1960-07-30

[Stage Direction]
First report of special committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms-Mr. Spencer.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house has already been informed that the government has been giving consideration, in consultation with the secretary general, to the United Nations inquiry as to whether Canada would be in a position to provide signals personnel and equipment as part or in support of the United Nations force in performing their important role in the Congo. These consultations were necessary in order to ascertain in detail the requirements of the force commander and to relate them to facilities and personnel available in Canada.
I am now in a position to say that the government has decided to provide, subject to parliamentary approval of a resolution which will be placed on the order paper today, certain military forces, including equipment, for the following signals units: a signals detachment at United Nations headquarters in Leopoldville which will include a signals office, a message centre, 100-line switchboard and linemen and dispatch riders; five ground to air communication links; twelve mobile wireless detachments; eight cipher detachments, and a small headquarters for the command and administration of Canadian troops in the Congo. Preparatory action has been taken to provide for the formation of such new units within the services as may be required, the selection and immunization of soldiers, the concentration of troops and their equipment, and the movement of them by the most expeditious means, again subject to parliamentary approval of a resolution to that effect.
Since additional information is required on the tasks which the Canadian contingent will be asked to perform and on the conditions under which these tasks will be carried out, a reconnaissance party of six officers is being
dispatched to the Congo immediately. It is due to leave Montreal this evening and to arrive in Leopoldville on August 1. In the meantime, awaiting parliamentary consideration, the members of the Canadian signals contingent are being selected and immunized against tropical diseases. Then immediate concentration within Canada will be provided for, and as I said a moment ago those chosen will be sent as soon as they are ready and transport becomes available.
The resolution in question will be placed on the order paper, as I say, and it will ask approval for participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo. I think that is a step in keeping with traditional practice, and it is particularly important at this time that there be full recognition and acceptance by parliament of this step in the preparation and maintenance of a United Nations force. No more important or significant step has been taken in recent years than the one now being taken by the United Nations in the Congo, and the cooperation of those nations which it is believed are the most appropriate to make a contribution renders desirable full co-operation and anticipation of parliamentary approval.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may be assured that in observing the traditions established in this house, certainly since the end of the first world war, that a project of this kind should be preceded by a resolution, he will find that such a resolution will be given strong support by the membership of this house. We recognize that in the turbulent days in which we live, the best way of maintaining order is by giving to the collective strength of the nations of the world, through the United Nations, the opportunity of making a contribution in the preservation of that order.
The Prime Minister has not indicated if Canada has been asked to supply more than the kind of forces he has outlined. To the extent, therefore, that we have been asked for these particular signals forces there will be general accord. The secretary general of the United Nations has stated that he envisages that this particular project of the United Nations in the Congo will not be of short duration, and that it may last for a period of as long as five years. In that event, it is to be anticipated that Canada will be asked

Inquiries of the Ministry to contribute more than specialized military forces, referred to in the statement of the Prime Minister.
I agree fully with what the Prime Minister has said, that this effort of the United Nations in which Canada will share to this limited extent at this time, represents the growing strength of the United Nations as an instrument for the preservation of peace. We have the precedent of the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East, an organism with which Canada has had so much to do. That precedent, backed up by the United Nations observation group in Lebanon and the presence of the United Nations in Jordan, is a precedent which has made possible the intervention of the United Nations in the Congo. Whether the United Nations military forces now in the Congo are para-military only, in the sense that the United Nations force in the Middle East is, or whether it is to be given greater power, is not yet clear. In any event, the Prime Minister may be assured that when this resolution comes before the house, it will receive the responsible consideration which its great objectives deserve.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: The
members of this group endorse most heartily the announcement made by the Prime Minister concerning this contribution to the maintenance of peace in a troubled portion of the world. As a matter of fact we are delighted with this step being taken by the government, perhaps as a first step toward an even greater effort on the part of Canada in this direction.
We believe that Canada can best play an active role in the maintenance of peace by being ready on all occasions to supply to the limit of her capacity forces required by the United Nations in causes such as this.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a sentence contained in the report of the defence committee which has just been made available to hon. members, to the effect that the Minister of National Defence expressed the opinion that arrangements now being negotiated, presumably with the United States, would make nuclear warheads available if and when required. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he could tell us what progress is being made in these negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: I have nothing to add to what has already been said. I believe the defence


estimates will shortly be before the committee of the whole house for consideration, at which time any inquiries can be made pertinent to this question. In the meantime, to make answers that are added upon answers cannot be of assistance.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising from his earlier announcement. Would the Prime Minister state whether in conversation with Prime Minister Lumumba today he will inform him that Canada is prepared to make either an English speaking or a French speaking battalion available for service in the Congo provided the request is received through the United Nations?


John George Diefenbaker: This is a question very similar to the one which, I note from Hansard, was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Assiniboia. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in his reply, any troops that are sent by Canada to the Congo will be under the authority of the United Nations, and there has been no suggestion by the United Nations that Canada should provide infantry units.



REPORTED NEED FOR MEDICAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is reported in the press that the prime minister of the Congo will be requesting medical personnel and equipment from Canada. Can the Prime Minister make some statement on this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege yet of talking to Prime Minister Lumumba, but it is apparent from press reports that the field of his requests is not too greatly limited. I think the opportunity will come to the hon. gentleman to secure the fullest information in connection with this matter when the resolution is before the house next week respecting the United Nations force. I trust that at that time he will place his views before the house and obtain whatever information is then available.



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the
Prime Minister say whether or not Canada has yet received a reply from Mr. Padillo Nervo, the chairman of the disarmament commission, regarding Canada's request for a meeting of the disarmament commission prior to the meeting of the general assembly of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that question may await the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will be here on Monday.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE BY DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the house whether his department will be able to help fight the forest fires now raging in British Columbia.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday I received a request from the attorney general of the province of British Columbia for assistance in connection with various fires which are now raging so freely in British Columbia. I at once acceded to his request. Helicopters and aircraft have been dispatched from Vancouver, and other search and rescue aircraft are standing by for use if required. According to reports of the action which was taken yesterday, a number of fire fighters were rescued in the Kamloops area before the fires closed in on them. All holiday personnel have also been rescued from the lake area, Lac le Jeune, just south of Kamloops.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to supply infantry or ground troops if requested, where manpower is short in fighting some of these large fires in the Kootenays?


George Randolph Pearkes: As the hon. member knows, such requests must come through the attorney general of the province. No such request for ground personnel has yet been received.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster
Inquiries of the Ministry General. In view of the fact that the Postmaster General seems to be unable to give adequate protection to mail carried by truck, is the hon. gentleman considering the advisability of getting out of the trucking business?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, every time we have a mail theft the hon. member for St. Denis returns to this house to ask a similar question. I am glad to welcome the hon. gentleman back after his long absence. To suggest that we are not able to give adequate protection to mail carried by trucks is, of course, to suggest something that is not true. The hon. gentleman might be aware of the fact, for example, that in the Montreal area alone this week there have been six bank robberies and holdups, and 17 such occurrences there since the beginning of June.
The only way of carrying the mail in large parts of Canada is by truck. We are doing that effectively and efficiently, giving it adequate protection. We are carrying it in a degree of safety which compares very well with the degree of safety that exists in relation to banks and other institutions in terms of robberies. We are going to continue carrying the mail by truck, extending it every reasonable protection.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister spoke of my absence from the House of Commons. The fact that robberies occur the minute after I return to this house indicates that I am not responsible for that kind of robbery.


Mr. Fulion:: What kind are you responsible for?


Mr. Hees:: Bank robberies?


Azellus Denis: I am wondering if the Postmaster General is working for the police. If he is I suggest that he look after the robberies in his own department instead of worrying about others.



INQUIRY AS TO DELIVERY OF CATTLE BY MAIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to a newspaper report, in England Jersey cows are being delivered by registered mail. Is the minister equipped to give Canada the same kind of service?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, neither Jersey cows nor the kind of bull in which the hon. member indulges are properly the concern of the Canadian Post Office Department.

Inquiries of the Ministry COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS



INQUIRY AS TO BOYCOTT OF SOUTH AFRICAN GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in the light of a news announcement carried on the C.B.C. last night, whether the government is giving consideration to following the example of another commonwealth nation, namely Ghana, by ordering a boycott on all South African goods so as to express our disapproval of apartheid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is certainly launching into a new field in a question of that kind. I had not heard of it being the responsibility of any of the ministers to order boycotts.



BAIE COMEAU, QUE.-EFFECT OF OPENING OF NEW ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Following the recent opening of the 12 million bushel grain elevator at Baie Comeau, Quebec, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, can the minister outline what effect this new elevator capacity will have on the handling of this year's grain movement?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This is a very important development indeed, and I think congratulations are due to the Cargill Grain Company Limited of Winnipeg for their enterprise in having this elevator erected and in operation so early. It is only about a year and a half since they started their building operations. The fact is that this elevator will provide extra storage for Canadian grain and will add at least 7 million bushels of storage capacity. During the course of next winter we shall see what effect it has on the shipment of Canadian grain. It is expected that they will be able to ship the year around, and this will be of advantage.
It is important to note that United States grain may use this particular elevator, as has been the custom with other elevators on the eastern seaboard and in the St. Lawrence region. The arrangements made by the board of grain commissioners with the Cargill company are to the effect that 60 per cent of the storage capacity of this elevator shall be available for Canadian grain.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: In order to assist the committee of supply in considering the unemployment problem, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce table the "-Canadian Economic Outlook for 1960"?


Mr. Speaker:: If I am not mistaken, an order of the house was made with regard to this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was an order with respect to the volume for 1959, sir. Is the minister going to give an answer?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate is asking for the tabling of a confidential report, and last evening the hon. member for Essex East said that this was contrary to the usages of parliament. I think perhaps we shall not do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister recall an exalted precedent?



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES CONGO    INQUIRY AS TO PROVISION OF UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Prime Minister. In view of the C.B.C. report of yesterday evening to the effect that Prime Minister Lumumba has already received offers from foreign countries to make 300 university scholarships available to Congolese students starting this September, and in view of the fact that Canada is ideally situated to help in this matter because of its four French-speaking universities, will the Prime Minister state how many university scholarships Canada will make available to French speaking Congolese students this fall?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
gentleman will agree that the question is somewhat premature. Any requests of this nature that might be put forward have to be related to Canada's other commitments under the various scholarship schemes now in effect. As the house knows, we have embarked upon a wide scholarship scheme, particularly since the commonwealth trade and economic conference of 1958. Having regard to the position in which the universities find themselves, this is a matter that will have

to be given the most complete consideration by the universities, and also on the basis of our other commitments.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he would consult with his colleagues in order to expedite the planning and construction this winter of the much needed dominion public building in the Mount Pleasant area of Vancouver.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: realize the necessity for this accommodation in Vancouver, and I wish to assure the hon. member that this project will get my fullest support.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have one more question for the Prime Minister, and then I shall subside. This matter was just brought to my attention this morning. Has the Prime Minister received a reply to his letter of June 30 to Mr. Khrushchev? If so, would he consider requesting the consent of the house to having it published as an appendix to Hansard? The suggestion was made to me that it would be informative to the Canadian people who are interested in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: The original letter and reply were tabled, and I think it would be simply cluttering up Hansard to add from week to week further letters from Mr. Khrushchev which are merely a continuation of his alibi for having assured the discontinuance of the disarmament conference. In any event, I think the U.S.S.R. embassy has made available to a great many Canadians that reply, the last in a series of alibis.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
165. Economics and research branch including research grants and related expenses, $688,895.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was in the midst of making some observations at the time the committee rose at eleven o'clock last night. I think I could complete them 79951-0-459
Supply-Labour
very briefly. Perhaps, however, in order to preserve the continuity it might be worth while to recall to the minds of hon. members precisely what it was that was being discussed at that time.
What was being discussed was the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether the Minister of Labour was prepared to give to this committee a comprehensive appreciation of the prospects for employment over the next few months and the coming winter. In the course of that discussion the minister told my hon. friend from Essex East that he considered it was too early to make any such forecast. I believe that was the position taken by the minister, that at the beginning of August it was too early to make any forecast as to what the employment situation is likely to be. We realize that forecasts are only forecasts, but what is the position likely to be in the coming winter?
I stated, and I want to repeat it, sir, that I believe such a forecast already exists, unless the minister or the Prime Minister or someone on their behalf has told this branch of the minister's department not to make it. We know from past experience when we were in office that forecasts of this character were made, and were certainly made this early in the year. We know also that the government is very anxious to keep secret now what the Prime Minister was not so anxious to keep secret when he could get a cheap political advantage out of it two years ago. We know from the refusal of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this morning that the forecast made in his department is not available to the house or to the Canadian people, though there can be no doubt it exists unless that one, too, has been cut out by this government because it is afraid to have such forecasts made.
The plain fact is that this government has done everything in its power, throughout the whole of the year 1960, to stop any flow of information to the Canadian people about economic and employment prospects for the coming year, except the optimistic statements made by the Minister of Labour last February and those made by the Prime Minister in March on television, which apparently were backed up by nothing beyond their reading of the stars. At least we have not been told what they were backed up by.
Then the minister, in order to reinforce his position, to reinforce this new constitutional position, this new respect for parliament, this new consideration for the rights of people, said last night when he was being pressed:
Mr. Chairman, I am a member of a government that was elected with an overwhelming majority

Supply-Labour
by the people of this country and I will perform my duties to the best of my ability.
In other words, this minister apparently does not consider it necessary to have any advice. He has the backing, or he said he had two years ago, of the overwhelming majority of the Canadian people, so he can do what he pleases without consulting anyone, without telling the House of Commons what he is proposing to do, without taking the people into his confidence. In other words, "We have a majority, so whatever we like to do we do not need to bother explaining to you". This is the new doctrine of the Conservative party. It is not really a new doctrine, because it sounds very much like-


An hon. Member:: An old Liberal one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the hon. gentleman go a little farther back into history. This is exactly the same attitude that was taken by Mr. Bennett when he was prime minister between 1930 and 1935. It is a typical Tory attitude. I challenge any hon. member to show, in the whole of the period when Hon. Milton Gregg was minister of labour in this country, that he ever took any such attitude or ever refused to give parliament any information that was available in his department.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the hon. member say I was wrong if I told him I have a strong recollection of Mr. St. Laurent taking exactly that position on a certain occasion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
position taken by this government with regard to the economic survey.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Greenwood asked me a question which I think was really a declaration, but I take no exception whatever to his declaration. His recollection was that he remembered some occasion when Mr. St. Laurent had taken a similar position. I do not happen to recall it, but I should not like to quarrel with the hon. gentleman. However, I should like to see the particulars. There are, of course, many communications that come to the Department of External Affairs and to the other departments of government which every government might properly keep confidential. But surely the estimate of the prospects of employment does not fall into this category; or if it does, what are they afraid of? If it does, what is it that concerns them?
This is something that it is hard indeed for me to answer. I admit that a forecast made by a civil servant for the guidance of ministers, such as the "Economic Outlook for 1957" which was tabled in this house by the Prime Minister on January 20, 1958 or a document of that sort should not be made

public. I make that admission at once. What was that document for? That document was not for any other purpose than to assist ministers in working out policies; and to ensure that ministers would get the utmost frankness in the advice that was given to them and to protect the validity of the forecasts themselves it is necessary to protect the anonymous public servants who prepared such forecasts. It seems to me that is a reasonable position to take, particularly in the whole economic realm where such forecasts could easily have the effect, if they were published prematurely, of influencing the economic climate in a way that might be adverse to the national interest.
If the Minister of Labour is irguing that to give a forecast of employment for next winter is going to influence the level of employment next winter, I wish he would make that argument. If he wants to make that argument I am sure that we would listen to it with great interest and would consider carefully what there was in it. As for myself, at first blush I do not see how it could have any such effect. However, if the minister feels that it is in the national interest to conceal any official forecast of this kind or to hide it, in the light of the speech made by the Prime Minister on January 20, 1958-* which speech presumably set the tone for the present government-I think the minister would need to do a great deal of explaining in order to clarify that situation.
But if he has no such explanation, and if the only reason he is hiding this forecast is that it is a gloomy report, as I suspect is unhappily the case, may I say this. If the only reason he is hiding it is that he knows this government has no policy, has no measures by means of which to cope with this situation, then I say he is derelict in his duty to the Canadian people and is not showing for parliament the regard that this government promised the people of Canada it would have when it obtained its mandate two years ago.


The Chairman:: Shall item 165 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister going to say anything in reply to what my hon. friend has just said?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the same questions were asked yesterday. I have nothing further to add to what I said yesterday in respect of these matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a strangely negative attitude for a minister to take to our efforts to get information as to what the employment situation or the unemployment situation is likely to be in the coming winter and what the government is planning to do about it. We are now approaching August.

The winter period will be on us before long. We have been told that there are 43 economists in this branch of the Department of Labour whose job presumably-and I am sure they are highly qualified-is to give the minister advice on the economic outlook and particularly on the employment outlook. Yet the minister tells us that notwithstanding these 43 economists and the advice which they no doubt are giving him and the work in which they are no doubt engaged, it is too early to make any forecast, based on that advice, as to what the situation is likely to be in the autumn and winter. Surely that is a terrible reflection on the lack of planning in the government at the present time in respect of this vital problem of employment.
We were told last night that there is a cabinet committee under the chairmanship of the Associate Minister of National Defence working on this problem. Surely they must have before them some information on which they can make their reports, some information perhaps produced for them by, among other sources, these 43 economists that we are now talking about. What kind of situation is this cabinet committee planning to meet this winter? What kind of situation are the minister and his department planning to meet? All the minister told us last night was that it was going to be extremely difficult to figure out what kind of situation he will be obliged to meet. We are in August or are about to be in August, and all we learn about the situation that may confront us this winter is that it is going to be extremely difficult to find out what that situation is going to be.
That is a shocking basis, Mr. Chairman, for any kind of planning to meet the situation. With great respect I suggest to the minister that he owes it to this committee to tell us more than he has told us. As a matter of fact he has told us nothing.


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 165 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister intend to reply to what the Leader of the Opposition has asked?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member had been listening he would know that I did reply to the Leader of the Opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With due respect, may I say that I do not think the reply of the minister deserves the designation of a reply. He did not address himself at all to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly he did not touch on what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate insisted should be revealed to this committee.
79951-0-459i
Supply-Labour
If the minister does not wish to tell us about the assessment made by his own officials in this division, may I ask whether he will tell us what is the assessment of other departments of government with regard to the prospects for employment in the next ensuing period.
I asked the Minister of Labour a question. Does he propose to sit there and not reply? In that event, does he expect us to pass this item?


An hon. Member:: Who are you?


Mr. Cardiff:: I am getting sick of this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the people of Canada are sick of the inactivity of this government.


Michael Starr: I said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that confidential reports can only be confidential if they are kept in that category,


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said yesterday, and I intend to repeat it, that this is not the basis on which this government obtained a mandate from the people. This is not the basis on which they advertised. Everybody in this house who was here remembers what happened, and those who do not remember know about what happened. I refer to the disgraceful public performance of the Prime Minister on January 20, 1958; the shocking performance of the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: It shocked you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly did shock me, because I did not believe that any man who carried on a performance of that kind would ever get support for it from anybody.


An hon. Member:: A comedian.


Mr. Valade:: You are a good comedian yourself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By saying "yourself"
does the hon. gentleman suggest that he means the Prime Minister is a good comedian?


Georges-J. Valade: I meant the hon. member for Essex East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman had better be less ambiguous next time if his remark is not to be taken as applying to his leader.


Georges-J. Valade: Everybody knew what that was about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member says that everybody knew what that was about. I will tell you what it was about. That document was a forecast of the economic climate for the year 1957, made in the month of March, 1957. That is what it was. It was made in March, and from March until the following

Supply-Labour
January is ten months. I ask you to follow this argument, Mr. Chairman. Ten months later the Prime Minister came along with that forecast and said the Liberals knew what was going to happen and they hid it from the people. Here we are at the beginning of August, and it will be only six months until February 1. It will be only ten months until next summer. Yet the Minister of Labour, the follower of a leader who says that the Liberals knew ten months previously what was going to happen in the winter of 1957-58, says he does not know now what will happen. He has not anyone who can tell him. This government does not know. It is too early to make any forecast. Whom do you believe? Do you believe the Prime Minister in that performance he put on in January of 1958, or do you believe the Minister of Labour today?
I also ask, when did this doctrine of confidentiality which the minister is relying on so much become a principle of this government? The Prime Minister saw fit, for political purposes, for partisan purposes-I would go further; in an attempt to mislead the people of this country-to use a document which belonged to the previous government and which he had no constitutional right to make public at all. It was a performance which I do not think would have happened in any other British parliament anywhere in the world, and I did not expect it to happen here.


Mr. Martineau:: On a point of order, I do not think this comes under the purview of the labour estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order
raised by the hon. member, I am seeking to show that the government is now, with respect to the very subject of unemployment, refusing to do what the Prime Minister did on January 20, 1958.


Mr. Aiken:: Will the hon. member permit a question; I think he wants to be fair. Is it not a fact that what the Prime Minister complained about in 1958 was not that the reports which had been given to the government were not revealed, but that in addition the former government gave the people the opposite impression of what the reports actually were?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not remember whether the hon. member was here but that does not happen to be true. We were said to have hidden it. Do you not remember?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the main point made by the Prime Minister; "they hid it". It was the hiding that the Prime Minister made the biggest fuss about, and the Prime Minister said it took him six months to find

it. That, of course, is a statement about which I think the less I say the better, because anything I did say would be unparliamentary. But I do say that a prime minister who took six months after he came into office to find a document which was in the files of every department of government did not know very much about the job he had undertaken. I also say that a prime minister who was so incompetent and so unobservant that after six months he could not see for himself what were the facts, but had to rely on a document prepared in the previous March to find out what the facts were in December and January is not fit to be Prime Minister of this country.
The plain fact is that the Prime Minister told the federal-provincial conference in November 1957 and the Minister of Labour told a meeting in Montreal in December 1957 that the unemployment problem was not serious.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We were over the hill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. Then when they had to face the facts in January this shocking performance was trumped up in this house. Now we are having another shocking performance. We are having a minister of the crown saying, "We have such a huge majority that we do not have to account to the representatives of the people in parliament". If that is the kind of government it is, I suppose we are in a minority and there is no way that we can force them to give the facts to the people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the situation about the early hidden report is so well known it hardly needs to be repeated. The Prime Minister took the confidential report, tore off the page marked "confidential", selected certain passages from it for partisan purposes, and that was that. We are asking the minister if he will give us some information which bears on the unemployment situation from those reports which have been made to him. We are not asking the minister to bring in the reports if they are confidential, or to quote from them; we are asking him to give the committee some information which will help us to establish the seriousness of this problem which must have been brought to his attention by some of these economists who are making reports to the government.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did I understand him to charge the Prime Minister with tearing off the cover of a confidential report and then use it as otherwise?

Supply-Labour


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is exactly what I said, has he examined the reports of the Bank and it has been stated more than once in this of Canada and the reports supplied to the house.	Minister of Trade and Commerce, which


Donald MacInnis: It was never stated in this clearly indicate that forecasts are made for house while the Prime Minister was here.	departments of the government; and
what is the minister s estimate and judg-Mr. Pickersgill: Yes, over and over again, ment of those assessments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just read the record and you will find out what happened. If the minister is unwilling to say anything at all about that, I wonder if he would care to comment on a report, which is not official but which is authoritative and which he must have read, entitled "Labour research, January-April 1960", published by the research department of the Canadian Labour Congress, which gives a very worrying view of our economy in terms of employment and which supports that view by statistics from official sources. I have studied this report, and I am sure the minister has studied it, and I wonder if he would care to state whether he feels that the prognostications made in this report as to the kind of situation we are likely to face this winter are reasonable, and whether this particular report might serve as the basis for the kind of planning required to meet this situation.


Michael Starr: I read that report some weeks ago. I am unable to state every particular contained in the report at the moment, but I have found this; that if you have five reports from five economists about what may happen in the future or the very near future, in most cases you will find you have three, four or five different viewpoints.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister whether, since the discussion last night, he has had an opportunity, or has taken the opportunity, to discuss with the director of this economic research division or any of its personnel the questions put to him by hon. members last night. The minister has finally acknowledged that there was a confidential report made to him; and now having ascertained that fact may we ask, will the minister tell us whether or not, as a result of efforts made between eleven o'clock last night and eleven o'clock this morning, he has been able to get information which this committee requires, before we can properly pass this particular estimate?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I said that any forecasts for the coming winter months could not be made until some time toward the end of August. This is true, and no report has been given me because of that circumstance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the minister has been given no report by his officials on this matter, something which is hard to credit.


Michael Starr: I endeavour to read all the reports which are available in order to assess in my own mind what the situation may be, but based on the experience in the past two winters, and based on the present situation it is evident that this government views the situation as serious, because of the measures that are being taken and other measures that are to be taken to deal with it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the reports from the minister's own economic division on the situation which may confront us this winter in terms of unemployment are not available until the end of August, then on the basis of what information is the cabinet committee on unemployment, headed by the Associate Minister of National Defence, operating? Where does that committee get its basis of information?


Michael Starr: Hon. members of the opposition have given us the basis of the information. They say there are reports available, a Bank of Canada report and other reports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just before the Leader of the Opposition spoke the minister made an admission that we have been asking him to make for some hours. He said-and he will correct me if I interpret him wrongly -that the government, after examining the reports which have been made, regards the situation in the immediate future as serious.


Michael Starr: Based on past experience we say that unemployment is a serious situation, and as long as unemployment exists it is always a serious situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not talking about what is in existence. We are talking about what the situation is likely to be in the immediate future. I understood the minister to say that the government regards the situation in the ensuing period as serious. If that is a correct statement, and I understood the minister to say that, I regard it as an advance on the position the minister has taken thus far in this debate.


Michael Starr: I can correct that right away. I said that based on our experience in the past two or three winters and on the present situation as it exists at the moment, this government regards unemployment as a serious situation and has taken the lead in a number of projects, and others will be undertaken in the future.

Supply-Labour


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite. As I say, that statement, confirmed by the minister, advances us considerably.
The minister said in reply to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition that he would not have any estimate until the end of August. I ask him the following question. Is it not a fact that his predecessor was supplied with a report for the summer period? Is it not a fact that his predecessor was supplied with a report prepared in the month of May, forecasting the employment situation in the summer period? If that is a fact, and I assert it to be a fact, has the minister discontinued that practice? If he has not discontinued the making of such a quarterly report, will he then explain to the committee how it is he cannot give us any estimate on the situation during the summer until the summer is over, namely, as he said, until the end of August?


Michael Starr: No practice has been discontinued, as I said yesterday in the debate. I must remind the hon. member that these reports are confidential.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister keeps saying that they are confidential, and he would not make a confidential report available. But as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed out, this government did not regard confidential documents as being confidential and as not capable of being produced in this chamber. That is the position.


Mr. Creaghan:: After they are outdated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says "After they are outdated". All he and his friends have to do is read the remarks made by the Prime Minister in 1958 and note what he had to say about a confidential document which he used to his advantage at that time but which, since that time, this government has refused to give to the house.
We are not asking for confidential documents to be produced. We are saying that this government has created a precedent for itself, and it would not be difficult on this account for the government to make such documents available. But since the government takes the position it does, we are asking that the Minister of Labour, at a time when we are discussing if we should pass these estimates, should simply tell us in general terms what recommendations and what assessments are made by the officials with regard to the future so that we in this parliament may determine if the provisions the government has in mind are adequate. We are not asking for something which is unreasonable. This persistent refusal on the part of the Minister of Labour to give us this information can only result in one conclusion, and

that is that this government has no policy whatsoever to meet unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members say "oh". Let them deny that there is anything lacking in the logic of my conclusion. The hon. member who is interjecting now is a respected and responsible member, and I am sure he cannot deny the logic of what I am saying. Either I am right or parliament as we understand it does not exist in this country.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: An hon. member says "nonsense". I understand parliament to be a place where the elected representatives of the people have the right to ask from those entrusted with the responsibility of government information which will justify voting of moneys asked for by Her Majesty's government. That is the constitutional position. We have had from the Minister of Labour in response to our request a refusal to give information which it is an inherent right of this parliament to receive, and if the minister persists in refusing to give this information then it is our responsibility to determine whether we shall let these estimates pass. That is our responsibility, and it is a grave decision to make, but it is a decision we have to make if our democratic practices mean anything.


Donald MacInnis: Does that mean you are going to ask for a cut in them?


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member who comes from a labour constituency, should be the first to rise and support what I am saying. The hon. member comes from what is a depressed area, notwithstanding his denial of that fact last night. The hon. member comes from a constituency where last winter thousands of men were out of work; over 6,000, as my hon. friend reminds me. I come from a constituency where there are now between
6,000	and 8,000 unemployed, and it is because of this that I feel I have a duty in this committee to elicit from the Minister of Labour whatever information he can give us in order to determine what can be done in this country to meet this problem. Surely that is not unfair. Surely that is not asking the government or the minister anything that is improper. If the Minister of Labour says this situation is an extremely complicated one, and the government cannot be expected to have all the solutions to this problem-


Mr. Bigg:: You never did.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member says that we never did. Well, we never had the problem.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Well, I know all about the problem, and from 1935 to 1939 the boys were walking the streets-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the hon.
member is right; from 1930 to 1935 thousands of people did walk the streets-


An hon. Member:: He said 1939.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I am saying is this-


An hon. Member:: Take your time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen may make it difficult for this discussion to continue if they wish. They may cause delay but it will not make any difference, because we propose to discuss these estimates until we feel we have discharged our responsibility. There is no doubt about that. We can stay here for a long time.


Mr. Speakman:: So can we.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Apparently that is what we are going to do, because we are going to get answers to these questions or we are going to know why.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Don't be so pompous.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask the Minister of Labour if he will tell us that the problem is such that it is unfair to expect the government to provide solutions. Then that becomes a matter for argument. But that is not what the minister says. The minister just refuses to make any statement. He refuses to make any declaration other than the fact that this is a confidential report.
I ask the minister to reconsider that answer in the light of this discussion. If the minister will give us a statement based on what he believes are the realities; if he excuses the administration from responsibility and gives valid arguments for this, there can be no criticism of that position, other than to point out, if that is the situation, that he government will not be regarded as having realized its assurances to the Canadian people. But the simple issue now is whether or not parliament is entitled to receive this basic information.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious from the discussion which took place last night in the hour and a half before we adjourned at eleven o'clock, and from what has been said thus far in our sitting today, that it is not the intention of the Minister of Labour to file any reports or information he has received, because as he has reiterated time after time they are confidential documents. In view of that fact we cannot help but wonder if he could not make that information available by following the
Supply-Labour
precedent established by the Prime Minister in tearing off the front page of the document. It was on that basis that we got the information before, so how about tearing off the front page again?


James Stanley Speakman: I should like to ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Chairman. Can the hon. member prove that?


Harold Edward Winch: You will find it in Hansard.


Mr. Lambert:: You will find many false statements in Hansard.


Harold Edward Winch: You will find there was no front page.


Norman Platt Lambert: And who tore it off?


Harold Edward Winch: We do not know who tore it off.


Norman Platt Lambert: You said it was the Prime Minister.


Harold Edward Winch: It must have been some member of the government, because no hon. member of the opposition could have torn it off.


Norman Platt Lambert: How could you know? How do you know what transpired in the six months of its existence prior to its being brought into this chamber? How do you know whether the cover was on or off?


Harold Edward Winch: I do not know about that. I only know that when it was brought in the cover had been removed, and if it was a good precedent then it is good now.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr,
Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that what is happening at this moment indicates that we are discussing matters which are quite irrelevant to the estimates of the Department of Labour. This has been obvious, I think, for some little time in the light of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East. We can see now where this type of discussion is leading. It is a discussion of something that happened in another parliament in connection with the Prime Minister and a report issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This has no bearing whatever on the item that is now before us concerning the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour. I most respectfully suggest that all this discussion is completely irrelevant, and that hon. members should turn their attention to discussion of the item before us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not accept this invitation of the minister to close off this discussion of the economic situation in this country and our desire to

Supply-Labour
get information from the department most concerned about that situation, the Department of Labour.


Norman Platt Lambert: Even if you seek to get it by means of irrelevant discussion.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not think I am irrelevant, but if 1 am let me say that I would rather be irrelevant than irresponsible.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. member succeeds in being both.


Harold Edward Winch: The item we are now discussing relates to the economics and research branch. That has to do with all matters relevant to labour and therefore all matters relevant to employment and unemployment. If discussions in previous parliaments under the present government and the present Prime Minister have established that this question of advice to the government could be discussed, it is just as relevant today as it was then. Because of the irresponsibility of the government it seeks to use these things for its own political expediency, denying information to parliament except when the government wants parliament to have the information. If there is any irrelevancy and irresponsibility it has been demonstrated on the other side.
Apparently today we are to be denied that information, with the cover on or off. That being the case, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he will comment with respect to a statement made at the end of April by such outstanding men as Mr. David Mansur, real estate consultant, Mr. W. H. Evans, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and Mr. James Coyne of the Bank of Canada as reported in the Star. On the basis of a survey taken, these three men have said that next fall will witness a turndown in the economy, and next winter will see unemployment worse than last year and indeed it will equal the postwar peak of unemployment.
These men are all good Canadians. I mention that because the minister told us last evening on three occasions that he was a good Canadian. I do not doubt that for a moment. In fact I do not doubt that all hon. members of this committee are good Canadians who look forward to a great future for Canada.
In view of the statement made by these good Canadians will the minister tell us if he agrees with their analysis? If he does not, how and why does he disagree? If there is any agreement at all, what in the view of the minister will be done to meet the situation? What is being done about it now?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I can only reiterate what I said in response to the same question earlier. It is quite evident that the government are concerned about the situation. We have expanded our effort, are contributing to the training of unemployed workers on a higher scale of cost to the federal government, and the Prime Minister has said that other projects are under consideration. One has to have respect for the opinions of these people but based on our own experience in the past two winters and based on the present situation as indicated by the studies of the dominion bureau of statistics, it is surely quite evident that the government is taking steps to see that the situation does not worsen in the coming months.


Harold Edward Winch: I think everyone here will commend the government for all the steps that have been announced. There is no question of that. But I should like to put this question to the minister. He quoted three times last night a statement of the Prime Minister-I forget the exact wording-that new consideration is being given to the matter and at the appropriate time other policies may be announced. In view of the fact that we are now very close to August, will the minister inform us why, on the basis of information they must have within the department, within the government and outside, it is the policy to withhold announcements until parliament is no longer sitting. I expect we shall not be sitting more than another week-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I gather some hon. members want to go home. I do, too. I have been home only six days this year. I would like to get home, but I am staying here until this house has concluded its business and prorogued, because that is the job for which I was elected.


Mr. Johnson:: So are we.


Harold Edward Winch: Quite a number have left already. In view of the present serious situation, and what looks like a worsening one, why are announcements not made by the government while parliament is in session and can deal with government policy?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, with respect to those matters on which decisions have been arrived at, the decisions have been announced in this House of Commons. I refer to such matters as housing, municipal winter works programs, training for unemployed workers, home improvement loans and so forth. With respect to all those things and which decisions have been arrived at, announcements have

been made. There are other matters with respect to which decisions have not yet been arrived at, and we are doing everything possible to expedite them as much as we can.


Harold Edward Winch: How are they going to be financed; by treasury board order? Because you will not have the authority of the estimates. We would like the minister to have authority for whatever is required to take care of the situation.


Michael Starr: I am not the Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, surely we had the right to expect, when the minister's estimates are brought before the house in the closing days, we hope, of the session, that the minister would give us a comprehensive analysis of the economic and employment situation in this country, and a comprehensive statement before parliament broke up of what the government was going to do about it, because once parliament is not in session it is more difficult. And, if the situation does worsen, it might even require parliament to be reconvened.
We have not had that. The minister said a few moments ago that the government is going to do everything it can to prevent the situation from worsening. He has not been able to give us much evidence of what has been done, but the government is going to do everything it can to prevent the situation from worsening. Naturally we would support any move that the government can or will make to that end but, Mr. Chairman, the situation has already worsened when compared with what it was at this time last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is as bad as it was in 1958.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Last night the minister told the committee-and I quote from Hansard at page 7254-in answer to a question of mine: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope the situation will be much better than it was in the last two winters.
I was talking about the unemployment situation during the winter time. On what does the minister base that hope? This morning he has told us that the situation is serious in terms of unemployment, and it certainly is likely to get more serious as the autumn and winter approach. He said this morning-and we all hope, of course, that the situation will be much better this winter than it was during the last two-that the situation will be much better this winter. I should like to know whether the minister can tell us on what he bases this hope. There must be something in his mind which justifies this somewhat optimistic conclusion, at 79951-0-460	[DOT]
Supply-Labour
least an optimistic hope, that while the situation is serious

and I know it is more serious than it was this time last year-nevertheless he hopes it will be much better than it was during the last two winters. That is the short run position and the problem we must cope with at the present time is the short run problem.
While I am on my feet I should like to remind the minister, if he needs any reminder, that the long range problem is just as serious, just as complicated and just as difficult. During the decade 1950 to 1960 one million jobs were added to the economy of this country. During the decade 1960 to 1970, if this country is to approach or maintain anything like full employment, we shall need two million jobs. Now, we have the short run situation, which is serious. We have the long run situation, which is serious. In so far as the former is concerned the minister hopes it will be much better than it was during the last two winters. Can he give us some information on which we can share that hope with him?


Michael Starr: It is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman. I am hoping that with the measures I have already announced and with the measures which we shall undertake, we shall alleviate the situation this winter and it will be much better than it was. It is on that that I base my hope, and I have every right to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It seems to me that the hon. member for Vancouver East has put a very important question. The minister says he is satisfied, that if we have an unemployment situation comparable to last winter, the program of the government will be capable of providing jobs for all who need jobs. The minister will certainly agree that he is straining logic when he makes that statement, because all that the winter works program was able to provide was some
51,000	jobs. The government through the minister is not serious when it suggests that the three measures that represent its present program are capable of providing work for the numbers who have been out of work during the past winter.
That being so, what is the answer to the question put by the hon. member for Vancouver East? If in the month of September or October the number of unemployed rises to the level of the corresponding period last year, what program will the government resort to in order to provide jobs for those people who are out of work, recognizing that the present program, on the basis of the experience of the last two years, has not been able to provide a substantial number of jobs?
The government has said it is considering other plans. When are those plans to be put

Supply-Labour
forward? When are the programs based on those plans to be realized? Are we to wait until next winter? Is that the situation? If that is the situation, the minister can tell us. But what is going to happen to those people who are out of work? The government, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, cannot bring forward those plans without the approval of parliament. Parliament has to pass the necessary money; and the government must give the committee an indication if it will call parliament together in the fall, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, to authorize it to embark on the programs which the minister says it is now considering.
The minister has not touched on this phase of the problem at all. Of course it is not the only phase that he has ignored in this discussion. It is another question which has to be answered, if we are to feel that we have discharged our responsibility with regard to the request of the government that we should pass this particular estimate and the other estimates of the Department of Labour.


Michael Starr: I listened to what the hon. member had to say, and I think I have answered practically all the questions time and time again, so I have nothing further to add.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have come to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Vancouver East are hardly being fair to the minister, because it is quite evident that the government has no program, is planning no program and intends no program, and that the unemployed are to be treated in exactly the same way as the western farmers are being treated by this government.


Harold Edward Winch: There is one point that does disturb me. I am quite prepared to accept the word of the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister that studies are now being undertaken with a view to giving further consideration to the unemployment situation, and through that consideration plans for greater employment. A few minutes ago I asked the Minister of Labour about the financial end and his answer was that is a matter for the Minister of Finance.
Quite honestly, 1 do not believe that is something the Minister of Labour can expect us to swallow. If the government does have something in mind the Minister of Labour obviously knows the plans they are considering, and surely he must have been in communication with the Minister of Finance as to how that is going to be financed. He must know how they are going to finance something in the future. I think we in this house have a

right to know how they are going to do it if the House of Commons is not in session. My understanding is and always has been that the House of Commons and the Senate are the only bodies that can authorize the expenditure of money.
Now, I presume the plans of the Minister of Labour must involve the expenditure of federal funds. Can he tell us, because he must know, how the financial angle is to be handled and how, when those plans are at the point of being promulgated, the government is going to obtain the authorization of the House of Commons to do those things? Is there going to be a special session of the House of Commons or is it going to be done under authority of order in council, anticipating that at the next session of parliament a supplementary estimate will be passed? Surely this is one of the simple questions that should be asked by a member of the opposition. I hope the minister can give us a little more detailed reply than he gave to my question a few moments ao.


Michael Starr: I do not know what particular financing the hon. member has in mind or what particular project he has in mind when he is so worried about financing. Let us take, as an example, the municipal winter works program. This is being financed by a supplementary estimate which will come before the House of Commons possibly during the next session of parliament, at which time parliament will be asked to approve it. An announcement was made in that respect. There will have to be a supplementary estimate for the additional cost of training the unemployed workers. This will be brought before parliament at the next session. Whatever the projects are, so far as I know at the moment, whatever the projects may be which will be approved, an announcement will be made and there is no doubt but that the proper method of financing will be used in that respect.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words the governor general in council can use a blank cheque in connection with a policy about which this parliament knows nothing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister can tell us how many, if any, of the members of this economics and research branch are working on the committee that was set up some five months ago to try to find a new method of measuring unemployment?


Michael Starr: There are two members.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether this committee has completed its work, and whether the Department of Labour representatives on it have reported to him

in regard to that work? 1 ask this, Mr. Chairman, because it is obviously a matter of interest and importance to this committee, when discussing labour estimates, to have before it the work that has been done in this field. It would have been of great assistance to us if that work, which has been going on now for more than five months, could have been completed so we would have the report before us.
I know that the measurement of unemployment is not nearly as important as unemployment itself, but in order to assess the problem it is useful to have the proper statistics. There is a great deal of controversy now on this subject. This committee was set up for this purpose, and it has been working now for many months. Can the minister indicate whether there is any likelihood that we will have a report from him, during the discussion of these estimates, on the work of the committee?


Michael Starr: I am advised that the work of the committee is nearing completion, and that they expect to write their report and make a report to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to me during the latter part of next week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is very unfortunate that a report of this importance, which has a direct bearing on the consideration of these estimates, will be made to the minister concerned a few days after we have finished the discussion of these estimates.


Mr. Thrasher:: You still have trade and commerce.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we still have trade and commerce, and perhaps the minister will take up the matter with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce to assure that when those estimates come before the committee we might have that report.
There is an interesting paragraph about this problem of the assessment and measurement of unemployment in this labour research bulletin to which I have already referred, which indicates that our present methods are not very satisfactory. We know that, because if they had been we would not have set up this committee. There are two procedures followed at present. One may result in the setting of a figure for unemployment which is too high, whereas the other may result in a figure which is too low. In commenting on this the labour research bulletin had this to say:
The government figures give people without jobs and seeking work as a percentage of the labour force. This is not the same thing at all. The labour force includes not only wage and salary earners and the unemployed, but also employers, own accounts (the self-employed) and unpaid 79951-0-460J
Supply-Labour
family workers in a business or on a farm. In 1959, these people averaged over 18 per cent of the Canadian labour force, so that the difference between labour force and labour supply was substantial. To measure unemployment against a conglomerate mass of workers, employers, the selfemployed and unpaid family workers is really not sensible.
Then further down it goes on to say:
So the sensible thing to do is measure unemployment against the total of "paid workers" (the neat d.b.s. term for wage and salary earners combined) plus the unemployed.
That seems to me to make sense. I think that is in accord with the international labour office method for the measurement of unemployment, which we have not adopted in this country but which perhaps this committee may recommend. If that does make sense, Mr. Chairman, it shows that unemployment, as a statistical measure in this country, is even more serious than one would gather from the dominion bureau of statistics figures given to us from time to time.


Norman Platt Lambert: You are comparing apples and oranges to arrive at that conclusion.


Harold Edward Winch: That is what some of the unemployed cannot buy, apples and oranges. I feel that our discussion on item 165 and the previous item amply demonstrates why some members in this house thought it would be preferable to adjourn in June and come back in September, at which time the committee could have considered any proposal this government had in mind with regard to unemployment. This proves that we were right in making that suggestion.
I should like to ask a question of the minister under this item 165. If my memory is correct, and I think it is, the last information the Department of Labour issued on the number of those who were seeking employment in Canada indicated that there were 124,000. I think it said there were 124,000 who had been unemployed for four months or more. In view of that information, available to and supplied by his department, I should like to ask the minister whether, under this item for the economics and research branch, any special study is being made of the problem of those who have been unemployed for many months-I refer to the 124,000 for four months or more-as to the particular trades or professions in which they have been trained, with the idea of evolving any proposals to take care of that situation.
What I have in mind is this. Among that
124,000	is there any particular group or are there any groupings of trades or professions, and is any kind of research being undertaken with regard to them in an effort to try to solve the problem?

Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: We have not that information here at the moment. We can check and see whether we can get that information.


Harold Edward Winch: It is not so much a matter of wanting a break-down; what I want to know is this. You have that problem of 124,000 out of those 300,000 applicants, I think it was according to the last statistical review. Is any special study being made by the minister's economics and research branch as to whether they break down into certain trades and professions, with a view to taking some remedial action?


Michael Starr: I am told they are not certain whether there is any special data pertaining to these people mentioned by the hon. member, but generally speaking, on the whole manpower situation, our economics and research branch are continually studying and assessing the various categories.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask this question. If any data are available, are they mostly of a trained or untrained classification? I am referring to the 124,000.


Michael Starr: I am told that we can check on the matter right away. However, at the moment that information is not available to me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, this seems to me an appropriate moment to make a suggestion that I have been turning over in my mind since the minister answered the Leader of the Opposition about this attempt to reconcile statistics, and the report of this joint committee on the matter. While the minister has said that this report may be available in time for consideration of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, it seems to me that procedure would not really be satisfactory to the committee for this reason. The Department of Trade and Commerce is merely the vehicle through which the bureau of statistics reports to parliament, but this is the department that has some responsibility in the matter. Particularly in view of the need for the minister to wait for certain information asked for by the hon. member for Vancouver East, it seems to me that the most suitable way of meeting this problem would be to have the minister let this item stand and go on with the rest of his estimates. Then at the end of the committee of supply, after all the other departments have been taken up so there will be a maximum amount of time to get this important document or this essential information and for all members of the committee to study it, we could resume the consideration of this particular item. I ask the minister to consider that suggestion.


Mr. Nugent:: You would then want it held until the government could consider it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point may I say that I do not think it is a matter of the government considering this document. I would think both departments would welcome all the criticism of the document they could get before they decided to scrap the existing statistical basis and adopt a new one. I am making a serious request to the minister. At the same time I should also like to ask him a question about this study. I should like to ask him whether the committee, in its studies, have consulted Mr. Arthur MacNa-mara, who has perhaps greater experience in this field than anyone else in this country and who has, of course, a continuing connection with the minister's department or with a certain organism of the government connected with the minister's department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is chairman of the unemployment insurance advisory commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; he is chairman of the unemployment insurance advisory commission and, as I happen to know, he has extremely strong views on this question. I should be greatly interested in knowing whether he has been consulted in the course of this study.


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East I want to say that I am now informed that these categories he mentioned are mostly untrained, but no specific data is available on the occupation characteristics of those who are unemployed for more than four months.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 165 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister indicate what he proposes to do about my request?


Michael Starr: What was your request?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The suggestion I made to the minister was this. In order to enable the committee to consider this report and to do so in the context of the minister's department, where it should be considered rather than under the Department of Trade and Commerce, my suggestion was that he should allow this item to stand until all the other business of the committee of supply has been done and then have it called. By that time, if his prognostications are correct, the report should be available to us. The other question which he might answer at the same time, is whether or not Mr. MacNamara was consulted by the committee.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: What if the report is delayed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that case it could not be considered.


Michael Starr: In answer to the last question, as to whether Mr. MacNamara was consulted, may I say that the answer is no, according to members of the committee. As to the first part of the request, the answer as far as I am concerned is no, because these are the same tactics that were adopted by the hon. member last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Really, Mr. Chairman, I think we deserve a better answer than that. I was not speaking just for myself. I was speaking for my friends on this side of the house; I refer to the official opposition in this House of Commons. I do not think this is an answer that the minister would like to leave on the record unmodified, namely the suggestion-and after all, it is unparliamentary-that these were the same tactics I used last year. There is an implication in that answer, and it is contrary to the rules to attribute motives.
However, I am making nothing of that matter. What I am saying is this. The request I made was made two years ago, as I think the minister will find, not last year. As the minister will recall, I made a reasonable request at that time. I requested that we should let one item stand until the winter works program was announced. What happened? The then house leader, who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Prime Minister, when asked formally by my colleague the hon. member for Laurier, all refused that reasonable request.
When was the winter works program announced? It was announced in September. Where was it announced? It was announced at a provincial Tory convention in the province of Saskatchewan. Therefore if the minister objects to my tactics, I would remind him of the history of that incident. I had not intended to raise this matter at all. It was the minister who did so. However, when it is suggested that these things should be dealt with by parliament and not at provincial Tory conventions, it seems to me that the opposition is on fairly sound ground.
I repeat the request to the minister, as it is a reasonable one. Since he expects this report next week, and since it would be quite as easy to deal with this item then as it is now, I ask the minister to reconsider his answer.


Harold Edward Winch: May I just say one word on this matter, Mr. Chairman. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. 1 am rather afraid that there is now on the part of the government a tendency to forget the principles which they
Supply-Labour
espoused with regard to a democratic parliament for so many years when they sat on this side of the chamber. It is the responsibility of the opposition to offer critical analyses and make constructive and alternative proposals. I believe that is what we are trying to do, but how can we do it if all possible information is not before the members of the committee? We do want to help the minister in solving this problem, but the only way we can do this is to have full information.
I would ask the minister whether by postponing this vote for a matter of two, three, four or five days it would be possible for him to supply anything more by way of factual information, reports or advice so that all members of this committee can do a better job in representing those who sent us here and in assisting him in the most difficult problem he is facing.


Michael Starr: I do not know what factual reports the hon. member refers to.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand there is one which will be filed in two or three days.


Michael Starr: There is the report of the committee which is working in an endeavour to recommend a measure of employment with regard to the future, but that is all.


Mr. Robichaud:: Reference was made this morning to certain forecasts in a report recently issued by economists in this country to the effect that the number of unemployed next winter could be much higher than it was in the past two winters, and some had gone as far as to say that it could be over the one million mark. On the other hand we have the Minister of Labour saying last night that he certainly hoped the situation would be much better next winter.
The minister must have some basis on which to express this hope, and when he was asked a while ago what he was basing this statement on he said it was based on the announcements made by the government. The only announcement we have had so far which could provide any relief to the unemployed is a very moderate extension of the winter works program, a program which was announced at a provincial Conservative convention in Saskatchewan last year which resulted in the 54 Conservative candidates losing the election, 40 of them losing their deposits.
We have an accelerated housing construction program which will come into effect in early fall. Housing construction in many areas of the country is almost impossible during the winter months, and I would ask the minister whether, in making this statement to the effect that he hopes the situation will be better next winter, he is taking

Supply-Labour
into consideration the recommendations which have been made to him in the reports he has received from the economics and research branch of his department. If he has, then there seems to be quite a contradiction between the minister's statement and the reports which have been referred to this morning of certain economists in the country.
A while ago some government members objected to the production of such a report, saying that the one referred to by the Prime Minister two years ago was a report which had been produced in the past. I ask the Minister of Labour what objection he has to making available to this committee the report he received last May forecasting the labour conditions for the summer months. I think we should have a reply to this question.


Michael Starr: The hon. member has repeated now that which was said earlier by his leader, and I have answered his leader on both those points.


Mr. Tucker:: I have a couple of questions for the minister. I would like to know if he could break down the 55,000 people helped last year by the winter works program. In my section of the country for the last two years the winter works program has been in operation it has been absolutely useless, because we have about 110 inches of snow and three or four feet of frost. Our council journeyed to Toronto on two different occasions to meet the government about this, and they came back on both occasions empty handed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate made what I thought was quite a reasonable suggestion, which the minister turned down, in respect to this report on new methods of measuring unemployment. We are told that this report will be available next week. We have been told that we will be permitted to discuss it on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. However it is true, as the minister will admit that his own department has a primary relationship to the matters which will be considered in this report. We will undoubtedly be told this by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when we try to get information out of him about it.
Therefore I ask whether, when this matter comes up for consideration on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the minister will be able to make himself available to the committee at that time so we can question him about it when the report is before the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are awaiting a reply from the minister.
[Mr. Robichaud.l


Michael Starr: What was the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was a very simple one. When this report of the committee on statistical methods for measuring unemployment is before the committee on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce next week, would the minister if possible-and there may be something which will make it quite impossible-be available to the committee at that time so we can question him about this report, as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Michael Starr: The estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are the responsibility of that particular minister, and I do not feel I should make myself available on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Murdo William Martin: This is a matter of considerable importance; because if parliament is going to adjourn or prorogue within the foreseeable future-at any rate that is the hope-we may be confronted with a situation where once parliament is not in session, the government might resort to a standard of measurement of unemployment that may not be as satisfactory or as scientifically desirable as possible. It could be that when we come back here next January, if that is the government's intention, the government by that time will have accepted or devised a formula which will not fully reveal the extent of unemployment in this country
Five months ago the government announced through the Minister of Labour that an interdepartmental committee had been set up to study this problem. We have three standards of measurement in Canada; the dominion bureau of statistics figure, the unplaced applicants figure, and the number of live claims. Under the international labour office standards, the dominion bureau of statistics figure of people without jobs and seeking work, added to which is the figure of people on temporary lay-off, is in the judgment of that body perhaps the best standard to use.
It is difficult for us to understand how it could have taken all this time for this interdepartmental committee to come forward with a report. It certainly is open to us to suggest, as did the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a rather interesting coincidence that the government hopes to be able to present the report of this interdepartmental committee just as we are about to prorogue. That, I think, is not an unfair argument, particularly when we recall how difficult it was to get from the minister any indication as to what progress is being made.
One excuse was that one of the members of the committee was away, and on that

account the hon. gentlemen could not get information as to the progress being made. Then when we asked whether the minister had inquired, he said no; and when it was pointed out how unfortunate that position was, the minister said, "Does the hon. gentleman think I would not make inquiries?" So all the facts concerning the situation warrant our belief, or our suspicion, that this particular timing has been arranged by the government to suit its own convenience.
Can the minister tell us whether there will be any change made in the standard of measurement without this house being given an opportunity of debating the merits of any change that may be contemplated.


Michael Starr: The hon. member has been very severely criticizing the members of this committee for not bringing in a report in time to satisfy him-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was criticizing the minister, not the members of the committee.


Michael Starr: I must say he is most unfair in doing that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, there has been no criticism of any member of this committee. What I and others have been doing is to criticize the government and not any member of this committee.


Michael Starr: As usual the hon. member has no point of order. He merely wishes to interrupt and straighten out what he thinks should be said. The members of this committee are very valued civil servants of the highest calibre drawn from the three different departments. There were times when two or three of them were away and the committee did not meet as a result. Consequently a delay occurred. But I feel certain that whatever method of measuring unemployment is recommended by this committee, if it is adopted by the government as a measure of unemployment, because of the calibre of these people it will commend itself even to the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister say whether the economics research division assists in the preparation of the annual report of the department?


Michael Starr: They contribute to the report on their section.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I have before me the report of the department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959. In view of the responsibility of the Minister of Labour in the matter of unemployment, I make some observations about the table of contents and the actual content of this report.
Supply-Labour
The work of this department is important, and the various matters which engage the attention of the department are of equal importance. But since unemployment and employment are among the ministerial responsibilities of the hon. gentleman and his officials, I should be grateful to the minister if he would explain why there is no mention in this report, in so far as I am able to ascertain, of the problems of unemployment at all.
I have before me page 6, the table of contents. I have looked at the introduction, where I would expect to find some reference to unemployment. I find, for instance, in the first sentence, the following: "The department's activities to stimulate winter employment gained momentum during the year". However, there is no detailed discussion; there is not one paragraph of discussion concerning the problem of unemployment.
In 1958, in 1959 and in the current fiscal year we have had much unemployment. It is difficult to understand why there would not be in this report of the Department of Labour a discussion of the problem which has occupied the attention of this committee since yesterday morning. I see at page 38 a reference to the work of the economics and research division. There are passages dealing with relations between labour and management, labour organizations, strikes and lockouts, wage rates, working conditions and so on, but I see no reference to the question of unemployment. On page 40 I see a heading "Employment and the labour market" but there is certainly no discussion of the problem there or any proposed remedies. I see on page 41 the heading "Seasonal employment". All that is said there is:
Increasing concern about winter unemployment led to detailed further study during the year of seasonal employment problems. A statistical summary of seasonal variations throughout industry and in different regions of the country was prepared for the national winter employment conference in July.
I see, too, that seasonal unemployment in British Columbia is the subject of a special study. By the way, when the minister was asked for some information he could possibly have produced the results of these surveys and studies, which might have provided answers to some of the questions, at least, which we have been asking. But will the minister explain to the committee why in the report of the Department of Labour there is no substantial reference to or discussion of what is the most important responsibility of the Minister of Labour, and what is the most important single domestic problem facing Canada at the present time?

Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: Never at any time has the annual report contained any such thing as the hon. member for Essex East has in mind. The annual report of the Department of Labour deals with the activities of each branch of the department, not with the state of the nation. However, we do make mention on page 40 of the report, under the heading "Employment and the Labour Market" to the Current Manpower and Labour Relations Review which appeared in the Labour Gazette copies of which have perhaps been sent to the hon. member and the question of unemployment is discussed very fully in the Labour Gazette.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
166.	Annuities Act administration, $1,194,357.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Could the minister tell us the number of pension plans covered in group contracts which were written up to the end of the last fiscal year?


Michael Starr: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960 group certificates issued amounted to 11,564.


Mr.   Balien@: Mr. Chairman, under the Government Annuities Act passed in 1908 a government annuity is a fixed yearly income purchased from and paid by the federal government. The minimum annuity is $10 and the maximum $1,200, or $100 per month. In table No. 4 on page 29 of the report of the department we notice that interest in this plan has been relatively stable over the years. From 1955 to 1959 the number of individual contracts has been in the vicinity of 6,000 and the number of group certificates has ranged between 15,000 and 18,000.
I have had some inquiries concerning this plan, based on the fact that the maximum annuity of $1,200 per year is probably not worth as much now as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. My question to the minister is this. Would he give me an explanation of the section in table No. 3 at the bottom of page 28 dealing with the amount of the annuity where it refers to "over $1,200"?


Michael Starr: These are carryovers from the time the maximum of the government annuity was above $1,200. At one time it was even up to $5,000. These are carryovers that have been in existence.


Mr. Batten:: Is it possible at present to buy an annuity in excess of $1,200?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is any consideration being given to increasing the maximum allowable, Mr. Chairman?


Michael Starr: Not at the moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister could tell me-perhaps I should know-how these annuities are now being marketed, how they are being sold.


Michael Starr: Through our government annuity representatives in various parts of the country, and directly to people who write to the annuities branch. We have annuities representatives as we had in the past. They are also sold through direct communication with the annuities branch here in Ottawa.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Are there annuity agents in all the provinces of Canada?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General administration-
526. Annuities Act-To authorize the payment of interest, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, out of the government annuities account, on premiums being refunded that were paid under a contract entered into with Her Majesty pursuant to subsection (3) of section 6 of the Government Annuities Act where such premiums are in excess of the amount required to purchase the maximum annuity payable under that act to an employee of the purchaser; the said interest in respect of premiums being refunded shall be calculated at the rate of interest applicable to the premiums at the time they were received and such interest shall be payable for the period from the day on which the excess premiums were received by Her Majesty to the day on which the refund is made, $1.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us how many pension plans are underwritten by group contracts as for the last fiscal year?


Michael Starr: Approximately 1,100.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would cover how many employees who are actually in the working force?


Michael Starr: About 258,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
167.	Industrial relations activities including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $595,271.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, this item covers the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. As I mentioned in my remarks last evening, I should like to remind the minister that when his estimates were under discussion last year he stated on May 15 that during the present session this act would be amended. Twice this session, in reply to questions I addressed to him, the minister said the act would not be amended during the present session. On one occasion I believe the hon. gentleman said

that amending the act would require lengthy preparations. Would the minister give us a definite explanation as to why the act was not amended this session, as promised by him on May 15 last?


Michael Starr: I made a detailed study of the possible amendments. I felt that because of the far-reaching effects they may have on the lives of many thousands of Canadians, this matter necessitated an even more intensive study. This I am proposing to do; and in this course of action, I might say to the hon. member, the Canadian Labour Congress concurs.


Harold Edward Winch: Through the auspices of the commonwealth parliamentary association and the House of Commons I had the opportunity last year of visiting Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaya, Israel, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. Within a few days of my return to Vancouver, after an absence of three months and based on discussions I had with industrial and political leaders throughout the world, I made a speech for which I have since been condemned and commended. I said that I felt it was my responsibility to say that I thought Canada was facing a serious crisis in the months and perhaps the years ahead. I said if we were to maintain our standard of living and our competitive position as an exporting nation, there would have to be greater co-operation and collaboration among labour, industry and government.
I retract not a word of my speech made last December following my trip. Circumstances unfortunately have borne out the correctness of my statement. I say unfortunately, because there have been developments in Canada since that time which amply demonstrate the correctness of my conclusions. We face serious unemployment in Canada today and perhaps the problem will be more acute in the months and years ahead. We face increased competition from abroad, and threats of economic combinations. We are confronted with the possibility of cold war such as we have never before witnessed.
I therefore feel there is now an absolute necessity to have co-operation and collaboration among labour, management and government in the interest of all the people of Canada. Unless there is that co-operation and collaboration, critical as the situation may seem at the present time, conditions can get worse, and no one in this house or in Canada wants to see conditions get worse. I feel so strongly on this matter that that is the reason I rose.
I am not retracting one word I said, popular or unpopular though it may be. We
Supply-Labour
have to face major responsibilities in these critical times. We have to recognize, as I said yesterday, that automation is marching onward. We have to recognize-and I think this is of the utmost importance-and I am afraid too many in labour, management and government do not, that we are no longer in a seller's market; we are in a buyer's market. Since we are in a buyer's market, the interests of Canada demand a social consciousness on the part of all people. They demand that one segment of the economy shall not damn everybody else for everything that is wrong; and I apply that, sir, to government, management and labour.
I said when I returned last summer that one of the greatest needs, if labour and management could not get together, was for government to take the initiative in bringing them together. Government should take the lead within our capitalistic economy because, although I am a socialist and want to see socialism, I am a practical socialist and the practicality of socialism is ham and eggs on the table tomorrow morning for everybody if they like ham and eggs; if not, whatever they like or desire.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, although you may have thought I was out of order I am not, because I wanted to make those remarks as an introduction to a question on this item. I notice that the last part of item 167 has to do with the promotion of labour-management co-operation. Will the minister give us the fullest possible explanation of what, through the medium of his department, is done in the realm of labour-management co-operation; not only what has been done by the money expended in the past but in particular what will be done, the activity and the policy, in the fiscal year to which those estimates apply.
I know I am very often guilty of repetition, but I do want to reiterate that in my personal, and I will say humble, opinion we have now passed the time when government, with the knowledge and reports it should have; industry, knowing the competition they are now facing in a buyer's market and not a seller's market; and labour, that must have employment in order to live, have to get together and put their cards on the table- when I say that I mean it-and not completely condemn or damn each other, because undoubtedly there are mistakes on all sides. They should not try to find excuses, but should put the cards on the table so people can be employed, so they can produce and either consume or sell the produce so that government can function and meet its responsibilities.

Supply-Labour
This is the only item I know of under which the government can take a greater initiative in trying to bring about co-operation and understanding. If I say any more it will be repetition. I hope I have said enough to show how seriously I view this situation, and how important I think it is that on the initiative of government, management and labour relations should be improved. Would the minister be so kind as to say what is planned in so far as the government and this particular section of his department are concerned to bring about something which I maintain is absolutely necessary and long past due? Unless it can be done, serious as the problems now are, they may be more serious and more critical in the not too distant future.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for his contribution in respect of this vote, because I think it is very worth while. This is a matter that is in the minds of a great many people who have this interest at heart. I must confess to the hon. member that it is a very important matter in my own mind. What has been done in connection with this vote has been only on the plant level. We have helped in every way we could to organize committees on this plant level to promote efficiency in operation, reduce waste, promote safety measures and accident prevention. There are some 1,582 committees that we work with at that level for this purpose, but I think that is not enough. I think labour, management and government in fact should go beyond that. I want to thank the hon. member and assure him that this is also uppermost in my mind, to see what can be done in that sphere.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I also listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who has so much knowledge of and interest in this field and who has expressed that interest and knowledge inside and outside this house over the years. I agree with him that industrial disputes which lead to strikes and the interruption of work are too expensive in our economic society to be tolerated if anything can be done to prevent them. They are wasteful; they impose a burden on the cost of production of goods in Canada at a time- and my hon. friend has said this-when that burden may prevent us developing our export trade and meeting the competition of other countries, and thereby prevent us from giving the kind of employment which we all want to see in this country.
I mentioned last night that employment in manufacturing is not as relatively important

in our economy as it was, but is still responsible for one out of every four jobs in Canada. Therefore we cannot afford this kind of thing any longer, any more than we can afford not to have a trade union movement as the basis of collective bargaining to prevent industrial disputes. The procedure for the purpose, of preventing industrial disputes, as the minister has said on more than one occasion, can be improved, can be made more effective, can be modernized, can be brought perhaps into a closer relationship with the industrial and labour situation at the present time.
The minister told us two years ago that he was going to amend the act. He has now told us it is such an important matter that more time is required. However much time is required, I hope those steps will be taken in the next session at least, and that we shall pass amendments to this legislation which will help the country to more effectively deal with this problem than has been the case recently; though I do not think we have too much with which to reproach ourselves in this country. Certainly our record is not perfect, but it is not nearly as bad as that of some other countries. In any event, we must improve on the present industrial relations disputes mechanism to make co-operation among labour, management and government in the settlement of such disputes more effective. No mechanism alone, however, is going to improve this problem. It is a problem which requires the exercise of wisdom and self-restraint on the part of all the elements in our society which are affected.
Some months ago I read, and perhaps the minister did too, a paragraph in a British white paper on the economic implications of full employment. It was presented by the United Kingdom Prime Minister to the parliament of that country about a year ago. There is one section of that white paper which deals with conditions of price stability, and it is a paragraph that seems to me to have a bearing on the whole question of industrial disputes. It reads as follows:
... If the prosperous economic conditions necessary to maintain full employment are exploited by trade unions and businessmen, price stability and full employment become incompatible.
This may seem to be labouring the obvious, but we do not always, in our economy, understand the obvious or perhaps we do not always act on the obvious. It goes on to say:
The solution lies in self-restraint in making wage claims and fixing profit margins and prices, so that total money income rises no faster than total output. In the absence of such self-restraint, it may seem that the country can make a choice-albeit a painful one-between full employment and continually rising prices, or price stability secured with some danger to the level of employment that might otherwise have been achieved.

On this subject of industrial disputes and how to improve our present procedures, I read the other day a very interesting article in a magazine called Saturday Night. The article was entitled "Common Sense Laws to Prevent Strikes" and was signed by somebody called Frank Howard. I wonder whether this is our colleague in the house, the hon. member for Skeena, although there is no implication to that effect in this article. If it is not the hon. member for Skeena I should apologize-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Why should you apologize?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize for attributing to him an article, even if it is sensible. I should not give him credit, even for a good article, if he did not write it. This paragraph begins:
When labour goes on strike, or management resorts to a lock-out, there is only one way to settle differences-apart from government imposed arbitration.
Perhaps I might interpolate here that government-imposed arbitration, which perhaps is essential in certain emergencies, should certainly be restricted to a minimum; because compulsory arbitration by government will inevitably lead to government intervention and finally government control of the business or industry in which the government has arbitrated. Then he goes on to say:
The two sides must get together and talk out their differences. It is at this point that we need drastic changes, both in the law governing industrial disputes and in the procedures we have set up to handle these disputes.
Then he proceeds to recommend some changes. I would be interested, if the minister saw fit to comment, in hearing his observations on some of these changes that are recommended in this article by Mr. Frank Howard. I am only going to pick out some of the more important ones, at least the ones that seem important to me. He says:
First, we should eliminate the use of conciliation boards, even though they have effected some settlements. Their work is repetitive of that of conciliation officers.
Then he goes on to add:
At the moment, time and lack of authority handicaps the conciliation officer and restricts him in his efforts to assist the disputing parties. We should give him the power to arrange meetings of the two parties and the right to ensure attendance at such meetings.
In other words he would eliminate the board and exalt the importance and authority of the conciliation officer. Then he says this:
A time limit should be set within which each party should indicate to the other and to the Minister of Labour whether it intends to accept or reject the recommendations of the conciliation officer .. . Following this, and if rejection is made by either party, a strike or lock-out vote should be allowed.
Supply-Labour
Then he goes on in connection with this procedure by making this proposal, which I think is both interesting and important.
The strike or lock-out vote must be by secret ballot.
He has a good deal to say about the use of the courts and judges in the conciliation of industrial disputes. I should not have said "the courts"; I should have said judges. He says:
More and more as union-management relations have developed we have seen the entry of judges of the courts into those relations. Judges are schooled in the ways of jurisprudence. Their lifetimes are spent in dealing with words and the interpretation thereof.
I would suggest that a section of the court be established to deal with questions of interpretation of, and disputes arising out of, collective agreements. But, the activities of such a labour court should be confined to dealing with grievances and must not be extended to the field of negotiations.
He then says:
If two parties to a collective agreement want to name a permanent arbitrator then they should be allowed so to do and should not have to take their differences to a particular person or place for an adjudication.
This is an interesting article, especially if it should be an article written by a member of parliament, and it puts forward some constructive suggestions which no doubt will be considered by the minister when he is working on the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. If he would comment on some of these points I have put before the committee I would be glad to hear his views.


Michael Starr: First of all may I say that I do not believe this Frank Howard is our colleague.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I just intervene, then, to withdraw, ex post facto, any reference to the hon. member for Skeena.


Michael Starr: Some of the things he suggests in the first part of this article have been in effect in the federal jurisdiction for many years, and with some success. The same suggestions have been made by other people in the provincial jurisdiction but not the federal jurisdiction. We have received no representations at any time from any of those affected by the federal Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act that conciliation boards should be abolished or the services of conciliation officers should be eliminated. Our experience has been that about three quarters of the disputes under federal jurisdiction have been settled by conciliation officers. They have performed very useful functions in this regard. The balance of one quarter of the disputes with which we have had to deal have been settled by conciliation boards.

Supply-Labour
I am not going to comment on what the experience has been in the provincial field; that is an entirely different matter. In these circumstances, and in view of the experience we have had, I feel that this is a good procedure. Certainly in my estimation anything in which success is to be found should not be thrown overboard by something else that may not be as thoroughly tested as is this procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
168.	Civilian rehabilitation branch including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $217,170.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister mentioned this item in general terms in his statement in chief. This has to do with what may seem to be an unexciting assignment on the part of the department but which in fact is one of its most constructive responsibilities. It has to do with the rehabilitation of disabled persons; and of course, whatever the federal government is able to do in this desirable field depends on the kind of arrangements and collaboration that can be established between the provinces and the federal government. Can the minister tell us how many cases of rehabilitation the department has provided for in co-operation with the provinces? I think the number of cases in 1955 was about 1,000. I am speaking now from memory, of course. Can the minister give us an answer to this question, and tell us something about this particular vote and what is happening under it?


Michael Starr: The number of rehabilitation cases in which full details are available during the fiscal year 1959-60 was 1,459. Of this number, 940 were males, 519 were females and 1,097 were dependants.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a few more questions to ask on this item and I think they should be answered by the minister. I understand that this item covers payments to the provinces to co-ordinate and develop activities for the rehabilitation of disabled persons to the amount of $150,000. Can the minister tell us how many provinces are sharing or participating in this plan? Another thing that is of interest to me is to note that the amount of $67,000, or approximately 46 per cent of the total grant, is required to administer this branch. In other words, even in this year's estimate there is an increase of $7,320 to cover the expenses of this civilian rehabilitation branch. I think the minister should clarify these matters before the item is passed.


Michael Starr: The main function of this branch is to co-ordinate the services of the various

departments which are interested in this type of work. There are nine provinces participating with which we have agreements at the present time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What province is not
participating?


Michael Starr: Quebec.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What amount is being paid? Is an equal amount paid to each province, or is the amount in proportion to the population?


Michael Starr: Whatever each province asks, that amount is being paid. The amount varies.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Why was there an increase of $7,000 in the administration of this branch this year?


Michael Starr: The increase represents a general salary increase.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: One thing that seems rather surprising to me is that it should take $67,000, or 46 per cent of the total amount, to administer a grant of $150,000. To me that is a rather surprising amount.


Michael Starr: There is an extremely complex problem involved and a complicated type of undertaking in respect of the administration of this particular branch. They are engaged frequently in conferences of various sorts with various departments and with the provinces. It most certainly takes a great deal of time and a staff of some size to perform this function.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Under the various workmen's compensation boards certain rehabilitation work is done for men who have been injured in industry. What relationship is there between this vote and the activities of the boards in that respect? Is there any degree of co-operation in that type of rehabilitation?


Michael Starr: There is co-operation but no actual participation with the compensation boards of the various provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special services-
169.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combating seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, $502,075.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a vote that has been reduced from last year, when the total amount requested was $588,786. The minister this year is asking for $502,075. This item covers the special services branch, which includes the promotion of a program for combating seasonal unemployment. I hope the minister will be in a position to tell us why,

at a time when seasonal unemployment is so high, the government should find it desirable to reduce this vote. The minister undoubtedly has a good explanation, but in the absence of that explanation he will not wonder if I have some concern. There are other items that might be reduced, but at a time when there is so much unemployment, and particularly as some of it is seasonal, we ought to know why the reduction has taken place. The minister might tell us-


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member allow me to answer one question at a time? I get confused when I get about three or four questions at one time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I beg the minister's pardon.


Michael Starr: It is a little confusing to me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the minister is sitting down. I do not understand.


Michael Starr: I am getting the answer to the first question.


An hon. Member:: The minister is getting the information.


Michael Starr: We have participated in an immigration hostel in St. Paul which now has been closed down because there is no further use for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that in Saskatchewan?


Michael Starr: No, it is just outside of Montreal. The total cost was some $86,000. That practically takes care of the amount that is shown as a decrease under this branch.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister tell me what is being done pursuant to the vote on this item? The minister will understand that if seasonal unemployment is a factor, as the minister indicates and to the extent that he indicates in the present level of unemployment, this is a vote on which we should be given a comprehensive statement as to what is being done to combat seasonal unemployment.


Michael Starr: This special services branch was organized in April, 1950 to handle projects which developed from time to time and which did not fall within the purview of the other branches. The main programs at present that we undertake are listed as follows: the federal-provincial farm labour program; the organized movement of workers between Canada and the United States; organization and development of the program to combat seasonal unemployment-I may say that is the do it now program-the municipal winter works incentive program. This branch also
Supply-Labour
acts as liaison with associations and employers in the various industries with regard to their manpower problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since this is the item on which it is possible for us to discuss the winter works program, I would like to ask if the government gave any serious consideration to the suggestion which was put forward repeatedly by members of the official opposition, that instead of this 50-50 cost sharing basis some other formula should be devised more in keeping with the equalization formula for the payment of assistance to the provinces under the tax-sharing arrangements act.
As has been repeatedly shown by the hon. member for Gloucester, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's in speeches which I happen to recall earlier in the session, these winter works are concentrated mainly in the provinces which relatively need them the least, because they are the areas where the province can afford to pay its share. I think it would be interesting if the minister would tell us how many of the 55,000 jobs provided last winter were in the four Atlantic provinces, and how many were in Ontario.


Michael Starr: What is the first question you want me to answer? Do you mind if I take them one at a time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not a bit. I will ask the factual question first, and it is this. Of the
55,000	jobs, if that is the right figure-and I do not know what 55,000 jobs mean-


Michael Starr: That is incorrect; it is 51,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the minister's pardon; 51,000. I would presume that a job for one day is a job and a job for three months is a job, but they are very different things to the person who has the job. It is really job-days which are significant, and if the minister could tell us how many job-days there were in Ontario and how many job-days there were in the four Atlantic provinces I think it would help us to see whether this program is really providing the most help where it is most needed.


Michael Starr: The estimated number of man-days of work provided in Ontario totalled 539,075. The number of man-days of work provided in the province of New Brunswick totalled 55,100; in the province of Nova Scotia, 135,778; in the province of Prince Edward Island, 100 man-days and in Newfoundland, 18,166 man-days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would not mind giving the figure for the whole country.


Michael Starr: The estimated number of man-days of work provided totalled 1,938,839.

Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: The next question I want to ask is this. The minister will certainly see that the number of man-days of work provided in the province of Newfoundland, which unhappily had relatively the highest level of unemployment of any province, is ridiculously small, to put it mildly. It is relatively a good deal smaller than the 100 days in Prince Edward Island, because in Prince Edward Island, because of the nature of the economy and the fact that the island is not very heavy industrialized, the unemployment was relatively not very great. But in Newfoundland unhappily it is relatively very great.
The minister will also see that the relief provided by this program in Newfoundland was very, very small indeed. It is for that reason, of course, that we put forward the suggestion that instead of paying a 50-50 share there should be some formula worked out dependent, in part at any rate, on the level of unemployment in the area, so that those areas with the highest level of unemployment, and therefore the least capacity to pay their share-


Norman Platt Lambert: What kind of unemployment do you mean? Seasonal or traditional?


John Whitney Pickersgill: For the benefit of the hon. member for Edmonton West perhaps I should explain that I was talking about the winter works program, and presumably the government designed the winter works program to deal with seasonal unemployment. That is all I was talking about, and I was concentrating exclusively upon it.
It so happens that seasonal unemployment, taking one year with another, in the province of Ontario is relatively less, I think, than in any other province of Canada except possibly Prince Edward Island. It just happens to be one of the facts of life which we have to face. In other words, the seasonal problem in Ontario is the least serious compared with any other province, notwithstanding the fact that one third, if I can keep in my head the figures the minister gave me, of all the money is paid to Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: No; one quarter.


Mr. Habel:: It is 30 per cent to 32 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend from
Cochrane, who is better at arithmetic than I, says 30 per cent to 32 per cent. Even according to my rough reckoning that is not very far from one third, and I will let hon. gentlemen split the hairs if they want to. It will not alter the fundamental point I am making, that you have in Ontario one third of the money spent in the province best able to pay its own way and which has the least or relatively the least seasonal unemployment.

We do not think, having regard to the national character of this problem and the fact that this money is being paid out of the national treasury, that the 50-50 formula is a suitable one, and we put forward very strong views which the minister told us at the time we put them forward would receive careful study along with all our other suggestions. I would ask the minister what conclusion was reached after that study.


Michael Starr: There is no such thing as a 50-50 formula. As a matter of fact this is not a cost sharing program with the provinces at all. This is a program which has been brought forward by this government to help in the municipal works program, and it was suggested by the municipalities themselves. Naturally we cannot deal directly with the municipalities because the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces, so all our work in this field must be done through the appropriate departments of the provincial governments.
At least six of the provinces have also helped in this regard by contributing 25 per cent and in one case 30 per cent of the balance of the payroll costs of this municipal winter works program. So there is no such thing as a formula that is 50-50. It is a direct contribution from the federal government through the provinces to the municipalities to encourage them to do certain works in the wintertime in order to alleviate the unemployment in those municipalities; also to lessen the financial cost with which the municipalities are burdened with in regard to unemployment assistance and other matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says it is not a 50-50 formula. Will the minister assert that there is any case anywhere where the federal government pays more than 50 per cent of the labour costs?


Michael Starr: This is the only program.


Mr, Pickersgill:: The minister says it is not a 50-50 program, and I say that the minister and I do not talk the same language. After all, that is all we have responsibility for, what comes out of the federal treasury. My understanding of the winter works program is that the federal treasury pays 50 per cent of the labour costs-


Michael Starr: Payroll costs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well; payroll costs; the minister can call them anything he likes. But if they pay anything different from 50 per cent I would like to know. That is what I should like to know; if the federal government pays any other figure than 50 per cent. I say it does not matter whether the rest is paid by the provincial treasuries or

by the municipalities. The plain fact is that in certain provinces these works cannot proceed because the municipality or the province, or in many cases both, simply cannot afford to lay out the other 50 per cent plus all the other costs of the project. I say that we recognize this principle in the fiscal field -the principle of the proper equalization of these payments-and if the winter works program is to be spread relatively uniformly across this country and do good where it is most needed, a new costsharing formula is required. The minister promised us that the government would consider that-


Michael Starr: I certainly did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can turn up the pages-


Michael Starr: Go ahead, turn them up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and show the minister where he talked about our constructive suggestions and said that every one of those constructive suggestions would be considered. If all he meant was the same kind of consideration that is being given to the western wheat growers' proposals, it would be simpler to tell people at the start that it was intended to do nothing about them. I should like to know whether the minister has really given any consideration to this matter. There are ministers in the cabinet from some of these provinces, and I would hope they have made very strong representations in cabinet council to see that a fair deal is given to their provinces and to the municipalities in those provinces.


Mr.   Start@: I can tell the hon. member that no representations have been made by the municipalities or by the provinces on behalf of the municipalities with regard to the suggestion he has made. Only yesterday I read a letter from the president of the association of mayors and municipalities, who are most directly affected by this and who have not been reluctant about bringing forward suggestions; and no suggestion of this type has been put forward either by the municipalities which we are endeavouring to help or by the provinces with whom we are working.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: I hesitate to intrude upon the time of hon. gentlemen opposite, but I should like to advance a suggestion for the consideration of the minister which is to some extent an outgrowth of the winter works program. I think it would go a long way toward dealing with this problem of seasonal unemployment and even, to a considerable extent, with the type of unemployment known as hard core unemployment.
Hard core and seasonal unemployment can be the consequence of failure to utilize most
Supply-Labour
effectively the reservoirs of resources, skills and knowledge which already exist. It can be proven, I believe, that in many areas unemployment is most severe where an imbalance of development is found; where primary industry is not supplemented by secondary industry; where a single industry, either primary or secondary, maintains an entire region. It is in these circumstances that very often we find the most severe conditions of winter unemployment occurring and where there is growing evidence, also, that continued long term unemployment is likely to occur. The problems, to a large extent, originate in the inadequate utilization of existing resources, skills and knowledge, and the solution must therefore lie, at least in part, in a more effective use of these elements.
If we consider the contribution of the Department of Agriculture, not only the federal department but the departments of agriculture of all the provinces as well, we find that diversification, together with increased production and efficiency, have resulted from study, experiment and advice flowing steadily from these departments to the farmers concerned. Where advice based on study and experiment has been heeded, improvement has followed; but where advice has not been offered, or where it has been given and gone unheeded, there is a history of decline. This is positive evidence that close co-operation between a department of government and the people connected with an industry can have a beneficial effect.
Today we have been discussing the winter works program. Part of its effectiveness has been because of the utilization of voluntary committees of citizens in communities throughout the country in co-operation with the Department of Labour, national employment service offices in various communities and other associations concerned. My opinion is that if we could combine the type of service which has been effective in the agricultural industry with the method of reaching the people who need help through the use of committees similar to the voluntary citizens' committees which are now at work, we might achieve some very effective results. The majority of government departments, through their specialized branches dealing with economics, marketing, scientific research and so on, possess immense stores of knowledge concerning all resources in the industrial, commercial and agricultural fields. To be of greatest value this knowledge must get into the hands of people who can use it in developing the economy. There has to be an interchange, a flow of ideas, from the government to the people who can put this knowledge to work.

Supply-Labour
The means of doing this at the present time seems to exist in Canada only to a limited degree. My suggestion is that this lack of facilities might be offset by the use of regional development councils. Councils of this type do exist in Canada now. They also exist in the United States. But there is no national program of development councils, no ordered program which would achieve this result of utilizing most effectively all the resources of knowledge of all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did I correctly understand ihm to say there was no national program?


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: I said there was no national program of regional development councils of the type I have suggested. They exist now in regions but their work is on a local rather than a national level.
I believe that the way we can achieve the best results from this all-embracing program would be to provide a means by which these councils could readily obtain all the information which exists in all the departments of government that might be concerned. I believe that the onus for creating these councils lies with the regions which require help, regions where economic development is lagging or is in a state of imbalance. The communities within a prescribed area would form a council embracing representatives of municipal governments, business, industry and labour and this council would apply to the responsible government authority for a study of the problems of the region.
This is why I feel that the special services branch might be the one most affected by an idea of this kind. The regional council would come to a special designated authority in government and ask that a survey of its resources be made to determine what steps and assistance could be used to bring about an elimination of this state of imbalance. The federal government would act as a catalyst in bringing together all the resources of specialized knowledge that would have an application to the problem of the region under study. 1 would assume that the federal government, acting as a catalyst, would also have to secure the participation and cooperation of all the provincial governments, because those bodies also have a tremendous store of useful knowledge that could be valuable in a scheme of this sort.
Perhaps I may be permitted to give a specific example to show how this plan might work if it was acceptable. For the purposes of my illustration let me choose
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1
a region dependent on agriculture, forestry and tourism-and if hon. members closely examine this illustration they will recognize that its economic constitution parallels that of my own riding-with only a small proportion of secondary industry and that largely seasonal. This region would request a study of its deficiencies and its strength. Representatives of the Department of Agriculture, the new department of forestry, the Department of Labour and in this instance the dominion travel bureau would be assigned to meet with the regional development council that had been created in that area. In consultation with the council the strength and weaknesses of the regional economy would be very closely assessed. Out of this would come a series of meetings at which officials of the specialized branches of government would, through the council, bring to the attention of the region the knowledge that could be put to work in its development.
I feel that the primary function here is to stimulate the latent initiative of the people in the region, because so much of the solution of the problems with which we are faced must originate with the people themselves. Government cannot do it all. Therefore the people in regions that are experiencing difficulty must be shown what they can do. Their own initiative must be tapped. They must be given a clearer conception of what might be done and a better understanding of their own potential, as well as what might be achieved through their own resources and what types of outside aid might be most profitably sought.
The role of government as I see it is to reveal possibilities not previously realized, to provide counsel, to encourage and lead toward balanced development. This is not simply the responsibility of government alone but is a responsibility that should be spread through the entire community. This plan would serve to make readily available to the people in the region affected the knowledge they may need to help them realize their own potential.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee has listened with interest to the speech that has been made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. As a matter of fact one wonders why more hon. members on the government side do not take part in this highly interesting discussion concerning this most important department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Montgomery:: We do not get a chance. You fellows talk all the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be very happy to hear the whip of the Conservative party speak on this matter, because the hon. gentleman represents a constituency like mine where there are many workers who are very much affected by this proposal.


Mr. Palleil:: The greatest industrial expansion in the history of the riding is taking place right now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is interesting, because that is the riding where the greatest dislocation occurred when the Avro contract was cancelled.


John Cameron Pallett: I invite the hon. member to read the last few issues of the Brampton Conservator the contents of which indicate that a tremendous industrial expansion is occurring in that area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad that my hon. friend recognizes that the measures undertaken by the former government led to expansion in many areas in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Norman Platt Lambert: That is pure political humbug.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says "That is pure political humbug". No one should know better than my hon. friend what is humbug.
Under this item we have the opportunity of discussing the winter works program. The minister has sought to indicate by reading the letter of the president of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities that this group endorses the program in its entirety. If the minister intended to create the impression that this letter was an endorsation of the program in its entirety, I am sure he will now agree that such is not the case. Undoubtedly the program was welcomed by the association of mayors in our country, just as it was welcomed by every hon. member of this committee. The criticism levelled by those in this party and by the mayors of Canada is that, welcome as it is, the program is inadequate and incapable by itself of meeting the problem of current unemployment.
I submit to the minister that notwithstanding the refinements and modifications announced by the Prime Minister last Saturday, the government has not taken into consideration the points raised by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities at page 4 of the representations they submitted to the government in 1959. They observed that:
The difficulties arise consequent upon the inability of municipal governments to finance the high costs and carrying charges of urban renewal requirements and the requirements occasioned by rapidly expanding urban growth-The difficulties of municipal governments are more in the field of capital costs rather than in the field of annual operating and administrative costs.
Supply-Labour
This is the heart of the criticism, yet this program does not touch the matter of capital cost, which is the main concern of the municipalities. This program is one in which the government shares with the municipalities and with participating provinces to the extent of 50 per cent of the payroll. That is the extent of the assistance provided by the federal government. It is absurd to suggest that this program can be represented as a vigorous onslaught on unemployment.
The minister told the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a moment ago that least year 51,000 men were put to work under this program, but we know that in the month of March or thereabouts, on the basis of the lowest figures there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million people out of work, 55,000 on the basis of the dominion bureau of statistics figures.
Last Saturday the Prime Minister, of course, did not mention the 25-point program put forward by the Liberal party this session, all of which were referred to by the Minister of Labour as inconsequential proposals. One of them, No. 7, provided for the modification of this program to make it more acceptable to the municipalities, as recommended by the federation of mayors and municipalities. The Liberal party did not put forward anything constructive, said the Minister of Labour, but last Saturday the Prime Minister made an announcement containing some of the very recommendations made by members of the Liberal party this session.


Norman Platt Lambert: The hon. member should be in Stratford.


Murdo William Martin: Let me tell the hon. gentleman where he should be. He should be in this committee giving careful attention to this problem, because he represents a city where there are lots of people who are vitally concerned with the effects of a program like this.


Norman Platt Lambert: They get on with it, too.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East concerning the attendance of the hon. member for Edmonton West in this chamber. The hon. member for Edmonton West is one of the most faithful attenders in this committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whose privilege is that?


Murdo William Martin: If I have offended the hon. member for Edmonton West or the hon. member for Wetaskiwin I want them to know I take it back. Of course the hon. member for Edmonton West is a very active attendant in this committee, and no one

Supply-Labour
complains about that. I am sure he is a very sincere and devoted member. What I was complaining about is that I would like him to be as attentive to this matter as he is in respect of his attendance in this chamber.
The government takes the credit for this program. It says that as a result of its contribution to it, this represents a vigorous program designed to take care of the unemployed of our country. It speaks as though it was responsible for most of what was done by this limited program. Let up analyse the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and see how insignificant is the 50 per cent share of the payroll cost of winter works projects carried out by the municipalities. I refer to page 1 of the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to the government in 1959. Here is what that body says with regard to the break-down of contributions to the winter works program:
The estimated total costs (labour, materials, etc.) of the approved projects aggregated $81,375,000.
They are now speaking of last year.
It is expected that the direct payroll costs will mount to $27,358,000, toward which the dominion government has undertaken to contribute $9,279,000, or 17.6 per cent of the total costs of the works expected to be undertaken between December 1, 1958, and April 30, 1959.
In these very figures we have the answer, we have the portrayal of the limited character of the federal government's program with regard to winter works about which so much vaunting has taken place, particularly by the Prime Minister when he spoke to this nation over television on March 3 last. This winter works program, to the extent that it goes, is welcome; but it does not meet the problem of unemployment. We have the statement of the mayor of Ottawa with regard to the inadequacy of this program, which was made only a few days ago.
It should not be forgotten that this program, in so far as the federal government is concerned, covers only 50 per cent of the payroll. It does not make any contribution toward the cost of supplies, and it does not deal with many of the indoor projects, suggested by the Canadian federation of mayors. I ask the Minister of Labour if he will deny that 50 per cent of the labour payroll costs represents only about 10 per cent of the cost of a project. If that is the case, one sees more clearly the limitations of this program which the Prime Minister in particular refers to with such satisfaction, as a method of providing work for the large number of unemployed.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Would the hon. member like an answer to the question he put? The municipalities themselves estimate that the percentage is 34 per cent, not the 10 per cent which he indicated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says the 10 per cent is wrong and that it is 34 per cent? Will the hon. member explain? I referred to the statement made by the federation of mayors and municipalities and I quoted from page 2. Does my hon. friend recall what I said?


Richard Devere Thrasher: These are the estimated figures that came in from the municipalities for individual projects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It should be 34 per cent instead of what I read?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Thirty four per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the estimated figure. If my hon. friend says that, I accept it. This is the first chance I have had in this house to congratulate the hon. gentleman, who comes from my county, on his appointment as parliamentary secretary.


An hon. Member:: It has taken a long while.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend does not want me to make any comment on that. I was taking advantage of the first opportunity to congratulate a man for whom I have the highest esteem. I said I was advised that it was about 10 per cent of the cost. The parliamentary secretary corrects me and says it is about 34 per cent. I have here the statement made by the organization in 1959. It will be found on page 2, under the winter works program:
The prescribed range and nature of works eligible for payroll assistance restricted such works to outdoor construction projects. This consideration acts to the detriment of those municipalities located in the more northerly sections of the country where, depending on the severity of winter weather, outdoor construction costs can be 50 per cent higher and more than in other parts of the country ... the payroll saving costs to these municipalities is, therefore, much less than the face value of the 50 per cent federal sharing in such costs or of the combined federal and provincial sharing in those provinces which contributed a further 25 per cent or 30 per cent to the total payroll costs.
Therefore it cannot be argued that this program is one which fully satisfies the municipalities. It certainly is not one which satisfies the municipality from which I come; it certainly is not one which satisfies the city of Toronto, and it certainly is not one which satisfies the city of Ottawa. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, the cities to which I have referred to are areas, where there is a greater capacity on the part of the municipality to bear its share of the burden. But in most areas,

apart from my own city of Windsor, which is one of the areas where we have and have had a persistent level of unemployment, the winter works program, because it exacts a heavy contribution by the municipalities, does not enable in those municipalities as ready an opportunity of participation as cities like Toronto and Ottawa, where the municipal revenues are higher.
It is pointed out also by the association of municipalities, that whatever benefits do exist in this program are perhaps in large measure cancelled out by the cost of interest on municipal loans. Many municipalities, in order to undertake projects, have had to borrow. In order to participate a municipality itself must be prepared to make a major contribution. The only way a major contribution can be made in the case of municipalities which do not have the resources is by seeking credit. Everyone knows that pursuant to the financial and fiscal policy of this government, credit has not been obtainable in the last two years, except under exorbitant and unusually high interest rates.
Under this vote we are given the opportunity of pointing out what are the limitations of this program, limitations which certainly had not been analysed by the Prime Minister in the announcement he made last Saturday and which went all over this country as though a very comprehensive approach was being made to the solution of the problem of unemployment. Under this vote there is something else the minister can tell us, namely what the Department of Labour is doing; because after all a large sum of money is being voted, or is being asked for, namely $500,000. Since unemployment to a large extent, according to the minister, is seasonal, what is being done by the government to meet this seasonal unemployment?
I recalled to the minister last night, the work being done in the United States on this aspect of the problem. With regard to the comprehensive report made by Senator Eugene McCarthy, the chairman of the joint congressional committee on unemployment, I may say that body went from one end of the United States to the other examining this problem. When I find that we have in this country a statement as meagre as that which has been given us on these estimates, compared with the exhaustive analysis and report made, and made public, in the United States, I wonder whether a full appreciation exists on the part of the government as to how serious this problem is. We have pockets of unemployment in our country that have persisted now for some time. Are we to go on saying that this society of ours can do nothing about this problem? Our society can
Supply-Labour
do something about this problem. Our society can do something if the government is prepared to take those steps which will at least permit it to make the proper assessment which, under this vote, should be made available.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask, at the same time, if the minister will answer a question which I have in mind. It has to do with the position of a municipality which may desire to take advantage of the winter works program. Evidence has been given here last night and today that some municipalities may be most anxious to take advantage of these programs but may be caught because of their inability to put through the necessary plebiscites for loans to obtain the money. My question is this. Has the minister who is in charge of the winter works program given any consideration or sought the advice of the Minister of Finance concerning the possibility of applying or renewing an act, the title of which I cannot remember exactly, concerning municipal financial aid? I believe that under this act the federal government made certain moneys available to the municipalities at low interest rates. Has consideration been given, in relation to this winter works program, to applying this financial aid act which I believe is still on the statute books?


Michael Starr: To my knowledge no consideration has been given to applying this particular act to which the hon. member has referred. However, I assure him that I will certainly look into it and take up the matter with the Minister of Finance.
In reply to the hon. member for Essex East, may I say that I realize how vitally interested he is in this problem of seasonal unemployment. From time to time he has expressed his opinions about it. I want to say to him that, so far as seasonal unemployment is concerned, in our winter works campaigns we have some 175 committees organized at the local level. These committees are organized to tie in with the local employment office activities. These committees are comprised of public spirited citizens from trade union organizations, management, women's institutes, service clubs, chambers of commerce and so on, as well as municipal and provincial bodies and governments. These are people of high calibre, outstanding citizens in their communities who are helping in our efforts to combat winter unemployment. Many useful suggestions have come from these bodies, and many have been implemented.
We have had some success in combating seasonal unemployment, although it is extremely difficult to give an accurate figure or measurement of that success. I want to

Supply-Labour
thank these people, on behalf of the government, for their efforts, which are put forward on a voluntary basis. I should like to extend the same thanks to the local radio and television stations and the newspapers which have donated freely of their time in connection with municipal winter works campaigns and the do it now campaign. We believe that as a result a great deal of this unemployment in the wintertime will be alleviated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make one comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East. I believe everyone in this house feels, and indeed it has been said, that the Minister of Labour has been greatly concerned about helping in every way he can by the use of this particular program, under which 50 per cent of the cost of a special works program undertaken in the wintertime is paid for by the federal government. This program is of comparatively recent origin, and it was designed to meet special conditions. I would just point out to the hon. member what he seems to have forgotten entirely; that in complaining about more not being done he has forgotten to tell us which federal tax he would recommend raising.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks me a question. I would not hesitate, if I had given the assurances which were given by the Prime Minister, to fulfil those promises to take every way possible of doing so even if it involved the implication in my hon. friend's question.


Harold Edward Winch: We in our group are in agreement, and we would point to the corporation tax and the capital gains tax.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one thing I should like to point out before this item passes. I have had a little bit of arithmetic done for me-I say "done for me" because I did not actually do it myself-in connection with this winter works program. I believe that the lowest possible level of unemployment last winter, even taking the dominion bureau of statistics figures for every month from December right through until April, was about half a million. This figure of 1,930,000 working days divided among 51,000 people, according to this arithmetic I have, means 38 days of work each. I do not say that to disparage what has been done, but merely to bring these things into their proper proportion. It does seem to me that before we inflate and exaggerate these things we should know what the facts are. The unfortunate fact is that if you take the number of unemployed in the areas where the burden

is greatest, you will find the number of days of work provided would be away below this figure.
I know the minister will say that when these works are performed they provide supplementary work in other ways, and that of course is true. Supplies are used and equipment is used. However, I would question very much, after two years of winter works programs, whether many of the winters works that have been done across this country under this program would not have been done anyway. That again is not to disparage them. It is desirable to encourage some of this work in the wintertime; there is no doubt about that.
However, I should be interested in being told this. Of course the minister can say that this matter is not within his competence, and he is right if he says that; because the decision as to the projects rests with the municipalities or with the municipalities and the provinces, and not with the minister. All he does is veto them if they do not come within his categories. I should be greatly surprised if any independent appraisal would show that many things were done under the winter works program that would not have been done anyway at some time during the year in which they were done.


Mr. Brunsden:: Will the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman mean me? If he does, I am complimented.


Edwin William Brunsden: Is the hon. member suggesting that the winter works program should be abolished?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Edwin William Brunsden: And that we make no contribution to Canadian employment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I am not suggesting that at all although in fact, as far as the province which I represent is concerned, it would make little difference whether or not it was abolished. I say that because the government will not listen to our argument that the federal treasury should pay for this national problem in proportion to the severity of the problem. In the hon. gentleman's province, according to one of his colleagues here in the House of Commons, there is practically no unemployment at all. Nevertheless I understand they get a considerable share of this winter works program.


Edwin William Brunsden: He is a good member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about the whole province.


Edwin William Brunsden: I said he is a good member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know what the city is that was mentioned by the hon. gentleman, because it was not about that city that I was told by another hon. member. However, there is no doubt that a considerable share of this money goes to the province of Alberta where there is, according to what we read in the public print, no debt; where they are rolling ahead-


Edwin William Brunsden: That is provincial.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These are provincial and municipal matters. As I was saying, presumably in Alberta the province should have no difficulty, with their ideas-they seem to have a great deal of support in that province -in doing this without any federal help at all. Yet far more winter works are done in Alberta in proportion, if not absolutely, than in all four Atlantic provinces where there is a really serious problem. That is precisely the point I am seeking to make. In my opinion this crude approach or this 50-50 approach just does not cope fairly with the problem where it is most intense.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational training co-ordination-
170. Administration, $112,905.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: This is one of the most important branches now operating under the Department of Labour. References have been made in this committee by members of the opposition to the need to increase the facilities for vocational training in this country. That was recognized, especially after the statement made by the minister on July 23 when he made a special announcement in this house respecting the training of unemployed workers. On that occasion the Minister of Labour said it had been demonstrated many times in Canada and elsewhere that training is an avenue to steadier employment and to improved working and living standards.
In his announcement the minister stated that as a means of stimulating still further training of unemployed workers throughout the country, the government had decided to increase its contribution in this field from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the total cost. But here again the government placed upon the provinces certain conditions when assuming this increase in cost. In other words, this increase would be paid only after the province reached a certain minimum which would equal its participation in previous years. At the time these estimates were prepared by the department the Minister of Labour as well as the government must have been well aware of unemployment conditions throughout the country. I cannot see how, at the time of the preparation of the estimates, they
Supply-Labour
could decide to reduce the item for vocational training co-ordination by $1 million.
Furthermore, when we look at the details of these items, which are shown on page 241, we notice that in the payments made to the provinces there is a reduction. I may be slightly out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I am taking together items 170 and 171 which pertain to this branch. I am now referring particularly to item 171. By adopting this procedure I thought it would be easier for the minister to answer my questions.
Referring to the payments to the provinces, we note that in the amount for vocational and technical school assistance there is a reduction of $1,100,000. This reduction comes at a time when everyone seems to recognize that there is in this country a shortage of skilled labour and a need for further training. Referring to the training of unemployed workers, I notice that while last year we spent $525,000, this year we are called upon to vote an amount of $610,000, an increased of $85,000. Will the minister advise this committee whether any estimates have been arrived at as to the extra amount that may be required in order to meet the commitments which were announced in the House of Commons on July 23 last, when the minister made the announcement respecting the training of unemployed workers?


Michael Starr: It is difficult at this time to estimate the cost for this present fiscal year owing to the increase in the federal contribution. As soon as we have some indication from the provinces-and the provinces have been advised of this formally-then of course we will be in a position to estimate the cost. This estimated amount will, of course, be brought before parliament in supplementary estimates.
As to the reduction of $1,100,000, this comes out of a program that was established in 1957. It is a five-year program for capital projects, that is to say the building of schools, to which we contribute 50 per cent. This contribution over the five-year period was in the amount of $25 million. Certain allotments out of this $25 million have been made to the various provinces. The provinces indicate to us their requirements for the ensuing fiscal year and we pay them from that $25 million in that fiscal year. The reason there is a reduction of $1,100,000 is that this is the amount of the requests which have come from the provinces. That is the lower amount they need for this year. If they had requested the same amount they had last year, most certainly that contribution would have been made. It is based on requests from the provinces for capital expenditures on vocational schools.

Supply-Labour


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister supply us with further information with regard to the building of schools under this program? Can he give us details as to the assistance which is being given to the province of New Brunswick, or which will be given during the fiscal year 1960-61; and can he tell us what particular schools will be covered by this assistance?


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member wants to know how much New Brunswick is prepared to pay during the fiscal year 1960-61, or how much is requested for capital projects?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes. The reason I ask is that in New Brunswick there is an urgent need, perhaps more urgent than in most of the other provinces, for this vocational training.


Michael Starr: For the period of five years New Brunswick submitted to us a program for schools in various areas in the province. I am afraid I will have to read them to the hon. member and put on the record the municipalities in which these schools are proposed and the amounts which are allocated from our vote to the provinces.
First of all there is the New Brunswick technical institute at Moncton, $980,349.26; Andover high school, $277; Bath high school, $219.55; Bathurst high school, $1,193.97; Campbellton high school, $574.34; Caraquet high school, $825; Carleton vocational school at Woodstock, $216.25; Centreville, $173.56; Edmundston, $22.55. It is a very long list; does the hon. member require any more?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Perhaps it could be supplied later.


Michael Starr: Yes, I will supply it later.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I intended to wait and speak on item 171, but it has been referred to now. Under this item I would like to draw to the minister's attention the increased contribution by the federal government for special training of unemployed workers, as announced in this house last week by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I am particularly interested in this program, because for the province of Saskatchewan most of this training will be done at the new technical institute in my home city of Moose Jaw.
Classes for unemployed workers were carried on last winter at the institute m Moose Jaw, although the building was only partially completed at that time. Training was given in four classes; motor vehicle repair, carpentry, plumbing and sheet metal work. I believe these classes were very successful.
In last winter's training program the federal government paid one half the cost. For this

winter's training classes the federal government will pay 75 per cent of the cost provided a certain minimum number of trainees are enrolled. That is my main reason for speaking now, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that Ottawa will now pay three quarters of the cost if the provinces make the necessary effort to meet the minimum requirements.
On page 241 of the blue book the estimate of federal payments for training unemployed workers is $610,000, up considerably from the amount estimated for this purpose in the last fiscal year. This is only a preliminary estimate, as pointed out by the Minister of Labour, because as the Prime Minister indicated in his announcement last week, supplementary estimates will be necessary if the provincial governments take full advantage of the federal offer.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the hon. member permit a question? In order to have the record straight, will the hon. member refer to the announcement made by the Minister of Labour, not the Prime Minister?


James Ernest Pascoe: The Prime Minister also made an announcement last week, if you would read it. I think all members will agree that money for this purpose will be very well spent. As the Minister of Labour has indicated on other occasions, there are employment opportunities for skilled workers. I believe he said there are vacancies right now for such skilled workers. In view of this fact the program that will be carried on in Moose Jaw this winter, and for which the federal government will pay 75 per cent of the cost, is a very important move toward providing more and better paid jobs.
You will notice that I have repeated three or four times this major assistance from Ottawa of 75 per cent of the cost. I do this with a purpose, Mr. Chairman, because the Saskatchewan government in past years has given the federal government very little credit for this assistance. I have two newspaper clippings to which I wish to refer. One is headed "Saskatchewan Scores First", and the first paragraph of the article reads;
Saskatchewan has scored another first in the launching this year of a special winter training program for the unemployed-
A second newspaper clipping is an advertisement headed "Government of Saskatchewan, Department of Education, Winter Training Program for Unemployed". The advertisement outlines regulations for these training classes, particularly in regard to dates and duration of courses, types of training, qualifications for applicants, transportation and living allowances. Perhaps the minister can give more details in this regard.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to one paragraph in the Minister of Labour's statement. Reading from Hansard of July 23, page 6820, here is the paragraph I wish to emphasize:
It has been demonstrated many times in Canada and elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, that training is an avenue to steadier employment and to increased working and living standards. We must do all we can in the interests of individual workers, their families and the country as a whole to raise the level of our manpower skills.
I think this is a challenge, Mr. Chairman, that the provincial governments should accept to the fullest extent possible, especially when Ottawa is paying most of the cost. I would like to ask the minister whether unemployed workers are fully informed of this opportunity to improve their working skills, and if they can take the courses referred to while they are drawing unemployment insurance.


Michael Starr: They will be informed by the unemployment insurance offices where they are registered, and of course they will be eligible for unemployment insurance providing they have made the contributions to receive it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important branch of the department's activities, and in our opinion will grow more important as the years go by, particularly under the circumstances we have been discussing in the last two days. I was one who was concerned with this reduction in the estimates of over $1 million, but I can understand that in view of the minister's information. But apparently in respect to this vocational training scheme the initiative is left to the provinces, and after listening to the hon. member for Moose Jaw he certainly demonstrated that the province of Saskatchewan has seized the initiative.


James Ernest Pascoe: But we are paying for it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But it took the initiative in the first place in co-operation with this government, and I congratulate the government of Saskatchewan on that account. Now, that is tit for tat.
I rise particularly because this is a matter of increasing and growing concern to the constituents I have the honour to represent. Over the last five years various local organizations and groups have recognized the necessity for some type of vocational training institution in the southern interior of British Columbia, and on that account they have made representations to the provincial government to take advantage of this scheme, so far without result. In view of coming events in British Columbia this fall they may get a more favourable reaction in the immediate weeks ahead.
Supply-Labour
As a result of this failure on the part of the provincial government to take the initiative and make application to the federal government for assistance in this field of vocational training, there has been nothing done to date to provide the facilities which are sorely needed now. Interest in this is growing. There have been meetings of various organizations. I have had resolutions sent to me and I have received letters from various groups and from people who are supporters of all the parties in Canada, women's groups and so on.
First of all, I should like the minister to say what he thinks is the best course for local people to follow in prodding the provincial government into action. Then I wish he would inform the committee of any proposals for the extension or construction of vocational schools or the extension of vocational training in British Columbia this year. Also, would he be good enough to inform the committee whether, in connection with assistance to students, a person drawing unemployment insurance can continue to draw that insurance while receiving assistance from this fund.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask one or two questions in the same vein? Earlier this afternoon I asked the minister about the 124,000 people who have been unemployed for four months or more. As I understand it, the vocational training scheme is going to provide instruction in new technologies, and that cannot be done properly in one month or in six months. Can the minister tell the committee whether training of this sort would apply to the 124,000 people I have mentioned and, if so, what arrangements have been made or are being made, with the provinces to ensure that the men who are undergoing training will receive assistance in respect of themselves and their families? They have to live while they are undergoing this training, and I should like to know what the arrangements are.


Michael Starr: A person who undergoes this training must be referred by the unemployment insurance commission, and if he is eligible for unemployment insurance he is able to draw unemployment insurance. In addition, the provinces may make an allowance in respect of that person and his family during the period of training, to which this government contributes as part of the overall cost of training that person.


Harold Edward Winch: Is there any time limit? If a man is being retrained, for example, that is bound to take considerable time. How long may a man continue to receive assistance?


Michael Starr: During the whole period of the course, whatever the time may be. Some
72S8

Supply-Labour
courses are shorter, some are longer; but for the whole period of the course the person being trained is eligible for that allowance.


Harold Edward Winch: I presume that no matter how long the course may be, if insurance benefit runs out there is an arrangement between the Department of Labour and the provincial government concerned. I presume the man will receive welfare payments, or is there a payment the same as unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: We must not lose sight of this fact, that the organization of these courses must be a provincial responsibility. It is the provincial governments which undertake to arrange these courses, not the federal government. We say we are prepared to pay 75 per cent of the cost of training an unemployed person providing the provinces undertake to establish and supervise these courses; and if they make allowances for the upkeep of the persons being trained we gladly contribute to the extent of 75 per cent.


Harold Edward Winch: The federal government also pays 75 per cent of the cost of maintenance?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I believe that vocational training is important to Canada, and I think it is particularly important at this time. We live in a large country, a country which is going through an acute transition stage toward becoming an industrial nation. I think it is fair to say we have reached some industrial stature even now, but I certainly believe the years ahead will show that we are capable of reaching a greater industrial stature than we have attained at the present time. In order to do this Canada will have to provide for those industries we have now and for those we will have in the future the type of skilled labour which those industries will demand, and we must do this not only to provide work for those who live in this country at the present time but also to maintain our exports, which provide jobs and a living for a large percentage of our population.
Industries as they go forward, whether it is a matter of improving old plants by automation or of introducing new processes, are going to require different types of skills, and I believe it is the responsibility of Canada to train young people so they may have the skills which industry demands. I know I am not in order when I say that I believe we are not spending enough in Canada on education generally. That, of course, is a matter for the provinces, but here is one

field of education where the federal government could play a very important part.
I think we spend all too little on education in Canada. I have said before in the house, and I am going to repeat it now, that during wartime we spent millions of dollars so that men could fly through the air like birds; we spent millions of dollars to see that men could swim through the water like fish, and we spent millions of dollars to see that men could be carried over the surface of the earth as machines for destruction. I think it is about time we spent a little to see that men may walk the earth in peace. I say again that we in Canada have not spent enough on education generally, though I recognize that this is not a field into which the federal government can inject itself.
However, here is one aspect of education in which the federal government can play an important part. Last year, on education generally, Canada spent between $1 billion and $1.5 billion, and of that amount $57 million was spent on vocational training. In other words, 3.7 per cent of the total amount of money spent on education in Canada within the last year was spent on vocational training or, to put it in other terms, out of every dollar spent on education in Canada only four cents was spent on vocational training.
Here we are as a growing nation faced every year with the problems of young people coming out of school and looking for employment, yet we spend only 4 per cent of our total expenditure on education for vocational training. There may be those who believe that all students should go through school and follow an academic course leading to the arts and professions and so on. I think nature has decreed that a large percentage of our people are equipped to do that kind of work, but nature has also decreed that there are those who are going to have to make their living with their hands. I believe we have large numbers of young Canadians who have great native talent, but it needs to be trained. We spend billions of dollars to refine our raw materials for our factories but we spend very little-four cents out of every dollar spent on education-to refine the human resources that will process these raw materials.
In Canada we must look forward to the years ahead when our people are going to be engaged in some form of industry. I have disagreed in this house before and will do so again with any type of 50-50 policy initiated by the federal government. In some cases it works out very well, but in others it does not. In the case, for example, of the trans-Canada highway, as I mentioned in this house on a number of occasions, it works out

to the advantage of some provinces but with respect to others it is an imposition. In the case of vocational training that statement is equally true, because the provinces which need the money most are those which can least afford to get the greatest advantage out of the program. In Newfoundland, for example, at the present time 37.5 per cent of the total revenue of the province is spent on education, yet last year we had only 694 students enrolled in trade courses, 175 as apprentices and 303 in vocational high school.


Edwin William Brunsden: What was the total school population, the total number of students?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes, in this particular type of training.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. member did not understand my question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I believe we should be training larger numbers of students in the manual skills, that will enable them to be employed by people who need the skills which they are able to provide.
I receive many letters from my constituents asking me to find jobs for them in one manufacturing concern or another. Some of these people I know very well and others I do not know at all. I sometimes have to write these people and ask what they can do. If they are unable to do anything but ordinary labour, then it is clear that in these days when so many jobs are being done by machinery these people have nothing to offer a prospective employer.
Surely every Canadian should be able to do something well. I believe this form of vocational training is particularly important to our young people. I do not know how many of the young people coming out of school at the end of each school year are employed the following year, but if a large percentage of these people are unemployed, and if they make up a fairly high percentage of the total unemployed persons in this country, this only points up the greater need for this program.
I was pleased to hear the minister announce the other day that the federal share of the cost of training unemployed workers would be increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. That means that if the provinces are able to pay next year the same amount they paid last year, the total amount of money spent on training unemployed workers will be doubled. That is the mathematics of the statement the minister made. If we can increase that amount by 100 per cent we certainly will be doing a lot more than we have done in the past. I commend the minister for the statement he made, and will 79951-0-4G1
Supply-Labour
be interested to see how the plan works out when the department has had time to carry it into operation.
However, I wish to point out that assistance is required not only for the unemployed workers but for the whole vocational training program. Extra money is needed by every province to see that those who have been endowed by nature with some particular skill will have an opportunity of improving that skill by training so they will be able to give to the industry of their nation the new skills which are required not only by the introduction of new industries but also by the employment of automation in the old.
I do not believe that automation is going to mean fewer jobs. It may have that effect at any given time, but over the long run I believe automation will produce more jobs. It will do so, however, only for those who are equipped to take them; that is the important thing. As we look forward into the future I believe we must have an increasing concern about vocational training for our young people so they will be able to take part in industry that has benefited by automation. I have never felt that automation was a good word or one that accurately describes the process, but perhaps in the absence of a better one we will have to retain that word.
We do have automation in this country, and we have to face that fact. I think it is important that we train our people to face the type of life with which they will be confronted when they leave the confines of their local schoolrooms and go out looking for jobs.
I think, too, that we should give a little more encouragement to those who try to improve themselves. May I raise again a pet problem of mine. I have in my riding a number of men, some of them over age 20, who were engaged in various occupations long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. Due to an improved capital expenditure program on education which has been carried out in Newfoundland over the last few years, small settlements began receiving the advantage of regional high schools which were able to provide educational training which these small settlements had not enjoyed hitherto.
These men who were out of work and drawing unemployment insurance were able to do one of two things. They could sit at home, collect unemployment insurance and do nothing, or they could attend the local school and take some courses thereby improving their educational standing. But the moment they entered the local school they were no longer able to draw unemployment

Supply-Labour
insurance. I do not think that is the type of encouragement we should be giving to Canadians who want to improve their general educational standard or undertake vocational training in order to equip them to accept better jobs.
There may be some arguments for and against the case of university students, but I will not go into that now. I am dealing with the case of the unemployed worker who could have stayed home and done nothing and drawn his unemployment insurance, or who could have gone to the local school and improved himself, thereby making himself a more valuable employee for the next employer who might engage his services. By seeking to improve himself this type of student is immediately penalized for his initiative and loses his unemployment insurance. I do not think this is the way we should encourage young Canadians.
Further investigation of vocational training should be made. I suggest that this is an excellent problem for the standing committee on industrial relations to discuss next year. I also suggest that the committee of the other place on unemployment will not be doing its job well if it neglects this problem. I say, too, that at the federal-provincial conference which is to be held in the fall consideration must be given to vocational training across Canada as it applies to the federal government and all the provincial governments, so the provinces will know where they are going, what they are doing and how best to advertise among their young people the type of training that is made available by the different levels of government.
We must indeed encourage our young people to meet the standards which a growing country demands, which the industry that is responsible for making the country great, demands; but I think, too, in our program of vocational training there must be a system whereby the standards reached by those in training in various parts of Canada will be standardized. The levels of training must in some way be standardized so that those who are trained in one part of the country can be employed in some other part of the country where there is a demand for that particular type of service. This, too, is a matter which needs some consideration.
I am not going to proceed further with this, although it is one of my pet subjects. Again I want to commend the minister for the increase in the grants which are being made by the federal government for the training of unemployed workers. I sincerely suggest to him that this increase from 50 per cent to 75 per cent for the training of unemployed workers should be extended to the whole field of vocational training.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. member permit a question? I asked this question before, but I think the hon. member who has made a real contribution to this debate missed the point. He quoted certain statistics. What is the relation of the number taking vocational training in the province to the school population as a whole?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I can give the hon. gentleman that information, Mr. Chairman, but I think they would be rough figures. I do not have them before me, but the figures I gave for those engaged in vocational training were 694 in trade courses, 175 apprentices and 303 in vocational training. That would be roughly 1,100 students. The total school population of Newfoundland is somewhere around 65,000 to 70,000.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the comments of the last speaker with considerable interest, because I wish to speak along the same lines myself. It is sometimes difficult to rise in one's place and speak about education because as we know this is largely a provincial matter, but I hope these grants for vocational training open the subject wide enough to enable us to explore some of the issues which are intimately connected with this question, and one of them I think is the age at which our children leave school. I suggest to the minister that in this program of educating the public of Canada, and particularly the people who are interested in this matter on the provincial level, consideration be given to getting the provinces to agree to keep all children at school until the age of 18, and possibly the age of 20.
After the war it was my privilege to give vocational guidance to those soldiers who were coming out of the armed forces and seeking to rehabilitate themselves. The greatest problem we had was that a great many of those young men, I would assume about three quarters of them, had no skill whatsoever apart from their military training except that of being able to drive a car or a truck. Today, as has been so well put, we are becoming increasingly industrialized. It was all right at one time to leave school and go home and help your dad on the farm when you were 16, because the skills you had to learn were learned at first hand at the plow behind a team of horses; but even on the farms today you are not going to make a decent living, and you are certainly not going to be a successful farmer, one who has a knowledge of our agricultural industry, unless you have considerable technical skill.
As has been said also, the provinces are less able to finance this scheme of technical education, which covers a wide field. It covers not only industry and manufacturing

but mining, metallurgy, exploration for oil, survey of our natural resources, and this great new forestry department which is to be set up. I think there will be great need there for technical men of all kinds. It should provide an opportunity to put a lot of our young people to work in the woods, and to provide them with schooling while they are there. Perhaps even the age of 18 is too low; perhaps if you could keep them in school until the age of 20 it would assist not only in keeping all those young people from coming out as unskilled unemployed but would increase their capability once they did get out.


Harold Edward Winch: And free education up to the age of 20, I presume.


Georges-J. Valade: There is no such thing as free education; somebody has to pay for it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, I would go so far as to say that any young person who shows the proper initiative at school, who does the right amount of work-and I think most children who do work hard show reasonable marks -should have every opportunity to continue his schooling certainly up to the age of 20. I can speak from first hand experience. Some people say, "Well, if you have the courage to go to school and the ability, you will get your education". That is not always so. During the 1930's, and this applies right up to the war-I do not blame Mr. Bennett for this any more than I blame Mr. King-it was almost impossible for a boy born and raised on a farm to make enough money to put himself through college, and I myself did not graduate from college until 1953. This may have had something to do with native ability; nevertheless there was an economic block.
If as a federal government we can lead the way in educating the provinces and the individual members of the public to spend the necessary funds, I think it will be an investment in natural resources second to none. Our young people are the greatest natural resource there is.
I also wish to say at this time that it is not good enough just to educate them. We have to create opportunities for future employment here in Canada. I get tired of hearing and reading from time to time the statistics of the technically trained young people who go south of the line. I think we are responsible for producing thousands of well trained, well educated young men and women, and not enough attention is paid to maintaining the standards of pay and opportunity here in Canada. I am not going to labour the point here, but I certainly want to put my moral support behind the last speaker and, of course, behind our ministry 79951-0-461J
Supply-Labour
who are taking this forward step. As to the amounts of money provided, I am in sympathy with the provinces which do not have a great amount of money, but I think they themselves can do more to encourage vocational and technical training at the provincial level.
I should like also to say something about equal standards of education across Canada. Again this is perhaps a little bit out of line here, but it is very difficult for families who are working at occupations where they must follow the work and who must take their children out of school in one province and put them in school in another. Often they may lose a year and sometimes more of their school training. I should like to see something done to standardize education across Canada and also to standardize the licensing requirements for certain professions, such as the nursing profession, for instance. A nurse has to get a licence in each province across Canada. It seems to me that a nurse who is properly trained in Montreal is quite capable of looking after sick people in Winnipeg or Vancouver.
Educational standards are certainly something that need attention, because members of the armed forces continually meet problems in that connection. If a man is stationed at Dartmouth in Nova Scotia and goes to Cold Lake in Alberta, he will find that adjustments have to be made in the level of education of his children. I will not say whether they lose or gain, but there are adjustments to be made. It seems to me ridiculous to have 10 standards of education in a country like Canada, where our population has to shift from province to province. It is certainly affecting the free movement of our labour force, and if it is going to affect the education of our children then I say anything that encourages the young people with initiative to stay at school and improve their technical ability will add to the economic welfare of our country.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Kootenay West asked a question regarding this item. He asked for a suggestion as to how to prod the provincial governments. Of course the proper procedure is to have the local school board approach the department of education of that province. I think it is the department of education in the province which institutes these programs, and that would be the proper procedure.
Now then, out of this $25 million allotment for a period of five years, British Columbia has been allocated $1,859,100. British Columbia has submitted three projects to us for approval and they consist of vocational schools

Supply-Labour
at Burnaby, Prince George and Nanaimo. The date we have made available $933,582.08 out of this allotment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This discussion indicates one thing, Mr. Chairman; that there is no difference of opinion in the committee as to the importance of vocational training for the development of skills which are becoming more and more important to our society. This vocational training is important not only in respect of the young people-we have been discussing primarily the young people-but it has a bearing on employment problems because of the necessity for the retraining in the right vocational skills, of those who are unemployed so they may find work. Reference has already been made to this.
It is impossible to develop these vocational skills without the right kind of vocational training. At least I thought it was until I read in the newspaper a few weeks ago about a teen ager who could not read or write but was sufficiently skilled to manufacture a very complicated type of bomb which he used to blow up a neighbour's car. Normally, however, I think it is fair to say that vocational training is needed for the development of vocational skills.


Edwin William Brunsden: He must have been a Liberal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The bomb worked. As our society becomes more industrialized the importance of this kind of training increases. Some years ago I was in the Far East, and I remember attending a dinner in Singapore where I sat beside a Chinese lady who was in charge of education for Singapore. I cannot imagine any more difficult problem than being responsible for the education of the population of Singapore. She was telling me something to which reference has been made already in this discussion, that all the young people wanted to get an academic education. They all wanted to be lawyers, doctors or civil servants. She said something I have never forgotten, and it has application to our own country; that it is more important in these days to turn out educated technicians than people who are educated merely technically. This, of course, is why vocational training is so important.
It is satisfying to learn that the government has recognized that importance and is doing what it can in this field. I read from the minister's statement the other night at page 7146 of Hansard:
I may say that at the present time vocational training facilities are filled to capacity and there is a need for additional facilities.
This has been underlined by the remarks
of all speakers this afternoon.

To meet this need the provinces are being encouraged to establish additional facilities and to take advantage of capital funds which are available under these agreements.
As we know, these agreements provide for the sharing of the capital costs of these facilities on a 50-50 basis. As has been pointed out, some of the provinces find it difficult to meet their share of the cost of establishing facilities of this kind. Perhaps it is not possible for the minister to answer this, but I wonder whether he can give the committee any information as to how often developments in this field have been held up, not because of the lack of a federal contribution but because the provinces themselves are not financially in a position to take advantage of the agreement.


Michael Starr: The information I have received is that we do not know, nor can we state, why certain provinces are not moving as rapidly in the direction of these schools as are other provinces. There may be various reasons. They may want to allot their funds to a different type of school in which we do not participate. However, most provinces with which we have agreements have been moving very well in this direction, and have been taking up in full the allotments that have been set aside for them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the minister would agree that it is often the poorer provinces, where the need is greatest, which have difficulty in carrying out the agreement.


Michael Starr: That may be possible.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to add a word before this item passes. I should like to emphasize once again the importance of this item to the economic growth of this country. The government should recognize that it is responsible for employment and should, therefore, make special representations to the provinces inviting them to take advantage of this offer in connection with vocational training. Under this program, as has been suggested, schools should be built to provide this vocational training. In too many cases the youth of this country leave the primary schools unprepared for anything but unskilled labour.
I am sure the minister would agree that if vocational training were given it would be needless for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to advertise in the Belfast newspapers for skilled workers to come to this country. I am pleased to note that the unemployment insurance commission has been cooperating in this program.
Before resuming my seat I should like to put on record a paragraph from page 14 of

the unemployment insurance commission report for the year ending March 31, 1959, which reads as follows:
Direction to vocational training-Direction of individuals to vocational training courses under various dominion-provincial agreements and to courses in training centres approved by the commission resulted in many people receiving training in occupations where demand for workers had exceeded the supply. During the year, a total of 4,510 claimants received unemployment insurance benefit while attending vocational training courses. This was more than double the number of claimants directed to training during the previous year.
My reason for placing this paragraph on record is to show that less than 1 per cent of the unemployed in this country are taking advantage of this opportunity to attend vocational schools. I think they should be induced to take advantage of this training. This would be one way for the Department of Labour to help in solving our unemployment problem.


Mr. Hellyer:: The case for vocational training has been very well put this afternoon by a number of hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, who I thought spoke eloquently and beautifully on a serious and far-reaching problem and offered a solution which was constructive and which should commend itself to all hon. members of this committee.
I appreciate and commend the government for its new move to increase the federal participation in the joint training plan with the provinces with respect to technical training. However, I do not believe they have gone far enough. I think this is a half measure, and will not meet the problem that at present faces us. In any of these problems the most important thing to do is to face their magnitude. This is something the government has failed to do. This fact was patent both from listening to and reading the debates of the last two days. Unemployment in this country has reached the level of hundreds of thousands of people, not just a few thousand. Among these hundreds of thousands of people, particularly in the case of the male unemployed population, the level of education is unfortunately not great. I have not the actual statistics here with me; I wish I had. However, I was interested to note that the large majority of the male unemployed had a grade 8 education or less.
Here is a tremendous opportunity. Here is something which must be done. However, the government is not going to accomplish it by offering a partial payment to provinces which are going to take up the challenge. The provinces were here in Ottawa this week looking for extra financial assistance. They are already overburdened and overpressed. Unemployment may have been considered at one time to be a
Supply-Labour
provincial problem, but it is no longer that. It is a federal problem. The federal government has in fact, taken over, the main and primary responsibility for unemployment in this country, and the problem of technical training is directly and inseparably connected with the problem of unemployment. In this labour force there are hundreds of thousands of people who need additional technical training, people who need either new skills if they have been displaced by automation or a skill in cases where they have never been fortunate enough to receive adequate training in the first place. There is a tremendous opportunity for an investment along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West last night when he was suggesting investments which are self-recovering, or which put back into the national economy more than they take out.
In discussing this matter on previous occasions I have said that it is a problem of considerable magnitude which must be faced on the basis of that magnitude. The expenditure involved in order to meet this problem might, by the time it became fully in force, amount to $100 million or $200 million a year. It is that order of magnitude which is required, not an expenditure of $8 million a year in participating with the provincial governments. Nor can we expect the provincial governments to raise the extra money required so that through this joint operation the job may be done effectively. This job will be done effectively only when the federal government accepts the responsibility and pays the whole shot. There is no way around it. Under the present distribution of responsibility and taxing authority as between the levels of government, there is no other way in which the challenge can be faced. I therefore urge the minister to take another look at the problem, to re-assess it, to consider the magnitude, and to come back to the House of Commons with a recommendation which is worthy of the minister and worthy of the problem he faces. I can assure him that he will get a sympathetic reception from all parts of this chamber.
Vocational training is an investment which would return much to the Canadian economy. It is an investment which would return just as much as the program which was put into effect after world war II, when thousands of young people like myself had the advantage of higher education at the expense of the government. That program was part of a rehabilitation process, and that is what is required now, namely rehabilitation of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own.
Startling was the revelation recently that only one person out of ten in our unemployed

Supply-Labour
labour force has the skills necessary to accept the jobs offered. Statistically, what could be more startling? What could be more revealing in respect of the nature of the problem? The other nine people required more training before they can accept the jobs that are pres-sently available in our national economy. We recommend that something appropriate be done about this matter.
As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has said on numerous occasions, it does not make sense that people drawing unemployment insurance should not be able to take advantage of the technical training at the same time. It is far better that these people should go to school in the wintertime and learn something which will enable them, once they return to the labour force, to be more productive, more happily and more usefully occupied.
This is a program that does not need long consideration. It does not need an advisory council. All it needs is a government with the courage and imagination to put it into effect. We hope the minister will give it the necessary consideration, will recommend it to his colleagues, and will have them recommend it to the House of Commons.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. McCleave):
Order. It seems to me that it is the wish of the committee, as I interpret it, to consider both items 170 and 171 together. They are the items dealing with vocational training, the first under the head of administration and the second with the way in which vocational training operates. If that is the wish of the committee it will facilitate the debate. Do I understand that is agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edwin William Brunsden: Had opportunity offered last evening for me to participate in this debate, Mr. Chairman, I would have immediately said that I was happy that no representatives of the unemployed were in the gallery. We heard raucous laughter. We heard a lighthearted approach to a serious problem, and I felt at eleven o'clock that we had made no contribution to it. Today I feel that there has been an approach, a contribution and a soul searching with respect to the fundamental problem of unemployment, and today I wish the unemployed representatives were here.
Of all the cabinet posts in the government, in my opinion the most unenviable one is that of the Minister of Labour. Speaking not as a member of the government but as a member of the House of Commons I should like to say I am deeply convinced that our present Minister of Labour is doing a most conscientious and thorough job with respect to the most difficult problem in Canada. Let me

say to him, Mr. Chairman, through you that I am not too greatly swayed by statistics, particularly the Martin bureau of statistics.
There are thousands of statistics with respect to unemployment. One speaks in his own environment and from his own experience. I live in a small town of approximately 3,000 people. I know that each month certain of our elder citizens become incapacitated. They retire, and they have an arrangement whereby they may enjoy unemployment insurance for a year or 18 months. They say it is by right; I am not so sure that it is. Nevertheless they are in the picture of the unemployment insurance situation in Canada. There are many younger people, and those of us who perforce must live in Ottawa over a period must hear them talking. They work for so long and then they say they can enjoy their unemployment insurance now.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: Order. Are the remarks of the hon. member dealing with unemployment insurance exclusively? The committee is considering vocational training.


Edwin William Brunsden: I will bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman. These are the young people who I wish would enjoy vocational training. These are the young people I wish would be encouraged to enjoy vocational training. These are the young people who by virtue of vocational training tomorrow will make better Canadians.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall items 170 and 171 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Government employees compensation-
172.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $112,170.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a question on this item, which is for the administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act in the amount of $112,170, followed by a statutory item with regard to payments of compensation respecting government employees in the amount of $1,900,000, making a total vote of $2,012,107.
I would like to make a brief comment be-for asking a question as to how it affects workmen's compensation for government employees. As we all know, workmen's compensation comes completely within the jurisdiction and administration of the provinces. I can only speak for my own province of British Columbia, under which I have quite an understanding of compensation.
I believe it was back somewhere around 1917 that workmen's compensation first became law in British Columbia. At that time the chairman of the board was a man who had been an outstanding citizen, Mr. E. S. H.

Wynn, who held his position for many years. But in those days of the administration of workmen's compensation there was that section which said that in deciding workmen's compensation or workmen's compensation pensions the benefit of the doubt went to the applicant. Unfortunately E. S. H. Wynn is no longer chairman, and under the new government of British Columbia it is now almost impossible to get the benefit of the doubt or to make an appeal in a workmen's compensation case. I am very sorry to have to say that, but that is my estimation and my understanding.
Now, why do I raise this matter here on this vote, which is a federal matter? It is because over the last year or two I have received a number of letters from those who are covered by provincial workmen's compensation but in whose cases the money is being paid by the federal government. Federal employees, at least as far as those in British Columbia are concerned, are finding that the benefit of the doubt no longer exists. It is almost impossible for anyone, either a member of parliament or a member of the legislative assembly or anybody else, to get a review on a question of the benefit of the doubt, or to get any results at all.
In view of that disgraceful situation which exists in British Columbia because of the kind of government in the province today, and in view of the fact that it now costs this government in administration and payments over $2 million, I would ask the minister to help and protect federal employees who come under provincial workmen's compensation. I would ask him whether he has in his department what I might call a workmen's compensation advocate who is responsible for payments to provincial authorities on claims for workmen's compensation or claims for pensions, and at the same time whether he has a medical adviser in his department. As far as I am concerned I would be glad to support the appointment of a compensation advocate to take up the cases of unfortunate employees of the federal civil service who may have trouble in getting satisfaction from provincial governments and are not obtaining the benefit of the doubt, which I think is an important point of law.


Michael Starr: We have no advocate in the department at the moment, nor have we as such a position for a medical adviser. But we do avail ourselves in many cases of the medical advisers in the Department of National Health and Welfare if medical advice is necessary. Also, where an appeal has been made to us and we feel there is some ground for it, we bring it to the attention of the
Supply-Labour
provincial compensation board on behalf of a federal employee and ask for a review of the particular case.


Harold Edward Winch: If the minister's experience is the same as mine as far as the present government and the board in British Columbia are concerned, he has not got anywhere on a single case. So a reference to the provincial government of British Columbia is useless. Is consideration being given to including in this department an advocate and a medical officer? If not, do all federal employees know that if they cannot get what they think is just from a provincial workmen's compensation board there is a means to appeal for help to the minister's department? Is that known to all federal employees; because I am getting many letters on this matter?
Mr. .Starr: Yes, they are well aware of that, and if they approach us, as has been the case in the past, we ask for a review by the provincial board.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, before making these few remarks the minister might save my making them at all. Am I right in saying that this item would cover the compensation of the employees of the giant Yellowknife gold mine in the Northwest Territories?


Michael Starr: No.


Murdo William Martin: Then could the minister tell me whether they come under federal jurisdiction?


Michael Starr: They are under the Northwest Territories ordinance. They have their own provisions.


Murdo William Martin: Well, I did not know how this question could be raised in any other way. If I am out of order, Mr. Chairman, I will at once accept your ruling, but I think this is a matter of major importance and I think it should be raised on the floor of the house.


Michael Starr: May I interrupt the hon. member and say it should properly be raised on the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs, because it comes under the jurisdiction of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories.


Murdo William Martin: Am I at liberty to proceed, Mr. Chairman?


Robert Jardine McCleave: the hon. member relates his remarks to the subject of employees' compensation he will be in order.


Murdo William Martin: That leaves me in an awkward position, Mr. Chairman, because I had been intending to raise this matter on

Supply-Labour
these estimates. It has to do with the position of employees of gold mines, and I was under the impression that this matter came under federal jurisdiction. It has to do with what is called compulsory aluminum dust therapy, which I understand is practised in all the gold quartz mines in Canada, which would include those under federal jurisdiction in the Northwest Territories. This is a matter of importance because of the experience we have had in the Porcupine gold mine area, and I am sure the same applies elsewhere though possibly not to the same degree because there are not the same numbers involved.
This aluminum dust treatment was brought about by the McIntyre foundation-I am not sure of the name-as a cure or means of prevention of the scourge of gold miners, namely silicosis. From the point of view of company compensation costs it may have worked successfully, because certainly the incidence of silicosis has dropped sharply since the introduction of this therapy. But since this treatment began the incidence of tuberculosis in the gold mining areas has increased threefold, and the incidence of carcinoma, which is a fancy word for lung cancer, has increased at a terrific rate and there are fears among the people involved in the mining industry as to whether there may be some connection between the increase in these dangerous diseases and the treatment they have been receiving.
Some work has been done in this connection, and from this work and study we find that the medical association of Germany has banned the use of this aluminum dust on human beings. The British medical association has said in regard to this particular treatment that it is at present in the stage where experiments could possibly be conducted on animals but not on human beings. Last, but not least, the United States medical association has said that the McIntyre foundation, which manufactures and sells this aluminum dust to all the gold mines across the country, is not qualified even to experiment in this field. Yet to my knowledge all the gold miners in the industry are forced to take this treatment whether they want to or not; the dust is blown ino the rooms when they change their clothes before starting a shift and when they come off shift. The treatment is forcibly applied to them, and they have no choice whether to refuse it or not.
The results of the treatment in its present state have not been proven one way or the other. I feel that if miners want to take this treatment voluntarily then possibly they should be able to do so, but I think it is wrong that the federal government should be implicated in any way, especially as medical associations in the United States,

Britain and Germany are not agreed that it is of benefit to the workers. In fact the evidence we have at the present time is that the contrary is true.
I feel that the federal government has the responsibility of seeing that a stop is put to this compulsory treatment of miners, at least until such time as we have some assurance from medical authorities that it is in the interest of the employees and not just a means of curing a problem as far as the companies are concerned by eliminating silicosis, while replacing it with tuberculosis and lung cancer which are not subject to compensation. I think this is a terrible thing, and I believe the federal government should ensure that they are not in any way responsible for the continuation of this practice that we see across this country.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
Chair was never told whether the federal government did have an administrative responsibility for this question, and I think perhaps justice has been done to the hon. member who wished to make these remarks. Perhaps he should have chosen another occasion. I hope the committee will bear with me, and that hon. members will not extend the subject to all mines in Canada. Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: The
next item is item 173, then item 174-


Michael Starr: There is a supplementary item No. 527, under the heading "Special Services", to extend to May 31, 1960 the period in respect to the application of the municipal works incentive program.
Special services-
527. To extend to the 31st day of May, 1960, the period in respect of which payments may be made to a province and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program as contemplated by vote 615 of the Appropriation Act No. 1, 1960, $1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister, on this item, if he can tell us what are the estimates of the cost for the fiscal year 1959-60, that is the additional cost of the program as announced by the Prime Minister a week ago today?


Michael Starr: Approximately $12,250,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that the estimated contribution of the federal government?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What has been the cost to date of the winter works program as far as the federal government's contribution is concerned?


Michael Starr: That is the amount of the federal contribution to the payroll costs of all the projects that have been submitted to us and approved to date. We have not yet received all the accounts from the provinces. *


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the minister misunderstood my first question. My first question was, what is the estimated cost of the addition to the program announced by the Prime Minister a week ago today?


Michael Starr: I explained that earlier in answer to a similar question. I explained that we have just sent out the letters to the provinces announcing this extended program. It is very hard to assess now what programs the municipalities will undertake in connection with this extension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely an estimate has been made by the treasury. In any event, would I be correct in saying it would not be more than $3 million?


Michael Starr: What is contemplated now is a supplementary estimate somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would cover the whole project in so far as the federal contribution is concerned?


Michael Starr: That is the federal contribution to the payroll costs of what may be undertaken next winter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The total cost of the winter works program for the fiscal year 1960-61 will be $25 million. Is that right?


Michael Starr: No, just the federal government's share.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; that is what I am talking about. My question was this. What is the estimated cost of the program covered by the refinements and modifications announced by the Prime Minister a week ago today?


Michael Starr: We had an estimate of $15 million for the past winter. Probably we will be increasing this estimate by $10 million, to $25 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did I understand the minister to say that the increase in the federal share resulting from the improvements and modifications comes to an estimated $10 million?


Michael Starr: Yes, that is as close an estimate as we can make. Of course if the municipalities undertake projects under the expanded program that will necessitate more than $25 million on behalf of the federal government, we will have to come back to parliament and ask for a further supplementary vote.
79951-0-462
Supply-Labour


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was the figure of $12 million which the minister gave me a few moments ago the cost of the program to date for the fiscal year 1959-60?


Michael Starr: Yes, that is the estimate so far.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can my hon. friend tell me what is the total estimated cost of the winter works program by all levels of government?


Michael Starr: Seventy four million dollars.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So that out of $74 million the federal contribution was $12 million?


Michael Starr: Those are the earlier estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt that that is the situation; an estimated $12 million out of approximately $74 million is the federal contribution?


Michael Starr: Those are the estimated figures, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: The
final three items of this department are Nos. 173, 174 and 528, supplementary. They all deal with the unemployment insurance commission. Is it agreeable to the committee that all three be taken together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Unemployment Insurance Commission-
173.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act, $36,136,000.
174.	Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $37,500.
528. Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $237,500.


James Stanley Speakman: I, like the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, am rather hesitant to intrude on the time of the front benches of the opposition, but there are a couple of suggestions I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee under this item.
I wish first to make an appeal to the minister and through the minister to the government for the inclusion of farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, so these people may draw unemployment insurance benefits when they are out of work. At the

Supply-Labour
present time there are many thousands of labourers required on farms in Canada, and particularly in western Canada. This requirement will increase in the next three or four months by a very large amount, and people will not be available to fill the requirement. I suggest that the principal reason for this will be that these people will not take employment on the farms because they cannot get unemployment insurance stamps in their books.
A good many years ago the agricultural industry, particularly in western Canada, was able to fill its requirements for additional labour by young people drawn from other parts of Canada, and I think particularly from the maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec. This was a very fine arrangement for western Canada, because we have in that area today many of those young people who came west 25, 30 and 35 years ago, liked what they saw, established themselves and are now some of our finest farmers. This is a practice which has ceased almost completely since the harvest excursions which took place in those years were discontinued.
To many of us, and particularly those in this committee who represent agricultural constituencies in the west, one of the most serious problems we have is the lessening of our farm population and, with the decrease in the population, the disappearance of what we commonly know as the family farm. In this debate a great deal has been said about self-employment and family help. This is very important not only to western Canada but to the economy as a whole, because it provides a good deal of employment. I am sure much is going to be said on these items with regard to unemployment and the numbers of unemployed. If the appeal I make to the minister and the government to make available to farm labour the benefits of unemployment insurance were acted upon, it would do very much over the next four months to decrease the number of unemployed in Canada.
In conclusion I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he give very serious consideration to my next recommendation. I suggest to the minister that the national employment service prepare a weekly list of job openings to be sent out to rural and small urban post offices so the people in those areas who are without work will know of employment vacancies which are available and can make application. This is not done at present because these people draw their unemployment insurance benefits by mail on a semi-monthly basis. They do not have an opportunity to learn about these employment opportunities. By the provision of these lists and their posting in the local post offices it would give our people

in the rural and small ui'ban areas an opportunity to make application for such employment as is available.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The front benchers of the opposition are delighted to have the backbenchers of the government intrude on our time to support policies with respect to the inclusion of agricultural labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which we in the opposition have urged for a number of years; so there is no need to apologize for participating in this debate, as we are delighted to receive their support in this connection.
Before coming to the core of my remarks, which the press gallery will probably consider parochial, let me say this is a serious thing. In association with other hon. members I have brought it to the attention of the government over the years. Farmers suffer a disability because when they seek help the workers want to make sure they will retain unemployment insurance stamps in the event they become unemployed. I have had this experience when on occasion I have had to hire a man for three or four hours. On this account opportunities for casual employment with farmers are lost. In association with the previous speaker I urge the government to give consideration to the representations made on the subject by many organizations, and particularly the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the federation of agriculture of British Columbia and the British Columbia fruit growers' association.
I do want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the good work undertaken by the regional staffs of the unemployment insurance commission and the employment service in Nelson and Trail. It is not easy to fill positions under these circumstances; it requires a great deal of patience, and owing to human impatience and human weakness on occasion, and sometimes human discourtesy, arising largely out of misunderstanding of the act or the regulations, very often we meet someone who really thinks the officers administering those acts in the local offices are trying to do them out of something, without realizing that the responsibility of the officer is to administer the law and the regulations. On that account I want to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of the labour organizations in the district, of the work that has been done throughout the years by the officers and staff of the Nelson and Trail regional offices of the employment service of Canada and the unemployment insurance commission.
I want to make a couple of other points. I do urge that every opportunity be given

the regional officers to visit the smaller communities. They have had more opportunity in recent years, but I know it is very difficult for them to get away on occasion because their work is centred in those two larger centres in the constituency I have the honour to represent. But I think it would be to the advantage of the administration and of the employers and employees concerned if these regional officers had an opportunity to visit the smaller communities periodically. I believe in these personal visits, they give them the opportunity to get closer personal contact with the employers, employees and members of the representative organizations in the small communities upon whom they depend to quite an extent for the efficient working of the act at some distance from the larger centre. I also suggest that they be given this opportunity in the winter months particularly when we, owing to weather conditions, sometimes get large numbers of men laid off rather quickly because of the depth of snow and climatic conditions which occur at 3,000 feet.
There is one other point on which I should like to touch. Once again I want to protest against two government agencies being responsible for employment placement; first the employment service and, second the immigration service. I think the national employment service should be the sole agency responsible for the placement of individuals in employment. Because of the way it is done under present conditions it causes considerable ill feeling and unnecessary ill will, and in my opinion it is most unfair. Therefore in conclusion I do urge the minister to use his good offices as a member of the cabinet to point out the weakness of the present system and try to get the government to accept the policy of having one agency, the national employment service, to find employment for persons whether they are Canadian citizens, residents, or immigrants.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before making some comments on this item I wish to thank you for your suggestion that we might discuss items 173 and 174 together. May I say I am very pleased indeed to see you sitting in the chair at the moment, and as we come to the end of the session I recognize that you have been diverted to other important matters during the course of the session which have not gone unnoticed by hon. members.
I too, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, am very happy that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, who is momentarily out of the chamber, chose to participate in this debate. When the hon. member for Okan-agan-Revelstoke spoke about an hour ago 79951-0-4624
Supply-Labour
I expressed not only my pleasure in his participation but in his contribution. Those of us in the opposition who have the responsibility of scrutinizing government policy welcome whatever help we can get from hon. members who sit behind the ministry, particularly when their observations are of an objective kind, in keeping with the high standards of objective scrutiny which we in the Liberal party endeavour to maintain toward these important matters.
I also join with the hon. member who has just taken his seat in paying tribute to the personnel in the unemployment insurance commission, the commission itself, the officers in Ottawa and those in the various offices in the country. I should like in a special way to pay tribute to the personnel of the unemployment insurance commission offices in my own city of Windsor, who have been faced with a very heavy responsibility arising out of the high level of unemployment that has prevailed there during the past three years. I am sure that the citizens of Windsor generally are grateful and would want me to say to the minister that there is much appreciation by industry, by the unions and by the citizens generally of the devotion to service of the personnel in the Windsor office.
The manager of the Windsor office, Mr. John Sharrer, is to retire some time within the course of the next four or five months, I understand. I do not know the exact time, but I understand that his retirement is imminent. I should like to say that Mr. Sharrer has been a devoted public servant. He has sought to inform the public of his responsibilities, of the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and he has contributed in no small measure to whatever alleviation of the problem of unemployment was at his disposal.
I am happy to say this, because when he was appointed I felt that the direction of that office should go to someone who resided in the city of Windsor. Of course the appointment was not at the disposal of the government of the day; it was a matter that rested as the minister knows, with the civil service commission. But I felt that where possible the procedures of the civil service commission ought to recognize local talent. Nevertheless, the fact is that this gentleman has performed a notable service, I want to pay him this inadequate but well deserved tribute.
The unemployment insurance administration has to do not only with the granting of benefits to those who have legal entitlement, but with the administration of a very large operation. It is the custodian of large sums of money, contributed to mainly by the two principal contributors, the employees and the employers, with the federal government contributing a much smaller amount. When one

Supply-Labour
considers the criticism that was levelled at the unemployment insurance scheme, when first established, one wonders whether criticisms that are directed toward social legislation take into account the actual achievements of such measures when they are put to full use. In this period of high unemployment, where would we be but for the unemployment insurance act and the unemployment insurance fund? I am sure it is the concern of all of us that the fund be maintained in such proportions as to always be able to provide the contractual benefits which exist as a result of the arrangements made among the beneficiaries, the contributors and the state.
The concern that is now in my mind is that if the prognostications concerning unemployment in the ensuing period are valid, the fund is going to be tested in the next 12 months as it has not been tested since the act first came into being in 1941. The government, I am sure, has been giving consideration to this matter. The government, I am sure, has been giving consideration to the definite possibility, that it will be called on to replenish the fund. Notwithstanding the fact that last year it increased the contributions of the employers and employees, the revenue was estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $75 million to $78 million, although I understand the actual revenues were not as great as anticipated. If I am wrong in that connection the minister will possibly indicate the extent of the inaccuracy. These increases in contributions were imposed without changing the basic pattern of benefits. In spite of the increases in revenues, the fund continues to be in a precarious state.
The Minister of Labour was asked by the hon. member for Gloucester, early this session, what amount was to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund on June 30, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960. The minister replied to this question on July 27 last. He indicated in that reply that as of June 30, 1957, the fund stood at $852,729,261.78; as of June 30, 1958, at $644,520,634.54; as of June 30, 1959, $434,152,690.64; as of June 30, 1960, $296,187,477.10. I direct the attention of the committee to the drop from 1957 to the present time. The present level of the fund, on the basis of this return, which I believe is not the final word in the matter, nevertheless reflects the seriousness of the state of the fund at the present time. Unless the government can show a greater potential revenue than we have thus far had in the experience of the fund's operation, if we have a comparable level of unemployment there will not be enough money in the fund to provide the benefits acquired by right by those who, being

out of work, require this particular form of assistance in order to provide for themselves and their families.
This is, of course, a serious matter, but I do not believe the problem can be allowed to rest at the figure given for June 30, 1960. I have in my hand the unemployment insurance commission report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, the last available report. I direct the committee's attention to page 25, where under the title "Claims", the report presents the following:
The increase in the volume of initial claims which commenced, towards the end of 1957-
The words "end of 1957", should be underlined.
-continued until October 1958, resulting in a record number of initial claims being filed.
Then on page 31 of the report, in the second complete paragraph under the title "Unemployment Insurance Fund", we find this:
Benefit payments during 1958-59 amounted to $478,631,077.67. Revenue from all sources amounted to $234,242,110.31.
I jump over the next sentence, which is not relevant to my point, and I quote:
The excess of benefit payments over revenue was $244,388,967.36. This left a balance in the fund at the end of the fiscal year of $499,811,157.51. Benefit payments exceeded revenue in all months except August, September and October.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this cannot and must not be allowed to escape our attention. On April 23 last, the Minister of Labour-his words will be found at page 3009 of Hansard -told us the unemployment insurance fund had incurred a financial loss of more than $10 million during the fiscal year 1958-59 as a result of the sale by the commission, under the authority of the investment committee, of government bonds. The committee, of course, will recall that under the act, the investment committee is made up of the governor of the Bank of Canada and the deputy ministers of finance and labour. We know that during the fiscal year 1959-60 and the first two months of this year, another $10 million was lost by the fund, as a result of the sale of government bonds. These two losses in these two different fiscal years were actual losses. I am not now talking, although I will, about the unrealized or book losses.
In any event, these two actual losses represent very impressive amounts, particularly when we take into account the nature of the fund, a fund made up, as I said, of contributions from employees and employers each amounting to more than 80 per cent of the fund, while the contribution of the state is less than 20 per cent of the fund. We refer to this fund not as a government account. It should be regarded for what it is, a trust

account. We should remember that the amount of cash in the fund or the amount of securities in the fund belongs not to the state, but to the workers, to industry, and only a very small part to the government, representing the taxpayers of Canada.
Of the $20 million which was lost as a result of the sale of government bonds and securities during the last two years, more than $16 million was owned by the workers and industry and less than $4 million came from the state. If the loss of $20 million incurred by the fund during the last two years had been due to unmanageable factors, there would be no justification for criticizing the investment policy of the fund. However, I contend that the $20 million loss could and should have been avoided, if there had been the kind of management of that fund which I believe in the case of a trust fund must exist, because of the high obligation imposed on trustees of resources which belong to those who have no manageable control in the fund itself.
Until the end of 1957 there was no real incompatibility between the responsibilities of members of the investment committee and their responsibilities as officers serving the government of Canada in other capacities. However, since that time the large deficit resulting from the actions of the government in the field of fiscal policy has shown there is now a real and important difference between the policies which ought to be followed with respect to the investments of the unemployment insurance fund and the course of action which the government believes it should follow in the management of the public debt. The heavy unemployment during the fiscal year 1958-59 caused a severe drain on the unemployment insurance fund, as is indicated by the figures in the reply given to the hon. member for Gloucester.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In 1957 the fund was $852 million in round figures, and on June 30, 1960, some $296 million. As I say, that figure of $296 million is not the last figure, if you take into account the actual losses I have mentioned and the book losses to which I will make reference later. Having in mind the necessity for maintaining the liquidity of this fund in the face of the unemployment problem, I believe these losses could and should have been avoided, particularly if the fund had been maintained in a more liquid state, something which I say was desirable having in mind the heavy drain on the fund itself. There can be no doubt, as subsequent events have revealed, of the necessity of maintaining the liquidity of the fund. Hence the trustees of the fund in 1958
Supply-Labour
should have sold government securities at every profitable opportunity in order to increase its cash holdings.
This means also that, to the extent that the fund decided to purchase government securities, it should have bought three-month treasury bills, short term government bonds or other securities maturing at an early date. However, during this period the aims sought by the government in the field of debt management were the very opposite of the financial requirements of the unemployment insurance fund itself. Indeed, we know that the government was trying to meet its huge cash requirements by selling as many bonds as possible to the public. The government also attempted, through the conversion loan, to lengthen the term of public holdings of its bonds. In other words the avowed purpose of the government was to reduce the liquidity position of the public, while the basic requirement of the unemployment insurance fund was to increase its liquidity as much as possible. There was therefore a sharp conflict of interest between the fund and the government.
The basis of my criticism is that the investment transactions of the fund were not, during that period, in my judgment conducted in the interests of the fund, but were determined exclusively by the requirements of the government, and as a result the fund lost $20 million. I am not alone in this view. I have before me a view expressed by Mr. A. H. Cameron in a speech he made on June 9, 1960 in the city of Kingston. I wish to quote his words. I regret I do not have the newspaper which reported him, but I can get it after I have finished. He said this:
In the first quarter of 1959, U.I.C. sold $129 millions, including $30 millions conversion 1972's, and $45 millions other longs, realizing large losses, until a government loan postponed further selling. The story is similar this year. This liquidation reflects U.I.C.'s prior aid to debt management. Facing a winter of obvious unemployment, (after a large early 1958 bond liquidation) U.I.C. converted all its Victory bonds, even its reputed $89 millions 1959 and 1960 maturities-buying no bills until October, 1958. These short Victories would have helped in meeting claims-without large losses.
Mr. Coyne later told a commons committee that U.I.C. could not have sold its $308 million Victories during the conversion-. .. "It was too large for the market to take. It would have ruined the market. .." One might ask, "What market?" since over 2,000 larger bond accounts could deal in Victories with only one dealer officially representing the Bank of Canada or Loan Committee. The only real market was in Bank of Canada. This implies the bank denied to U.I.C. the cash prices it offered the public, the banks and others.
The conflict of interest-U.I.C.'s needs versus debt management, (not apparent while the fund grew or government ran cash surpluses), was created by parliament placing bank and finance officials on the U.I.C. committee. Government widened the benefits in 1958 so that the fund entered 1959 with increased outgo, shorn of its more liquid Victories

Supply-Labour
by the loan. Had an independent trustee forced $300 millions in Victories on Bank of Canada for cash, he would have faced a reinvestment problem, but UI.C. had as much right as chartered banks of Canada's short paper-or even specially created government short paper. Had this happened, 1959's sales would have pressured the short market, not the long, for the converted Victories would have been in Bank of Canada.
Then he concludes as follows:
Subordinating U.I.C.'s liquidity needs to debt management, was of transient benefit, for many long term bonds soon were sold'-at a loss to U.I.C. Debt management problems during the loan would have been greater if U.I.C.'s interests had prevailed. Yet the U.I.C. committee would have been spurning the loan conceived in their other capacities. I pray that parliament will never again place public servants in such an impossible dilemma. The stopgap aid to debt management is not worth the result.
In view of the criticisms we levelled last session on this point, it seems to me that the government must take full responsibility for the actual loss of $20 million, as a consequence of the conversion loan and of the government's debt management policy. But this is not the whole situation. The par value of the bonds left in the fund was estimated recently at about $296 million. This compares with more than $900 million at the end of 1956 and, in view of the present unemployment outlook, represents a dangerously low level.
However, the real value of those bonds, if they had to be sold at present, is much lower than the amount of $296 million. The price of the conversion bonds held by the fund is comparatively low, and if those bonds had to be liquidated it is not likely that the proceeds would exceed $250 million. Who in this committee, in the face of the prognostications of unemployment, even assuming it does not rise to a level higher than the period through which we are now traversing, will deny that that is a very serious situation? With the amount of $250 million in the fund will we see the depletion of the fund. We should have from the Minister of Labour, and from the Minister of Finance if necessary, a statement as to what the government proposes to do before we finally pass these items. It could very well be that at the end of 1961 nothing will be left in the fund which on June 30, 1957, stood at over $852 million.
Is it the intention of the government to do nothing until the fund has been depleted? Will the government reimburse the $20 million lost by the fund as a result of the mismanagement of that fund? What steps does the government intend to take to replenish the fund? Although the minister denied, correcting himself the next day, that the fund had borrowed money from the government this year, the government did through the Minister of Finance loan to the fund some moneys
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
in the months of April and May of this year. I think the general totals of those loans are not too far different from the total loss of the fund to which I have directed the committee's attention.
Now, Mr. Chairman, last night I indicated what	were the realized	losses of	the	fund,what	the realized losses	were for	the	fiscalyear	prior to this one,	and what	the	booklosses were a year ago.	This year	the	book
losses are something in the neighbourhood of $42 million as compared with a book loss in the previous fiscal year of some $60 million. So the market value of the fund now, less advances, is not much more than $260 million, and not the $296 million reported by the Minister of Labour on July 22, 1960.
In spite of the recent improvement in the bond market the fund at the end of June showed a book loss, as I said a moment ago, of $42 million. There are no securities now left in the fund which nature before 1968. That will be found by examining the unemployment insurance securities portfolio. Unless there is a further sharp improvement in the bond market, or unless the government makes a substantial contribution to restore the cash position of the fund, a serious loss on bond sales will be sustained next winter, when the seasonal drain on the fund begins.
Apart altogether from that, no one can deny that the fund is in a precarious state. We have the right on this estimate, in fact a duty, to ask the Minister of Labour for his comments, and to ask him to indicate what the government proposes to do to put the fund in such a state that if it is called upon to provide assistance to the unemployed in the next ensuing period, there will be no difficulty in doing so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have the opportunity of following the hon. member for Essex East, because I had intended to deal very largely with the subject he has just dealt with, and to do so completely on its merits and not, I hope, be led away by political considerations. But one never knows. Certainly the ex-minister had a fine time to himself, indulging in that delightful practice of wisdom after the event. I have seldom heard more wisdom after the event in such a short time, particularly with regard to securities.
Mr. Chairman, when I was in business I had some experience in the field of securities, so I can well realize how the hon. member was enjoying himself by indulging, with his uninhibited joy, in wisdom after the event. All I can say on that matter is that as much as I respect the hon. member and his judgment in many ways, I would not consider him a great authority on the matter of securities. I would much rather trust the experienced and

skilled men who actually deal in these securities. But there was never anyone who dealt with securities, however skilled and prudent he was, who could not afterwards be shown with a little after the event wisdom to have made what looked like a mistake, and we have had a classic example of that this afternoon.
Having said that, I must say 1 quite agree with the hon. member for Essex East when he says that this fund is in danger, and it is because of that fact that I want to speak about it this afternoon. I want to raise a question which I believe goes to the very root of unemployment insurance. I want to point out that perhaps, without anyone ever intending it, over these last years we have almost I will not say inevitably but unconsciously and unintentionally slipped into the situation where the fund has become less and less an insurance fund and more and more a general welfare fund. Indeed, perhaps it is not going too far to say that there is a widespread disposition to regard it more and more as a kind of universal Santa Claus.
Let me say here that I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as criticizing harshly the people who have taken benefits from the fund which strictly speaking were not intended, because I intend to make the point that this change in attitude "growed like Topsy". People began to extend it, and then it was extended a little more and a little more. I will not go into a lot of detail because I believe every hon. member here today can illustrate for himself the various leniencies, extensions and stretchings out of this fund which has made it serve purposes for which it was never intended.
Let me say quickly, lest I forget later, that the reason this has come about is not wholly because of claimants on the fund, but is also due to the attitude of employers who have found it convenient for various reasons to make a kind of informal broadening out of the purposes of the fund. Whatever the reason is, I feel one should face the fact that the situation is serious and calls for action.
Of course another of the secrets of the hon. member for Essex East in his speech this afternoon is that the fund has been depleted in the last couple of years because we had unemployment. I must say I am awfully grateful to him him for that, because otherwise one might not have known. Of course it has been depleted because of unemployment, and we recognize that it has been depleted to some extent because of government action, and we are all responsible for that.
I do not propose to go into detail, but I hope this afternoon, as far as my voice will reach-of course it will not reach as far as
Supply-Labour
Churchill's-to direct the attention of a few, or perhaps more than a few, to the fact that as I said a moment ago the fund has lost its character as an insurance fund. I am not going to attempt to apportion responsibility; what I am trying to do is create a feeling that something should be done, and that we should all share it. Money is being consumed for reasons which were never intended and, furthermore, this means that unemployment figures have been distorted and exaggerated, to what extent I am not going to attempt to estimate; but anyone who has thought about this will agree that it has led to the distortion of unemployment figures in a way which was never intended and in a way which has added a great deal to the difficulties of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission.
Imagine a situation such as this vis-a-vis the income tax department or the customs department. Unfortunately, with regard to insurance we have this situation, and I think it is best to understand what the situation is. When I and my neighbours on my street insure our houses we realize what we are doing; we are clubbing together so that if there is a fire, money is available to compensate the owner. We do not expect to get that money back. It is perfectly clear that when we contribute to such a fund we are not entitled to get our money back. Yet with regard to unemployment insurance there is this strong psychological feeling; "there is our money in that fund, and we are entitled to get it back". People who would not dream of expecting the return of money in other circumstances get a feeling that this is their money and that they are entitled to get it back. In the first place they overlook the fact that it is not their money; that in fact they have paid less than half of it, and more than half has been put up by the employers and the government.
While I am not prepared to say how much of that money goes out over and above what would go out if the fund were on a strictly insurance basis, the instances I have seen indicate a very substantial amount indeed. Some of the figures are staggering. And, as the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, over the past three years there has been a depletion of some $600 million.
I want to say a word about the attitude of employers, because that is very important. The co-operation of employers is needed to enable this stretching out or broadening out process-I do not know exactly how to describe it-to be carried on. This does not happen in connection with income tax; employers give accurate figures there, but in connection with unemployment insurance, apparently prompted by a desire to be good

Supply-Labour
fellows and partly because in various ways it is very convenient to them to have the insurance fund come in and take over care of people who are rated as unemployed, they do assist, and assist in a way which is very surprising and which I do not think would happen if we could persuade them to look at this question in a realistic manner.
I believe that what has to be done-and I do not despair of it-is that people have to be given a new point of view toward this question. Of course I do not think people are going to become more conscientious tomorrow than they are today, and I have no doubt this will need to be accompanied by strict regulations. Nevertheless we cannot simply leave this up to the people in the unemployment insurance commission. Public opinion has to be behind this. As the hon. member for Essex East reminds us, this is not chicken feed that we are talking about; this is a very important matter.
I hope I have not appeared to be speaking in a pious tone, and I hope I have not given the impression that I regard myself as superior to other people. I do not, and I hope I have not given that impression. I wanted to bring up what I consider to be a serious situation and to suggest a rational solution. I imagine that those who were responsible for creating this fund years ago did not anticipate the development which has now arisen. They thought they were setting up an insurance fund and nothing else, and that is what it should have remained.
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Essex East that this thing is bound to come to a head and that it needs serious consideration and action. As I said, it has grown like Topsy. It is clear there is going to be a heavy unnecessary drain unless we do something about it, but I am bold enough to believe that the people of this country, even if they slipped inadvertently into a false situation, when they are convinced of it they will face up to what has happened. I believe this has been done to some extent at any rate by inadvertence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not inadvertence. It is bad management.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, I am trying to be nonpolitical for just a few moments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall be finished in a minute or so, and I will try to answer questions then.
I believe that if we pull ourselves together -and I mean all of us, because this fast and loose attitude has been very widespread- something may yet be done to remedy the

situation. I hope someone else may have something to say on this subject; I hope I am not the only one to say something which may be a little unpopular. I suppose the only sensible thing to do is to get back to the insurance basis, and I believe if this is properly put to the people of this country they will do it, because they are not without common sense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question? It was suggested by the intervention of the hon. member for Trinity. The hon. gentleman disparages the argument of responsibility for this situation. He is an experienced businessman, having been a distinguished trust officer. Will he deny that from 1957 on there was a conflict of interest that justifies the charge of mismanagement?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, I would deny it. These were responsible people of character in charge of this fund-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one suggested they were not people of good character.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I deny the conflict of interest entirely.


Mr. Hobichaud:: My remarks will be very brief. I have had occasion many times in this house to express my opinions concerning the status of the unemployment insurance fund. I referred to this situation when I spoke last night on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Labour.
The hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat has acknowledged that the fund is presently in danger, and I would say to him that it is not necessary to be an authority on securities in order to see that the fund is indeed in great danger. The hon. member went on to say that in its present condition this fund is less an insurance fund than a general welfare fund. When the unemployment insurance commission was created under a Liberal administration it was created to be an insurance fund, and it was maintained as such by the former administration.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Albany M. Robichaud: I hear an hon. member, greatly concerned, say "No, no". The unemployment insurance fund is a trust fund which has been established to protect the working class of this country, and it has been built up through the contributions of the workers, the employers and the general public.
The records show that the fund was in good condition under the previous administration. When the present government took office on June 30, 1957 there was left in the fund the sum of $852 million. As at June 30 this year the fund was down to $296 million.


[Stage Direction]
We know that under the present conditions of unemployment, under the conditions which were admitted this morning by the minister, and in view of the forecast given us for the next eight or 10 months, we must acknowledge that notwithstanding the increase of 30 per cent in contributions which was introduced last year and which has been in effect since September 1, 1959, the unemployment insurance fund on this same date next year will contain only in the vicinity of $150 million. I am sure the minister will agree that this amount is not sufficient to take care of the situation. Before this estimate is passed the minister should tell us what are the plans of the government for replenishing the fund.
Before resuming my seat I want to express my concern about certain applications of the act and the regulations of the unemployment insurance commission. I know there have been abuses, and a fund of this kind is subject to them, but there rests on the officials of the department the difficult responsibility of stopping, preventing and correcting such abuses. Because the fund is in a difficult condition is no justification for certain employees having advantage taken of them.
I wish to refer briefly to the family employee. Case after case has been brought to my attention since last fall. These people were denied unemployment insurance benefits because they were employed by their fathers. In most cases the employer was in the lumber, trucking or some other business and employed two or three of his sons instead of hiring strangers as his employees. I do not see how the commission can justify a decision that would deprive those members of the family of the benefits to which they are entitled.
This has happened in New Brunswick and Quebec. When these members of the family made application for unemployment insurance they were told that if they wanted to receive benefits they should not stay at home with their father but should get out on their own or room and board with a neighbour. This situation cannot be permitted to continue. In most cases these were married men with families. They were employed by their fathers in employment that would qualify them for unemployment insurance. They should be entitled to receive it.
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have often felt that my speeches were stolen by hon. members of the Liberal party in this chamber, but this was the first time I felt that an hon. member of the Conservative party had stolen in the main what I intended to say. I refer to the remarks made by the distinguished hon. member for Greenwood. I did not agree 100 per cent with what he
Supply-Labour
said about this fund, but I endorse the greater portion of his remarks.
When the fund was originally set up it was established on insurance principles. Proof of that can be found in the way the fund grew. At one time we had close to a billion dollars in the fund. Then the Liberal party found that it was too good a vote catcher to resist, and they let the political implications of the fund get the better of the insurance principles. Unfortunately when the present government took over it did as it has done in respect of so many things, and carried on and expanded the problems created by the Liberals. The situation has worsened since the Conservatives took office. As the hon. member said, the fund today represents no insurance principles at all but is a kind of mixed up welfare fund.
With increasing frequency we see in the newspapers and elsewhere evidence of the fact that the fund is not so much abused as chiselled. Many hon. members know this from cases brought to their attention. I do not know how you draw a distinction between an abuse and chiselling, but apparently that distinction exists in the mind of the public. As the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out, people who would never think of chiselling in any other way think the fund is fair game. The past and present governments must share the responsibility for this type of thinking among the public today.
I have received letters from constituents complaining that they have paid into the fund for the last 10 or 12 years and never drawn a cent out from it, and inquiring if they could not be paid a dividend of some kind. I believe that underlines what the hon. member said about there being no accurate concept in the public mind about the insurance principles of the fund. I have discussed this with various people. Certainly I have no offhand solution to offer the government today, but I believe an investigation of the situation should be made so the matter could be corrected in the future. I will, however, throw out one or two suggestions which I hope will be of some value.
I recommend that the government embark on a program to educate the Canadian public with respect to the meaning of the unemployment insurance fund. The government could point out that if somebody does not pay in there will 'be nothing to draw out, and that if you take out more than you put in someone will have to pay double or there will be nothing to take out.
I also urge the government to consider devising some kind of incentive. Again I cannot offer a detailed plan. Perhaps it could be

Supply-Labour
worked in conjunction with the old age pension, and a dividend given upon retirement to people who have paid in all their lives and never had occasion to draw out. This would be a means of driving home to the public the fact that the fund is not a barrel into which they can all reach. This is in conjunction with the program of public education to which I referred.
As long as there is a little chiselling here and a little there we will have difficulty. As the old Scottish saying goes, "Many a mickle makes a muckle". The day will come when the position of the legitimately unemployed will be made completely hopeless. If the fund has decreased by $200 million a year over the last three years there must be something wrong. Either unemployment is worse than the government has admitted or something else is wrong. There is only a little over $200 million in the fund right now, so at the rate of decrease over the last three years the government has only one year to learn what the trouble is and correct it. It behooves this government to take action rapidly if it does not want to face an extremely serious problem within the next year or so.


Mr. Souiham:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take only a few moments of the time of the committee, but in rising to speak on this item I should like to reiterate what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has said with regard to the unemployment insurance fund as it affects farm labour. Last year the minister mentioned that he was setting up a committee to make a special study of unemployment insurance as it affected the seasonal unemployed with reference to the farming industry, fishing and pulp wood cutting. I should like to say that I was very pleased at that time, and I want to commend the minister for taking this action. It is another indication, of course, of how seriously our government is taking the problem of unemployment in Canada.
As a result of the recommendation to set up the committee I sent out a questionnaire to all reeves and councillors in my riding of Moose Mountain, some 200 in number, asking for their opinion on this matter. I might say for the information of the minister that I received a very good cross section of replies. Percentagewise about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the people replying suggested they were in favour of the government taking some action along this line. In mentioning the fact that they were in favour of the application of unemployment insurance to farm labour they did not say whether it should be on an optional basis.

We have a peculiar situation in the farming industry in Saskatchewan. We have a number of large farms which are following the trend of the agrarian change which is taking place in this industry owing to automation. As a result, some farmers who may have only one son in the family, with the co-operation of automation, can carry on an economic unit; whereas on the other hand a farmer down the road with no sons in the family finds that in order to carry on an economic unit and follow the trend that has developed in the farm industry he has to have access to farm labour.
In looking at the labour market we find that the farmer's son, if he is not employed in farming, has to leave the province of Saskatchewan to find employment, because basically it has been an agricultural area, and owing to the lack of industrial development there compared with some other parts of Canada the young men have to leave. The result is there is a shortage of qualified farm labour. We would be doing ourselves a great service in Saskatchewan in particular if we could develop some type of unemployment insurance that would affect farm labour and help to maintain our population.
It is interesting to note that 30 years ago we had approximately a million people in Saskatchewan. As a result of automation developing in the industry our population slipped to 865,000 a few years ago. That trend has been reversed, and at the present time we have about 902,000 or 903,000 people in Saskatchewan. If we had maintained the normal population growth of other provinces over that same period we would have had today around 1,400,000 people, but that does not need any explanation from me. Hon. members realize what it means to a province like Saskatchewan, or any other part of the country, from an economic point of view; therefore I think we should take a serious look at this proposition to see whether something can be done to include the agricultural industry in unemployment insurance.


Michael Starr: Will the committee allow me two minutes to answer the hon. member who has just spoken regarding agricultural employment? I know of the interest of many hon. members on all sides of the house in this subject, and I should like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that an interdepartmental committee is studying the extension of coverage to agriculture. However, there is a decided dearth of statistical information of the kind needed to assist the committee in arriving at its conclusions. As a consequence it has been necessary for the committee to make a survey of certain types of farming in certain areas to obtain some estimate of

the likely costs. This sample has of necessity been small, but it does provide some guidance. The survey is going on now.
I should like to put on record the following departments which are represented on the committee: unemployment insurance commission, finance, agriculture, bureau of statistics, insurance and privy council.


Harold Edward Winch: A number of phases of unemployment insurance have already been raised on this item 173, and undoubtedly before it is passed additional phases will be brought to the attention of the committee. It is not my intention to speak on phases already raised or to prophesy what may yet be raised. My purpose in rising at this time is to draw the attention of the minister to either certain regulations or interpretations of regulations. I do so, Mr. Chairman, because I note that the hon. member for Cape Breton South has honoured us with his presence. The hon. member has not spoken during the discussion of the estimates, but he has made a great number of interjections, especially regarding certain views expressed on problems in his own riding of Cape Breton South and suggestions that from an employment point of view it could be called a depressed area. That seemed to upset the hon. member, although he has not made a speech on it yet. Will the minister consider either changing certain regulations or stating what are the interpretations of certain regulations as they apply and have applied to the present situation in Cape Breton and Cape Breton South, because I believe, sir, Glace Bay comes within the constituency of the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: If the hon. member does not mind I should like to make an observation. When the hon. member for Essex East was speaking he said nothing about Glace Bay, New Waterford, or the surrounding towns. He emphatically said the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia. If he would just look at a recent statement by the mayor of Sydney he would see that it is in sharp contrast with what he said.


Harold Edward Winch: I take it now, sir, that the hon. member takes it that no reference was made to his own constituency?


Donald MacInnis: No, you do not understand what was said at all. He referred specifically to the city of Sydney. I do not for a moment deny there are depressed sections in that area; I am speaking specifically of the city of Sydney. The mayor of Sydney recently referred to the prosperity of that city, and it does that city no good to have somebody who does not understand the situation there go about preaching that it is a depressed city, and by so doing discouraging any new industry or any new business which might wish
Supply-Labour
to come into that city. This is only another approach that is detrimental to that city, the Liberal approach in the maritimes.


Harold Edward Winch: I now understand the confusion of the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: You are referring to the hon. member for Essex East.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry; I have the floor, if you do not mind.


Donald MacInnis: Yes, but speak factually.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend is confused in that he did not recognize, as I think most of us did, that the hon. member for Essex East was referring to the report of the employment office in Sydney, which covers the entire area, including the hon. member's constituency.


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: As soon as I sit down, yes.


Robert Muir: The member for Essex East said the city of Sydney.


Harold Edward Winch: The city of Sydney is the regional office for the entire area, including the constituency of the hon. member who has just spoken.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order-


Harold Edward Winch: I said I would be very happy to-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry; I beieve I have the floor.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: My point is this; that the hon. member now speaking is interpreting the views of the hon. member for Essex East, and not only was the hon. member for Cape Breton South confused but this whole committee was confused with what he had to say about the unemployment situation in Moncton when he claimed that there were so many thousand unemployed.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not a point of order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member does not know the difference anyhow.


Jacques Flynn: According to the rules, if the hon. member has an objection to any statement he may rise after the hon. member who has the floor has completed his remarks and make his correction.

Supply-Labour


Harold Edward Winch: May I say that the hon. member is certainly confused now, because he is referring to Moncton and I am speaking about his own constituency.


Donald MacInnis: But he was talking about Moncton.


Harold Edward Winch: I would be very happy if the hon. member would make a speech instead of interjecting so often. As a matter of fact I wonder why he is here, because he only interjects and does not make speeches. I said I was very happy that the hon. member had honoured us with his presence, because I should like to ask the views of the Minister of Labour in connection with certain regulations as they exist, and certain interpretations made thereof, with relation to representations that have been made by the united mine workers of America at Glace Bay, in the hon. member's constituency. The best way for me to introduce this matter is to read directly the information that comes to our hands. I have here, sir, a telegram received by us this month which states as follows:
Local 4520 UMWA in session tonight respectfully request that present UIC regulations be amended to conform with the basic understanding governing payment of benefits. Some 450 coal miners employed in No. 4 colliery Dominion Coal Company Limited in Glace Bay are completely without income for a period of two weeks due to cut-backs in the Nova Scotia coal industry and regulations that prohibit payment of UIC benefits. Respectfully request use of your good office to have this extreme injustice eliminated.
We in this group, sir, to the best of our ability try to help people in all constituencies. This matter was taken up, therefore, with the unemployment insurance commission, and the reply we received was:
Section 152 of the regulations provides that the waiting period may be waived if
(a)	a new period of entitlement immediately follows the end of a previous period of entitlement, and
(b)	the claimant's aggregate earnings in the last two weeks of the old period of entitlement are not more than one week's benefit plus allowable earnings.
The situation with regard to the 400 miners is that they were laid off during the week commencing 12 June and their periods of entitlement ended on 18 June. Their new entitlement started on 19 June, but they cannot meet the conditions in (b) above because their earnings in the weeks commencing 5 June (when they worked) and 12 June were too high to permit of the waiver.
I am advised that the miners received payment of unemployment insurance benefits for the week commencing 12 June but as previously stated the week commencing 18 June was the week in which they were required to serve their waiting period and therefore they received no benefit payment for this period.
Yours sincerely,
Laval Fortier Chief Commissioner
Now, sir, in view of the telegram I have read, in view of the answer received from
[The Chairman.]
the chief commissioner, may I ask on behalf of the united mine workers, local 4520, at Glace Bay, in the constituency of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, whether this interpretation of the regulations was wrong or whether the regulations could possibly be amended, especially in view of the fact that the unemployed workers at Glace Bay say this is an extreme injustice which they would like to have eliminated.


Michael Starr: This matter was first brought to my attention by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who at that time was in the offices of the local union and who made available to me the information to which the hon. member refers. I was then in communication with the president of the union on the long distance telephone. I immediately brought it to the attention of the unemployment insurance commission, and the interpretation of that regulation is correct.
This has been brought to the attention of the union, pointing out that under this regula-ion the miners were not entitled to benefits. The only thing that can be done is to either have the regulation amended or to submit this regulation to the unemployment insurance advisory committee, the membership of which is composed of representatives of labour and management on an equal basis.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister if he has referred the request of the united mine workers in Glace Bay to the advisory committee?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman, because the regulation is there. If consideration is given to obtaining the advice of that committee on whether this regulation should be in existence, then that consideration can be given and the regulation submitted for their advice.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand, then, that the minister does not feel he has a responsibility when matters of this nature are brought to his attention by any member of this house, and that he should refer them to the advisory committee, asking their advice?


Michael Starr: This regulation has been in existence for some time and has applied in many instances of the same nature. Now, if it is felt by the commission that this regulation is unfair then the commission, in consultation with me, may agree that consideration be given to submitting this regulation to the advisory committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the minister not agree that if he receives a complaint of this nature, and he says he received it from the hon. member himself, he should refer it to the advisory committee?


Michael Starr: We receive complaints from all over Canada about every regulation that is applied by the unemployment insurance commission. Surely the hon. member would not suggest that on the basis of the complaints we have received about every regulation in the Unemployment Insurance Act we should submit every one of them to the advisory committee?


Harold Edward Winch: Not on an individual basis, but if it comes from a responsible trade union or if it comes from a member of this house, yes.


Michael Starr: We have had representations on almost every regulation from time to time over the years from responsible groups of people and representatives of the workers.


Donald MacInnis: I am in danger of being accused of filibustering if I speak, because the opposition seems to take that attitude toward any backbencher on the government side who speaks. I should like to say this, sir, to the hon. member for Vancouver East. When this question arose I, along with the president and secretary treasurer of the local affected, not 4520 but 4530, my own local in Glace Bay, in conjunction with the officers of the united mine workers, followed through with every possible step to alleviate this hardship.


Harold Edward Winch: On what date?


Donald MacInnis: I do not remember the date, but it was the date on which the matter arose. I was present in the offices of the united mine workers and I communicated with the Minister of Labour in Ottawa, the minister of labour in Nova Scotia, and made efforts to communicate with the premier of Nova Scotia because this regulation was causing hardship among the members. The Caledonia local, 4530, has thanked me along with the president and secretary treasurer, for the efforts we made in this connection.
As to the regulations, they are well aware of the fact that the unemployment insurance advisory commission has labour representation in order to look after the interests of labour. They realize that this is an insurance to us. We then attempted to get the unemployment insurance assistance benefits, and we made every effort in this regard to help the miners over this rough period they were obliged to go through because broken time in the mines at that particular period, affected their unemployment insurance for that coming week. What brought about the three week period without any remuneration was the fact that the set-up in the mines is such that when you work a week, you do not get paid for that particular week you work but the following week. That is what contributed to the hardships down there, namely the
Supply-Labour
fact that they were obliged to wait three weeks in order to draw their salaries from the company.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a long wait.


Donald MacInnis: Certainly it is a long wait. I appreciate that fact. I may tell the hon. member for Vancouver East that I am well aware of everything that has affected the miners in that area. I do not need the hon. member for Essex East or the hon. member for Vancouver East or any other member of the committee to point out to me the difficulties through which the miners have been going, not since 1957 but back to 1945 and further, when the previous administration was in power. Let me tell you that the present conditions prevailed under a Liberal administration. In the province of Nova Scotia 23 coal mines closed down in the period from 1946 to 1956.


Harold Edward Winch: How many closed down in the last three years? How many are closing down now?


Donald MacInnis: None of the big operations have closed down in the last three years. They are facing it, but we are doing everything possible to avoid it. I will tell you now that 23 coal mines closed down in that period between 1946 and 1956, and none of the larger operations have closed down since this government came into office. Some smaller operations have closed down, but there are also a few small operations which have opened up with the assistance of the Nova Scotia government.
In order to remind the hon. member of what is going on, may I say that the telegram he received was from the president of local 4520, the brother of the only remaining C.C.F. member in Nova Scotia. As to the area about which he is concerned, I might remind him that regardless of the situation in Nova Scotia as it is today, the miners' union, the steel workers and the workers of Cape Breton have put their trust in the Prime Minister and Bob Stanfield, and rightly so.


Murdo William Martin: To get away from the political implications for a moment, may I turn to something else. The minister mentioned that one possible solution for this particular problem that has been raised has to do with amendments to the existing legislation. From what he said I gather that either the amendments or recommendations for them would come from the advisory committee. But he also said that before they could recommend any changes, complaints would have to be forwarded to them by the minister or the commission. My question is this. How can the advisory committee realize

Supply-Labour
that there are any complaints and that there is any need for amendment of the existing legislation if the great number of the complaints mentioned by the minister never get past his office?


Michael Starr: I will say this, Mr. Chairman. I will submit this regulation, or ask the commission to consider this regulation; and if in their opinion they feel that it should be considered by the advisory committee, then they will forward it on to the advisory committee.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the make-up of this advisory committee? Who are on the committee? How are they appointed, and how long do they hold office?


Michael Starr: There are four employer representatives and four employee representatives. On the employee side there are two representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress, one representative from the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour, and one representative from the brotherhood of railway employees. On the employer side there is a representative from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, a representative from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a representative from the Canadian Construction Association and one representative from the Canadian Railway Association.


Harold Edward Winch: Do the committees meet of their own volition, or do they meet only when something is referred to them? In other words have they the power of initiating recommendations to the labour department?


Michael Starr: Under the act they are empowered to report the state of the unemployment insurance fund, and to meet when the commission submits for their recommendation a certain regulation.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words the advisory committee can meet only on a direction of the commission, and can deal only with matters which are referred to it by the minister or through the unemployment insurance commission. Is that correct?


Michael Starr: It is an advisory committee to the commission.


Harold Edward Winch: It can meet only when something is referred to it. It cannot meet of its own volition or bring in its own recommendations?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Harold Edward Winch: Do you think that is a democratic procedure?


Michael Starr: That is the way the committee is set up under the act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As to persons who are possibly entitled to draw unemployment insurance for some months but who become university students, can they continue to draw unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: Each case is considered on its own merits.


An hon. Member:: In some cases it can be done.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In some cases?


Michael Starr: Yes, having regard to the availability of the student for work. That is the basis on which he can draw unemployment insurance.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask for a further point of information on something I have never been able to get quite clear from reading the act. To my knowledge there are a great many persons who have been previously employed but who want to try, when they are unemployed, to get out on their own and earn their living. I know a great number of such persons in my constituency. They may be electricians, carpenters or painters. If they endeavour to help themselves in this way and they hit a bad period, as they do, in order to be covered when they are endeavouring to do this are they entitled to contribute to unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: If they go into business for themselves and, during the period of the first two years, become unemployed, they may apply for unemployment insurance benefits because of the fact that it is within the two-year period only that a person can claim benefits. Then if it is found that they are genuinely unemployed in that respect they would be eligible for unemployment insurance.


Harold Edward Winch: How do they contribute in this period? I am greatly interested in this matter. When you have these people who want to try to get out and help themselves, and who are doing so, is there any way in which, during that temporary period of a year or two years when they are trying to help themselves, they can pay in to unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: No; no self-employed person can be insured.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words they are not eligible at all?


Michael Starr: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: That completes the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Harold Edward Winch: While we are waiting for the
next department to be proceeded with, it may be a good time for me to say this to the minister. He may have thought that he has had a rough time. He has a rough job. However, we all appreciate the courtesy with which he has treated us.


[Stage Direction]
217. Departmental administration, $3,212,477.
Jacques Flynn: This item will be found at page 44 of the blue book, the details at page 290.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is now seven minutes to six and I understand the minister has a full statement to make, may I suggest that we call it six o'clock?


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee agreeable to calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the house leader, just for the convenience of members, to outline the business for Monday and Tuesday and for as much of next week as he wishes to?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in the hope that next week will be the last week of the session I will outline what remains before us.
On Monday we will take third reading of Bill No. C-58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. Appearing on Votes and Proceedings tonight will be a resolution concerning the appointment of a judge for Prince Edward Island, and the house might like to consider that as the second item of business on Monday. That will be followed by the committee stage of the bill on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
If that discussion does not carry over to Tuesday, we have for Tuesday the resolution mentioned this morning by the Prime Minister concerning Canada's participation in the United Nations force for the Congo, followed by the report of the committee on procedure which I would ask to be taken up later on Tuesday. I will also move concurrence in the report of the civil service commission tabled on July 14 and shown in Votes and Proceedings on page 774, referring to the staff of the House of Commons.
Business of the House
As it is impossible to estimate at this moment the termination of the session, it may be necessary to call interim supply on Tuesday. The estimates which remain for the house to consider are, in this order: national defence, finance, trade and commerce and privy council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the leader one other question. Is it the intention to proceed right through with the committee stage of the bill of rights until it is finished?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is, running over Monday and Tuesday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would think that would be the wish of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question of the house leader. In view of the importance placed by the Prime Minister this morning on the motion asking for the authority of parliament for the sending of certain of our forces overseas, might it not be advisable and proper to have that called first on Monday so as to have the authority of parliament and our expression of support?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the house so desires. The resolution will appear in Votes and Proceedings and the rules require 48 hours' notice, but if the house gave consent it could consider that on Monday.


Harold Edward Winch: I think in view of the importance of the matter and the fact that we do not know how long we will take on other business, it might be a nice thing if that were introduced first and received the support of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that would be agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if we had unanimous consent that would be very proper, that we should proceed in that way on Monday. I suggest that is the apparent feeling of the house, in view of the statements which have been made by the two hon. gentlemen.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that the notice would be sufficient, but in any event is the house agreeable to so order if necessary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. Is it agreed that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

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

 Mr. Mariel: 1.	Is Latin American Mines Limited licensed under the authority of the secretary of state?
2.	If so, (a) what were the names and addresses of the directors when said license was requested? (b) what are the names and addresses of the present directors?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Stale):
1.	Latin American Mines Limited was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario on October 8, 1946, under the name Guayana Mines Limited. Supplementary letters patent were issued by Ontario authorities on September 10, 1952, changing the name to Consolidated Guayana Mines Limited, and further supplementary letters patent were issued on December 4, 1957, changing the name again to the actual name Latin American Mines Limited.
2.	No information.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
165.	Economics and research branch including research grants and related expenses, $688,895.
166.	Annuities Act administration, $1,194,357.
167.	Industrial relations activities including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $595,271.
168.	Civilian rehabilitation branch including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $217,170.
Special services-
169.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, $502,075.
Vocational training co-ordination-
170.	Administration, $112,905.
171.	To carry out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act and agreements made thereunder: to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province on terms approved by the governor in council to provide financial assistance to vocational and technical schools, and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $8,857,600 -Payments to the provinces, $8,497,600.
Government employees compensation-
172.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $112,170.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
173.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the Act, $36,136,000.
174.	Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $37,500.
A-Department-
General administration-
526.	Annuities Act-To authorize the payment of interest, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, out of the government annuities account, on premiums being refunded that were paid under a contract entered into with Her Majesty pursuant to subsection (3) of section 6 of the Government Annuities Act where such premiums are in excess of the amount required to purchase the maximum annuity payable under that act to an employee of the purchaser: the said interest in respect of premiums being refunded shall be calculated at the rate of interest applicable to the premiums at the time they were received and such interest shall be payable for the period from the day on which the excess premiums were received by Her Majesty to the day on which the refund is made, $1.
Special services-
527.	To extend to the 31st day of May, 1960, the period in respect of which payments may be made to a province and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program as contemplated by vote 615 of the Appropriation Act No. 1, 1960, $1.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
528.	Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $237,500.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 1, 1960

[Stage Direction]
First report of special committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms-Mr. Spencer.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the house has already been informed that the government has been giving consideration, in consultation with the secretary general, to the United Nations inquiry as to whether Canada would be in a position to provide signals personnel and equipment as part or in support of the United Nations force in performing their important role in the Congo. These consultations were necessary in order to ascertain in detail the requirements of the force commander and to relate them to facilities and personnel available in Canada.
I am now in a position to say that the government has decided to provide, subject to parliamentary approval of a resolution which will be placed on the order paper today, certain military forces, including equipment, for the following signals units: a signals detachment at United Nations headquarters in Leopoldville which will include a signals office, a message centre, 100-line switchboard and linemen and dispatch riders; five ground to air communication links; twelve mobile wireless detachments; eight cipher detachments, and a small headquarters for the command and administration of Canadian troops in the Congo. Preparatory action has been taken to provide for the formation of such new units within the services as may be required, the selection and immunization of soldiers, the concentration of troops and their equipment, and the movement of them by the most expeditious means, again subject to parliamentary approval of a resolution to that effect.
Since additional information is required on the tasks which the Canadian contingent will be asked to perform and on the conditions under which these tasks will be carried out, a reconnaissance party of six officers is being
dispatched to the Congo immediately. It is due to leave Montreal this evening and to arrive in Leopoldville on August 1. In the meantime, awaiting parliamentary consideration, the members of the Canadian signals contingent are being selected and immunized against tropical diseases. Then immediate concentration within Canada will be provided for, and as I said a moment ago those chosen will be sent as soon as they are ready and transport becomes available.
The resolution in question will be placed on the order paper, as I say, and it will ask approval for participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo. I think that is a step in keeping with traditional practice, and it is particularly important at this time that there be full recognition and acceptance by parliament of this step in the preparation and maintenance of a United Nations force. No more important or significant step has been taken in recent years than the one now being taken by the United Nations in the Congo, and the cooperation of those nations which it is believed are the most appropriate to make a contribution renders desirable full co-operation and anticipation of parliamentary approval.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may be assured that in observing the traditions established in this house, certainly since the end of the first world war, that a project of this kind should be preceded by a resolution, he will find that such a resolution will be given strong support by the membership of this house. We recognize that in the turbulent days in which we live, the best way of maintaining order is by giving to the collective strength of the nations of the world, through the United Nations, the opportunity of making a contribution in the preservation of that order.
The Prime Minister has not indicated if Canada has been asked to supply more than the kind of forces he has outlined. To the extent, therefore, that we have been asked for these particular signals forces there will be general accord. The secretary general of the United Nations has stated that he envisages that this particular project of the United Nations in the Congo will not be of short duration, and that it may last for a period of as long as five years. In that event, it is to be anticipated that Canada will be asked

Inquiries of the Ministry to contribute more than specialized military forces, referred to in the statement of the Prime Minister.
I agree fully with what the Prime Minister has said, that this effort of the United Nations in which Canada will share to this limited extent at this time, represents the growing strength of the United Nations as an instrument for the preservation of peace. We have the precedent of the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East, an organism with which Canada has had so much to do. That precedent, backed up by the United Nations observation group in Lebanon and the presence of the United Nations in Jordan, is a precedent which has made possible the intervention of the United Nations in the Congo. Whether the United Nations military forces now in the Congo are para-military only, in the sense that the United Nations force in the Middle East is, or whether it is to be given greater power, is not yet clear. In any event, the Prime Minister may be assured that when this resolution comes before the house, it will receive the responsible consideration which its great objectives deserve.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The
members of this group endorse most heartily the announcement made by the Prime Minister concerning this contribution to the maintenance of peace in a troubled portion of the world. As a matter of fact we are delighted with this step being taken by the government, perhaps as a first step toward an even greater effort on the part of Canada in this direction.
We believe that Canada can best play an active role in the maintenance of peace by being ready on all occasions to supply to the limit of her capacity forces required by the United Nations in causes such as this.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a sentence contained in the report of the defence committee which has just been made available to hon. members, to the effect that the Minister of National Defence expressed the opinion that arrangements now being negotiated, presumably with the United States, would make nuclear warheads available if and when required. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he could tell us what progress is being made in these negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: I have nothing to add to what has already been said. I believe the defence


estimates will shortly be before the committee of the whole house for consideration, at which time any inquiries can be made pertinent to this question. In the meantime, to make answers that are added upon answers cannot be of assistance.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising from his earlier announcement. Would the Prime Minister state whether in conversation with Prime Minister Lumumba today he will inform him that Canada is prepared to make either an English speaking or a French speaking battalion available for service in the Congo provided the request is received through the United Nations?


John George Diefenbaker: This is a question very similar to the one which, I note from Hansard, was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Assiniboia. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in his reply, any troops that are sent by Canada to the Congo will be under the authority of the United Nations, and there has been no suggestion by the United Nations that Canada should provide infantry units.



REPORTED NEED FOR MEDICAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is reported in the press that the prime minister of the Congo will be requesting medical personnel and equipment from Canada. Can the Prime Minister make some statement on this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege yet of talking to Prime Minister Lumumba, but it is apparent from press reports that the field of his requests is not too greatly limited. I think the opportunity will come to the hon. gentleman to secure the fullest information in connection with this matter when the resolution is before the house next week respecting the United Nations force. I trust that at that time he will place his views before the house and obtain whatever information is then available.



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the
Prime Minister say whether or not Canada has yet received a reply from Mr. Padillo Nervo, the chairman of the disarmament commission, regarding Canada's request for a meeting of the disarmament commission prior to the meeting of the general assembly of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: I think that question may await the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will be here on Monday.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE BY DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Clarence Henderson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the house whether his department will be able to help fight the forest fires now raging in British Columbia.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yesterday I received a request from the attorney general of the province of British Columbia for assistance in connection with various fires which are now raging so freely in British Columbia. I at once acceded to his request. Helicopters and aircraft have been dispatched from Vancouver, and other search and rescue aircraft are standing by for use if required. According to reports of the action which was taken yesterday, a number of fire fighters were rescued in the Kamloops area before the fires closed in on them. All holiday personnel have also been rescued from the lake area, Lac le Jeune, just south of Kamloops.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to supply infantry or ground troops if requested, where manpower is short in fighting some of these large fires in the Kootenays?


George Randolph Pearkes: As the hon. member knows, such requests must come through the attorney general of the province. No such request for ground personnel has yet been received.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster
Inquiries of the Ministry General. In view of the fact that the Postmaster General seems to be unable to give adequate protection to mail carried by truck, is the hon. gentleman considering the advisability of getting out of the trucking business?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, every time we have a mail theft the hon. member for St. Denis returns to this house to ask a similar question. I am glad to welcome the hon. gentleman back after his long absence. To suggest that we are not able to give adequate protection to mail carried by trucks is, of course, to suggest something that is not true. The hon. gentleman might be aware of the fact, for example, that in the Montreal area alone this week there have been six bank robberies and holdups, and 17 such occurrences there since the beginning of June.
The only way of carrying the mail in large parts of Canada is by truck. We are doing that effectively and efficiently, giving it adequate protection. We are carrying it in a degree of safety which compares very well with the degree of safety that exists in relation to banks and other institutions in terms of robberies. We are going to continue carrying the mail by truck, extending it every reasonable protection.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister spoke of my absence from the House of Commons. The fact that robberies occur the minute after I return to this house indicates that I am not responsible for that kind of robbery.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What kind are you responsible for?


George Harris Hees: Bank robberies?


Azellus Denis: I am wondering if the Postmaster General is working for the police. If he is I suggest that he look after the robberies in his own department instead of worrying about others.



INQUIRY AS TO DELIVERY OF CATTLE BY MAIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to a newspaper report, in England Jersey cows are being delivered by registered mail. Is the minister equipped to give Canada the same kind of service?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, neither Jersey cows nor the kind of bull in which the hon. member indulges are properly the concern of the Canadian Post Office Department.

Inquiries of the Ministry COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS



INQUIRY AS TO BOYCOTT OF SOUTH AFRICAN GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in the light of a news announcement carried on the C.B.C. last night, whether the government is giving consideration to following the example of another commonwealth nation, namely Ghana, by ordering a boycott on all South African goods so as to express our disapproval of apartheid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is certainly launching into a new field in a question of that kind. I had not heard of it being the responsibility of any of the ministers to order boycotts.



BAIE COMEAU, QUE.-EFFECT OF OPENING OF NEW ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Following the recent opening of the 12 million bushel grain elevator at Baie Comeau, Quebec, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, can the minister outline what effect this new elevator capacity will have on the handling of this year's grain movement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a very important development indeed, and I think congratulations are due to the Cargill Grain Company Limited of Winnipeg for their enterprise in having this elevator erected and in operation so early. It is only about a year and a half since they started their building operations. The fact is that this elevator will provide extra storage for Canadian grain and will add at least 7 million bushels of storage capacity. During the course of next winter we shall see what effect it has on the shipment of Canadian grain. It is expected that they will be able to ship the year around, and this will be of advantage.
It is important to note that United States grain may use this particular elevator, as has been the custom with other elevators on the eastern seaboard and in the St. Lawrence region. The arrangements made by the board of grain commissioners with the Cargill company are to the effect that 60 per cent of the storage capacity of this elevator shall be available for Canadian grain.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: In order to assist the committee of supply in considering the unemployment problem, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce table the "-Canadian Economic Outlook for 1960"?


Mr. Speaker:: If I am not mistaken, an order of the house was made with regard to this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was an order with respect to the volume for 1959, sir. Is the minister going to give an answer?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate is asking for the tabling of a confidential report, and last evening the hon. member for Essex East said that this was contrary to the usages of parliament. I think perhaps we shall not do it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister recall an exalted precedent?



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES CONGO    INQUIRY AS TO PROVISION OF UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Prime Minister. In view of the C.B.C. report of yesterday evening to the effect that Prime Minister Lumumba has already received offers from foreign countries to make 300 university scholarships available to Congolese students starting this September, and in view of the fact that Canada is ideally situated to help in this matter because of its four French-speaking universities, will the Prime Minister state how many university scholarships Canada will make available to French speaking Congolese students this fall?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
gentleman will agree that the question is somewhat premature. Any requests of this nature that might be put forward have to be related to Canada's other commitments under the various scholarship schemes now in effect. As the house knows, we have embarked upon a wide scholarship scheme, particularly since the commonwealth trade and economic conference of 1958. Having regard to the position in which the universities find themselves, this is a matter that will have

to be given the most complete consideration by the universities, and also on the basis of our other commitments.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Russell Taylor: should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he would consult with his colleagues in order to expedite the planning and construction this winter of the much needed dominion public building in the Mount Pleasant area of Vancouver.


Michael Starr: realize the necessity for this accommodation in Vancouver, and I wish to assure the hon. member that this project will get my fullest support.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have one more question for the Prime Minister, and then I shall subside. This matter was just brought to my attention this morning. Has the Prime Minister received a reply to his letter of June 30 to Mr. Khrushchev? If so, would he consider requesting the consent of the house to having it published as an appendix to Hansard? The suggestion was made to me that it would be informative to the Canadian people who are interested in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: The original letter and reply were tabled, and I think it would be simply cluttering up Hansard to add from week to week further letters from Mr. Khrushchev which are merely a continuation of his alibi for having assured the discontinuance of the disarmament conference. In any event, I think the U.S.S.R. embassy has made available to a great many Canadians that reply, the last in a series of alibis.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
165. Economics and research branch including research grants and related expenses, $688,895.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was in the midst of making some observations at the time the committee rose at eleven o'clock last night. I think I could complete them 79951-0-459
Supply-Labour
very briefly. Perhaps, however, in order to preserve the continuity it might be worth while to recall to the minds of hon. members precisely what it was that was being discussed at that time.
What was being discussed was the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether the Minister of Labour was prepared to give to this committee a comprehensive appreciation of the prospects for employment over the next few months and the coming winter. In the course of that discussion the minister told my hon. friend from Essex East that he considered it was too early to make any such forecast. I believe that was the position taken by the minister, that at the beginning of August it was too early to make any forecast as to what the employment situation is likely to be. We realize that forecasts are only forecasts, but what is the position likely to be in the coming winter?
I stated, and I want to repeat it, sir, that I believe such a forecast already exists, unless the minister or the Prime Minister or someone on their behalf has told this branch of the minister's department not to make it. We know from past experience when we were in office that forecasts of this character were made, and were certainly made this early in the year. We know also that the government is very anxious to keep secret now what the Prime Minister was not so anxious to keep secret when he could get a cheap political advantage out of it two years ago. We know from the refusal of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this morning that the forecast made in his department is not available to the house or to the Canadian people, though there can be no doubt it exists unless that one, too, has been cut out by this government because it is afraid to have such forecasts made.
The plain fact is that this government has done everything in its power, throughout the whole of the year 1960, to stop any flow of information to the Canadian people about economic and employment prospects for the coming year, except the optimistic statements made by the Minister of Labour last February and those made by the Prime Minister in March on television, which apparently were backed up by nothing beyond their reading of the stars. At least we have not been told what they were backed up by.
Then the minister, in order to reinforce his position, to reinforce this new constitutional position, this new respect for parliament, this new consideration for the rights of people, said last night when he was being pressed:
Mr. Chairman, I am a member of a government that was elected with an overwhelming majority

Supply-Labour
by the people of this country and I will perform my duties to the best of my ability.
In other words, this minister apparently does not consider it necessary to have any advice. He has the backing, or he said he had two years ago, of the overwhelming majority of the Canadian people, so he can do what he pleases without consulting anyone, without telling the House of Commons what he is proposing to do, without taking the people into his confidence. In other words, "We have a majority, so whatever we like to do we do not need to bother explaining to you". This is the new doctrine of the Conservative party. It is not really a new doctrine, because it sounds very much like-


An hon. Member:: An old Liberal one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the hon. gentleman go a little farther back into history. This is exactly the same attitude that was taken by Mr. Bennett when he was prime minister between 1930 and 1935. It is a typical Tory attitude. I challenge any hon. member to show, in the whole of the period when Hon. Milton Gregg was minister of labour in this country, that he ever took any such attitude or ever refused to give parliament any information that was available in his department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member say I was wrong if I told him I have a strong recollection of Mr. St. Laurent taking exactly that position on a certain occasion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
position taken by this government with regard to the economic survey.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Greenwood asked me a question which I think was really a declaration, but I take no exception whatever to his declaration. His recollection was that he remembered some occasion when Mr. St. Laurent had taken a similar position. I do not happen to recall it, but I should not like to quarrel with the hon. gentleman. However, I should like to see the particulars. There are, of course, many communications that come to the Department of External Affairs and to the other departments of government which every government might properly keep confidential. But surely the estimate of the prospects of employment does not fall into this category; or if it does, what are they afraid of? If it does, what is it that concerns them?
This is something that it is hard indeed for me to answer. I admit that a forecast made by a civil servant for the guidance of ministers, such as the "Economic Outlook for 1957" which was tabled in this house by the Prime Minister on January 20, 1958 or a document of that sort should not be made

public. I make that admission at once. What was that document for? That document was not for any other purpose than to assist ministers in working out policies; and to ensure that ministers would get the utmost frankness in the advice that was given to them and to protect the validity of the forecasts themselves it is necessary to protect the anonymous public servants who prepared such forecasts. It seems to me that is a reasonable position to take, particularly in the whole economic realm where such forecasts could easily have the effect, if they were published prematurely, of influencing the economic climate in a way that might be adverse to the national interest.
If the Minister of Labour is irguing that to give a forecast of employment for next winter is going to influence the level of employment next winter, I wish he would make that argument. If he wants to make that argument I am sure that we would listen to it with great interest and would consider carefully what there was in it. As for myself, at first blush I do not see how it could have any such effect. However, if the minister feels that it is in the national interest to conceal any official forecast of this kind or to hide it, in the light of the speech made by the Prime Minister on January 20, 1958-* which speech presumably set the tone for the present government-I think the minister would need to do a great deal of explaining in order to clarify that situation.
But if he has no such explanation, and if the only reason he is hiding this forecast is that it is a gloomy report, as I suspect is unhappily the case, may I say this. If the only reason he is hiding it is that he knows this government has no policy, has no measures by means of which to cope with this situation, then I say he is derelict in his duty to the Canadian people and is not showing for parliament the regard that this government promised the people of Canada it would have when it obtained its mandate two years ago.


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 165 carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister going to say anything in reply to what my hon. friend has just said?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the same questions were asked yesterday. I have nothing further to add to what I said yesterday in respect of these matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a strangely negative attitude for a minister to take to our efforts to get information as to what the employment situation or the unemployment situation is likely to be in the coming winter and what the government is planning to do about it. We are now approaching August.

The winter period will be on us before long. We have been told that there are 43 economists in this branch of the Department of Labour whose job presumably-and I am sure they are highly qualified-is to give the minister advice on the economic outlook and particularly on the employment outlook. Yet the minister tells us that notwithstanding these 43 economists and the advice which they no doubt are giving him and the work in which they are no doubt engaged, it is too early to make any forecast, based on that advice, as to what the situation is likely to be in the autumn and winter. Surely that is a terrible reflection on the lack of planning in the government at the present time in respect of this vital problem of employment.
We were told last night that there is a cabinet committee under the chairmanship of the Associate Minister of National Defence working on this problem. Surely they must have before them some information on which they can make their reports, some information perhaps produced for them by, among other sources, these 43 economists that we are now talking about. What kind of situation is this cabinet committee planning to meet this winter? What kind of situation are the minister and his department planning to meet? All the minister told us last night was that it was going to be extremely difficult to figure out what kind of situation he will be obliged to meet. We are in August or are about to be in August, and all we learn about the situation that may confront us this winter is that it is going to be extremely difficult to find out what that situation is going to be.
That is a shocking basis, Mr. Chairman, for any kind of planning to meet the situation. With great respect I suggest to the minister that he owes it to this committee to tell us more than he has told us. As a matter of fact he has told us nothing.


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 165 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister intend to reply to what the Leader of the Opposition has asked?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member had been listening he would know that I did reply to the Leader of the Opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With due respect, may I say that I do not think the reply of the minister deserves the designation of a reply. He did not address himself at all to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly he did not touch on what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate insisted should be revealed to this committee.
79951-0-459i
Supply-Labour
If the minister does not wish to tell us about the assessment made by his own officials in this division, may I ask whether he will tell us what is the assessment of other departments of government with regard to the prospects for employment in the next ensuing period.
I asked the Minister of Labour a question. Does he propose to sit there and not reply? In that event, does he expect us to pass this item?


An hon. Member:: Who are you?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am getting sick of this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the people of Canada are sick of the inactivity of this government.


Michael Starr: I said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that confidential reports can only be confidential if they are kept in that category,


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said yesterday, and I intend to repeat it, that this is not the basis on which this government obtained a mandate from the people. This is not the basis on which they advertised. Everybody in this house who was here remembers what happened, and those who do not remember know about what happened. I refer to the disgraceful public performance of the Prime Minister on January 20, 1958; the shocking performance of the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: It shocked you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly did shock me, because I did not believe that any man who carried on a performance of that kind would ever get support for it from anybody.


An hon. Member:: A comedian.


Georges-J. Valade: You are a good comedian yourself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By saying "yourself"
does the hon. gentleman suggest that he means the Prime Minister is a good comedian?


Georges-J. Valade: I meant the hon. member for Essex East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman had better be less ambiguous next time if his remark is not to be taken as applying to his leader.


Georges-J. Valade: Everybody knew what that was about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member says that everybody knew what that was about. I will tell you what it was about. That document was a forecast of the economic climate for the year 1957, made in the month of March, 1957. That is what it was. It was made in March, and from March until the following

Supply-Labour
January is ten months. I ask you to follow this argument, Mr. Chairman. Ten months later the Prime Minister came along with that forecast and said the Liberals knew what was going to happen and they hid it from the people. Here we are at the beginning of August, and it will be only six months until February 1. It will be only ten months until next summer. Yet the Minister of Labour, the follower of a leader who says that the Liberals knew ten months previously what was going to happen in the winter of 1957-58, says he does not know now what will happen. He has not anyone who can tell him. This government does not know. It is too early to make any forecast. Whom do you believe? Do you believe the Prime Minister in that performance he put on in January of 1958, or do you believe the Minister of Labour today?
I also ask, when did this doctrine of confidentiality which the minister is relying on so much become a principle of this government? The Prime Minister saw fit, for political purposes, for partisan purposes-I would go further; in an attempt to mislead the people of this country-to use a document which belonged to the previous government and which he had no constitutional right to make public at all. It was a performance which I do not think would have happened in any other British parliament anywhere in the world, and I did not expect it to happen here.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, I do not think this comes under the purview of the labour estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order
raised by the hon. member, I am seeking to show that the government is now, with respect to the very subject of unemployment, refusing to do what the Prime Minister did on January 20, 1958.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Will the hon. member permit a question; I think he wants to be fair. Is it not a fact that what the Prime Minister complained about in 1958 was not that the reports which had been given to the government were not revealed, but that in addition the former government gave the people the opposite impression of what the reports actually were?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not remember whether the hon. member was here but that does not happen to be true. We were said to have hidden it. Do you not remember?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the main point made by the Prime Minister; "they hid it". It was the hiding that the Prime Minister made the biggest fuss about, and the Prime Minister said it took him six months to find

it. That, of course, is a statement about which I think the less I say the better, because anything I did say would be unparliamentary. But I do say that a prime minister who took six months after he came into office to find a document which was in the files of every department of government did not know very much about the job he had undertaken. I also say that a prime minister who was so incompetent and so unobservant that after six months he could not see for himself what were the facts, but had to rely on a document prepared in the previous March to find out what the facts were in December and January is not fit to be Prime Minister of this country.
The plain fact is that the Prime Minister told the federal-provincial conference in November 1957 and the Minister of Labour told a meeting in Montreal in December 1957 that the unemployment problem was not serious.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We were over the hill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. Then when they had to face the facts in January this shocking performance was trumped up in this house. Now we are having another shocking performance. We are having a minister of the crown saying, "We have such a huge majority that we do not have to account to the representatives of the people in parliament". If that is the kind of government it is, I suppose we are in a minority and there is no way that we can force them to give the facts to the people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the situation about the early hidden report is so well known it hardly needs to be repeated. The Prime Minister took the confidential report, tore off the page marked "confidential", selected certain passages from it for partisan purposes, and that was that. We are asking the minister if he will give us some information which bears on the unemployment situation from those reports which have been made to him. We are not asking the minister to bring in the reports if they are confidential, or to quote from them; we are asking him to give the committee some information which will help us to establish the seriousness of this problem which must have been brought to his attention by some of these economists who are making reports to the government.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did I understand him to charge the Prime Minister with tearing off the cover of a confidential report and then use it as otherwise?

Supply-Labour


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is exactly what I said, has he examined the reports of the Bank and it has been stated more than once in this of Canada and the reports supplied to the house.	Minister of Trade and Commerce, which


Donald MacInnis: It was never stated in this clearly indicate that forecasts are made for house while the Prime Minister was here.	departments of the government; and
what is the minister s estimate and judg-Mr. Pickersgill: Yes, over and over again, ment of those assessments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just read the record and you will find out what happened. If the minister is unwilling to say anything at all about that, I wonder if he would care to comment on a report, which is not official but which is authoritative and which he must have read, entitled "Labour research, January-April 1960", published by the research department of the Canadian Labour Congress, which gives a very worrying view of our economy in terms of employment and which supports that view by statistics from official sources. I have studied this report, and I am sure the minister has studied it, and I wonder if he would care to state whether he feels that the prognostications made in this report as to the kind of situation we are likely to face this winter are reasonable, and whether this particular report might serve as the basis for the kind of planning required to meet this situation.


Michael Starr: I read that report some weeks ago. I am unable to state every particular contained in the report at the moment, but I have found this; that if you have five reports from five economists about what may happen in the future or the very near future, in most cases you will find you have three, four or five different viewpoints.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister whether, since the discussion last night, he has had an opportunity, or has taken the opportunity, to discuss with the director of this economic research division or any of its personnel the questions put to him by hon. members last night. The minister has finally acknowledged that there was a confidential report made to him; and now having ascertained that fact may we ask, will the minister tell us whether or not, as a result of efforts made between eleven o'clock last night and eleven o'clock this morning, he has been able to get information which this committee requires, before we can properly pass this particular estimate?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I said that any forecasts for the coming winter months could not be made until some time toward the end of August. This is true, and no report has been given me because of that circumstance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the minister has been given no report by his officials on this matter, something which is hard to credit.


Michael Starr: I endeavour to read all the reports which are available in order to assess in my own mind what the situation may be, but based on the experience in the past two winters, and based on the present situation it is evident that this government views the situation as serious, because of the measures that are being taken and other measures that are to be taken to deal with it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the reports from the minister's own economic division on the situation which may confront us this winter in terms of unemployment are not available until the end of August, then on the basis of what information is the cabinet committee on unemployment, headed by the Associate Minister of National Defence, operating? Where does that committee get its basis of information?


Michael Starr: Hon. members of the opposition have given us the basis of the information. They say there are reports available, a Bank of Canada report and other reports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just before the Leader of the Opposition spoke the minister made an admission that we have been asking him to make for some hours. He said-and he will correct me if I interpret him wrongly -that the government, after examining the reports which have been made, regards the situation in the immediate future as serious.


Michael Starr: Based on past experience we say that unemployment is a serious situation, and as long as unemployment exists it is always a serious situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not talking about what is in existence. We are talking about what the situation is likely to be in the immediate future. I understood the minister to say that the government regards the situation in the ensuing period as serious. If that is a correct statement, and I understood the minister to say that, I regard it as an advance on the position the minister has taken thus far in this debate.


Michael Starr: I can correct that right away. I said that based on our experience in the past two or three winters and on the present situation as it exists at the moment, this government regards unemployment as a serious situation and has taken the lead in a number of projects, and others will be undertaken in the future.

Supply-Labour


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite. As I say, that statement, confirmed by the minister, advances us considerably.
The minister said in reply to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition that he would not have any estimate until the end of August. I ask him the following question. Is it not a fact that his predecessor was supplied with a report for the summer period? Is it not a fact that his predecessor was supplied with a report prepared in the month of May, forecasting the employment situation in the summer period? If that is a fact, and I assert it to be a fact, has the minister discontinued that practice? If he has not discontinued the making of such a quarterly report, will he then explain to the committee how it is he cannot give us any estimate on the situation during the summer until the summer is over, namely, as he said, until the end of August?


Michael Starr: No practice has been discontinued, as I said yesterday in the debate. I must remind the hon. member that these reports are confidential.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister keeps saying that they are confidential, and he would not make a confidential report available. But as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed out, this government did not regard confidential documents as being confidential and as not capable of being produced in this chamber. That is the position.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: After they are outdated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says "After they are outdated". All he and his friends have to do is read the remarks made by the Prime Minister in 1958 and note what he had to say about a confidential document which he used to his advantage at that time but which, since that time, this government has refused to give to the house.
We are not asking for confidential documents to be produced. We are saying that this government has created a precedent for itself, and it would not be difficult on this account for the government to make such documents available. But since the government takes the position it does, we are asking that the Minister of Labour, at a time when we are discussing if we should pass these estimates, should simply tell us in general terms what recommendations and what assessments are made by the officials with regard to the future so that we in this parliament may determine if the provisions the government has in mind are adequate. We are not asking for something which is unreasonable. This persistent refusal on the part of the Minister of Labour to give us this information can only result in one conclusion, and

that is that this government has no policy whatsoever to meet unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members say "oh". Let them deny that there is anything lacking in the logic of my conclusion. The hon. member who is interjecting now is a respected and responsible member, and I am sure he cannot deny the logic of what I am saying. Either I am right or parliament as we understand it does not exist in this country.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Murdo William Martin: An hon. member says "nonsense". I understand parliament to be a place where the elected representatives of the people have the right to ask from those entrusted with the responsibility of government information which will justify voting of moneys asked for by Her Majesty's government. That is the constitutional position. We have had from the Minister of Labour in response to our request a refusal to give information which it is an inherent right of this parliament to receive, and if the minister persists in refusing to give this information then it is our responsibility to determine whether we shall let these estimates pass. That is our responsibility, and it is a grave decision to make, but it is a decision we have to make if our democratic practices mean anything.


Donald MacInnis: Does that mean you are going to ask for a cut in them?


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member who comes from a labour constituency, should be the first to rise and support what I am saying. The hon. member comes from what is a depressed area, notwithstanding his denial of that fact last night. The hon. member comes from a constituency where last winter thousands of men were out of work; over 6,000, as my hon. friend reminds me. I come from a constituency where there are now between
6,000	and 8,000 unemployed, and it is because of this that I feel I have a duty in this committee to elicit from the Minister of Labour whatever information he can give us in order to determine what can be done in this country to meet this problem. Surely that is not unfair. Surely that is not asking the government or the minister anything that is improper. If the Minister of Labour says this situation is an extremely complicated one, and the government cannot be expected to have all the solutions to this problem-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You never did.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member says that we never did. Well, we never had the problem.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Well, I know all about the problem, and from 1935 to 1939 the boys were walking the streets-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the hon.
member is right; from 1930 to 1935 thousands of people did walk the streets-


An hon. Member:: He said 1939.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I am saying is this-


An hon. Member:: Take your time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen may make it difficult for this discussion to continue if they wish. They may cause delay but it will not make any difference, because we propose to discuss these estimates until we feel we have discharged our responsibility. There is no doubt about that. We can stay here for a long time.


James Stanley Speakman: So can we.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Apparently that is what we are going to do, because we are going to get answers to these questions or we are going to know why.


Robert Muir: Don't be so pompous.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask the Minister of Labour if he will tell us that the problem is such that it is unfair to expect the government to provide solutions. Then that becomes a matter for argument. But that is not what the minister says. The minister just refuses to make any statement. He refuses to make any declaration other than the fact that this is a confidential report.
I ask the minister to reconsider that answer in the light of this discussion. If the minister will give us a statement based on what he believes are the realities; if he excuses the administration from responsibility and gives valid arguments for this, there can be no criticism of that position, other than to point out, if that is the situation, that he government will not be regarded as having realized its assurances to the Canadian people. But the simple issue now is whether or not parliament is entitled to receive this basic information.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious from the discussion which took place last night in the hour and a half before we adjourned at eleven o'clock, and from what has been said thus far in our sitting today, that it is not the intention of the Minister of Labour to file any reports or information he has received, because as he has reiterated time after time they are confidential documents. In view of that fact we cannot help but wonder if he could not make that information available by following the
Supply-Labour
precedent established by the Prime Minister in tearing off the front page of the document. It was on that basis that we got the information before, so how about tearing off the front page again?


James Stanley Speakman: I should like to ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Chairman. Can the hon. member prove that?


Harold Edward Winch: You will find it in Hansard.


Norman Platt Lambert: You will find many false statements in Hansard.


Harold Edward Winch: You will find there was no front page.


Norman Platt Lambert: And who tore it off?


Harold Edward Winch: We do not know who tore it off.


Norman Platt Lambert: You said it was the Prime Minister.


Harold Edward Winch: It must have been some member of the government, because no hon. member of the opposition could have torn it off.


Norman Platt Lambert: How could you know? How do you know what transpired in the six months of its existence prior to its being brought into this chamber? How do you know whether the cover was on or off?


Harold Edward Winch: I do not know about that. I only know that when it was brought in the cover had been removed, and if it was a good precedent then it is good now.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr,
Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that what is happening at this moment indicates that we are discussing matters which are quite irrelevant to the estimates of the Department of Labour. This has been obvious, I think, for some little time in the light of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East. We can see now where this type of discussion is leading. It is a discussion of something that happened in another parliament in connection with the Prime Minister and a report issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This has no bearing whatever on the item that is now before us concerning the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour. I most respectfully suggest that all this discussion is completely irrelevant, and that hon. members should turn their attention to discussion of the item before us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not accept this invitation of the minister to close off this discussion of the economic situation in this country and our desire to

Supply-Labour
get information from the department most concerned about that situation, the Department of Labour.


Norman Platt Lambert: Even if you seek to get it by means of irrelevant discussion.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not think I am irrelevant, but if 1 am let me say that I would rather be irrelevant than irresponsible.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. member succeeds in being both.


Harold Edward Winch: The item we are now discussing relates to the economics and research branch. That has to do with all matters relevant to labour and therefore all matters relevant to employment and unemployment. If discussions in previous parliaments under the present government and the present Prime Minister have established that this question of advice to the government could be discussed, it is just as relevant today as it was then. Because of the irresponsibility of the government it seeks to use these things for its own political expediency, denying information to parliament except when the government wants parliament to have the information. If there is any irrelevancy and irresponsibility it has been demonstrated on the other side.
Apparently today we are to be denied that information, with the cover on or off. That being the case, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he will comment with respect to a statement made at the end of April by such outstanding men as Mr. David Mansur, real estate consultant, Mr. W. H. Evans, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and Mr. James Coyne of the Bank of Canada as reported in the Star. On the basis of a survey taken, these three men have said that next fall will witness a turndown in the economy, and next winter will see unemployment worse than last year and indeed it will equal the postwar peak of unemployment.
These men are all good Canadians. I mention that because the minister told us last evening on three occasions that he was a good Canadian. I do not doubt that for a moment. In fact I do not doubt that all hon. members of this committee are good Canadians who look forward to a great future for Canada.
In view of the statement made by these good Canadians will the minister tell us if he agrees with their analysis? If he does not, how and why does he disagree? If there is any agreement at all, what in the view of the minister will be done to meet the situation? What is being done about it now?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I can only reiterate what I said in response to the same question earlier. It is quite evident that the government are concerned about the situation. We have expanded our effort, are contributing to the training of unemployed workers on a higher scale of cost to the federal government, and the Prime Minister has said that other projects are under consideration. One has to have respect for the opinions of these people but based on our own experience in the past two winters and based on the present situation as indicated by the studies of the dominion bureau of statistics, it is surely quite evident that the government is taking steps to see that the situation does not worsen in the coming months.


Harold Edward Winch: I think everyone here will commend the government for all the steps that have been announced. There is no question of that. But I should like to put this question to the minister. He quoted three times last night a statement of the Prime Minister-I forget the exact wording-that new consideration is being given to the matter and at the appropriate time other policies may be announced. In view of the fact that we are now very close to August, will the minister inform us why, on the basis of information they must have within the department, within the government and outside, it is the policy to withhold announcements until parliament is no longer sitting. I expect we shall not be sitting more than another week-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: I gather some hon. members want to go home. I do, too. I have been home only six days this year. I would like to get home, but I am staying here until this house has concluded its business and prorogued, because that is the job for which I was elected.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: So are we.


Harold Edward Winch: Quite a number have left already. In view of the present serious situation, and what looks like a worsening one, why are announcements not made by the government while parliament is in session and can deal with government policy?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, with respect to those matters on which decisions have been arrived at, the decisions have been announced in this House of Commons. I refer to such matters as housing, municipal winter works programs, training for unemployed workers, home improvement loans and so forth. With respect to all those things and which decisions have been arrived at, announcements have

been made. There are other matters with respect to which decisions have not yet been arrived at, and we are doing everything possible to expedite them as much as we can.


Harold Edward Winch: How are they going to be financed; by treasury board order? Because you will not have the authority of the estimates. We would like the minister to have authority for whatever is required to take care of the situation.


Michael Starr: I am not the Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, surely we had the right to expect, when the minister's estimates are brought before the house in the closing days, we hope, of the session, that the minister would give us a comprehensive analysis of the economic and employment situation in this country, and a comprehensive statement before parliament broke up of what the government was going to do about it, because once parliament is not in session it is more difficult. And, if the situation does worsen, it might even require parliament to be reconvened.
We have not had that. The minister said a few moments ago that the government is going to do everything it can to prevent the situation from worsening. He has not been able to give us much evidence of what has been done, but the government is going to do everything it can to prevent the situation from worsening. Naturally we would support any move that the government can or will make to that end but, Mr. Chairman, the situation has already worsened when compared with what it was at this time last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is as bad as it was in 1958.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Last night the minister told the committee-and I quote from Hansard at page 7254-in answer to a question of mine: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope the situation will be much better than it was in the last two winters.
I was talking about the unemployment situation during the winter time. On what does the minister base that hope? This morning he has told us that the situation is serious in terms of unemployment, and it certainly is likely to get more serious as the autumn and winter approach. He said this morning-and we all hope, of course, that the situation will be much better this winter than it was during the last two-that the situation will be much better this winter. I should like to know whether the minister can tell us on what he bases this hope. There must be something in his mind which justifies this somewhat optimistic conclusion, at 79951-0-460	[DOT]
Supply-Labour
least an optimistic hope, that while the situation is serious

and I know it is more serious than it was this time last year-nevertheless he hopes it will be much better than it was during the last two winters. That is the short run position and the problem we must cope with at the present time is the short run problem.
While I am on my feet I should like to remind the minister, if he needs any reminder, that the long range problem is just as serious, just as complicated and just as difficult. During the decade 1950 to 1960 one million jobs were added to the economy of this country. During the decade 1960 to 1970, if this country is to approach or maintain anything like full employment, we shall need two million jobs. Now, we have the short run situation, which is serious. We have the long run situation, which is serious. In so far as the former is concerned the minister hopes it will be much better than it was during the last two winters. Can he give us some information on which we can share that hope with him?


Michael Starr: It is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman. I am hoping that with the measures I have already announced and with the measures which we shall undertake, we shall alleviate the situation this winter and it will be much better than it was. It is on that that I base my hope, and I have every right to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It seems to me that the hon. member for Vancouver East has put a very important question. The minister says he is satisfied, that if we have an unemployment situation comparable to last winter, the program of the government will be capable of providing jobs for all who need jobs. The minister will certainly agree that he is straining logic when he makes that statement, because all that the winter works program was able to provide was some
51,000	jobs. The government through the minister is not serious when it suggests that the three measures that represent its present program are capable of providing work for the numbers who have been out of work during the past winter.
That being so, what is the answer to the question put by the hon. member for Vancouver East? If in the month of September or October the number of unemployed rises to the level of the corresponding period last year, what program will the government resort to in order to provide jobs for those people who are out of work, recognizing that the present program, on the basis of the experience of the last two years, has not been able to provide a substantial number of jobs?
The government has said it is considering other plans. When are those plans to be put

Supply-Labour
forward? When are the programs based on those plans to be realized? Are we to wait until next winter? Is that the situation? If that is the situation, the minister can tell us. But what is going to happen to those people who are out of work? The government, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, cannot bring forward those plans without the approval of parliament. Parliament has to pass the necessary money; and the government must give the committee an indication if it will call parliament together in the fall, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, to authorize it to embark on the programs which the minister says it is now considering.
The minister has not touched on this phase of the problem at all. Of course it is not the only phase that he has ignored in this discussion. It is another question which has to be answered, if we are to feel that we have discharged our responsibility with regard to the request of the government that we should pass this particular estimate and the other estimates of the Department of Labour.


Michael Starr: I listened to what the hon. member had to say, and I think I have answered practically all the questions time and time again, so I have nothing further to add.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have come to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Vancouver East are hardly being fair to the minister, because it is quite evident that the government has no program, is planning no program and intends no program, and that the unemployed are to be treated in exactly the same way as the western farmers are being treated by this government.


Harold Edward Winch: There is one point that does disturb me. I am quite prepared to accept the word of the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister that studies are now being undertaken with a view to giving further consideration to the unemployment situation, and through that consideration plans for greater employment. A few minutes ago I asked the Minister of Labour about the financial end and his answer was that is a matter for the Minister of Finance.
Quite honestly, 1 do not believe that is something the Minister of Labour can expect us to swallow. If the government does have something in mind the Minister of Labour obviously knows the plans they are considering, and surely he must have been in communication with the Minister of Finance as to how that is going to be financed. He must know how they are going to finance something in the future. I think we in this house have a

right to know how they are going to do it if the House of Commons is not in session. My understanding is and always has been that the House of Commons and the Senate are the only bodies that can authorize the expenditure of money.
Now, I presume the plans of the Minister of Labour must involve the expenditure of federal funds. Can he tell us, because he must know, how the financial angle is to be handled and how, when those plans are at the point of being promulgated, the government is going to obtain the authorization of the House of Commons to do those things? Is there going to be a special session of the House of Commons or is it going to be done under authority of order in council, anticipating that at the next session of parliament a supplementary estimate will be passed? Surely this is one of the simple questions that should be asked by a member of the opposition. I hope the minister can give us a little more detailed reply than he gave to my question a few moments ao.


Michael Starr: I do not know what particular financing the hon. member has in mind or what particular project he has in mind when he is so worried about financing. Let us take, as an example, the municipal winter works program. This is being financed by a supplementary estimate which will come before the House of Commons possibly during the next session of parliament, at which time parliament will be asked to approve it. An announcement was made in that respect. There will have to be a supplementary estimate for the additional cost of training the unemployed workers. This will be brought before parliament at the next session. Whatever the projects are, so far as I know at the moment, whatever the projects may be which will be approved, an announcement will be made and there is no doubt but that the proper method of financing will be used in that respect.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words the governor general in council can use a blank cheque in connection with a policy about which this parliament knows nothing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister can tell us how many, if any, of the members of this economics and research branch are working on the committee that was set up some five months ago to try to find a new method of measuring unemployment?


Michael Starr: There are two members.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether this committee has completed its work, and whether the Department of Labour representatives on it have reported to him

in regard to that work? 1 ask this, Mr. Chairman, because it is obviously a matter of interest and importance to this committee, when discussing labour estimates, to have before it the work that has been done in this field. It would have been of great assistance to us if that work, which has been going on now for more than five months, could have been completed so we would have the report before us.
I know that the measurement of unemployment is not nearly as important as unemployment itself, but in order to assess the problem it is useful to have the proper statistics. There is a great deal of controversy now on this subject. This committee was set up for this purpose, and it has been working now for many months. Can the minister indicate whether there is any likelihood that we will have a report from him, during the discussion of these estimates, on the work of the committee?


Michael Starr: I am advised that the work of the committee is nearing completion, and that they expect to write their report and make a report to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to me during the latter part of next week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is very unfortunate that a report of this importance, which has a direct bearing on the consideration of these estimates, will be made to the minister concerned a few days after we have finished the discussion of these estimates.


Richard Devere Thrasher: You still have trade and commerce.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we still have trade and commerce, and perhaps the minister will take up the matter with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce to assure that when those estimates come before the committee we might have that report.
There is an interesting paragraph about this problem of the assessment and measurement of unemployment in this labour research bulletin to which I have already referred, which indicates that our present methods are not very satisfactory. We know that, because if they had been we would not have set up this committee. There are two procedures followed at present. One may result in the setting of a figure for unemployment which is too high, whereas the other may result in a figure which is too low. In commenting on this the labour research bulletin had this to say:
The government figures give people without jobs and seeking work as a percentage of the labour force. This is not the same thing at all. The labour force includes not only wage and salary earners and the unemployed, but also employers, own accounts (the self-employed) and unpaid 79951-0-460J
Supply-Labour
family workers in a business or on a farm. In 1959, these people averaged over 18 per cent of the Canadian labour force, so that the difference between labour force and labour supply was substantial. To measure unemployment against a conglomerate mass of workers, employers, the selfemployed and unpaid family workers is really not sensible.
Then further down it goes on to say:
So the sensible thing to do is measure unemployment against the total of "paid workers" (the neat d.b.s. term for wage and salary earners combined) plus the unemployed.
That seems to me to make sense. I think that is in accord with the international labour office method for the measurement of unemployment, which we have not adopted in this country but which perhaps this committee may recommend. If that does make sense, Mr. Chairman, it shows that unemployment, as a statistical measure in this country, is even more serious than one would gather from the dominion bureau of statistics figures given to us from time to time.


Norman Platt Lambert: You are comparing apples and oranges to arrive at that conclusion.


Harold Edward Winch: That is what some of the unemployed cannot buy, apples and oranges. I feel that our discussion on item 165 and the previous item amply demonstrates why some members in this house thought it would be preferable to adjourn in June and come back in September, at which time the committee could have considered any proposal this government had in mind with regard to unemployment. This proves that we were right in making that suggestion.
I should like to ask a question of the minister under this item 165. If my memory is correct, and I think it is, the last information the Department of Labour issued on the number of those who were seeking employment in Canada indicated that there were 124,000. I think it said there were 124,000 who had been unemployed for four months or more. In view of that information, available to and supplied by his department, I should like to ask the minister whether, under this item for the economics and research branch, any special study is being made of the problem of those who have been unemployed for many months-I refer to the 124,000 for four months or more-as to the particular trades or professions in which they have been trained, with the idea of evolving any proposals to take care of that situation.
What I have in mind is this. Among that
124,000	is there any particular group or are there any groupings of trades or professions, and is any kind of research being undertaken with regard to them in an effort to try to solve the problem?

Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: We have not that information here at the moment. We can check and see whether we can get that information.


Harold Edward Winch: It is not so much a matter of wanting a break-down; what I want to know is this. You have that problem of 124,000 out of those 300,000 applicants, I think it was according to the last statistical review. Is any special study being made by the minister's economics and research branch as to whether they break down into certain trades and professions, with a view to taking some remedial action?


Michael Starr: I am told they are not certain whether there is any special data pertaining to these people mentioned by the hon. member, but generally speaking, on the whole manpower situation, our economics and research branch are continually studying and assessing the various categories.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask this question. If any data are available, are they mostly of a trained or untrained classification? I am referring to the 124,000.


Michael Starr: I am told that we can check on the matter right away. However, at the moment that information is not available to me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, this seems to me an appropriate moment to make a suggestion that I have been turning over in my mind since the minister answered the Leader of the Opposition about this attempt to reconcile statistics, and the report of this joint committee on the matter. While the minister has said that this report may be available in time for consideration of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, it seems to me that procedure would not really be satisfactory to the committee for this reason. The Department of Trade and Commerce is merely the vehicle through which the bureau of statistics reports to parliament, but this is the department that has some responsibility in the matter. Particularly in view of the need for the minister to wait for certain information asked for by the hon. member for Vancouver East, it seems to me that the most suitable way of meeting this problem would be to have the minister let this item stand and go on with the rest of his estimates. Then at the end of the committee of supply, after all the other departments have been taken up so there will be a maximum amount of time to get this important document or this essential information and for all members of the committee to study it, we could resume the consideration of this particular item. I ask the minister to consider that suggestion.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: You would then want it held until the government could consider it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point may I say that I do not think it is a matter of the government considering this document. I would think both departments would welcome all the criticism of the document they could get before they decided to scrap the existing statistical basis and adopt a new one. I am making a serious request to the minister. At the same time I should also like to ask him a question about this study. I should like to ask him whether the committee, in its studies, have consulted Mr. Arthur MacNa-mara, who has perhaps greater experience in this field than anyone else in this country and who has, of course, a continuing connection with the minister's department or with a certain organism of the government connected with the minister's department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is chairman of the unemployment insurance advisory commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; he is chairman of the unemployment insurance advisory commission and, as I happen to know, he has extremely strong views on this question. I should be greatly interested in knowing whether he has been consulted in the course of this study.


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East I want to say that I am now informed that these categories he mentioned are mostly untrained, but no specific data is available on the occupation characteristics of those who are unemployed for more than four months.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 165 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister indicate what he proposes to do about my request?


Michael Starr: What was your request?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The suggestion I made to the minister was this. In order to enable the committee to consider this report and to do so in the context of the minister's department, where it should be considered rather than under the Department of Trade and Commerce, my suggestion was that he should allow this item to stand until all the other business of the committee of supply has been done and then have it called. By that time, if his prognostications are correct, the report should be available to us. The other question which he might answer at the same time, is whether or not Mr. MacNamara was consulted by the committee.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: What if the report is delayed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that case it could not be considered.


Michael Starr: In answer to the last question, as to whether Mr. MacNamara was consulted, may I say that the answer is no, according to members of the committee. As to the first part of the request, the answer as far as I am concerned is no, because these are the same tactics that were adopted by the hon. member last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Really, Mr. Chairman, I think we deserve a better answer than that. I was not speaking just for myself. I was speaking for my friends on this side of the house; I refer to the official opposition in this House of Commons. I do not think this is an answer that the minister would like to leave on the record unmodified, namely the suggestion-and after all, it is unparliamentary-that these were the same tactics I used last year. There is an implication in that answer, and it is contrary to the rules to attribute motives.
However, I am making nothing of that matter. What I am saying is this. The request I made was made two years ago, as I think the minister will find, not last year. As the minister will recall, I made a reasonable request at that time. I requested that we should let one item stand until the winter works program was announced. What happened? The then house leader, who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Prime Minister, when asked formally by my colleague the hon. member for Laurier, all refused that reasonable request.
When was the winter works program announced? It was announced in September. Where was it announced? It was announced at a provincial Tory convention in the province of Saskatchewan. Therefore if the minister objects to my tactics, I would remind him of the history of that incident. I had not intended to raise this matter at all. It was the minister who did so. However, when it is suggested that these things should be dealt with by parliament and not at provincial Tory conventions, it seems to me that the opposition is on fairly sound ground.
I repeat the request to the minister, as it is a reasonable one. Since he expects this report next week, and since it would be quite as easy to deal with this item then as it is now, I ask the minister to reconsider his answer.


Harold Edward Winch: May I just say one word on this matter, Mr. Chairman. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. 1 am rather afraid that there is now on the part of the government a tendency to forget the principles which they
Supply-Labour
espoused with regard to a democratic parliament for so many years when they sat on this side of the chamber. It is the responsibility of the opposition to offer critical analyses and make constructive and alternative proposals. I believe that is what we are trying to do, but how can we do it if all possible information is not before the members of the committee? We do want to help the minister in solving this problem, but the only way we can do this is to have full information.
I would ask the minister whether by postponing this vote for a matter of two, three, four or five days it would be possible for him to supply anything more by way of factual information, reports or advice so that all members of this committee can do a better job in representing those who sent us here and in assisting him in the most difficult problem he is facing.


Michael Starr: I do not know what factual reports the hon. member refers to.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand there is one which will be filed in two or three days.


Michael Starr: There is the report of the committee which is working in an endeavour to recommend a measure of employment with regard to the future, but that is all.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Reference was made this morning to certain forecasts in a report recently issued by economists in this country to the effect that the number of unemployed next winter could be much higher than it was in the past two winters, and some had gone as far as to say that it could be over the one million mark. On the other hand we have the Minister of Labour saying last night that he certainly hoped the situation would be much better next winter.
The minister must have some basis on which to express this hope, and when he was asked a while ago what he was basing this statement on he said it was based on the announcements made by the government. The only announcement we have had so far which could provide any relief to the unemployed is a very moderate extension of the winter works program, a program which was announced at a provincial Conservative convention in Saskatchewan last year which resulted in the 54 Conservative candidates losing the election, 40 of them losing their deposits.
We have an accelerated housing construction program which will come into effect in early fall. Housing construction in many areas of the country is almost impossible during the winter months, and I would ask the minister whether, in making this statement to the effect that he hopes the situation will be better next winter, he is taking

Supply-Labour
into consideration the recommendations which have been made to him in the reports he has received from the economics and research branch of his department. If he has, then there seems to be quite a contradiction between the minister's statement and the reports which have been referred to this morning of certain economists in the country.
A while ago some government members objected to the production of such a report, saying that the one referred to by the Prime Minister two years ago was a report which had been produced in the past. I ask the Minister of Labour what objection he has to making available to this committee the report he received last May forecasting the labour conditions for the summer months. I think we should have a reply to this question.


Michael Starr: The hon. member has repeated now that which was said earlier by his leader, and I have answered his leader on both those points.


James Roy Tucker: I have a couple of questions for the minister. I would like to know if he could break down the 55,000 people helped last year by the winter works program. In my section of the country for the last two years the winter works program has been in operation it has been absolutely useless, because we have about 110 inches of snow and three or four feet of frost. Our council journeyed to Toronto on two different occasions to meet the government about this, and they came back on both occasions empty handed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate made what I thought was quite a reasonable suggestion, which the minister turned down, in respect to this report on new methods of measuring unemployment. We are told that this report will be available next week. We have been told that we will be permitted to discuss it on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. However it is true, as the minister will admit that his own department has a primary relationship to the matters which will be considered in this report. We will undoubtedly be told this by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when we try to get information out of him about it.
Therefore I ask whether, when this matter comes up for consideration on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the minister will be able to make himself available to the committee at that time so we can question him about it when the report is before the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are awaiting a reply from the minister.
[Mr. Robichaud.l


Michael Starr: What was the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was a very simple one. When this report of the committee on statistical methods for measuring unemployment is before the committee on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce next week, would the minister if possible-and there may be something which will make it quite impossible-be available to the committee at that time so we can question him about this report, as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Michael Starr: The estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are the responsibility of that particular minister, and I do not feel I should make myself available on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Murdo William Martin: This is a matter of considerable importance; because if parliament is going to adjourn or prorogue within the foreseeable future-at any rate that is the hope-we may be confronted with a situation where once parliament is not in session, the government might resort to a standard of measurement of unemployment that may not be as satisfactory or as scientifically desirable as possible. It could be that when we come back here next January, if that is the government's intention, the government by that time will have accepted or devised a formula which will not fully reveal the extent of unemployment in this country
Five months ago the government announced through the Minister of Labour that an interdepartmental committee had been set up to study this problem. We have three standards of measurement in Canada; the dominion bureau of statistics figure, the unplaced applicants figure, and the number of live claims. Under the international labour office standards, the dominion bureau of statistics figure of people without jobs and seeking work, added to which is the figure of people on temporary lay-off, is in the judgment of that body perhaps the best standard to use.
It is difficult for us to understand how it could have taken all this time for this interdepartmental committee to come forward with a report. It certainly is open to us to suggest, as did the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a rather interesting coincidence that the government hopes to be able to present the report of this interdepartmental committee just as we are about to prorogue. That, I think, is not an unfair argument, particularly when we recall how difficult it was to get from the minister any indication as to what progress is being made.
One excuse was that one of the members of the committee was away, and on that

account the hon. gentlemen could not get information as to the progress being made. Then when we asked whether the minister had inquired, he said no; and when it was pointed out how unfortunate that position was, the minister said, "Does the hon. gentleman think I would not make inquiries?" So all the facts concerning the situation warrant our belief, or our suspicion, that this particular timing has been arranged by the government to suit its own convenience.
Can the minister tell us whether there will be any change made in the standard of measurement without this house being given an opportunity of debating the merits of any change that may be contemplated.


Michael Starr: The hon. member has been very severely criticizing the members of this committee for not bringing in a report in time to satisfy him-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was criticizing the minister, not the members of the committee.


Michael Starr: I must say he is most unfair in doing that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, there has been no criticism of any member of this committee. What I and others have been doing is to criticize the government and not any member of this committee.


Michael Starr: As usual the hon. member has no point of order. He merely wishes to interrupt and straighten out what he thinks should be said. The members of this committee are very valued civil servants of the highest calibre drawn from the three different departments. There were times when two or three of them were away and the committee did not meet as a result. Consequently a delay occurred. But I feel certain that whatever method of measuring unemployment is recommended by this committee, if it is adopted by the government as a measure of unemployment, because of the calibre of these people it will commend itself even to the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister say whether the economics research division assists in the preparation of the annual report of the department?


Michael Starr: They contribute to the report on their section.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I have before me the report of the department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959. In view of the responsibility of the Minister of Labour in the matter of unemployment, I make some observations about the table of contents and the actual content of this report.
Supply-Labour
The work of this department is important, and the various matters which engage the attention of the department are of equal importance. But since unemployment and employment are among the ministerial responsibilities of the hon. gentleman and his officials, I should be grateful to the minister if he would explain why there is no mention in this report, in so far as I am able to ascertain, of the problems of unemployment at all.
I have before me page 6, the table of contents. I have looked at the introduction, where I would expect to find some reference to unemployment. I find, for instance, in the first sentence, the following: "The department's activities to stimulate winter employment gained momentum during the year". However, there is no detailed discussion; there is not one paragraph of discussion concerning the problem of unemployment.
In 1958, in 1959 and in the current fiscal year we have had much unemployment. It is difficult to understand why there would not be in this report of the Department of Labour a discussion of the problem which has occupied the attention of this committee since yesterday morning. I see at page 38 a reference to the work of the economics and research division. There are passages dealing with relations between labour and management, labour organizations, strikes and lockouts, wage rates, working conditions and so on, but I see no reference to the question of unemployment. On page 40 I see a heading "Employment and the labour market" but there is certainly no discussion of the problem there or any proposed remedies. I see on page 41 the heading "Seasonal employment". All that is said there is:
Increasing concern about winter unemployment led to detailed further study during the year of seasonal employment problems. A statistical summary of seasonal variations throughout industry and in different regions of the country was prepared for the national winter employment conference in July.
I see, too, that seasonal unemployment in British Columbia is the subject of a special study. By the way, when the minister was asked for some information he could possibly have produced the results of these surveys and studies, which might have provided answers to some of the questions, at least, which we have been asking. But will the minister explain to the committee why in the report of the Department of Labour there is no substantial reference to or discussion of what is the most important responsibility of the Minister of Labour, and what is the most important single domestic problem facing Canada at the present time?

Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: Never at any time has the annual report contained any such thing as the hon. member for Essex East has in mind. The annual report of the Department of Labour deals with the activities of each branch of the department, not with the state of the nation. However, we do make mention on page 40 of the report, under the heading "Employment and the Labour Market" to the Current Manpower and Labour Relations Review which appeared in the Labour Gazette copies of which have perhaps been sent to the hon. member and the question of unemployment is discussed very fully in the Labour Gazette.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
166.	Annuities Act administration, $1,194,357.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Could the minister tell us the number of pension plans covered in group contracts which were written up to the end of the last fiscal year?


Michael Starr: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960 group certificates issued amounted to 11,564.


Mr.   Balien@: Mr. Chairman, under the Government Annuities Act passed in 1908 a government annuity is a fixed yearly income purchased from and paid by the federal government. The minimum annuity is $10 and the maximum $1,200, or $100 per month. In table No. 4 on page 29 of the report of the department we notice that interest in this plan has been relatively stable over the years. From 1955 to 1959 the number of individual contracts has been in the vicinity of 6,000 and the number of group certificates has ranged between 15,000 and 18,000.
I have had some inquiries concerning this plan, based on the fact that the maximum annuity of $1,200 per year is probably not worth as much now as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. My question to the minister is this. Would he give me an explanation of the section in table No. 3 at the bottom of page 28 dealing with the amount of the annuity where it refers to "over $1,200"?


Michael Starr: These are carryovers from the time the maximum of the government annuity was above $1,200. At one time it was even up to $5,000. These are carryovers that have been in existence.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it possible at present to buy an annuity in excess of $1,200?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is any consideration being given to increasing the maximum allowable, Mr. Chairman?


Michael Starr: Not at the moment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister could tell me-perhaps I should know-how these annuities are now being marketed, how they are being sold.


Michael Starr: Through our government annuity representatives in various parts of the country, and directly to people who write to the annuities branch. We have annuities representatives as we had in the past. They are also sold through direct communication with the annuities branch here in Ottawa.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Are there annuity agents in all the provinces of Canada?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General administration-
526. Annuities Act-To authorize the payment of interest, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, out of the government annuities account, on premiums being refunded that were paid under a contract entered into with Her Majesty pursuant to subsection (3) of section 6 of the Government Annuities Act where such premiums are in excess of the amount required to purchase the maximum annuity payable under that act to an employee of the purchaser; the said interest in respect of premiums being refunded shall be calculated at the rate of interest applicable to the premiums at the time they were received and such interest shall be payable for the period from the day on which the excess premiums were received by Her Majesty to the day on which the refund is made, $1.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us how many pension plans are underwritten by group contracts as for the last fiscal year?


Michael Starr: Approximately 1,100.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would cover how many employees who are actually in the working force?


Michael Starr: About 258,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
167.	Industrial relations activities including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $595,271.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, this item covers the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. As I mentioned in my remarks last evening, I should like to remind the minister that when his estimates were under discussion last year he stated on May 15 that during the present session this act would be amended. Twice this session, in reply to questions I addressed to him, the minister said the act would not be amended during the present session. On one occasion I believe the hon. gentleman said

that amending the act would require lengthy preparations. Would the minister give us a definite explanation as to why the act was not amended this session, as promised by him on May 15 last?


Michael Starr: I made a detailed study of the possible amendments. I felt that because of the far-reaching effects they may have on the lives of many thousands of Canadians, this matter necessitated an even more intensive study. This I am proposing to do; and in this course of action, I might say to the hon. member, the Canadian Labour Congress concurs.


Harold Edward Winch: Through the auspices of the commonwealth parliamentary association and the House of Commons I had the opportunity last year of visiting Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaya, Israel, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. Within a few days of my return to Vancouver, after an absence of three months and based on discussions I had with industrial and political leaders throughout the world, I made a speech for which I have since been condemned and commended. I said that I felt it was my responsibility to say that I thought Canada was facing a serious crisis in the months and perhaps the years ahead. I said if we were to maintain our standard of living and our competitive position as an exporting nation, there would have to be greater co-operation and collaboration among labour, industry and government.
I retract not a word of my speech made last December following my trip. Circumstances unfortunately have borne out the correctness of my statement. I say unfortunately, because there have been developments in Canada since that time which amply demonstrate the correctness of my conclusions. We face serious unemployment in Canada today and perhaps the problem will be more acute in the months and years ahead. We face increased competition from abroad, and threats of economic combinations. We are confronted with the possibility of cold war such as we have never before witnessed.
I therefore feel there is now an absolute necessity to have co-operation and collaboration among labour, management and government in the interest of all the people of Canada. Unless there is that co-operation and collaboration, critical as the situation may seem at the present time, conditions can get worse, and no one in this house or in Canada wants to see conditions get worse. I feel so strongly on this matter that that is the reason I rose.
I am not retracting one word I said, popular or unpopular though it may be. We
Supply-Labour
have to face major responsibilities in these critical times. We have to recognize, as I said yesterday, that automation is marching onward. We have to recognize-and I think this is of the utmost importance-and I am afraid too many in labour, management and government do not, that we are no longer in a seller's market; we are in a buyer's market. Since we are in a buyer's market, the interests of Canada demand a social consciousness on the part of all people. They demand that one segment of the economy shall not damn everybody else for everything that is wrong; and I apply that, sir, to government, management and labour.
I said when I returned last summer that one of the greatest needs, if labour and management could not get together, was for government to take the initiative in bringing them together. Government should take the lead within our capitalistic economy because, although I am a socialist and want to see socialism, I am a practical socialist and the practicality of socialism is ham and eggs on the table tomorrow morning for everybody if they like ham and eggs; if not, whatever they like or desire.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, although you may have thought I was out of order I am not, because I wanted to make those remarks as an introduction to a question on this item. I notice that the last part of item 167 has to do with the promotion of labour-management co-operation. Will the minister give us the fullest possible explanation of what, through the medium of his department, is done in the realm of labour-management co-operation; not only what has been done by the money expended in the past but in particular what will be done, the activity and the policy, in the fiscal year to which those estimates apply.
I know I am very often guilty of repetition, but I do want to reiterate that in my personal, and I will say humble, opinion we have now passed the time when government, with the knowledge and reports it should have; industry, knowing the competition they are now facing in a buyer's market and not a seller's market; and labour, that must have employment in order to live, have to get together and put their cards on the table- when I say that I mean it-and not completely condemn or damn each other, because undoubtedly there are mistakes on all sides. They should not try to find excuses, but should put the cards on the table so people can be employed, so they can produce and either consume or sell the produce so that government can function and meet its responsibilities.

Supply-Labour
This is the only item I know of under which the government can take a greater initiative in trying to bring about co-operation and understanding. If I say any more it will be repetition. I hope I have said enough to show how seriously I view this situation, and how important I think it is that on the initiative of government, management and labour relations should be improved. Would the minister be so kind as to say what is planned in so far as the government and this particular section of his department are concerned to bring about something which I maintain is absolutely necessary and long past due? Unless it can be done, serious as the problems now are, they may be more serious and more critical in the not too distant future.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for his contribution in respect of this vote, because I think it is very worth while. This is a matter that is in the minds of a great many people who have this interest at heart. I must confess to the hon. member that it is a very important matter in my own mind. What has been done in connection with this vote has been only on the plant level. We have helped in every way we could to organize committees on this plant level to promote efficiency in operation, reduce waste, promote safety measures and accident prevention. There are some 1,582 committees that we work with at that level for this purpose, but I think that is not enough. I think labour, management and government in fact should go beyond that. I want to thank the hon. member and assure him that this is also uppermost in my mind, to see what can be done in that sphere.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I also listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who has so much knowledge of and interest in this field and who has expressed that interest and knowledge inside and outside this house over the years. I agree with him that industrial disputes which lead to strikes and the interruption of work are too expensive in our economic society to be tolerated if anything can be done to prevent them. They are wasteful; they impose a burden on the cost of production of goods in Canada at a time- and my hon. friend has said this-when that burden may prevent us developing our export trade and meeting the competition of other countries, and thereby prevent us from giving the kind of employment which we all want to see in this country.
I mentioned last night that employment in manufacturing is not as relatively important

in our economy as it was, but is still responsible for one out of every four jobs in Canada. Therefore we cannot afford this kind of thing any longer, any more than we can afford not to have a trade union movement as the basis of collective bargaining to prevent industrial disputes. The procedure for the purpose, of preventing industrial disputes, as the minister has said on more than one occasion, can be improved, can be made more effective, can be modernized, can be brought perhaps into a closer relationship with the industrial and labour situation at the present time.
The minister told us two years ago that he was going to amend the act. He has now told us it is such an important matter that more time is required. However much time is required, I hope those steps will be taken in the next session at least, and that we shall pass amendments to this legislation which will help the country to more effectively deal with this problem than has been the case recently; though I do not think we have too much with which to reproach ourselves in this country. Certainly our record is not perfect, but it is not nearly as bad as that of some other countries. In any event, we must improve on the present industrial relations disputes mechanism to make co-operation among labour, management and government in the settlement of such disputes more effective. No mechanism alone, however, is going to improve this problem. It is a problem which requires the exercise of wisdom and self-restraint on the part of all the elements in our society which are affected.
Some months ago I read, and perhaps the minister did too, a paragraph in a British white paper on the economic implications of full employment. It was presented by the United Kingdom Prime Minister to the parliament of that country about a year ago. There is one section of that white paper which deals with conditions of price stability, and it is a paragraph that seems to me to have a bearing on the whole question of industrial disputes. It reads as follows:
... If the prosperous economic conditions necessary to maintain full employment are exploited by trade unions and businessmen, price stability and full employment become incompatible.
This may seem to be labouring the obvious, but we do not always, in our economy, understand the obvious or perhaps we do not always act on the obvious. It goes on to say:
The solution lies in self-restraint in making wage claims and fixing profit margins and prices, so that total money income rises no faster than total output. In the absence of such self-restraint, it may seem that the country can make a choice-albeit a painful one-between full employment and continually rising prices, or price stability secured with some danger to the level of employment that might otherwise have been achieved.

On this subject of industrial disputes and how to improve our present procedures, I read the other day a very interesting article in a magazine called Saturday Night. The article was entitled "Common Sense Laws to Prevent Strikes" and was signed by somebody called Frank Howard. I wonder whether this is our colleague in the house, the hon. member for Skeena, although there is no implication to that effect in this article. If it is not the hon. member for Skeena I should apologize-


William Joseph Browne: Why should you apologize?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize for attributing to him an article, even if it is sensible. I should not give him credit, even for a good article, if he did not write it. This paragraph begins:
When labour goes on strike, or management resorts to a lock-out, there is only one way to settle differences-apart from government imposed arbitration.
Perhaps I might interpolate here that government-imposed arbitration, which perhaps is essential in certain emergencies, should certainly be restricted to a minimum; because compulsory arbitration by government will inevitably lead to government intervention and finally government control of the business or industry in which the government has arbitrated. Then he goes on to say:
The two sides must get together and talk out their differences. It is at this point that we need drastic changes, both in the law governing industrial disputes and in the procedures we have set up to handle these disputes.
Then he proceeds to recommend some changes. I would be interested, if the minister saw fit to comment, in hearing his observations on some of these changes that are recommended in this article by Mr. Frank Howard. I am only going to pick out some of the more important ones, at least the ones that seem important to me. He says:
First, we should eliminate the use of conciliation boards, even though they have effected some settlements. Their work is repetitive of that of conciliation officers.
Then he goes on to add:
At the moment, time and lack of authority handicaps the conciliation officer and restricts him in his efforts to assist the disputing parties. We should give him the power to arrange meetings of the two parties and the right to ensure attendance at such meetings.
In other words he would eliminate the board and exalt the importance and authority of the conciliation officer. Then he says this:
A time limit should be set within which each party should indicate to the other and to the Minister of Labour whether it intends to accept or reject the recommendations of the conciliation officer .. . Following this, and if rejection is made by either party, a strike or lock-out vote should be allowed.
Supply-Labour
Then he goes on in connection with this procedure by making this proposal, which I think is both interesting and important.
The strike or lock-out vote must be by secret ballot.
He has a good deal to say about the use of the courts and judges in the conciliation of industrial disputes. I should not have said "the courts"; I should have said judges. He says:
More and more as union-management relations have developed we have seen the entry of judges of the courts into those relations. Judges are schooled in the ways of jurisprudence. Their lifetimes are spent in dealing with words and the interpretation thereof.
I would suggest that a section of the court be established to deal with questions of interpretation of, and disputes arising out of, collective agreements. But, the activities of such a labour court should be confined to dealing with grievances and must not be extended to the field of negotiations.
He then says:
If two parties to a collective agreement want to name a permanent arbitrator then they should be allowed so to do and should not have to take their differences to a particular person or place for an adjudication.
This is an interesting article, especially if it should be an article written by a member of parliament, and it puts forward some constructive suggestions which no doubt will be considered by the minister when he is working on the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. If he would comment on some of these points I have put before the committee I would be glad to hear his views.


Michael Starr: First of all may I say that I do not believe this Frank Howard is our colleague.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I just intervene, then, to withdraw, ex post facto, any reference to the hon. member for Skeena.


Michael Starr: Some of the things he suggests in the first part of this article have been in effect in the federal jurisdiction for many years, and with some success. The same suggestions have been made by other people in the provincial jurisdiction but not the federal jurisdiction. We have received no representations at any time from any of those affected by the federal Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act that conciliation boards should be abolished or the services of conciliation officers should be eliminated. Our experience has been that about three quarters of the disputes under federal jurisdiction have been settled by conciliation officers. They have performed very useful functions in this regard. The balance of one quarter of the disputes with which we have had to deal have been settled by conciliation boards.

Supply-Labour
I am not going to comment on what the experience has been in the provincial field; that is an entirely different matter. In these circumstances, and in view of the experience we have had, I feel that this is a good procedure. Certainly in my estimation anything in which success is to be found should not be thrown overboard by something else that may not be as thoroughly tested as is this procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
168.	Civilian rehabilitation branch including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $217,170.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister mentioned this item in general terms in his statement in chief. This has to do with what may seem to be an unexciting assignment on the part of the department but which in fact is one of its most constructive responsibilities. It has to do with the rehabilitation of disabled persons; and of course, whatever the federal government is able to do in this desirable field depends on the kind of arrangements and collaboration that can be established between the provinces and the federal government. Can the minister tell us how many cases of rehabilitation the department has provided for in co-operation with the provinces? I think the number of cases in 1955 was about 1,000. I am speaking now from memory, of course. Can the minister give us an answer to this question, and tell us something about this particular vote and what is happening under it?


Michael Starr: The number of rehabilitation cases in which full details are available during the fiscal year 1959-60 was 1,459. Of this number, 940 were males, 519 were females and 1,097 were dependants.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a few more questions to ask on this item and I think they should be answered by the minister. I understand that this item covers payments to the provinces to co-ordinate and develop activities for the rehabilitation of disabled persons to the amount of $150,000. Can the minister tell us how many provinces are sharing or participating in this plan? Another thing that is of interest to me is to note that the amount of $67,000, or approximately 46 per cent of the total grant, is required to administer this branch. In other words, even in this year's estimate there is an increase of $7,320 to cover the expenses of this civilian rehabilitation branch. I think the minister should clarify these matters before the item is passed.


Michael Starr: The main function of this branch is to co-ordinate the services of the various

departments which are interested in this type of work. There are nine provinces participating with which we have agreements at the present time.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What province is not
participating?


Michael Starr: Quebec.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What amount is being paid? Is an equal amount paid to each province, or is the amount in proportion to the population?


Michael Starr: Whatever each province asks, that amount is being paid. The amount varies.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Why was there an increase of $7,000 in the administration of this branch this year?


Michael Starr: The increase represents a general salary increase.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: One thing that seems rather surprising to me is that it should take $67,000, or 46 per cent of the total amount, to administer a grant of $150,000. To me that is a rather surprising amount.


Michael Starr: There is an extremely complex problem involved and a complicated type of undertaking in respect of the administration of this particular branch. They are engaged frequently in conferences of various sorts with various departments and with the provinces. It most certainly takes a great deal of time and a staff of some size to perform this function.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Under the various workmen's compensation boards certain rehabilitation work is done for men who have been injured in industry. What relationship is there between this vote and the activities of the boards in that respect? Is there any degree of co-operation in that type of rehabilitation?


Michael Starr: There is co-operation but no actual participation with the compensation boards of the various provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special services-
169.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combating seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, $502,075.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a vote that has been reduced from last year, when the total amount requested was $588,786. The minister this year is asking for $502,075. This item covers the special services branch, which includes the promotion of a program for combating seasonal unemployment. I hope the minister will be in a position to tell us why,

at a time when seasonal unemployment is so high, the government should find it desirable to reduce this vote. The minister undoubtedly has a good explanation, but in the absence of that explanation he will not wonder if I have some concern. There are other items that might be reduced, but at a time when there is so much unemployment, and particularly as some of it is seasonal, we ought to know why the reduction has taken place. The minister might tell us-


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member allow me to answer one question at a time? I get confused when I get about three or four questions at one time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I beg the minister's pardon.


Michael Starr: It is a little confusing to me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the minister is sitting down. I do not understand.


Michael Starr: I am getting the answer to the first question.


An hon. Member:: The minister is getting the information.


Michael Starr: We have participated in an immigration hostel in St. Paul which now has been closed down because there is no further use for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that in Saskatchewan?


Michael Starr: No, it is just outside of Montreal. The total cost was some $86,000. That practically takes care of the amount that is shown as a decrease under this branch.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister tell me what is being done pursuant to the vote on this item? The minister will understand that if seasonal unemployment is a factor, as the minister indicates and to the extent that he indicates in the present level of unemployment, this is a vote on which we should be given a comprehensive statement as to what is being done to combat seasonal unemployment.


Michael Starr: This special services branch was organized in April, 1950 to handle projects which developed from time to time and which did not fall within the purview of the other branches. The main programs at present that we undertake are listed as follows: the federal-provincial farm labour program; the organized movement of workers between Canada and the United States; organization and development of the program to combat seasonal unemployment-I may say that is the do it now program-the municipal winter works incentive program. This branch also
Supply-Labour
acts as liaison with associations and employers in the various industries with regard to their manpower problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since this is the item on which it is possible for us to discuss the winter works program, I would like to ask if the government gave any serious consideration to the suggestion which was put forward repeatedly by members of the official opposition, that instead of this 50-50 cost sharing basis some other formula should be devised more in keeping with the equalization formula for the payment of assistance to the provinces under the tax-sharing arrangements act.
As has been repeatedly shown by the hon. member for Gloucester, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's in speeches which I happen to recall earlier in the session, these winter works are concentrated mainly in the provinces which relatively need them the least, because they are the areas where the province can afford to pay its share. I think it would be interesting if the minister would tell us how many of the 55,000 jobs provided last winter were in the four Atlantic provinces, and how many were in Ontario.


Michael Starr: What is the first question you want me to answer? Do you mind if I take them one at a time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not a bit. I will ask the factual question first, and it is this. Of the 55,000 jobs, if that is the right figure-and I do not know what 55,000 jobs mean-


Michael Starr: That is incorrect; it is 51,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the minister's pardon; 51,000. I would presume that a job for one day is a job and a job for three months is a job, but they are very different things to the person who has the job. It is really job-days which are significant, and if the minister could tell us how many job-days there were in Ontario and how many job-days there were in the four Atlantic provinces I think it would help us to see whether this program is really providing the most help where it is most needed.


Michael Starr: The estimated number of man-days of work provided in Ontario totalled 539,075. The number of man-days of work provided in the province of New Brunswick totalled 55,100; in the province of Nova Scotia, 135,778; in the province of Prince Edward Island, 100 man-days and in Newfoundland, 18,166 man-days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister would not mind giving the figure for the whole country.


Michael Starr: The estimated number of man-days of work provided totalled 1,938,839.

Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: The next question I want to ask is this. The minister will certainly see that the number of man-days of work provided in the province of Newfoundland, which unhappily had relatively the highest level of unemployment of any province, is ridiculously small, to put it mildly. It is relatively a good deal smaller than the 100 days in Prince Edward Island, because in Prince Edward Island, because of the nature of the economy and the fact that the island is not very heavy industrialized, the unemployment was relatively not very great. But in Newfoundland unhappily it is relatively very great.
The minister will also see that the relief provided by this program in Newfoundland was very, very small indeed. It is for that reason, of course, that we put forward the suggestion that instead of paying a 50-50 share there should be some formula worked out dependent, in part at any rate, on the level of unemployment in the area, so that those areas with the highest level of unemployment, and therefore the least capacity to pay their share-


Norman Platt Lambert: What kind of unemployment do you mean? Seasonal or traditional?


John Whitney Pickersgill: For the benefit of the hon. member for Edmonton West perhaps I should explain that I was talking about the winter works program, and presumably the government designed the winter works program to deal with seasonal unemployment. That is all I was talking about, and I was concentrating exclusively upon it.
It so happens that seasonal unemployment, taking one year with another, in the province of Ontario is relatively less, I think, than in any other province of Canada except possibly Prince Edward Island. It just happens to be one of the facts of life which we have to face. In other words, the seasonal problem in Ontario is the least serious compared with any other province, notwithstanding the fact that one third, if I can keep in my head the figures the minister gave me, of all the money is paid to Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: No; one quarter.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It is 30 per cent to 32 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend from
Cochrane, who is better at arithmetic than I, says 30 per cent to 32 per cent. Even according to my rough reckoning that is not very far from one third, and I will let hon. gentlemen split the hairs if they want to. It will not alter the fundamental point I am making, that you have in Ontario one third of the money spent in the province best able to pay its own way and which has the least or relatively the least seasonal unemployment.

We do not think, having regard to the national character of this problem and the fact that this money is being paid out of the national treasury, that the 50-50 formula is a suitable one, and we put forward very strong views which the minister told us at the time we put them forward would receive careful study along with all our other suggestions. I would ask the minister what conclusion was reached after that study.


Michael Starr: There is no such thing as a 50-50 formula. As a matter of fact this is not a cost sharing program with the provinces at all. This is a program which has been brought forward by this government to help in the municipal works program, and it was suggested by the municipalities themselves. Naturally we cannot deal directly with the municipalities because the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces, so all our work in this field must be done through the appropriate departments of the provincial governments.
At least six of the provinces have also helped in this regard by contributing 25 per cent and in one case 30 per cent of the balance of the payroll costs of this municipal winter works program. So there is no such thing as a formula that is 50-50. It is a direct contribution from the federal government through the provinces to the municipalities to encourage them to do certain works in the wintertime in order to alleviate the unemployment in those municipalities; also to lessen the financial cost with which the municipalities are burdened with in regard to unemployment assistance and other matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says it is not a 50-50 formula. Will the minister assert that there is any case anywhere where the federal government pays more than 50 per cent of the labour costs?


Michael Starr: This is the only program.


Mr, Pickersgill:: The minister says it is not a 50-50 program, and I say that the minister and I do not talk the same language. After all, that is all we have responsibility for, what comes out of the federal treasury. My understanding of the winter works program is that the federal treasury pays 50 per cent of the labour costs-


Michael Starr: Payroll costs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well; payroll costs; the minister can call them anything he likes. But if they pay anything different from 50 per cent I would like to know. That is what I should like to know; if the federal government pays any other figure than 50 per cent. I say it does not matter whether the rest is paid by the provincial treasuries or

by the municipalities. The plain fact is that in certain provinces these works cannot proceed because the municipality or the province, or in many cases both, simply cannot afford to lay out the other 50 per cent plus all the other costs of the project. I say that we recognize this principle in the fiscal field -the principle of the proper equalization of these payments-and if the winter works program is to be spread relatively uniformly across this country and do good where it is most needed, a new costsharing formula is required. The minister promised us that the government would consider that-


Michael Starr: I certainly did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can turn up the pages-


Michael Starr: Go ahead, turn them up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and show the minister where he talked about our constructive suggestions and said that every one of those constructive suggestions would be considered. If all he meant was the same kind of consideration that is being given to the western wheat growers' proposals, it would be simpler to tell people at the start that it was intended to do nothing about them. I should like to know whether the minister has really given any consideration to this matter. There are ministers in the cabinet from some of these provinces, and I would hope they have made very strong representations in cabinet council to see that a fair deal is given to their provinces and to the municipalities in those provinces.


Mr.   Start@: I can tell the hon. member that no representations have been made by the municipalities or by the provinces on behalf of the municipalities with regard to the suggestion he has made. Only yesterday I read a letter from the president of the association of mayors and municipalities, who are most directly affected by this and who have not been reluctant about bringing forward suggestions; and no suggestion of this type has been put forward either by the municipalities which we are endeavouring to help or by the provinces with whom we are working.


Stuart A. Fleming: I hesitate to intrude upon the time of hon. gentlemen opposite, but I should like to advance a suggestion for the consideration of the minister which is to some extent an outgrowth of the winter works program. I think it would go a long way toward dealing with this problem of seasonal unemployment and even, to a considerable extent, with the type of unemployment known as hard core unemployment.
Hard core and seasonal unemployment can be the consequence of failure to utilize most
Supply-Labour
effectively the reservoirs of resources, skills and knowledge which already exist. It can be proven, I believe, that in many areas unemployment is most severe where an imbalance of development is found; where primary industry is not supplemented by secondary industry; where a single industry, either primary or secondary, maintains an entire region. It is in these circumstances that very often we find the most severe conditions of winter unemployment occurring and where there is growing evidence, also, that continued long term unemployment is likely to occur. The problems, to a large extent, originate in the inadequate utilization of existing resources, skills and knowledge, and the solution must therefore lie, at least in part, in a more effective use of these elements.
If we consider the contribution of the Department of Agriculture, not only the federal department but the departments of agriculture of all the provinces as well, we find that diversification, together with increased production and efficiency, have resulted from study, experiment and advice flowing steadily from these departments to the farmers concerned. Where advice based on study and experiment has been heeded, improvement has followed; but where advice has not been offered, or where it has been given and gone unheeded, there is a history of decline. This is positive evidence that close co-operation between a department of government and the people connected with an industry can have a beneficial effect.
Today we have been discussing the winter works program. Part of its effectiveness has been because of the utilization of voluntary committees of citizens in communities throughout the country in co-operation with the Department of Labour, national employment service offices in various communities and other associations concerned. My opinion is that if we could combine the type of service which has been effective in the agricultural industry with the method of reaching the people who need help through the use of committees similar to the voluntary citizens' committees which are now at work, we might achieve some very effective results. The majority of government departments, through their specialized branches dealing with economics, marketing, scientific research and so on, possess immense stores of knowledge concerning all resources in the industrial, commercial and agricultural fields. To be of greatest value this knowledge must get into the hands of people who can use it in developing the economy. There has to be an interchange, a flow of ideas, from the government to the people who can put this knowledge to work.

Supply-Labour
The means of doing this at the present time seems to exist in Canada only to a limited degree. My suggestion is that this lack of facilities might be offset by the use of regional development councils. Councils of this type do exist in Canada now. They also exist in the United States. But there is no national program of development councils, no ordered program which would achieve this result of utilizing most effectively all the resources of knowledge of all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did I correctly understand ihm to say there was no national program?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said there was no national program of regional development councils of the type I have suggested. They exist now in regions but their work is on a local rather than a national level.
I believe that the way we can achieve the best results from this all-embracing program would be to provide a means by which these councils could readily obtain all the information which exists in all the departments of government that might be concerned. I believe that the onus for creating these councils lies with the regions which require help, regions where economic development is lagging or is in a state of imbalance. The communities within a prescribed area would form a council embracing representatives of municipal governments, business, industry and labour and this council would apply to the responsible government authority for a study of the problems of the region.
This is why I feel that the special services branch might be the one most affected by an idea of this kind. The regional council would come to a special designated authority in government and ask that a survey of its resources be made to determine what steps and assistance could be used to bring about an elimination of this state of imbalance. The federal government would act as a catalyst in bringing together all the resources of specialized knowledge that would have an application to the problem of the region under study. 1 would assume that the federal government, acting as a catalyst, would also have to secure the participation and cooperation of all the provincial governments, because those bodies also have a tremendous store of useful knowledge that could be valuable in a scheme of this sort.
Perhaps I may be permitted to give a specific example to show how this plan might work if it was acceptable. For the purposes of my illustration let me choose
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1
a region dependent on agriculture, forestry and tourism-and if hon. members closely examine this illustration they will recognize that its economic constitution parallels that of my own riding-with only a small proportion of secondary industry and that largely seasonal. This region would request a study of its deficiencies and its strength. Representatives of the Department of Agriculture, the new department of forestry, the Department of Labour and in this instance the dominion travel bureau would be assigned to meet with the regional development council that had been created in that area. In consultation with the council the strength and weaknesses of the regional economy would be very closely assessed. Out of this would come a series of meetings at which officials of the specialized branches of government would, through the council, bring to the attention of the region the knowledge that could be put to work in its development.
I feel that the primary function here is to stimulate the latent initiative of the people in the region, because so much of the solution of the problems with which we are faced must originate with the people themselves. Government cannot do it all. Therefore the people in regions that are experiencing difficulty must be shown what they can do. Their own initiative must be tapped. They must be given a clearer conception of what might be done and a better understanding of their own potential, as well as what might be achieved through their own resources and what types of outside aid might be most profitably sought.
The role of government as I see it is to reveal possibilities not previously realized, to provide counsel, to encourage and lead toward balanced development. This is not simply the responsibility of government alone but is a responsibility that should be spread through the entire community. This plan would serve to make readily available to the people in the region affected the knowledge they may need to help them realize their own potential.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee has listened with interest to the speech that has been made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. As a matter of fact one wonders why more hon. members on the government side do not take part in this highly interesting discussion concerning this most important department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gage Workman Montgomery: We do not get a chance. You fellows talk all the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be very happy to hear the whip of the Conservative party speak on this matter, because the hon. gentleman represents a constituency like mine where there are many workers who are very much affected by this proposal.


John Cameron Pallett: The greatest industrial expansion in the history of the riding is taking place right now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is interesting, because that is the riding where the greatest dislocation occurred when the Avro contract was cancelled.


John Cameron Pallett: I invite the hon. member to read the last few issues of the Brampton Conservator the contents of which indicate that a tremendous industrial expansion is occurring in that area.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad that my hon. friend recognizes that the measures undertaken by the former government led to expansion in many areas in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Norman Platt Lambert: That is pure political humbug.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend says "That is pure political humbug". No one should know better than my hon. friend what is humbug.
Under this item we have the opportunity of discussing the winter works program. The minister has sought to indicate by reading the letter of the president of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities that this group endorses the program in its entirety. If the minister intended to create the impression that this letter was an endorsation of the program in its entirety, I am sure he will now agree that such is not the case. Undoubtedly the program was welcomed by the association of mayors in our country, just as it was welcomed by every hon. member of this committee. The criticism levelled by those in this party and by the mayors of Canada is that, welcome as it is, the program is inadequate and incapable by itself of meeting the problem of current unemployment.
I submit to the minister that notwithstanding the refinements and modifications announced by the Prime Minister last Saturday, the government has not taken into consideration the points raised by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities at page 4 of the representations they submitted to the government in 1959. They observed that:
The difficulties arise consequent upon the inability of municipal governments to finance the high costs and carrying charges of urban renewal requirements and the requirements occasioned by rapidly expanding urban growth-The difficulties of municipal governments are more in the field of capital costs rather than in the field of annual operating and administrative costs.
Supply-Labour
This is the heart of the criticism, yet this program does not touch the matter of capital cost, which is the main concern of the municipalities. This program is one in which the government shares with the municipalities and with participating provinces to the extent of 50 per cent of the payroll. That is the extent of the assistance provided by the federal government. It is absurd to suggest that this program can be represented as a vigorous onslaught on unemployment.
The minister told the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a moment ago that least year 51,000 men were put to work under this program, but we know that in the month of March or thereabouts, on the basis of the lowest figures there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of half a million people out of work, 55,000 on the basis of the dominion bureau of statistics figures.
Last Saturday the Prime Minister, of course, did not mention the 25-point program put forward by the Liberal party this session, all of which were referred to by the Minister of Labour as inconsequential proposals. One of them, No. 7, provided for the modification of this program to make it more acceptable to the municipalities, as recommended by the federation of mayors and municipalities. The Liberal party did not put forward anything constructive, said the Minister of Labour, but last Saturday the Prime Minister made an announcement containing some of the very recommendations made by members of the Liberal party this session.


Norman Platt Lambert: The hon. member should be in Stratford.


Murdo William Martin: Let me tell the hon. gentleman where he should be. He should be in this committee giving careful attention to this problem, because he represents a city where there are lots of people who are vitally concerned with the effects of a program like this.


Norman Platt Lambert: They get on with it, too.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East concerning the attendance of the hon. member for Edmonton West in this chamber. The hon. member for Edmonton West is one of the most faithful attenders in this committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whose privilege is that?


Murdo William Martin: If I have offended the hon. member for Edmonton West or the hon. member for Wetaskiwin I want them to know I take it back. Of course the hon. member for Edmonton West is a very active attendant in this committee, and no one

Supply-Labour
complains about that. I am sure he is a very sincere and devoted member. What I was complaining about is that I would like him to be as attentive to this matter as he is in respect of his attendance in this chamber.
The government takes the credit for this program. It says that as a result of its contribution to it, this represents a vigorous program designed to take care of the unemployed of our country. It speaks as though it was responsible for most of what was done by this limited program. Let up analyse the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and see how insignificant is the 50 per cent share of the payroll cost of winter works projects carried out by the municipalities. I refer to page 1 of the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to the government in 1959. Here is what that body says with regard to the break-down of contributions to the winter works program:
The estimated total costs (labour, materials, etc.) of the approved projects aggregated $81,375,000.
They are now speaking of last year.
It is expected that the direct payroll costs will mount to $27,358,000, toward which the dominion government has undertaken to contribute $9,279,000, or 17.6 per cent of the total costs of the works expected to be undertaken between December 1, 1958, and April 30, 1959.
In these very figures we have the answer, we have the portrayal of the limited character of the federal government's program with regard to winter works about which so much vaunting has taken place, particularly by the Prime Minister when he spoke to this nation over television on March 3 last. This winter works program, to the extent that it goes, is welcome; but it does not meet the problem of unemployment. We have the statement of the mayor of Ottawa with regard to the inadequacy of this program, which was made only a few days ago.
It should not be forgotten that this program, in so far as the federal government is concerned, covers only 50 per cent of the payroll. It does not make any contribution toward the cost of supplies, and it does not deal with many of the indoor projects, suggested by the Canadian federation of mayors. I ask the Minister of Labour if he will deny that 50 per cent of the labour payroll costs represents only about 10 per cent of the cost of a project. If that is the case, one sees more clearly the limitations of this program which the Prime Minister in particular refers to with such satisfaction, as a method of providing work for the large number of unemployed.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Would the hon. member like an answer to the question he put? The municipalities themselves estimate that the percentage is 34 per cent, not the 10 per cent which he indicated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says the 10 per cent is wrong and that it is 34 per cent? Will the hon. member explain? I referred to the statement made by the federation of mayors and municipalities and I quoted from page 2. Does my hon. friend recall what I said?


Richard Devere Thrasher: These are the estimated figures that came in from the municipalities for individual projects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It should be 34 per cent instead of what I read?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Thirty four per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the estimated figure. If my hon. friend says that, I accept it. This is the first chance I have had in this house to congratulate the hon. gentleman, who comes from my county, on his appointment as parliamentary secretary.


An hon. Member:: It has taken a long while.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend does not want me to make any comment on that. I was taking advantage of the first opportunity to congratulate a man for whom I have the highest esteem. I said I was advised that it was about 10 per cent of the cost. The parliamentary secretary corrects me and says it is about 34 per cent. I have here the statement made by the organization in 1959. It will be found on page 2, under the winter works program:
The prescribed range and nature of works eligible for payroll assistance restricted such works to outdoor construction projects. This consideration acts to the detriment of those municipalities located in the more northerly sections of the country where, depending on the severity of winter weather, outdoor construction costs can be 50 per cent higher and more than in other parts of the country ... the payroll saving costs to these municipalities is, therefore, much less than the face value of the 50 per cent federal sharing in such costs or of the combined federal and provincial sharing in those provinces which contributed a further 25 per cent or 30 per cent to the total payroll costs.
Therefore it cannot be argued that this program is one which fully satisfies the municipalities. It certainly is not one which satisfies the municipality from which I come; it certainly is not one which satisfies the city of Toronto, and it certainly is not one which satisfies the city of Ottawa. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out, the cities to which I have referred to are areas, where there is a greater capacity on the part of the municipality to bear its share of the burden. But in most areas,

apart from my own city of Windsor, which is one of the areas where we have and have had a persistent level of unemployment, the winter works program, because it exacts a heavy contribution by the municipalities, does not enable in those municipalities as ready an opportunity of participation as cities like Toronto and Ottawa, where the municipal revenues are higher.
It is pointed out also by the association of municipalities, that whatever benefits do exist in this program are perhaps in large measure cancelled out by the cost of interest on municipal loans. Many municipalities, in order to undertake projects, have had to borrow. In order to participate a municipality itself must be prepared to make a major contribution. The only way a major contribution can be made in the case of municipalities which do not have the resources is by seeking credit. Everyone knows that pursuant to the financial and fiscal policy of this government, credit has not been obtainable in the last two years, except under exorbitant and unusually high interest rates.
Under this vote we are given the opportunity of pointing out what are the limitations of this program, limitations which certainly had not been analysed by the Prime Minister in the announcement he made last Saturday and which went all over this country as though a very comprehensive approach was being made to the solution of the problem of unemployment. Under this vote there is something else the minister can tell us, namely what the Department of Labour is doing; because after all a large sum of money is being voted, or is being asked for, namely $500,000. Since unemployment to a large extent, according to the minister, is seasonal, what is being done by the government to meet this seasonal unemployment?
I recalled to the minister last night, the work being done in the United States on this aspect of the problem. With regard to the comprehensive report made by Senator Eugene McCarthy, the chairman of the joint congressional committee on unemployment, I may say that body went from one end of the United States to the other examining this problem. When I find that we have in this country a statement as meagre as that which has been given us on these estimates, compared with the exhaustive analysis and report made, and made public, in the United States, I wonder whether a full appreciation exists on the part of the government as to how serious this problem is. We have pockets of unemployment in our country that have persisted now for some time. Are we to go on saying that this society of ours can do nothing about this problem? Our society can
Supply-Labour
do something about this problem. Our society can do something if the government is prepared to take those steps which will at least permit it to make the proper assessment which, under this vote, should be made available.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask, at the same time, if the minister will answer a question which I have in mind. It has to do with the position of a municipality which may desire to take advantage of the winter works program. Evidence has been given here last night and today that some municipalities may be most anxious to take advantage of these programs but may be caught because of their inability to put through the necessary plebiscites for loans to obtain the money. My question is this. Has the minister who is in charge of the winter works program given any consideration or sought the advice of the Minister of Finance concerning the possibility of applying or renewing an act, the title of which I cannot remember exactly, concerning municipal financial aid? I believe that under this act the federal government made certain moneys available to the municipalities at low interest rates. Has consideration been given, in relation to this winter works program, to applying this financial aid act which I believe is still on the statute books?


Michael Starr: To my knowledge no consideration has been given to applying this particular act to which the hon. member has referred. However, I assure him that I will certainly look into it and take up the matter with the Minister of Finance.
In reply to the hon. member for Essex East, may I say that I realize how vitally interested he is in this problem of seasonal unemployment. From time to time he has expressed his opinions about it. I want to say to him that, so far as seasonal unemployment is concerned, in our winter works campaigns we have some 175 committees organized at the local level. These committees are organized to tie in with the local employment office activities. These committees are comprised of public spirited citizens from trade union organizations, management, women's institutes, service clubs, chambers of commerce and so on, as well as municipal and provincial bodies and governments. These are people of high calibre, outstanding citizens in their communities who are helping in our efforts to combat winter unemployment. Many useful suggestions have come from these bodies, and many have been implemented.
We have had some success in combating seasonal unemployment, although it is extremely difficult to give an accurate figure or measurement of that success. I want to

Supply-Labour
thank these people, on behalf of the government, for their efforts, which are put forward on a voluntary basis. I should like to extend the same thanks to the local radio and television stations and the newspapers which have donated freely of their time in connection with municipal winter works campaigns and the do it now campaign. We believe that as a result a great deal of this unemployment in the wintertime will be alleviated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make one comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East. I believe everyone in this house feels, and indeed it has been said, that the Minister of Labour has been greatly concerned about helping in every way he can by the use of this particular program, under which 50 per cent of the cost of a special works program undertaken in the wintertime is paid for by the federal government. This program is of comparatively recent origin, and it was designed to meet special conditions. I would just point out to the hon. member what he seems to have forgotten entirely; that in complaining about more not being done he has forgotten to tell us which federal tax he would recommend raising.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks me a question. I would not hesitate, if I had given the assurances which were given by the Prime Minister, to fulfil those promises to take every way possible of doing so even if it involved the implication in my hon. friend's question.


Harold Edward Winch: We in our group are in agreement, and we would point to the corporation tax and the capital gains tax.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one thing I should like to point out before this item passes. I have had a little bit of arithmetic done for me-I say "done for me" because I did not actually do it myself-in connection with this winter works program. I believe that the lowest possible level of unemployment last winter, even taking the dominion bureau of statistics figures for every month from December right through until April, was about half a million. This figure of 1,930,000 working days divided among 51,000 people, according to this arithmetic I have, means 38 days of work each. I do not say that to disparage what has been done, but merely to bring these things into their proper proportion. It does seem to me that before we inflate and exaggerate these things we should know what the facts are. The unfortunate fact is that if you take the number of unemployed in the areas where the burden

is greatest, you will find the number of days of work provided would be away below this figure.
I know the minister will say that when these works are performed they provide supplementary work in other ways, and that of course is true. Supplies are used and equipment is used. However, I would question very much, after two years of winter works programs, whether many of the winters works that have been done across this country under this program would not have been done anyway. That again is not to disparage them. It is desirable to encourage some of this work in the wintertime; there is no doubt about that.
However, I should be interested in being told this. Of course the minister can say that this matter is not within his competence, and he is right if he says that; because the decision as to the projects rests with the municipalities or with the municipalities and the provinces, and not with the minister. All he does is veto them if they do not come within his categories. I should be greatly surprised if any independent appraisal would show that many things were done under the winter works program that would not have been done anyway at some time during the year in which they were done.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman mean me? If he does, I am complimented.


Edwin William Brunsden: Is the hon. member suggesting that the winter works program should be abolished?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Edwin William Brunsden: And that we make no contribution to Canadian employment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I am not suggesting that at all although in fact, as far as the province which I represent is concerned, it would make little difference whether or not it was abolished. I say that because the government will not listen to our argument that the federal treasury should pay for this national problem in proportion to the severity of the problem. In the hon. gentleman's province, according to one of his colleagues here in the House of Commons, there is practically no unemployment at all. Nevertheless I understand they get a considerable share of this winter works program.


Edwin William Brunsden: He is a good member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about the whole province.


Edwin William Brunsden: I said he is a good member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know what the city is that was mentioned by the hon. gentleman, because it was not about that city that I was told by another hon. member. However, there is no doubt that a considerable share of this money goes to the province of Alberta where there is, according to what we read in the public print, no debt; where they are rolling ahead-


Edwin William Brunsden: That is provincial.


John Whitney Pickersgill: These are provincial and municipal matters. As I was saying, presumably in Alberta the province should have no difficulty, with their ideas-they seem to have a great deal of support in that province -in doing this without any federal help at all. Yet far more winter works are done in Alberta in proportion, if not absolutely, than in all four Atlantic provinces where there is a really serious problem. That is precisely the point I am seeking to make. In my opinion this crude approach or this 50-50 approach just does not cope fairly with the problem where it is most intense.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational training co-ordination-
170. Administration, $112,905.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: This is one of the most important branches now operating under the Department of Labour. References have been made in this committee by members of the opposition to the need to increase the facilities for vocational training in this country. That was recognized, especially after the statement made by the minister on July 23 when he made a special announcement in this house respecting the training of unemployed workers. On that occasion the Minister of Labour said it had been demonstrated many times in Canada and elsewhere that training is an avenue to steadier employment and to improved working and living standards.
In his announcement the minister stated that as a means of stimulating still further training of unemployed workers throughout the country, the government had decided to increase its contribution in this field from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the total cost. But here again the government placed upon the provinces certain conditions when assuming this increase in cost. In other words, this increase would be paid only after the province reached a certain minimum which would equal its participation in previous years. At the time these estimates were prepared by the department the Minister of Labour as well as the government must have been well aware of unemployment conditions throughout the country. I cannot see how, at the time of the preparation of the estimates, they
Supply-Labour
could decide to reduce the item for vocational training co-ordination by $1 million.
Furthermore, when we look at the details of these items, which are shown on page 241, we notice that in the payments made to the provinces there is a reduction. I may be slightly out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I am taking together items 170 and 171 which pertain to this branch. I am now referring particularly to item 171. By adopting this procedure I thought it would be easier for the minister to answer my questions.
Referring to the payments to the provinces, we note that in the amount for vocational and technical school assistance there is a reduction of $1,100,000. This reduction comes at a time when everyone seems to recognize that there is in this country a shortage of skilled labour and a need for further training. Referring to the training of unemployed workers, I notice that while last year we spent $525,000, this year we are called upon to vote an amount of $610,000, an increased of $85,000. Will the minister advise this committee whether any estimates have been arrived at as to the extra amount that may be required in order to meet the commitments which were announced in the House of Commons on July 23 last, when the minister made the announcement respecting the training of unemployed workers?


Michael Starr: It is difficult at this time to estimate the cost for this present fiscal year owing to the increase in the federal contribution. As soon as we have some indication from the provinces-and the provinces have been advised of this formally-then of course we will be in a position to estimate the cost. This estimated amount will, of course, be brought before parliament in supplementary estimates.
As to the reduction of $1,100,000, this comes out of a program that was established in 1957. It is a five-year program for capital projects, that is to say the building of schools, to which we contribute 50 per cent. This contribution over the five-year period was in the amount of $25 million. Certain allotments out of this $25 million have been made to the various provinces. The provinces indicate to us their requirements for the ensuing fiscal year and we pay them from that $25 million in that fiscal year. The reason there is a reduction of $1,100,000 is that this is the amount of the requests which have come from the provinces. That is the lower amount they need for this year. If they had requested the same amount they had last year, most certainly that contribution would have been made. It is based on requests from the provinces for capital expenditures on vocational schools.

Supply-Labour


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister supply us with further information with regard to the building of schools under this program? Can he give us details as to the assistance which is being given to the province of New Brunswick, or which will be given during the fiscal year 1960-61; and can he tell us what particular schools will be covered by this assistance?


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member wants to know how much New Brunswick is prepared to pay during the fiscal year 1960-61, or how much is requested for capital projects?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes. The reason I ask is that in New Brunswick there is an urgent need, perhaps more urgent than in most of the other provinces, for this vocational training.


Michael Starr: For the period of five years New Brunswick submitted to us a program for schools in various areas in the province. I am afraid I will have to read them to the hon. member and put on the record the municipalities in which these schools are proposed and the amounts which are allocated from our vote to the provinces.
First of all there is the New Brunswick technical institute at Moncton, $980,349.26; Andover high school, $277; Bath high school, $219.55; Bathurst high school, $1,193.97; Campbellton high school, $574.34; Caraquet high school, $825; Carleton vocational school at Woodstock, $216.25; Centreville, $173.56; Edmundston, $22.55. It is a very long list; does the hon. member require any more?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Perhaps it could be supplied later.


Michael Starr: Yes, I will supply it later.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I intended to wait and speak on item 171, but it has been referred to now. Under this item I would like to draw to the minister's attention the increased contribution by the federal government for special training of unemployed workers, as announced in this house last week by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I am particularly interested in this program, because for the province of Saskatchewan most of this training will be done at the new technical institute in my home city of Moose Jaw.
Classes for unemployed workers were carried on last winter at the institute m Moose Jaw, although the building was only partially completed at that time. Training was given in four classes; motor vehicle repair, carpentry, plumbing and sheet metal work. I believe these classes were very successful.
In last winter's training program the federal government paid one half the cost. For this

winter's training classes the federal government will pay 75 per cent of the cost provided a certain minimum number of trainees are enrolled. That is my main reason for speaking now, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that Ottawa will now pay three quarters of the cost if the provinces make the necessary effort to meet the minimum requirements.
On page 241 of the blue book the estimate of federal payments for training unemployed workers is $610,000, up considerably from the amount estimated for this purpose in the last fiscal year. This is only a preliminary estimate, as pointed out by the Minister of Labour, because as the Prime Minister indicated in his announcement last week, supplementary estimates will be necessary if the provincial governments take full advantage of the federal offer.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the hon. member permit a question? In order to have the record straight, will the hon. member refer to the announcement made by the Minister of Labour, not the Prime Minister?


James Ernest Pascoe: The Prime Minister also made an announcement last week, if you would read it. I think all members will agree that money for this purpose will be very well spent. As the Minister of Labour has indicated on other occasions, there are employment opportunities for skilled workers. I believe he said there are vacancies right now for such skilled workers. In view of this fact the program that will be carried on in Moose Jaw this winter, and for which the federal government will pay 75 per cent of the cost, is a very important move toward providing more and better paid jobs.
You will notice that I have repeated three or four times this major assistance from Ottawa of 75 per cent of the cost. I do this with a purpose, Mr. Chairman, because the Saskatchewan government in past years has given the federal government very little credit for this assistance. I have two newspaper clippings to which I wish to refer. One is headed "Saskatchewan Scores First", and the first paragraph of the article reads;
Saskatchewan has scored another first in the launching this year of a special winter training program for the unemployed-
A second newspaper clipping is an advertisement headed "Government of Saskatchewan, Department of Education, Winter Training Program for Unemployed". The advertisement outlines regulations for these training classes, particularly in regard to dates and duration of courses, types of training, qualifications for applicants, transportation and living allowances. Perhaps the minister can give more details in this regard.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to one paragraph in the Minister of Labour's statement. Reading from Hansard of July 23, page 6820, here is the paragraph I wish to emphasize:
It has been demonstrated many times in Canada and elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, that training is an avenue to steadier employment and to increased working and living standards. We must do all we can in the interests of individual workers, their families and the country as a whole to raise the level of our manpower skills.
I think this is a challenge, Mr. Chairman, that the provincial governments should accept to the fullest extent possible, especially when Ottawa is paying most of the cost. I would like to ask the minister whether unemployed workers are fully informed of this opportunity to improve their working skills, and if they can take the courses referred to while they are drawing unemployment insurance.


Michael Starr: They will be informed by the unemployment insurance offices where they are registered, and of course they will be eligible for unemployment insurance providing they have made the contributions to receive it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important branch of the department's activities, and in our opinion will grow more important as the years go by, particularly under the circumstances we have been discussing in the last two days. I was one who was concerned with this reduction in the estimates of over $1 million, but I can understand that in view of the minister's information. But apparently in respect to this vocational training scheme the initiative is left to the provinces, and after listening to the hon. member for Moose Jaw he certainly demonstrated that the province of Saskatchewan has seized the initiative.


James Ernest Pascoe: But we are paying for it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But it took the initiative in the first place in co-operation with this government, and I congratulate the government of Saskatchewan on that account. Now, that is tit for tat.
I rise particularly because this is a matter of increasing and growing concern to the constituents I have the honour to represent. Over the last five years various local organizations and groups have recognized the necessity for some type of vocational training institution in the southern interior of British Columbia, and on that account they have made representations to the provincial government to take advantage of this scheme, so far without result. In view of coming events in British Columbia this fall they may get a more favourable reaction in the immediate weeks ahead.
Supply-Labour
As a result of this failure on the part of the provincial government to take the initiative and make application to the federal government for assistance in this field of vocational training, there has been nothing done to date to provide the facilities which are sorely needed now. Interest in this is growing. There have been meetings of various organizations. I have had resolutions sent to me and I have received letters from various groups and from people who are supporters of all the parties in Canada, women's groups and so on.
First of all, I should like the minister to say what he thinks is the best course for local people to follow in prodding the provincial government into action. Then I wish he would inform the committee of any proposals for the extension or construction of vocational schools or the extension of vocational training in British Columbia this year. Also, would he be good enough to inform the committee whether, in connection with assistance to students, a person drawing unemployment insurance can continue to draw that insurance while receiving assistance from this fund.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask one or two questions in the same vein? Earlier this afternoon I asked the minister about the 124,000 people who have been unemployed for four months or more. As I understand it, the vocational training scheme is going to provide instruction in new technologies, and that cannot be done properly in one month or in six months. Can the minister tell the committee whether training of this sort would apply to the 124,000 people I have mentioned and, if so, what arrangements have been made or are being made, with the provinces to ensure that the men who are undergoing training will receive assistance in respect of themselves and their families? They have to live while they are undergoing this training, and I should like to know what the arrangements are.


Michael Starr: A person who undergoes this training must be referred by the unemployment insurance commission, and if he is eligible for unemployment insurance he is able to draw unemployment insurance. In addition, the provinces may make an allowance in respect of that person and his family during the period of training, to which this government contributes as part of the overall cost of training that person.


Harold Edward Winch: Is there any time limit? If a man is being retrained, for example, that is bound to take considerable time. How long may a man continue to receive assistance?


Michael Starr: During the whole period of the course, whatever the time may be. Some
72S8

Supply-Labour
courses are shorter, some are longer; but for the whole period of the course the person being trained is eligible for that allowance.


Harold Edward Winch: I presume that no matter how long the course may be, if insurance benefit runs out there is an arrangement between the Department of Labour and the provincial government concerned. I presume the man will receive welfare payments, or is there a payment the same as unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: We must not lose sight of this fact, that the organization of these courses must be a provincial responsibility. It is the provincial governments which undertake to arrange these courses, not the federal government. We say we are prepared to pay 75 per cent of the cost of training an unemployed person providing the provinces undertake to establish and supervise these courses; and if they make allowances for the upkeep of the persons being trained we gladly contribute to the extent of 75 per cent.


Harold Edward Winch: The federal government also pays 75 per cent of the cost of maintenance?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I believe that vocational training is important to Canada, and I think it is particularly important at this time. We live in a large country, a country which is going through an acute transition stage toward becoming an industrial nation. I think it is fair to say we have reached some industrial stature even now, but I certainly believe the years ahead will show that we are capable of reaching a greater industrial stature than we have attained at the present time. In order to do this Canada will have to provide for those industries we have now and for those we will have in the future the type of skilled labour which those industries will demand, and we must do this not only to provide work for those who live in this country at the present time but also to maintain our exports, which provide jobs and a living for a large percentage of our population.
Industries as they go forward, whether it is a matter of improving old plants by automation or of introducing new processes, are going to require different types of skills, and I believe it is the responsibility of Canada to train young people so they may have the skills which industry demands. I know I am not in order when I say that I believe we are not spending enough in Canada on education generally. That, of course, is a matter for the provinces, but here is one

field of education where the federal government could play a very important part.
I think we spend all too little on education in Canada. I have said before in the house, and I am going to repeat it now, that during wartime we spent millions of dollars so that men could fly through the air like birds; we spent millions of dollars to see that men could swim through the water like fish, and we spent millions of dollars to see that men could be carried over the surface of the earth as machines for destruction. I think it is about time we spent a little to see that men may walk the earth in peace. I say again that we in Canada have not spent enough on education generally, though I recognize that this is not a field into which the federal government can inject itself.
However, here is one aspect of education in which the federal government can play an important part. Last year, on education generally, Canada spent between $1 billion and $1.5 billion, and of that amount $57 million was spent on vocational training. In other words, 3.7 per cent of the total amount of money spent on education in Canada within the last year was spent on vocational training or, to put it in other terms, out of every dollar spent on education in Canada only four cents was spent on vocational training.
Here we are as a growing nation faced every year with the problems of young people coming out of school and looking for employment, yet we spend only 4 per cent of our total expenditure on education for vocational training. There may be those who believe that all students should go through school and follow an academic course leading to the arts and professions and so on. I think nature has decreed that a large percentage of our people are equipped to do that kind of work, but nature has also decreed that there are those who are going to have to make their living with their hands. I believe we have large numbers of young Canadians who have great native talent, but it needs to be trained. We spend billions of dollars to refine our raw materials for our factories but we spend very little-four cents out of every dollar spent on education-to refine the human resources that will process these raw materials.
In Canada we must look forward to the years ahead when our people are going to be engaged in some form of industry. I have disagreed in this house before and will do so again with any type of 50-50 policy initiated by the federal government. In some cases it works out very well, but in others it does not. In the case, for example, of the trans-Canada highway, as I mentioned in this house on a number of occasions, it works out

to the advantage of some provinces but with respect to others it is an imposition. In the case of vocational training that statement is equally true, because the provinces which need the money most are those which can least afford to get the greatest advantage out of the program. In Newfoundland, for example, at the present time 37.5 per cent of the total revenue of the province is spent on education, yet last year we had only 694 students enrolled in trade courses, 175 as apprentices and 303 in vocational high school.


Edwin William Brunsden: What was the total school population, the total number of students?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes, in this particular type of training.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. member did not understand my question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I believe we should be training larger numbers of students in the manual skills, that will enable them to be employed by people who need the skills which they are able to provide.
I receive many letters from my constituents asking me to find jobs for them in one manufacturing concern or another. Some of these people I know very well and others I do not know at all. I sometimes have to write these people and ask what they can do. If they are unable to do anything but ordinary labour, then it is clear that in these days when so many jobs are being done by machinery these people have nothing to offer a prospective employer.
Surely every Canadian should be able to do something well. I believe this form of vocational training is particularly important to our young people. I do not know how many of the young people coming out of school at the end of each school year are employed the following year, but if a large percentage of these people are unemployed, and if they make up a fairly high percentage of the total unemployed persons in this country, this only points up the greater need for this program.
I was pleased to hear the minister announce the other day that the federal share of the cost of training unemployed workers would be increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. That means that if the provinces are able to pay next year the same amount they paid last year, the total amount of money spent on training unemployed workers will be doubled. That is the mathematics of the statement the minister made. If we can increase that amount by 100 per cent we certainly will be doing a lot more than we have done in the past. I commend the minister for the statement he made, and will 79951-0-4G1
Supply-Labour
be interested to see how the plan works out when the department has had time to carry it into operation.
However, I wish to point out that assistance is required not only for the unemployed workers but for the whole vocational training program. Extra money is needed by every province to see that those who have been endowed by nature with some particular skill will have an opportunity of improving that skill by training so they will be able to give to the industry of their nation the new skills which are required not only by the introduction of new industries but also by the employment of automation in the old.
I do not believe that automation is going to mean fewer jobs. It may have that effect at any given time, but over the long run I believe automation will produce more jobs. It will do so, however, only for those who are equipped to take them; that is the important thing. As we look forward into the future I believe we must have an increasing concern about vocational training for our young people so they will be able to take part in industry that has benefited by automation. I have never felt that automation was a good word or one that accurately describes the process, but perhaps in the absence of a better one we will have to retain that word.
We do have automation in this country, and we have to face that fact. I think it is important that we train our people to face the type of life with which they will be confronted when they leave the confines of their local schoolrooms and go out looking for jobs.
I think, too, that we should give a little more encouragement to those who try to improve themselves. May I raise again a pet problem of mine. I have in my riding a number of men, some of them over age 20, who were engaged in various occupations long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. Due to an improved capital expenditure program on education which has been carried out in Newfoundland over the last few years, small settlements began receiving the advantage of regional high schools which were able to provide educational training which these small settlements had not enjoyed hitherto.
These men who were out of work and drawing unemployment insurance were able to do one of two things. They could sit at home, collect unemployment insurance and do nothing, or they could attend the local school and take some courses thereby improving their educational standing. But the moment they entered the local school they were no longer able to draw unemployment

Supply-Labour
insurance. I do not think that is the type of encouragement we should be giving to Canadians who want to improve their general educational standard or undertake vocational training in order to equip them to accept better jobs.
There may be some arguments for and against the case of university students, but I will not go into that now. I am dealing with the case of the unemployed worker who could have stayed home and done nothing and drawn his unemployment insurance, or who could have gone to the local school and improved himself, thereby making himself a more valuable employee for the next employer who might engage his services. By seeking to improve himself this type of student is immediately penalized for his initiative and loses his unemployment insurance. I do not think this is the way we should encourage young Canadians.
Further investigation of vocational training should be made. I suggest that this is an excellent problem for the standing committee on industrial relations to discuss next year. I also suggest that the committee of the other place on unemployment will not be doing its job well if it neglects this problem. I say, too, that at the federal-provincial conference which is to be held in the fall consideration must be given to vocational training across Canada as it applies to the federal government and all the provincial governments, so the provinces will know where they are going, what they are doing and how best to advertise among their young people the type of training that is made available by the different levels of government.
We must indeed encourage our young people to meet the standards which a growing country demands, which the industry that is responsible for making the country great, demands; but I think, too, in our program of vocational training there must be a system whereby the standards reached by those in training in various parts of Canada will be standardized. The levels of training must in some way be standardized so that those who are trained in one part of the country can be employed in some other part of the country where there is a demand for that particular type of service. This, too, is a matter which needs some consideration.
I am not going to proceed further with this, although it is one of my pet subjects. Again I want to commend the minister for the increase in the grants which are being made by the federal government for the training of unemployed workers. I sincerely suggest to him that this increase from 50 per cent to 75 per cent for the training of unemployed workers should be extended to the whole field of vocational training.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. member permit a question? I asked this question before, but I think the hon. member who has made a real contribution to this debate missed the point. He quoted certain statistics. What is the relation of the number taking vocational training in the province to the school population as a whole?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I can give the hon. gentleman that information, Mr. Chairman, but I think they would be rough figures. I do not have them before me, but the figures I gave for those engaged in vocational training were 694 in trade courses, 175 apprentices and 303 in vocational training. That would be roughly 1,100 students. The total school population of Newfoundland is somewhere around 65,000 to 70,000.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the comments of the last speaker with considerable interest, because I wish to speak along the same lines myself. It is sometimes difficult to rise in one's place and speak about education because as we know this is largely a provincial matter, but I hope these grants for vocational training open the subject wide enough to enable us to explore some of the issues which are intimately connected with this question, and one of them I think is the age at which our children leave school. I suggest to the minister that in this program of educating the public of Canada, and particularly the people who are interested in this matter on the provincial level, consideration be given to getting the provinces to agree to keep all children at school until the age of 18, and possibly the age of 20.
After the war it was my privilege to give vocational guidance to those soldiers who were coming out of the armed forces and seeking to rehabilitate themselves. The greatest problem we had was that a great many of those young men, I would assume about three quarters of them, had no skill whatsoever apart from their military training except that of being able to drive a car or a truck. Today, as has been so well put, we are becoming increasingly industrialized. It was all right at one time to leave school and go home and help your dad on the farm when you were 16, because the skills you had to learn were learned at first hand at the plow behind a team of horses; but even on the farms today you are not going to make a decent living, and you are certainly not going to be a successful farmer, one who has a knowledge of our agricultural industry, unless you have considerable technical skill.
As has been said also, the provinces are less able to finance this scheme of technical education, which covers a wide field. It covers not only industry and manufacturing

but mining, metallurgy, exploration for oil, survey of our natural resources, and this great new forestry department which is to be set up. I think there will be great need there for technical men of all kinds. It should provide an opportunity to put a lot of our young people to work in the woods, and to provide them with schooling while they are there. Perhaps even the age of 18 is too low; perhaps if you could keep them in school until the age of 20 it would assist not only in keeping all those young people from coming out as unskilled unemployed but would increase their capability once they did get out.


Harold Edward Winch: And free education up to the age of 20, I presume.


Georges-J. Valade: There is no such thing as free education; somebody has to pay for it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, I would go so far as to say that any young person who shows the proper initiative at school, who does the right amount of work-and I think most children who do work hard show reasonable marks -should have every opportunity to continue his schooling certainly up to the age of 20. I can speak from first hand experience. Some people say, "Well, if you have the courage to go to school and the ability, you will get your education". That is not always so. During the 1930's, and this applies right up to the war-I do not blame Mr. Bennett for this any more than I blame Mr. King-it was almost impossible for a boy born and raised on a farm to make enough money to put himself through college, and I myself did not graduate from college until 1953. This may have had something to do with native ability; nevertheless there was an economic block.
If as a federal government we can lead the way in educating the provinces and the individual members of the public to spend the necessary funds, I think it will be an investment in natural resources second to none. Our young people are the greatest natural resource there is.
I also wish to say at this time that it is not good enough just to educate them. We have to create opportunities for future employment here in Canada. I get tired of hearing and reading from time to time the statistics of the technically trained young people who go south of the line. I think we are responsible for producing thousands of well trained, well educated young men and women, and not enough attention is paid to maintaining the standards of pay and opportunity here in Canada. I am not going to labour the point here, but I certainly want to put my moral support behind the last speaker and, of course, behind our ministry 79951-0-461J
Supply-Labour
who are taking this forward step. As to the amounts of money provided, I am in sympathy with the provinces which do not have a great amount of money, but I think they themselves can do more to encourage vocational and technical training at the provincial level.
I should like also to say something about equal standards of education across Canada. Again this is perhaps a little bit out of line here, but it is very difficult for families who are working at occupations where they must follow the work and who must take their children out of school in one province and put them in school in another. Often they may lose a year and sometimes more of their school training. I should like to see something done to standardize education across Canada and also to standardize the licensing requirements for certain professions, such as the nursing profession, for instance. A nurse has to get a licence in each province across Canada. It seems to me that a nurse who is properly trained in Montreal is quite capable of looking after sick people in Winnipeg or Vancouver.
Educational standards are certainly something that need attention, because members of the armed forces continually meet problems in that connection. If a man is stationed at Dartmouth in Nova Scotia and goes to Cold Lake in Alberta, he will find that adjustments have to be made in the level of education of his children. I will not say whether they lose or gain, but there are adjustments to be made. It seems to me ridiculous to have 10 standards of education in a country like Canada, where our population has to shift from province to province. It is certainly affecting the free movement of our labour force, and if it is going to affect the education of our children then I say anything that encourages the young people with initiative to stay at school and improve their technical ability will add to the economic welfare of our country.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Kootenay West asked a question regarding this item. He asked for a suggestion as to how to prod the provincial governments. Of course the proper procedure is to have the local school board approach the department of education of that province. I think it is the department of education in the province which institutes these programs, and that would be the proper procedure.
Now then, out of this $25 million allotment for a period of five years, British Columbia has been allocated $1,859,100. British Columbia has submitted three projects to us for approval and they consist of vocational schools

Supply-Labour
at Burnaby, Prince George and Nanaimo. The date we have made available $933,582.08 out of this allotment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This discussion indicates one thing, Mr. Chairman; that there is no difference of opinion in the committee as to the importance of vocational training for the development of skills which are becoming more and more important to our society. This vocational training is important not only in respect of the young people-we have been discussing primarily the young people-but it has a bearing on employment problems because of the necessity for the retraining in the right vocational skills, of those who are unemployed so they may find work. Reference has already been made to this.
It is impossible to develop these vocational skills without the right kind of vocational training. At least I thought it was until I read in the newspaper a few weeks ago about a teen ager who could not read or write but was sufficiently skilled to manufacture a very complicated type of bomb which he used to blow up a neighbour's car. Normally, however, I think it is fair to say that vocational training is needed for the development of vocational skills.


Edwin William Brunsden: He must have been a Liberal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The bomb worked. As our society becomes more industrialized the importance of this kind of training increases. Some years ago I was in the Far East, and I remember attending a dinner in Singapore where I sat beside a Chinese lady who was in charge of education for Singapore. I cannot imagine any more difficult problem than being responsible for the education of the population of Singapore. She was telling me something to which reference has been made already in this discussion, that all the young people wanted to get an academic education. They all wanted to be lawyers, doctors or civil servants. She said something I have never forgotten, and it has application to our own country; that it is more important in these days to turn out educated technicians than people who are educated merely technically. This, of course, is why vocational training is so important.
It is satisfying to learn that the government has recognized that importance and is doing what it can in this field. I read from the minister's statement the other night at page 7146 of Hansard:
I may say that at the present time vocational training facilities are filled to capacity and there is a need for additional facilities.
This has been underlined by the remarks
of all speakers this afternoon.

To meet this need the provinces are being encouraged to establish additional facilities and to take advantage of capital funds which are available under these agreements.
As we know, these agreements provide for the sharing of the capital costs of these facilities on a 50-50 basis. As has been pointed out, some of the provinces find it difficult to meet their share of the cost of establishing facilities of this kind. Perhaps it is not possible for the minister to answer this, but I wonder whether he can give the committee any information as to how often developments in this field have been held up, not because of the lack of a federal contribution but because the provinces themselves are not financially in a position to take advantage of the agreement.


Michael Starr: The information I have received is that we do not know, nor can we state, why certain provinces are not moving as rapidly in the direction of these schools as are other provinces. There may be various reasons. They may want to allot their funds to a different type of school in which we do not participate. However, most provinces with which we have agreements have been moving very well in this direction, and have been taking up in full the allotments that have been set aside for them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the minister would agree that it is often the poorer provinces, where the need is greatest, which have difficulty in carrying out the agreement.


Michael Starr: That may be possible.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to add a word before this item passes. I should like to emphasize once again the importance of this item to the economic growth of this country. The government should recognize that it is responsible for employment and should, therefore, make special representations to the provinces inviting them to take advantage of this offer in connection with vocational training. Under this program, as has been suggested, schools should be built to provide this vocational training. In too many cases the youth of this country leave the primary schools unprepared for anything but unskilled labour.
I am sure the minister would agree that if vocational training were given it would be needless for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to advertise in the Belfast newspapers for skilled workers to come to this country. I am pleased to note that the unemployment insurance commission has been cooperating in this program.
Before resuming my seat I should like to put on record a paragraph from page 14 of

the unemployment insurance commission report for the year ending March 31, 1959, which reads as follows:
Direction to vocational training-Direction of individuals to vocational training courses under various dominion-provincial agreements and to courses in training centres approved by the commission resulted in many people receiving training in occupations where demand for workers had exceeded the supply. During the year, a total of 4,510 claimants received unemployment insurance benefit while attending vocational training courses. This was more than double the number of claimants directed to training during the previous year.
My reason for placing this paragraph on record is to show that less than 1 per cent of the unemployed in this country are taking advantage of this opportunity to attend vocational schools. I think they should be induced to take advantage of this training. This would be one way for the Department of Labour to help in solving our unemployment problem.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The case for vocational training has been very well put this afternoon by a number of hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, who I thought spoke eloquently and beautifully on a serious and far-reaching problem and offered a solution which was constructive and which should commend itself to all hon. members of this committee.
I appreciate and commend the government for its new move to increase the federal participation in the joint training plan with the provinces with respect to technical training. However, I do not believe they have gone far enough. I think this is a half measure, and will not meet the problem that at present faces us. In any of these problems the most important thing to do is to face their magnitude. This is something the government has failed to do. This fact was patent both from listening to and reading the debates of the last two days. Unemployment in this country has reached the level of hundreds of thousands of people, not just a few thousand. Among these hundreds of thousands of people, particularly in the case of the male unemployed population, the level of education is unfortunately not great. I have not the actual statistics here with me; I wish I had. However, I was interested to note that the large majority of the male unemployed had a grade 8 education or less.
Here is a tremendous opportunity. Here is something which must be done. However, the government is not going to accomplish it by offering a partial payment to provinces which are going to take up the challenge. The provinces were here in Ottawa this week looking for extra financial assistance. They are already overburdened and overpressed. Unemployment may have been considered at one time to be a
Supply-Labour
provincial problem, but it is no longer that. It is a federal problem. The federal government has in fact, taken over, the main and primary responsibility for unemployment in this country, and the problem of technical training is directly and inseparably connected with the problem of unemployment. In this labour force there are hundreds of thousands of people who need additional technical training, people who need either new skills if they have been displaced by automation or a skill in cases where they have never been fortunate enough to receive adequate training in the first place. There is a tremendous opportunity for an investment along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West last night when he was suggesting investments which are self-recovering, or which put back into the national economy more than they take out.
In discussing this matter on previous occasions I have said that it is a problem of considerable magnitude which must be faced on the basis of that magnitude. The expenditure involved in order to meet this problem might, by the time it became fully in force, amount to $100 million or $200 million a year. It is that order of magnitude which is required, not an expenditure of $8 million a year in participating with the provincial governments. Nor can we expect the provincial governments to raise the extra money required so that through this joint operation the job may be done effectively. This job will be done effectively only when the federal government accepts the responsibility and pays the whole shot. There is no way around it. Under the present distribution of responsibility and taxing authority as between the levels of government, there is no other way in which the challenge can be faced. I therefore urge the minister to take another look at the problem, to re-assess it, to consider the magnitude, and to come back to the House of Commons with a recommendation which is worthy of the minister and worthy of the problem he faces. I can assure him that he will get a sympathetic reception from all parts of this chamber.
Vocational training is an investment which would return much to the Canadian economy. It is an investment which would return just as much as the program which was put into effect after world war II, when thousands of young people like myself had the advantage of higher education at the expense of the government. That program was part of a rehabilitation process, and that is what is required now, namely rehabilitation of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own.
Startling was the revelation recently that only one person out of ten in our unemployed

Supply-Labour
labour force has the skills necessary to accept the jobs offered. Statistically, what could be more startling? What could be more revealing in respect of the nature of the problem? The other nine people required more training before they can accept the jobs that are pres-sently available in our national economy. We recommend that something appropriate be done about this matter.
As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has said on numerous occasions, it does not make sense that people drawing unemployment insurance should not be able to take advantage of the technical training at the same time. It is far better that these people should go to school in the wintertime and learn something which will enable them, once they return to the labour force, to be more productive, more happily and more usefully occupied.
This is a program that does not need long consideration. It does not need an advisory council. All it needs is a government with the courage and imagination to put it into effect. We hope the minister will give it the necessary consideration, will recommend it to his colleagues, and will have them recommend it to the House of Commons.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. McCleave):
Order. It seems to me that it is the wish of the committee, as I interpret it, to consider both items 170 and 171 together. They are the items dealing with vocational training, the first under the head of administration and the second with the way in which vocational training operates. If that is the wish of the committee it will facilitate the debate. Do I understand that is agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edwin William Brunsden: Had opportunity offered last evening for me to participate in this debate, Mr. Chairman, I would have immediately said that I was happy that no representatives of the unemployed were in the gallery. We heard raucous laughter. We heard a lighthearted approach to a serious problem, and I felt at eleven o'clock that we had made no contribution to it. Today I feel that there has been an approach, a contribution and a soul searching with respect to the fundamental problem of unemployment, and today I wish the unemployed representatives were here.
Of all the cabinet posts in the government, in my opinion the most unenviable one is that of the Minister of Labour. Speaking not as a member of the government but as a member of the House of Commons I should like to say I am deeply convinced that our present Minister of Labour is doing a most conscientious and thorough job with respect to the most difficult problem in Canada. Let me

say to him, Mr. Chairman, through you that I am not too greatly swayed by statistics, particularly the Martin bureau of statistics.
There are thousands of statistics with respect to unemployment. One speaks in his own environment and from his own experience. I live in a small town of approximately 3,000 people. I know that each month certain of our elder citizens become incapacitated. They retire, and they have an arrangement whereby they may enjoy unemployment insurance for a year or 18 months. They say it is by right; I am not so sure that it is. Nevertheless they are in the picture of the unemployment insurance situation in Canada. There are many younger people, and those of us who perforce must live in Ottawa over a period must hear them talking. They work for so long and then they say they can enjoy their unemployment insurance now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. Are the remarks of the hon. member dealing with unemployment insurance exclusively? The committee is considering vocational training.


Edwin William Brunsden: I will bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman. These are the young people who I wish would enjoy vocational training. These are the young people I wish would be encouraged to enjoy vocational training. These are the young people who by virtue of vocational training tomorrow will make better Canadians.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall items 170 and 171 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Government employees compensation-
172.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $112,170.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a question on this item, which is for the administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act in the amount of $112,170, followed by a statutory item with regard to payments of compensation respecting government employees in the amount of $1,900,000, making a total vote of $2,012,107.
I would like to make a brief comment be-for asking a question as to how it affects workmen's compensation for government employees. As we all know, workmen's compensation comes completely within the jurisdiction and administration of the provinces. I can only speak for my own province of British Columbia, under which I have quite an understanding of compensation.
I believe it was back somewhere around 1917 that workmen's compensation first became law in British Columbia. At that time the chairman of the board was a man who had been an outstanding citizen, Mr. E. S. H.

Wynn, who held his position for many years. But in those days of the administration of workmen's compensation there was that section which said that in deciding workmen's compensation or workmen's compensation pensions the benefit of the doubt went to the applicant. Unfortunately E. S. H. Wynn is no longer chairman, and under the new government of British Columbia it is now almost impossible to get the benefit of the doubt or to make an appeal in a workmen's compensation case. I am very sorry to have to say that, but that is my estimation and my understanding.
Now, why do I raise this matter here on this vote, which is a federal matter? It is because over the last year or two I have received a number of letters from those who are covered by provincial workmen's compensation but in whose cases the money is being paid by the federal government. Federal employees, at least as far as those in British Columbia are concerned, are finding that the benefit of the doubt no longer exists. It is almost impossible for anyone, either a member of parliament or a member of the legislative assembly or anybody else, to get a review on a question of the benefit of the doubt, or to get any results at all.
In view of that disgraceful situation which exists in British Columbia because of the kind of government in the province today, and in view of the fact that it now costs this government in administration and payments over $2 million, I would ask the minister to help and protect federal employees who come under provincial workmen's compensation. I would ask him whether he has in his department what I might call a workmen's compensation advocate who is responsible for payments to provincial authorities on claims for workmen's compensation or claims for pensions, and at the same time whether he has a medical adviser in his department. As far as I am concerned I would be glad to support the appointment of a compensation advocate to take up the cases of unfortunate employees of the federal civil service who may have trouble in getting satisfaction from provincial governments and are not obtaining the benefit of the doubt, which I think is an important point of law.


Michael Starr: We have no advocate in the department at the moment, nor have we as such a position for a medical adviser. But we do avail ourselves in many cases of the medical advisers in the Department of National Health and Welfare if medical advice is necessary. Also, where an appeal has been made to us and we feel there is some ground for it, we bring it to the attention of the
Supply-Labour
provincial compensation board on behalf of a federal employee and ask for a review of the particular case.


Harold Edward Winch: If the minister's experience is the same as mine as far as the present government and the board in British Columbia are concerned, he has not got anywhere on a single case. So a reference to the provincial government of British Columbia is useless. Is consideration being given to including in this department an advocate and a medical officer? If not, do all federal employees know that if they cannot get what they think is just from a provincial workmen's compensation board there is a means to appeal for help to the minister's department? Is that known to all federal employees; because I am getting many letters on this matter?
Mr. .Starr: Yes, they are well aware of that, and if they approach us, as has been the case in the past, we ask for a review by the provincial board.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, before making these few remarks the minister might save my making them at all. Am I right in saying that this item would cover the compensation of the employees of the giant Yellowknife gold mine in the Northwest Territories?


Michael Starr: No.


Murdo William Martin: Then could the minister tell me whether they come under federal jurisdiction?


Michael Starr: They are under the Northwest Territories ordinance. They have their own provisions.


Murdo William Martin: Well, I did not know how this question could be raised in any other way. If I am out of order, Mr. Chairman, I will at once accept your ruling, but I think this is a matter of major importance and I think it should be raised on the floor of the house.


Michael Starr: May I interrupt the hon. member and say it should properly be raised on the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs, because it comes under the jurisdiction of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories.


Murdo William Martin: Am I at liberty to proceed, Mr. Chairman?


Robert Jardine McCleave: the hon. member relates his remarks to the subject of employees' compensation he will be in order.


Murdo William Martin: That leaves me in an awkward position, Mr. Chairman, because I had been intending to raise this matter on

Supply-Labour
these estimates. It has to do with the position of employees of gold mines, and I was under the impression that this matter came under federal jurisdiction. It has to do with what is called compulsory aluminum dust therapy, which I understand is practised in all the gold quartz mines in Canada, which would include those under federal jurisdiction in the Northwest Territories. This is a matter of importance because of the experience we have had in the Porcupine gold mine area, and I am sure the same applies elsewhere though possibly not to the same degree because there are not the same numbers involved.
This aluminum dust treatment was brought about by the McIntyre foundation-I am not sure of the name-as a cure or means of prevention of the scourge of gold miners, namely silicosis. From the point of view of company compensation costs it may have worked successfully, because certainly the incidence of silicosis has dropped sharply since the introduction of this therapy. But since this treatment began the incidence of tuberculosis in the gold mining areas has increased threefold, and the incidence of carcinoma, which is a fancy word for lung cancer, has increased at a terrific rate and there are fears among the people involved in the mining industry as to whether there may be some connection between the increase in these dangerous diseases and the treatment they have been receiving.
Some work has been done in this connection, and from this work and study we find that the medical association of Germany has banned the use of this aluminum dust on human beings. The British medical association has said in regard to this particular treatment that it is at present in the stage where experiments could possibly be conducted on animals but not on human beings. Last, but not least, the United States medical association has said that the McIntyre foundation, which manufactures and sells this aluminum dust to all the gold mines across the country, is not qualified even to experiment in this field. Yet to my knowledge all the gold miners in the industry are forced to take this treatment whether they want to or not; the dust is blown ino the rooms when they change their clothes before starting a shift and when they come off shift. The treatment is forcibly applied to them, and they have no choice whether to refuse it or not.
The results of the treatment in its present state have not been proven one way or the other. I feel that if miners want to take this treatment voluntarily then possibly they should be able to do so, but I think it is wrong that the federal government should be implicated in any way, especially as medical associations in the United States,

Britain and Germany are not agreed that it is of benefit to the workers. In fact the evidence we have at the present time is that the contrary is true.
I feel that the federal government has the responsibility of seeing that a stop is put to this compulsory treatment of miners, at least until such time as we have some assurance from medical authorities that it is in the interest of the employees and not just a means of curing a problem as far as the companies are concerned by eliminating silicosis, while replacing it with tuberculosis and lung cancer which are not subject to compensation. I think this is a terrible thing, and I believe the federal government should ensure that they are not in any way responsible for the continuation of this practice that we see across this country.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
Chair was never told whether the federal government did have an administrative responsibility for this question, and I think perhaps justice has been done to the hon. member who wished to make these remarks. Perhaps he should have chosen another occasion. I hope the committee will bear with me, and that hon. members will not extend the subject to all mines in Canada. Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: The
next item is item 173, then item 174-


Michael Starr: There is a supplementary item No. 527, under the heading "Special Services", to extend to May 31, 1960 the period in respect to the application of the municipal works incentive program.
Special services-
527. To extend to the 31st day of May, 1960, the period in respect of which payments may be made to a province and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program as contemplated by vote 615 of the Appropriation Act No. 1, 1960, $1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister, on this item, if he can tell us what are the estimates of the cost for the fiscal year 1959-60, that is the additional cost of the program as announced by the Prime Minister a week ago today?


Michael Starr: Approximately $12,250,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that the estimated contribution of the federal government?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What has been the cost to date of the winter works program as far as the federal government's contribution is concerned?


Michael Starr: That is the amount of the federal contribution to the payroll costs of all the projects that have been submitted to us and approved to date. We have not yet received all the accounts from the provinces. *


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the minister misunderstood my first question. My first question was, what is the estimated cost of the addition to the program announced by the Prime Minister a week ago today?


Michael Starr: I explained that earlier in answer to a similar question. I explained that we have just sent out the letters to the provinces announcing this extended program. It is very hard to assess now what programs the municipalities will undertake in connection with this extension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely an estimate has been made by the treasury. In any event, would I be correct in saying it would not be more than $3 million?


Michael Starr: What is contemplated now is a supplementary estimate somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would cover the whole project in so far as the federal contribution is concerned?


Michael Starr: That is the federal contribution to the payroll costs of what may be undertaken next winter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The total cost of the winter works program for the fiscal year 1960-61 will be $25 million. Is that right?


Michael Starr: No, just the federal government's share.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; that is what I am talking about. My question was this. What is the estimated cost of the program covered by the refinements and modifications announced by the Prime Minister a week ago today?


Michael Starr: We had an estimate of $15 million for the past winter. Probably we will be increasing this estimate by $10 million, to $25 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did I understand the minister to say that the increase in the federal share resulting from the improvements and modifications comes to an estimated $10 million?


Michael Starr: Yes, that is as close an estimate as we can make. Of course if the municipalities undertake projects under the expanded program that will necessitate more than $25 million on behalf of the federal government, we will have to come back to parliament and ask for a further supplementary vote.
79951-0-462
Supply-Labour


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was the figure of $12 million which the minister gave me a few moments ago the cost of the program to date for the fiscal year 1959-60?


Michael Starr: Yes, that is the estimate so far.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can my hon. friend tell me what is the total estimated cost of the winter works program by all levels of government?


Michael Starr: Seventy four million dollars.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So that out of $74 million the federal contribution was $12 million?


Michael Starr: Those are the earlier estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt that that is the situation; an estimated $12 million out of approximately $74 million is the federal contribution?


Michael Starr: Those are the estimated figures, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: The
final three items of this department are Nos. 173, 174 and 528, supplementary. They all deal with the unemployment insurance commission. Is it agreeable to the committee that all three be taken together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Unemployment Insurance Commission-
173.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act, $36,136,000.
174.	Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $37,500.
528. Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $237,500.


James Stanley Speakman: I, like the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, am rather hesitant to intrude on the time of the front benches of the opposition, but there are a couple of suggestions I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee under this item.
I wish first to make an appeal to the minister and through the minister to the government for the inclusion of farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, so these people may draw unemployment insurance benefits when they are out of work. At the

Supply-Labour
present time there are many thousands of labourers required on farms in Canada, and particularly in western Canada. This requirement will increase in the next three or four months by a very large amount, and people will not be available to fill the requirement. I suggest that the principal reason for this will be that these people will not take employment on the farms because they cannot get unemployment insurance stamps in their books.
A good many years ago the agricultural industry, particularly in western Canada, was able to fill its requirements for additional labour by young people drawn from other parts of Canada, and I think particularly from the maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec. This was a very fine arrangement for western Canada, because we have in that area today many of those young people who came west 25, 30 and 35 years ago, liked what they saw, established themselves and are now some of our finest farmers. This is a practice which has ceased almost completely since the harvest excursions which took place in those years were discontinued.
To many of us, and particularly those in this committee who represent agricultural constituencies in the west, one of the most serious problems we have is the lessening of our farm population and, with the decrease in the population, the disappearance of what we commonly know as the family farm. In this debate a great deal has been said about self-employment and family help. This is very important not only to western Canada but to the economy as a whole, because it provides a good deal of employment. I am sure much is going to be said on these items with regard to unemployment and the numbers of unemployed. If the appeal I make to the minister and the government to make available to farm labour the benefits of unemployment insurance were acted upon, it would do very much over the next four months to decrease the number of unemployed in Canada.
In conclusion I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he give very serious consideration to my next recommendation. I suggest to the minister that the national employment service prepare a weekly list of job openings to be sent out to rural and small urban post offices so the people in those areas who are without work will know of employment vacancies which are available and can make application. This is not done at present because these people draw their unemployment insurance benefits by mail on a semi-monthly basis. They do not have an opportunity to learn about these employment opportunities. By the provision of these lists and their posting in the local post offices it would give our people

in the rural and small ui'ban areas an opportunity to make application for such employment as is available.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The front benchers of the opposition are delighted to have the backbenchers of the government intrude on our time to support policies with respect to the inclusion of agricultural labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which we in the opposition have urged for a number of years; so there is no need to apologize for participating in this debate, as we are delighted to receive their support in this connection.
Before coming to the core of my remarks, which the press gallery will probably consider parochial, let me say this is a serious thing. In association with other hon. members I have brought it to the attention of the government over the years. Farmers suffer a disability because when they seek help the workers want to make sure they will retain unemployment insurance stamps in the event they become unemployed. I have had this experience when on occasion I have had to hire a man for three or four hours. On this account opportunities for casual employment with farmers are lost. In association with the previous speaker I urge the government to give consideration to the representations made on the subject by many organizations, and particularly the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the federation of agriculture of British Columbia and the British Columbia fruit growers' association.
I do want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the good work undertaken by the regional staffs of the unemployment insurance commission and the employment service in Nelson and Trail. It is not easy to fill positions under these circumstances; it requires a great deal of patience, and owing to human impatience and human weakness on occasion, and sometimes human discourtesy, arising largely out of misunderstanding of the act or the regulations, very often we meet someone who really thinks the officers administering those acts in the local offices are trying to do them out of something, without realizing that the responsibility of the officer is to administer the law and the regulations. On that account I want to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of the labour organizations in the district, of the work that has been done throughout the years by the officers and staff of the Nelson and Trail regional offices of the employment service of Canada and the unemployment insurance commission.
I want to make a couple of other points. I do urge that every opportunity be given

the regional officers to visit the smaller communities. They have had more opportunity in recent years, but I know it is very difficult for them to get away on occasion because their work is centred in those two larger centres in the constituency I have the honour to represent. But I think it would be to the advantage of the administration and of the employers and employees concerned if these regional officers had an opportunity to visit the smaller communities periodically. I believe in these personal visits, they give them the opportunity to get closer personal contact with the employers, employees and members of the representative organizations in the small communities upon whom they depend to quite an extent for the efficient working of the act at some distance from the larger centre. I also suggest that they be given this opportunity in the winter months particularly when we, owing to weather conditions, sometimes get large numbers of men laid off rather quickly because of the depth of snow and climatic conditions which occur at 3,000 feet.
There is one other point on which I should like to touch. Once again I want to protest against two government agencies being responsible for employment placement; first the employment service and, second the immigration service. I think the national employment service should be the sole agency responsible for the placement of individuals in employment. Because of the way it is done under present conditions it causes considerable ill feeling and unnecessary ill will, and in my opinion it is most unfair. Therefore in conclusion I do urge the minister to use his good offices as a member of the cabinet to point out the weakness of the present system and try to get the government to accept the policy of having one agency, the national employment service, to find employment for persons whether they are Canadian citizens, residents, or immigrants.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before making some comments on this item I wish to thank you for your suggestion that we might discuss items 173 and 174 together. May I say I am very pleased indeed to see you sitting in the chair at the moment, and as we come to the end of the session I recognize that you have been diverted to other important matters during the course of the session which have not gone unnoticed by hon. members.
I too, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, am very happy that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, who is momentarily out of the chamber, chose to participate in this debate. When the hon. member for Okan-agan-Revelstoke spoke about an hour ago 79951-0-4624
Supply-Labour
I expressed not only my pleasure in his participation but in his contribution. Those of us in the opposition who have the responsibility of scrutinizing government policy welcome whatever help we can get from hon. members who sit behind the ministry, particularly when their observations are of an objective kind, in keeping with the high standards of objective scrutiny which we in the Liberal party endeavour to maintain toward these important matters.
I also join with the hon. member who has just taken his seat in paying tribute to the personnel in the unemployment insurance commission, the commission itself, the officers in Ottawa and those in the various offices in the country. I should like in a special way to pay tribute to the personnel of the unemployment insurance commission offices in my own city of Windsor, who have been faced with a very heavy responsibility arising out of the high level of unemployment that has prevailed there during the past three years. I am sure that the citizens of Windsor generally are grateful and would want me to say to the minister that there is much appreciation by industry, by the unions and by the citizens generally of the devotion to service of the personnel in the Windsor office.
The manager of the Windsor office, Mr. John Sharrer, is to retire some time within the course of the next four or five months, I understand. I do not know the exact time, but I understand that his retirement is imminent. I should like to say that Mr. Sharrer has been a devoted public servant. He has sought to inform the public of his responsibilities, of the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and he has contributed in no small measure to whatever alleviation of the problem of unemployment was at his disposal.
I am happy to say this, because when he was appointed I felt that the direction of that office should go to someone who resided in the city of Windsor. Of course the appointment was not at the disposal of the government of the day; it was a matter that rested as the minister knows, with the civil service commission. But I felt that where possible the procedures of the civil service commission ought to recognize local talent. Nevertheless, the fact is that this gentleman has performed a notable service, I want to pay him this inadequate but well deserved tribute.
The unemployment insurance administration has to do not only with the granting of benefits to those who have legal entitlement, but with the administration of a very large operation. It is the custodian of large sums of money, contributed to mainly by the two principal contributors, the employees and the employers, with the federal government contributing a much smaller amount. When one

Supply-Labour
considers the criticism that was levelled at the unemployment insurance scheme, when first established, one wonders whether criticisms that are directed toward social legislation take into account the actual achievements of such measures when they are put to full use. In this period of high unemployment, where would we be but for the unemployment insurance act and the unemployment insurance fund? I am sure it is the concern of all of us that the fund be maintained in such proportions as to always be able to provide the contractual benefits which exist as a result of the arrangements made among the beneficiaries, the contributors and the state.
The concern that is now in my mind is that if the prognostications concerning unemployment in the ensuing period are valid, the fund is going to be tested in the next 12 months as it has not been tested since the act first came into being in 1941. The government, I am sure, has been giving consideration to this matter. The government, I am sure, has been giving consideration to the definite possibility, that it will be called on to replenish the fund. Notwithstanding the fact that last year it increased the contributions of the employers and employees, the revenue was estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $75 million to $78 million, although I understand the actual revenues were not as great as anticipated. If I am wrong in that connection the minister will possibly indicate the extent of the inaccuracy. These increases in contributions were imposed without changing the basic pattern of benefits. In spite of the increases in revenues, the fund continues to be in a precarious state.
The Minister of Labour was asked by the hon. member for Gloucester, early this session, what amount was to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund on June 30, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960. The minister replied to this question on July 27 last. He indicated in that reply that as of June 30, 1957, the fund stood at $852,729,261.78; as of June 30, 1958, at $644,520,634.54; as of June 30, 1959, $434,152,690.64; as of June 30, 1960, $296,187,477.10. I direct the attention of the committee to the drop from 1957 to the present time. The present level of the fund, on the basis of this return, which I believe is not the final word in the matter, nevertheless reflects the seriousness of the state of the fund at the present time. Unless the government can show a greater potential revenue than we have thus far had in the experience of the fund's operation, if we have a comparable level of unemployment there will not be enough money in the fund to provide the benefits acquired by right by those who, being

out of work, require this particular form of assistance in order to provide for themselves and their families.
This is, of course, a serious matter, but I do not believe the problem can be allowed to rest at the figure given for June 30, 1960. I have in my hand the unemployment insurance commission report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959, the last available report. I direct the committee's attention to page 25, where under the title "Claims", the report presents the following:
The increase in the volume of initial claims which commenced, towards the end of 1957-
The words "end of 1957", should be underlined.
-continued until October 1958, resulting in a record number of initial claims being filed.
Then on page 31 of the report, in the second complete paragraph under the title "Unemployment Insurance Fund", we find this:
Benefit payments during 1958-59 amounted to $478,631,077.67. Revenue from all sources amounted to $234,242,110.31.
I jump over the next sentence, which is not relevant to my point, and I quote:
The excess of benefit payments over revenue was $244,388,967.36. This left a balance in the fund at the end of the fiscal year of $499,811,157.51. Benefit payments exceeded revenue in all months except August, September and October.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this cannot and must not be allowed to escape our attention. On April 23 last, the Minister of Labour-his words will be found at page 3009 of Hansard -told us the unemployment insurance fund had incurred a financial loss of more than $10 million during the fiscal year 1958-59 as a result of the sale by the commission, under the authority of the investment committee, of government bonds. The committee, of course, will recall that under the act, the investment committee is made up of the governor of the Bank of Canada and the deputy ministers of finance and labour. We know that during the fiscal year 1959-60 and the first two months of this year, another $10 million was lost by the fund, as a result of the sale of government bonds. These two losses in these two different fiscal years were actual losses. I am not now talking, although I will, about the unrealized or book losses.
In any event, these two actual losses represent very impressive amounts, particularly when we take into account the nature of the fund, a fund made up, as I said, of contributions from employees and employers each amounting to more than 80 per cent of the fund, while the contribution of the state is less than 20 per cent of the fund. We refer to this fund not as a government account. It should be regarded for what it is, a trust

account. We should remember that the amount of cash in the fund or the amount of securities in the fund belongs not to the state, but to the workers, to industry, and only a very small part to the government, representing the taxpayers of Canada.
Of the $20 million which was lost as a result of the sale of government bonds and securities during the last two years, more than $16 million was owned by the workers and industry and less than $4 million came from the state. If the loss of $20 million incurred by the fund during the last two years had been due to unmanageable factors, there would be no justification for criticizing the investment policy of the fund. However, I contend that the $20 million loss could and should have been avoided, if there had been the kind of management of that fund which I believe in the case of a trust fund must exist, because of the high obligation imposed on trustees of resources which belong to those who have no manageable control in the fund itself.
Until the end of 1957 there was no real incompatibility between the responsibilities of members of the investment committee and their responsibilities as officers serving the government of Canada in other capacities. However, since that time the large deficit resulting from the actions of the government in the field of fiscal policy has shown there is now a real and important difference between the policies which ought to be followed with respect to the investments of the unemployment insurance fund and the course of action which the government believes it should follow in the management of the public debt. The heavy unemployment during the fiscal year 1958-59 caused a severe drain on the unemployment insurance fund, as is indicated by the figures in the reply given to the hon. member for Gloucester.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In 1957 the fund was $852 million in round figures, and on June 30, 1960, some $296 million. As I say, that figure of $296 million is not the last figure, if you take into account the actual losses I have mentioned and the book losses to which I will make reference later. Having in mind the necessity for maintaining the liquidity of this fund in the face of the unemployment problem, I believe these losses could and should have been avoided, particularly if the fund had been maintained in a more liquid state, something which I say was desirable having in mind the heavy drain on the fund itself. There can be no doubt, as subsequent events have revealed, of the necessity of maintaining the liquidity of the fund. Hence the trustees of the fund in 1958
Supply-Labour
should have sold government securities at every profitable opportunity in order to increase its cash holdings.
This means also that, to the extent that the fund decided to purchase government securities, it should have bought three-month treasury bills, short term government bonds or other securities maturing at an early date. However, during this period the aims sought by the government in the field of debt management were the very opposite of the financial requirements of the unemployment insurance fund itself. Indeed, we know that the government was trying to meet its huge cash requirements by selling as many bonds as possible to the public. The government also attempted, through the conversion loan, to lengthen the term of public holdings of its bonds. In other words the avowed purpose of the government was to reduce the liquidity position of the public, while the basic requirement of the unemployment insurance fund was to increase its liquidity as much as possible. There was therefore a sharp conflict of interest between the fund and the government.
The basis of my criticism is that the investment transactions of the fund were not, during that period, in my judgment conducted in the interests of the fund, but were determined exclusively by the requirements of the government, and as a result the fund lost $20 million. I am not alone in this view. I have before me a view expressed by Mr. A. H. Cameron in a speech he made on June 9, 1960 in the city of Kingston. I wish to quote his words. I regret I do not have the newspaper which reported him, but I can get it after I have finished. He said this:
In the first quarter of 1959, U.I.C. sold $129 millions, including $30 millions conversion 1972's, and $45 millions other longs, realizing large losses, until a government loan postponed further selling. The story is similar this year. This liquidation reflects U.I.C.'s prior aid to debt management. Facing a winter of obvious unemployment, (after a large early 1958 bond liquidation) U.I.C. converted all its Victory bonds, even its reputed $89 millions 1959 and 1960 maturities-buying no bills until October, 1958. These short Victories would have helped in meeting claims-without large losses.
Mr. Coyne later told a commons committee that U.I.C. could not have sold its $308 million Victories during the conversion-. .. "It was too large for the market to take. It would have ruined the market. .." One might ask, "What market?" since over 2,000 larger bond accounts could deal in Victories with only one dealer officially representing the Bank of Canada or Loan Committee. The only real market was in Bank of Canada. This implies the bank denied to U.I.C. the cash prices it offered the public, the banks and others.
The conflict of interest-U.I.C.'s needs versus debt management, (not apparent while the fund grew or government ran cash surpluses), was created by parliament placing bank and finance officials on the U.I.C. committee. Government widened the benefits in 1958 so that the fund entered 1959 with increased outgo, shorn of its more liquid Victories

Supply-Labour
by the loan. Had an independent trustee forced $300 millions in Victories on Bank of Canada for cash, he would have faced a reinvestment problem, but UI.C. had as much right as chartered banks of Canada's short paper-or even specially created government short paper. Had this happened, 1959's sales would have pressured the short market, not the long, for the converted Victories would have been in Bank of Canada.
Then he concludes as follows:
Subordinating U.I.C.'s liquidity needs to debt management, was of transient benefit, for many long term bonds soon were sold'-at a loss to U.I.C. Debt management problems during the loan would have been greater if U.I.C.'s interests had prevailed. Yet the U.I.C. committee would have been spurning the loan conceived in their other capacities. I pray that parliament will never again place public servants in such an impossible dilemma. The stopgap aid to debt management is not worth the result.
In view of the criticisms we levelled last session on this point, it seems to me that the government must take full responsibility for the actual loss of $20 million, as a consequence of the conversion loan and of the government's debt management policy. But this is not the whole situation. The par value of the bonds left in the fund was estimated recently at about $296 million. This compares with more than $900 million at the end of 1956 and, in view of the present unemployment outlook, represents a dangerously low level.
However, the real value of those bonds, if they had to be sold at present, is much lower than the amount of $296 million. The price of the conversion bonds held by the fund is comparatively low, and if those bonds had to be liquidated it is not likely that the proceeds would exceed $250 million. Who in this committee, in the face of the prognostications of unemployment, even assuming it does not rise to a level higher than the period through which we are now traversing, will deny that that is a very serious situation? With the amount of $250 million in the fund will we see the depletion of the fund. We should have from the Minister of Labour, and from the Minister of Finance if necessary, a statement as to what the government proposes to do before we finally pass these items. It could very well be that at the end of 1961 nothing will be left in the fund which on June 30, 1957, stood at over $852 million.
Is it the intention of the government to do nothing until the fund has been depleted? Will the government reimburse the $20 million lost by the fund as a result of the mismanagement of that fund? What steps does the government intend to take to replenish the fund? Although the minister denied, correcting himself the next day, that the fund had borrowed money from the government this year, the government did through the Minister of Finance loan to the fund some moneys
IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
in the months of April and May of this year. I think the general totals of those loans are not too far different from the total loss of the fund to which I have directed the committee's attention.
Now, Mr. Chairman, last night I indicated what	were the realized	losses of	the	fund,what	the realized losses	were for	the	fiscalyear	prior to this one,	and what	the	booklosses were a year ago.	This year	the	book
losses are something in the neighbourhood of $42 million as compared with a book loss in the previous fiscal year of some $60 million. So the market value of the fund now, less advances, is not much more than $260 million, and not the $296 million reported by the Minister of Labour on July 22, 1960.
In spite of the recent improvement in the bond market the fund at the end of June showed a book loss, as I said a moment ago, of $42 million. There are no securities now left in the fund which nature before 1968. That will be found by examining the unemployment insurance securities portfolio. Unless there is a further sharp improvement in the bond market, or unless the government makes a substantial contribution to restore the cash position of the fund, a serious loss on bond sales will be sustained next winter, when the seasonal drain on the fund begins.
Apart altogether from that, no one can deny that the fund is in a precarious state. We have the right on this estimate, in fact a duty, to ask the Minister of Labour for his comments, and to ask him to indicate what the government proposes to do to put the fund in such a state that if it is called upon to provide assistance to the unemployed in the next ensuing period, there will be no difficulty in doing so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have the opportunity of following the hon. member for Essex East, because I had intended to deal very largely with the subject he has just dealt with, and to do so completely on its merits and not, I hope, be led away by political considerations. But one never knows. Certainly the ex-minister had a fine time to himself, indulging in that delightful practice of wisdom after the event. I have seldom heard more wisdom after the event in such a short time, particularly with regard to securities.
Mr. Chairman, when I was in business I had some experience in the field of securities, so I can well realize how the hon. member was enjoying himself by indulging, with his uninhibited joy, in wisdom after the event. All I can say on that matter is that as much as I respect the hon. member and his judgment in many ways, I would not consider him a great authority on the matter of securities. I would much rather trust the experienced and

skilled men who actually deal in these securities. But there was never anyone who dealt with securities, however skilled and prudent he was, who could not afterwards be shown with a little after the event wisdom to have made what looked like a mistake, and we have had a classic example of that this afternoon.
Having said that, I must say 1 quite agree with the hon. member for Essex East when he says that this fund is in danger, and it is because of that fact that I want to speak about it this afternoon. I want to raise a question which I believe goes to the very root of unemployment insurance. I want to point out that perhaps, without anyone ever intending it, over these last years we have almost I will not say inevitably but unconsciously and unintentionally slipped into the situation where the fund has become less and less an insurance fund and more and more a general welfare fund. Indeed, perhaps it is not going too far to say that there is a widespread disposition to regard it more and more as a kind of universal Santa Claus.
Let me say here that I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as criticizing harshly the people who have taken benefits from the fund which strictly speaking were not intended, because I intend to make the point that this change in attitude "growed like Topsy". People began to extend it, and then it was extended a little more and a little more. I will not go into a lot of detail because I believe every hon. member here today can illustrate for himself the various leniencies, extensions and stretchings out of this fund which has made it serve purposes for which it was never intended.
Let me say quickly, lest I forget later, that the reason this has come about is not wholly because of claimants on the fund, but is also due to the attitude of employers who have found it convenient for various reasons to make a kind of informal broadening out of the purposes of the fund. Whatever the reason is, I feel one should face the fact that the situation is serious and calls for action.
Of course another of the secrets of the hon. member for Essex East in his speech this afternoon is that the fund has been depleted in the last couple of years because we had unemployment. I must say I am awfully grateful to him him for that, because otherwise one might not have known. Of course it has been depleted because of unemployment, and we recognize that it has been depleted to some extent because of government action, and we are all responsible for that.
I do not propose to go into detail, but I hope this afternoon, as far as my voice will reach-of course it will not reach as far as
Supply-Labour
Churchill's-to direct the attention of a few, or perhaps more than a few, to the fact that as I said a moment ago the fund has lost its character as an insurance fund. I am not going to attempt to apportion responsibility; what I am trying to do is create a feeling that something should be done, and that we should all share it. Money is being consumed for reasons which were never intended and, furthermore, this means that unemployment figures have been distorted and exaggerated, to what extent I am not going to attempt to estimate; but anyone who has thought about this will agree that it has led to the distortion of unemployment figures in a way which was never intended and in a way which has added a great deal to the difficulties of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission.
Imagine a situation such as this vis-a-vis the income tax department or the customs department. Unfortunately, with regard to insurance we have this situation, and I think it is best to understand what the situation is. When I and my neighbours on my street insure our houses we realize what we are doing; we are clubbing together so that if there is a fire, money is available to compensate the owner. We do not expect to get that money back. It is perfectly clear that when we contribute to such a fund we are not entitled to get our money back. Yet with regard to unemployment insurance there is this strong psychological feeling; "there is our money in that fund, and we are entitled to get it back". People who would not dream of expecting the return of money in other circumstances get a feeling that this is their money and that they are entitled to get it back. In the first place they overlook the fact that it is not their money; that in fact they have paid less than half of it, and more than half has been put up by the employers and the government.
While I am not prepared to say how much of that money goes out over and above what would go out if the fund were on a strictly insurance basis, the instances I have seen indicate a very substantial amount indeed. Some of the figures are staggering. And, as the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, over the past three years there has been a depletion of some $600 million.
I want to say a word about the attitude of employers, because that is very important. The co-operation of employers is needed to enable this stretching out or broadening out process-I do not know exactly how to describe it-to be carried on. This does not happen in connection with income tax; employers give accurate figures there, but in connection with unemployment insurance, apparently prompted by a desire to be good

Supply-Labour
fellows and partly because in various ways it is very convenient to them to have the insurance fund come in and take over care of people who are rated as unemployed, they do assist, and assist in a way which is very surprising and which I do not think would happen if we could persuade them to look at this question in a realistic manner.
I believe that what has to be done-and I do not despair of it-is that people have to be given a new point of view toward this question. Of course I do not think people are going to become more conscientious tomorrow than they are today, and I have no doubt this will need to be accompanied by strict regulations. Nevertheless we cannot simply leave this up to the people in the unemployment insurance commission. Public opinion has to be behind this. As the hon. member for Essex East reminds us, this is not chicken feed that we are talking about; this is a very important matter.
I hope I have not appeared to be speaking in a pious tone, and I hope I have not given the impression that I regard myself as superior to other people. I do not, and I hope I have not given that impression. I wanted to bring up what I consider to be a serious situation and to suggest a rational solution. I imagine that those who were responsible for creating this fund years ago did not anticipate the development which has now arisen. They thought they were setting up an insurance fund and nothing else, and that is what it should have remained.
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Essex East that this thing is bound to come to a head and that it needs serious consideration and action. As I said, it has grown like Topsy. It is clear there is going to be a heavy unnecessary drain unless we do something about it, but I am bold enough to believe that the people of this country, even if they slipped inadvertently into a false situation, when they are convinced of it they will face up to what has happened. I believe this has been done to some extent at any rate by inadvertence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not inadvertence. It is bad management.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, I am trying to be nonpolitical for just a few moments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall be finished in a minute or so, and I will try to answer questions then.
I believe that if we pull ourselves together -and I mean all of us, because this fast and loose attitude has been very widespread- something may yet be done to remedy the

situation. I hope someone else may have something to say on this subject; I hope I am not the only one to say something which may be a little unpopular. I suppose the only sensible thing to do is to get back to the insurance basis, and I believe if this is properly put to the people of this country they will do it, because they are not without common sense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question? It was suggested by the intervention of the hon. member for Trinity. The hon. gentleman disparages the argument of responsibility for this situation. He is an experienced businessman, having been a distinguished trust officer. Will he deny that from 1957 on there was a conflict of interest that justifies the charge of mismanagement?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, I would deny it. These were responsible people of character in charge of this fund-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one suggested they were not people of good character.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I deny the conflict of interest entirely.


Albany M. Robichaud: My remarks will be very brief. I have had occasion many times in this house to express my opinions concerning the status of the unemployment insurance fund. I referred to this situation when I spoke last night on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Labour.
The hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat has acknowledged that the fund is presently in danger, and I would say to him that it is not necessary to be an authority on securities in order to see that the fund is indeed in great danger. The hon. member went on to say that in its present condition this fund is less an insurance fund than a general welfare fund. When the unemployment insurance commission was created under a Liberal administration it was created to be an insurance fund, and it was maintained as such by the former administration.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Albany M. Robichaud: I hear an hon. member, greatly concerned, say "No, no". The unemployment insurance fund is a trust fund which has been established to protect the working class of this country, and it has been built up through the contributions of the workers, the employers and the general public.
The records show that the fund was in good condition under the previous administration. When the present government took office on June 30, 1957 there was left in the fund the sum of $852 million. As at June 30 this year the fund was down to $296 million.


I960
[Stage Direction]
We know that under the present conditions of unemployment, under the conditions which were admitted this morning by the minister, and in view of the forecast given us for the next eight or 10 months, we must acknowledge that notwithstanding the increase of 30 per cent in contributions which was introduced last year and which has been in effect since September 1, 1959, the unemployment insurance fund on this same date next year will contain only in the vicinity of $150 million. I am sure the minister will agree that this amount is not sufficient to take care of the situation. Before this estimate is passed the minister should tell us what are the plans of the government for replenishing the fund.
Before resuming my seat I want to express my concern about certain applications of the act and the regulations of the unemployment insurance commission. I know there have been abuses, and a fund of this kind is subject to them, but there rests on the officials of the department the difficult responsibility of stopping, preventing and correcting such abuses. Because the fund is in a difficult condition is no justification for certain employees having advantage taken of them.
I wish to refer briefly to the family employee. Case after case has been brought to my attention since last fall. These people were denied unemployment insurance benefits because they were employed by their fathers. In most cases the employer was in the lumber, trucking or some other business and employed two or three of his sons instead of hiring strangers as his employees. I do not see how the commission can justify a decision that would deprive those members of the family of the benefits to which they are entitled.
This has happened in New Brunswick and Quebec. When these members of the family made application for unemployment insurance they were told that if they wanted to receive benefits they should not stay at home with their father but should get out on their own or room and board with a neighbour. This situation cannot be permitted to continue. In most cases these were married men with families. They were employed by their fathers in employment that would qualify them for unemployment insurance. They should be entitled to receive it.
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have often felt that my speeches were stolen by hon. members of the Liberal party in this chamber, but this was the first time I felt that an hon. member of the Conservative party had stolen in the main what I intended to say. I refer to the remarks made by the distinguished hon. member for Greenwood. I did not agree 100 per cent with what he
Supply-Labour
said about this fund, but I endorse the greater portion of his remarks.
When the fund was originally set up it was established on insurance principles. Proof of that can be found in the way the fund grew. At one time we had close to a billion dollars in the fund. Then the Liberal party found that it was too good a vote catcher to resist, and they let the political implications of the fund get the better of the insurance principles. Unfortunately when the present government took over it did as it has done in respect of so many things, and carried on and expanded the problems created by the Liberals. The situation has worsened since the Conservatives took office. As the hon. member said, the fund today represents no insurance principles at all but is a kind of mixed up welfare fund.
With increasing frequency we see in the newspapers and elsewhere evidence of the fact that the fund is not so much abused as chiselled. Many hon. members know this from cases brought to their attention. I do not know how you draw a distinction between an abuse and chiselling, but apparently that distinction exists in the mind of the public. As the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out, people who would never think of chiselling in any other way think the fund is fair game. The past and present governments must share the responsibility for this type of thinking among the public today.
I have received letters from constituents complaining that they have paid into the fund for the last 10 or 12 years and never drawn a cent out from it, and inquiring if they could not be paid a dividend of some kind. I believe that underlines what the hon. member said about there being no accurate concept in the public mind about the insurance principles of the fund. I have discussed this with various people. Certainly I have no offhand solution to offer the government today, but I believe an investigation of the situation should be made so the matter could be corrected in the future. I will, however, throw out one or two suggestions which I hope will be of some value.
I recommend that the government embark on a program to educate the Canadian public with respect to the meaning of the unemployment insurance fund. The government could point out that if somebody does not pay in there will 'be nothing to draw out, and that if you take out more than you put in someone will have to pay double or there will be nothing to take out.
I also urge the government to consider devising some kind of incentive. Again I cannot offer a detailed plan. Perhaps it could be

Supply-Labour
worked in conjunction with the old age pension, and a dividend given upon retirement to people who have paid in all their lives and never had occasion to draw out. This would be a means of driving home to the public the fact that the fund is not a barrel into which they can all reach. This is in conjunction with the program of public education to which I referred.
As long as there is a little chiselling here and a little there we will have difficulty. As the old Scottish saying goes, "Many a mickle makes a muckle". The day will come when the position of the legitimately unemployed will be made completely hopeless. If the fund has decreased by $200 million a year over the last three years there must be something wrong. Either unemployment is worse than the government has admitted or something else is wrong. There is only a little over $200 million in the fund right now, so at the rate of decrease over the last three years the government has only one year to learn what the trouble is and correct it. It behooves this government to take action rapidly if it does not want to face an extremely serious problem within the next year or so.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, I want to take only a few moments of the time of the committee, but in rising to speak on this item I should like to reiterate what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has said with regard to the unemployment insurance fund as it affects farm labour. Last year the minister mentioned that he was setting up a committee to make a special study of unemployment insurance as it affected the seasonal unemployed with reference to the farming industry, fishing and pulp wood cutting. I should like to say that I was very pleased at that time, and I want to commend the minister for taking this action. It is another indication, of course, of how seriously our government is taking the problem of unemployment in Canada.
As a result of the recommendation to set up the committee I sent out a questionnaire to all reeves and councillors in my riding of Moose Mountain, some 200 in number, asking for their opinion on this matter. I might say for the information of the minister that I received a very good cross section of replies. Percentagewise about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the people replying suggested they were in favour of the government taking some action along this line. In mentioning the fact that they were in favour of the application of unemployment insurance to farm labour they did not say whether it should be on an optional basis.

We have a peculiar situation in the farming industry in Saskatchewan. We have a number of large farms which are following the trend of the agrarian change which is taking place in this industry owing to automation. As a result, some farmers who may have only one son in the family, with the co-operation of automation, can carry on an economic unit; whereas on the other hand a farmer down the road with no sons in the family finds that in order to carry on an economic unit and follow the trend that has developed in the farm industry he has to have access to farm labour.
In looking at the labour market we find that the farmer's son, if he is not employed in farming, has to leave the province of Saskatchewan to find employment, because basically it has been an agricultural area, and owing to the lack of industrial development there compared with some other parts of Canada the young men have to leave. The result is there is a shortage of qualified farm labour. We would be doing ourselves a great service in Saskatchewan in particular if we could develop some type of unemployment insurance that would affect farm labour and help to maintain our population.
It is interesting to note that 30 years ago we had approximately a million people in Saskatchewan. As a result of automation developing in the industry our population slipped to 865,000 a few years ago. That trend has been reversed, and at the present time we have about 902,000 or 903,000 people in Saskatchewan. If we had maintained the normal population growth of other provinces over that same period we would have had today around 1,400,000 people, but that does not need any explanation from me. Hon. members realize what it means to a province like Saskatchewan, or any other part of the country, from an economic point of view; therefore I think we should take a serious look at this proposition to see whether something can be done to include the agricultural industry in unemployment insurance.


Michael Starr: Will the committee allow me two minutes to answer the hon. member who has just spoken regarding agricultural employment? I know of the interest of many hon. members on all sides of the house in this subject, and I should like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that an interdepartmental committee is studying the extension of coverage to agriculture. However, there is a decided dearth of statistical information of the kind needed to assist the committee in arriving at its conclusions. As a consequence it has been necessary for the committee to make a survey of certain types of farming in certain areas to obtain some estimate of

the likely costs. This sample has of necessity been small, but it does provide some guidance. The survey is going on now.
I should like to put on record the following departments which are represented on the committee: unemployment insurance commission, finance, agriculture, bureau of statistics, insurance and privy council.


Harold Edward Winch: A number of phases of unemployment insurance have already been raised on this item 173, and undoubtedly before it is passed additional phases will be brought to the attention of the committee. It is not my intention to speak on phases already raised or to prophesy what may yet be raised. My purpose in rising at this time is to draw the attention of the minister to either certain regulations or interpretations of regulations. I do so, Mr. Chairman, because I note that the hon. member for Cape Breton South has honoured us with his presence. The hon. member has not spoken during the discussion of the estimates, but he has made a great number of interjections, especially regarding certain views expressed on problems in his own riding of Cape Breton South and suggestions that from an employment point of view it could be called a depressed area. That seemed to upset the hon. member, although he has not made a speech on it yet. Will the minister consider either changing certain regulations or stating what are the interpretations of certain regulations as they apply and have applied to the present situation in Cape Breton and Cape Breton South, because I believe, sir, Glace Bay comes within the constituency of the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: If the hon. member does not mind I should like to make an observation. When the hon. member for Essex East was speaking he said nothing about Glace Bay, New Waterford, or the surrounding towns. He emphatically said the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia. If he would just look at a recent statement by the mayor of Sydney he would see that it is in sharp contrast with what he said.


Harold Edward Winch: I take it now, sir, that the hon. member takes it that no reference was made to his own constituency?


Donald MacInnis: No, you do not understand what was said at all. He referred specifically to the city of Sydney. I do not for a moment deny there are depressed sections in that area; I am speaking specifically of the city of Sydney. The mayor of Sydney recently referred to the prosperity of that city, and it does that city no good to have somebody who does not understand the situation there go about preaching that it is a depressed city, and by so doing discouraging any new industry or any new business which might wish
Supply-Labour
to come into that city. This is only another approach that is detrimental to that city, the Liberal approach in the maritimes.


Harold Edward Winch: I now understand the confusion of the hon. member.


Donald MacInnis: You are referring to the hon. member for Essex East.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry; I have the floor, if you do not mind.


Donald MacInnis: Yes, but speak factually.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend is confused in that he did not recognize, as I think most of us did, that the hon. member for Essex East was referring to the report of the employment office in Sydney, which covers the entire area, including the hon. member's constituency.


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: As soon as I sit down, yes.


Robert Muir: The member for Essex East said the city of Sydney.


Harold Edward Winch: The city of Sydney is the regional office for the entire area, including the constituency of the hon. member who has just spoken.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order-


Harold Edward Winch: I said I would be very happy to-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry; I beieve I have the floor.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: My point is this; that the hon. member now speaking is interpreting the views of the hon. member for Essex East, and not only was the hon. member for Cape Breton South confused but this whole committee was confused with what he had to say about the unemployment situation in Moncton when he claimed that there were so many thousand unemployed.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not a point of order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member does not know the difference anyhow.


Jacques Flynn: According to the rules, if the hon. member has an objection to any statement he may rise after the hon. member who has the floor has completed his remarks and make his correction.

Supply-Labour


Harold Edward Winch: May I say that the hon. member is certainly confused now, because he is referring to Moncton and I am speaking about his own constituency.


Donald MacInnis: But he was talking about Moncton.


Harold Edward Winch: I would be very happy if the hon. member would make a speech instead of interjecting so often. As a matter of fact I wonder why he is here, because he only interjects and does not make speeches. I said I was very happy that the hon. member had honoured us with his presence, because I should like to ask the views of the Minister of Labour in connection with certain regulations as they exist, and certain interpretations made thereof, with relation to representations that have been made by the united mine workers of America at Glace Bay, in the hon. member's constituency. The best way for me to introduce this matter is to read directly the information that comes to our hands. I have here, sir, a telegram received by us this month which states as follows:
Local 4520 UMWA in session tonight respectfully request that present UIC regulations be amended to conform with the basic understanding governing payment of benefits. Some 450 coal miners employed in No. 4 colliery Dominion Coal Company Limited in Glace Bay are completely without income for a period of two weeks due to cut-backs in the Nova Scotia coal industry and regulations that prohibit payment of UIC benefits. Respectfully request use of your good office to have this extreme injustice eliminated.
We in this group, sir, to the best of our ability try to help people in all constituencies. This matter was taken up, therefore, with the unemployment insurance commission, and the reply we received was:
Section 152 of the regulations provides that the waiting period may be waived if
(a)	a new period of entitlement immediately follows the end of a previous period of entitlement, and
(b)	the claimant's aggregate earnings in the last two weeks of the old period of entitlement are not more than one week's benefit plus allowable earnings.
The situation with regard to the 400 miners is that they were laid off during the week commencing 12 June and their periods of entitlement ended on 18 June. Their new entitlement started on 19 June, but they cannot meet the conditions in (b) above because their earnings in the weeks commencing 5 June (when they worked) and 12 June were too high to permit of the waiver.
I am advised that the miners received payment of unemployment insurance benefits for the week commencing 12 June but as previously stated the week commencing 18 June was the week in which they were required to serve their waiting period and therefore they received no benefit payment for this period.
Yours sincerely,
Laval Fortier Chief Commissioner
Now, sir, in view of the telegram I have read, in view of the answer received from
[The Chairman.]
the chief commissioner, may I ask on behalf of the united mine workers, local 4520, at Glace Bay, in the constituency of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, whether this interpretation of the regulations was wrong or whether the regulations could possibly be amended, especially in view of the fact that the unemployed workers at Glace Bay say this is an extreme injustice which they would like to have eliminated.


Michael Starr: This matter was first brought to my attention by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who at that time was in the offices of the local union and who made available to me the information to which the hon. member refers. I was then in communication with the president of the union on the long distance telephone. I immediately brought it to the attention of the unemployment insurance commission, and the interpretation of that regulation is correct.
This has been brought to the attention of the union, pointing out that under this regula-ion the miners were not entitled to benefits. The only thing that can be done is to either have the regulation amended or to submit this regulation to the unemployment insurance advisory committee, the membership of which is composed of representatives of labour and management on an equal basis.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister if he has referred the request of the united mine workers in Glace Bay to the advisory committee?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman, because the regulation is there. If consideration is given to obtaining the advice of that committee on whether this regulation should be in existence, then that consideration can be given and the regulation submitted for their advice.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand, then, that the minister does not feel he has a responsibility when matters of this nature are brought to his attention by any member of this house, and that he should refer them to the advisory committee, asking their advice?


Michael Starr: This regulation has been in existence for some time and has applied in many instances of the same nature. Now, if it is felt by the commission that this regulation is unfair then the commission, in consultation with me, may agree that consideration be given to submitting this regulation to the advisory committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the minister not agree that if he receives a complaint of this nature, and he says he received it from the hon. member himself, he should refer it to the advisory committee?


Michael Starr: We receive complaints from all over Canada about every regulation that is applied by the unemployment insurance commission. Surely the hon. member would not suggest that on the basis of the complaints we have received about every regulation in the Unemployment Insurance Act we should submit every one of them to the advisory committee?


Harold Edward Winch: Not on an individual basis, but if it comes from a responsible trade union or if it comes from a member of this house, yes.


Michael Starr: We have had representations on almost every regulation from time to time over the years from responsible groups of people and representatives of the workers.


Donald MacInnis: I am in danger of being accused of filibustering if I speak, because the opposition seems to take that attitude toward any backbencher on the government side who speaks. I should like to say this, sir, to the hon. member for Vancouver East. When this question arose I, along with the president and secretary treasurer of the local affected, not 4520 but 4530, my own local in Glace Bay, in conjunction with the officers of the united mine workers, followed through with every possible step to alleviate this hardship.


Harold Edward Winch: On what date?


Donald MacInnis: I do not remember the date, but it was the date on which the matter arose. I was present in the offices of the united mine workers and I communicated with the Minister of Labour in Ottawa, the minister of labour in Nova Scotia, and made efforts to communicate with the premier of Nova Scotia because this regulation was causing hardship among the members. The Caledonia local, 4530, has thanked me along with the president and secretary treasurer, for the efforts we made in this connection.
As to the regulations, they are well aware of the fact that the unemployment insurance advisory commission has labour representation in order to look after the interests of labour. They realize that this is an insurance to us. We then attempted to get the unemployment insurance assistance benefits, and we made every effort in this regard to help the miners over this rough period they were obliged to go through because broken time in the mines at that particular period, affected their unemployment insurance for that coming week. What brought about the three week period without any remuneration was the fact that the set-up in the mines is such that when you work a week, you do not get paid for that particular week you work but the following week. That is what contributed to the hardships down there, namely the
Supply-Labour
fact that they were obliged to wait three weeks in order to draw their salaries from the company.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a long wait.


Donald MacInnis: Certainly it is a long wait. I appreciate that fact. I may tell the hon. member for Vancouver East that I am well aware of everything that has affected the miners in that area. I do not need the hon. member for Essex East or the hon. member for Vancouver East or any other member of the committee to point out to me the difficulties through which the miners have been going, not since 1957 but back to 1945 and further, when the previous administration was in power. Let me tell you that the present conditions prevailed under a Liberal administration. In the province of Nova Scotia 23 coal mines closed down in the period from 1946 to 1956.


Harold Edward Winch: How many closed down in the last three years? How many are closing down now?


Donald MacInnis: None of the big operations have closed down in the last three years. They are facing it, but we are doing everything possible to avoid it. I will tell you now that 23 coal mines closed down in that period between 1946 and 1956, and none of the larger operations have closed down since this government came into office. Some smaller operations have closed down, but there are also a few small operations which have opened up with the assistance of the Nova Scotia government.
In order to remind the hon. member of what is going on, may I say that the telegram he received was from the president of local 4520, the brother of the only remaining C.C.F. member in Nova Scotia. As to the area about which he is concerned, I might remind him that regardless of the situation in Nova Scotia as it is today, the miners' union, the steel workers and the workers of Cape Breton have put their trust in the Prime Minister and Bob Stanfield, and rightly so.


Murdo William Martin: To get away from the political implications for a moment, may I turn to something else. The minister mentioned that one possible solution for this particular problem that has been raised has to do with amendments to the existing legislation. From what he said I gather that either the amendments or recommendations for them would come from the advisory committee. But he also said that before they could recommend any changes, complaints would have to be forwarded to them by the minister or the commission. My question is this. How can the advisory committee realize

Supply-Labour
that there are any complaints and that there is any need for amendment of the existing legislation if the great number of the complaints mentioned by the minister never get past his office?


Michael Starr: I will say this, Mr. Chairman. I will submit this regulation, or ask the commission to consider this regulation; and if in their opinion they feel that it should be considered by the advisory committee, then they will forward it on to the advisory committee.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the make-up of this advisory committee? Who are on the committee? How are they appointed, and how long do they hold office?


Michael Starr: There are four employer representatives and four employee representatives. On the employee side there are two representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress, one representative from the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour, and one representative from the brotherhood of railway employees. On the employer side there is a representative from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, a representative from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a representative from the Canadian Construction Association and one representative from the Canadian Railway Association.


Harold Edward Winch: Do the committees meet of their own volition, or do they meet only when something is referred to them? In other words have they the power of initiating recommendations to the labour department?


Michael Starr: Under the act they are empowered to report the state of the unemployment insurance fund, and to meet when the commission submits for their recommendation a certain regulation.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words the advisory committee can meet only on a direction of the commission, and can deal only with matters which are referred to it by the minister or through the unemployment insurance commission. Is that correct?


Michael Starr: It is an advisory committee to the commission.


Harold Edward Winch: It can meet only when something is referred to it. It cannot meet of its own volition or bring in its own recommendations?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Harold Edward Winch: Do you think that is a democratic procedure?


Michael Starr: That is the way the committee is set up under the act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As to persons who are possibly entitled to draw unemployment insurance for some months but who become university students, can they continue to draw unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: Each case is considered on its own merits.


An hon. Member:: In some cases it can be done.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In some cases?


Michael Starr: Yes, having regard to the availability of the student for work. That is the basis on which he can draw unemployment insurance.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask for a further point of information on something I have never been able to get quite clear from reading the act. To my knowledge there are a great many persons who have been previously employed but who want to try, when they are unemployed, to get out on their own and earn their living. I know a great number of such persons in my constituency. They may be electricians, carpenters or painters. If they endeavour to help themselves in this way and they hit a bad period, as they do, in order to be covered when they are endeavouring to do this are they entitled to contribute to unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: If they go into business for themselves and, during the period of the first two years, become unemployed, they may apply for unemployment insurance benefits because of the fact that it is within the two-year period only that a person can claim benefits. Then if it is found that they are genuinely unemployed in that respect they would be eligible for unemployment insurance.


Harold Edward Winch: How do they contribute in this period? I am greatly interested in this matter. When you have these people who want to try to get out and help themselves, and who are doing so, is there any way in which, during that temporary period of a year or two years when they are trying to help themselves, they can pay in to unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: No; no self-employed person can be insured.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words they are not eligible at all?


Michael Starr: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: That completes the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Harold Edward Winch: While we are waiting for the
next department to be proceeded with, it may be a good time for me to say this to the minister. He may have thought that he has had a rough time. He has a rough job. However, we all appreciate the courtesy with which he has treated us.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
217. Departmental administration, $3,212,477.
Jacques Flynn: This item will be found at page 44 of the blue book, the details at page 290.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is now seven minutes to six and I understand the minister has a full statement to make, may I suggest that we call it six o'clock?


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee agreeable to calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the house leader, just for the convenience of members, to outline the business for Monday and Tuesday and for as much of next week as he wishes to?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in the hope that next week will be the last week of the session I will outline what remains before us.
On Monday we will take third reading of Bill No. C-58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. Appearing on Votes and Proceedings tonight will be a resolution concerning the appointment of a judge for Prince Edward Island, and the house might like to consider that as the second item of business on Monday. That will be followed by the committee stage of the bill on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
If that discussion does not carry over to Tuesday, we have for Tuesday the resolution mentioned this morning by the Prime Minister concerning Canada's participation in the United Nations force for the Congo, followed by the report of the committee on procedure which I would ask to be taken up later on Tuesday. I will also move concurrence in the report of the civil service commission tabled on July 14 and shown in Votes and Proceedings on page 774, referring to the staff of the House of Commons.
Business of the House
As it is impossible to estimate at this moment the termination of the session, it may be necessary to call interim supply on Tuesday. The estimates which remain for the house to consider are, in this order: national defence, finance, trade and commerce and privy council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the leader one other question. Is it the intention to proceed right through with the committee stage of the bill of rights until it is finished?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is, running over Monday and Tuesday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would think that would be the wish of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question of the house leader. In view of the importance placed by the Prime Minister this morning on the motion asking for the authority of parliament for the sending of certain of our forces overseas, might it not be advisable and proper to have that called first on Monday so as to have the authority of parliament and our expression of support?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the house so desires. The resolution will appear in Votes and Proceedings and the rules require 48 hours' notice, but if the house gave consent it could consider that on Monday.


Harold Edward Winch: I think in view of the importance of the matter and the fact that we do not know how long we will take on other business, it might be a nice thing if that were introduced first and received the support of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that would be agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if we had unanimous consent that would be very proper, that we should proceed in that way on Monday. I suggest that is the apparent feeling of the house, in view of the statements which have been made by the two hon. gentlemen.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that the notice would be sufficient, but in any event is the house agreeable to so order if necessary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. Is it agreed that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

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

 Mr. Mariel: 1.	Is Latin American Mines Limited licensed under the authority of the secretary of state?
2.	If so, (a) what were the names and addresses of the directors when said license was requested? (b) what are the names and addresses of the present directors?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Stale):
1.	Latin American Mines Limited was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario on October 8, 1946, under the name Guayana Mines Limited. Supplementary letters patent were issued by Ontario authorities on September 10, 1952, changing the name to Consolidated Guayana Mines Limited, and further supplementary letters patent were issued on December 4, 1957, changing the name again to the actual name Latin American Mines Limited.
2.	No information.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
165.	Economics and research branch including research grants and related expenses, $688,895.
166.	Annuities Act administration, $1,194,357.
167.	Industrial relations activities including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $595,271.
168.	Civilian rehabilitation branch including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $217,170.
Special services-
169.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council, $502,075.
Vocational training co-ordination-
170.	Administration, $112,905.
171.	To carry out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act and agreements made thereunder: to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province on terms approved by the governor in council to provide financial assistance to vocational and technical schools, and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $8,857,600 -Payments to the provinces, $8,497,600.
Government employees compensation-
172.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $112,170.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
173.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the Act, $36,136,000.
174.	Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $37,500.
A-Department-
General administration-
526.	Annuities Act-To authorize the payment of interest, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, out of the government annuities account, on premiums being refunded that were paid under a contract entered into with Her Majesty pursuant to subsection (3) of section 6 of the Government Annuities Act where such premiums are in excess of the amount required to purchase the maximum annuity payable under that act to an employee of the purchaser: the said interest in respect of premiums being refunded shall be calculated at the rate of interest applicable to the premiums at the time they were received and such interest shall be payable for the period from the day on which the excess premiums were received by Her Majesty to the day on which the refund is made, $1.
Special services-
527.	To extend to the 31st day of May, 1960, the period in respect of which payments may be made to a province and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program as contemplated by vote 615 of the Appropriation Act No. 1, 1960, $1.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
528.	Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $237,500.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 1, 1960