto to print the report of that particular mission. If you read the report you will find that it reads something like the social pages in the press, the social register. It deals mostly with the social functions they attended, who entertained them, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce joined them, when he left them and when he joined them again and when he left them again, and so forth.


Charles Edward Rea: I wonder whether the hon. member would stay away from trade and commerce and come back to the Department of Labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, we have listened almost all day to discourses on the minister's estimates about matters that are within the concern of provincial legislatures and not of this parliament at all. It does seem to me strange that when an hon. gentleman seeks to show that the policies of this government have produced an unemployment situation that the minister is having difficulty in coping with he should be called to order. It may not be completely and strictly relevant in the narrowest sense but at least it is within the purview of this parliament and under the jurisdiction of this government and not a shocking intrusion into the affairs of other jurisdictions which are none of our business in this house. I feel that members

Supply-Labour
should be treated alike in this house and there should not be discrimination against an hon. member.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate realizes that the hon. member is going a little far in discussing trade as long as he has been discussing it.


William Hector McMillan: I shall try to stay within your ruling. It is true, though, that our unemployment is related to our trade and certainly in Britain they have complained about the trade they are getting from Canada. I have already put on Hansard the complaints of Conservative members of parliament, particularly in England, that Canada was not carrying out her obligations undertaken at the Montreal conference.
I think trade has a great deal to do with unemployment, and I also think that if the municipalities and the provinces could get money cheaper they would go ahead with different projects. I know that every time the Minister of Finance comes out with a new loan, and particularly if we think the interest rate is too high, he invariably says that the municipalities will be able to borrow money at a more favourable rate.


Mr. Harkness:: Order.


William Hector McMillan: Certainly, I do not think this helps unemployment or helps to pick up the slack of unemployment. We would get more help in Canada toward solving the unemployment problem if Canadians felt they had a government with a sane trade and fiscal policy, something they could depend on, and something that the businessmen could count on. I feel that business would go ahead with greater confidence and we would have more employment in our country.
Much of the unemployment is due to our fiscal policy. I do not think anybody in Canada will deny that our fiscal policy flows from the greatest of all transactions, namely the conversion loan, with which I do not intend to deal.
I regret to see the unemployment insurance fund depleted by some $250 million last year, and I should like to have the minister comment on the loss of $10 million from that account through the sale of bonds. I think my leader and the hon. member for Trinity made excellent contributions in their suggestions to the minister for dealing with unemployment, but I cannot help but think that the trouble is more basic. Today I read an article in the Montreal Gazette which was a report of a speech by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, the former minister of trade and commerce, who spoke last night to the dominion mortgage and investment association.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is that?


William Hector McMillan: The Right Hon. C. D. Howe.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you would listen you would hear.


Michael Starr: Very important.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One of the great men of our country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More and more people remember him every day, too.


Mr. Anderson:: They will never forget him.


William Hector McMillan: In his speech he dealt with inflation and unemployment. After saying that during the time he was in the government there were two periods of inflation he went on to tell how the government of that time tried to overcome inflation. I shall quote something he said concerning inflation:
I am not going to claim that we were 100 per cent successful in our efforts to curb inflation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Inflation is one of the most important problems in relation to unemployment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That has nothing to do with labour estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister ought to confine himself to soybeans and do something about them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a wider horizon than the hon. member.


William Hector McMillan: I continue:
But I do think it is fair to say two things: first, that the federal government itself did not contribute to increased inflationary pressures; it consistently acted to restrain inflation; and, second, the public never seemed to lose confidence in the value of money.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order.


William Hector McMillan: Concerning confidence, he had this to say:
But confidence is a tender plant and it is not sufficient for a government merely to express confidence in the future, or to say that there is nothing to worry about. A government must inspire confidence by deeds, as well as by words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


William Hector McMillan: Then he went on to say that he realized advice is the cheapest of commodities, but he does give this government advice and it is the same advice that has been given by many managers of banks, by managers of trust companies, and so on, over the last two years. These are the two courses he says the government should take:
The first is that the government must give the clearest possible indication that its budgetary deficits are temporary and will be turned into

balance or into surplus when the slack in the economy is taken up, and competing demands threaten to push up prices.
The second is that the government must give evidence that it has an effective plan for dealing with unemployment.
In my view, we need to take a new look at unemployment. The problem is changing in character, and needs re-examination to determine more precisely its composition, its causes and how it can be cured.
Unless the problem is thoroughly understood, serious mistakes in policy could be made . . . there is great danger in the crude idea that it is possible for governments to spend their way out of recession and unemployment.
I might say that when the Minister of Finance presented his baby budget in December, 1957 I expressed this in a somewhat different way. I said at that time that the government had the mental complex of a man who came to my office. He saw the Globe and Mail lying on the table with big headlines across the top giving the net earnings of the Ontario liquor control board for the previous year, which were very considerable, and he said: "I think we will drink ourselves out of debt yet." Quoting further from Mr. Howe:
The threat of inflation cannot be checked by government alone. The government must, however, inspire confidence and give leadership, first by setting its own house in order, and then by establishing rules that it expects every citizen to follow.
He concludes with these words:
I am confident that the battle against inflation can be won if government leadership is forthcoming.
I think government leadership needs to be forthcoming in order to overcome inflation and unemployment. The government has received advice from financial men over the last two years and has not taken that advice. Mr. Howe is a man who had much experience in parliament. He has said that he never intends to enter politics again and I think it would be well if the government would take his advice at this time because it is certainly parallel to the advice given by many other men in the financial field.
It seems to me that the government could do more to get our unemployed re-established. The minister is doing the best he can but I think he might do more. So many of our unemployed have been out of work so long that they have lost heart. The unemployed make periodic trips to the unemployment insurance offices to get their cheques when they can qualify. They look over the list of vacant jobs and when they cannot find one they go home. They come back again the next week or in two weeks' time. They draw unemployment insurance as
Supply-Labour
long as they can and then they drift to the municipal relief rolls. At least, that is true in my area.
It certainly was not difficult for men to qualify for unemployment insurance in the winter of 1957-58. In fact, the government was so solicitous about the unemployed in my area that they wrote letters to people who were retired and on pension telling them to be sure to go their unemployment insurance offices and get their cheques. Of course, these people had votes and the government was attempting to buy votes with money being contributed by people who were working.


Michael Starr: What a story that is.


William Hector McMillan: The government is not so generous today. It has mismanaged the fund so that at the present time they are calling on industry and the workers to contribute to make up the $10 million loss in bonds and the cost of some of these votes.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Do you really believe that?


William Hector McMillan: I believe it. It certainly happened in my area.


Michael Starr: You must have instigated it.


William Hector McMillan: There is nothing that injures a person's morale more than idleness. After a time people give up and lead rather aimless lives, making no contribution to our society. There are a good many skilled or semi-skilled jobs for which these people could be trained. It seems to me that since we have so many shortages in certain skilled and semi-skilled occupations and have been going to Europe to get such workers we might have a look among the unemployed and see if we cannot train some of these people.
The government certainly could co-operate with the provinces. In my opinion many of these unemployed people are bright and would be industrious. I think they could be trained. In many hospitals at the present time there are shortages of nurses aids and male attendants, and I think we could easily train such people. There is a marked shortage of nurses. I know one hospital that up to two months ago could not open its new addition because nurses and proper personnel to staff the hospital were not available. I think the government might take the lead in co-operation with the provinces so that many girls might train as nurses. Many of them cannot do so on their own resources and I think that the federal and provincial governments should co-operate to this end.
I happen to know of a very young person who was unemployed last year and got into trouble by stealing. This person was sent to the house of correction for one year and while

Supply-Labour
there learned a skill which she has put to very good use since. As a result, she now has a thriving business. It does not seem to me to be a very good thing that this person should have to go to the house of correction to learn something that she wanted to learn before going there.
There are also many young men idle who might be taught different skills such as carpentry, plumbing and a multitude of others. To my mind it is more expensive not to teach them than it is to teach them. Many of these people are bright and industrious and they should be given a chance. I think it would be a very easy matter for the Department of Labour to classify these people. I do not suggest that a costly commission with expensive economists should be set up but I think that the government could come forward with some type of committee that would make recommendations respecting the unemployed.
I do not think that the government is doing anything about older workers. I know that the other day the minister referred to the fact that this is quite a problem. By "older worker" I mean people between 35 and 40 whom industry will not hire because of the various pension plans. During the last campaign I believe the Prime Minister promised -I remember seeing this in the press although I have not the article here-that working men would be able to take their pensions with them. I do know that it has been said by some that this would not be constitutional but I think it would be constitutional if the government would refuse, in whole or in part, to allow industry their right to deduct their contributions toward pension plans for income tax purposes unless industry is willing to grant workers an earlier vesting of pension rights or give them the right to take their pension with them to another job. I imagine that would probably be constitutional because, after all, we would only be dealing with the Income Tax Act.
There are many reasons why I think workers should have earlier vesting of their pension rights. The plant 'where a man is working might close down. A mine might run out of ore. Woods operations might close down. Then there are many medical reasons. For instance, a man working in an industry might develop a chest allergy or skin allergy and while he would not be sick he could not continue working in that particular plant. I think that the government should devise some means by which there would be earlier vesting of pension rights. I think that this would in itself clear up much of the trouble of the older worker in changing jobs.
I think my time is about up. I would say this. I think unemployment is a great social

problem in our country. We are a young country. We have many resources but we do not seem to know how to handle them. I think this government should take the advice that people have been trying to give them in the last two years. I think it is extremely important that we solve our unemployment problem because it would be to our economic advantage.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, I had not
intended to participate in this debate but since the opposition apparently propose to keep it going all afternoon I think I should take a few minutes in which to put forward a few of the ideas I have and to call attention to a few of the sins of omission and commission of the opposition, as I see it. I can understand how, when this debate first started, the opposition thought they had a tremendous issue in the manner of the appointment of Mr. MacArthur to the unemployment insurance commission. Led by that seasoned member with usually a keen nose for a political issue, namely the hon. member for Essex East, they went tearing off on that trail until the force of public opinion showed them that they were completely off base.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: We are still
pursuing the same policy.


Ernest James Broome: Prior to that, in a press
release to the Globe and Mail of last Saturday, May 2, the Leader of the Opposition led off with a statement to the effect that labour organizations had been shockingly ignored and he went on to say there had been government bungling in this matter and that the government would have to take full responsibility. The very fact that the talk on this particular issue has sort of died out is the clearest indication that the government did not bungle on this matter and that the government acted in the proper and right manner. I should like to talk about it for a moment or two since the opposition seem to have dropped this subject. I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Essex East said as reported at page 3364 of Hansard when he was detailing what the duties of the unemployment insurance commission are. He said this:
This is a body that is called upon not only to administer, by way of formulation of policy, matters having to do with unemployment insurance, but this commission actually is a trustee of many millions of dollars contributed not only by the employers but by the workers of this country. At one time there was almost a billion dollars in the fund.
To that he could also add that the fund is built by general contributions of the taxpayers of the country and through government contributions as well. The very fact that it is a semi-policy making commission,

that it is an advisory committee to the minister, that it is called upon to advise, in an impartial and unbiased way, the minister as to what action he should take with regard to the operation of the commission and to future legislation with regard to unemployment insurance surely is, as newspapers all across the country have pointed out, a reason why that commission must be non-political and unbiased.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Ernest James Broome: I would suggest that the
hon. member for Essex East might have taken a look at Hansard at page 2228 or might have consulted with his colleague to his left, namely the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, with regard to the supplementary question to the Prime Minister in the matter of the R.C.M.P. in Newfoundland, when he said as follows:
I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is the government reluctant to act because they are afraid of incurring the displeasure of Mr. Knowles . . . and other politicians now in the labour movement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was that not true?


Ernest James Broome: It proves that the opposition speaks with many tongues and that consistency is not one of their virtues. The fact is that Mr. MacArthur's record speaks for itself. The records of the nominees who were not chosen also speak for themselves. It is clear that if the recommendation of Mr. Jodoin had been accepted there would have been political bias. In this way there is no political bias. So no wonder this has become a dead issue as far as the opposition is concerned.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman may be assured that this is not a dead issue.


Mr. Pearkes:: The opposition is dead,
anyway.


Ernest James Broome: It speaks well for the persistence of the hon. member but it does not leave him in quite the high plane in the judgment I formally had of him on political matters.


An hon. Member:: Why did you revise it?


Ernest James Broome: With regard to general labour policy, I believe a great deal has been said in the press and by organizations which tends to damn all labour for the sins of a relatively few unions. Out of some 200 unions in the United States only some seven are involved in the present senate investigation. I think it is at only those seven unions that any public censure has been directed. We always play up in the press the strikes and the walkouts but we do not play up the literally hundreds
66968-9-221
Supply-Labour
of settlements which are made every year where management and labour get together and through collective bargaining iron out their differences and come to a decision between the two parties which is fair to both. The whole essence of labour peace is through honest collective bargaining, with recognition by labour of the problems of management and with management recognizing that labour is entitled to a just share in the wealth of this country.
However, there are conditions which arise- and this matter has been laboured in the house previously-where some of these unions, the odd one of them do certain things. In this respect may I say that I am not talking about the I.W.A. The hon. member for Skeena who spoke about the I.W.A. last night and pointed out what a democratically run union it is, has my full agreement. I know the I.W.A. and I know what a good union it is. It is a good tough union but it is a good union. But I have also heard the hon. member for Kootenay West lambaste Mr. Banks of the seafarers international union. I have also committed that error myself because it is an error to go after Mr. Banks. It is not Mr. Banks who is important but it is the conditions which allow a man like Mr. Banks to have the power and control that he has. If Mr. Banks left the country tomorrow, there would be another man with another name, but the policy would still be the same, namely the policy set out by Mr. Banks. Therefore you must get at the root of the problem before any improvement can be made.
In this regard, just in order to give an instance to the house, I should like to refer to a letter which I received. I may say that I have checked on the facts in this case myself. I received a letter from a Vancouver man, namely Mr. A. Gourley, Sr. who told me-and I think all hon. members received copies of this letter-about the record of his son in the S.I.U. I will quote two paragraphs only. They are as follows:
I instance the case of my son, and I invite the fullest investigation by the Department of Labour. My son was a union seaman for 12 years before the
5.1.	U. acquired jurisdiction. My son then joined
5.1.	U. and paid $75 entrance or initiation fee, $4 monthly dues and an assessment of $15 a year. That represents a serious reduction in take-home pay of an ordinary seaman.
Then like a bolt from the blue, my son was charged verbally with non-payment of union dues although he was working for the Union Steamship Company under the check-off system by which union dues are deducted from pay cheques and are sent direct to the union by the employing company. The fact the charge was a manifest lie did not prevent my son's expulsion and deprivation of the benefits for which he had so dearly paid.
The letter goes on to point out that an actual statement had been received from

Supply-Labour
union headquarters indicating that these dues had been paid and I received the check-off book, and the man's ticket showed that the dues had been paid. It is instances like this where a labour leader is given the power to say a man shall work at his profession, his job, his avocation, or whether he shall not. Those conditions can only be changed by labour itself; they cannot be changed by government action. The government cannot police the wrongs of labour; labour must clean its own house.
In this regard I would suggest to the labour movement that they set up what I call a minimum constitution for their unions. That minimum constitution might be a bill of rights for labour unions, and that would set the standard. The minimum standard which I would suggest would be that leadership of the union must be elected democratically and by secret vote; that there must be a secret vote in all cases of strike action, not only for the sake of the men but also for the sake of the leaders so that they would know they really had the men behind them. Even if these two simple changes were made, then the odd rotten union which is rotten only because of the way its constitution is written which gives its leadership overwhelming dictatorial power, would fall by the wayside. I suggest that if that were a condition of recognition by the Canadian Labour Congress, so then should it be a condition of recognition by any government.
Perhaps it would change a few of the methods of working of some of our unions, for example the railroad unions. They are the oldest unions in the country. In many ways they are the sanest of all unions; they have a tradition and integrity behind them. But even when they call a strike they have open ballots which are sent in to their central regional headquarters for counting. Hon. members remember the recent disagreement which was so ably settled by the Minister of Labour between the firemen and the C.N.R. When the decision was made to strike, that decision was made by the chairmen; perhaps a score or so of men across the country. Now that is not right. Secret ballot is the way that this parliament is elected, and it should also be the way in which unions are operated.
With regard to the question of union publication of their financial statements, I have pointed out before that there are large companies operating in Canada which do not publish their statements, and until we can say that all the affairs of business are open to the public, then we cannot in justice ask that the unions do the same. The labour policy of this government is a progressive one.
[Mr. Broomed
It is a policy which has been praised, particularly in the session of 1957, by hon. members in the Liberal party and hon. members in the C.C.F. party, and it has also been praised this session. The Minister of Labour has received much praise, and no members on the opposite side dare attack the minister. They are playing fair on that point; they do give the minister credit for having done a job which I think ranks him with the best ministers of labour this country has ever had. The criticism we have heard, as I have said before, is backfiring, and I do not think the opposition have a very good case on any matter concerning the Department of Labour.
There are two other points I would like to touch on, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the winter works program which has been so successful, I agree that it would be a good thing for the planning to start as soon as possible so that it can get off to a good start next fall. Even in the very short time which was allowed for the plan to get into operation last year it was an outstanding success. I am concerned too about the problem of older workers. A young engineer came to see me. At least, I thought he was a young engineer. He was 35 years of age and he came to me and wanted to know about a particular company, because he felt he could only make one more job change and then that was the end until he retired, because companies just were not hiring men over 35 years of age. Part of the trouble is because of pension plans. Pension plans are needed and are necessary, but they place a disability on workers, professional people and day labourers who wish to change their jobs after a certain stage in life, because it then becomes too expensive for the company which would have hired them to take them in because of the cost to their own pension scheme. If the pension could be vested in the worker so that he might carry it with him and make his own contribution to the pension scheme of the company he would be moving to, I think it would be very worthwhile. We must also accept the fact that a man of 55 or 60 years of age still has a worth-while contribution to make.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I rose to speak in this debate for just a few minutes, and I will close my remarks with the same topic I commenced with. The hon. member for Essex East said that this was still an issue. I would like to quote to him part of an editorial from the Toronto Star, which is certainly not a supporter of this party but I think is a fairly vocal supporter of the party to which the hon. member belongs. This is what the main organ of the Liberal party has to say in its issue of May 4 last. It is headed, "No Injustice to Labour".

We find it hard to summon up a sense of outrage at the government's appointment of A. F. MacArthur of Toronto to the unemployment insurance advisory committee over the objections of the Canadian Labour Congress. And why are the Liberals and C.C.F. making noises as if labour civil rights are being trampled, and talking darkly of raising the issue in parliament? What issue?
It makes sense that the Unemployment Insurance Act should require consultation with organized labour about appointees to represent labour on the committee. But no government can abrogate its right of final decision, after the advice is assessed. Advice is one thing, dictation another. Not the Canadan Labour Congress, nor the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, nor anybody else, should be able to dictate appointments to the Canadian government.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I was stating how a properly organized union would function, and I mentioned some of the considerations which must be given to it. I did that to give the lie to some of the statements made in the newspapers about the dictatorial methods which are sometimes said to be used by unions. I used the example of the international woodworkers of America and the situation they found themselves in in the province of Newfoundland. This is only an example; there are many others. They conducted such things as organizational drives and they obtained a large number of cards. They received support from a large percentage of the workers, which involved both the paying of money and the signing of cards. Then they applied for certification which was granted by the government. They applied for services from the conciliation branch which were supplied. Then they went through a conciliation board, and that is where they justify to the public at large the conditions they are asking for and the requests they are making in their negotiations. In this particular case it resulted in a unanimous decision of the board.
This decision was agreed to by the conciliation board, but it did not have to be accepted by either the union or the company, and in this case it was not accepted by the company. I think everybody is familiar with the road blocks which were set up by the government intervening in this case. They finally passed a law which said that this union was no longer to be allowed to operate in this particular situation.
How different this is from the justification which must be made by the companies when they wish to obtain an increase in the price of their products. They do not go to anybody and ask permission. They just raise the price, and because of the monopoly control which is evident in a large number of industries, and high prices result. In this particular case as in many other cases some of the road blocks which were put in the way of the 66968-9-221J
Supply-Labour
union involved a hostile government, a hostile board when certification was applied for, and a vote taken under adverse conditions. And then there was what took place after the strike began, when heavy fines were imposed for obstruction and jail sentences were imposed on people for taking part in picket lines and using moral persuasion to prevent other people from stealing their jobs.
I think the complicated operations which the union was willing to go through was a good example of how unionism works in Canada. We hear talk about the right to work, what is meant is the right to "scab" and take somebody else's job, also, in this case, the right of a government to set up an alternative union which is under government control. These are the things that the newspapers should be talking about.
This has been no credit to government, and it should be pointed out that the federal government itself cannot guarantee to all the workers in Canada the right to organize, negotiate and bargain in good faith in any of the provinces in Canada. In this particular instance the board of public opinion was given the facts. For instance, in the mill, the wage rate is not $1.05 an hour; it has been increased to something like $1.78 an hour. At the same time, a wage increase was paid to those mill-workers of between five cents and seven cents an hour, when the basic rate was $1.75. It was also established that this company was not paying the taxes which other companies were paying. The union had to establish in its public relations work before the country in general, that conditions were as they had stated them to be in their negotiations. They not only had to justify themselves to the government, but justify themselves before an impartial board and then, through the board of public opinion, to the country also.
All these things have been done, and yet the rights which a union can normally expect -the rights which a bill of rights would guarantee to all citizens-have been denied in this particular case. There has certainly been an oversight in our federal labour legislation when we cannot, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has just said, have at least a minimum federal labour code to guarantee certain basic rights.
Unions continue to be willing to express their democratic point of view. For years one particular union in which I have been interested, one that is not in the Canadian Labour Congress, has been accused on many occasions of not fighting for the workers whom it represents. Nevertheless, those workers have continually over the years supported that union. Only recently, within the last year, a strike took place in that union. It fought a bitter strike with defection inside its own ranks,

Supply-Labour
even between worker and fellow worker, but it came out with a settlement. Those Unionists were unsatisfied with the leadership they had received, and they did throw out the majority of that leadership and establish a completely new executive. But what help are they getting now from the people who always said: "Let us get rid of the commies who are in this particular union."? What assistance do they get? The other day, one of the staff representatives who has been accused of supporting the old guard in Sudbury was fired because the new executive had put in an auditor and the books were being audited to find out exactly what had happened during past years. This particular staff representative was burning and destroying certain documents, and he was fired. Well, the newspapers, this democratic organization which stands for fine sentiments, did nothing to help the workers who had already made a decision, democratically reached, and who had decided to do something about the position which had been rumoured for a long time. No, the newspapers came out with an article condemning the union for having fired this staff representative, instead of saying: "Let us get to the bottom of this and find out what the situation is."
I remember, also the work done by the newspapers over the years in other areas. In the mining area in Timmins, when I was a miner, we decided we would change unions and bring in the Canadian Congress of Labour so that they should be our bargaining agents. We set up an organizing committee and democratically did the work necessary to bring in these unions, applying for certification and so on. Then we transferred to the steelworkers and we negotiated with the gold mining industry. But we got no help from newspapers which had previously said the unions to which we belonged had been communist dominated. Did we get assistance in setting up better working conditions? I should say not. They immediately changed their tactics and said: the poor industry is in such bad shape that it does not matter who has got control of the unions or what the unions are; there is going to be no assistance. Did the newspapers give any consideration to the other work the unions do in the community? These newspapers have always been on the other side of the fence, and no matter whether a union was under a democratic or any other kind of administration they were more favourable to the industry than they were to the union.
I think the unions over the years have done a great deal of good, and one of the things the minister could do on behalf of organized labour is to draw attention to the

story of how the unions work and are supposed to function. I would not be opposed to the minister developing a minimum constitution for these unions, and I think that if he examines the constitutions of the major unions he will find they are much further advanced than the constitution he would consider to be the minimum.
If the workers wish to change their union, they have that right. When they do not have that right it is being run by people we do not want in this country. Usually the worker has not too much control over that. The only time a union has been at fault or has been guilty of being undemocratic has been when some of the union and company officials co-operate among themselves to sign backdoor agreements or agreements under which money is exchanged under the table and where the union membership has no say in the matter or is not taking an active part. I know of only one or two cases where this has taken place. These cases have been the subject of extended investigation, reams of reports and page after page of newspaper comment. These instances are given much publicity but nothing is said about the thousands of unions that function properly and fairly.
We sometimes hear reference made to the right to work clause. This sounds very good, Most of us would agree that there should be a right to work clause but the right we mean is the right to obtain a job and have full employment. Thousands of people have been unable to enjoy that right this year. This is not the right that would be given under the proposed law in the United States. It would mean that an employer could engage cheap labour working long hours with low pay and few benefits. The dog-eat-dog attitude would prevail and there would be bickering back and forth. There can be no harmony in industry or in labour affairs if a situation of that kind exists.
We have a working force of five million people in Canada and approximately half a million people are now looking for work. If there were no unions today and no contracts and labour legislation as we know them people would be underbidding each other for jobs and a man who lost his employment would offer to go back to work for five cents less. This would lead to a chaotic situation. I do not think anyone in Canada wants that. I do not believe this is what is wanted even by those in industry who are opposed to labour unions. I have heard it said on many occasions in the past by people engaged in management that they are quite satisfied with the unions they have and they have expressed a willingness to continue to increase the

union security. They have expressed appreciation of the co-operation and assistance that only a union can give.
1 should like to mention only one illustration. A few years ago I had the honour of organizing a plant in Kirkland Lake in one of the few industries in that area that is not connected with the gold mining industry. The latter industry has been one of the last strongholds of anti-labour and as far as I know there is no union security in the whole industry. This little plant was organized in a town that is engaged in the gold mining industry. The management of that plant promised that the union security would be increased if the union functioned satisfactorily and lived up to the agreement. It has been increased and there is now a union shop. This happens to be an I.W.A. local. The management was so happy that it negotiated a profit-sharing program. We are very surprised to find that the program is paying more money to the employees now than we would have got under our original negotiations which amount the company said would bankrupt the firm. Management and labour enjoy a good relationship there and management is happy to tell any segment of the industry about their happy experience with the trade union.
This experience has been repeated across the country. The only place where differences of opinion arise is around the bargaining table but this is to be expected because the union is pledged and has the responsibility of getting as much for its employees as it possibly can get. Management on the other hand has the responsibility of getting for the shareholders as much as it can get. One way they can get extra money is through low-priced labour. Both management and labour have an obligation and as the hon. member for Skeena pointed out so clearly this morning they share the obligation to sit down and negotiate in good faith. When contracts are allowed to drag along for a year or two inharmonious labour relations result. Many things build up over the period of time that should never enter into the negotiations. We should endeavour to cut down the length of time that is necessary following an application for conciliation services and the length of time in which a board may sit and bring in its report. Limits must also be imposed when a union goes on strike or when a company locks out the workers from the plant. These limits should be definitely expressed and rigidly adhered to in order to eliminate much of the strife that has been experienced.
I have been interested in the comments of those hon. members representing western
Supply-Labour
constituencies who have participated in this debate. They have been educated through weekly and monthly farm newspapers to think that all farm problems are caused by labour. They should demand that the minister conduct an investigation into this allegation. It is true that a part of the price of an automobile is represented by labour costs and we should know this. I am informed, however, that labour costs represent a total of $300 of the price of a $3,000 car. As the Financial Post pointed out last year the production cost in assembling an automobile is $57. We should know these things. If these facts were brought out by the Department of Labour I do not think the farmers would object. I know they would not be opposed to an automobile worker receiving $300, figuratively speaking, of the cost of a $3,000 car when the manufacturer, dealer and distributor each receive $600.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


James Stanley Speakman: Are you suggesting that the worker who has no investment except the labour he has to offer should share equally with the manufacturer, dealer and distributor and others who invest large sums of money?


William Arnold Peters: I certainly suggest that the worker should not receive just one-half of what is received by the distributor, dealer and manufacturer. This raises another point. The worker has a big investment in the industry in which he is engaged. A worker may invest his lifetime in a plant. The value of the investment of his working life cannot be estimated in dollars and cents. In many plants the worker does not enjoy pension plan benefits which are, as it were, depreciation. The manufacturer and dealer are allowed depreciation for their equipment. The only one not allowed depreciation by law is the poor worker. The minister should give urgent attention to the question of the establishment of a national portable pension program. This is something that consideration must be given to, because the matter has been raised so often. Everybody else who has an investment is permitted to state what the investment is and to depreciate it but the poor workers who work in those plants are not given the same right.
A good example is that of the international woodworkers in Newfoundland. Those loggers are working in the bush and they are investing in an industry which is returning to them only $1.05, $1.06 or $1.07, or whatever the company has decided to pay since they

Supply-Labour
formed Joey's new union. They are investing their lives in that particular industry and there is no pension plan for them. They are not allowed any depreciation on their income tax for the lifetime that they are spending there nor for the years of seniority they have established. By law we shall have to establish a national portable labour pension plan which will take into consideration the work that a worker does during his lifetime. He invests in the same way as a man who is setting up a factory. He invests in that plant a certain amount of his life and he should be compensated to some extent by having a pension plan which he can carry with him from job to job and from plant to plant. In other words, the Newfoundland workman could carry his pension into the logging industry, into the fishing industry, or into any other plant or allied industry he may be in so that when he spent 20 years of his life working he would have established a pension plan that would give him some consideration for the work he has done.
I do not think the farmers-I am sure this is true-in western Canada or in any place else will disagree that the worker has some rights in a particular plant and that he should be given some consideration. I am quite sure they will not be too concerned because they know it is the workers who buy their agricultural products; it is the workers who keep them on the farm; it is the workers who supply them with the market for their products. They know that the manufacturer eats only the same amount of food as a worker; he eats the same number of eggs as a worker will eat. Because the workers are more numerous, the farmers are much more concerned and should be much more concerned with the workers than with other various aspects of industry. I would strongly urge that when the minister is considering a national labour code he consider putting in something that will give protection in a bill of right for labour, as the hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned, and that he will also give consideration to and be much more willing to recommend the disallowance of legislation in the provincial field that eliminates the rights to which labour is entitled. The minister could give consideration to other matters also.
I should like to refer to one case which comes under the field of the Department of Labour. I refer to the uranium industry. In this instance the workers have not the right to join a second union if they wish. They have not the alternative they wish. Staff representatives of one union are not allowed to go on company property, are not allowed

to visit the bunkhouses of this particular company because the company says this will create some difficulty. It should be pointed out that this union has been in the forefront of organized labour for some time. Consideration should be given to seeing what can be done to allow those workers who may wish to make a change the opportunity of talking to the representatives in their own domicile, which happens to be the company bunkhouses. They should be given this consideration so that they can make a democratic choice for themselves and decide whether they wish to belong to the union of which they are now members or if they wish to change. This would apply also to the other plants and to the other bunkhouses in the area.
I think that workers should also be given the right, when they wish, to join the steelworkers union. They should be given the right to do what they wish. If they wish to join the mine, mill and smelter workers union they should have that right. They should have the free choice to join that union if they wish, and this right should be insisted upon by the Department of Labour.
We have been very concerned also with the fact that the federal Department of Labour has farmed out some of its responsibilities to provincial governments. The instance in Blind River is a good example. The workers have continually complained over the last two years about the safety conditions that exist in that area. They have complained to the provincial government and they have received no redress. Because this falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government they should have the right to ask the minister at least to intervene on their behalf in matters which are not covered by the provincial government but the responsibility for which may have been assumed by the provincial government. We believe that conditions, and particularly the safety factors, should be higher under the federal government than under the provincial government which has accepted the jurisdiction over the particular industry. When the federal government safety factors are higher, then they should apply, and I suggest this would be the case in the uranium mines of Blind River.


Mr. Batten:: Before the hon. member for Fort William begins his remarks may I have permission to ask a question of the hon. member who has just sat down? He made some reference to the scale of wages paid to Newfoundland loggers. May I ask him whether he has the scale of wages paid to Newfoundland loggers?


William Arnold Peters: I referred to only two particular figures. One was the figure used in the

conciliation board report, which was $1.05. The second figure is the figure that is paid as a base rate in the mill by the same company and that figure is $1.78 an hour, base rate.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I must confess we have been regaled with much oratory here this afternoon. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Timiskaming refer to the matter of profits made by distributors of automobiles and dealers. I want to assure the hon. member who has just sat down that I do not know of any automobile distributor or dealer who made a profit of $600 on any automobile. The average profit for all Canadian dealers across Canada in 1958, for which I have the figures, was approximately 1J per cent on the total turnover of their business. I do not think that is an excessive amount and in many cases I might say for his information and edification the dealers lost money. I know of some companies which lost thousands and thousands of dollars in the operation of the automobile business, notwithstanding the volume of business. Therefore, I wish to say to him that it is not the dealer who is making the money or indeed the manufacturer. The returns are evenly distributed. As he knows, the workers do receive a fair wage in the automobile plants, and adequate fringe benefits to boot.
I just wanted to say that in passing to correct the impression that the dealers are making so much money on the work of the workers.


William Arnold Peters: Before the hon. member leaves that, may I ask him a question?


Hubert Badanai: You have made two speeches this afternoon, sir, and I think you can wait until I am finished. Notwithstanding statements made by members of the government on many occasions, to say nothing of solemn promises made in the course of the election of last year, the unemployment situation is still grave enough to cause anxiety in many places, and anything that anyone can say to the contrary does not alter the fact that the situation is serious. I realize that the Minister of Labour has the matter of unemployment very much in mind and that he has tried to relieve it with the winter work program in co-operation with the municipalities and the provinces.
In the city of Fort William there are now approximately 100 persons working under the scheme but this is only a drop in the bucket in the face of some 2,760 still seeking employment at the present moment. Had it not been for the active co-operation which
Supply-Labour
the citizens of the community of Fort William have given to the winter do-it-now campaign, which is separate from the winter work program of the government, several hundred more would have been out of work all winter. Individual citizens, industry, business and labour are to be congratulated for their united support in assisting the effort put forth by the lakehead employment advisory committee. The members of this committee worked like beavers to create work.
I must also pay a compliment to the manager and staff of the national unemployment insurance office at Fort William for their untiring efforts in publicizing the need for co-operation. It is my belief that these campaigns fulfil a vital role during the winter months in assisting to create and spread employment to those who are unfortunately without the means of livelihood through no fault of their own. The success of these campaigns leaves no doubt that they are a part of our responsibility and a challenge that our economy must face and effectively solve. The suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that a federal-provincial-municipal conference be held as soon as possible for the purpose of planning a winter work program for the next winter season is one that should be carried into effect without delay.
It is rather regrettable, and I am sure no one regrets it more than my good friend the Minister of Labour, who I must confess is sincere and hard working, but I must say that the government has not given evidence to date that it has an effective plan to deal with unemployment. I have no doubt that the government receives advice from many quarters because, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Welland this afternoon, advice is one of those commodities that are offered free of charge to anyone who wishes to listen. Nonetheless, sometimes there are some suggestions made which bear consideration. One of these appeared in the issue of the Globe and Mail of January 22, 1959 and I wish to read part of it for the record:
If one is to judge by recent discussions of economic problems, the nation has to take a choice between unemployment or inflation. Since inflation inevitably leads in the end to massive unemployment, it may seem there is no choice at all.
Fortunately, defeatism is not a Canadian characteristic and some of our better minds are not prepared to admit the impossibility of providing work for those who want to work constructively, and yet increasing real prosperity.
As something to think about, a proposal has been put forward by Eugen Berkovits, an international businessman and economist whose name has appeared in this column before. In his opinion, unemployment as a recurrent and urgent problem might be overcome by establishment of new manufacturing plants in this country on a large scale.
3494	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act
Evidence in support of his idea can be found in the way secondary industry has grown as a large employer here in recent years, far outstripping primary industry. If we would speed up that growth, says Mr. Berkovits, government might consider offering incentives and inducements, instead of having to make work itself and also make handouts to people who sooner would earn.
To this end, Mr. Berkovits suggests government should grant assistance to those who would establish new plants in Canada, in the way assistance is provided for housing, using the industrial development bank as the agency.
So the industrial development bank would be authorized to issue insurance policies in respect of industrial development loans granted by approved financial institutions, up to an aggregate of perhaps $1 billion. Industrial development bank would have the right of approval and each loan would be no greater than 80 per cent of the outlay necessary to get such new plants going. Repayment would be spread over 30 years, with a fee of possibly two per cent of the loan to cover the cost of insurance. Behind the industrial development bank would be the government-if required.
Mr. Berkovits does not believe government would get "caught" by such a guarantee system. New enterprises, as is well known, have a multiplying influence on production and between thus creating additional activity adding to the nation's wealth, the investment would start bringing back to gov-erment substantial taxes, so that the whole outlay might be balanced by income within four or five years. In contrast, housing loans, which also help employment, are not constant and expanding inducers of revenue.
While there might be a need for government to put up some money, as it has done for housing, Mr. Berkovits sees most of the capital under his plan coming from regular sources of funds, in greater volume when insurance reduces the risk.
This suggestion merits the consideration of the government and should be explored in every way. Our economic recovery depends to a very large degree on employment of human resources. The dangerous curves on the road to recovery are unemployment and inflation and these are the twins of misery which we must cope with, and so long as they are present so long will distress and unhappiness prevail.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 5, 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.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to consider public bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 5, consideration of the motion of
[Stage Direction]

Mr. Pickersgill for the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act and the proposed amendment of Mr. Roberge.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that when this bill was introduced on February 5, my friend the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) late in the day moved an amendment which I want very warmly to support, namely that the bill should not be read a second time but that the subject matter thereof should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. That motion was made after a previous motion that the bill should be referred to a special committee to be set up was found by the chair to be out of order. Of the standing committees, the external affairs committee therefore seemed the most closely related-although I admit it is not too closely related-to the subject matter of the bill. However, as we all know, it is a highly competent committee; and I am perfectly sure that if the subject matter of the bill were referred to it, the experience and the quality of the members on that committee would make them eminently well qualified to deal with the subject matter of this bill.
In introducing this bill originally I attempted to be as non-controversial as it is in my nature to be. It is not for me, of course, to be the judge of how well I succeeded. I found that some of the hon. gentlemen opposite were perhaps a little bit more controversial than I was or at least so it seemed to me. But I do not seek to say anything whatever about any of the personal references that were made to me or any of the objections that were taken to my administration of the department when I was the minister or to any of the other things of perhaps a not entirely complimentary nature that were said in that debate.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, it was my hope-and it is still my hope-that this matter could be considered and decided in a completely non-partisan manner in the best interests of all the people of Canada, for what we are talking about here is something that I trust all members in the House of Commons, to whatever party they may happen to belong, value equally. I refer to our common citizenship which I think binds all of us together more than anything divides us in this House of Commons, or at least that is my hope. I must say that I hope the hon. gentleman who is a learned member of his profession will not think it presumptuous of me, a student in the same profession, to say so but I thought the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) was rather devastating in his legal criticisms of the bill.

In defence of the bill itself, I may say that it was drafted rather hastily in the house at the last session and was not revised. It was based upon an assertion that was made at that time by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) to the effect that the particular matter to which it had reference was the only disability still existing in the act; that is to say, the only disability under which naturalized citizens suffered and natural born citizens did not. I thought that the hon. member for Marquette completely demonstrated that that foundation was wrong. The moment I heard him cite the section of the act that he cited, I realized that this bill was imperfect and that it would not be a proper bill to pass in the form in which it was introduced.
Of course, as hon. members will recall, I said at the outset that I was not in the least wedded to the terms of the bill, that I felt the purpose of the bill was clearly stated, that the principle of the bill was clear and that there would be no difficulty in revising the terms of the bill itself in a committee in order to fit the essential purpose that was in mind. However, in all the circumstances, I think it would be better to have the subject matter of the bill go to a committee where a new bill could be drafted based upon the principle of this bill.
I also thought that the hon. member for Marquette-I keep wanting to say "Portage" for some reason or other but I know it is "Marquette"-was quite right in thinking that the disability in section 18 should also be removed from the act. I think so too.
I want to go back to the real purpose of this bill. I want to say again-and try again to say this in a way that will not be controversial-that I do not think there was really any injustice in the old act as it was before it was amended at the last session of parliament. But there was a psychological situation that had developed. It seemed to me that on balance, the correcting of that psychological situation was more important than were the advantages of the old act. I think one can make a strong argument for the retention of section 18 in the citizenship act. But if you retain it or if you retain any other disability or any other difference between the legal status of a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen, our citizenship is open to the charge that we have two kinds of citizens. In other words, it seemed to me that you must either do the whole job or there was really not much point in tampering with the act at all.
I come to the other argument of the hon. member for Marquette which I must say did not impress me nearly as much. I refer
66968-9-222
Canadian Citizenship Act to the argument that these persons who were still excepted by the one section of the act which I was seeking to have amended do not deserve to carry the honourable name of "Canadian" and, of course, I quite agree. I quite agree that if, in fact, they are the kind of people it would be charged that they were, that is quite true. But I am afraid there are many other citizens who do not deserve to carry the honourable name of "Canadian". You either have discrimination or you do not have discrimination. You cannot have almost no discrimination and have equality. That is one of those mathematical propositions on which I am sure the hon. member and I would not disagree. It therefore seems to me that either one has to do what hon. gentlemen opposite or some of their leaders before the election in 1957 said they would do, or not do it. If you do not do it, we would probably be just as well off-in fact, I am not sure that we would not have been better off with the old act-and I am going to explain briefly why.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. MacLean), who also made, I thought, a very interesting, illuminating, thoughtful and scholarly contribution to the debate, on which I would like, if he will not take offence, to congratulate him, pointed out something which had never occurred to me when I was minister as being a discrimination, but obviously is once it is pointed out. That is that there were certain kinds of so-called natural born citizens, although they were not born in this country, who did not have an equality with the natural born citizens who were born in this country. It is quite clear that if this task of establishing a status of complete legal equality is going to be performed, it does require a careful examination of the whole act. It seems to me that that would be very well worth doing and there would be no harm in going ahead with it in anticipation of the wider study of the act which we hope there will be at the next session of parliament.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, however, did make another argument which did not impress me nearly as much as the legal argument he made, and that was his argument about the desirability of retaining the disability which is now in the act to which the bill has reference. The hon. gentleman was arguing that it was very important to be able to strip of their citizenship those Canadians who, on being accused of treason, left the country or were not in the country and would not come back to stand trial. I think a lot can be said in favour of that, but surely there is just as much to be said in favour of stripping of their citizenship those people who have been convicted

Canadian Citizenship Act of treason or of disloyalty to the country and who, after serving their sentence, leave the country and sever their connection with it for a considerable period of time. As hon. members know, that was the law up till it was changed by the present government a year ago.
At the time I was minister a very celebrated case arose. It was the case of a man who had been a member of this house at one time and who had subsequently been convicted in the courts, who after serving his sentence, had left the country and gone to live in the country where he was born, who had lived there for the statutory period and on whom I caused to be served the necessary legal instrument, who appealed against my announced intention of recommending that his citizenship be stripped from him, and whose appeal was listened to and dismissed. I am not using these terms in a legal sense, of course, but rather in an administrative sense. I then recommended that his citizenship be taken from him, and the governor in council saw fit to accept that recommendation and that person lost his citizenship. That is not possible any longer. Since the law was amended by the present government, that person would retain his citizenship although he had been convicted, had served a sentence, and then had gone out of the country with the apparent intention of severing his connection with it. In that case we could not now take his citizenship away from him.
It seems to me that since the present government saw fit to remove from the act the possibility of taking citizenship away from a person of that sort, it is very illogical indeed to retain in the act this other disability of removing citizenship from a person who has never been convicted of anything, against whom a charge has been laid but who does not see fit to come back and have the charge heard. It might be conceivable, in spite of the very best efforts which might be made to find him and acquaint him with the charge, that he might not be aware of the charge or the circumstances. I must say that it does seem a little odd that it should be argued by hon. gentlemen, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to argue-and when I asked him a question he told me I was trying to wriggle out of it, but it struck me that the wriggling was all being done not by me but by the hon. gentleman-in view of the fact that later this session hon. members will presumably be supporting a bill of rights which we are told in the speech from the throne is to be introduced by the leader of the government, that it would be wise to maintain disabilities against a person who has never been tried but remove disabilities

against someone who has been tried and convicted. It is rather an odd conception of equality of rights. I do think myself that there is a very strong argument for taking citizenship away from people like that. There is also a strong argument for equality. It is an argument that induced me to introduce this bill, and notwithstanding the strong arguments on the other side, left in my mind a balance in favour of making all Canadians legally equal. I must say I am unrepentant in the views that that is what we should do.
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), with approval from some other hon. members, did suggest that there was another way of doing it, and that was to impose disabilities upon natural born citizens and to strip them of their citizenship in certain circumstances.
I do not think that we would ever get this parliament to do that, and I do not think we would ever get parliament to do it for this reason. When we strip those people of their citizenship we would be making stateless persons out of them deliberately. In the case of some naturalized persons, what we are doing is simply restoring to them the citizenship which they had before, though in some cases we are not. Again I think that is another important consideration. The idea of making outlaws of individuals is to my mind very reprehensible and completely out of accord with the notions of jurisprudence which exist today in most of the civilized countries of the free world. It seems to me that this is another very strong argument for our bringing the law completely up to date in this regard. I must say that in all the circumstances I do feel that by one means or another we should try very hard in this parliament to reach agreement in regard to equality of citizenship.
Another point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was this. I do not want to take up a lot of time in reading over the previous debate, although if the hon. gentleman thinks I misrepresent anything he said, I would be only too glad to be corrected at once because, as I say, I am seeking to be completely fair and uncontroversial. The hon. member raised the question of fraud. It seems to me that a person who gets a citizenship certificate by fraud has not in fact become a citizen. I think we should deal with such cases judicially. The determination of the facts as to whether he got his certificate by fraud would be a matter, I think, not for any government but for the courts. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to think that that would make the law more rigid than if some administrative discretion were allowed. I think this is a judicial matter.
No minister should have it in his power to decide whether someone else is guilty of fraud. That is what we have law courts for,

and if that is going to be done at all I am sure that is the way it should be done. Of course, it may be that the language of the drafting was not all it should be, but I think the hon. gentleman would find that using the word "court" meant whatever was the court of competent jurisdiction with whatever rights of appeal there would be. I would think that there should be all the rights of appeal that there would be in many other similar kinds of cases. I can see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was, I think, properly concerned about one problem, because there is a problem here. It is conceivable that someone might 20 years ago have obtained a certificate of citizenship or, as it used to be called 20 years ago, naturalization, not having complied with the law. That person, during all this long period would have been regarded as a Canadian citizen, and it would seem to me-and I thank the hon. gentleman for putting this idea in my head-that we would not want to frame the law in such a way that notwithstanding the fact that that man never really became a citizen he would have to start all over again and be landed as an immigrant, if that was necessary, and have to wait for another five years before he could become a citizen.
I do think the hon. member has found another gap which ought to be filled. It is a gap which, I imagine, exists as much in the existing law as in the one suggested. Some provision should be made in cases where either there was good faith in the beginning or good conduct in the country since that time-some process by which citizenship could be conferred with a very slight delay indeed.
Perhaps the court could be given the power to make that kind of favourable decision on application immediately after an adverse decision had been reached in the other case if it seemed desirable.
It seems to me those were the only points of substance which were raised. I looked over the debate the other day when I thought this matter was coming up but it did not come up because of our higher interest in divorce which I am sure is a matter of great interest in some parts of this country at the present time. I am not going to detain the house any longer but I am going to appeal to hon. members to bring this matter to a vote, because all it will do is to send this subject matter to a committee where we can perhaps have a preliminary canter over the subject. In view of the complexities which have been revealed during the debate I do not think we would probably reach a decision this session, but I think it might be 66968-9-222J
Canadian Citizenship Act useful to have one or two meetings to see what ground can be covered so that between now and next session the law officers can be working on this problem with a view to dealing with it at another session.


Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: I must say at the outset that unlike the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) I cannot see my way clear to supporting or accepting the amendment which is before the house at the present time. The hon. member has all but admitted, in the first instance, that his bill is bad in many respects, and there are other defects which, if I have time, I hope to point out in the course of my comments today.
Aside altogether from the initial unsoundness of the bill, I do not think that any amendment such as is now proposed shoud be considered by any committee other than a select committee. I agree that the time has come for a careful examination of this whole act, but I cannot support an amendment which would have the effect of sending this bill to the standing committee on external affairs.
The hon. gentleman, when he spoke a few days ago, was very prone to make confessions about things he had done while in office. I had hoped he would confess an error today and withdraw the bill and perhaps remedy some of the defects inherent in it before, if necessary, presenting another bill. This, to my mind, would have been the most workmanlike approach to the whole affair.
Apart from the bill itself, I should like to draw attention to a matter which did not receive too much consideration during the debate which took place in this house, namely the fact that at the present time we have two orders in council in effect under the War Measures Act which would nullify any work the committee might do with regard to the principle of the bill. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) brought this out during the discussion which took place on Thursday, February 5. I think this is very important because these orders in council are noteworthy and deserve to be brought to the attention, not only of the house but of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who, I imagine, has not even read them. One of them was brought into effect in November of 1942-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to make an observation? I did not join the government until 1953, and I had nothing to do with what was done by the government before that date. I had no responsibility whatever. I should also like to take this opportunity to ask the hon. member a question. I understand that the War Measures Act can only come into effect upon

Canadian Citizenship Act proclamation by the governor in council, and that a second proclamation was made after the end of the war, saying that it had ceased to be in effect. For the life of me I cannot believe that there are any orders in council which have the effect of law today and which were passed under the War Measures Act, unless they have been continued by some other statutory authority.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: made no personal reference to the hon. gentleman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: This order in council was passed by the Liberal government in 1942. I do not know whether it is in effect or not. I have not looked into it in detail. But it merits consideration. If we are going to go ahead with the committee work, I think we should look at this. There are two orders in council, one of which, dated November 26, 1942, stated:
Any person who is a British subject by reason of marriage, or by reason of birth or naturalization in Canada, or by reason of the birth or naturalization of his father in Canada, and who makes application for repatriation to any country which at the time of application is at war with Canada, shall, as from the date of his departure from Canada for repatriation, cease to be a British subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not in effect. It has not been in effect for more than 10 years.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: do not know whether it is or not. There was another order in council dated December 15, 1945, which states:
Any person who being a British subject by naturalization under the Naturalization Act, Chapter 138, R.S.C., 1927 is deported from Canada under the provisions of order in council P.C. 7355 of 15th December, 1945, shall, as and from the date upon which he leaves Canada in the course of such deportation, cease to be either a British subject or a Canadian national.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not in effect either.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Whether it is or not, this was brought to my attention when I learned that this matter would be debated, and I should like to have some more information with regard to it, if possible, before I can go ahead and discuss intelligently the principle of this bill in committee.
There are other defects in the bill which were not pointed out by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate during the daylong debate we had back in February. I think one more should be pointed out to him, and that concerns section 19(1). The

purpose of the bill is ostensibly to restrict revocation of citizenship to cases of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material circumstances and to provide that in such cases where citizenship is revoked it shall be deemed never to have been granted.
In so far as loss by revocation is concerned, this would effectively place naturalized citizens upon the same footing as natural-born citizens, since a person whose citizenship had been revoked could not be considered ever to have been a citizen. However, the amendment is worded in such a way that no procedure for the institution of revocation proceedings is left, because the proposed amendment deletes the present preamble to section 19(1), which reads:
19(1) The governor in council may, in his discretion, order that any person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if, upon a report from the minister, he is satisfied that such person-
And so on. I point this out in case the hon. member wishes to bring up this matter again or present another bill. This would be another ground for consideration with regard to the drafting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Has the hon. member not noticed that the new section-


An hon. Member:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this. Does the hon. member not think that since the courts would determine whether the certificate would be revoked the governor in council would not need appear in the matter and that it would be a matter for the courts?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: still think you would need a process whereby the proceedings would be instituted in the first place. You cannot have a simple declaration. You would have to have something to put it in effect whether it be done by the court or the governor in council. In all earnestness I suggest that this is a serious omission in the bill as drafted.
Another point which I believe is of importance is that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) took directly opposite stands with regard to what they want done and with regard to what they think this bill does. In the first instance I shall refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in this house last year as reported at page 4759 of Hansard of September 6, 1958, when he said:
No. What I am saying here is that he never was a citizen because he did not comply properly with the law that he is required to comply with to become a citizen. The only difference between what I am suggesting and what the hon. lady-

That is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I continue:
-is putting forward in her bill, now that she has taken out that highly objectionable section (c) which really would have instituted thought police in so far as these naturalized citizens were concerned, is that it will no longer be competent to revoke the citizenship of the person who has been charged with the offence of treason, is outside the country and does not come back to be tried.
That is the sort of thing that happens once in a great while. It is perhaps desirable to be able to do this. However, if we are going to take away all the other reasons, why leave this one? The main purpose of this whole exercise, as I take it-and I think the house is not divided on this point any longer-is to give complete equality, the psychological feeling of equality.
We turn now to the remarks made on the same issues by the hon. member for Cartier as reported at page 4760 where he said:
I should like to ask the minister a question. The minister speaks in terms of a naturalized citizen who has committed an offence, leaves the country and does not come back for trial and therefore should lose his citizenship. I agree with that. But assuming that a natural born citizen also commits the offence, also leaves the country and also does not come back to trial, why treat him differently from the way in which you treat a naturalized citizen? He has committed the same offence. He has left the country the same as has the naturalized citizen, and he does not come back for trial. They are both on an equal footing. They have done the same thing. Why differentiate as between the one and the other?
Throughout the debate on the 1958 amendments as presented by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the view appeared to be taken that the citizenship status possessed by a natural born citizen was inalienable and that a naturalized citizen should be placed as nearly as possible on the same footing as the natural born citizen. It is clear that the fact that the natural born citizen may lose his citizenship by the effect of the law under certain circumstances was not appreciated at that time.
During the course of debate on this question last February I attempted to detail the sections under which a person may lose his natural citizenship and I think the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have made reference appreciate that point now. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Cartier answered him fully in these words reported at page 4698 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) I know felt very strongly about this bill, but even he seemed to feel that instead of making concessions it was imposing additional discriminations. I am sure on reflection he will see that is not true, but the main part of his remarks seemed to me to be directed towards an argument in favour of imposing restrictions on natural born Canadians rather than removing them from those who are naturalized. I doubt very much that
Canadian Citizenship Act
that would go down too well with either natural born or naturalized Canadians.
During the debate last February I asked the hon. member for Cartier if he thought that the bill presented to the house accomplished what he wanted it to, and he replied that he thought so. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate gave his interpretation of what the bill does and it was an entirely opposite conclusion. I suggest to these hon. gentlemen that they should agree in their interpretation of what the bill accomplishes. This must be done before there can be agreement with regard to whether or not to send it to a committee.
I know that there are other hon. members who wish to speak on the bill. I have no reason to not want it to come to a vote because in the first instance I cannot see how a committee could treat this subject in the light of the bill we have before us. The bill is poorly drafted and is bad through and through.
We have the suggestion that the bill be sent to the committee on external affairs. I know it had to be done in that way at the time because notice would have had to be given with regard to a special or select committee. In all seriousness I say this procedure is not conducive to any serious study of the bill. It is obvious that if we are going to study this subject at all the whole question would have to be examined by a special or select committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Would he like to amend the motion of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) to send it to the special joint committee on Indian affairs?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I could never live with myself if I were to agree to sending this bill to a committee in the form in which it is presently drafted. The amendment is an absurdity and I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is only too well aware of that.
The minister stated in introducing her estimates that there would have to be a careful examination of the citizenship act. I do not think there will be time to do that this session but it should be done at the earliest possible opportunity and I hope it will be done next year. Each section of the act should be examined by a special or select committee which could make recommendations to the house with regard to changes in the act.
For the reasons I have outlined I am compelled to say I cannot support the proposed

Canadian Citizenship Act amendment with regard to sending this legislation to the standing committee on external affairs.


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I thought this amendment would give the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate an opportunity to unravel some of the statements he placed on the record when he presented this bill to the house but he has not taken the opportunity to do so. He has not satisfied my mind as to the need for this amendment, or the reasons why it is being introduced by him at this time after his term of office as minister of citizenship and immigration. While he occupied that position I do not think there were any major amendments made to the Canadian Citizenship Act, and I am sure that citizenship in those years was as important to Canadians as it is today.
I have been connected with the newly formed citizenship council in the province of Manitoba, and the discussions that they are having and the problems that they are encountering in getting their organization on its feet and in trying to promote better citizenship in this country. They certainly are not having any problems with people outside of Canada who have been charged with treason. This is a very small and insignificant matter when you consider the whole matter of citizenship in its entirety. There is no discrimination in Canada between natural born Canadians and naturalized Canadians. If there is any discrimination in our act at all it does not affect citizens who are in Canada; it affects Canadian citizens who are outside of Canada. In my estimation, that is a more important point. When we consider that a great many countries of this world allow dual citizenship-by that I mean citizens of those countries can come to Canada and obtain their Canadian citizenship and still retain citizenship in the country from which they came-this puts us into a difficult position, or it could put us into a difficult position in certain circumstances and in certain instances. For example, a person who has such dual citizenship could come to Canada and commit an offence which would prompt our law officials to lay a charge of treason, and then leave the country and refuse to return to stand trial. In such a situation we would have a citizen who could go all over his native land or into countries which are ideologically opposed to us and brag about being a Canadian citizen. I for one do not like to think of that happening. I do not know whether it would ever happen but I suggest that just because the incidence of occurrence may be very small that is no argument for removing something from the statute books.
[Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
I think we should have certain protections on our statute books to provide a deterrent or a punishment for situations that could arise in the future which might be embarrassing to us as far as our neighbours in the world community are concerned. I might even go so far as to agree with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) when he says that a natural-born Canadian citizen should also lose his citizenship under the same circumstances. I would be inclined to agree with him except for the fact that we should be creating a person with a stateless category. That is something that is repugnant to our way of thinking and it is something that I would certainly have to do a lot more thinking about before I would permit myself to advocate it.
In this country we have a certain amount of pro-communism and a great deal of anticommunism. I think the anti-communist element is more pronounced in those communities which are made up of new Canadians or naturalized Canadians. I do not hesitate to say that if any naturalized Canadian found himself within the confines of the section of the Canadian Citizenship Act that we are discussing today his fellow naturalized Canadians would not have too much sympathy for him; for these people have seen what happens in countries where persons sell their souls and their morals to a political philosophy that in effect means slavery and means imprisonment and lack of freedom. They have seen this happen first-hand. One of the main reasons why many of them came to this country was to get away from places where that could happen. I would think that possibly, instead of worrying ourselves today with how we are going to treat people who are charged with treason we should be worrying ourselves as to how we are going to, or whether or not it would be a good idea to get rid of certain people in our society who are trouble-makers and who are openly opposed to the democratic system as we know it.
I am not by any means advocating expulsion because one holds a communistic belief or a socialistic belief, but I would think we would be much better off discussing that point, or discussing how we can help new Canadians rather than discussing how or whether we should deal with people charged with treason in the manner in which this act stipulates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question? Do I understand from his argument that he is opposed to legal equality for all Canadian citizens?


William Murray Smith: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate gathered

that from my remarks, then I suggest he must have been reading his paper again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member explain what his remarks do mean?


William Murray Smith: There is no inequality in Canada. The inequality exists for those who have been charged with treason and who are outside of Canada. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is very quick to get on his feet now and to charge this government with discrimination when in fact his own government practised discrimination to an extent that had never before been experienced in this country, not only as far as immigrants were concerned but as far as natural born Canadian citizens were concerned and, to my mind, this bill which he has proposed to this house is nothing more than an attempt to get back into the good graces of some of the people of this country.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) knows full well that I do not engage in personalities. I value his sincerity, his honesty-


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: His
good looks.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: -his debating ability and his ability to make the headlines.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: That comes first.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I can visualize what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would like to see in the Liberal press all across the country-"Pickersgill Fights Against Dual Citizenship". If that is not the purpose of the bill then I do not know what is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thanks for the headline.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On February 5 last I think we threshed out the bill. Everybody expressed their opinion. It was generally agreed that the only people the bill purports to protect are those who have been charged with treason or with a breach of the Official Secrets Act and who fail to come back to our courts and justify themselves. By their very failure to answer the summons they convict themselves of being guilty.
But, Mr. Speaker, if the aim of the hon. gentleman is to make headlines that he is the only one who is fighting for equal citizenship for all, I believe I am expressing the opinion of every member of the house, including members of the opposition, that Canada is proud of her naturalized Canadians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.
Canadian Citizenship Act


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that one-third of Canada's population is either naturalized or descended from naturalized Canadians. These people came from all parts of the world and they have helped to pioneer and develop this land. They have contributed to every part of the economy of the country. They have fought on the battlefields of France, Holland and Belgium and their names, some of which are hard to pronounce, are on the crosses of Flander's fields.
I do not know whether hon. members realize that a Victoria Cross holder of Ukrainian origin works downstairs in this building. He holds the highest honour in the British Empire. I do not know how many of us are aware that today is the 14th anniversary of V.E. day. The west fought in that war for freedom and we won the war but how many people lost their freedom after V.E. day if for no other reason than because of Quislings and such people.
An honest, naturalized Canadian is not worried about this section being in the act. I cannot express myself any better than by quoting part of an article by Mr. Harold Weir which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of October 19, 1957. It reads as follows:
Naturalized persons who feel "Insecure" because their citizenship is subject to review by the government must derive their feeling of insecurity from a bad conscience. It doesn't make any more sense than the complaint of light-fingered gentry that their freedom is in jeopardy because, if they commit a robbery, they'll be thrown into jail.
The only naturalized citizens who run the slightest risk of losing their citizenship are those who obviously don't deserve citizenship in the first place.
They are very very few. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate expects to make the headlines because he has fought for equality of citizenship I can only say that he is fighting for probably one in a million. I do not know whether we have had one case since the last war and I do not think we will have one in the next 14 years. I continue:
Men and women who change their minds about Canada, men and women who get sour on Canada, men and women who have come into this country with bad intentions, these are the only ones likely to run afoul of cancellation clauses.
These are the only people who are liable to have their citizenship taken away from them. This country has accepted a large influx of immigrants. We are a country with wide-open spaces. We have room for many, many more people. I believe that this government or any other should have that one clause giving the right to revoke the citizenship of anyone who refuses to answer a charge of treason. Treason is a serious crime. It is punishable by death in some countries and

Business of the House
in the past it was punishable by death in all countries. All these people have to do is to come forward and answer the charge and their citizenship will not be revoked. If they answer the charge, if they face the music, as the saying goes, and undergo the penalty their citizenship is absolutely safe. When only an odd case may arise once in 50 years, is it worth wasting a day or an hour of the time of the house, all this under the smokescreen that there is at least one member of the house who is fighting for equality of citizenship for all? I can see him make the headlines, but all over one case in probably 50 years or maybe never.
I object to the bill. I do not want to be repetitious. I do not want to go into my objections to the bill. The same opinion I expressed before still stands. I would not be afraid to vote against the bill no matter what the Liberal press of Canada said. I am quite satisfied that is the opinion of most hon. members and I think we have wasted a lot of time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the leader of the house could confirm the business
for Monday and perhaps indicate a little more for the rest of the week.


Howard Charles Green: The business for Monday will be, first of all, second reading of the act to amend the Excise Act, then the act to amend the Old Age Security Act, then the one to amend the Customs Tariff and the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, all of which follow from the budget. Then we shall take second reading of the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments and then second reading of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will that be the business for the next two days after that?


Howard Charles Green: I would not like to say as to the next few days. I hope the hon. member will not take that long on these bills.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would just venture to suggest to the leader of the house that if we were given a little ampler menu it might be possible we would consume less in each course.


Howard Charles Green: I doubt that very much.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Are orders in council in effect at the present time authorizing cabinet committees, ad hoc cabinet committees, committees of council, and interdepartmental committees?
2.	If so, what are the numbers and dates and contents of the particular orders in council?
3.	Who are the members of these committees?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1.	Cabinet committees have no legal powers and are set up from time to time by the cabinet without any orders in council.
There are two committees of the privy council, both authorized and given certain powers by statute. These are the treasury board, established by the Financial Administration Act, and the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research, established by the Research Council Act. In addition, there is a statutory committee of which certain ministers of the crown are members, together with the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is the committee of internal economy, provided for in the House of Commons Act.
In the past, interdepartmental committees were set up from time to time by order in council but the present practice is for them to be established by the cabinet, by the treasury board or by the minister or ministers most directly concerned. There is still one active interdepartmental committee, the establishment and terms of reference of which were authorized by order in council. This is the standing committee on public records, of which a minister is chairman.
2.	Present members and alternates of the treasury board were appointed by orders in council P.C. 1957-889, of June 21, P.C. 19571188 of August 29, and P.C. 1958-1326 of September 22. Present members of the scientific and industrial research committee were appointed by order in council P.C. 1958-1482 of October 23. Present members of the internal economy committee were appointed by order in council P.C. 1958-1715 of December 17. The committee on public records was set up by order in council P.C. 6175 of September 20, 1945, and its composition is set out therein, subject to the changes that have taken place in ministerial responsibility. Copies of the above orders are attached.
3.	Answered by (2) above.
8, 1959	3503
Questions P.C. 1957-889


AT THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE AT OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Friday, the 21st day of June, 1957.
Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, is pleased hereby to nominate the following members of the queen's privy council for Canada who, with the Minister of Finance, shall constitute the treasury board:
The Honourable George Hees,
The Honourable Leon Balcer,
The Honourable George Clyde Nowlan, The Honourable Michael Starr,
The Honourable James MacKerras Mac-donnell.
The presence of three members of the treasury board shall constitute a quorum thereof.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill,
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, the 29th day of August, 1957.
Present:
His Excellency
The Administrator in Council:
His excellency the administrator in council,, on the recommendation of the Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Financial Administration Act, is pleased hereby to nominate the following members of the queen's privy council for Canada to be alternates to serve in the place of members of the treasury board:
The Honourable Ellen Louks Fairclough, The Honourable William J. Browne,
The Honourable Jay Waldo Monteith,
The Honourable Francis Alvin George Hamilton.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill,
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.
3504	HOUSE OF
Questions P.C. 1958-1326

[Stage Direction]
Monday, the 22nd day of September, 1958. Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Financial Administration Act, is pleased hereby to nominate the following members of the queen's privy council for Canada to be alternates to serve in the place of members of the treasury board:
The Honourables: H. C. Green, A. J. Brooks, G. R. Pearkes, G. M. Churchill, E. D. Fulton, D. S. Harkness, J. A. MacLean, P. Comtois, W. M. Hamilton, S. E. Smith, R. J. M. O'Hurley, H. Courtemanche.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill,
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, the 23rd day of October, 1958 Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to section 4 of the Research Council Act, is pleased hereby to amend order in Council P.C. 1127 of 27th March, 1947, as amended, which in part reconstituted the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research, and the said order in council is hereby further amended by deleting therefrom section 2 and substituting therefor the following:
2. The committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research shall consist of the following members:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who shall be chairman,
The Minister of Agriculture,
The Minister of Finance,
The Minister of Fisheries,
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys,
The Minister of National Defence,
[Stage Direction]
The Minister of National Health and Welfare,
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources,
The Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, the 17th day of December, 1958 Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to section 16 of the House of Commons Act, is pleased hereby to appoint:
The Honourable Donald Methuen Fleming, Minister of Finance,
The Honourable Leon Balcer, Solicitor General,
The Honourable George Clyde Nowlan, Minister of National Revenue, and
The Honourable Ellen Louks Fairclough, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to act, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, as commissioners for the purposes of sections 16, 17 and 18 of the said act.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
Order in council establishing the committee on public records

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, the 20th day of SEPTEMBER, 1945.
PRESENT:

[Stage Direction]
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL:
WHEREAS the secretary of state reports that, at the request of the Prime Minister he has convened an informal advisory committee on public records to give consideration to methods for providing adequate conservation of the public records, with particular

reference to those records relating to the wartime activities of the government; and
That, following investigation of the state of the public records, a report has been prepared and considered by the committee and certain recommendations resulting therefrom approved;
Now, therefore, his excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, is pleased to order and doth hereby order as follows:-
1.	There shall be a committee on public records under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State and consisting of the following officials:-
A representative to be named by the Secretary of State (public archives).
Two representatives to be named by the Minister of National Defence (army and naval services).
A representative to be named by the Minister of National Defence-Air.
A representative to be named by the Minister of Public Works.
A representative to be named by the Minister of Finance.
A representative to be named by the minister of munitions and supply and the minister of reconstruction.
A representative to be named by the Minister of Labour.
A representative to be named by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
A secretary shall be provided from the privy council office.
2.	The Canadian Historical Association shall be asked to recommend two professional historians to act in an advisory capacity to the committee to serve at no salary but with expenses to be provided by the government.
3.	The duties of the committee shall be to keep under constant review the state of the public records and to consider, advise and concert with departments and agencies of government on the organization, care, housing, and destruction of public records.
4.	The committee shall, as part of their duties, examine and report on the following:
(a)	The preparation by departments and agencies of government of suitable accounts of their wartime activities and,
(b)	The implementing of the approved recommendations of the royal commission on public records of 1914 regarding establishment of a public records office, with particular reference to the integration of the
Questions
public archives therein, and the type of organization which would facilitate the best use of the public records.
5.	When questions specifically affecting the records of a department are being dealt with, a representative from that department shall be present at the meeting.
6.	The primary responsibility for the care and maintenance of records and for seeing that the policies of government in respect to disposition of public records be carried out so as to ensure that material of permanent value be not unwittingly destroyed will rest with departments and agencies of government concerned.
7.	Each department shall assign responsibility for superintendence of its records to one or more senior officers, preferably the departmental secretary if such a position exists, or an official of similar rank. The duties of these officers will be to review periodically the state of the departmental records and to reclassify them with a view to disposal or transfer of those of permanent value but not currently required to the public archives (or public records office, if established) or to other dominion or provincial departments, or by some form of destruction under existing regulations. These officers will also maintain liaison with agencies responsible to the minister. Recommendations respecting contemplated disposal along the above lines shall be submitted, in all cases, for formal approval of the committee on public records.
A. D. P. Heeney,
Clerk of the Privy Council

Mr. Bourgel: Questions


DRAGGER TYPE VESSELS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES   FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What Is the total amount, up to March 31, 1959, paid in each of the Atlantic provinces under the assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger or long liner type?
2.	What is the amount paid during the same period in Gloucester county, New Brunswick?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of
Fisheries):
1.	New Brunswick	 $447,051.05
Nova Scotia	 882,580.20
Prince Edward Island	 109,824.00
Quebec	 162,021.75
Newfoundland	 166,701.15
2.	$378,092.10.

Monday, May 11, 1959



ESTIMATES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) presented the third and fourth reports of the standing committee on estimates, and moved that the third report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXCISE ACT

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-45, to amend the Excise Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

Donald Methuen Fleming: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-44 to amend the Customs Tariff and the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I intimated to the house that my department's next regular report on strontium 90 levels in milk powder samples was expected shortly. This has now been completed, and is being distributed through the usual channels. In view of the widespread interest in the subject I should also like to table it for the information of hon. members. The report contains new data on milk covering the period April to December, 1958. It is the second in a series of reports which will deal with the
measurements of radioactive fall-out in air, rainfall, soil, various foods and in human beings.
While the report speaks for itself, I think certain points warrant special mention. Of first importance is the fact that our findings indicate no basis for alarm about this matter. Although it is evident that the strontium 90 levels have continued to increase, it is made clear that they are well below the stringent standards suggested by international authorities.
I am also aware that there continues to be concern about the stress given to milk in this regard, and I would emphasize again that milk was chosen for sampling because of its convenience and because it is an important item in our daily diet. In addition, dairy products provide most of our food calcium, the absorption of which by the body is closely associated with the absorption of strontium 90. At the present time our findings, taken together with other available information on the biological effects of radiation, provide no basis for curtailment of the use of dairy products.
At this point I would remind the house that radioactive fall-out constitutes only one of several sources of radiation exposure for Canadians. Other man-made radiation sources have been in use for at least half a century and, moreover, the human race has always been exposed to radiation from natural sources. Estimates have been made of the relative contributions to the average radiation exposure from each of these sources, and it is apparent that radioactive fall-out contributes only a small part of the total.
In order to evaluate more completely the over-all situation we plan to expand our radiation protection activities in several ways. Currently we are extending our fall-out sampling program to include analyses of air, rainfall and soil. We are also engaged in a study of the genetically significant dose resulting from the medical use of X-rays. At a later stage we propose to investigate the variations in natural radiation levels. The results of these studies, as they become available, will be the basis of further reports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a matter which is, of course, of the greatest importance. The minister has said in effect that the strontium level does not appreciably increase any danger to human health. How-

Inquiries of the Ministry ever, he has pointed out that strontium levels themselves continue to increase. That is a matter, of course, of great concern to the minister and I am sure to his officials, as it is to scientists generally. The house and the country would expect the government and the minister to give this matter their closest attention.
The minister has mentioned that there has been an expansion in the radioactive detection facilities and activities of his department. I presume that includes the purchase of new equipment, reference to which was made by Dr. Watkinson about two months ago. Perhaps the minister might supplement his statement by advising whether or not the facilities of the government have been reinforced by the employment of at least one additional geneticist.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this group are interested and pleased that the minister has tabled this very important report in view of the increasing concern of the Canadian people about dangers from this source. We are glad to know that studies will continue, and we hope no avenue will remain unexplored in an effort to get the facts and present the truth to the Canadian people for their protection.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can confirm the report which appeared this morning that the government had agreed to guarantee 80 per cent of a loan by two United States corporations to buy transport planes from the Canadian subsidiary of a United States corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in general the answer is no. I cannot give the hon. member full particulars because the minister is away today, but the course of securing an opportunity for Canadian industry to share in contracts such as were mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition is a course we have followed. The full particulars will be given on the return of the minister to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, it would be whether or not it is true that this particular transaction has nothing to do with defence contracts but rather with ordinary commercial contracts.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is true. As yet we have simply given notice of

intent with a view to providing an opportunity for full consideration as between the vendor and the would-be purchasers.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister comment on the new record rate established for three month treasury bills at 4.91 per cent and the bank rate at 5.16 per cent?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the figures have been published and are well known, and I do not think they require any comment. We had an extended debate on this subject in this house last week.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment on the recent use of the six month treasury bills, and tell us when these were last issued by the Bank of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this issue yesterday was in the amount of $20 million. It was subscribed, and the average rate on it is 5.27 per cent. It has been the custom for some time past to issue treasury bills with a 91-day maturity only. In this issue there was $115 million of a 91-day issue and $20 million of a new six month issue. I should say this is not the first time a six month issue has been offered. That has not been done recently, but it was done some time earlier by the former government.



ALLEGED PURCHASE BY BANK OF CANADA OF PART OF C.N.R. BOND ISSUE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister comment on the report that owing to depressed conditions of the market for government bonds the Bank of Canada was obliged to purchase one-third of the current Canadian National Railways issue of $150 million?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it has not and I believe never has been the practice to disclose the subscriptions for any issue of government bonds, let alone bonds of the Canadian National Railways. This is a Canadian National Railways issue bearing the guarantee of the government. The issue is for $150 million. It was subscribed, and I think the public interest would not be served by disclosing details as to particular subscriptions. It never has been the practice to do so.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question:
There appears in today's press the news of an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom under which, according to the report, the United States has agreed to furnish information to the United Kingdom regarding the design and construction of a nuclear-powered submarine. The United States has already agreed to provide a reactor for a British nuclear-powered submarine. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any arrangement for that kind of co-operation and assistance if required between the United States and Canada in connection with not only a nuclear-powered submarine but a nuclear-powered icebreaker if one were required?
As I stated on April 21, negotiations have been proceeding with the government of the United States with a view to modification of the 1955 agreement on the exchange of atomic information for mutual defence purposes, to take account of the amendments to the relevant United States legislation which was passed in July of 1958.
I am very glad to say that the government is confident that as a consequence of the bilateral agreement which is now being negotiated, the way would be open to make arrangements for the kind of co-operation and assistance which would be required if the government of Canada were to decide to build a nuclear-powered submarine. However, the cost would have to be taken into consideration. I understand the cost runs to something like $60 million.
So far as a nuclear-powered icebreaker is concerned, information regarding a project for the non-military use of a reactor such as, for instance, to supply power for such a vessel could be exchanged by mutual agreement between Canada and the United States within the scope of the agreement on co-operation in the civil uses of atomic energy.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Labour if he can give any report on the dispute between workers and management at the Polymer Corporation, which has been in existence, as he knows, for some considerable length of time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Another meeting was held this week, convened by the conciliation officer of the Department of Labour. At the moment we are looking over the situation to see what further steps can be taken in order to bring about a meeting between both parties with a view to a settlement being brought about.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since we are in the midst of the house-building season, will the minister ask Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to speed up their current semiannual review of building costs and release their new basic rates as soon as possible-as he knows, this was formerly done on July 1-with a view to making more realistic appraisals in those areas throughout Canada where reductions in basic rates of appraisals were made on January 1, 1959, which has resulted only in a reduction in the level of National Housing Act loans.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take up this question with the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I would point out to the hon. member and to the house that the loans under the insurance provisions of the National Housing Act are even higher this year than they were last year at this date. The figure for requests for undertakings to insure up to May 1-that would be for the first 17 weeks of the current year-is 12,092. Last year there were only 11,741.



VISIT TO WINDSOR AND WHEATLEY BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries based on a report in the Windsor newspaper to the effect that 24 members of the House of Commons visited Windsor and Wheatley on Thursday. Was the transportation provided through the Department of Fisheries? Can the minister advise the house as to how air transport was provided, and at whose expense?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I believe the standing committee on marine and fisheries visited some fisheries

Inquiries of the Ministry plants in the Wheatley area yesterday. The transportation was not provided by the Department of Fisheries.


Mr.   Mc@: Was it provided by the government at government expense? How was it done?


John Angus MacLean: I think that is the case, but I am not in a position to say.


Mr.   Mc@: Will you get the information?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member put the question on the order paper. It is asking for statistical information.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Harold Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I feel rather uncomfortable about my position in connection with the national hospital scheme. Can something be done to see that the regulations are amended so that I and others can be in Ottawa, away from our home province of British Columbia, for more than three months at a time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I might point out that within the last few days we have been informed by British Columbia authorities of their intention to amend their regulations regarding out of province benefits. As a result of these changes, which are expected to be made in the near future, I understand that an insured person temporarily absent from British Columbia will be eligible for a total of three months' hospitalization benefits during the year following his departure from the province. In other words, if he has to go to hospital during the year of his temporary absence because of acute illness or injury, he will be covered up to a maximum of three months' stay in hospital. I imagine this will take care of the situation.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Finance if he is having difficulty finding suitable candidates for appointment to the chairmanship of the tariff board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member is interested perhaps he would submit his application in writing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman I am interested, but not in the appointment for myself. I am interested in seeing that an appointment is made, and I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. If he has had no difficulty finding candidates, why does he not fill this important post?


Mr.   Mc@: He cannot make up his mind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will be filled in due course, and in the meantime the work of the tariff board is proceeding. They have been hearing a number of appeals.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Without a chairman?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The tariff board can function with a panel of three, and it has been functioning quite satisfactorily.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to advise the house as to what attitude the government has taken with regard to the reported request by India and Poland for a reconvening of the international supervisory committee on truce arrangements in Laos.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there have been differences of opinion over the possibility of attempting to reconvene the international commission for Laos which was adjourned sine die on July 19, 1958. Early this year a request for the reconvening of this commission came from the Poles, who urged resumption of the commission's activities in Laos on the ground that the commission should continue to carry out its supervisory functions there. North Viet Nam and communist China also requested a resumption of the Laos commission's activities. In December, 1958 north Viet Namese incursions into Laotian territory occurred. The Indian government, following upon this frontier dispute, urged a meeting of the Laos commission to deal with this specific problem.
Hon. members may also have seen press reports to the effect that the Soviet embassy in London handed a note to the foreign office on April 29 requesting the return of the international commission to Laos. The Canadian government received a similar request

from the Soviet ambassador on April 28. It will be recalled that the United Kingdom and Soviet foreign ministers are the joint co-chairmen of the Geneva conference, and in that capacity act as a channel of communication with the international commissions in Indochina.
During the negotiations leading up to the adjournment sine die of the Laos commission in July, 1958 the Canadian position was that with the achievement of the political settlement in Laos and the integration of the dissident Pathet Lao into the national community, the commission had completed its supervisory task and should be dissolved. Because the Indian representatives did not accept that view, Canada agreed to the compromise formula of an adjournment sine die against the opposition of the Poles. However, the Canadian commissioner was instructed to make it quite clear, at the final meeting of the commission, that Canada could not agree to any further commission action which would infringe upon Laotian sovereignty.
I understand that the government of Laos is opposed to the reconvening of the commission. The Polish request, in the view of the Canadian government, did not bring forward adequate reasons for reconvening the commission, and since it called for a reconstitution of the commission secretariat in Vientiane, it would have been an obvious infringement on Laotian sovereignty.
I think that in general represents the situation at this time.

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


Charles Edward Rea: This item will be found at page 35 of the blue book, the details at page 231. Shall vote 163 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to make a few remarks on this item-and I shall try to be brief-with respect to the problem of unemployment which exists at the present time and may be worse next winter. We in this group consider that unemployment in a country like Canada is a serious injustice to those who suffer by it. In the second place, it is an unnecessary waste of human resources. In the third place, it is a challenge to governments in general at all levels, to industry, to labour and to the people as a whole.
66968-9-220
Supply-Labour
Personally I believe it is unthinkable to accept the dictum that we must accept a hard core of unemployment in Canada throughout the year, and that that core should be larger during the winter because of seasonal unemployment.
During the last session of the British Columbia legislature the labour committee gave considerable consideration to this problem as it affects British Columbia. That committee was composed of representatives from all parties, and I am informed that it made a unanimous report to the legislature. I want to bring to the attention of the committee at this time a portion of that report with respect to its recommendations concerning the national government.
The committee invited representations from labour, industry and other sections of the community. It received briefs and representations from the British Columbia federation of labour; the mine, mill and smelter workers representing the miners of British Columbia, and other unions. It heard from various sections of industry through employers' representatives. It heard from the alma mater society of the University of British Columbia, which organization in my opinion made a thoughtful presentation. It heard from the research council of British Columbia, and finally it heard from some of the minister's officials in the regional offices at the coast.
In dealing with this question, Mr. Chairman, the committee considered all aspects of the problem-and I thought they did so in a constructive way-and dealt with the extent of unemployment in British Columbia from January, 1957 to January, 1959. They then sought to find the major causes of unemployment in British Columbia during 1958, and then made certain proposals as to the responsibility of the national government, the provincial government, the local governments, the trade union movement and industry.
I want just to place on record the recommendations of the committee with respect to responsibilities, from the committee's point of view, of the national government to meet this situation. In the report of the committee on labour of the legislative assembly of British Columbia, dated March 18, 1959 this is what I read with respect to the responsibilities of the national government. The committee had this to recommend:
I.	The national government
By virtue of its control over the collections and disbursements of unemployment insurance funds, as well as constitutionally within the framework of the British North America Act as accepted by the national government when taking over certain taxation privileges from provincial administration, the primary responsibility for employment in

Supply-Labour
Canada rests with the national government. With that authority lies the power to sustain a climate conducive to industrial expansion and the creation of new industries with a consequent high level of employment of the working force. Specifically, your committee considers that the national government of Canada should:-
1.	Materially assist in a large-scale works program at appropriate times of the year on such projects as:
(a)	Forest access, transprovincial, and interprovincial roads:
(b)	Park and campsite improvement;
(c)	Diking and drainage projects;
(d)	Stream clearance projects and the creation of artificial spawning areas;
(In this latter connection it is contended that, since the improvement of fishways on the Fraser river eight years ago at a cost of $2 million, the salmon yield has increased by $127 million at cannery prices, and it is therefore evident that such projects would in time be self-liquidating because of the tremendous dollar market value increase in a comparatively short period of time.)
(e)	Fraser river flood control consistent with a policy of fish conservation.
Then No. 2; the committee recommends that the federal government:
2.	Institute an enlarged program of apprenticeship and trades training during adverse seasons of employment by extending the scope of the unemployment insurance commission.
Mr. Chairman, I have had a good number of representations along those lines which I intend to deal with when we are discussing the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It goes on:
3.	Adopt a carefully screened immigration policy on the basis of the stated needs of industry and agriculture thus ensuring the planned assimilation of immigrants into the national working force.
4.	Encourage and promote the construction of coastal shipping and national defence requirements in Canada.
5.	Foster the expansion of a research program designed to encourage the use of coal and coal by-products in our industrial economy.
No doubt that recommendation, Mr. Chairman, springs from the fact that the coal industry in British Columbia, particularly in the Fernie area, is suffering a decline at this time.
6.	Initiate the formation of a joint federal-provincial trade investigation team to the republic of China for the purpose of inquiring into trade possibilities with that country.
I would like to bring to the minister's attention that this recommendation was made both by industry and labour, because the working people of British Columbia as well as the industrial interests realize the great possibility of expansion of our markets for primary products if we can obtain greater trade in that direction.
7.	To provide the ways and means to extend low cost credit in order to:-
(a) Promote and expand economic development and stimulate revenue, income, or self-liquidating projects or works by the province and its municipalities; and to
[Mr. Herridge.)
(b) Assist and encourage the establishment and growth of local industries.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the last recommendation is:
8.	Give leadership and co-operation in the calling of a federal-provincial conference to seek a Canada-wide solution to the unemployment problem, requesting representation from all levels of government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while I heartily support the proposal of the committee for a federal-provincial conference including all levels of government, I think for such a conference to be effective in providing a clear picture of the situation, and at the same time adequately representing the view of the Canadian people generally, that conference should also include representatives from labour, from industry, and from agriculture across this country.
When I say representation, I mean decentralized representation. I am a great believer, Mr. Chairman, that in the development of our domestic society we should decentralize authority and administration. I would like to see all sections of labour have the opportunity to be represented at such a conference. For instance, I think all sections of labour from the Atlantic to the Pacific, such as the forestry industry, the mining industry, the steel industry and the oil industry, should be represented. Then you would have a conference where the government would get the rank and file point of view in dealing with these day to day and very important problems.
The same thing, I think, Mr. Chairman, applies to industry. It is not sufficient just to call in the Canadian Manufacturers Association and have two or three big shots express their views. We have a diversified industrial structure in Canada, and I would like to see at such a conference representatives of various sections of industry, including the small industries, from every province in Canada, and in that way you would get all the information these people would be able to give.
Then with regard to farming, I would like to see a diversified representation in the same way, so that the grain farmers, the general farmers, the dairy farmers, the fruit farmers and the poultry farmers would be all represented at such a conference on a diversified basis, instead of having two or three people speaking for the whole industry. That would give the conference and the government a clear picture not only on a national or a provincial basis but also on a local basis.
Before taking my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring another matter to the minister's attention. I see he is busy chatting at the present time but I hope he will read my remarks later on. I am not blaming him

entirely for this, because I think the blame can rest in other quarters too. But I would like to bring to his attention the success which has been achieved in this direction in the little country of Norway. I have recently been reading some books about the Norwegian government, for which I have a great respect. I have a great respect for all Norwegians. They are a simple and resourceful people who have had to meet some great problems both in peace and in war, and they have met them successfully, and I think countries of our size can learn from such lesser countries, countries with more experience and possibly more maturity when it comes to handling the organizations which represent the various groups of society.
I have been very interested to note how they have formed just such an advisory council representing industry, labour and agriculture in order to deal with the problems of inflation, monetary fiscal policy, unemployment, industry and economy generally. Their conferences have been called somewhat on the basis I have suggested this morning, so they get the local rank and file touch in meeting these problems.
I think that is a principle which can be explored to advantage in Canada. In this way not only does the government get the opinion of various sections of labour, industry and agriculture, but the persons who have the opportunity to represent these people also learn the problems of government and the difficulties which have to be faced. Out of this blending of ideas, this association of different interests, which has such a constructive approach to the problems facing us at this time can be evolved, as was done in Norway, a program which will receive the support of all classes of the people. I do urge the minister to give consideration to a conference of that type.
In addition I think other advantages flow from that type of conference. All programs have to be financed, and when it comes to bond issues for capital investment in self-liquidating projects, I think flowing from such a conference would come an understanding of the problems which face the government and a greater understanding of the program the government may desire to carry out. But it is desirable to have this local interest.
For instance, if I may refer to a local industry in my own district, say the government intended to do certain things with respect to access roads or provincial roads as the result of a program designed to meet the challenge of unemployment. In that case, if you floated a bond issue I think even in the smallest communities of Canada there would be people who would, under those 66968-9-220J
Supply-Labour
circumstances, willingly purchase government bonds to assist in such a program because of their greater knowledge of the circumstances and the need, and also because of their interest which would spring from local participation in the development of that program. I think it would be most beneficial in designing a program to get an understanding of it, and from that I think would flow quite an interest in assisting to provide some of the funds which are necessary to give effect to such a program. Many more people would then feel that they were a part of this program and that they should accept some personal responsibility by making what financial contribution they could toward any bond issues which were offered to meet any of the challenges of national development at this time.
That is all I have to say at this time, and I put the suggestion forward as a constructive approach toward meeting the problem of unemployment as it faces us today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Like other members of this committee I am very much concerned about those Canadians who are unemployed. I am afraid we refer to them some times rather blandly as mere statistics, forgetting that they are human beings with human problems and human needs. I think the time for taking practical steps in an effort to alleviate their position is overdue. It is not my intention to give a lecture on economics or to talk about the situation in a general sense. I wish, rather, to put forward a specific proposal.
I am becoming more and more distressed about the situation of the unemployed. When I go home at week ends I talk to many people, some are young, some middle aged, some of them older, some of them skilled, some of them without any skill or training at all. Each has a common problem. Each is unemployed. Many of these people have mortgage payments which are overdue. Many of them have doctor bills and other bills to meet. Many have family responsibilities and must keep a roof over the heads of their children. Almost every week end I talk to some person who has just lost, or is just about to lose, his home because of inability to meet the financial obligations connected with it.
Chronic unemployment makes cynics, petty crooks and communists out of decent people, and in a rich, young and dynamic economy such as we have in Canada it should be a fundamental right of any able bodied man to be able to work at a wage which will keep body and soul together and provide not only for himself but for his family. Our task as elected representatives who come here to take cognizance of the needs of the people we

Supply-Labour
represent is to try to determine what solutions are best able to meet this grievous situation. Our task is to maintain employment and, through employment, the values of human dignity and decency.
The problem is very difficult to solve completely. As is well known, a significant proportion of our unemployment is seasonal. Many improvements have been made in this respect in the last few years. There have been great strides in technology, and dislocation due to seasonal unemployment is, I think, diminishing. Great strides will be made in the future, and we should press forward in research and study in an effort to find every means possible of mitigating still further the effects of seasonal unemployment.
I think, however, it would be too much to expect that we could ever completely overcome this problem which is indigenous to our climatic conditions. We experience, in addition, the type of unemployment which is called frictional, by which is meant people changing their jobs in the normal course of events. This is something we will always have with us, and something which need not cause us too much concern.
In our search for a solution to this whole problem we require the fullest possible information. The statistics available at present do not give us the whole story. I think we need more detailed information and a more careful study. In approaching this question seriously I feel that the first step required would be a national manpower survey. How extensive this survey ought to be should be left to the experts to determine, but the survey would have to accomplish certain things. It would have to give us a complete analysis of the unemployed labour force, it should determine into which age categories the unemployed workers fall, and give us a more complete breakdown of a variety of information including marital status, training, educational background, vocational training background and, perhaps, job history; sufficient information to enable us to tackle the problem in an all-out manner. It should not be difficult for the national employment service and the unemployment insurance commission to obtain all this information. It would, of course, be an additional job for them at a time when they are already overtaxed, but it is one which is within their capacity and one for which they have the machinery in being.
If such a survey were made, we should then know accurately how many of those people registered as seeking employment were actually unemployed. We should know whether they were plumbers, carpenters, nurses, stenographers, unskilled labourers.
We should know just what their background happened to be. We should know the extent of their educational background, whether they had completed grade school, high school, college; whether they had received apprenticeship training or vocational training; whether they had been self-taught, or whether they had received no training at all. I am sure it would be possible for the commission to obtain sufficient information along these lines to provide material for a very careful and detailed analysis.
At the same time it would be necessary to make a study of the extent and nature of job openings in this country. We should seek to determine what skills will be required not only at the present time but in the months and years which lie ahead. Employers can give a great deal of assistance in this respect. Most of them can forecast their requirements at least for a year or two ahead, and know the type of jobs they are likely to have available. Such information as this is, of course, essential. Whether or not it would be necessary to cover the entire working force in connection with this survey is something I am not prepared to say. That is a decision which can be taken by the people who make these matters their day to day business. The survey should be just as broad as is required to enable us to obtain all the information necessary to meet the situation fully and do the job properly.
The question may be asked, if this is a good suggestion why was it not done some years ago? I think if it were a good suggestion then, it is a good suggestion now. Moreover, the problem is of greater urgency today than it was previously, due to the increase in unemployment since the summer of 1957. Besides, this is a matter which is far too important for quibbling. Completion of such a study as I have suggested would provide facts and eliminate reliance on hearsay.
We are told, for instance, that a great number of those who are at present unemployed are of a mature age and that as a consequence they find a great deal of difficulty in obtaining employment. We are told day after day that people over 40 find difficulty in obtaining employment due to company pension plans. I have no doubt that this is true, but we should know specifically to what extent it is true. If necessary we should examine individual pension plans and find out which provisions make it difficult for employers to engage people over 40. It may be we shall need to do some rethinking and take the initiative in making changes in the pension plans which now exist.
I am sure, and I know the minister agrees with me, that it was not the intention of

either management or labour to set up these pension plans in such a way as to constitute a deterrent to the employment of mature and experienced workers and keep them from rejoining the labour force. This is something which might have been done inadvertently; it would not have been done deliberately. If this should be the case it is our responsibility to find out about it and take the initiative in changing whatever has to be changed.
Another common complaint we hear is that many of the people seeking employment are incompletely or inadequately trained. It is difficult to know to what extent this is true. One suspects from interviewing people that there is considerable validity to this statement. Our survey would show whether or not there is correlation between training and employment, and to what extent lack of training is responsible for unemployment.
Many people in the unemployed labour force went into the labour market in the early post-war years. This was a natural thing to do. Many went in without finishing their schooling. The attraction at the time was very great; high wages prevailed, and it was easy for almost anyone to get a job. This tended to seduce people from their academic or professional studies and persuaded them to enter the labour force perhaps earlier than they would have done in other times. These people now lack the training which they would have had in the ordinary course of events, and for them there is a special problem.
We hear from day to day that for the employment opportunities that do exist there are not skilled applicants. I have personal knowledge of some of these cases. I mentioned earlier this session a period last summer when there were not sufficient trained plasterers to meet the demand. Just two weeks ago in Toronto I was talking to a coat manufacturer who had openings for three machine operators. He was unable to hire adequately trained machine operators. I also know that in the construction industry there could be openings for highly skilled estimators, inspectors, material handlers, material expediters and for other classes of people if they had sufficient technological training to fill openings of this kind. There must be many other trades and vocations where there are employment opportunities if the people were available who had the training and skills required.
In the unemployed labour force at the present time there undoubtedly are a number of skilled workers whose skills may be in overabundant supply or for whose skills there may be continually contracting requirement. This is a situation that is likely to continue in
Supply

Labour
the wake of automation. Inevitably there will be change, and our responsibility is to face it and use it to our national advantage.
We should not attempt to impede the progress of automation, from which a great deal of dislocation can be expected and much adjustment will be necessary. Automation will be a great boon and a blessing if we are prepared to plan for it and use our displaced personnel to the best advantage of the total economy and channel their productivity and creative talents into new, productive enterprises and outlets. This is a program that will require some imagination. It is a problem that has not existed for very long and one to which we perhaps have not given sufficient attention. It will require imaginative and well-planned study. This is a problem which I know we can and will face and solve if we really set our minds to it.
Once the facts had been determined by our survey the next step would be to launch a massive rehabilitation program. It seems ironic that during wartime big men present big plans and achieve big success with almost universal public support, whereas in peacetime we seem reluctant to face big problems and procrastinate sometimes almost interminably in seeking solutions. If we could just maintain some of that sense of urgency which we feel during wartime we could achieve miracles.
This program of massive rehabilitation could be patterned on the experience gained by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the early post-war years. At that time, as you will recall, the government made it possible for veterans to undertake academic or vocational training at government expense. More than 60,000 veterans took some university training under that plan, and almost 100,000 were approved for vocational training. Many, of course, did not complete their studies, but there is no doubt but that they have been able to contribute much more to the growth and potential of the Canadian economy as a result of the opportunity made available to them.
The massive rehabilitation program would, in effect, be a massive program of adult education. It could be set up in various centres right across Canada from Newfoundland to British Columbia. The number of trades and subjects taught would, of course, be related both to the demand for these particular courses and to the result of the survey and future surveys held from time to time, indicating the extent to which any trade or skill would be required in the economy. Participants would be given complete freedom of choice in their selection,

Supply-Labour
but it would probably be advisable to provide counselling service. In addition, though I personally am somewhat leery of them, aptitude tests could be given if requested.
I do not know why persons drawing unemployment insurance and for whom there is no immediate prospect of job openings should not take advantage of the opportunity to increase their knowledge or improve their skills. I am confident that many would welcome the opportunity. In many cases, no doubt, it would be a first introduction to vocational or technical training; in other cases an extension or supplement to previous courses. For others it would be the commencement of acquiring a new skill as an alternative to one already possessed which is in oversupply. Such a plan, of course, would not necessarily be limited to those persons drawing unemployment insurance but should be available to those on municipal relief, etc.
It may be said that there is a constitutional problem involved, and someone may wish to argue that such a program may be outside the federal jurisdiction. I doubt if this objection would be seriously raised. The veterans rehabilitation program was designed to give Canadian veterans an opportunity to better fit themselves for return to, or absorption by, the Canadian labour force. This proposed plan would be for exactly the same reason, to take people from the rolls of the unemployed and prepare them for return to and absorption by the Canadian economy. When a person trained in Newfoundland, for example, is able to obtain employment it will relieve, indirectly, the tax burden on every other Canadian from coast to coast. For each person able to obtain employment as a result of such training it would reduce the burden on all the Canadian taxpayers.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that whether this plan is administered by the federal government or by the provinces is not too important. However, I feel the federal government must take the complete financial responsibility and not load any part of the responsibility on the provinces, and not make the implementation of the plan dependent on additional provincial financial responsibility. I know some of the background as to why it is suggested that the provinces should participate, but I feel the provincial governments already have such a heavy burden that we could not reasonably expect them to participate financially. Particularly would this be true of some of the smaller provinces such as the maritimes, and some of the other provinces which are not as wealthy as the central provinces. I would hope that it could be done completely on

federal initiative. Whether or not it is administered by the federal government is a matter of detail that I would have to leave to the administration.
Notwithstanding the constitution, unemployment is by its very nature and because of its relationship to federal policies particularly federal fiscal and monetary policies, a federal problem, and no federal government can escape its over-all responsibility in this regard. Unemployed people can pass freely from one province to another and they are the concern of all Canadians, and as such should be the concern of this parliament and of this House of Commons. Our labour force must not only be trained but mobile. A pocket of unemployment anywhere in Canada is the concern and responsibility of people in every other part of Canada. I expect the provincial governments would welcome any proposal which would tend to reduce the ranks of the unemployed and to mitigate, whether directly or indirectly, those many economic and social problems connected with unemployment.
I wish to compliment the minister on the increased emphasis he is putting on vocational training. I note the increase in expenditures for vocational training under item 170; but most of this money is being used to train new people who are coming into the labour force, young people who are just making their way into the labour force. A very small proportion of it is being used for the rehabilitation and training of unemployed workers. The increase in this year's estimate specifically on behalf of unemployed workers is very small.
I think modern society accepts the responsibility, though not adequately, for people without jobs. People who are unemployed must not be denied food, clothing and shelter. We have reached a state in our evolution where we believe we are our brothers' keepers at least to the extent that we have to provide them with the basic necessities of life. It would be incredible if we in a great, rich, growing country such as ours could not supply our unemployed people with at least sufficient of the basic requisites of food, clothing and shelter.
Whether these are paid for through unemployment insurance, municipal relief, or through some other means, they are a charge on the community at large and are paid for by the taxpaying and consuming public. We find ourselves, I think, believing that this money comes out of some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If we trace it back we find that it all comes from the same source, namely from all of us as workers, from all of us as consumers, and we all have to pay the shot.

The unemployment insurance fund and relief are just two more of those fixed costs which we talk about, costs which raise the prices of our products and make it more difficult for us to compete in world markets. Expenditure for a rehabilitation program- and it would be a considerable expenditure; I do not deny that-would be in the nature of an investment. It would result ultimately in very handsome dividends, not only in the self-respect and dignity of the individuals themselves but to the community at large. This is a program which, though not self-liquidating in the normal terminology of self-liquidating, would be far more than self-liquidating in the ultimate and total effect on the Canadian economy. More important, Mr. Chairman, would be the tens of thousands of individuals who would regain their dignity, self-respect and independent place in the community.
This plan, Mr. Chairman, is complementary to the one put forward yesterday by my leader. These are both partial solutions to a very serious problem. They could be studied. At the same time they could both be discussed with the provinces at a conference such as that suggested yesterday by my leader, the leader of the official opposition.
In conclusion, I would suggest that the government give serious consideration to this proposal. I can assure them that they would receive wholehearted support and backing from members on this side of the house. This is the type of progressive peacetime policy which we as members of parliament and as representatives of the people have an obligation and a responsibility to put forward, and not only just to put forward but to implement.
I suggest with deference to the government that, just as with the proposal for next year's winter works program, they do not leave consideration of this until next fall but that they consider it urgently and immediately, because the days and weeks have a habit of slipping by so quickly that before we know it next winter will be upon us, and only plans which are commenced now can possibly be achieved and implemented by the fall of the year. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, provision could be made in the supplementary estimates which would enable a start to be made and the machinery to be set up. It is obvious that it would not be possible to achieve maximum enrolment at once because of the difficulty of obtaining and perhaps training the teachers, the supervisors, the instructors and other personnel necessary to organize such a large scale enterprise. But once it was started it
Supply-Labour
would grow and would be a permanent and dynamic fixture of our economy in a growing technological age.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for listening so carefully to this proposition. Again on behalf of those on this side of the house I recommend it to the sympathetic consideration of the government, and I can promise that if they would implement this, or some scheme based upon similar lines, they would receive enthusiastic and considerable support from all of us over here.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, as I represent a riding where workers account for about 50 per cent of the population, I feel I must take part in this debate so as to acquaint the house and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) with the views of the people in my riding as regards unemployment insurance.
But before doing so, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in rebuttal of some arguments advanced in this house, more particularly last night by hon. members for Hull (Mr. Caron), and for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau).
I should like to ask the house to look back on conditions as they were at the time when hon. members of the Liberal party were managing the affairs of this country. They would have us believe that Liberal times were invariably prosperous times, whereas under Conservative administration, Canada lapsed into unrelieved hard times.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should hark back to the late twenties, when a Liberal government was sitting on the government benches. Farmers remember, for instance, that butter, at the time, was selling for 18 to 20 cents a pound; eggs, 12 to 15 cents a dozen; hogs $10 to $12; and milk about 80 cents a hundredweight.
On leaving college, I spent a few months looking for work, because it was a period of unemployment, although, it will be noted, this was under a Liberal government. Finally, I found a job that was paying me $6 a week. The facts, therefore, are somewhat different from what hon. members in the opposition would have people believe. But these gentlemen have so taken advantage of the good faith of the public that, sooner or later, they are bound to regret their irresponsible statements.
I also like other citizens of St. Hyacinthe, witnessed practices bordering on inhumanity resorted by the town's mayor, a Liberal. During the depression of the 30's, people were being hired at 10 cents an hour

Supply-Labour
to break up stone with a sledge-hammer. Please note, sir, that this was under a Liberal administration, for it was the Hon. T. D. Bouchard, mayor of St. Hyacinthe, who was responsible for those conditions.
In 1933, the business picture brightened up somewhat. However, at that time, when I was working for the Goodyear Company, men were being paid $6 and $7 a week. This went on until 1939. Now the conditions I have referred to were those that existed during the years 1936, 1937 and 1938, therefore under a Liberal regime. Yet, according to our good friends, whenever they were in power these were years only of prosperity and even of opulence.
I am pointing this out Mr. Chairman, so as to give a complete picture of the conditions then prevailing in Canada. It is easy to brag about prosperity while looking at only one side of the picture, but in these matters, as in any others, it is necessary to look at both sides.
Since the beginning of this session, and especially since the house took up the estimates of the Department of Labour, our Liberal opponents have been painting a very dark picture of the present situation and of unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And they have been right.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, we shall look in retrospect at conditions which prevailed under the Liberal regime.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were not as bad.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In so far as my constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is concerned, figures which I got directly from the local unemployment insurance office show that, in January 1953,	1,896 unemployed were registered
there. The figures also show that 2,835 were registered in January 1954, 2,438 in January 1955, 2,553 in January 1956 and 2,809 in January 1957. That was the situation under a Liberal regime. On the other hand, according to the latest statistics supplied by the same local office, 1,298 unemployed registered in the city of St. Hyacinthe in December 1958.
As reported on page 2 of the English Appendix to yesterday's Hansard, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) stated:
In yesterday's edition of La Presse, I found still another headline which might also help write the story of this Conservative government. Indeed, in its issue of yesterday, May 6, La Presse had a heading which read:
Workers' unemployment insurance contributions are going up.

To that, I would oppose a heading from another newspaper. In its editorial of today May 8, Le Devoir has an item headed:
A commendable extension of the social security idea.
And the item goes on to say:
It is feared that news agencies have not understood a thing about the new amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In their dispatches they emphasized only what was bound to make the greatest impression on people's minds, i.e. the higher contributions, but left in the dark the increased protection guaranteed to each contributor.
Mr. Chairman, any unbiased person will agree that the present Conservative government has done much to help those who are unfortunately out of work. At this stage of the discussion, I should like to remind the house of some of the measures taken by this government at the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who, is everywhere recognized as the best minister of labour the Canadian parliament ever had.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is a good man, no doubt, but I think you are exaggerating a bit.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, let me first of all draw the attention of the house to the restrictions which applied to married women and which were removed during the very first session. The elimination of such restrictions has had the happy effect of putting $5 million more into the hands of married women who, under the old act, did not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
I would also point out to the house that this government twice extended the benefit period, by six weeks and two months respectively. In each case, it was at the suggestion of the present hon. Minister of Labour.
(Text):


Michael Starr: Two months and six weeks. (Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The first amendment provided for a six week extension, and the second an extension of two months in the duration of seasonal benefits. About 100,000 workers were helped by this wise measure, and received additional payments amounting to approximately $48 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result of their own contributions.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes certainly. The hon. member for Essex-East, just as hon. members to his right, apparently expects to get everything

for nothing. However, I do not think we have yet reached that stage, and we hope with God's help that present conditions will go on improving as they have done until now.
Meanwhile, our Liberal friends keep on saying that this government has done nothing to alleviate hardships. They are not the only ones who feel sorry for the unemployed. We on this side of the house are concerned with human suffering and are just as anxious as are our opponents

perhaps even more concerned, because we are proving it-to alleviate the regrettable effects that are being felt by these people.
Just to go on with my enumeration, let me also remind the house that it was through the actions of this government that unemployment insurance benefits were granted to fishermen. Following an amendment introduced by the Conservative government, 13,000 fishermen received an amount of about $15 million.
And finally, at the suggestion of the present Minister of Labour, the duration of unemployment insurance benefit payments will soon be extended from 36 to 52 weeks per year.
If you add up all the money spent by this government to help the unemployed, you reach a figure of $68 million. I think our Liberal opponents should at least be realistic and admit that the payment of such an amount certainly deserves the gratitude of the people concerned.
And now, Mr. Chairman, what about the winter works promoted by this government? Such works, amounting to $97,903,000-or almost $98 million-provided employment to close to 40,000 people-39,961, to be exact.
In the province of Quebec, this winter works program reached an amount of $33,450,000 and provided employment for 6,229 persons. I therefore suggest to our Liberal friends to take a good look at the present situation and to represent it in its true light, instead of raising the cry of depression and trying to have everyone, including people in employment, believe that there is a shortage of jobs.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the house that, as a consequence of the tireless efforts of the Minister of Labour, Canadian workers can certainly look forward to happier days.
(Text):


Charles Benjamin Howard: Last evening I had occasion to make a few comments on this particular item, but because of the time limitation I was unable to complete and give expression to the thoughts I desired to express.
In the latter part of my remarks I was making reference to the effectiveness, or
Supply-Labour
lack of it, of the conciliation arrangements in effect under the jurisdiction of both the federal government and the provinces, which are in most cases somewhat similar. The suggestion was that following an initial period of negotiation between the representatives of the workers themselves and the representatives of management, if no settlement is reached in this direct stage of negotiation every effort should be made at the conciliation officer stage to effect a settlement and to insist upon collective bargaining taking place to the fullest possible extent.
At the moment we have the system of a conciliation officer and then a conciliation board. In many cases the conciliation board does nothing but duplicate the activities of the conciliation officer. It may be that because the conciliation officer failed to effect a settlement for one reason or another, the conciliation board finds itself in this position of having to perform the duties and the functions which are properly those of the conciliation officer.
I look upon this situation as we look upon most matters of duplication, namely as being nothing more than a waste of the money of the federal treasury in the payment of the costs of the chairman of the conciliation board. I am sure we could scrap the conciliation board procedure without too much difficulty, thus realizing a great saving in costs to the Department of Labour for those particular services, and probably channeling that money in the direction of conciliation officers, if more of them are needed, or in terms of additional money to them in order to get the right type of person for a conciliation officer.
I believe the minister mentioned that last year 24-I have not the figures right before me at the moment but I believe that is the figure he used-negotiations were settled before conciliation boards last year. Here then are 24 cases of duplication, 24 industrial disputes or negotiations that could quite well have been settled at the conciliation officer stage.
Another failure which I believe exists in our conciliation procedure is that-as has happened in a number of cases, especially major industrial disputes affecting large corporations and a large number of workmen- when these industrial disputes get beyond the conciliation and strike vote stage, either preceding the time the strike is to take place or after a strike has taken place, the minister invariably is obliged to go outside of his own departmental officials and call upon private citizens to assist in the conciliation or mediation process in order to effect a settlement.

Supply-Labour
I do not think this is giving due credit to the officials within the department. It maybe that they are not capable of performing their duties in that sense and at that stage of negotiations; that I could not say. But when we have a conciliation structure; when we employ conciliation officers whose duty and responsibility it is to effect a settlement, to mediate, to get both sides together, to ensure that collective bargaining, give and take takes place and a contract is signed, it seems rather senseless that we should be obliged to go outside and call upon the services of private citizens to do the things that Department of Labour officials should be doing in the first place.
Another unfortunate matter that arises from the operation of conciliation boards is in the selection of people as chairmen of conciliation boards who are not departmental officials. This is so in practically all cases. Some private citizen is asked to be chairman of the conciliation board. He may be a judge of some court, as happens in a number of cases. He may be a retired individual. He may be someone who has done a considerable amount of work in conciliation and arbitration procedures, such as university professors, lawyers and so on. But in some cases it has happened that the appointment of persons as chairmen of conciliation boards has been nothing more than a recognition of the contribution a person has made to a political party in one way or another over the years, and political hacks are appointed as conciliation board chairmen.
I have participated in conciliation boards where this has happened, and that procedure is extremely detrimental to labour-management negotiations and to peace and harmony in those negotiations, and in regard to effecting a settlement at that stage. In many cases the individuals appointed in this way are not too interested in the process of negotiation. They do not have too much of a conception of the industry itself or the play of human psychological forces in labour-management negotiations; therefore the process of conciliation falls down at that stage where these things happen.
I would certainly suggest to the minister that when he does take steps to amend the present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, if he would do so along the lines I have suggested I do not think he would find there would be too much argument or rejection of those proposals by the people affected by them. Certainly as far as I am concerned, as well as others on this side, the minister would not find much objection.
One of the other difficulties which arise in the enactment of legislation governing the relationships between the working people,

through their unions, and management is that those laws are often enacted in the dark. Legislators in many cases do not have too much of an understanding about the forces involved in the process, as well as the psychological factors at work. In this instance we have legislation along these lines which has been in effect for too long without any revision being made to it, and without it being kept up to date.
Legislation oftimes is restrictive. I point again to the case in British Columbia under our labour relations act where in some cases it is absolutely impossible to comply with the provisions of the act, and if a strike does take place the union is automatically on an illegal strike because the law says so. The law is restrictive in that event, and consequently causes difficulties and much trouble. Then the lawmakers come along after they have caused these difficulties and trouble and say, "We will have to put even greater restrictions in the legislation. You people are not complying with the law; we will impose such drastic penalties that you will be required to." But they do not deal with the problem at its roots by designing the proper legislation in the first instance which would, in the first place, be acceptable to both sides, and second, take into account the human factors involved.
I hope when the minister does get around to it, though I do not imagine it will be until next session, he will introduce amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act somewhat along the lines I have suggested, and that he will not fall into the trap into which other people have fallen of making the legislation so restrictive and damaging that it will defeat the very purpose which it is supposedly designed to accomplish, namely promoting labour-management harmony, promoting collective bargaining in the true spirit of give and take, and promoting peaceful relations between the two groups who are directly involved in the negotiations. As I say, I hope he will not fall into this trap but will have the foresight, which I know he is capable of exercising, to introduce legislation which will not only not be too drastic in this light but will also, in effect, have the result of promoting labour-management harmony.
Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to comment on some of the remarks made last evening following my remarks. First of all, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George spoke directly after I did, and he made the suggestion that the proposals I had put forward with respect to the power and authority of conciliation officers was bordering on compulsory arbitration. Surely the

hon. member, especially in view of the experience he himself had when he bailed the government out of its difficult position with respect to the C.B.C. in Montreal, cannot reasonably expect anyone to think that this is bordering on compulsory arbitration. Far, far from it.
Then my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo, who also spoke following my remarks-I regret that he is not in the house at this moment so he would have the opportunity, if he so desired, to reply to what I am about to say-made some comments in connection with certain remarks of mine to which I would particularly like to make reference. I say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I have a great deal of respect for the honesty, ability and integrity of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, and I am sure if many other hon. members in the house had the same openness and sincerity, not only internally but also outwardly, we would have much less difficulty with the problems which face us at the present time.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo started off in a very impassioned and emotional way which was apparently occasioned by the remarks I had made originally, and I cannot for the life of me see why he started off on that tack because I do not think I said anything untoward in my comments so far as the recently enacted labour legislation in Newfoundland is concerned. My remarks were confined specifically to that legislation and were not bordering on the question of article 29, and so on, about which I have other views. But I did make two comments which I think were quite factual and had nothing to do with whether I was in Newfoundland or whether the facts had all been brought out or not. One of my comments was that the premier of Newfoundland had instituted legislation, which incidentally the legislature subsequently passed though I did not say so in my remarks last night, which in effect decertified and outlawed two locals of the I.W.A. Mr. Chairman, that is a fact; there are no two ways about it.


Mr, Pickersgill:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would prefer the hon. member to wait until afterward, but if he insists-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is on the definition of a word. I would like to hear the hon. member's definition of the word "outlawed"?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not want to make any unkind remarks about you, sir. I did not use the word "outlawed"; I used the word "decertified".
Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. The hon. member will find on checking Hansard that he said both decertified and outlawed just now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Just now I said decertified and outlawed, but last night I just used the word decertified, and I used it in this context and in the same way because that is precisely what happened. In this instance the two words are synonymous. It is factual. The act which I have before me, of which tne hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was kind enough to let me have a copy for my own information, makes no reference to "outlaw", it is true. It refers to decertification.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly; and that is all.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, could the hon. members carry on their private conversation outside the house?


Charles Benjamin Howard: My hon. friend wants us to carry on our private conversation outside the house. I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I did not make the interjection; the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did. I am only trying to accommodate other hon. members by giving as full as possible a discussion of this particular question.
The other comment I had to make last night was in my opinion another factual matter, except that it related to something which might happen in the future. However, I do not think even that remark should have provoked the comments made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. The suggestion I made was that this type of action by a group of political people outlawing a union-or decertifying it, if the hon. member likes a euphemistic term better-could have the result of provoking working class people into taking political action. It could, and that is a factual statement.
I could go further into this question if the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo-and again I am sorry he is not here-wished me to do so. I could discuss this question of the invasion of the rights of individuals, of the by-passing of the labour relations board, of the removal of jurisdiction from the administration's own quasi-judicial board which deals with certification, and with political interference in the conduct of union affairs. I would be quite prepared to do this, for the act is right here before us. Any hon. member can get a copy, and it represents nothing more than a group of politicians denying to the people of Newfoundland their just and moral rights under the law.
What would be thought in this parliament if, for instance, the Minister of Labour, who has under his jurisdiction a board which issues certificates to unions, were to introduce

Supply-Labour
a specific piece of legislation stating that the brotherhood of locomotive engineers no longer had the right to represent the firemen on the C.N.R.? Yet that is precisely, in effect, what was done in Newfoundland. Suppose the Minister of Agriculture were to introduce a specific piece of legislation to the effect that a particular farmer no longer had the right to sell his wheat to his own elevator. Yet precisely the same principle is involved. If we accept this legislation saying that certain people no longer have the right to belong to a particular union, it is no different from accepting the principle that a law may be passed saying that an individual no longer has the right to belong to a particular religious organization because it is not one which the government likes.
I imagine that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo had reference to the economic position of the Anglo-Newfoundland company and its ability to pay certain wages and taxes, if in fact the company pays any taxes to anyone other than the federal government. I do not wish to become involved in discussing the economic affairs of the company. Information on that subject is readily available from the company's own annual reports. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from this information, the fact remains that as soon as Premier Smallwood got rid of one union and established his own politically dominated union, the company was able to pay to its employees the wage increase which earlier it had said it was unable to afford.
I should like also to make reference, if I may, to the relationship which exists between wages and prices, because that is certainly part of our economic system. The general cry in the last couple of years has been that every time there is a wage increase prices to consumers must immediately rise. It has been accepted that the company affected by the wage increases was obliged to increase its prices. Consequently the working people who received the increases were labelled as irresponsible by the rest of society.
I think the facts themselves in no way bear out this attitude. In some cases, it is true, increases in wages could have an effect upon prices, especially if a company is in a marginal position or if the company concerned cannot afford to pay wage increases without raising prices to the consumers of its product. However, I submit that in the great bulk of cases this is not the situation. Then again we constantly hear the cry that we are pricing ourselves out of world markets because of high wages, because the working man desires a sufficient income to provide for himself and for his family. It is said that the only way we can get these markets back

is by cutting wages so we can produce more cheaply and compete with other suppliers of world markets.
This is the gist of the arguments we hear. But let us take the case of the aluminum industry. In Canada the notable company is the Aluminum Company of Canada, which for a long while has been virtually in a monopoly position. It was not too long ago that the Aluminum Company of Canada, or Alcan as it is briefly referred to, found itself in difficulty in so far as the United Kingdom market was concerned because aluminum from Russia was being sold in the United Kingdom at a price lower than that at which Alcan was selling to the United Kingdom. The cry went up that because of high wages the Canadian aluminum industry had priced itself out of the market, and that consequently we should be obliged to curtail production, lay people off and so on.
One of the first things we have to determine, if we can, is how the cost factor in Russia is calculated. I myself believe this to be impossible. How do the Russians determine their cost of production? What is it based on? We have no idea. I am sure the manner in which the economy of that country operates would make it impossible for us to compete with them even if we were in a position to find out how they compute their labour costs. So that argument has not too much validity.
Again, one of the facts about this industry which few people seem to realize-or if they do realize it they do not say too much about it-is that for more than 50 years the aluminum industry has operated in the world market in a monopoly position, protected by cartels and price fixing arrangements. The price of aluminum has never had anything to do with the wages received by the employees in that industry or in a particular company. Alcan or Aluminium Limited, the holding company which owns Alcan in Canada, was for many years the agency through which Alcoa in the United States entered into these international arrangements in so far as price fixing agreements were concerned.
I wonder if I might call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I gather that I have about five minutes or more at my disposal in which to conclude my observations. At one o'clock I was dealing with the question of the effect that wages may have

on price increases and said that this is an insignificant part of the pressure on price increases. In fact, I made mention of the aluminum industry in general and the Aluminum Company of Canada in particular. The question of price fixing arrangements, of combines, of participation in international cartels and the question of price increases without any relationship between the amount of the increase and the wages paid and other costs of the industry form one of the major factors affecting an increase in price or the devaluation of the dollar or inflation.
For some twenty years Canadian farmers were at the mercy of a price fixing combine in the steel industry. The Steel Company of Canada, Dosco, New Brunswick Fence, Lundy Fence and Canadian Fence are a few of the names that come to mind as being companies that were engaged in a price fixing combine and that were subsequently charged and found guilty under the Criminal Code just a short while ago. This served to point up the fact that over a twenty-year period farmers were at the mercy of these corporations that charged whatever they wanted to charge. It was found that the wages paid to the employees in the steel industry had absolutely no connection with price levels and price increases with respect to farm fencing and other fencing.
There have been a number of prosecutions in the Canadian courts with respect to other combines. Some of the industries and names that come to mind are the rubber industry, the electrical industry, the E. B. Eddy Company's match factory, the pulp and paper and fine papers industry, and so on. Case after case arises across Canada involving corporations that engage in price-fixing arrangements with other corporations in the same type of industry the design of which is to charge the highest possible prices they can, there being no connection whatever between the wages paid in the industry, the other costs which industry had to meet and the prices which they charged.
There are many other cases which have not yet been considered by the courts but which have been reported by the restrictive trade practices commission and which as far as we can gather from information gleaned from the press and from questions raised in this house the Department of Justice is considering prosecuting under the Criminal Code. We cannot deal with this question at any length because some of these cases are presently before the courts or under consideration.
Time after time in industry after industry and in corporation after corporation attempts were made to enter into price-fixing arrangements. The larger the corporation the
Supply-Labour
easier it is to do so. There have been pricefixing arrangements, instances of uniform bidding on government contracts, uniform price setting and uniform increases introduced which constitute one of the major factors in the increasing cost of living and one of the major factors in prices having reached the level they have now attained. I mention these illustrations only to show the other side of the coin to those people who spread propaganda from one end of the country to the other saying that the working-class people are responsible for the increased cost of living because of demands for wage increases or other adjustments in their remuneration.
The working force is not entirely to blame although they may be to a slight degree or in some individual instances. Certainly, however, they are not entirely to blame. By far the greater part of the blame rests with those corporations that engage in price-fixing schemes, combines, monopolies and international cartels with companies in other countries. If we would attack this problem with the same energy that is devoted to spreading propaganda about the working class being to blame more significant strides would be made toward meeting the problem than have been made up to the present time.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few moments of the time of the committee. It may seem strange that a member from what is almost entirely a farming community should rise in his place to speak on a labour vote but there are plenty of precedents established in this committee of people-as it were-talking out of their natural habitat.
The first thing I want to do is tell the Minister of Labour that the people of my constituency as well as the members of this party are 100 per cent behind him. We approve very much of his actions and are happy to have as the minister in charge of this portfolio a man who is so naturally unruffled, even-tempered and keen-minded. We know that he has the interests of labour at heart because he has been a member of a union for many years. We also commend him for the appointment of Mr. MacArthur to the board of commissioners of the unemployment insurance commission. The minister's decision indicates that he does what he knows to be right and that political considerations do not influence his actions.
I wish to make particular reference to the addresses made yesterday by two hon. members, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Hamilton South. I thought they were very able addresses.
The thing that I want to talk about particularly this afternoon is the situation in

Supply-Labour
so far as farm labour is concerned, at least in western Canada. It is very difficult to get sufficient help on the farms and I do not know what possibly can be done about it. People do not seem to want to work on the farms any more. I know why perfectly well. You cannot run a farm on a 40-hour week or less. While there are alleged to be half a million more or less unemployed people in this country, yet at the same time there are probably 250,000 or 300,000 jobs available on farms. I will admit that everybody who is unemployed is not suitable for work on the farm but a great many of them could work there if they wanted to.
The people who work in industry have contributed to the unemployment insurance fund, and rather than work on farms they are satisfied-I do not say contented-to draw what unemployment insurance they can and not work on the farm. This is something that farmers find difficult to understand. They cannot understand why, when there are so many jobs of one kind or another that perfectly physically fit people could take, they do not take them. This lack of help on the farms is one thing that is causing the situation that has been called vertical integration to take place on the farms. The farmer cannot get sufficient help to carry on the way he should and the way he wants to; therefore, he is forced into this situation.
Another thing that farmers fail to understand is why so many of the unions in this country are controlled by people from a foreign country. It does not seem right that the national economy of Canada should be controlled by perhaps a gangster or gangsters from a foreign country.


William Arnold Peters: Does the hon. member know of one instance where there has been a foreigner in a union in Canada?


An hon. Member:: Hal Banks.


William Arnold Peters: Give us the name of any union which has an executive officer who is a citizen of any country other than Canada.


Frank John William Fane: How about Banks? How about the teamsters union?


William Arnold Peters: Hal Banks is still a United States citizen.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what he says.


Frank John William Fane: Or, he was. A great many people do not seem to know that of the unemployment insurance which the unemployed workers collect, five-twelfths of what is in the fund is paid into the fund by the workers. Another five-twelfths is paid in by the employers, leaving only two-twelfths, or one-sixth of the amount contributed to the fund by the government. Therefore, that is

one reason why some organizations, or people in some walks of life, are averse to unemployment insurance. I have heard it many times. They do not seem to realize the proportion that is contributed by the workers.
A short time ago I was very happy to hear the minister say that unemployment insurance for farm workers is being considered. It might make a great difference to the farm labour situation if farm labourers were eligible for unemployment insurance, although it is very difficult to think of anybody who is a farm worker being unemployed.
Last winter we had a winter works program initiated by this government under the Minister of Labour. For the few who were unemployed and who were not on a farm basis that was a very good thing in my constituency. For example, in Elk island park alone jobs were made for 100 men all winter, and that really did help the situation out there.
I have now had my little say about the farming angle of the unemployment situation and again I want to tell the minister how happy the people in my constituency are to have him in charge of this department.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take too much of the committee's time in order to deal with labour conditions on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Labour. I mentioned the matter briefly during the budget debate, but I want to recall certain points and, more particularly, to make a few suggestions to the government.
I have pointed out before in this house, that labour conditions in the riding of Lapointe and throughout the Saguenay-Lake St. John area, are on the whole pitiful. Just about one family head out of four is without a job and, considering that next week, that is in mid-May, supplementary benefits paid out to the jobless will come to an end, I think this is a very deplorable situation, urgently in need of attention. It is all right to help the unemployed so that their wives and children may eat, but I am of the opinion that this is a short-sighted solution from those who are responsible for administrating this country's business.
As I said, there are in my constituency of Lapointe, and in the neighbouring area about 17,000 people-fathers or heads of families-who will be out of work and most of whom will no longer receive supplementary unemployment insurance benefits. Among the many people affected by

unemployment in my area, there are a good many young men, and to me, this is one of the most tragic situations that can exist.
Unemployment can foster all the seamiest aspects of society. Young people of 17, 18, 20, 25 or even 30 years, who have no work can engage in any adventure, even in crime, because of the despondency they feel when they find that, as they have no work, they cannot help their family to subsist and to eat when they are hungry.
I am aware of such cases as are, I am sure, many of my colleagues.
During the Easter holidays-I am not setting myself as an example, I am merely stating a fact, and I am sure many of my colleagues have had the same experience- I had to send out several hampers of food- paid out of my allowance, since I have no other source of income-to families whose fathers and older children were out of work, even after they had desperately tried to find jobs. I called on those families; I did not content myself with receiving the heads of families at home to give them money directly; on the contrary, I rented cars and paid them a visit, thus seeing with my own eyes that there was hardship in many families of my constituency. I am of the opinion that this is the problem that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) should try to solve for next fall and next winter.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from the words of His Eminence Cardinal Leger, but before I do so, I should like to make a statement. There are many politicians who like to quote church authorities or hobnob with the clergy, in order to gain more prestige with their constituents. I should like to state here, and very categorically, that I am not quoting His Eminence Cardinal Leger, merely because he is the highest Catholic church authority in the province of Quebec. I do so, because he wrote a letter about unemployment which, in my opinion, is a genuine charter from which the federal government could derive inspiration in its search for a solution to the evils from which we are suffering today, and to those which threaten us in the future.
Concerning unemployment, here is what His Eminence Cardinal Leger said:
It has been stated by an economist that, if a man suffers from unemployment for an extended period of time, morbid reactions will almost certainly affect his quality as a man and as a worker. Not only will his technical ability be impaired through disuse but he will lose the habit
Supply-Labour
of working, with consequent loss of self respect and self confidence. So when an opportunity later arises, this man, who previously was merely "unemployed", will have become "unemployable". Meanwhile, his private life may have been shattered, and the atmosphere in which his children grow may have been poisoned.
Though full employment theories remain a subject of discussion among economists, unemployment is no longer considered a natural necessity.
Unemployment places the social order in serious jeopardy, because it can foster, among the unemployed, feelings of discontent and bitterness towards a society which has proved incapable of making use of vital forces crying for an outlet.
The experience of foreign countries tends to prove-
And I want to draw the attention of the government and of the Minister of Labour to that last sentence-
The experience of foreign countries tends to prove that agitators and demagogues always find there a choice field to promote class struggle. Because of the lack of stability from which it rises, unemployment becomes one of the great scourges of mankind.
While impoverishing its victims, unemployment decreases consumption, leads to economic stagnation in other branches of the economy, and paralyses progress. Not only does society not benefit from the development of resources, which are thus truly sterilized, but it has moreover to meet the needs of the unemployed.
The situation has become so serious, as I was saying a few days ago in this house, that throughout the province-and I thought it was only happening in my riding-young people are forming groups in order to rouse public opinion and appeal to the leaders of this country.
I have here an excerpt from La Presse of March 24, 1959, which is preceded by the following headline:
In a pool room, young men are forming an association of jobless.
We also have in my riding such groups of young unemployed men, as well as in the three other ridings of my area.
Mr. Chairman, there is no need to quote statistics, because I know that the Minister of Labour and all hon. members can see, through those statistics, the plight of those who are unable to earn their living and provide for their families. That is why I ask the Minister of Labour to think not only of unemployment insurance benefits, but to try and find some formula to alleviate the terrible scourge which affects not only my own riding, my area and my province, but the country as a whole. There has been some progress I admit, but the situation is still intolerable and the government must do more.
In a letter about unemployment-and I shall come back on this later-His Eminence Cardinal Leger spoke of the responsibility of our leaders with regard to unemployment. I want to quote a passage on page 2897 of that pastoral letter entitled:

Supply-Labour
Those chiefly responsible
Social justice asks all those who are responsible for our economy to create general economic conditions in which it will be possible and easy to exercise the natural right to work. Leadership and economic responsibility are divided among individuals, professional groups and the state. Each must intervene in his own way according to the function he assumes within the economic system.
In our economic system, the responsibility for maintaining existing jobs and for creating new ones rests chiefly with employers and their professional associations.
But the public weal requires much more urgently than in the past that the state intervene in "the division and the distribution of work". Thus, the state in this regard must take new and daring steps, while respecting what Pope Pius XI called "the suppletory function of the state". It must encourage intermediate organizations to take the necessary steps; it must facilitate their action and, if necessary, remedy their deficiencies.
I believe that, in this regard, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefen-baker) said something that came close to the statement of Cardinal Leger about the economic field; but the Prime Minister of Canada has the means at his disposal and can take the necessary steps to carry out what he has advocated.
I have here a clipping from La Presse of July 9, 1958-that is during the visit of the President of the United States to the parliament of Canada-where I find these words from the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada:
"I believe that the nations of the free world, now united for defence, must, on a world basis, initiate in the field of economy, a new and bold policy designed to ensure prosperity everywhere. It is urgently needed. The communist forces will not wait. Time is against us".
The Prime Minister of Canada understands the problem quite well-I know that, on account of that quotation-and he, more than anyone else in this country, can put in concrete form the ideas he put forward at the time of the United States President's visit. He has colleagues with whom he can discuss the matter. I know it cannot be settled overnight, by why, for instance, a commission could not be set up which would be composed of employers, labour representatives and representatives of certain well-known public organizations, whose devotion to the national common interests is well known? Why could not the government set up such a commission? I am not suggesting anything new to the government, since my leader, the hon. member for Algoma-East (Mr. Pearson) proposed the setting up of such a commission during the 1958 election campaign. That commission could, with the help of both employers and especially workers

study the effects, in several fields of automation in our industry. It could, after such a study, make recommendations to the government which could bring about, over a period of time, concrete results which, each fall and each spring, would save us from the evil of unemployment which affects so many Canadians and so many Canadian families.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take more of the time of the house, but I do want to ask the Minister of Labour to consider that matter. I agree he has no time to consider it himself, but why-and I emphasize this point-does not the government think of setting up a commission to consider that problem? It has set up similar commissions in several other fields. It is setting up, for instance, commissions to avoid certain subjects being discussed here in the house. Why not set up a commission to consider the means that could rid us of that spectre of unemployment which afflicts us each fall? That suggestion is not my own, but it seems that next fall and next winter, the unemployment situation will be very serious in Canada, because by next fall many people out of work at present will not be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to close my remarks by quoting again a suggestion made by His Eminence Cardinal Leger, in his letter on unemployment:
We hope that the unemployment problem, as well as so many other urgent matters today, will bring the opportunity of proving by concrete action that overriding community of interests. Would it not be advisable that such a solidarity, which must unite all factors of economic life, take shape through the setting up of joint commissions, grouping labour and employer leaders, in an undertaking of common study and concerted action? Such organizations could also seek efficient means of alleviating the present crisis, of offering concrete plans and obtaining from the state the support and the services deemed necessary. Only such an initiative of employer-labour co-operation, taken in a spirit of co-responsibility with the state, could protect our economic life from the abuses created by either unlimited liberalism leading to anarchy, or by oppressive state control.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out in closing that I have not quoted the words of His Eminence Cardinal Leger in an attempt to cover myself with the cloak of religion, or to try to give more weight, as it were, to the words and suggestions I have offered to the government. I have read this letter from Cardinal Leger at least five or six times, and I think it contains some advice which the government should follow. Here are suggested solutions which would benefit not only the

people of my constituency, or of my area and province, but the whole country, and indeed all the free world.
And let me add this. The other day, the hon. Minister of Labour suggested that Mr. Jean Marchand, who has resigned as labour representative on the unemployment insurance advisory committee, was perhaps a C.C.F. supporter or a Liberal, but was certainly not a member of the Conservative party. I think that has absolutely nothing to do with Jean Marchand's resignation from the unemployment insurance advisory committee. Mr. Chairman, Jean Marchand should be considered only as a representative of labour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Augustin Brassard: I know Jean
Marchand. He is one of the people most devoted to the cause of labour in the province of Quebec.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: Jean Marchand is a very able man, and has devoted the major part of his life to the cause of labour, though he is still young. Ever since he left university, he has devoted his full time and his moments of leisure to the workers. He is now employed full time by the labour unions, and he looks after the labouring people. No one can say that Jean Marchand is attempting to mislead the people. Jean Marchand has a very keen mind, he is quite unselfish, and I believe he is a sensible man. I was somewhat taken aback the other day when I heard the Minister of Labour accusing Jean Marchand of being perhaps a C.C.F. supporter or a Liberal, but not a Conservative. I think a man can disagree with the views of the Conservative party and still be an able and intelligent man, and Jean Marchand is one who has always worked for the good of his province and his country. I hope the Minister of Labour will take back what he said about Jean Marchand, and will withdraw his statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear. (Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour on the job he has done over the years, particularly when a number of his colleagues rise in this chamber and show their ignorance in labour matters, his job must be that much harder and the work that he is doing that much more difficult. It has been said today
Supply-Labour
that a number of unions have officials from other countries. I would defy any member of the house to cite more than two instances where any Canadian union or any union operating in Canada has foreign organizers or official representatives.
I think something must be said about this matter of gangsterism. It is all very well for Joey Smallwood from the province of Newfoundland to make these charges, irresponsible as he is; but it certainly is not in keeping with the facts for these statements to be made in the rest of Canada. I know of no individual trade union official in this country who could be classified as a gangster, with the exception of the one that has already been mentioned. I think the Minister of Labour is not completely unaware of what happened in this specific case. Certainly the Liberal party can take no credit for the fact that Hal Banks is in this country. I think that this is one of the things that the Canadian people should know.
One of the problems arises when the government will co-operate with unions that are not doing the job that a union is organized to do. One of them was this particular case where Hal Banks was brought in from the United States with the assistance of the government through a crown company, namely the Canadian National Railways. He was brought in, set up, a backdoor agreement was negotiated and there were all types of manoeuvring and manipulation by the employer and by the government in allowing this to take place. I therefore do not think that labour unions in general can be criticized for something for which they themselves are not responsible. Judging from the remarks that have been made by several of the members, one or two of them representing large labour ridings, I think they should take a close look at what unions are supposed to do and what they do.
I think a great deal has been said over the past few years, particularly since the investigations in the United States concerning one particular union, which would have been better said in its proper context or with the emphasis which it deserved. I think it would be very difficult for any Canadian, yes probably any American, to name half a dozen Americans who are in key positions in the unions and could be called by the name gangster or rowdy, or any of the other names which have been applied or could be applied to trade union officials. In the main, where the investigations took place in the United States-


Walter Clarence Henderson: On a point of order. The hon. member is absolutely wrong when he says there are no gangsters in the United States in these unions.

Supply-Labour


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Has the hon. member a question to ask the member who has the floor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you did not hear. The hon. gentleman raised a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: What is the point of order.


Walter Clarence Henderson: The point of order is that there are gangsters in the United States.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I fail to see the hon. member's point of order. Will the hon. member who has the floor proceed?


William Arnold Peters: I am sure the hon. gentleman is right. In that particular investigation there were quite a number of people whom I would class as gangsters. However, what I said was that I thought it would be very difficult for a Canadian citizen or even a United States citizen to pick out by name more than half a dozen in the United States. I repeat that I would defy anyone in Canada to name two in Canada, although one of them has been already discussed.


Walter Clarence Henderson: What government brought him in here?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not listening very well. I leave that question on the doorstep of the Liberal government. If we go into the history of this particular case, although it is not a matter I wish to speak about, this subject was investigated and consideration given to this particular immigrant, and the Conservative government has taken no action against him and has said that probably no action is intended against him.


Walter Clarence Henderson: I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. gentleman, but the Conservative government has tried to get him out. He is a murderer and a gangster.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I think it is generally agreed that this particular gentleman comes under the category of a gangster, but I repeat that the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever to eliminate this unwanted immigrant in Canada. The trade union movement did not ask for him. He was invited to come here by a crown-controlled company.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Pardon me. Does the gangster belong to the C.L.C.?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a good question!


William Arnold Peters: I understand his union is affiliated with the C.L.C.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


William Arnold Peters: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, my union belong to the C.L.C., but I do not know that I am a member of the C.L.C. I said his union is affiliated. These charges have been made continually over the years, yet the people who have the opportunity to do something about it have no intention of doing anything but are glad to make use of him. The Minister of Labour is also aware of another situation, although there have been very few cases in Canada where there has been bad unionism.
This matter also rests pretty well on the doorstep of the government. Last year, or two or three years ago, when the trans-Canada pipe line started crossing northern Ontario we found that the workers who were being hired were already in a union which had a contract already signed. This contract was negotiated between the crown corporation on the one hand and another union on the other, obviously with the government's knowledge and without any objection from them. This is the type of thing which gives unionism a bad name, because it is a sort of backdoor agreement where you sign the contract without having any employees. It means, of course, that the workers themselves have no say in this situation.
But this is always good for news. If there is anything happening which is not happening just the way it is supposed to, then the newspapers play it up. When investigations take place in the United States, although they have no similarity to those in Canada, then we see great big headlines in all the papers. We are not always very helpful to management but I would like to suggest to them that if they continue to do this type of hatchet job on organized labour and do not realize that trade unions are here to stay-they are probably the most democratic organization we have in the country-and if they fail to see the function which a trade union has in industry and in our national affairs as a whole, then they will force those organizations and the various unions into taking other steps to protect the things which they were set up to provide. A union is fundamentally set up to provide its membership with a higher standard of living and to maintain it, to obtain wage increases if they are necessary, to continue to fight for better working conditions, better conditions in the plant and in the community. No union functions only in the plant; all trade unions are publicly minded. More than that, the membership have obtained an education in practical democracy which makes them in many

cases much better fitted for taking their position in the community than many others.
Mr. Chairman, I belonged to the united steelworkers of America in Timmins, and when I was president of the local there we engaged in many things about which I think the country should know but does not normally pay much attention to. We assisted in setting up such things in the community as blood banks. We set them up because there was a need for them, not only for our own members but for all citizens in the community. We supplied the blood to the hospital free on request. We did some of the administration which was necessary to see that this blood was supplied to the needy at a very nominal cost.
We also participated in such things as community betterment, beautifying the town and trying to change the course of a particular creek through the town which had drowned a number of children. In that particular case we did try very hard to get the creek diverted. We were always very interested in civic elections, not only as trade unionists but as individuals. We also took an active interest in the affairs of the community. We helped in addition many welfare organizations, and a lot of trade unionists throughout Canada have headed some of the largest welfare agencies in the country. I think it is safe to say that in Toronto, Windsor and Hamilton they are very proud of the trade unionists who take their places and carry their share of the load in the welfare agencies and in the raising of money for these agencies.
I think these things are too often forgotten. Some fear has been expressed in the last day or two about a third party, the new party, whatever its name might be. I suggest this party will come into being if the trade unions are forced to take action because the need is there. It will not be imposed from the top as has been suggested; it will come from a desire on the part of the worker, because when a worker listens to the budget and legislation he is immediately in politics. Fears have been expressed by people, who in my opinion should be more familiar with the operations of the trade unions than they are. They have been expressed by a number of people who, I suggest, should take a closer look at the operations of their local unions.
I am sure that the hon. member for Cape Breton South would be quite welcome to attend a trade union meeting in his own riding-it would presumably be a meeting of the united mineworkers-and I believe the same would apply to the hon. member for Hamilton South, both of whom discussed
Supply-Labour
trade union operations in a very cursory manner. If the hon. member for Hamilton South would drop in at a meeting of the steelworkers union in Hamilton, I am sure he would learn a great deal about parliamentary procedure and about the democratic working of an organization. I am certain, too, he would find that none of the officials was behaving as a United States citizen or as a citizen of any country outside Canada.
Some concern has quite properly been expressed about the manner of the election of a commissioner to the unemployment insurance commission. The unemployment insurance fund is not as simple in its workings as some people believe it to be. It is not a fund which can be pulled out of a hat to end the recession. It is a fund set up to help cushion the effects of seasonal unemployment, to tide over workers employed in industries which do not operate all the year around. All the workers in Canada contribute toward this fund. In fact, they contribute almost half the money, and a portion of the other half is contributed by management.
Management does not hesitate to tell the workers: this is the amount of money we have to spend as our contribution toward your unemployment insurance fund. This contribution is taken into account in the total wage picture which the companies put forward at negotiations. The companies also include other things such as contributions to medical plans, pensions, where they exist, and benefits of that nature, but unemployment insurance enters directly into the wage picture of all employees. So it adds up to this, that the workers are, in effect, paying nine-tenths of the money which goes into the fund. I suggest that if there was not this contribution coming from the employers, the workers could get its equivalent in the form of wages. Labour has asked, through its democratically elected organizations, for some voice in the appointment of these commissioners, and this was granted in the act. I maintain that more consideration should have been given to the representations which were made on this occasion than was in fact shown. This fund, which is operating for the benefit of Canada as well as of the workers who contribute toward it, should always be managed with the utmost consideration for the representations made by labour with regard to it.
The fact is that in the last two or three years, this fund has had two main objectives. One has been the relief of unemployment- the job it was set up to do-and the other has been its usefulness as a means of stemming the tide of the recession. In my view the fund was never set up for that purpose. The fund should be divided into two parts

Supply-Labour
so that it may be clear in which areas it is functioning, and to the extent that it is being used to carry out part of the government's financial policy, contributions should be made to it from the consolidated revenue.
I think the minister might well take some of the advice which has been offered to him. Fortunately, the Minister of Labour is one who has always sought advice and given it some consideration. I think he could follow his well known pattern of behaviour in the past and give some further consideration to this question of the unemployment insurance commission and the representations which have been made to him with regard to it. Knowing, as I do, the attitudes taken by some of his colleagues, I am surprised that the minister has been able to accomplish what he has with regard to unemployment insurance. The workers will certainly appreciate what he has done, though they will not appreciate having to raise the increased amount of money necessary in order to continue the benefits which they are to receive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are referring to the proposed rates of contribution?


William Arnold Peters: These are the changes which will be made in the unemployment insurance regulations.
We had hoped that the minister would by now have indicated his intention to introduce changes in the federal labour code. We had hoped he would have announced his intention to revise this code. Changes in the code are even more necessary now, in the light of events involving labour in the province of British Columbia, and in Newfoundland than they were some time ago. They are also necessary in view of the situation in Ontario. The other day I was discussing with officials of a union in Toronto some of the problems with which they were faced under the industrial relations act of that province. It was pointed out to me that the labour board by stalling and delaying its decisions was making it almost impossible for a union to function. They told me of a situation which had arisen at a plant where some 33 workers were engaged. A request was made for certification. Six months later the board got around to asking for a vote because one employee had, apparently, objected. When the vote was finally taken, only four people were there, the man who had intervened and three of the union people. This is one of the problems they are facing.
As another example, I recall a strike which took place in a small lumber mill at Field, Ontario. Decertification was applied for and the union, as I think the membership would confirm, was ready to agree that any decision taken would be binding on both parties; if the
IMr. Peters.]
decision went against the union, they were willing to leave that particular plant. The period for entering into negotiations was drawing close, and some decision needed to be taken. Mr. Chairman, that strike was over a few months ago, and only the other day the union concerned received a letter saying that it was hoped in the near future to be able to render a decision on the decertification hearing which had been held six or seven months earlier. These delays cause problems in many of the industries enjoying labour contracts.
I wish to thank the Minister of Labour for the assistance he gave to some of the people in my part of the country. In his diplomatic way he intervened in a serious situation in the gold mining industry. I believe he suggested that it would be a good thing if they sat down and negotiated but I am not sure if he sat in on the negotiations. Shortly after that a settlement was reached in the dispute. A few years ago an identical situation developed involving an eight-month strike resulting in the loss of all concerned of thousands of dollars and the settlement reached at that time was not much better received than was the recent one which the minister assisted in obtaining by intervention.
The minister on a number of occasions has said he is investigating all the aspects of the labour code. This is necessary in Canada. If we are going to have a bill of rights I think we should also have a bill of rights for trade unions.
The situation in Newfoundland was probably more dramatic than that which develops in most cases. The results in British Columbia, as the hon. member for Skeena pointed out, will not be much better and it will be longer before we find out what those results are.
The minister must ensure that Canadian labour is guaranteed certain fundamental freedoms under the labour code. The Newfoundland situation illustrates the need of this. It must be remembered that the international woodworkers of America did not go into the province uninvited. The president of district 2 of the I.W.A. was invited to speak at a convention of a company union in 1956 which he accepted. During the course of the convention a motion was put on the floor recommending that this particular union join forces with the I.W.A. As was the case in some of the constitution mentioned by other hon. members who have spoken, the membership did not have the right to affiliate with I.W.A. at that time.
The loggers themselves invited the president to bring the organization into the province which he did. In 1957 organizational work was started in the bush. Eighty-seven per cent of the loggers in the A.N.D. company signed

up in the I.W.A. They applied for certification under the labour relations board and the government turned them down on a technicality. They re-applied to the board in June 1957. I think hon. members should know that in most provinces a bare majority or a majority of 55 per cent will grant certification automatically. In this instance a vote was ordered and held with 86.4 per cent of the loggers voting. It had to be conducted by referendum, I am told. Committees were set up and there are many union committees in the outports and small communities where the loggers live. The I.W.A. in Newfoundland is democratically constituted, has set up committees and holds conventions of its membership.
The union opened negotiations with the Company after certification but these broke down. They applied for conciliation services but these too, broke down. They then applied for a board. The surprising thing is that this board comprising a representative of management, of labour and an impartial chairman voted unanimously in favour of their being granted a 5 per cent increase over a period of two years. The hours were to be reduced from 60 to 54. The company then refused to negotiate and the strike resulted.
My time is nearly up although I should like to continue.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the Minister of Labour present his estimates to the committee yesterday I realized he was not dealing with the basic causes of unemployment at all but with the results and with his work in trying to overcome those results. I want to compliment him because I think he is doing the best he can in the circumstances. If the minister wanted to help eliminate unemployment I should think, however, he would speak to the Prime Minister and ask him to forget about the diversion of trade.
The last time the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke in Port Colborne he said there had been a great deal of trade switched from United States to England and that more would be switched but he has not made a pronouncement to this effect in this house.
I want to relate a few remarks to unemployment in my area. Hon. members will recall that in December 1957, the government sent a trade mission to England comprising 40 or 50 men. They went over to buy but not to sell. That was at a time when England had almost full employment and Canada had considerable unemployment. It will also be recalled that the mission was headed by Mr. Duncan, chairman of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, and that the Prime Minister went to Montreal to wish them bon voyage. He said at
Supply-Labour
that time this mission would reap rich rewards. One of the rich rewards obtained for my district was an increase in unemployment.
Hon. members will recall that before departing with the trade mission Mr. Duncan announced a $10 million order for large turbines, generators or something of that nature. Whatever it was, we were told in this chamber that they had never been made in Canada before. I was informed by an engineer that this was true but also that they had not been made in that size in England before, either. Canadian industry expected to have an opportunity to bid on that order. Canadian subcontractors were working on components for that order but Mr. Duncan's announcement killed it altogether. I am not saying that if it had bid Canadian industry would have got the order but I believe Canadian industry should have had an opportunity to bid. If Canadian industry did nothing else, or if Canadian industry was incapable of building that particular turbine or generator, why did it take 40 or 50 men to go to England to buy it, because we have never heard of anything else that they have bought?
It is true that the mission cost Canadians well over $500,000, and when they came back they gave work to some printers down near Toronto to print the report of that particular mission. If you read the report you will find that it reads something like the social pages in the press, the social register. It deals mostly with the social functions they attended, who entertained them, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce joined them, when he left them and when he joined them again and when he left them again, and so forth.


Charles Edward Rea: I wonder whether the hon. member would stay away from trade and commerce and come back to the Department of Labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, we have listened almost all day to discourses on the minister's estimates about matters that are within the concern of provincial legislatures and not of this parliament at all. It does seem to me strange that when an hon. gentleman seeks to show that the policies of this government have produced an unemployment situation that the minister is having difficulty in coping with he should be called to order. It may not be completely and strictly relevant in the narrowest sense but at least it is within the purview of this parliament and under the jurisdiction of this government and not a shocking intrusion into the affairs of other jurisdictions which are none of our business in this house. I feel that members

Supply-Labour
should be treated alike in this house and there should not be discrimination against an hon. member.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate realizes that the hon. member is going a little far in discussing trade as long as he has been discussing it.


William Hector McMillan: I shall try to stay within your ruling. It is true, though, that our unemployment is related to our trade and certainly in Britain they have complained about the trade they are getting from Canada. I have already put on Hansard the complaints of Conservative members of parliament, particularly in England, that Canada was not carrying out her obligations undertaken at the Montreal conference.
I think trade has a great deal to do with unemployment, and I also think that if the municipalities and the provinces could get money cheaper they would go ahead with different projects. I know that every time the Minister of Finance comes out with a new loan, and particularly if we think the interest rate is too high, he invariably says that the municipalities will be able to borrow money at a more favourable rate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order.


William Hector McMillan: Certainly, I do not think this helps unemployment or helps to pick up the slack of unemployment. We would get more help in Canada toward solving the unemployment problem if Canadians felt they had a government with a sane trade and fiscal policy, something they could depend on, and something that the businessmen could count on. I feel that business would go ahead with greater confidence and we would have more employment in our country.
Much of the unemployment is due to our fiscal policy. I do not think anybody in Canada will deny that our fiscal policy flows from the greatest of all transactions, namely the conversion loan, with which I do not intend to deal.
I regret to see the unemployment insurance fund depleted by some $250 million last year, and I should like to have the minister comment on the loss of $10 million from that account through the sale of bonds. I think my leader and the hon. member for Trinity made excellent contributions in their suggestions to the minister for dealing with unemployment, but I cannot help but think that the trouble is more basic. Today I read an article in the Montreal Gazette which was a report of a speech by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, the former minister of trade and commerce, who spoke last night to the dominion mortgage and investment association.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is that?


William Hector McMillan: The Right Hon. C. D. Howe.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you would listen you would hear.


Michael Starr: Very important.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One of the great men of our country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More and more people remember him every day, too.


William Anderson: They will never forget him.


William Hector McMillan: In his speech he dealt with inflation and unemployment. After saying that during the time he was in the government there were two periods of inflation he went on to tell how the government of that time tried to overcome inflation. I shall quote something he said concerning inflation:
I am not going to claim that we were 100 per cent successful in our efforts to curb inflation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Inflation is one of the most important problems in relation to unemployment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That has nothing to do with labour estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister ought to confine himself to soybeans and do something about them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a wider horizon than the hon. member.


William Hector McMillan: I continue:
But I do think it is fair to say two things: first, that the federal government itself did not contribute to increased inflationary pressures; it consistently acted to restrain inflation; and, second, the public never seemed to lose confidence in the value of money.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Order.


William Hector McMillan: Concerning confidence, he had this to say:
But confidence is a tender plant and it is not sufficient for a government merely to express confidence in the future, or to say that there is nothing to worry about. A government must inspire confidence by deeds, as well as by words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


William Hector McMillan: Then he went on to say that he realized advice is the cheapest of commodities, but he does give this government advice and it is the same advice that has been given by many managers of banks, by managers of trust companies, and so on, over the last two years. These are the two courses he says the government should take:
The first is that the government must give the clearest possible indication that its budgetary deficits are temporary and will be turned into

balance or into surplus when the slack in the economy is taken up, and competing demands threaten to push up prices.
The second is that the government must give evidence that it has an effective plan for dealing with unemployment.
In my view, we need to take a new look at unemployment. The problem is changing in character, and needs re-examination to determine more precisely its composition, its causes and how it can be cured.
Unless the problem is thoroughly understood, serious mistakes in policy could be made . . . there is great danger in the crude idea that it is possible for governments to spend their way out of recession and unemployment.
I might say that when the Minister of Finance presented his baby budget in December, 1957 I expressed this in a somewhat different way. I said at that time that the government had the mental complex of a man who came to my office. He saw the Globe and Mail lying on the table with big headlines across the top giving the net earnings of the Ontario liquor control board for the previous year, which were very considerable, and he said: "I think we will drink ourselves out of debt yet." Quoting further from Mr. Howe:
The threat of inflation cannot be checked by government alone. The government must, however, inspire confidence and give leadership, first by setting its own house in order, and then by establishing rules that it expects every citizen to follow.
He concludes with these words:
I am confident that the battle against inflation can be won if government leadership is forthcoming.
I think government leadership needs to be forthcoming in order to overcome inflation and unemployment. The government has received advice from financial men over the last two years and has not taken that advice. Mr. Howe is a man who had much experience in parliament. He has said that he never intends to enter politics again and I think it would be well if the government would take his advice at this time because it is certainly parallel to the advice given by many other men in the financial field.
It seems to me that the government could do more to get our unemployed re-established. The minister is doing the best he can but I think he might do more. So many of our unemployed have been out of work so long that they have lost heart. The unemployed make periodic trips to the unemployment insurance offices to get their cheques when they can qualify. They look over the list of vacant jobs and when they cannot find one they go home. They come back again the next week or in two weeks' time. They draw unemployment insurance as
Supply-Labour
long as they can and then they drift to the municipal relief rolls. At least, that is true in my area.
It certainly was not difficult for men to qualify for unemployment insurance in the winter of 1957-58. In fact, the government was so solicitous about the unemployed in my area that they wrote letters to people who were retired and on pension telling them to be sure to go their unemployment insurance offices and get their cheques. Of course, these people had votes and the government was attempting to buy votes with money being contributed by people who were working.


Michael Starr: What a story that is.


William Hector McMillan: The government is not so generous today. It has mismanaged the fund so that at the present time they are calling on industry and the workers to contribute to make up the $10 million loss in bonds and the cost of some of these votes.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Do you really believe that?


William Hector McMillan: I believe it. It certainly happened in my area.


Michael Starr: You must have instigated it.


William Hector McMillan: There is nothing that injures a person's morale more than idleness. After a time people give up and lead rather aimless lives, making no contribution to our society. There are a good many skilled or semi-skilled jobs for which these people could be trained. It seems to me that since we have so many shortages in certain skilled and semi-skilled occupations and have been going to Europe to get such workers we might have a look among the unemployed and see if we cannot train some of these people.
The government certainly could co-operate with the provinces. In my opinion many of these unemployed people are bright and would be industrious. I think they could be trained. In many hospitals at the present time there are shortages of nurses aids and male attendants, and I think we could easily train such people. There is a marked shortage of nurses. I know one hospital that up to two months ago could not open its new addition because nurses and proper personnel to staff the hospital were not available. I think the government might take the lead in co-operation with the provinces so that many girls might train as nurses. Many of them cannot do so on their own resources and I think that the federal and provincial governments should co-operate to this end.
I happen to know of a very young person who was unemployed last year and got into trouble by stealing. This person was sent to the house of correction for one year and while

Supply-Labour
there learned a skill which she has put to very good use since. As a result, she now has a thriving business. It does not seem to me to be a very good thing that this person should have to go to the house of correction to learn something that she wanted to learn before going there.
There are also many young men idle who might be taught different skills such as carpentry, plumbing and a multitude of others. To my mind it is more expensive not to teach them than it is to teach them. Many of these people are bright and industrious and they should be given a chance. I think it would be a very easy matter for the Department of Labour to classify these people. I do not suggest that a costly commission with expensive economists should be set up but I think that the government could come forward with some type of committee that would make recommendations respecting the unemployed.
I do not think that the government is doing anything about older workers. I know that the other day the minister referred to the fact that this is quite a problem. By "older worker" I mean people between 35 and 40 whom industry will not hire because of the various pension plans. During the last campaign I believe the Prime Minister promised -I remember seeing this in the press although I have not the article here-that working men would be able to take their pensions with them. I do know that it has been said by some that this would not be constitutional but I think it would be constitutional if the government would refuse, in whole or in part, to allow industry their right to deduct their contributions toward pension plans for income tax purposes unless industry is willing to grant workers an earlier vesting of pension rights or give them the right to take their pension with them to another job. I imagine that would probably be constitutional because, after all, we would only be dealing with the Income Tax Act.
There are many reasons why I think workers should have earlier vesting of their pension rights. The plant 'where a man is working might close down. A mine might run out of ore. Woods operations might close down. Then there are many medical reasons. For instance, a man working in an industry might develop a chest allergy or skin allergy and while he would not be sick he could not continue working in that particular plant. I think that the government should devise some means by which there would be earlier vesting of pension rights. I think that this would in itself clear up much of the trouble of the older worker in changing jobs.
I think my time is about up. I would say this. I think unemployment is a great social

problem in our country. We are a young country. We have many resources but we do not seem to know how to handle them. I think this government should take the advice that people have been trying to give them in the last two years. I think it is extremely important that we solve our unemployment problem because it would be to our economic advantage.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I had not
intended to participate in this debate but since the opposition apparently propose to keep it going all afternoon I think I should take a few minutes in which to put forward a few of the ideas I have and to call attention to a few of the sins of omission and commission of the opposition, as I see it. I can understand how, when this debate first started, the opposition thought they had a tremendous issue in the manner of the appointment of Mr. MacArthur to the unemployment insurance commission. Led by that seasoned member with usually a keen nose for a political issue, namely the hon. member for Essex East, they went tearing off on that trail until the force of public opinion showed them that they were completely off base.


Murdo William Martin: We are still
pursuing the same policy.


Ernest James Broome: Prior to that, in a press
release to the Globe and Mail of last Saturday, May 2, the Leader of the Opposition led off with a statement to the effect that labour organizations had been shockingly ignored and he went on to say there had been government bungling in this matter and that the government would have to take full responsibility. The very fact that the talk on this particular issue has sort of died out is the clearest indication that the government did not bungle on this matter and that the government acted in the proper and right manner. I should like to talk about it for a moment or two since the opposition seem to have dropped this subject. I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Essex East said as reported at page 3364 of Hansard when he was detailing what the duties of the unemployment insurance commission are. He said this:
This is a body that is called upon not only to administer, by way of formulation of policy, matters having to do with unemployment insurance, but this commission actually is a trustee of many millions of dollars contributed not only by the employers but by the workers of this country. At one time there was almost a billion dollars in the fund.
To that he could also add that the fund is built by general contributions of the taxpayers of the country and through government contributions as well. The very fact that it is a semi-policy making commission,

that it is an advisory committee to the minister, that it is called upon to advise, in an impartial and unbiased way, the minister as to what action he should take with regard to the operation of the commission and to future legislation with regard to unemployment insurance surely is, as newspapers all across the country have pointed out, a reason why that commission must be non-political and unbiased.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Ernest James Broome: I would suggest that the
hon. member for Essex East might have taken a look at Hansard at page 2228 or might have consulted with his colleague to his left, namely the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, with regard to the supplementary question to the Prime Minister in the matter of the R.C.M.P. in Newfoundland, when he said as follows:
I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is the government reluctant to act because they are afraid of incurring the displeasure of Mr. Knowles . . . and other politicians now in the labour movement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was that not true?


Ernest James Broome: It proves that the opposition speaks with many tongues and that consistency is not one of their virtues. The fact is that Mr. MacArthur's record speaks for itself. The records of the nominees who were not chosen also speak for themselves. It is clear that if the recommendation of Mr. Jodoin had been accepted there would have been political bias. In this way there is no political bias. So no wonder this has become a dead issue as far as the opposition is concerned.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman may be assured that this is not a dead issue.


George Randolph Pearkes: The opposition is dead,
anyway.


Ernest James Broome: It speaks well for the persistence of the hon. member but it does not leave him in quite the high plane in the judgment I formally had of him on political matters.


An hon. Member:: Why did you revise it?


Ernest James Broome: With regard to general labour policy, I believe a great deal has been said in the press and by organizations which tends to damn all labour for the sins of a relatively few unions. Out of some 200 unions in the United States only some seven are involved in the present senate investigation. I think it is at only those seven unions that any public censure has been directed. We always play up in the press the strikes and the walkouts but we do not play up the literally hundreds
66968-9-221
Supply-Labour
of settlements which are made every year where management and labour get together and through collective bargaining iron out their differences and come to a decision between the two parties which is fair to both. The whole essence of labour peace is through honest collective bargaining, with recognition by labour of the problems of management and with management recognizing that labour is entitled to a just share in the wealth of this country.
However, there are conditions which arise- and this matter has been laboured in the house previously-where some of these unions, the odd one of them do certain things. In this respect may I say that I am not talking about the I.W.A. The hon. member for Skeena who spoke about the I.W.A. last night and pointed out what a democratically run union it is, has my full agreement. I know the I.W.A. and I know what a good union it is. It is a good tough union but it is a good union. But I have also heard the hon. member for Kootenay West lambaste Mr. Banks of the seafarers international union. I have also committed that error myself because it is an error to go after Mr. Banks. It is not Mr. Banks who is important but it is the conditions which allow a man like Mr. Banks to have the power and control that he has. If Mr. Banks left the country tomorrow, there would be another man with another name, but the policy would still be the same, namely the policy set out by Mr. Banks. Therefore you must get at the root of the problem before any improvement can be made.
In this regard, just in order to give an instance to the house, I should like to refer to a letter which I received. I may say that I have checked on the facts in this case myself. I received a letter from a Vancouver man, namely Mr. A. Gourley, Sr. who told me-and I think all hon. members received copies of this letter-about the record of his son in the S.I.U. I will quote two paragraphs only. They are as follows:
I instance the case of my son, and I invite the fullest investigation by the Department of Labour. My son was a union seaman for 12 years before the
5.1.	U. acquired jurisdiction. My son then joined
5.1.	U. and paid $75 entrance or initiation fee, $4 monthly dues and an assessment of $15 a year. That represents a serious reduction in take-home pay of an ordinary seaman.
Then like a bolt from the blue, my son was charged verbally with non-payment of union dues although he was working for the Union Steamship Company under the check-off system by which union dues are deducted from pay cheques and are sent direct to the union by the employing company. The fact the charge was a manifest lie did not prevent my son's expulsion and deprivation of the benefits for which he had so dearly paid.
The letter goes on to point out that an actual statement had been received from

Supply-Labour
union headquarters indicating that these dues had been paid and I received the check-off book, and the man's ticket showed that the dues had been paid. It is instances like this where a labour leader is given the power to say a man shall work at his profession, his job, his avocation, or whether he shall not. Those conditions can only be changed by labour itself; they cannot be changed by government action. The government cannot police the wrongs of labour; labour must clean its own house.
In this regard I would suggest to the labour movement that they set up what I call a minimum constitution for their unions. That minimum constitution might be a bill of rights for labour unions, and that would set the standard. The minimum standard which I would suggest would be that leadership of the union must be elected democratically and by secret vote; that there must be a secret vote in all cases of strike action, not only for the sake of the men but also for the sake of the leaders so that they would know they really had the men behind them. Even if these two simple changes were made, then the odd rotten union which is rotten only because of the way its constitution is written which gives its leadership overwhelming dictatorial power, would fall by the wayside. I suggest that if that were a condition of recognition by the Canadian Labour Congress, so then should it be a condition of recognition by any government.
Perhaps it would change a few of the methods of working of some of our unions, for example the railroad unions. They are the oldest unions in the country. In many ways they are the sanest of all unions; they have a tradition and integrity behind them. But even when they call a strike they have open ballots which are sent in to their central regional headquarters for counting. Hon. members remember the recent disagreement which was so ably settled by the Minister of Labour between the firemen and the C.N.R. When the decision was made to strike, that decision was made by the chairmen; perhaps a score or so of men across the country. Now that is not right. Secret ballot is the way that this parliament is elected, and it should also be the way in which unions are operated.
With regard to the question of union publication of their financial statements, I have pointed out before that there are large companies operating in Canada which do not publish their statements, and until we can say that all the affairs of business are open to the public, then we cannot in justice ask that the unions do the same. The labour policy of this government is a progressive one.
[Mr. Broomed
It is a policy which has been praised, particularly in the session of 1957, by hon. members in the Liberal party and hon. members in the C.C.F. party, and it has also been praised this session. The Minister of Labour has received much praise, and no members on the opposite side dare attack the minister. They are playing fair on that point; they do give the minister credit for having done a job which I think ranks him with the best ministers of labour this country has ever had. The criticism we have heard, as I have said before, is backfiring, and I do not think the opposition have a very good case on any matter concerning the Department of Labour.
There are two other points I would like to touch on, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the winter works program which has been so successful, I agree that it would be a good thing for the planning to start as soon as possible so that it can get off to a good start next fall. Even in the very short time which was allowed for the plan to get into operation last year it was an outstanding success. I am concerned too about the problem of older workers. A young engineer came to see me. At least, I thought he was a young engineer. He was 35 years of age and he came to me and wanted to know about a particular company, because he felt he could only make one more job change and then that was the end until he retired, because companies just were not hiring men over 35 years of age. Part of the trouble is because of pension plans. Pension plans are needed and are necessary, but they place a disability on workers, professional people and day labourers who wish to change their jobs after a certain stage in life, because it then becomes too expensive for the company which would have hired them to take them in because of the cost to their own pension scheme. If the pension could be vested in the worker so that he might carry it with him and make his own contribution to the pension scheme of the company he would be moving to, I think it would be very worthwhile. We must also accept the fact that a man of 55 or 60 years of age still has a worth-while contribution to make.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I rose to speak in this debate for just a few minutes, and I will close my remarks with the same topic I commenced with. The hon. member for Essex East said that this was still an issue. I would like to quote to him part of an editorial from the Toronto Star, which is certainly not a supporter of this party but I think is a fairly vocal supporter of the party to which the hon. member belongs. This is what the main organ of the Liberal party has to say in its issue of May 4 last. It is headed, "No Injustice to Labour".

We find it hard to summon up a sense of outrage at the government's appointment of A. F. MacArthur of Toronto to the unemployment insurance advisory committee over the objections of the Canadian Labour Congress. And why are the Liberals and C.C.F. making noises as if labour civil rights are being trampled, and talking darkly of raising the issue in parliament? What issue?
It makes sense that the Unemployment Insurance Act should require consultation with organized labour about appointees to represent labour on the committee. But no government can abrogate its right of final decision, after the advice is assessed. Advice is one thing, dictation another. Not the Canadan Labour Congress, nor the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, nor anybody else, should be able to dictate appointments to the Canadian government.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I was stating how a properly organized union would function, and I mentioned some of the considerations which must be given to it. I did that to give the lie to some of the statements made in the newspapers about the dictatorial methods which are sometimes said to be used by unions. I used the example of the international woodworkers of America and the situation they found themselves in in the province of Newfoundland. This is only an example; there are many others. They conducted such things as organizational drives and they obtained a large number of cards. They received support from a large percentage of the workers, which involved both the paying of money and the signing of cards. Then they applied for certification which was granted by the government. They applied for services from the conciliation branch which were supplied. Then they went through a conciliation board, and that is where they justify to the public at large the conditions they are asking for and the requests they are making in their negotiations. In this particular case it resulted in a unanimous decision of the board.
This decision was agreed to by the conciliation board, but it did not have to be accepted by either the union or the company, and in this case it was not accepted by the company. I think everybody is familiar with the road blocks which were set up by the government intervening in this case. They finally passed a law which said that this union was no longer to be allowed to operate in this particular situation.
How different this is from the justification which must be made by the companies when they wish to obtain an increase in the price of their products. They do not go to anybody and ask permission. They just raise the price, and because of the monopoly control which is evident in a large number of industries, and high prices result. In this particular case as in many other cases some of the road blocks which were put in the way of the 66968-9-221J
Supply-Labour
union involved a hostile government, a hostile board when certification was applied for, and a vote taken under adverse conditions. And then there was what took place after the strike began, when heavy fines were imposed for obstruction and jail sentences were imposed on people for taking part in picket lines and using moral persuasion to prevent other people from stealing their jobs.
I think the complicated operations which the union was willing to go through was a good example of how unionism works in Canada. We hear talk about the right to work, what is meant is the right to "scab" and take somebody else's job, also, in this case, the right of a government to set up an alternative union which is under government control. These are the things that the newspapers should be talking about.
This has been no credit to government, and it should be pointed out that the federal government itself cannot guarantee to all the workers in Canada the right to organize, negotiate and bargain in good faith in any of the provinces in Canada. In this particular instance the board of public opinion was given the facts. For instance, in the mill, the wage rate is not $1.05 an hour; it has been increased to something like $1.78 an hour. At the same time, a wage increase was paid to those mill-workers of between five cents and seven cents an hour, when the basic rate was $1.75. It was also established that this company was not paying the taxes which other companies were paying. The union had to establish in its public relations work before the country in general, that conditions were as they had stated them to be in their negotiations. They not only had to justify themselves to the government, but justify themselves before an impartial board and then, through the board of public opinion, to the country also.
All these things have been done, and yet the rights which a union can normally expect -the rights which a bill of rights would guarantee to all citizens-have been denied in this particular case. There has certainly been an oversight in our federal labour legislation when we cannot, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has just said, have at least a minimum federal labour code to guarantee certain basic rights.
Unions continue to be willing to express their democratic point of view. For years one particular union in which I have been interested, one that is not in the Canadian Labour Congress, has been accused on many occasions of not fighting for the workers whom it represents. Nevertheless, those workers have continually over the years supported that union. Only recently, within the last year, a strike took place in that union. It fought a bitter strike with defection inside its own ranks,

Supply-Labour
even between worker and fellow worker, but it came out with a settlement. Those Unionists were unsatisfied with the leadership they had received, and they did throw out the majority of that leadership and establish a completely new executive. But what help are they getting now from the people who always said: "Let us get rid of the commies who are in this particular union."? What assistance do they get? The other day, one of the staff representatives who has been accused of supporting the old guard in Sudbury was fired because the new executive had put in an auditor and the books were being audited to find out exactly what had happened during past years. This particular staff representative was burning and destroying certain documents, and he was fired. Well, the newspapers, this democratic organization which stands for fine sentiments, did nothing to help the workers who had already made a decision, democratically reached, and who had decided to do something about the position which had been rumoured for a long time. No, the newspapers came out with an article condemning the union for having fired this staff representative, instead of saying: "Let us get to the bottom of this and find out what the situation is."
I remember, also the work done by the newspapers over the years in other areas. In the mining area in Timmins, when I was a miner, we decided we would change unions and bring in the Canadian Congress of Labour so that they should be our bargaining agents. We set up an organizing committee and democratically did the work necessary to bring in these unions, applying for certification and so on. Then we transferred to the steelworkers and we negotiated with the gold mining industry. But we got no help from newspapers which had previously said the unions to which we belonged had been communist dominated. Did we get assistance in setting up better working conditions? I should say not. They immediately changed their tactics and said: the poor industry is in such bad shape that it does not matter who has got control of the unions or what the unions are; there is going to be no assistance. Did the newspapers give any consideration to the other work the unions do in the community? These newspapers have always been on the other side of the fence, and no matter whether a union was under a democratic or any other kind of administration they were more favourable to the industry than they were to the union.
I think the unions over the years have done a great deal of good, and one of the things the minister could do on behalf of organized labour is to draw attention to the

story of how the unions work and are supposed to function. I would not be opposed to the minister developing a minimum constitution for these unions, and I think that if he examines the constitutions of the major unions he will find they are much further advanced than the constitution he would consider to be the minimum.
If the workers wish to change their union, they have that right. When they do not have that right it is being run by people we do not want in this country. Usually the worker has not too much control over that. The only time a union has been at fault or has been guilty of being undemocratic has been when some of the union and company officials co-operate among themselves to sign backdoor agreements or agreements under which money is exchanged under the table and where the union membership has no say in the matter or is not taking an active part. I know of only one or two cases where this has taken place. These cases have been the subject of extended investigation, reams of reports and page after page of newspaper comment. These instances are given much publicity but nothing is said about the thousands of unions that function properly and fairly.
We sometimes hear reference made to the right to work clause. This sounds very good, Most of us would agree that there should be a right to work clause but the right we mean is the right to obtain a job and have full employment. Thousands of people have been unable to enjoy that right this year. This is not the right that would be given under the proposed law in the United States. It would mean that an employer could engage cheap labour working long hours with low pay and few benefits. The dog-eat-dog attitude would prevail and there would be bickering back and forth. There can be no harmony in industry or in labour affairs if a situation of that kind exists.
We have a working force of five million people in Canada and approximately half a million people are now looking for work. If there were no unions today and no contracts and labour legislation as we know them people would be underbidding each other for jobs and a man who lost his employment would offer to go back to work for five cents less. This would lead to a chaotic situation. I do not think anyone in Canada wants that. I do not believe this is what is wanted even by those in industry who are opposed to labour unions. I have heard it said on many occasions in the past by people engaged in management that they are quite satisfied with the unions they have and they have expressed a willingness to continue to increase the

union security. They have expressed appreciation of the co-operation and assistance that only a union can give.
1 should like to mention only one illustration. A few years ago I had the honour of organizing a plant in Kirkland Lake in one of the few industries in that area that is not connected with the gold mining industry. The latter industry has been one of the last strongholds of anti-labour and as far as I know there is no union security in the whole industry. This little plant was organized in a town that is engaged in the gold mining industry. The management of that plant promised that the union security would be increased if the union functioned satisfactorily and lived up to the agreement. It has been increased and there is now a union shop. This happens to be an I.W.A. local. The management was so happy that it negotiated a profit-sharing program. We are very surprised to find that the program is paying more money to the employees now than we would have got under our original negotiations which amount the company said would bankrupt the firm. Management and labour enjoy a good relationship there and management is happy to tell any segment of the industry about their happy experience with the trade union.
This experience has been repeated across the country. The only place where differences of opinion arise is around the bargaining table but this is to be expected because the union is pledged and has the responsibility of getting as much for its employees as it possibly can get. Management on the other hand has the responsibility of getting for the shareholders as much as it can get. One way they can get extra money is through low-priced labour. Both management and labour have an obligation and as the hon. member for Skeena pointed out so clearly this morning they share the obligation to sit down and negotiate in good faith. When contracts are allowed to drag along for a year or two inharmonious labour relations result. Many things build up over the period of time that should never enter into the negotiations. We should endeavour to cut down the length of time that is necessary following an application for conciliation services and the length of time in which a board may sit and bring in its report. Limits must also be imposed when a union goes on strike or when a company locks out the workers from the plant. These limits should be definitely expressed and rigidly adhered to in order to eliminate much of the strife that has been experienced.
I have been interested in the comments of those hon. members representing western
Supply-Labour
constituencies who have participated in this debate. They have been educated through weekly and monthly farm newspapers to think that all farm problems are caused by labour. They should demand that the minister conduct an investigation into this allegation. It is true that a part of the price of an automobile is represented by labour costs and we should know this. I am informed, however, that labour costs represent a total of $300 of the price of a $3,000 car. As the Financial Post pointed out last year the production cost in assembling an automobile is $57. We should know these things. If these facts were brought out by the Department of Labour I do not think the farmers would object. I know they would not be opposed to an automobile worker receiving $300, figuratively speaking, of the cost of a $3,000 car when the manufacturer, dealer and distributor each receive $600.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


James Stanley Speakman: Are you suggesting that the worker who has no investment except the labour he has to offer should share equally with the manufacturer, dealer and distributor and others who invest large sums of money?


William Arnold Peters: I certainly suggest that the worker should not receive just one-half of what is received by the distributor, dealer and manufacturer. This raises another point. The worker has a big investment in the industry in which he is engaged. A worker may invest his lifetime in a plant. The value of the investment of his working life cannot be estimated in dollars and cents. In many plants the worker does not enjoy pension plan benefits which are, as it were, depreciation. The manufacturer and dealer are allowed depreciation for their equipment. The only one not allowed depreciation by law is the poor worker. The minister should give urgent attention to the question of the establishment of a national portable pension program. This is something that consideration must be given to, because the matter has been raised so often. Everybody else who has an investment is permitted to state what the investment is and to depreciate it but the poor workers who work in those plants are not given the same right.
A good example is that of the international woodworkers in Newfoundland. Those loggers are working in the bush and they are investing in an industry which is returning to them only $1.05, $1.06 or $1.07, or whatever the company has decided to pay since they

Supply-Labour
formed Joey's new union. They are investing their lives in that particular industry and there is no pension plan for them. They are not allowed any depreciation on their income tax for the lifetime that they are spending there nor for the years of seniority they have established. By law we shall have to establish a national portable labour pension plan which will take into consideration the work that a worker does during his lifetime. He invests in the same way as a man who is setting up a factory. He invests in that plant a certain amount of his life and he should be compensated to some extent by having a pension plan which he can carry with him from job to job and from plant to plant. In other words, the Newfoundland workman could carry his pension into the logging industry, into the fishing industry, or into any other plant or allied industry he may be in so that when he spent 20 years of his life working he would have established a pension plan that would give him some consideration for the work he has done.
I do not think the farmers-I am sure this is true-in western Canada or in any place else will disagree that the worker has some rights in a particular plant and that he should be given some consideration. I am quite sure they will not be too concerned because they know it is the workers who buy their agricultural products; it is the workers who keep them on the farm; it is the workers who supply them with the market for their products. They know that the manufacturer eats only the same amount of food as a worker; he eats the same number of eggs as a worker will eat. Because the workers are more numerous, the farmers are much more concerned and should be much more concerned with the workers than with other various aspects of industry. I would strongly urge that when the minister is considering a national labour code he consider putting in something that will give protection in a bill of right for labour, as the hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned, and that he will also give consideration to and be much more willing to recommend the disallowance of legislation in the provincial field that eliminates the rights to which labour is entitled. The minister could give consideration to other matters also.
I should like to refer to one case which comes under the field of the Department of Labour. I refer to the uranium industry. In this instance the workers have not the right to join a second union if they wish. They have not the alternative they wish. Staff representatives of one union are not allowed to go on company property, are not allowed

to visit the bunkhouses of this particular company because the company says this will create some difficulty. It should be pointed out that this union has been in the forefront of organized labour for some time. Consideration should be given to seeing what can be done to allow those workers who may wish to make a change the opportunity of talking to the representatives in their own domicile, which happens to be the company bunkhouses. They should be given this consideration so that they can make a democratic choice for themselves and decide whether they wish to belong to the union of which they are now members or if they wish to change. This would apply also to the other plants and to the other bunkhouses in the area.
I think that workers should also be given the right, when they wish, to join the steelworkers union. They should be given the right to do what they wish. If they wish to join the mine, mill and smelter workers union they should have that right. They should have the free choice to join that union if they wish, and this right should be insisted upon by the Department of Labour.
We have been very concerned also with the fact that the federal Department of Labour has farmed out some of its responsibilities to provincial governments. The instance in Blind River is a good example. The workers have continually complained over the last two years about the safety conditions that exist in that area. They have complained to the provincial government and they have received no redress. Because this falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government they should have the right to ask the minister at least to intervene on their behalf in matters which are not covered by the provincial government but the responsibility for which may have been assumed by the provincial government. We believe that conditions, and particularly the safety factors, should be higher under the federal government than under the provincial government which has accepted the jurisdiction over the particular industry. When the federal government safety factors are higher, then they should apply, and I suggest this would be the case in the uranium mines of Blind River.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Before the hon. member for Fort William begins his remarks may I have permission to ask a question of the hon. member who has just sat down? He made some reference to the scale of wages paid to Newfoundland loggers. May I ask him whether he has the scale of wages paid to Newfoundland loggers?


William Arnold Peters: I referred to only two particular figures. One was the figure used in the

conciliation board report, which was $1.05. The second figure is the figure that is paid as a base rate in the mill by the same company and that figure is $1.78 an hour, base rate.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, I must confess we have been regaled with much oratory here this afternoon. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Timiskaming refer to the matter of profits made by distributors of automobiles and dealers. I want to assure the hon. member who has just sat down that I do not know of any automobile distributor or dealer who made a profit of $600 on any automobile. The average profit for all Canadian dealers across Canada in 1958, for which I have the figures, was approximately 1J per cent on the total turnover of their business. I do not think that is an excessive amount and in many cases I might say for his information and edification the dealers lost money. I know of some companies which lost thousands and thousands of dollars in the operation of the automobile business, notwithstanding the volume of business. Therefore, I wish to say to him that it is not the dealer who is making the money or indeed the manufacturer. The returns are evenly distributed. As he knows, the workers do receive a fair wage in the automobile plants, and adequate fringe benefits to boot.
I just wanted to say that in passing to correct the impression that the dealers are making so much money on the work of the workers.


William Arnold Peters: Before the hon. member leaves that, may I ask him a question?


Hubert Badanai: You have made two speeches this afternoon, sir, and I think you can wait until I am finished. Notwithstanding statements made by members of the government on many occasions, to say nothing of solemn promises made in the course of the election of last year, the unemployment situation is still grave enough to cause anxiety in many places, and anything that anyone can say to the contrary does not alter the fact that the situation is serious. I realize that the Minister of Labour has the matter of unemployment very much in mind and that he has tried to relieve it with the winter work program in co-operation with the municipalities and the provinces.
In the city of Fort William there are now approximately 100 persons working under the scheme but this is only a drop in the bucket in the face of some 2,760 still seeking employment at the present moment. Had it not been for the active co-operation which
Supply-Labour
the citizens of the community of Fort William have given to the winter do-it-now campaign, which is separate from the winter work program of the government, several hundred more would have been out of work all winter. Individual citizens, industry, business and labour are to be congratulated for their united support in assisting the effort put forth by the lakehead employment advisory committee. The members of this committee worked like beavers to create work.
I must also pay a compliment to the manager and staff of the national unemployment insurance office at Fort William for their untiring efforts in publicizing the need for co-operation. It is my belief that these campaigns fulfil a vital role during the winter months in assisting to create and spread employment to those who are unfortunately without the means of livelihood through no fault of their own. The success of these campaigns leaves no doubt that they are a part of our responsibility and a challenge that our economy must face and effectively solve. The suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition that a federal-provincial-municipal conference be held as soon as possible for the purpose of planning a winter work program for the next winter season is one that should be carried into effect without delay.
It is rather regrettable, and I am sure no one regrets it more than my good friend the Minister of Labour, who I must confess is sincere and hard working, but I must say that the government has not given evidence to date that it has an effective plan to deal with unemployment. I have no doubt that the government receives advice from many quarters because, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Welland this afternoon, advice is one of those commodities that are offered free of charge to anyone who wishes to listen. Nonetheless, sometimes there are some suggestions made which bear consideration. One of these appeared in the issue of the Globe and Mail of January 22, 1959 and I wish to read part of it for the record:
If one is to judge by recent discussions of economic problems, the nation has to take a choice between unemployment or inflation. Since inflation inevitably leads in the end to massive unemployment, it may seem there is no choice at all.
Fortunately, defeatism is not a Canadian characteristic and some of our better minds are not prepared to admit the impossibility of providing work for those who want to work constructively, and yet increasing real prosperity.
As something to think about, a proposal has been put forward by Eugen Berkovits, an international businessman and economist whose name has appeared in this column before. In his opinion, unemployment as a recurrent and urgent problem might be overcome by establishment of new manufacturing plants in this country on a large scale.
3494	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act
Evidence in support of his idea can be found in the way secondary industry has grown as a large employer here in recent years, far outstripping primary industry. If we would speed up that growth, says Mr. Berkovits, government might consider offering incentives and inducements, instead of having to make work itself and also make handouts to people who sooner would earn.
To this end, Mr. Berkovits suggests government should grant assistance to those who would establish new plants in Canada, in the way assistance is provided for housing, using the industrial development bank as the agency.
So the industrial development bank would be authorized to issue insurance policies in respect of industrial development loans granted by approved financial institutions, up to an aggregate of perhaps $1 billion. Industrial development bank would have the right of approval and each loan would be no greater than 80 per cent of the outlay necessary to get such new plants going. Repayment would be spread over 30 years, with a fee of possibly two per cent of the loan to cover the cost of insurance. Behind the industrial development bank would be the government-if required.
Mr. Berkovits does not believe government would get "caught" by such a guarantee system. New enterprises, as is well known, have a multiplying influence on production and between thus creating additional activity adding to the nation's wealth, the investment would start bringing back to gov-erment substantial taxes, so that the whole outlay might be balanced by income within four or five years. In contrast, housing loans, which also help employment, are not constant and expanding inducers of revenue.
While there might be a need for government to put up some money, as it has done for housing, Mr. Berkovits sees most of the capital under his plan coming from regular sources of funds, in greater volume when insurance reduces the risk.
This suggestion merits the consideration of the government and should be explored in every way. Our economic recovery depends to a very large degree on employment of human resources. The dangerous curves on the road to recovery are unemployment and inflation and these are the twins of misery which we must cope with, and so long as they are present so long will distress and unhappiness prevail.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 5, 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.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to consider public bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 5, consideration of the motion of
[Stage Direction]

Mr. Pickersgill for the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act and the proposed amendment of Mr. Roberge.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that when this bill was introduced on February 5, my friend the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) late in the day moved an amendment which I want very warmly to support, namely that the bill should not be read a second time but that the subject matter thereof should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. That motion was made after a previous motion that the bill should be referred to a special committee to be set up was found by the chair to be out of order. Of the standing committees, the external affairs committee therefore seemed the most closely related-although I admit it is not too closely related-to the subject matter of the bill. However, as we all know, it is a highly competent committee; and I am perfectly sure that if the subject matter of the bill were referred to it, the experience and the quality of the members on that committee would make them eminently well qualified to deal with the subject matter of this bill.
In introducing this bill originally I attempted to be as non-controversial as it is in my nature to be. It is not for me, of course, to be the judge of how well I succeeded. I found that some of the hon. gentlemen opposite were perhaps a little bit more controversial than I was or at least so it seemed to me. But I do not seek to say anything whatever about any of the personal references that were made to me or any of the objections that were taken to my administration of the department when I was the minister or to any of the other things of perhaps a not entirely complimentary nature that were said in that debate.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, it was my hope-and it is still my hope-that this matter could be considered and decided in a completely non-partisan manner in the best interests of all the people of Canada, for what we are talking about here is something that I trust all members in the House of Commons, to whatever party they may happen to belong, value equally. I refer to our common citizenship which I think binds all of us together more than anything divides us in this House of Commons, or at least that is my hope. I must say that I hope the hon. gentleman who is a learned member of his profession will not think it presumptuous of me, a student in the same profession, to say so but I thought the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) was rather devastating in his legal criticisms of the bill.

In defence of the bill itself, I may say that it was drafted rather hastily in the house at the last session and was not revised. It was based upon an assertion that was made at that time by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) to the effect that the particular matter to which it had reference was the only disability still existing in the act; that is to say, the only disability under which naturalized citizens suffered and natural born citizens did not. I thought that the hon. member for Marquette completely demonstrated that that foundation was wrong. The moment I heard him cite the section of the act that he cited, I realized that this bill was imperfect and that it would not be a proper bill to pass in the form in which it was introduced.
Of course, as hon. members will recall, I said at the outset that I was not in the least wedded to the terms of the bill, that I felt the purpose of the bill was clearly stated, that the principle of the bill was clear and that there would be no difficulty in revising the terms of the bill itself in a committee in order to fit the essential purpose that was in mind. However, in all the circumstances, I think it would be better to have the subject matter of the bill go to a committee where a new bill could be drafted based upon the principle of this bill.
I also thought that the hon. member for Marquette-I keep wanting to say "Portage" for some reason or other but I know it is "Marquette"-was quite right in thinking that the disability in section 18 should also be removed from the act. I think so too.
I want to go back to the real purpose of this bill. I want to say again-and try again to say this in a way that will not be controversial-that I do not think there was really any injustice in the old act as it was before it was amended at the last session of parliament. But there was a psychological situation that had developed. It seemed to me that on balance, the correcting of that psychological situation was more important than were the advantages of the old act. I think one can make a strong argument for the retention of section 18 in the citizenship act. But if you retain it or if you retain any other disability or any other difference between the legal status of a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen, our citizenship is open to the charge that we have two kinds of citizens. In other words, it seemed to me that you must either do the whole job or there was really not much point in tampering with the act at all.
I come to the other argument of the hon. member for Marquette which I must say did not impress me nearly as much. I refer
66968-9-222
Canadian Citizenship Act to the argument that these persons who were still excepted by the one section of the act which I was seeking to have amended do not deserve to carry the honourable name of "Canadian" and, of course, I quite agree. I quite agree that if, in fact, they are the kind of people it would be charged that they were, that is quite true. But I am afraid there are many other citizens who do not deserve to carry the honourable name of "Canadian". You either have discrimination or you do not have discrimination. You cannot have almost no discrimination and have equality. That is one of those mathematical propositions on which I am sure the hon. member and I would not disagree. It therefore seems to me that either one has to do what hon. gentlemen opposite or some of their leaders before the election in 1957 said they would do, or not do it. If you do not do it, we would probably be just as well off-in fact, I am not sure that we would not have been better off with the old act-and I am going to explain briefly why.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. MacLean), who also made, I thought, a very interesting, illuminating, thoughtful and scholarly contribution to the debate, on which I would like, if he will not take offence, to congratulate him, pointed out something which had never occurred to me when I was minister as being a discrimination, but obviously is once it is pointed out. That is that there were certain kinds of so-called natural born citizens, although they were not born in this country, who did not have an equality with the natural born citizens who were born in this country. It is quite clear that if this task of establishing a status of complete legal equality is going to be performed, it does require a careful examination of the whole act. It seems to me that that would be very well worth doing and there would be no harm in going ahead with it in anticipation of the wider study of the act which we hope there will be at the next session of parliament.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, however, did make another argument which did not impress me nearly as much as the legal argument he made, and that was his argument about the desirability of retaining the disability which is now in the act to which the bill has reference. The hon. gentleman was arguing that it was very important to be able to strip of their citizenship those Canadians who, on being accused of treason, left the country or were not in the country and would not come back to stand trial. I think a lot can be said in favour of that, but surely there is just as much to be said in favour of stripping of their citizenship those people who have been convicted

Canadian Citizenship Act of treason or of disloyalty to the country and who, after serving their sentence, leave the country and sever their connection with it for a considerable period of time. As hon. members know, that was the law up till it was changed by the present government a year ago.
At the time I was minister a very celebrated case arose. It was the case of a man who had been a member of this house at one time and who had subsequently been convicted in the courts, who after serving his sentence, had left the country and gone to live in the country where he was born, who had lived there for the statutory period and on whom I caused to be served the necessary legal instrument, who appealed against my announced intention of recommending that his citizenship be stripped from him, and whose appeal was listened to and dismissed. I am not using these terms in a legal sense, of course, but rather in an administrative sense. I then recommended that his citizenship be taken from him, and the governor in council saw fit to accept that recommendation and that person lost his citizenship. That is not possible any longer. Since the law was amended by the present government, that person would retain his citizenship although he had been convicted, had served a sentence, and then had gone out of the country with the apparent intention of severing his connection with it. In that case we could not now take his citizenship away from him.
It seems to me that since the present government saw fit to remove from the act the possibility of taking citizenship away from a person of that sort, it is very illogical indeed to retain in the act this other disability of removing citizenship from a person who has never been convicted of anything, against whom a charge has been laid but who does not see fit to come back and have the charge heard. It might be conceivable, in spite of the very best efforts which might be made to find him and acquaint him with the charge, that he might not be aware of the charge or the circumstances. I must say that it does seem a little odd that it should be argued by hon. gentlemen, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to argue-and when I asked him a question he told me I was trying to wriggle out of it, but it struck me that the wriggling was all being done not by me but by the hon. gentleman-in view of the fact that later this session hon. members will presumably be supporting a bill of rights which we are told in the speech from the throne is to be introduced by the leader of the government, that it would be wise to maintain disabilities against a person who has never been tried but remove disabilities

against someone who has been tried and convicted. It is rather an odd conception of equality of rights. I do think myself that there is a very strong argument for taking citizenship away from people like that. There is also a strong argument for equality. It is an argument that induced me to introduce this bill, and notwithstanding the strong arguments on the other side, left in my mind a balance in favour of making all Canadians legally equal. I must say I am unrepentant in the views that that is what we should do.
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), with approval from some other hon. members, did suggest that there was another way of doing it, and that was to impose disabilities upon natural born citizens and to strip them of their citizenship in certain circumstances.
I do not think that we would ever get this parliament to do that, and I do not think we would ever get parliament to do it for this reason. When we strip those people of their citizenship we would be making stateless persons out of them deliberately. In the case of some naturalized persons, what we are doing is simply restoring to them the citizenship which they had before, though in some cases we are not. Again I think that is another important consideration. The idea of making outlaws of individuals is to my mind very reprehensible and completely out of accord with the notions of jurisprudence which exist today in most of the civilized countries of the free world. It seems to me that this is another very strong argument for our bringing the law completely up to date in this regard. I must say that in all the circumstances I do feel that by one means or another we should try very hard in this parliament to reach agreement in regard to equality of citizenship.
Another point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was this. I do not want to take up a lot of time in reading over the previous debate, although if the hon. gentleman thinks I misrepresent anything he said, I would be only too glad to be corrected at once because, as I say, I am seeking to be completely fair and uncontroversial. The hon. member raised the question of fraud. It seems to me that a person who gets a citizenship certificate by fraud has not in fact become a citizen. I think we should deal with such cases judicially. The determination of the facts as to whether he got his certificate by fraud would be a matter, I think, not for any government but for the courts. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seemed to think that that would make the law more rigid than if some administrative discretion were allowed. I think this is a judicial matter.
No minister should have it in his power to decide whether someone else is guilty of fraud. That is what we have law courts for,

and if that is going to be done at all I am sure that is the way it should be done. Of course, it may be that the language of the drafting was not all it should be, but I think the hon. gentleman would find that using the word "court" meant whatever was the court of competent jurisdiction with whatever rights of appeal there would be. I would think that there should be all the rights of appeal that there would be in many other similar kinds of cases. I can see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was, I think, properly concerned about one problem, because there is a problem here. It is conceivable that someone might 20 years ago have obtained a certificate of citizenship or, as it used to be called 20 years ago, naturalization, not having complied with the law. That person, during all this long period would have been regarded as a Canadian citizen, and it would seem to me-and I thank the hon. gentleman for putting this idea in my head-that we would not want to frame the law in such a way that notwithstanding the fact that that man never really became a citizen he would have to start all over again and be landed as an immigrant, if that was necessary, and have to wait for another five years before he could become a citizen.
I do think the hon. member has found another gap which ought to be filled. It is a gap which, I imagine, exists as much in the existing law as in the one suggested. Some provision should be made in cases where either there was good faith in the beginning or good conduct in the country since that time-some process by which citizenship could be conferred with a very slight delay indeed.
Perhaps the court could be given the power to make that kind of favourable decision on application immediately after an adverse decision had been reached in the other case if it seemed desirable.
It seems to me those were the only points of substance which were raised. I looked over the debate the other day when I thought this matter was coming up but it did not come up because of our higher interest in divorce which I am sure is a matter of great interest in some parts of this country at the present time. I am not going to detain the house any longer but I am going to appeal to hon. members to bring this matter to a vote, because all it will do is to send this subject matter to a committee where we can perhaps have a preliminary canter over the subject. In view of the complexities which have been revealed during the debate I do not think we would probably reach a decision this session, but I think it might be 66968-9-222J
Canadian Citizenship Act useful to have one or two meetings to see what ground can be covered so that between now and next session the law officers can be working on this problem with a view to dealing with it at another session.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: I must say at the outset that unlike the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) I cannot see my way clear to supporting or accepting the amendment which is before the house at the present time. The hon. member has all but admitted, in the first instance, that his bill is bad in many respects, and there are other defects which, if I have time, I hope to point out in the course of my comments today.
Aside altogether from the initial unsoundness of the bill, I do not think that any amendment such as is now proposed shoud be considered by any committee other than a select committee. I agree that the time has come for a careful examination of this whole act, but I cannot support an amendment which would have the effect of sending this bill to the standing committee on external affairs.
The hon. gentleman, when he spoke a few days ago, was very prone to make confessions about things he had done while in office. I had hoped he would confess an error today and withdraw the bill and perhaps remedy some of the defects inherent in it before, if necessary, presenting another bill. This, to my mind, would have been the most workmanlike approach to the whole affair.
Apart from the bill itself, I should like to draw attention to a matter which did not receive too much consideration during the debate which took place in this house, namely the fact that at the present time we have two orders in council in effect under the War Measures Act which would nullify any work the committee might do with regard to the principle of the bill. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) brought this out during the discussion which took place on Thursday, February 5. I think this is very important because these orders in council are noteworthy and deserve to be brought to the attention, not only of the house but of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who, I imagine, has not even read them. One of them was brought into effect in November of 1942-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to make an observation? I did not join the government until 1953, and I had nothing to do with what was done by the government before that date. I had no responsibility whatever. I should also like to take this opportunity to ask the hon. member a question. I understand that the War Measures Act can only come into effect upon

Canadian Citizenship Act proclamation by the governor in council, and that a second proclamation was made after the end of the war, saying that it had ceased to be in effect. For the life of me I cannot believe that there are any orders in council which have the effect of law today and which were passed under the War Measures Act, unless they have been continued by some other statutory authority.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: made no personal reference to the hon. gentleman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: This order in council was passed by the Liberal government in 1942. I do not know whether it is in effect or not. I have not looked into it in detail. But it merits consideration. If we are going to go ahead with the committee work, I think we should look at this. There are two orders in council, one of which, dated November 26, 1942, stated:
Any person who is a British subject by reason of marriage, or by reason of birth or naturalization in Canada, or by reason of the birth or naturalization of his father in Canada, and who makes application for repatriation to any country which at the time of application is at war with Canada, shall, as from the date of his departure from Canada for repatriation, cease to be a British subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not in effect. It has not been in effect for more than 10 years.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: do not know whether it is or not. There was another order in council dated December 15, 1945, which states:
Any person who being a British subject by naturalization under the Naturalization Act, Chapter 138, R.S.C., 1927 is deported from Canada under the provisions of order in council P.C. 7355 of 15th December, 1945, shall, as and from the date upon which he leaves Canada in the course of such deportation, cease to be either a British subject or a Canadian national.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not in effect either.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Whether it is or not, this was brought to my attention when I learned that this matter would be debated, and I should like to have some more information with regard to it, if possible, before I can go ahead and discuss intelligently the principle of this bill in committee.
There are other defects in the bill which were not pointed out by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate during the daylong debate we had back in February. I think one more should be pointed out to him, and that concerns section 19(1). The

purpose of the bill is ostensibly to restrict revocation of citizenship to cases of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material circumstances and to provide that in such cases where citizenship is revoked it shall be deemed never to have been granted.
In so far as loss by revocation is concerned, this would effectively place naturalized citizens upon the same footing as natural-born citizens, since a person whose citizenship had been revoked could not be considered ever to have been a citizen. However, the amendment is worded in such a way that no procedure for the institution of revocation proceedings is left, because the proposed amendment deletes the present preamble to section 19(1), which reads:
19(1) The governor in council may, in his discretion, order that any person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if, upon a report from the minister, he is satisfied that such person-
And so on. I point this out in case the hon. member wishes to bring up this matter again or present another bill. This would be another ground for consideration with regard to the drafting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Has the hon. member not noticed that the new section-


An hon. Member:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this. Does the hon. member not think that since the courts would determine whether the certificate would be revoked the governor in council would not need appear in the matter and that it would be a matter for the courts?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: still think you would need a process whereby the proceedings would be instituted in the first place. You cannot have a simple declaration. You would have to have something to put it in effect whether it be done by the court or the governor in council. In all earnestness I suggest that this is a serious omission in the bill as drafted.
Another point which I believe is of importance is that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) took directly opposite stands with regard to what they want done and with regard to what they think this bill does. In the first instance I shall refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in this house last year as reported at page 4759 of Hansard of September 6, 1958, when he said:
No. What I am saying here is that he never was a citizen because he did not comply properly with the law that he is required to comply with to become a citizen. The only difference between what I am suggesting and what the hon. lady-

That is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I continue:
-is putting forward in her bill, now that she has taken out that highly objectionable section (c) which really would have instituted thought police in so far as these naturalized citizens were concerned, is that it will no longer be competent to revoke the citizenship of the person who has been charged with the offence of treason, is outside the country and does not come back to be tried.
That is the sort of thing that happens once in a great while. It is perhaps desirable to be able to do this. However, if we are going to take away all the other reasons, why leave this one? The main purpose of this whole exercise, as I take it-and I think the house is not divided on this point any longer-is to give complete equality, the psychological feeling of equality.
We turn now to the remarks made on the same issues by the hon. member for Cartier as reported at page 4760 where he said:
I should like to ask the minister a question. The minister speaks in terms of a naturalized citizen who has committed an offence, leaves the country and does not come back for trial and therefore should lose his citizenship. I agree with that. But assuming that a natural born citizen also commits the offence, also leaves the country and also does not come back to trial, why treat him differently from the way in which you treat a naturalized citizen? He has committed the same offence. He has left the country the same as has the naturalized citizen, and he does not come back for trial. They are both on an equal footing. They have done the same thing. Why differentiate as between the one and the other?
Throughout the debate on the 1958 amendments as presented by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the view appeared to be taken that the citizenship status possessed by a natural born citizen was inalienable and that a naturalized citizen should be placed as nearly as possible on the same footing as the natural born citizen. It is clear that the fact that the natural born citizen may lose his citizenship by the effect of the law under certain circumstances was not appreciated at that time.
During the course of debate on this question last February I attempted to detail the sections under which a person may lose his natural citizenship and I think the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have made reference appreciate that point now. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Cartier answered him fully in these words reported at page 4698 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) I know felt very strongly about this bill, but even he seemed to feel that instead of making concessions it was imposing additional discriminations. I am sure on reflection he will see that is not true, but the main part of his remarks seemed to me to be directed towards an argument in favour of imposing restrictions on natural born Canadians rather than removing them from those who are naturalized. I doubt very much that
Canadian Citizenship Act
that would go down too well with either natural born or naturalized Canadians.
During the debate last February I asked the hon. member for Cartier if he thought that the bill presented to the house accomplished what he wanted it to, and he replied that he thought so. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate gave his interpretation of what the bill does and it was an entirely opposite conclusion. I suggest to these hon. gentlemen that they should agree in their interpretation of what the bill accomplishes. This must be done before there can be agreement with regard to whether or not to send it to a committee.
I know that there are other hon. members who wish to speak on the bill. I have no reason to not want it to come to a vote because in the first instance I cannot see how a committee could treat this subject in the light of the bill we have before us. The bill is poorly drafted and is bad through and through.
We have the suggestion that the bill be sent to the committee on external affairs. I know it had to be done in that way at the time because notice would have had to be given with regard to a special or select committee. In all seriousness I say this procedure is not conducive to any serious study of the bill. It is obvious that if we are going to study this subject at all the whole question would have to be examined by a special or select committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Would he like to amend the motion of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) to send it to the special joint committee on Indian affairs?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I could never live with myself if I were to agree to sending this bill to a committee in the form in which it is presently drafted. The amendment is an absurdity and I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is only too well aware of that.
The minister stated in introducing her estimates that there would have to be a careful examination of the citizenship act. I do not think there will be time to do that this session but it should be done at the earliest possible opportunity and I hope it will be done next year. Each section of the act should be examined by a special or select committee which could make recommendations to the house with regard to changes in the act.
For the reasons I have outlined I am compelled to say I cannot support the proposed

Canadian Citizenship Act amendment with regard to sending this legislation to the standing committee on external affairs.


William Murray Smith: Mr. Speaker, I thought this amendment would give the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate an opportunity to unravel some of the statements he placed on the record when he presented this bill to the house but he has not taken the opportunity to do so. He has not satisfied my mind as to the need for this amendment, or the reasons why it is being introduced by him at this time after his term of office as minister of citizenship and immigration. While he occupied that position I do not think there were any major amendments made to the Canadian Citizenship Act, and I am sure that citizenship in those years was as important to Canadians as it is today.
I have been connected with the newly formed citizenship council in the province of Manitoba, and the discussions that they are having and the problems that they are encountering in getting their organization on its feet and in trying to promote better citizenship in this country. They certainly are not having any problems with people outside of Canada who have been charged with treason. This is a very small and insignificant matter when you consider the whole matter of citizenship in its entirety. There is no discrimination in Canada between natural born Canadians and naturalized Canadians. If there is any discrimination in our act at all it does not affect citizens who are in Canada; it affects Canadian citizens who are outside of Canada. In my estimation, that is a more important point. When we consider that a great many countries of this world allow dual citizenship-by that I mean citizens of those countries can come to Canada and obtain their Canadian citizenship and still retain citizenship in the country from which they came-this puts us into a difficult position, or it could put us into a difficult position in certain circumstances and in certain instances. For example, a person who has such dual citizenship could come to Canada and commit an offence which would prompt our law officials to lay a charge of treason, and then leave the country and refuse to return to stand trial. In such a situation we would have a citizen who could go all over his native land or into countries which are ideologically opposed to us and brag about being a Canadian citizen. I for one do not like to think of that happening. I do not know whether it would ever happen but I suggest that just because the incidence of occurrence may be very small that is no argument for removing something from the statute books.
[Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
I think we should have certain protections on our statute books to provide a deterrent or a punishment for situations that could arise in the future which might be embarrassing to us as far as our neighbours in the world community are concerned. I might even go so far as to agree with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) when he says that a natural-born Canadian citizen should also lose his citizenship under the same circumstances. I would be inclined to agree with him except for the fact that we should be creating a person with a stateless category. That is something that is repugnant to our way of thinking and it is something that I would certainly have to do a lot more thinking about before I would permit myself to advocate it.
In this country we have a certain amount of pro-communism and a great deal of anticommunism. I think the anti-communist element is more pronounced in those communities which are made up of new Canadians or naturalized Canadians. I do not hesitate to say that if any naturalized Canadian found himself within the confines of the section of the Canadian Citizenship Act that we are discussing today his fellow naturalized Canadians would not have too much sympathy for him; for these people have seen what happens in countries where persons sell their souls and their morals to a political philosophy that in effect means slavery and means imprisonment and lack of freedom. They have seen this happen first-hand. One of the main reasons why many of them came to this country was to get away from places where that could happen. I would think that possibly, instead of worrying ourselves today with how we are going to treat people who are charged with treason we should be worrying ourselves as to how we are going to, or whether or not it would be a good idea to get rid of certain people in our society who are trouble-makers and who are openly opposed to the democratic system as we know it.
I am not by any means advocating expulsion because one holds a communistic belief or a socialistic belief, but I would think we would be much better off discussing that point, or discussing how we can help new Canadians rather than discussing how or whether we should deal with people charged with treason in the manner in which this act stipulates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question? Do I understand from his argument that he is opposed to legal equality for all Canadian citizens?


William Murray Smith: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate gathered

that from my remarks, then I suggest he must have been reading his paper again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member explain what his remarks do mean?


William Murray Smith: There is no inequality in Canada. The inequality exists for those who have been charged with treason and who are outside of Canada. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is very quick to get on his feet now and to charge this government with discrimination when in fact his own government practised discrimination to an extent that had never before been experienced in this country, not only as far as immigrants were concerned but as far as natural born Canadian citizens were concerned and, to my mind, this bill which he has proposed to this house is nothing more than an attempt to get back into the good graces of some of the people of this country.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) knows full well that I do not engage in personalities. I value his sincerity, his honesty-


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: His
good looks.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: -his debating ability and his ability to make the headlines.


Robert Muir: That comes first.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I can visualize what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would like to see in the Liberal press all across the country-"Pickersgill Fights Against Dual Citizenship". If that is not the purpose of the bill then I do not know what is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thanks for the headline.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On February 5 last I think we threshed out the bill. Everybody expressed their opinion. It was generally agreed that the only people the bill purports to protect are those who have been charged with treason or with a breach of the Official Secrets Act and who fail to come back to our courts and justify themselves. By their very failure to answer the summons they convict themselves of being guilty.
But, Mr. Speaker, if the aim of the hon. gentleman is to make headlines that he is the only one who is fighting for equal citizenship for all, I believe I am expressing the opinion of every member of the house, including members of the opposition, that Canada is proud of her naturalized Canadians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.
Canadian Citizenship Act


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that one-third of Canada's population is either naturalized or descended from naturalized Canadians. These people came from all parts of the world and they have helped to pioneer and develop this land. They have contributed to every part of the economy of the country. They have fought on the battlefields of France, Holland and Belgium and their names, some of which are hard to pronounce, are on the crosses of Flander's fields.
I do not know whether hon. members realize that a Victoria Cross holder of Ukrainian origin works downstairs in this building. He holds the highest honour in the British Empire. I do not know how many of us are aware that today is the 14th anniversary of V.E. day. The west fought in that war for freedom and we won the war but how many people lost their freedom after V.E. day if for no other reason than because of Quislings and such people.
An honest, naturalized Canadian is not worried about this section being in the act. I cannot express myself any better than by quoting part of an article by Mr. Harold Weir which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of October 19, 1957. It reads as follows:
Naturalized persons who feel "Insecure" because their citizenship is subject to review by the government must derive their feeling of insecurity from a bad conscience. It doesn't make any more sense than the complaint of light-fingered gentry that their freedom is in jeopardy because, if they commit a robbery, they'll be thrown into jail.
The only naturalized citizens who run the slightest risk of losing their citizenship are those who obviously don't deserve citizenship in the first place.
They are very very few. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate expects to make the headlines because he has fought for equality of citizenship I can only say that he is fighting for probably one in a million. I do not know whether we have had one case since the last war and I do not think we will have one in the next 14 years. I continue:
Men and women who change their minds about Canada, men and women who get sour on Canada, men and women who have come into this country with bad intentions, these are the only ones likely to run afoul of cancellation clauses.
These are the only people who are liable to have their citizenship taken away from them. This country has accepted a large influx of immigrants. We are a country with wide-open spaces. We have room for many, many more people. I believe that this government or any other should have that one clause giving the right to revoke the citizenship of anyone who refuses to answer a charge of treason. Treason is a serious crime. It is punishable by death in some countries and

Business of the House
in the past it was punishable by death in all countries. All these people have to do is to come forward and answer the charge and their citizenship will not be revoked. If they answer the charge, if they face the music, as the saying goes, and undergo the penalty their citizenship is absolutely safe. When only an odd case may arise once in 50 years, is it worth wasting a day or an hour of the time of the house, all this under the smokescreen that there is at least one member of the house who is fighting for equality of citizenship for all? I can see him make the headlines, but all over one case in probably 50 years or maybe never.
I object to the bill. I do not want to be repetitious. I do not want to go into my objections to the bill. The same opinion I expressed before still stands. I would not be afraid to vote against the bill no matter what the Liberal press of Canada said. I am quite satisfied that is the opinion of most hon. members and I think we have wasted a lot of time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the leader of the house could confirm the business
for Monday and perhaps indicate a little more for the rest of the week.


Howard Charles Green: The business for Monday will be, first of all, second reading of the act to amend the Excise Act, then the act to amend the Old Age Security Act, then the one to amend the Customs Tariff and the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, all of which follow from the budget. Then we shall take second reading of the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments and then second reading of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will that be the business for the next two days after that?


Howard Charles Green: I would not like to say as to the next few days. I hope the hon. member will not take that long on these bills.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would just venture to suggest to the leader of the house that if we were given a little ampler menu it might be possible we would consume less in each course.


Howard Charles Green: I doubt that very much.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Are orders in council in effect at the present time authorizing cabinet committees, ad hoc cabinet committees, committees of council, and interdepartmental committees?
2.	If so, what are the numbers and dates and contents of the particular orders in council?
3.	Who are the members of these committees?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1.	Cabinet committees have no legal powers and are set up from time to time by the cabinet without any orders in council.
There are two committees of the privy council, both authorized and given certain powers by statute. These are the treasury board, established by the Financial Administration Act, and the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research, established by the Research Council Act. In addition, there is a statutory committee of which certain ministers of the crown are members, together with the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is the committee of internal economy, provided for in the House of Commons Act.
In the past, interdepartmental committees were set up from time to time by order in council but the present practice is for them to be established by the cabinet, by the treasury board or by the minister or ministers most directly concerned. There is still one active interdepartmental committee, the establishment and terms of reference of which were authorized by order in council. This is the standing committee on public records, of which a minister is chairman.
2.	Present members and alternates of the treasury board were appointed by orders in council P.C. 1957-889, of June 21, P.C. 19571188 of August 29, and P.C. 1958-1326 of September 22. Present members of the scientific and industrial research committee were appointed by order in council P.C. 1958-1482 of October 23. Present members of the internal economy committee were appointed by order in council P.C. 1958-1715 of December 17. The committee on public records was set up by order in council P.C. 6175 of September 20, 1945, and its composition is set out therein, subject to the changes that have taken place in ministerial responsibility. Copies of the above orders are attached.
3.	Answered by (2) above.
8, 1959	3503
Questions P.C. 1957-889


AT THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE AT OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Friday, the 21st day of June, 1957.
Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, is pleased hereby to nominate the following members of the queen's privy council for Canada who, with the Minister of Finance, shall constitute the treasury board:
The Honourable George Hees,
The Honourable Leon Balcer,
The Honourable George Clyde Nowlan, The Honourable Michael Starr,
The Honourable James MacKerras Mac-donnell.
The presence of three members of the treasury board shall constitute a quorum thereof.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill,
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, the 29th day of August, 1957.
Present:
His Excellency
The Administrator in Council:
His excellency the administrator in council,, on the recommendation of the Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Financial Administration Act, is pleased hereby to nominate the following members of the queen's privy council for Canada to be alternates to serve in the place of members of the treasury board:
The Honourable Ellen Louks Fairclough, The Honourable William J. Browne,
The Honourable Jay Waldo Monteith,
The Honourable Francis Alvin George Hamilton.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill,
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.
3504	HOUSE OF
Questions P.C. 1958-1326

[Stage Direction]
Monday, the 22nd day of September, 1958. Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Financial Administration Act, is pleased hereby to nominate the following members of the queen's privy council for Canada to be alternates to serve in the place of members of the treasury board:
The Honourables: H. C. Green, A. J. Brooks, G. R. Pearkes, G. M. Churchill, E. D. Fulton, D. S. Harkness, J. A. MacLean, P. Comtois, W. M. Hamilton, S. E. Smith, R. J. M. O'Hurley, H. Courtemanche.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill,
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council.

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, the 23rd day of October, 1958 Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to section 4 of the Research Council Act, is pleased hereby to amend order in Council P.C. 1127 of 27th March, 1947, as amended, which in part reconstituted the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research, and the said order in council is hereby further amended by deleting therefrom section 2 and substituting therefor the following:
2. The committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research shall consist of the following members:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who shall be chairman,
The Minister of Agriculture,
The Minister of Finance,
The Minister of Fisheries,
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys,
The Minister of National Defence,
[Stage Direction]
The Minister of National Health and Welfare,
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources,
The Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, the 17th day of December, 1958 Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
His excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister, pursuant to section 16 of the House of Commons Act, is pleased hereby to appoint:
The Honourable Donald Methuen Fleming, Minister of Finance,
The Honourable Leon Balcer, Solicitor General,
The Honourable George Clyde Nowlan, Minister of National Revenue, and
The Honourable Ellen Louks Fairclough, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to act, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, as commissioners for the purposes of sections 16, 17 and 18 of the said act.
Certified to be a true copy.
A. M. Hill
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
Order in council establishing the committee on public records

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, the 20th day of SEPTEMBER, 1945.
PRESENT:

[Stage Direction]
THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL:
WHEREAS the secretary of state reports that, at the request of the Prime Minister he has convened an informal advisory committee on public records to give consideration to methods for providing adequate conservation of the public records, with particular

reference to those records relating to the wartime activities of the government; and
That, following investigation of the state of the public records, a report has been prepared and considered by the committee and certain recommendations resulting therefrom approved;
Now, therefore, his excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, is pleased to order and doth hereby order as follows:-
1.	There shall be a committee on public records under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State and consisting of the following officials:-
A representative to be named by the Secretary of State (public archives).
Two representatives to be named by the Minister of National Defence (army and naval services).
A representative to be named by the Minister of National Defence-Air.
A representative to be named by the Minister of Public Works.
A representative to be named by the Minister of Finance.
A representative to be named by the minister of munitions and supply and the minister of reconstruction.
A representative to be named by the Minister of Labour.
A representative to be named by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
A secretary shall be provided from the privy council office.
2.	The Canadian Historical Association shall be asked to recommend two professional historians to act in an advisory capacity to the committee to serve at no salary but with expenses to be provided by the government.
3.	The duties of the committee shall be to keep under constant review the state of the public records and to consider, advise and concert with departments and agencies of government on the organization, care, housing, and destruction of public records.
4.	The committee shall, as part of their duties, examine and report on the following:
(a)	The preparation by departments and agencies of government of suitable accounts of their wartime activities and,
(b)	The implementing of the approved recommendations of the royal commission on public records of 1914 regarding establishment of a public records office, with particular reference to the integration of the
Questions
public archives therein, and the type of organization which would facilitate the best use of the public records.
5.	When questions specifically affecting the records of a department are being dealt with, a representative from that department shall be present at the meeting.
6.	The primary responsibility for the care and maintenance of records and for seeing that the policies of government in respect to disposition of public records be carried out so as to ensure that material of permanent value be not unwittingly destroyed will rest with departments and agencies of government concerned.
7.	Each department shall assign responsibility for superintendence of its records to one or more senior officers, preferably the departmental secretary if such a position exists, or an official of similar rank. The duties of these officers will be to review periodically the state of the departmental records and to reclassify them with a view to disposal or transfer of those of permanent value but not currently required to the public archives (or public records office, if established) or to other dominion or provincial departments, or by some form of destruction under existing regulations. These officers will also maintain liaison with agencies responsible to the minister. Recommendations respecting contemplated disposal along the above lines shall be submitted, in all cases, for formal approval of the committee on public records.
A. D. P. Heeney,
Clerk of the Privy Council

Mr. Bourgel: Questions


DRAGGER TYPE VESSELS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES   FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What Is the total amount, up to March 31, 1959, paid in each of the Atlantic provinces under the assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger or long liner type?
2.	What is the amount paid during the same period in Gloucester county, New Brunswick?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of
Fisheries):
1.	New Brunswick	 $447,051.05
Nova Scotia	 882,580.20
Prince Edward Island	 109,824.00
Quebec	 162,021.75
Newfoundland	 166,701.15
2.	$378,092.10.

Monday, May 11, 1959