1960-05-23

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is the day
officially appointed for the celebration of the birthday of Her Gracious Majesty the Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II. During the commonwealth prime ministers' conference I had the honour and pleasure of an audience with Her Majesty, and at that time she again impressed me with the warmth of her interest in Canada and the Canadian people. It is, therefore, a special pleasure for me to suggest that the house do reaffirm its loyalty and affection to Her Majesty.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose that after the Leader of the Opposition and any other hon. members who desire to participate join me in this tribute, we should stand and sing "God Save the Queen" as an expression of the feelings of her members of the House of Commons.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to associate my party and myself with what the Prime Minister has just said. This is a day that gives us an opportunity to reaffirm our respect for the monarchy as an institution which has meant so much to our freedom and development, and our affection and admiration for the person of the monarch herself.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I join the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition in the remarks that have been made by both hon. members with respect to our loyalty to Her Majesty and the great part she plays as Head of the commonwealth.
However I wish to make one suggestion. We would like the Prime Minister to give consideration to the House of Commons showing its delight with this occasion and other national holidays by arranging holidays next year for the members of the House of Commons and the staff. I think that would be most appropriate. I am not in favour of the present habit into which we have fallen.
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen



BRIDGES


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-32 (from the Senate), to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river at or near the town of LaSalle, in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 108-Mr. Caron (for Mr. Dupuis):
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, leases or contracts, exchanged between or entered into by the Minister of Transport or his officers and the Solicitor General, the Goineau brothers, Robert and Bernard, or any other persons or associations, regarding the setting up of a boating club or a repair shop for yachts on the federal property situated on the south side of the Central Vermont railway line at St. Jean, Quebec, since June 10, 1959.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: There is no objection to the passing of this motion, with the usual reservation concerning the need to obtain permission of the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 109-Mr. Robichaud:
For a statement showing the total number of unplaced applicants registered at each of the national employment service offices in the four Atlantic provinces, as at April 30, 1960, or as at the nearest date to April 30, 1960, for which such figures are available.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, during the year 1959, in connection with the cleaning out of the
4126	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry following rivers: Kanasuta, Mouilleuse, Magusi and D'Alembert, flowing into lake Duparquet in the county of Abitibi West, Quebec.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence from June, 1957 to date, between the post office department and any person or organization regarding South Brookfield, Nova Scotia, rural mail route No. 1, proposed including the names of patrons of the post office involved who, since March 1, 1960, indicated their approval of the proposed service.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Caron (for Mr. Bourgel):
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of the employees, the duration of their employment and the amount paid to each of them, in connection with the work done during 1959 on the construction of a retaining wall at St. Vallier, county of Bellechasse, Quebec.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Acting Secretary of State when he is going to make the statement on the alleged fingerprinting of civil servants which, according to the Minister of Public Works on Friday last, he was to have made today?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Stale):: I regret to say that I will not be in a position to answer this question for a day or two, as I have not yet received all the information from the civil service commission.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance; but before so doing, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, as a freshman in the parliamentary class of 1945 along with the hon. gentleman, I want to extend to him this group's greetings and best wishes. I understand this is his 55th birthday. We wish him continued and abundant good health, but I want it distinctly understood that the wish does not apply to the body politic.


My question is this. In view of the fact that a Progressive Conservative candidate for the next federal election has stated that in Canada the dollar should be known as "the beaver" and that this change would benefit the tourist business, will the minister inform the house whether the government is giving consideration to such a change? If so, would this name be used as a symbol to represent the industry of the beaver or to represent a well-known historic face-saving device in the days of chivalry known as a beaver?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: First, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for his kindly remembrance, which I greatly appreciate. As to the question, may I say that the suggestion which appears to be its foundation is by no means new. It has been made in this house, as a matter of fact, more than once in the period that has passed since 1945, the date to which the hon. member referred; in practically every case, I think, by way of drawing attention to the fact that while the currencies of this country and the United States happen to have the same name, they are different currencies. Consequently there is no particular reason why it should be expected that they would be always quoted in terms of equal value.
So far as the government's intention is concerned, may I say that the government is giving thought to no such change as is proposed here.
I fancy that the reference in the final part of the question may have been lost on the younger members of the house, but having regard to the historic lore displayed by the hon. member in asking this question I think I should assure him that perhaps he and I could both profit by resort to the beaver as a head-saving and not merely a face-saving device.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN PROTECTIVE STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: understand that it would be improper for me to direct a question to the Speaker of the house, so I shall ask the Minister of Public Works to come to my aid.
Last May I drew attention to the number of week-end visitors to the House of Commons. Believing that the desire of the house was to encourage tourists, I asked whether consideration might be given to extending the hour of closing and increasing the number of the protective staff. Yesterday I understand there were 8,696 visitors to the house

and that five members of the protective staff tried to take care of them. I should like to know whether the minister would give consideration to my request.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for Trinity-Conception for asking the question. As an old parliamentarian he knows very well-although I can understand his asking me the question-that this is a matter within the sole purview of the Speaker. I am sure he will give the matter the attention which it deserves.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has yet received a report from the board of directors, of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited on the sale of the Stanrock uranium contract in Elliot Lake. If so, can he make any comment on that report?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker; I am awaiting a report.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Port Arthur asked a question of the Minister of National Defence or myself as follows, as reported on page 4080 of Hansard:
Has the development work on the Bobcat armoured vehicle reached the stage where serious consideration is being given to letting a contract for its production?
In reply to this question I wish to inform the hon. member that the Bobcat is at the last stage of development. We expect its development to be completed by early fall, and the government will then give serious consideration as to whether or not to go into production.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister say whether any of our NATO allies have agreed to purchase and use the Bobcat?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry FLOODS



FOLEYET, ONT.    STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last and again on Wednesday the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I had had any correspondence from the authorities at the village of Foleyet in connection with the flood disaster. Search made of my records up to Friday last indicates that no such message has been received.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue in his role as liaison officer for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My question is occasioned by charges of the united steel workers local 5662 of Elliot Lake that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has refused to accept press information from them critical of Rio Tinto and its move to a monopoly position on uranium contracts. Could the parliamentary secretary say whether this matter has been brought to the attention of the C.B.C. and what its reply may be?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the matters stated by the hon. member. I will make inquiries of the C.B.C. and report to the house in due course.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Might I ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Could the minister say when it is expected that the Sault Ste. Marie airport will be completed and ready for use? If he is unable to answer today the minister might give an answer at a later date.


George Harris Hees: I will look into that question and let the hon. member know.
4128	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development THE CENSUS



INQUIRY AS TO COMPLETION BEFORE NEXT ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In order to dispel persistent rumours which are circulating, can the Prime Minister give any assurance that the 1961 census will take place before the calling of the next federal election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might recall that the census is fixed by law, and that the other matter he raises is not the subject of questioning in parliament before the orders of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



LACK OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister gave the house his interpretation of the critical events which were evolving at that time, more particularly out of the failure of the great powers to sit in at what is called a summit meeting in the hope, which was shared by all of us, that such a meeting might have brought about an easing in international tensions.
The statement made by the Prime Minister in which he gave his interpretation of these events was warmly supported by every member of this house. Indeed, on that occasion we witnessed a unanimity of opinion and support not witnessed in this house since the present government took over the reins of office.
One regrets that in respect of current matters of a domestic character it is not possible to find any manifestation of anything like that measure of support. Particularly in so far as our domestic problems affect the maintenance of a high and stable level of income, there is no solid agreement except among those who sit on the treasury benches, supported by those sitting behind the ministers of the crown.
It would seem that at this time of disquietude in our country it is becoming gradually and increasingly acknowledged in this house and in this country that through the present government there is a want of


leadership which reflects itself in the character of our economic policies. I do not say there is no leadership, but the leadership does not come from the government of the day. The lack of leadership is demonstrated not only in the person of the right hon. gentleman who is the Queen's first minister, but it touches other departments of government. Certainly it touches the Department of Finance (Mr. Fleming) over which presides the present minister-an old friend, a classmate whom I am happy to congratulate today on his surprisingly young fifty fifth birthday.
It touches as well, of course, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and his department; it is not unrelated to the administration of national defence as reflected in the uncertain policy on defence that we have in this country. I cannot say that the demonstrations or the manifestations of lack of affinity in the case of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) are as apparent as they are in some other departments, but I will say to the Solicitor General that there are occasions-those few occasions when he speaks in this house-when one is not altogether confident about the kind of leadership he himself gives to the very weighty department of government for which he has the responsibility of administration.
As to the Department of Transport there are, of course, indications there too. In agriculture, having in mind the depressed state which prevails in this very important section of the Canadian economy, and having in mind the changes in policy that have been pursued by the minister in respect of his administration, I suppose we would not find it very difficult to suggest that the kind of leadership which the Canadian farmer expects has not been coming from him.
My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), who is a new minister and also an old friend, will not mind my saying about him and his administration that the unsatisfactory state of the government's housing policy is not such as to warrant any real feeling of confidence on the part of the Canadian people. I have already indicated on other occasions to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that the growing problem of unemployment in Canada is not such as to warrant a comfortable feeling, in so far as his department is concerned, or that the situation has been handled in accordance with commitments made by the administration. In his case I recognize at once, however, that the responsibility is so great that in all fairness it should be shared by the government as a whole.

Nevertheless it cannot be questioned that in respect of economic matters in this country, matters affecting our trade with other countries, the increasing level of imports, the growing problem of unemployment or the high level of unemployment, and the present state of the national income, the one single voice giving leadership in this country at the present time is not that of the government of the day but that of the governor of the Bank of Canada. That, in a democracy such as our own, is a serious reflection on the efficiency of the government.
The governor of the Bank of Canada has not been afraid to assess economic realities, actual and potential, as he sees them. He has regarded this assessment as part of his function. But his assessment has been accompanied by a tempered optimism as to the capacity of our people to meet the problems which now exist and those which lie ahead. In a memorable speech on May 12, at Hamilton, the governor of the Bank of Canada said, in the opening part of his statement:
I shall probably not make myself popular by remarking that all is not gold that glitters. It is not a pleasant task to talk about economic problems rather than successes, about difficulties and dangers rather than achievements and enjoyments, yet I suppose that at times this must be the function and the duty of a central banker. If we do not see the dangers and pay heed to them, we shall never reach the goal that shines so invitingly.
I am sure that no one knowing the responsibility of the Bank of Canada to parliament will fail to appreciate the honesty of this kind of approach to our problems. It will be charged, undoubtedly, that those in the opposition are guilty of preaching gloom throughout the country; that we are harbingers of doom and gloom-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen say hear, hear. All I can say is that we are in good company; we are in the company of the governor of the Bank of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, you are not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the government of the day feels that the governor of the Bank of Canada is not expressing its views, there are constitutional processes to which the government of the day can easily resort to remove any inconsistency in the administration of the Bank of Canada, or remove from any responsible office in that important institution, responsible to this parliament, those who express views on which the government of the day does not rely or in which it does not believe.
But the governor of the Bank of Canada is not alone in this position. He is supported by important public officials in the public
National Board on Economic Development service of Canada who serve this government and who serve the people; and I suggest that while the governor of the Bank of Canada was undertaking a series of important speeches in different parts of Canada, almost at the same time the Minister of Finance was making speeches in Vancouver and in Winnipeg. The difference in the tone and in the direction of those two speeches indicates that the Minister of Finance certainly does not fully share the point of view expressed by the governor of the Bank of Canada in the speech made on May 12 in Hamilton. If he does, he will have an opportunity to say so. Certainly the speeches made by him in this house in answer to that made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) during the budget debate, the speeches made by the Minister of Finance in the two cities to which I made reference a moment ago, do not support the view that he shares the concerns and the solutions of the governor of the Bank of Canada.
Therefore no one in the opposition can be said to have met his responsibility if in assessing our problems he does not make the same straightforward, courageous assessment, also providing at the same time his proposals as to what may be the remedies.
We will not correct the dangers which seem to be lurking ahead unless we know what those dangers are, and unless we are prepared to take courageous steps to meet them.
Our objective in this country must be to maintain a high and stable level of income, and to provide jobs for our people. No other objective will be worthy of our society. That is the objective as stated by the governor of the Bank of Canada. At pages 15 and 16 of the text of his speech, released by him, he said:
We can have economic growth without inflation, full employment without inflation, a rising standard of living without inflation, increased social services in various forms of government services without inflation, and a balance in our international accounts without inflation-and without unemployment. All this is within our own power to achieve.
That ought to be, if it is not, the objective of the government of this country. The government will find that the difficult situation which confronts us is actually a situation which well-known, knowledgeable individuals, who by training are in a position to comment on these matters, have indicated may confront us. The precedent to which I direct the attention of the government will be found in the white paper issued by the government of Canada prior to the end of the second world war, when the great concern was what kind of transition would be made from war to peace. It was suggested, and by many members in the house at that time, that once the
4130	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development war was over there would be a drop in the national income and we would see a repetition of the unemployment of the dark 1930's.
We know that after the war Canada enjoyed the most prosperous period in her history, with more men in the working force, more employment, a higher national income both in terms of the nation and of the individual citizen, than ever before; all during the period when our growing prestige among the nations of the world was widely recognized.
How was that achieved? It was achieved because the government of the day recognized that there were dangers ahead; that with the cessation of war there would be problems that would touch every department of government, as well as the citizens of this country. I examined the situation in anticipation, and it stated its objectives in the white paper, a copy of which I now have in my hand. This white paper is something for the government to look at now, in the face of the economic problems that confront Canada. In the fourth paragraph of that statement the government said:
The central task of reconstruction, In the interest of the armed services and civilians alike, must be to accomplish a smooth, orderly transition from the economic conditions of war to those of peace and to maintain a high and stable level of employment and income. The government adopts this as a primary object of policy.
Have we heard from this government since the last election any declaration of an objective in these bold terms? The government went on to point out in this white paper:
This goal cannot be achieved by legislation alone, nor by a single device or plan. In this, it is like the wartime stabilization program. Its attainment will require the effective working of a number of compatible policies, all directed to the same end, and each contributing to the success of the others.
Then at page 3 of this white paper will be found the plans which the government was going to follow to channel manpower and resources after the war was over in directions that would contribute to the economic enhancement of this nation and its people. Those purposes were carefully followed and the consequence was that the government, in co-operation with the people of Canada, was able to build up a high standard of living at the end of the most cataclysmic experience in the history of mankind instead of allowing to happen what followed in this and other countries at the conclusion of the first world war. The government said in the summary of its conclusions:
In this paper, the government has stated unequivocally its adoption of a high and stable level of employment and income, and thereby higher standards of living, as a major aim of government policy. It has been made clear that, if it is to be achieved, the endeavour to achieve it must pervade


all government economic policy. It must be wholeheartedly accepted by all economic groups and organizations as a great national objective, transcending in importance all section and group interests.
That statement is not unlike the words of the governor of the Bank of Canada, who enlisted the direction of the senior government and the other levels of government in co-operation with all groups in the nation in trying to meet the current economic problem and to arrest or deal with other economic dangers which he said lie ahead in the next ensuing period for this country. Have we had from this administration that kind of approach? We have not had from the Minister of Finance, from the Prime Minister or from any of their colleagues any indication that they look upon the problem as requiring this bold approach.
It cannot be because the government has not been advised by its own servants, perhaps the foremost among whom, next to the governor of the Bank of Canada, is Dr. Firestone, who confronted the government last October with an important statement in which he said, looking ahead to the immediate future:
-we can see a fair rate of increase in economic activity for 1960 and possibly 1961... If anything, the problems that we may be encountering as we go into 1962 may be more difficult to deal with than those we encountered in the post-war period. What I am implying is that the recession we may be facing in 1962 could be more extensive than anything we have yet experienced since the end of world war II-
It is true that the prognostication of this distinguished public servant does not, in so far as timing is concerned, harmonize with the observations made by the governor of the Bank of Canada or by certain other economic authorities in the country. But that was last October. There has been an acceleration of events noted by economic specialists which undoubtedly would warrant Dr. Firestone in timing his prognosis in accordance with events as they now confront us, and as seemingly they begin now to indicate an earlier arrival than was formerly the case.
But we do not only have the observations of those to whom I have already made reference. We have the observations of General Research Associates, directed by a gentleman who was at one time in the government service occupying a very important assistant post in the prosecution of economic studies involving forecasts and suggested remedies. I refer to such statements made in January of 1960, March of 1960 and April, 1960 all in the same vein. I now have before me the latest monthly business forecast of General Research Associates, whose references in the months of January, March and

April I have already alluded to. In the first paragraph on page 2 of this report there is this observation:
The leading business indicators as a group continue to reveal recession tendencies. Industrial common stock prices have moved seasonally and irregularly for the past four months, an indication of continued uncertainty.
Then in the fifth paragraph this is noted:
The pattern of the leaders as a group is one which precedes by no more than a few months significant declines in production, employment and other central measures of over-all Canadian business activity.
If this particular organization, General Research Associates, is to be given the respect and attention which it receives from most students of this situation, we have a right to ask the government whether it agrees with these danger signals it has pointed out, or whether the government has a different position. We have the right to ask, will the government tell us what its own private confidential reports indicate. Some of these reports the government has not hesitated to make public. One that was always regarded as confidential was trotted out on the floor of the house by the Prime Minister in 1958. It would be interesting to know from the Minister of Trade and Commerce what that so-called secret report indicates. What does the "Economic Outlook for 1960" indicate? Does it confirm the judgment of the governor of the Bank of Canada? Does it confirm the view of the gentlemen associated with General Research Associates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. This is a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. On such a motion it is open to any hon. member, of course, to rise to air a grievance; and if he has, as the hon. member for Essex East has, the opportunity of leading the debate, to introduce an amendment to express his view with respect to the grievance. But there must be a grievance. Otherwise, in my submission the type of discussion that is evidently being embarked upon is, it seems to me, quite apart from the course that is required by the rules in such situations.
What we have had so far has just been a repetition of the kind of speeches that were made by the hon. member and the Leader of the Opposition in the budget debate. Apparently we are just having a repetition of such speeches on this occasion. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that is quite out of order at this stage of the session. All these matters that have been mentioned so far were raised in speeches made in the budget debate. If the hon. member says this is just his introduction to his grievance, then with
National Board on Economic Development respect he has gone the long way around. Surely the proper course on an occasion such as this, particularly in the case of the first speaker, is to air his grievance and then, if he wishes, introduce his amendment; but he must air the grievance and not embark upon a general broadside touching everything in the whole realm of politics and economics on which he thinks he can lay his tongue when these matters have all been discussed in the budget debate. We had precisely this speech in the budget debate, and in my respectful submission it is quite out of order now to attempt a repetition of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, it is apparent how justified I have been in saying that the government did not fully appreciate the situation. This is clear from the remarks of the minister. The procedure that is open to the house now is one to which I will address myself, with the permission of the Minister of Finance, in my own time and in a form and manner that will meet the procedural requirements open to hon. members in this particular kind of debate. If my hon. friend is not now beginning to detect the grievance I have in my mind, as have so many other people in this country, the fault does not rest with me. I shall be moving a motion at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest to you it is apparent that the point of order raised by the minister is without validity.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I can intervene at this stage. The hon. member who has the floor is speaking in general terms and fairly broadly, but I assume he is coming to a conclusion. I think, until it has been disclosed, it is rather difficult to indicate that he is not relevant. As the Minister of Finance has said, there has been a good deal of repetition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing in our rules that would suggest that some repetition, in a debate of this kind, is not in order. I have already indicated where the points previously made have been stated. I have indicated the new material, including a speech by the governor of the Bank of Canada, in the monthly business forecast, and other statements to which I am going to refer. I would suggest to you, with confidence and with respect, that in this particular kind of debate one is not precluded-


Mr. Speaker:: I have not accepted the point of order, so the hon. member need not continue.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: What is important is whether or not one is traversing a decision which has already been taken by the house.
4132	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development
I was referring to the conclusion of the General Research Associates, and there is to be found in the June 4 issue of Maclean's magazine a further elaboration of this position by Mr. Beckett, the director of the monthly business forecast. He was asked certain questions in that issue of Maclean's magazine. I will not deal with all the questions, but I will deal with those that have relevancy to the point I have been making. Mr. Beckett was asked':
Will the next recession be the worst since the thirties?
His answer was:
I would say yes. Definitely.
Then he went on to point out that this is the result of having too rapid an expansion of capital goods for too long, over a period of 10 years. Then when he was asked about unemployment in terms of this particular situation he said:
I foresee it reaching 1.5 million.
This statement was not made during the budget debate but appeared in written form in Maclean's magazine, the issue of June 4. Further questions were proposed, and he said this about the situation:
It could be softened by a vast increase in government spending at all levels-including city redevelopment, new schools, highways, hospitals and houses.
The minister, or whoever replies for the government, will, I trust, address himself to this particular question and answer this distinguished economist. Are these facts correct? Does the government support the positions taken by these gentlemen? Does the government agree with the conclusion reached in the last issue of the bulletin put out by the congress of labour which says, on page 7:
Unless we run into some quite extraordinary good fortune or unless the government adopts some drastically new policies, we shall still this summer and fall have unemployment much heavier than in most post-war years, very much heavier than in the best post-war years.
Are these indications from these various sources true? What does the confidential document, which when I was in the Department of Labour was presented' to the minister twice a year, indicate as to the possibility of improving the present unemployment picture this summer? What are the prognostications for next fall and next winter? Are these not matters to which this house should be prepared to give its full attention? Are these matters not questions to which we have a right to ask the government to give us clear answers? Can there be any doubt as to the situation that confronts us in terms of the maintenance of a high and stable level of income? Is the situation not reflected in the


general economic conditions that prevail in the country, in the very high level of unemployment that continues to persist?
When we look at the current economic conditions, is it possible for anyone not to be concerned? There are still, of course, elements of strength. Our exports reveal that to be the case. These have been maintained at a high level during the first quarter of 1960, and we hope this trend will be maintained. But will they be maintained in the face of the new trading relations in Europe and the lack of a dynamic trade policy in Canada?
What about the agricultural sector of our economy? It is going through, admittedly, a new and difficult period. We note that in 1959 farm net income declined by more than 7 per cent, according to the Department of Agriculture. It will show a further reduction in 1960. Retail sales, which are considered to be a very good indicator of the rate of economic activity, have not shown any material increase in the first quarter of 1960 as compared with the first quarter of 1959. The dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin, issue of May 20, indicates that these sales have increased by about $8 million in the first quarter of this year as compared with last year, which in percentage terms is less than three tenths of one per cent.
Another sign of economic inactivity or of serious weakness in the economy is to be found in the field of housing. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, starts in construction of new residential units in the first quarter fell to 11,118 from 16,365 a year earlier. This represents a decline of 35 per cent. The impact of this decline is not limited to the construction industry. It is felt in industries supplying construction materials, and in numerous other industries producing durable consumer goods like furniture and electronic appliances. Moreover, the bureau of statistics, in its weekly bulletin of Friday, May 13, 1960 points out that the output of motor vehicles declined to 42,000 from 44,659 in the same month last year.
Another significant indicator of activity is Canada's railway systems. Here again there are elements of weakness portrayed. According to this bulletin, cars of railway revenue freight loaded on lines in Canada in the last days of April numbered 90,056 compared to 99,598 for a like period last year, bringing the month's total to 281,378 cars as compared with 307,745.
Then, of course, the serious weakness in our economy is reflected in the statistics on unemployment in this country. Normally we would have had, last Wednesday or Thursday, a further statistical report on the number of applicants for jobs, on the number of

persons without jobs and seeking work, and that would have been supplemented by the figure given the other day to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) as to the number of persons actually in receipt of unemployment insurance as of the last available date.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is, in essence, the same point of order I raised a moment ago. I think it must be clear now, Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose the hon. gentleman is seeking to serve by his speech. First, may I recall the true rule with respect to the raising of grievances on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. I refer to citation 234 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, at the bottom of page 198 and running over to the top of page 199:
When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance;
May I draw to your attention the fact that the expression used is "public matter", not "matters" in the plural; it is the redress of *"any grievance" not "grievances", in the one motion. We have a strict rule of debate, namely that when the debate has been launched on a particular grievance the course of debate cannot be diverted to another grievance, thus emphasizing the strict necessity of confining speeches on such matters to a particular grievance or a particular public matter.
But that is not at all the line which the hon. gentleman has been following. At point after point in his remarks this afternoon he has been touching upon matters which have already been debated in this house at the present session and on which debate has been concluded by a resolution of the house. He has mentioned housing. We have had a housing debate on a resolution, where this matter has been concluded. We have had discussions on unemployment and we have had motions on unemployment. The hon. gentleman is talking about unemployment. Let me go back to the debate on the speech from the throne and show what ground the hon. gentleman is now recovering in this shotgun approach of his today. On January 18, as reported at page 64 of Hansard, we find an amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the failure of the government to develop and enunciate clear and consistent policies or to provide full and accurate information, is a major cause of the confusion and uncertainty that prevails about national defence, public finance, agriculture, markets, employment and in other important areas of governmental responsibility.
National Board on Economic Development
Again in the budget debate, as reported at page 2873 of Hansard, the first amendment introduced on April 4 was as follows:
This house regrets that the financial policies of the government will produce a fourth consecutive over-all deficit in a year of "so-called prosperity", while at the same time offering no solution to the problem of rising prices, rising trade deficits, a continued high premium on the Canadian dollar, increased pressure on provinces and municipalities to borrow outside Canada, declining farm income, and high and rising unemployment.
You -will recall, Mr. Speaker, that objection was taken to the breadth of that amendment, in view of the broad and inclusive terms of the amendment to the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne on January 18. You permitted an amendment which reduced the number of references but left in those pertaining to high and rising unemployment. We had a similar subamendment on April 4, as found at page 2878 of Hansard.
It is quite obvious that the hon. member is conducting an abuse of the rules of the house by just making a shotgun speech in which he is touching on matter after matter which has already been concluded by a decision of the house at the present session, and is evading the point that has been raised head-on by refusing to state his particular grievance.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I say this is a highly irregular procedure. In introducing an amendment or speaking to a grievance on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply it is not open to an hon. member to scatter his shots over a great many subjects. Under the rules he is required to confine himself to a subject or a grievance. He is up against two rules. I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that he has broken both of them. First of all, he has been trespassing very much on matters that have already been decided by the house at the present session, and in the second place he has not been discussing a matter or a grievance as required by the rules.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I say a word on the point of order, Mr. Speaker? It seems to me that the hon. gentleman's position has no foundation or validity. In effect it would mean this. If we on this side wished to move a motion which would, for instance, recommend that some governmental machinery should be set up to deal with economic problems and condemn the government for not having taken this action previously, according to my hon. friend's contention we would not be able to discuss the necessity for that machinery in terms of the general economic situation in the country.
4134	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development
My hon. friend suggested that because we mentioned employment and unemployment in the debate on the speech from the throne, we are prevented from using unemployment or employment as an argument for advising the government to take a particular course of action which deals with this problem; and that is what the hon. member for Essex East is trying to do at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am considering how far the grievance procedure proper is applicable to the amendment which is customary on a motion for supply, that is to say whether the amendment must relate specifically to one grievance and be limited in its scope in that way. It certainly has not been the practice of the house, in dealing with amendments on motions for supply, to limit them as strictly as is done when grievances are discussed with no amendment before the house. Then one grievance at a time is aired and spoken to before another one is brought forward. But that does not preclude a particular grievance from being discussed on a motion to go into supply.
Whether what the Minister of Finance says about the application of that principle to the amendment itself and the discretion which precedes the amendment is correct is something about which I am not clear. I can contemplate an amendment that might be moved by the hon. member who has the floor which would require as a background something of the kind he has been laying. I am not sure that the subject should be approached differently. It is quite true-and this was my feeling before the Minister of Finance raised the point-that it seemed that we were hearing a debate which would have been entirely relevant and proper on the first amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition this year, namely the amendment on the throne speech, because the hon. member's remarks were along the line of that fairly wide amendment and were directly relevant to it.
However, I do not feel that I could tell the hon. member how to make his speech at this stage. He knows that it is not in order to redebate matters which have been closed. With that admonition I think I can just allow the matter to proceed and leave it to hon. members to rise on any specific item which they feel is improperly introduced into the discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we come to deal with my proposed amendment my hon. friend may address himself to the citation, which I will be prepared to meet. However, it is quite obvious that he is not so much concerned


about my shotput approach as he is about the shot that will come forward in the form of the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why not use a
rifle instead of a shotgun?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is known to have the capacity of raising all kinds of procedural questions in every matter which seemingly has to do with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member again that I have disposed of the question of order.


Peter Francis Martin: I also thought we had done so, Mr. Speaker, but I was just commenting that the Minister of Finance, on his birthday at least, ought to learn from time-honoured practice that the way to facilitate matters is not continually to obstruct. In any event, the Minister of Finance may find by the time he is confronted with the amendment that it is one that does not necessarily concern him. I am not suggesting that is the case, but I am anxious to have the hon. member in the house while I speak, even though the matter may perhaps be of concern to some of his colleagues as well or possibly to them exclusively. This mystery which I seek to create is designed only to have the Minister of Finance in the same room with me for as long as possible on the occasion of his birthday anniversary.
I was saying that normally we would have had the unemployment statistics for the last available month given to us last Wednesday or Thursday. I asked the Minister of Labour why they were not available and he said there were occasions-and this is a fact- when the statistics were not produced with the regularity which generally attends their release. In any event, whatever those figures are shown to be, we do know on the basis of the last figures that unemployment in Canada continues at a very high level. We also know that if regional indications are any barometer, if there is any improvement that improvement is not to be found generally throughout the country.
In the Moncton Times of May 17, 1960 at page 14 I find these figures. I presume the editor got his information by calling the local regional office. The number of live claims reported in that area for April 30, 1960 was 714,000, as compared with 610,000 on April 30, 1959. That represents an increase of
104,000	or 17 per cent. The number of unplaced applicants as of April 30 was given as 756,432 as compared with 661,000 as of April 30, 1959. That represents an increase of 95,000 or 15 per cent. If that is any indication, then whatever figures may be released later this week, or later still, will be an

indication that the situation continues to be serious. The fact is that the number of unplaced applicants in April, 1960 was higher than the number in April, 1958, which was considered to be the peak of the recession.
In the face of what the governor of the Bank of Canada has said about unemployment, I will show that the government is derelict in its duty in not coming forward, without invitation and without prodding, to give us a clear statement of the facts and of the policies which it proposes vigorously to pursue in order to meet this situation. The Leader of the Opposition stated some time ago that the causes of unemployment were not by any means one in number, that there were many causes of unemployment. Likewise I might say that there are many kinds of solutions which are available, some of them pointed out by the governor of the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member is now coming within the purview of what has been objected to. He is dealing with solutions to the problem of unemployment. I understood from him originally that he intended to direct himself to some criticism of the government for not dealing with the economic situation generally, which criticism he proposed to demonstrate by reference to various factors in the economy. However, it is not in order for him to go into detail on these various matters. If he is laying a background for a specific	amendment-and
perhaps he will indicate whether that is his intention-then any reference to matters already dealt with by the house should be only in the remotest way and not be a redebate of a resolution which has been before the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with great
respect to the points you have raised, if my hon. friend were prevented from dealing with the question of unemployment at this stage in order to found an argument as to why something should be done by the government with respect to the economic problems of this country, including unemployment, might I point out that in the session of 1955 this particular matter of unemployment was incorporated as a subject-not as part of a general debate but as a special subject- into three separate opposition amendments. One amendment was on the address, moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), calling specific attention to the government's failure to recommend necessary measures to solve the urgent problem of unemployment. Then there was a later amendment on a supply motion moved by the
National Board on Economic Development present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) which dealt specifically with the question of unemployment and condemned the government for not taking the necessary action. That amendment is recorded on page 358 of the House of Commons Journals for 1955.
Subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, an amendment to the budget was moved by the present hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) and seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), also condemning the government because in its budget proposals it had failed to meet various problems, the first failure which was itemized was a failure to give effective stimulus to Canadian enterprise in order to create employment.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that with that precedent the fact that we have discussed unemployment once, twice or three times in a general way should not preclude the hon. member from mentioning unemployment on this occasion as a prelude to a motion to condemn the government for not taking certain action.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member who has the floor is prepared to indicate what will be the subject of his amendment. It might facilitate settlement of this matter if he were able to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to comply with your request but I feel that before indicating the character of my amendment I should be allowed the widest latitude within the rules to lay the foundations for the proposal I have to make. The proposal which I have to offer does not in itself provide for a solution to the problem of unemployment; but under the rules of this house I am not precluded from mentioning, as a basis for what I have in mind, what I regard to be the kind of measures to which in this matter, and in other matters which I have in mind, the government might give consideration.
It is clear that the only precluding factor under our rules in a debate of this kind where members are privileged to raise, not only grievances but under citation 234 to discuss any public matter, is only if that matter has already been the subject of decision in this house during the present session of parliament. The amendment which I will propose does not touch on any matter which has been decided in this house. Only to that extent would I under our rules be precluded from carrying on the argument which I believe, in the national interest, I am entitled to carry on at this time.
4136	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point of order. Page 198 of Beauchesne's fourth edition makes this point very clear. Let me go back and read the sentence I read earlier:
When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance; provided that the discussion-
Note, the "discussion", not just the amendment.
-shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
The debate in such a case is limited by the rules respecting past decisions-
And so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, if due weight is given to that sound and recognized rule, it surely is clear that the discussion on this motion must not relate to any decision of the house made during the current session.
What does the Leader of the Opposition argue here? He says that in 1955 the word "unemployment" was mentioned in the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne; that it was mentioned later on a supply motion, and that the word "employment" was mentioned in the amendment to the motion to resolve the house into committee of ways and means.
Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly-and of course I have not the books here before me-it was when that second motion was introduced, the amendment to the supply motion, that Mr. Speaker Beaudoin raised the point as to whether the amendment was not so broad as to trespass upon a decision taken by the house on the original amendment to the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think that was the year and the occasion. As I say, I have not the books in front of me, but I well remember the Speaker of that day raising that point and expressing some doubt, and saying that thereafter he intended to be more strict with regard to amendments involving the use of words which might have been included in other amendments during the same session.
As far as previous cases of amendments being introduced in the same session are concerned, without having before me the full text of the amendments to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred may I say that what was justified there was on the basis that the amendment to the budget asked the house to pass censure on the government for failing to take certain specific measures in


the budget to create employment. Obviously it was thought at that time that there was a difference there.
However, Mr. Speaker, the rule is here. It is stated in the plainest terms in Beau-chesne and it has the whole sanction of history behind it.
I would just remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the language of the amendment introduced by hon. members opposite on April 4 in the budget debate, when they asked the house to express regret that the policies of the government had produced a number of results among which they included high and rising unemployment. The house declared itself on that amendment and disposed of it in due course.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman is a year older today, and that perhaps explains the fact that his memory has played him false. The occasion when the Speaker himself raised the question of the propriety of a resolution on unemployment was the third time, not the second time, this matter was raised in the house. On the second occasion it was on a supply motion. There was no question raised on the government side or by the Speaker as to the propriety of that motion, or as to whether it was in order. It was accepted, I understand, without any question being raised as to its propriety even though the subject of unemployment had been mentioned in the amendment to the address. It was on the third occasion that the Speaker himself raised the question of whether a third motion on unemployment-after two specific questions of this kind had been discussed and decided

was in order. He said that he had some doubts on the matter, but nevertheless he would let the motion stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I have regarded the speech which the hon. member for Essex East has been making as one which intended to raise a question relating to the general state of the economy. On that ground he was advancing the various indices and indicators which would support his view as to the state of the economy. In these circumstances I do not think I could limit the hon. member, on the basis that he is coming to an amendment which deals with that subject and which he presumably considers he can make having regard to previous amendments which have been introduced.
However, when I intervened a minute ago it seemed to me he was then endeavouring to debate unemployment as a question in itself rather than referring to it as an indicator of the state of the economy-suggesting solutions, and so forth-which to my mind would be wrong because of the

decision of the house on the budget amendment. The hon. member's use of these indicators of the economy should be by way of illustration and not as debates within a debate, and I do find some authority to support the view which the Minister of Finance has taken.
In the same year that has been mentioned, 1955, at page 3790 of Hansard, when the motion to go into committee of supply was moved, the Speaker expressed concern in these terms:
What I am concerned about is that we should not deviate from what has been the practice with respect to the raising of grievances. It must be a specific grievance. According to the remarks the hon. member for Prince Albert has just made in explanation of what he intends to bring forward, he wants to deal with markets generally and the loss of markets for farm products and then, although he has already dealt with wheat, he wants to deal with the south Saskatchewan dam. He has just indicated he wants to deal with that point because that is the point to which the editorial in the Regina Leader-Post has reference. Furthermore, he wants to deal with the low incomes with which the farmers are now being faced. Maybe the hon. member is going to conclude his remarks with an amendment to the motion to go into supply. That would certainly specify the grievance he has in mind.
If he is not going to terminate his remarks with such an amendment, then I am afraid I must say he can always deal with these various other subjects when other motions to go into supply are presented. At this moment, however, it would not be proper to initiate another budget debate, and it is certainly contrary to our practice not to have a specific grievance raised at this point.
That was the decision in a similar situation. I have not complained about the hon. member developing an argument about the state of the economy, but I think he should have regard to the fact that it should lead to and relate to a specific matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank Your Honour for the care you have given to the consideration of this matter, and I am sure you appreciate the position which I take, the position which has been so well stated by my leader. This is one of the time-honoured traditions of parliament; an occasion on which, under our practice and according to our traditions, a motion of this sort is open to the widest form of debate providing it does not touch on any previous decision of this house. I assure Your Honour that what I am going to say-and I regret that the Minister of Finance has found it necessary to interrupt me on two occasions; however, that is his privilege-will not transgress that rule. As Beauchesne points out in citation 234:
The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances shall be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada

And it is an ancient doctrine, the most treasured right of this parliament. The words of Beauchesne are:
National Board on Economic Development
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays as provided by standing orders 56 and 58. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter-
I am now discussing a very important public matter.
-within the powers of the federal parliament-
This matter, and these matters, are within the powers of the federal parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: "These matters"; that is it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It goes on:
-or to ask for the redress of any grievance-
It is not that I must express a grievance. There is an alternative. I can express a grievance or discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament.
-provided that the discussion shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session-
I can give you my assurance that what I have in mind by way of an amendment does not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates. In the words of Beauchesne, again:
-nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
What I have in mind by way of amendment does not touch any of these things. What I am now seeking to do is to establish, after careful consideration, the basis for the course that we propose should be taken in this house with regard to the matters that I have discussed. My hon. friend said "matters" a while ago as though that mattered.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly-


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I may conclude, Your Honour may have been diverted by my suggestion when I said there were many kinds of unemployment and many kinds of solutions. I would suggest, Your Honour, that even that would not preclude the right to suggest consideration of proposed methods of dealing with a particular situation which we have discussed.
I do not intend to argue the point of procedure any further. I am prepared to, and am well prepared to, because we have anticipated this very objection on the part of the Minister of Finance, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, but it seems to me there need be no further argument on the point.
What I was seeking to establish, Mr. Speaker, before my dear and hon. friend,
4138	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development who obviously, is carried away today on his birthday anniversary, made his intervention-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds, as he discussed the point of order further after I had indicated a view I just want to recall to his mind that although what he says is perfectly sound, that supply is the great opportunity of the commons to express its grievances before authorizing money for the administration, we have provided in our rules six supply motions, and it certainly was not intended that each motion could cover the same ground. Therefore, there are limits. If the hon. member will recognize that there are limits and try to direct his remarks to his amendment and proceed in that way I think we can get along.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think there are no difficulties. Your last words would, I am sure, if strictly interpreted, have to be redefined in the light of citation 234. If there is any repetition of the decision already taken, then I am out of order, but only within that context of the amendment referred to by my hon. friend. It does not in any way, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, touch the point because no decision has been taken on the matter to which I will ask the house to give attention when I have finished what I have to say.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, there are many kinds of unemployment: Frictional, seasonal unemployment, structural unemployment, technological unemployment, unemployment caused by international trade. At this time we have a right to inquire whether the government at any time has given us a careful indication of the character of seasonal unemployment. Certainly the present level of unemployment in Canada does not represent in its entirety seasonal unemployment. But we have unemployment, and this has to be faced, along with other questions, as the governor of the Bank of Canada has recognized. There are solutions for this problem which have not been taken, or certainly which have not been discussed by the government.
We have been told recently in another place about fraud in our employment service. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Thrasher) indicated that that exists and has pointed out the difficulty of eradicating it. I say to the administration that if that is so, no matter how difficult it is it must be the responsibility of the government of Canada to take steps to see that those situations are corrected.
With respect to technological unemployment, we must recognize that our national employment service must be brought up to


its highest possible point of efficiency. We must see to it that the employers of our country fully use this service, if they are not doing so now; we must see to it, in order to make this service the kind of force which the situation now requires in Canada, that our national employment service officers are adequately remunerated to do this very important job.
We have had no indication from the government as to what steps it is prepared to take in the matter of the proper location of industries, such as is being done in England. Those are considerations which at some time or other, if this problem referred to by the governor of the Bank of Canada and others is going to be met, will have to be dealt with.
Are we satisfied to the extent that seasonal employment is a cause that we are taking every step that should be taken to meet this problem? We were told two years ago that the Department of Labour was undertaking studies in the matter of seasonal unemployment to determine its character, to determine remedies. We have never had those studies, and if rumour is correct those studies are not directed toward a proper appreciation of the problem.
At the present time there are thousands of university students, many of them trained, who could be utilized to assist in this important work, a job that was undertaken in the United States and in Great Britain within the last year and half. There are suggestions for reducing seasonal unemployment. There were suggestions made by the congress of labour in the last bulletin which was issued a few days ago. The bulletin embodies suggestions which we have a right to ask the government to consider and tell us whether it has considered them and what its comments are, because if one can accept the logic of the representations made by the congress of labour, they do provide what seem a priori to be solid contributions and solutions.
What does the Minister of Finance think, for instance? What do the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) think about the suggestions made by that body for lowering interest rates on winter construction? What do they think about the suggestion of grants to induce municipalities to carry out construction in winter rather than in other seasons? What about the suggestion of higher depreciation rates on winter projects? What about winter exemptions on building materials from sales tax? What about subsidies to individuals and to firms, municipalities and provincial governments which undertake to do what the national government has been urging?

Those are matters which are put to us for the first time by way of suggestions. We have the right to know whether these matters are being considered, or is the problem being allowed to run its course, and is the government's approach one of relaxed interest?
This is not going to provide the solution in this very difficult period, as the governor of the Bank of Canada points out. I make the suggestion that not enough consideration has been given to the possibility of a special capital investment program in depressed areas.
We have a situation in this country at the present time where we have an exceedingly high level of unemployment despite our proximity to the business cycle peak. Production is at a high level; there is no denying that. Hon. gentlemen sitting on the ministerial benches may refer to that as an achievement, may refer to that as an indication of prosperity. Alongside that is the anomalous fact that in spite of high production there is great unemployment, unemployment which persisted during this year, in 1959, 1958 and in 1957. Employment has not responded in spite of this increase in productivity. We now have a hard core of unemployment, coupled with repetitive seasonal unemployment of substantial proportions, more in this country, according to figures, than is known in any other country in the western world but one, even if one recognizes the different indices and standards which are applied. Incidentally, it is of interest to know that our D.B.S. standard, plus the number of temporary layoffs, is closer to the international labour office standards than any other.
But this problem is not going to solve itself. This problem is not going to be solved unless this government asserts the kind of leadership represented by the courage and the assessment made by the governor of the Bank of Canada, as I hope to show in examining some of the remarks that he makes.
The national problem of unemployment in Canada is aggravated by regional unemployment. The problem, although national in scope, is largely regional in its severity. Our national manpower is being inefficiently utilized. The nation is being deprived of products which could have been produced if our labour force had been fully employed during this period. To correct this situation would involve cost. This is met by the governor of the Bank of Canada in these memorable words which he used in this speech on May 12. Here is what he had to say:
The cost of unemployment and of measures to promote increased employment are real, and must be borne by someone. There are non-inflationary methods to deal with this, if the people of Canada are prepared to share the cost. Such methods 79951-0-261
23, 1960	4139
National Board on Economic Development
must all turn on the same basic principle. In one way or another, those of us who are employed must contribute out of our resources to help share the cost of unemployment and to help create conditions in which greater employment opportunities will be available within Canada. The question of maintaining a viable economic structure in different regions of Canada as well as in different industries within Canada is also one which calls above all for a sharing of burdens and opportunities. The cost that must be shared, the price that must be paid in the short run, in order that we may all be better off in the long run, and in order that we may all remain Canadians in the long run, is not in my opinion a very high price, but obviously it is more likely to be voluntarily accepted and undertaken-
This is what I am seeking to do.
-if we all know and study and face up to the facts, and reach a broad measure of agreement on what we want to achieve and what methods are best calculated to bring about the desired achievement.
I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the speeches made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in Vancouver and in Winnipeg did not touch on this theme. I say at this time that the Minister of Finance, who now finds this somewhat of a laughing matter, must either accept the conclusions of the governor of the bank or repudiate them and resort to the necessary constitutional practices so that in his service and the service of the nation will be those who share his ideas and the ideas of the government of Canada. My hon. friend has not made one reference in any of his speeches to the problem of unemployment. He completely ignored it in Winnipeg, he completely ignored it in Vancouver, and he passed over it in a very cavalier way in the budget speech he made in the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the governor of the Bank of Canada does not overlook the regional aspects of this problem. He said at page 18 of this speech, and I commend this to the Minister of Finance:
And Canada can only be strong and meaningful in terms of national identity if each of its main economic regions is likewise enabled to develop and maintain a healthy economic structure as the varying circumstances of time and place may require.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with that? Does he recognize now what are the facts that are gradually being exposed? The unemployment problem in the maritime provinces is, of course, a manifestation of the national problem, but here are the figures that are given now and which reflect a seriousness that we do not all appreciate. We now find calculations made which show that in January, February and March 75,000, 83,000 and 85,000 people were without jobs and seeking work in that area. This represents 13.6 per cent, 15.2 per cent and 15.9 per cent of
4140	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development the region's labour force. In the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia the total volume of industrial employment has decreased in absolute terms in the period 1956 to 1959.
Then we find that in the province of Quebec, one of the regions where unemployment is greatest, unemployment in March, 1960 was 12,000 higher than in March of 1958. In that province during January, February and March of this year the number of persons without jobs and seeking work was 192,000, 242,000, and 236,000, representing
11.0	per cent, 13.3 per cent and 13.6 per cent respectively in those three months, people who were unemployed and seeking work.
There are, of course, other areas of unemployment in the country. There are several pockets in relatively prosperous regions. According to the latest figures published in the Windsor Star on Friday last, my own city of Windsor still has some 9,000 persons seeking jobs, and that situation has prevailed in that community on an even higher scale during the past three to four months. One recognizes how fortunate we in this country are to have had developed a scheme of social welfare and economic assistance through social measures without which the purchasing power of these unemployed would be negligible, and without which it would be the obligation of every citizen of this country out of their taxes to maintain body and soul, for these people. Under these social measures all of them are now able to be maintained as a matter of right, although one does not forget that last year there was imposed on the unemployment insurance fund a responsibility that belonged to the nation as a whole.
I asked the Minister of Finance the other day whether or not any loans had been made to the unemployment insurance fund and his reply was in the negative. I will admit that he readily corrected himself the next day and pointed out that the Bank of Canada had lent moneys to the unemployment insurance commission-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say the
Bank of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -$4 million on April 19, $12 million on April 25 and $3 million on April 29, and the minister also indicated that requests for an additional $19 million had been put forward. I would remind the Minister of Finance, as an indication of the economic situation to which I have been directing my attention, that last year was the first year in the history of Canada that the Bank of Canada or the government of Canada, as my friend wishes, was


called upon to lend any money to the unemployment insurance fund. The minister is about to correct me but that is the fact. Last year was the first time there had to be any bolstering of the fund by the Bank of Canada on the authorization of the investment committee and the Minister of Finance.
When the minister was replying the other day he said that the fund will be in balance in the month of June. I make this statement to the minister. Having in mind that last year some $78 million by way of additional contributions was imposed upon the workers and employees of Canada to bolster the fund, an increase from 25 to 55 per cent on the average without providing any increase in the pattern of benefits, if we are confronted next year with anything like the kind of unemployment we have had this year then it will mean that there will not be enough money in the fund to provide the assistance which has been contracted out to the contributors to the fund. That is a serious situation when we take into account the fact that in December, 1956, the fund amounted to $924 million; on March 31, 1957, $874,574,000; on March 31, 1958, $744,200,000; on March 31, 1959, $499,811,000; and on March 31, 1960, $359,949,000. If these figures, brought up to date with the additional information provided by the government, are not a reflection of the economic weakness that prevails at the present time, then I should like to know what is.
We have put before this government proposals. They have all been passed over by the administration. Included in those proposals, which were never voted upon, never were put forward in the form of motions and let us understand that procedurally, were two which embodied proposals made by this government when its leading members were sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker. The government passed over them. The government has refused to act on them.
We urged the setting up in this house of a parliamentary committee to examine these related problems, but that opportunity was not given to us. Instead one aspect of this problem has been referred to a group of experts to try to find some device, which incidentally would have the effect of creating less embarrassment for the government, as a result of which some satisfactory, acceptable figure of unemployment might be given to the country. We have yet to hear as to the progress made by this group, although time marches on.
But, on the other hand, an opportunity has been given for some group outside to study and report upon the trend in manpower requirements and utilization in Canada, with the object of exploring the

possibilities of maintaining and extending a high level of employment and without restricting the opportunity of that group of reporting upon the growth of the economy and all the other factors influencing employment opportunities, including particularly technological changes and the growth of the Canadian labour force. It is an effrontery to this house that the government should have allowed one of its spokesmen elsewhere to prosecute that kind of study, having denied that right to the representatives of the people, chosen in election, who sit in this house.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker,-this was not touched upon by motion, either-there is a standing committee in this house known as the industrial relations committee. This committee has been organized, one meeting has been called and a chairman has been selected. There has not been one meeting of that committee held since that organizational meeting. As a member of the committee I proposed that we ask the House of Commons to give the committee power to investigate the problem of unemployment. The motion was put and every member sitting behind the treasury benches voted against the proposal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it lawful, Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the house to make a reference to the proceedings of a committee which has not reported to the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has reported; the committee did report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us have the report.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that on another count the hon. member is quite out of order. What he is saying appears to me to be a reflection on the vote in committee. It is not in order for an hon. member to do that.


Peter Francis Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; you are quite right in that. I am sorry I did. The fact is there was a report. Not only was a report made, but there was an incident which took place in the house based on that report to which I should like to direct the attention of my vigilant friend, the Minister of Finance.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) moved that that committee be empowered to study the standards of measurement of unemployment. At the chairman's request that motion was suspended and not voted upon. The chairman said he wished to give the matter further consideration. Some weeks later in this house the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, exercising an undoubted but unusual privilege, put a question 79951-0-261*
23, 1960	4141
National Board on Economic Development to the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small), on the orders of the day. He asked the chairman when the committee would meet so that the particular motion could be dealt with, and the hon. member for Danforth replied in the best ministerial manner, that he would give the matter further consideration. Nothing has been done since. The committee is set up to work, but is not doing anything. We have been denied the right to use that vehicle to study the most important single domestic problem facing the people of Canada, the problem of unemployment.
The matter does not rest there. The congress of labour, through its president, in the month of January suggested at a board of trade meeting in Toronto that the time had come when government, industry and labour should confer together on problems of common interest. I asked the Minister of Labour several times if he would convoke such a conference. I was always able to receive from the minister polite replies, but the government never met the suggestion. I put this question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), and it will be found on page 616 of Hansard for February 2, 1960, early in the session:
The Prime Minister will recall that I asked this question myself ten days ago. Will the Prime Minister now say whether or not the government has given consideration to this proposal made by the president of the congress of labour three weeks ago when he spoke to the board of trade meeting in Toronto?
The Prime Minister answered:
The answer is no.
That was with regard to a matter, I say again, which touches the most important single domestic problem in our country. We have urged repeatedly, not by way of a motion, on the government and on the Minister of Labour in particular to call such a conference, but without any success. I was pleased but astonished when on Friday last in reading the Ottawa Citizen I noticed a report of a speech made by the Minister of Labour. Here is the speech as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of May 20, and the heading is, "Starr Asks Three-Way Market Bid":
Gananoque, CP: Labour Minister Starr Thursday night called on labour, management and government to consult together to maintain a competitive position for Canada in world trade.
I do not know whether or not that is an announcement of policy. I hope the Minister of Labour secured authorization to say that. We certainly will back him up because that is something we have been contending for and urging upon the Prime Minister and others, something that labour itself has been
4142	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development asking, that the national chamber of commerce has been asking. Surely the Minister of Labour will now take advantage of his own proposal which confirms what we have been urging all through this session, so that at long last these questions might be put on a co-operative basis in order to try to find some procedural way of determining what steps should be taken to meet the serious problems that confront us, of which unemployment is but one.
The minister referred to the competitive position of Canada and that obviously is a very important matter. No decision can be taken which adversely affects the income position of labour without giving labour an opportunity of discussing its position with government and with industry. Nothing but good can come out of this suggestion. I should like to say that the Leader of the Opposition suggested in 1958, when speaking about the same problem of unemployment and the indications of a recession, the establishment of an advisory board with representatives from labour, industry, agriculture and the univer-problems of production and employment.
I now, as spokesman in this instance for my party, with the Leader of the Opposition sitting by and with whom I have discussed this matter as I have with my colleagues, urge the government to set up such a board on economic development to assist the government in prosecuting the problems which have been underlined by the governor of the Bank of Canada and which, in some instances, have not been recognized by the government of the day. That proposal was consistent with the suggestion made in 1957 by the Gordon commission which reported as follows:
We believe it might be helpful if a body of experts were established (along the lines of the council of economics advisers to the President of the United States), whose function it would be to inform the government of changes which might be thought desirable in economic policy in order to ensure a high level of employment without inflation.
Then we have supporting the position we are taking the recommendation made by the mayors of Canada at their last meeting which was held in Chicago. In the London Free Press of May 12 an article headed "Overwhelming Support Given by Delegates" reads in part as follows:
The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities yesterday called upon the federal government to appoint an impartial board of inquiry or royal commission to investigate unemployment in Canada.
I would go further and make that kind of body a permanent agency of government including, I would hope, in its personnel the governor of the Bank of Canada, so that they could address themselves as the governor did in another statement in his speech to which
tMr. Martin (Essex East).]

I have made so much deserving reference and which does not seem to capture the sympathetic interest of my dear friend the Minister of Finance on his fifty fifth birthday. That statement which will be found at page 18 reads as follows:
Although we have our difficulties and problems, let us not forget that we are capable of providing Canadians in all parts of Canada with a way of life which even in economic terms need be second only to that of the richest and most powerful nation in the world, and in Canadian eyes and taking account of non-material values as well, second to none. We do not have to choose between poverty-stricken independence and some form of economic colonialism, either for Canada as a whole or for any of the regions of Canada. If we put Canadianism in the forefront of our economic and social thinking, and recognize each other as fellow Canadians, if we co-operate and share, we can be both independent and wealthy, even as the world measures wealth. If we are sufficiently determined to pay our own way and make our own place in the world, all Canadians in every part of Canada can achieve productive employment, with an ever-widening range of modern industrial and scientific occupations available to them, and can maintain a standard of living and way of life which in the sum of all its aspects will be capable of satisfying the highest aspirations of the human spirit.
Those are the words that should be uttered by a Prime Minister or by a Minister of Finance if they are prepared seriously to acknowledge the prognosis referred to by men who are regarded as experts in this field, some of whom are now serving the government and the people of Canada in our public service.
For all of these reasons has the time not come-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, to introduce the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -for this government to rouse itself from its lethargy, to abandon this policy of laissez faire-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is Liberal policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and to approach this matter with vigour consistent with the promises given to the people of Canada when they were promised a new economic era for the unemployed, for the farmers and for the other groups in our country. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Des-chatelets) I move the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house recommends for the consideration of the government the immediate setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives of governments, industry, labour, agriculture and universities, for the purpose of developing economic policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment."


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister wish to comment on this proposal?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to submit to you that this amendment is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even if the amendment were in order, the terms of the amendment will have made out of order about 90 per cent of the speech of the hon. member for Essex East. He has chosen-as I suggested earlier he was doing-to go ahead making a speech and to defy the rules of the house as he proceeded and then indicated he was going to move an amendment to which it would be relevant.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Harkness:: The minister is speaking on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is speaking on a point of order. If there is a matter of privilege intervening, of course I will hear it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is quite evident that about 90 per cent of what the hon. member has been saying in his lengthy speech this afternoon is not relevant to this amendment at all. However, he has gone ahead. He has in effect defied the Chair by discussing things that have been decided by the house previously.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time. I do not mind it when my hon. friend discusses points of procedure or points of order. But what my hon. friend likes to do- and he is obviously doing it now-is to indulge in personalities. I have not sought to defy the Speaker and it is not open to my hon. friend, even when he reaches his fifty fifth birthday, to make that allegation.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the minister is rising to deal with the point of order as to the relevancy of this amendment and not as to the relevancy of what was said prior thereto.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has a bearing on the amendment as well. I have something to say about the relevancy of the remarks.
In my submission this amendment is clearly out of order on several grounds. In the first place, what is provided for under the practice of the house is an amendment that states a grievance. It must be something that in its terms purports to complain of something the government should do, a grievance that is
23, 1960	4143
National Board on Economic Development entertained because the government has done or not done something. That is not the form of this amendment at all.
It is quite obvious that the hon. gentleman, faced with the amendments introduced earlier by the opposition, particularly the one of April 4, has sought to set up something that will just be outside the scope of that amendment. However, what he has done in effect is not to set up a grievance. He has advocated a course of action. This is not a grievance; he is proposing a course of action.
In the second place, no such board as is proposed here by way of a recommendation can be set up, it seems to me, without incurring an expenditure. The hon. member is asking the house to recommend for the consideration of the government the setting up of this board. He is asking to put the house on record on a course of action which will inevitably involve the expenditure of money. In my respectful submission, even with the use of the word "recommendation", this amendment is not in order.
I submit to you that what the hon. member has proposed in his amendment is a course of action which relates to the very substance of the earlier amendments, particularly the one on April 4. There the house was asked to put itself on record as regretting certain financial policies which had resulted in high and rising unemployment and many other things. This matter has been discussed. After all, all these matters referred to in the amendment have been discussed time and again at this session, and we have it brought up again now.
On May 17, 1955 Mr. Speaker Beauchesne said, as reported on page 3868 of Hansard:
I would urge hon. members to realize that at this moment we are debating a motion to go into supply with the Speaker in the chair, and we are supposed to raise genuine grievances, not to repeat points which have been raised time and again since the beginning of the session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. minister give me the citation and the page? I have asked him twice but he has not acknowledged my request.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gave it but the
hon. member was not listening.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was the page of Beauchesne?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not talking about Beauchesne. I am reading Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member said Beauchesne and I asked him for the quotation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; I am quoting Mr. Speaker Beaudoin, not from Beauchesne.
4144	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development


An hon. Member:: You said Mr. Speaker Beauchesne.


Peter Francis Martin: I am sorry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was quoting page 3868 of Hansard May 17, 1955.
As I have said, the hon. member is approaching this question today with a shot gun. Mr. Speaker Beauchesne-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker
Beaudoin, as reported on page 2523 of Hansard for March 29, 1955, in referring to an hon. member said:
He may speak on any subject whatever, but only once. He cannot raise two or three grievances.
That is what the hon. member has been doing for the last hour and a half, raising a multiplicity of grievances. Now he brings in something to which probably not more than 5 per cent or being generous to him 10 per cent at the most of his remarks can claim to be relevant at all, and then what he brings in is not an amendment which is in order under the rules of the house.


Peter Francis Martin: Would Your
Honour like me to give you at this time my view about the matters under discussion?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Peter Francis Martin: I should have thought it was clear that the minister was indulging in a form of procedural intervention not so much for the purpose of having clarification but because he has referred to some of the things I said, again exhibiting that his main purpose is not the projection of all-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is just going into the same kind of tactic which he raised as a grievance against the minister, and I must warn him that he is not in order.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I accept the warning but I would observe that the Minister of Finance is apparently more successful in being able to do that than I am.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Peter Francis Martin: That is a fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member intends that as a reflection on my conduct of the proceedings, I would hope he would modify it.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I intended that of course not as a reflection on Your Honour but as a reflection on the minister who did seek to debate the substance of what I have said. Whether he accepts what I say is a matter for argument;


but to suggest that it is irrelevant is the very subject of the present procedural discussion before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is not allowed to reflect on another hon. member.


Peter Francis Martin: The minister
keeps talking about a grievance. We are not raising a grievance. The hon. member has apparently not understood what the citation from Beauchesne is intended to convey. Citation 234, as I as well as the minister have already quoted several times, provides:
When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance-
That is the alternative.
There is before the house an amendment which calls upon the government to give consideration to certain matters, but we are not proposing ourselves to set up a committee. We have no power to set up a committee and consequently no expenditure is involved under this particular amendment. All we are asking the government to do is to consider the immediate setting up of a national advisory board, et cetera. If the government decides it will come in with a resolution, it will make the proposal for the expenditure of money. This is merely a request in the form of an amendment in the time-honoured manner of asking the government to give consideration to a procedure which we believe would be one way by which the problems discussed in my statement could be considered for their validity or otherwise.
It is clear that what Speaker Beaudoin was referring to was something that involved a matter which had already been attended to by way of decision. The amendment now before the house is something that has not been proposed formally in this house this session. As far as I know, I am not aware of its having been proposed at any time in parliament. It has been proposed now for the first time, and the substance of the amendment is the setting up of machinery to discuss a number of matters, namely to set up a national advisory 'board on economic development and automation with representatives of government, and so on. But I repeat, the substance of the motion is to set up such a body.
The hon. minister speaking on the amendment says that this point has already been dealt with. With great respect I would point out to Your Honour that in the amendment moved on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the word "employment" was mentioned as one of five fields about which confusion and uncertainty prevailed. It was

not the substance of the motion. There has been no decision in this house this session on the question of unemployment. But that is not the substance of my amendment. My amendment does not deal with the question of unemployment as such; it deals with the setting up of a committee to study a number of problems of which unemployment is one. The words "high and rising unemployment" were used in the budget amendment as one of four problems for which the budget offered no solution. But the very language of that amendment is clear. It is: "This house regrets that the financial policies of the government will produce a fourth consecutive over-all deficit in a year of so-called prosperity". The amendment was an expression of regret, at the same time offering no solution to the problem of rising prices, rising trade deficits, and so on. So that if we accept, as I think Your Honour will on consideration, that this particular amendment is one that deals with the setting up of an advisory committee, there can be no doubt about the validity of the amendment and that it is in order.
As I indicated, citation 234 (1) sets forth what may be discussed on such a motion. The main question arising from this citation is whether the amendment now being proposed relates to any decision of the house during the current session. That is the procedural point which will interest Your Honour.
In this connection I would like to go further than the hon. minister. I would like to examine the authorities to show how fallacious is the position he has taken. I refer Your Honour to citation 191 (3) of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
The question Is the subject matter of the motion, and on the merits of that subject matter the House has to give a decision either unanimously or by the majority of the members present. The Speaker proposes the question in the words of the mover. When the motion has been seconded it merges in the question which is read by the Speaker, after which the house is in possession of the question and must dispose of it. Every question when agreed to assumes the form either of an order or a resolution of the house. By its orders the house directs its committees, its members, its officers, the order of its own proceedings and the acts of all persons they concern; by its resolutions the house declares its own opinions and purposes.
It must be noted that the opinions and purposes which it declares are not ones involving any expenditure of money. They are merely calling upon the administration to give consideration to certain matters.
Then there is citation 194:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the house. This rule applies to the decision taken on amendments
National Board on Economic Development
to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. A question once put cannot be altered by the member moving it, without the consent of the house. The reconsideration of a question already decided is not allowed under British parliamentary practice, but it prevails in many public bodies and societies. A resolution may however be rescinded, i.e. it may be made void and of no effect. A question once put cannot be altered by the member moving it, without the consent of the house.
These citations together clarify the meaning of the word "question". The main consideration is the substance of the amendment and not its appendices, or matters which are merely incidental to it. One could have left out any reference to a high and stable level of income and employment without in any way affecting the substance of the motion. One could certainly have left out the word "employment" without in any way affecting the substance.
It is apparent that at no time in the current session has this house reached a decision on setting up a board of the kind proposed. To deny this amendment would be to take away from the opposition the right to seek a decision on this matter by an amendment of this character. The Minister of Finance, in the budget debate, attacking the validity of our amendment, quoted citation 148(1) of Beauchesne which reads in part:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded-
The hon. gentleman made reference to that, but that does not mean anything. What is significant is this: what do we mean by the word "concluded"? The question is: when is a debate concluded? The answer to that is provided in citation 120 which states that a debate is concluded when a decision is reached by the house. I will read citation 120 because it surely will convince Your Honour, if that is now required, as to the soundness of the position which we have taken. Citation 120 reads as follows:
The proceedings between the rising of a member to move a motion and the ascertainment by the chair of the decision of the house constitute a debate, and this process affords an opportunity for, and usually involves, discussion, although a decision may be reached without discussion. The interval between the proposing and the putting of the question, which is usually used for discussion, gives an opportunity tor further proceedings such as the moving of an amendment; and this may give rise to a subsidiary debate, with its own question and decision, within the principal debate.
And then:
Debate arises when a question has been proposed by the Speaker and before it has been fully put. A question is fully put when the Speaker has taken the voices of the ayes and the noes.
Thus it should be stressed that the substance of the amendment before the house is the creation of a board to develop economic
4146	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development policies, and though unemployment and income are mentioned, these are incidental references within the amendment and do not constitute its substance. For this simple reason this matter, under our rules and under the citations to which I have referred, does not come within the mischief of the word "conclude".
I submit these representations to Your Honour confident in the belief that you will recognize their validity. They are founded on precedent and they are supported by our practice.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member one question? The use of the word "employment" at the end of the proposed amendment in conjunction with the proposal for the consideration of the setting up of the committee raises in my mind the possibility of a repetition of the debate on the amendment proposed during the debate on the budget which related to the financial policies of the government and their effect on unemployment. Has the hon. member any comment to make on that, because I would consider this to be a repetition of that debate, on which a conclusion was reached by a decision to negative the amendment, and would not be in accordance with the proper practice of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say to Your Honour in reply as to the view you take to the amendment to which allusion has just been made, that I can only, with respect, take issue with Your Honour, because I believe that in the amendment the reference to unemployment was incidental. However, Your Honour apparently takes another view, a view which I had hoped it would be possible to shake. I can only state that I believe the very language of that amendment indicates that it was incidental. But whether or not it was incidental then, the point is that it is clearly incidental now. I believe it was incidental in both cases. The substance of the motion before the house is:
This house recommends for the consideration of the government the immediate setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives of governments, industry, labour, agriculture and universities, for the purpose of developing economic policies-
Period. That is the substance of the motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen opposite say, "no". That is a matter for the Speaker, and I am sure none of them wishes to usurp that function.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may say one word on the question which you have raised, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the closest precedent both


in time and in nature is that to which I have already referred-the occasion in the session of 1955. In that session, as has already been pointed out, the hon. member for Dufferin moved an amendment to the address in which he regretted on behalf of the opposition that the government had failed to take or recommend the necessary measures-and then there is a list of six fields, of which the second is unemployment. The words were, in fact:
(b) to solve the urgent problem of unemployment.
In the debate which took place at that time the subject of unemployment was brought in, but all the other matters referred to in those various other fields were also discussed. That did not prevent, nor did the government of the day seek to prevent, the opposition moving an amendment on going into supply which again dealt specifically with one of these matters, namely unemployment, though in a somewhat different form, because that motion read:
That the government should immediately give consideration to the formulation of plans to deal with this emergency of unemployment.
That motion was accepted. It was debated, and it was decided, and it seems to me that if such a situation prevailed at that time this particular motion is surely in order, because it is not as closely related as those two motions were in 1955; it is not as closely related to any previous discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could shorten this discussion by indicating my views on some of the points which have been raised, and the remaining difficulties. On the point the minister makes about the amendment involving the expenditure of money, I think the general approach, or the formula, by which the matter is recommended to the government is sufficient answer. It is that the house recommends for the consideration of the government. That is the form which has been used in many of our motions by private members. If it is accepted it does not commit the government; it does not commit the government to spend money. It asks the government only to consider setting up a committee, to give expression to it. In other words, the decision of the house does not bind the government to set up a committee, it only puts the government under an obligation to give consideration to setting up the committee.
On the question of whether this is a grievance or not, I should like to refer hon. members to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, which defines this procedure in terms which I think are worthy of consideration. I refer to page 419:
The order of the day for the house to go into committee of supply having been read, the Speaker will put the question-"that I do now leave the

chair''. The same question is always put whenever the house is to go into committee of supply, in order to afford an opportunity to members to propose amendments. On this point it is observed by an eminent authority that the ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances is to be considered before the granting of supplies, is now represented by the practice of permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question for the Speaker leaving the chair, before going into committee of supply or ways and means.
"Every description of amendment"; there was no right of parliament broader than that of raising grievances before voting supply and, as Bourinot points out by reference to this authority, that right is preserved in our supply motions. I continue with the citation:
Upon other orders of the day, such amendments must be relevant, but here they are permitted to relate to every question upon which a member may desire to offer a motion. The same practice is now followed very extensively in the Canadian commons.
I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that a resolution recommending to the government that it consider setting up a committee, something which it has not done, is a grievance within the very broad terms of grievances, which include anything within the administrative power of the government, about which the commons can complain in the course of the process of granting supply.
The other point is the difficult one, to my mind, whether we are opening ourselves to repetition of debate that has been concluded by a vote. That difficulty arises not out of the recommendation for the setting up of this committee or in anything it says but in the words:
-for the purpose of developing economic policies-
Then, it goes on:
-designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment.
I cannot help but recall the words of the amendment to the budget resolution, which dealt with the financial policies of the government with respect to employment. Here we come to economic policies with respect to employment. While "economic" is perhaps a broader word and is more inclusive than the financial policies of the government, yet economic policies might be those of private industry and other agencies. This is the problem that remains and if, before I come to a decision, the minister or others would like to address themselves to that point briefly, I would be grateful.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you. I would like to say a further word about it, to put before you as directly as I can the position in which hon. members would find themselves if this were ruled to be in order.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) cannot just conveniently drop words 79951-0-262
National Board on Economic Development from his motion and ask you to consider the motion at this point as if they were not in, because these are the principal words of the motion. He asks the house to recommend that the government set up a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives from various sources. These are the words:
-for the purpose of developing economic policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment.
This is the whole purpose for which he asks that consideration be given to the setting up of a board. What are the policies? Those are policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment. No hon. member in this house can hope to discuss this question-I think this is the nub and essence of the whole question now submitted to you for decision-no hon. member can discuss this motion without going directly into the questions pertaining broadly to the achievement of a high and stable level of income and employment. This is precisely the question that was under debate in the budget debate. This is precisely the question that was raised by the amendment introduced by the opposition on April 4. We had such a debate back at the end of January and through February on the supplementary estimates, when we had an eight-day discussion on unemployment in this country and all manner of methods of coping with unemployment or aiding in reducing it. Yet we are now asked to go back and review that question all over again; we are asked now to review the whole question that was raised directly in the budget debate and do that all over again, because we are told this narrows the discussion down to a particular point.
That particular point can only be fairly judged in any approach to it by any hon. member in this house in relation to the broader question, and that broader question has been directly raised in debate this session not once, but I am sure at least twice, on the occasions I have mentioned. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my submission is that that is the test and, having regard to the fact that the hon. member has attempted to justify the amendment and the grievance that it is supposed to deal with on the basis that it is assisting in achieving a high and stable level of income and employment, I say that these words bring him completely within the scope of those earlier motions.
It is not a matter of words only, although the words bring the amendment clearly within that scope, but it is the substance as well. The citation from Beauchesne which was quoted emphasizes the matter of substance. If this amendment were allowed to stand we would embark now on another
4148	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development debate on unemployment, the same question as has already been debated frequently this session.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could deal with the precedent which I mentioned. It seems to me to bear very directly on this issue.
So far as the argument of my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, is concerned, it really would amount to this if it were accepted, that because we talked about national income and unemployment six weeks, or two weeks ago we should not be permitted to talk about it during the rest of this session, no matter how conditions may have changed and no matter how necessary it may be for the government to take steps to meet those changed conditions. This is the logical inference to be drawn from my hon. friend's argument.
It is some weeks since we talked about unemployment in the budget. Since that time there have been changes in the situation. In our view the situation has perhaps deteriorated to the point where we think it more important now to set up machinery to deal with it than it was even then.
If this motion were in a form merely to advise the government to consider the setting up of a board in the terms in which they appear to be prescribed, a national advisory board on economic development and automation; if the motion stopped there with the names of its members, is it suggested by my hon. friend that in discussing the work of this board we should not be permitted to say what it might do in respect of income and employment? If he takes that position, it is absurd. If he does not take that position, surely by mentioning employment and a stable level of income we are not to be precluded from talking about them when if they were omitted we could talk about them. That is the situation as it appears to me.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in case you should be influenced by the remark of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that if this amendment is not allowed the opposition would then be precluded from discussing the question of unemployment in the future during the course of this session, may I remind the house that the estimates of the Department of Labour have still to come before the house as well as the estimates of the Department of Finance and, for that matter, all other departments. Occasions can be found in the discussion of the estimates to raise the problems that are mentioned here.


Mr. Robichaud:: This is a supply motion. Have you forgotten that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In answer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce I simply want to say that that is not the purpose of this amendment. It is not that we want another opportunity to discuss unemployment. We shall have that opportunity. This is an amendment to provide a means whereby the agencies of government can be strengthened to deal with economic development and automation. That is what the purpose of the amendment is, and we could not put forward an idea like that on the estimates of the department. My hon. friend knows that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was dealing with the remark of the Leader of the Opposition, but with regard to what the hon. member has just said may I say that the operative words in the amendment are the last words, "income and employment", and it is quite obvious that members debating this amendment would have to follow the lead of the hon. member for Essex East who spent 50 per cent of his time discussing the subject of unemployment. In view of the attitude that has been taken in other debates, where latitude has been permitted if a previous speaker mentions a certain subject, it is perfectly obvious that the debate would rapidly develop into a debate on the subject of unemployment, which has been covered very frequently in debates during the course of this session.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the essential purpose expressed in the proposed amendment is the consideration of "a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives of governments, industry, labour, agriculture and universities". In other words, it is not a purely governmental body but an advisory board "for the purpose of developing economic policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment".
I think the amendment is capable of the interpretation that the purposes of the proposed board are in general the maintenance of a high level of economic activity in the country. Unemployment is not mentioned although it is the converse of employment, and undoubtedly there is a risk that one matter which has been decided, the effect of the financial policies of the government with respect to unemployment, would be revived and an attempt made to debate it. But that was a narrow amendment, one which is an illustration of a different principle and having to do with the financial policy of the government rather than an advisory board. As I am in considerable doubt I think I should give the benefit to the proposer of the amendment with the caution that I will not regard it as opening the door to a debate on the financial policies of the government with

respect to unemployment, which subject has been dealt with as an amendment to the budget motion.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, certainly we welcome most heartily the great interest of the Liberal party now that they are in the opposition in the problems of unemployment and automation and the need to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We had those things when we were the government.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not going to endeavour to comment upon or to follow the lengthy path travelled by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in arriving at what I consider to be the point at which he was aiming, a discussion and inquiry into the effects of the growing and ever-increasing problem of automation. He spoke on that subject very briefly but in accordance with the wording of the amendment I think that is perhaps the key point on which I should like to spend a few minutes this afternoon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but as the Speaker has just left the chair I wonder whether he would be good enough to come back because I think the consideration of whether or not this amendment is in order has not yet been exhausted. There is a further point I should like to raise.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has made his ruling.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has given a ruling with some hesitation and he expressed himself as in some doubt.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A ruling has been given and accepted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have just arrived but I understand that a ruling was made that the amendment is in order, under certain conditions of discussion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Speaker made his ruling with respect to three points that were raised and expressed himself as in some doubt on one of the three points. He said that as he was in doubt he would give the benefit of the doubt to the mover of the amendment and permit the debate to proceed. But there is a further point which has just been brought to my attention which should be raised and which is directly relevant to the question whether the amendment now before the house is in order or out of order on another ground.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Whatever points the minister may have thought of subsequent to the 79951-0-262J
23, 1960	4149
National Board on Economic Development ruling, the ruling has been made that this amendment is in order. It was made by the Speaker and we are proceeding to discuss the amendment under that ruling. I consider it would be disrespectful and improper for a minister of the crown to ask the Speaker to reconsider the ruling he made only five or ten minutes ago and to open the whole question again after the lengthy consideration which has been given to it.


Harold Edward Winch: May I draw this to your attention, sir, that not only was a ruling given by the Speaker that the amendment was in order but his ruling was not appealed and as there was no appeal I, as the next speaker, am speaking to the amendment now before us. I have never heard of any procedure whereby, if the Speaker's ruling is not appealed and the house proceeds with its business, you can ask the Speaker to come back and change his mind. It is a fantastic situation and is unfair to the house and very unfair to the Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Obviously the same point cannot be raised again but another point can be raised on another ground, and it is another ground.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the Speaker has arrived I think it would be more appropriate for him to hear the arguments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a question of order has been raised by my hon. friend to the effect that this matter of whether or not this amendment is in order should be reviewed by you. You have given your decision; it was accepted, and there was no appeal from that decision by any member of the house. I assume, therefore, we are to be permitted to discuss the motion as you previously decided.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The point was this. You disposed of the point that was raised earlier on several grounds. You, first of all, disposed of two grounds and then, finally, you dealt with a third ground and expressed some doubt on the point. Then you gave the benefit of the doubt to the mover of the amendment and permitted the discussion to proceed. Having just turned up a reference I did not find earlier there is a further point I wish to raise. I am not going to go back and ask the Chair to reopen a point that has been argued.
However, I wish to raise another point, that is if I may, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I wonder if it is proper to reopen a matter after I have concluded my decision. I placed the motion before the house by reading it. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) took the floor

National Board on Economic Development and has been speaking. It may be that a matter which has come to the minister's attention would have had a bearing on the decision, and might have affected it. However, I raise the question of the propriety of opening up a decision which has been concluded. It seems to me we would be setting a very bad precedent in doing that, which would lead to lack of finality in any decision of the Chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would not be raising a point just to argue one of the points that had been raised before. It is another point. I could state it very briefly. The point is that this same matter-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister is arguing that you should change your mind.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is speaking to a point of order. I have asked the minister, before he pursues the matter, whether he does not think that a difficulty arises. It is true that when new evidence appears cases are reopened in court, but it does not seem to me that we can follow that practice, nor that we have followed that practice in the house. When a decision is taken the only remedy is by way of appeal. I think I should ask the minister not to pursue the argument.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not going to repeat what I said a few minutes ago, but merely emphasize that what I have to say on this amendment is related only to that aspect of it which applies to the recommendation that the government consider the immediate setting up of a national advisory board on development and automation. I feel that automation is one of the very serious and irrevocable developments in our economy to which sufficient attention has not been paid in so far as planning is concerned in connection with its impact and its implications.
Undoubtedly the problem has been well known for some considerable time. I should like to draw the attention of the house to a short quotation from a speech. I just want to quote the concluding paragraph because I think it is of interest. It reads:
When we encounter problems of adjustment arising out of a national endeavour to reap the benefits that advancing technology, including automation, brings us, let us remember that most of these can be overcome by patient application, good will, and the co-operation of all sectors of our economy. Let us see such problems in their proper perspective, and let us remember that their solution is helping Canadians in facing up to a great challenge. And that is to replace:
The hunger for power and the hunger of poverty with the benefits of peace and the benefits of progress.

This is a quotation from a speech that was made on March 23, 1956, by Mr. J. H. Dickey, parliamentary assistant to the minister of defence production, to the society for the advancement of management in Montreal. At least there was one Liberal in an official capacity in 1956 who recognized the advance of automation and who recognized that something should be done about it. But at that time the previous government did nothing about it. We are very glad of their interest now. It is also unfortunate that, at least to the best of my knowledge, no specific study or action is being taken by the present government to consider all the problems of automation as it is growing now, and undoubtedly as we will have it in the not too distant future.
Over the years the intensity of this problem has been forcibly brought home, or should have been brought home, to governments and to all parties, irrespective of whether they are in government or in opposition. I was most interested in reading the report of the Director-General of the International Labour Office on automation and other technological developments. This report was made in 1957 and made it exceptionally clear that those interested in the welfare of the country, the welfare of the economy and the problems that arise because of technological advances, should be doing something about these things. I just want to quote a couple of sentences. He said:
There is no doubt that we have entered a new technological era. Automation and atomic energy, unfolding simultaneously, are already causing drastic changes in the world of industry and labour...
Automation, atomic energy and other technological changes are dominating the labour and social scene in more and more of the older industrial countries and are a key factor in the development of the newly industrializing countries. They pose serious problems of economic and social adjustment for our industrial society and throw down a challenge to our whole civilization. True, many of these problems are not new. They arose in earlier stages of industrialization. Today, however, they seem to take on a more dramatic and a more drastic form.
The point I want to make is that we have had indications in the past as to the importance of this question of automation, and nothing has been done. It is for this reason I believe the hon. member for Essex East has done a great service to this House of Commons, and to the people of this country, in raising the issue as he has today through the medium of this amendment which suggests that the government do something about it. Apparently, although it may not be a tactic that is generally recognized as being acceptable, you have to keep pounding away at and hounding the government to try to get them to do the things which it seems so obvious they should be doing.

This matter has been drawn to the attention of the present government time after time, and yet we do not see any action. The Canadian Labour Congress in its memorandum to the government of Canada on January 28 requested a continued study of the effects of automation and the development of a program of training and retraining and other measures to assist in the re-establishment of workers displaced by automation and technological changes generally. Then, too, we have the submission to this government of the national legislative committee of the international railway brotherhoods, dated February 2, 1960. They stated:
May we urge that at this session of parliament a committee of the House of Commons be established to investigate and report on the effects of technological changes and automation.
Not as a direct submission to the government-but I know that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) must follow what is said by union leaders-we have the report of Larry Sefton, director of the united steelworkers of America at their national policy conference held in Montreal on April 21 and 22, of this year, dealing with this question of automation, its effects now and its probable effects on labour in the future. I know there are those people who think that labour is not prepared to accept progress, new technological developments and automation. That is why I think it is well worth while to draw to the attention of the house in connection with this matter the words of Larry Sefton in the statement I have just mentioned in which he states as follows:
Workers and unions should not try to block technological progress, but a company or industry should be compelled to give consideration to human and social factors when it contemplates relocation of its operations. In many ways, unions can fill the breach with imaginative and constructive collective bargaining programs. These programs will not interfere with or question management's decision to relocate. They will, however, compel management to weigh the human costs involved in such moves, and not merely unload the burden on the workers and the communities.
In dealing with automation from the viewpoint of the worker-and he is the one who is really affected-the question naturally arises as to how labour is affected and why the workers are worrying so much about growing automation in our country of Canada.
I will say that for the workers there are five big questions about automation. First, what is it? Second, what can it do? Third, how far will it go? Fourth, how fast will it come about? Fifth, what will it do to present jobs? Those are questions that are in the minds of the workers and they are questions to which the workers and the trade unions are entitled to an answer.
23, 1960	4151
National Board on Economic Development
The answer can come only either through the direct co-operation of industry, labour and government or indirectly through that co-operation through the medium of the procedure which is outlined by the hon. member for Essex East in the course of his amendment which we are now discussing. Surely we recognize the fact-or at least I hope so-that technological advance-such as that represented by chemurgy and automation-is not the brain child of one person, a thousand persons, a million persons or one country. It is the sum total of the understanding, the progress, the research and the inventiveness of all mankind. That being so, all must benefit.
That also is basically what the trade union leaders and the working people of our country are asking. They are asking that the government of this country make certain that the benefits of scientific advance are distributed equitably throughout all society in Canada. They are saying-as does this amendment-that management, labour and government must sit down together and do a great deal of planning.
It should have been started a long time ago but what is the use of recrimination and what is the use of going back and doing too much condemnation and damning? We cannot alter what has happened in the past. We must start from today. I think the need for it was clearly put even back in 1956 by the labour research department of the Canadian congress of labour. I just want to quote from their February issue of that year in which they state as follows:
The problem of automation and employment in Canada can be solved. But it won't solve itself. Automation can give all of us more leisure without throwing any of us permanently out of work. It can give us a much higher standard of living. But it won't do either unless we act to make sure that it does.
It can make goods cheaper; but only if monopolies don't get in the way.
It can shorten hours; but only if employers don't decide that it's simpler and cheaper for them, individually at any rate, to lay people off rather than to spread work.
It can give us much higher wages, but only if management and investors don't collar a lion's share of the increased productivity.
It can benefit us in the long run; but only if we see to it that it benefits us in the series of short runs which make up the long run.
I believe those are sensible words and fair ones. But somebody must initiate the studies and the planning. Then, of course, when that is done there must be an initiating body in order to see that the benefits which accrue through scientific advance are equitably divided amongst all society. To me, at any rate, it appears that the only body that can initiate the planning and the action is the national government of the country. Hence
4152	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development I am saying these few words and commenting on some of the various publications on this matter, in the hope that the seriousness of the problem of automation and the recognition of how directly it is going to affect all the working men and women of this country will result in our doing something about the problem now in the way of planning and action.
I believe that the basic principle was very well put by Norbert Wiener, professor of mathematics at Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, when he pointed out as follows:
We must always exert the full strength of our imagination to examine where the full use of our new modalities may lead us.
That is what we in this group urge that we do here, irrespective of party, or whether we sit on the government side or the opposition side, namely recognize the problem or the challenge. I am going to conclude with this thought because I want to say only a few words on it. It depends to a great extent on those who are now members of the House of Commons and on the party which now forms the government whether automation is going to be a curse or a blessing. A great responsibility rests on our shoulders in answering that question. It can be answered. The answer lies in how well we who have been elected to legislative office are prepared both to face up to and to pick up the challenge.
As I say, this matter has come to the attention of governments and parties over the years. We have never picked it up yet, but the time is now here when we have to pick it up because automation is no longer in the future, it is here. It is facing the workers, it is facing the unions, it is facing industry, and on a competitive basis. So I say let us decide by our thinking and our action on behalf of the people of Canada as their legislators whether automation will be a curse or a blessing. One way to give that answer is in this house, either today or tomorrow, by supporting an amendment which says that the government should consider following a certain procedure in order that proper studies can be given to these questions and recommendations made for the advice and consideration of the government.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in following the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) in this debate I find it somewhat difficult because the hon. member for Essex East wandered all over the lot in what he was going to discuss, and in his amendment he makes it very difficult to discuss some of the remarks he made. However, that is not unusual for him. We heard a good deal of his


versatility the other day when one of the hon. members told us how one day he was able to be a great agriculturist, the next day a great industrialist, and so on; but when he is able to jump from one problem to another, I think that adds even further to his powers.
I gathered from his remarks today that he was very much impressed with the governor of the Bank of Canada and felt that he had made some very excellent suggestions to the country. I do not think there are very many hon. members who would want to dispute that. I would only say that I think the hon. member for Essex East seems to have had quite a change of heart in his regard for the governor of the Bank of Canada, because as I recall it last year we were having a discussion with the governor of the Bank of Canada-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not mean that a good man must always to be accepted, but in this instance he was.


John Ferguson Browne: The
hon. member for Essex East always likes to say something which suits him at the moment, but he would not hesitate to change it tomorrow if it suited his purposes. I would like to refer to the industrial relations committee report of 1959, page 378, and refer to one or two of the remarks the hon. member for Essex East made about the governor of the Bank of Canada at that time. He said:
I am suggesting that the investment committee-
That was the investment committee of the unemployment insurance commission to which he was referring, of which the governor of the Bank of Canada is chairman and responsible for.
-by error of judgment, by incompetency, by conflict of function, contributed to the large loss which Dr. McMillan estimates in the amount of $63 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And I believe that yet.


John Ferguson Browne: He did
not seem to have a very high regard for the governor of the Bank of Canada at that time. I am glad to see he is showing more sense now and is coming round to saying that some of the things he said are not so bad after all.
In dealing with the economic policies of the government and what they have done to create employment and to maintain employment in Canada, I want to deal to some extent with the province of British Columbia, which is of course of direct concern to me, as indeed is the whole country. I believe that many of these problems cannot be solved

by any one national policy and they are going to require different things in different regions. Therefore I cannot accept the view of the hon. member for Essex East that setting up this one board is going to solve every problem in the country. Not only that, but I do not think the hon. member or the opposition appears to have been keeping up with what the government has been doing in this regard. Indeed, on January 26 the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) had this to say, as reported on page 334 of Hansard:
Plans are being formulated in the department to set up an advisory council of business men who will be asked to give of their time and their experience in considering broad problems of trade, both export and import, and of industrial development. The decade of the sixties, if unmarred by warfare, will be a period of intensified competition in international trade. The active co-operation of many minds will be needed to seize and exploit the opportunities that will be offered.
That seemed to me to be a very sound policy in gathering together a group who would be qualified to deal with problems of trade and industrial development. I did not hear any commendation coming from the members of the opposition at that time. At times they seem to be quite fond of setting up various boards and committees; at other times they seem to be quite opposed to them, saying that we have too many and that it was the responsibility of the government to do these things.
However, I think here we have an example of a board that may be of use to the country, one composed of men with peculiar qualification to deal with one particular problem. I would think that if we were going to appoint one board, as the hon. member for Essex East suggests, surely it would do away with all of the advisers to the government at the present time. If these people are going to solve all our problems we would not need all the civil servants we have at the present time. In making the suggestion he has it seems to me that the hon. member for Essex East is reflecting on those advisers we have today in the civil service, and to be saying in actual fact, you are incompetent to do the job you are there for.
I want to deal with some of the ways the government has acted in order to help the provinces, and thereby help to create activity in the country and a high level of employment. There is a high level of employment in the country at the present time. I have had some figures prepared for me by the unemployment insurance commission, as I have been very interested in this problem in my own province of British Columbia. I had them draw up the latest figures which they have to show how many people are employed in the
National Board on Economic Development province of British Columbia and these figures are taken from the dominion bureau of statistics monthly labour force survey, January 1958 to March 1960. The number of people employed in British Columbia in January, 1958 was 482,000; in January, 1959 there was 492,000; in January, 1960 there was 507,000. In February of 1958 there were
482.000	persons employed; in February, 1959 there were 503,000 employed; in February, 1960 there were 513,000 employed. That again shows an increase. In March 1958 there were
487.000	employed; in March, 1959 there were 511,000; in March, 1960 there were 519,000 employed. So that there has been an increase in employment in every month in 1960 over what it was in the two preceding years.
This was brought about by the way the federal government has dealt with the province by putting money into the hands of people in the province and in creating economic activity in that way, I should like to put on record some of the financial arrangements which have been made between the federal government and the provincial government of British Columbia-for this purpose I have taken what the provincial government was receiving in unconditional and conditional grants from the federal government-in 195657, the last year of the Liberal government, and those estimated for 1960-61, our current fiscal year, in order to show how much money the federal government has put into the province of British Columbia to keep economic activity at a high level.
Under the heading of unconditional grants we have statutory subsidies which in 1956-57 amounted to $1,281,000 and will be the same figure in 1960-61. Under the tax rental agreement the province of British Columbia received in 1956-57, $55,730,000 and will receive in 1960-61, $65,396,000. Under equalization payments it received nothing in 1956-57 and will receive $5,825,000 in 1960-61. Under the stabilization agreement they received nothing in 1956-57 and will receive $754,000 in 196061. Under the 50 per cent share of federal income tax from certain power utilities they received in 1956-57, $1,415,000 and will receive in 1960-61, $1,509,000. The sub-total under this heading of unconditional grants, therefore, amounted in 1956-57 to $58,426,000; in 1960-61 it wifi be $74,765,000 which hon. members will, I am sure, agree is a reasonably good increase to have occurred in that space of time.
Under conditional grants and shared-cost programs the province received under the heading of agriculture the sum of $38,000 in 1956-57 and it will receive $118,000 in 1960-61. Under the heading of health it received in
4154	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development 1956-57, $3,210,000 and in 1960-61 it will receive $4,877,000. Under hospital insurance it received nothing in 1956-57 and will receive $21,443,000 in 1960-61. Under the heading welfare it received $5,971,000 in 1956-57 and will receive $10,331,000 in 1960-61. Under vocational training, it received $549,000 in 1956-57-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure I follow the connection between this set of figures which the hon. member is giving concerning federal payments to British Columbia and the resolution before us.


John Ferguson Browne: I was
endeavouring to show that in fact the government was carrying on a policy designed to develop the economy along the lines indicated in the amendment. Let us look at the terms of the amendment. It proposes that a board should be constituted for the purpose of developing an economic policy designed to create a high and stable level of income and employment, and I was trying to show that the federal government is already carrying out such a policy at the present time with the help of very capable advisers, and that the setting up of such a board as is recommended by the hon. member for Essex East is completely unnecessary and would be only a waste of the taxpayers' money. If Your Honour agrees with that line of thought, I should like to complete putting these figures on the record.
I am suggesting that one policy for the whole country on a national basis would not be adequate, because the creation of high levels of employment in particular areas requires special means. I am suggesting that one of the things we have to do is to put the provinces in a position where they can deal with particular problems, and that this in itself would tend to assure a high level of employment. I am suggesting that these payments which the federal government is making to the province of British Columbia are helping British Columbia to deal with this problem and, as I have pointed out, employment in British Columbia is at the highest level in its history.
I believe I was dealing with the item of vocational training. I might point out that this has a direct bearing on the maintenance of a high level of employment, because one of the things we need to do in order to get people working, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver East, is to put them in a position where they are able to take advantage of the opportunities which are available as a result of technological changes; to enable them to change their jobs if the advance of machinery should make that necessary. Thus, this particular item of


vocational training is one which has been advocated by many welfare organizations.
I believe it is very admirable, and I am sure the whole house will recall that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has worked very actively in this regard. In fact, I was just reading in Hansard of February 1 of this year an exchange which took place on this subject between the minister and the hon. member for Essex East. The hon. member for Essex East asked the following question as reported on page 609 of Hansard:
Has the Minister of Labour received a report from the vocational training advisory council respecting the vocational training program for unemployed persons under federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements?
What is being done by the federal government to encourage the fullest possible use of this program to provide new job opportunities for jobless persons with no formal training in a specific trade?
To which the Minister of Labour replied as follows:
This program was discussed at the last meeting of the vocational training advisory council held on December 3 and 4, 1959, and the views of the council, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting, have been received.
The federal government is constantly urging provincial governments to make the greatest possible use of the federal-provincial cost-sharing program provided in schedule "M" of the special vocational training projects agreement for training of unemployed persons.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: May I be permitted to ask the hon. member for the reference?


John Ferguson Browne: Yes, that was on February 1, 1960, as reported on page 609 of Hansard. I think that will underline the connection between some of these figures and work being carried out directly by the provincial government in solving the problems to which the hon. member for Essex East has directed attention.
As I was saying, under the heading of vocational training the province received $549,000 in 1956-57 and in 1960-61 it will receive $1,553,000, almost three times as much. Under highways and transportation, another field which is of great importance in permitting the transport of goods, and so on, thereby assuring a high level of economic activity, the province received $6,680,000 in 1956-57 and will receive $18,872,000 in 196061. Again, that is about three times as much. Under the heading of resource development the province received $846,000 in 1956-57 and will receive $2,257,000 in 1960-61. Under the heading of slum clearance it received nothing in 1956-57 and will receive $700,000 in 196061. Under civil defence it received $187,000 in 1956-57 and will receive $450,000 in 196061. Under the heading of municipal winter works it received nothing in 1956-57 and will

receive $1,335,000 in 1960-61. Under the heading of "other" it received $10,000 in 1956-57 and will receive nothing in 1960-61.
The grand total of payments made by the federal government to the province of British Columbia in 1956-57 amounted to $75,917,000, and in 1960-61 it will be $136,701,000.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I had just finished putting some figures on the record. I was showing how the payments by the federal government to the province of British Columbia had almost doubled since this government came into office and had thereby created a high level of economic activity and a high level of employment in the province of British Columbia by putting the government in a better position to deal with its problems. This policy has been in line with what most of the labour organizations have advocated in the country. I hold in my hand a labour research publication of the Canadian congress of labour, January to April, 1960. These are some of the suggestions they made at that time as to what in their opinion would create a high level of employment:
Other possible employment stimulators are tax cuts, bigger income tax exemptions, higher social security payments, more aid to farmers, more aid to underdeveloped countries.
Generally speaking, when I have heard representations of this kind made my first reaction has been to say: That is all very well, but if you want the government to spend more money and if you want lower taxes, it is utterly impossible. But in making those statements to the labour organizations I entirely underestimated the capabilities of our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) who, I might say is, in my opinion, the best Minister of Finance we have ever had in this country or are ever likely to have.
In addition to the payments made to the province of British Columbia, on a nationwide basis social expenditures on the part of the government in 1959 amounted to $1,500 million as compared with $1,000 million for the last year that the Liberal government was in office, or a 50 per cent increase over all in expenditures of that nature. In 1956-57, the last year the Liberals were in power, the federal government's contributions to all of the provinces, not including payments to individuals, amounted to $689 million. For the fiscal year 1958-59 the amount was $1,212
National Board on Economic Development million, or an increase of 76 per cent. In the light of that, it would seem almost impossible that we could have had tax cuts at the same time.
I have said many times that the average taxpayer in Canada is paying less in taxes now than he paid when the present government came to office. To refresh my memory on this the other day I obtained a copy of the T-l short form income tax return for 1956 and for 1959, and I shall just pick out one or two examples at random to show that notwithstanding those tremendous payments that have been made by the federal government to the provinces, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Finance has been able to present a balanced budget this year and in fact forecast a slight surplus, we were able at the same time to enjoy tax cuts. As I say, I shall pick out a few examples at random.
In the year 1956 a person with a taxable income of $1,300 paid $200 in taxes; in 1959, at the same scale, he paid $184. A person with a taxable income of $1,500 in 1956 paid $234; in 1959 he paid only $217. A person with a taxable income of $1,700 in 1956 paid $268; in 1959 he paid $250. Let me go up into a higher bracket. A person with a taxable income of $3,000 paid $509 in 1956; in 1959 he paid $494. This will give some indication of how the people of this country have benefited since the present Minister of Finance has taken over directing the monetary policy of this country.
Let me come back to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East. Perhaps they may have stemmed from a press conference in which he appeared some time ago, and in which he first dealt with some of the remarks made by the governor of the Bank of Canada which, as I said today, he appeared to be in favour of. I still do not know whether he was or not because he never cares to commit himself too definitely to any policy so he can come back to the other side if it suits him. In the press conference, of which I have a transcript here, of Tuesday, February 2, in which the guest was Hon. Paul Martin and the panel Frank Swanson, Ottawa Citizen, chairman; Tom Gould, Victoria Times; Peter Dempson, Toronto Telegram; and Arthur Blakely, Montreal Gazette, Mr. Gould asked a question, which appears in the middle of the transcript, but he did not get a very satisfactory answer. He went on to say:
But this is a much bigger thing. Mr. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada, told us that Canadians are living beyond their means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I read Mr. Coyne in Winnipeg. And I read Mr. Fleming's budget speech, as it were, before the Canadian Club in Toronto a few weeks ago. But I also read the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which took serious issue
4156	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development with what Mr. Coyne had said, and with what his own colleague, has been preaching lor the last month or so.


Mr. Gould:: Does the Liberal party take issue with both of them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, the Liberal party is studying. We don't have all of the facts that are available to the governor of the bank and to Mr. Fleming, but we are studying these facts, and when we have arrived at a conclusion, we will certainly unhesitatingly state our position.
They certainly do not have all the facts in some of the statements they make. If what we heard here this afternoon is unhesitatingly stating the position of the Liberal party I am afraid I would hate to see the hon. member wavering around on anything because he was in the position where the Liberal party had considered the thing for some considerable length of time. The only thing they can decide is that they have nothing to suggest. We had better get somebody who knows something about it, who has looked into the matter and is in a position to take the place of the opposition and make some representation to the government because the opposition seems to be entirely inept in following any kind of a course.
I should like to say that in my opinion the government is doing a good job at the present time. They have competent advisers. As I have already said, we have the most competent Minister of Finance we have ever had. The setting up of a board such as suggested by the hon. member for Essex East and the Liberal party would be entirely useless and a waste of the taxpayers money.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if we were to listen to statements made both inside and outside the house by members of the present government, including the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, we would be led to believe that never in our history has our country witnessed better times and a more buoyant economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I hear applause coming from the government side. I hope this same applause will be repeated when I give them not only the facts but the truth.
It was the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) who said in this house last year- and here again our hon. friends on the government side may applaud-that Canadians worked more, earned more, saved more and spent more than in any year in history. In order to complete the statement the Prime Minister should have added: If we have partially emerged from the recession of 1958-


An hon. Member:: What page are you on?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -if 1958 and 1959 are recovery years, unemployment has remained abnormally high and we have failed to cope with this important aspect of our economy. And, Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no improvement in 1960.
The purpose of the amendment introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is to bring to light the failure of the present government to reach this major goal of economic policy which cannot be achieved without a high and stable level of employment and income. There is no question in our minds that employment has not kept pace with individual production during the past two years. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke of the high level of employment in his section of the country, British Columbia, and referred to it as the highest level of employment in its history. What he failed to reveal was the percentage of employment compared with the labour force even in British Columbia today.
I have here the latest release available to us concerning the employment situation in Canada. This release from the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics shows that in the Pacific region as of March 17, 1960 there were 77,309 registrations at national employment service offices of people seeking employment. This figure compares with 74,333 as of March, 1959, an increase of 2,976 in a province where employment has reached the highest level in its history.
When at the peak of what is called a buoyant economic period the number of live claims for unemployment insurance benefits as of April 30 last reached 714,000 compared with 610,000 at the same time last year, an increase in the number of unemployed of
104,000	or 17 per cent, and when the present figure is only 8,000 below that for April 30, 1958; when we were supposed to be in a period of full recession, there must be something wrong somewhere with our Canadian system and with the policy of the present government. Furthermore when we consider the number of unplaced applicants without work and seeking jobs the situation is still worse. In fact, the figures obtained from the national employment service reveal that as of April 30 of this year the number of persons registered for work totalled 756,400 compared with 661,000 last year or an increase of 15 per cent over April 30, 1959.
I obtained these figures on Friday last from the office of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and I could not understand the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) when he said that he had had his figures prepared for

him by the unemployment insurance commission inasmuch as only last Thursday, May 19, the Minister of Labour told hon. members that the figures would be available from the minister's office and not from the unemployment insurance office.
If we go back to the recession period of 1958 we find that the number of registrations, 747,000 as of April 30 of that year, is exceeded by 9,400 on the same date this year. The fact is that there is unemployment. There is heavy unemployment almost everywhere and, as Calvin Coolidge said in 1931 in speaking of conditions in the United States, we can say of Canada today: the country is not in good condition. The present government has failed to implement a bold and definite program which would be in line with the promises made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recall that when we were considering the relevancy or propriety of the amendment I stated that the problem of unemployment in so far as government financial policy is concerned had been resolved by a vote of the house. I do not object, of course, to the hon. member pointing up the state of employment as relevant to the amendment to establish an economic board but I would ask him not to get into matters that have already been debated and concluded.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I want to abide by your decision but I have to make reference to the unemployment figures, especially after what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway this afternoon, before coming to the main subject under discussion, the setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and automation. I want to assure you that my remarks as they refer directly to the unemployment situation will be limited.
The complacency of the present government in coping with the situation and its failure to take the necessary measures to improve the unbalanced position arising out of the increase in national income and the increase in the percentage of unemployment have led the opposition to introduce the amendment now under discussion. We recognize that full employment, desirable as it may be, is not possible in a country like ours. The fact remains, however, and I want to say this again, that in the last two years production has shown a trend to move above its pre-recession peak and during the same period employment continued its downward trend. In fact, in December, 1959, production had increased by 5.6 per cent above its prerecession peak while employment was down by 3.1 per cent.
National Board on Economic Development
It is evident that a high and stable level of employment and healthy economic position cannot be achieved by the implementation of the policies of the present government. We therefore have every reason and every right to suggest to the government the setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and automation. The government has failed so far to listen to the suggestions which have emanated from this side of the house in the last few months, and as we have a strong desire to reduce unemployment to a minimum we are placing before the government a new suggestion which we feel could provide badly needed guidance and advice to enable the government to cope with this national problem.
In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to deal more specifically with the amendment as it affects the Atlantic provinces. This is an area, a section of the country which, unlike many others, is not blessed with the kind of natural resources that spurt out of the ground and produce large incomes without too much imaginative initiation or without too risky capital investment. The urgent need for getting together the representatives of industry, labour, agriculture and the universities is more evident in the Atlantic provinces than in any other areas of Canada. In fact, a step in that direction was taken a few years ago with the formation of the Atlantic provinces economic council, and the results of co-operation with that organization are already being felt in some sections of the Atlantic provinces. In no other section of this country today is there a more urgent need for this than in the Atlantic provinces. Our 105,000 unplaced applicants, as of April 30 of this year, reaffirm the fact that our percentage of 14.5 per cent of our labour force seeking jobs remains close to 50 per cent above the national average and almost 85 per cent above the Ontario average.
I know that I would be called out of order if I chose to discuss, in all its detail, the unfortunate unemployment situation in the Atlantic provinces. However, the present picture is a clear and an unquestionable evidence of the failure of the government to meet our needs and resolve our problems. How can the government, how can the Prime Minister justify his attitude in view of the existing conditions? I ask again, is the government wise when, at this period of unexceeded unemployment, it advertises opportunities for immediate employment for carpenters, painters, bricklayers, and so on. How could the Prime Minister-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The members of this house seem to have heard all of this about a fortnight ago when a similar motion to go into committee
4158	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development of supply was being discussed. It is my understanding, following Your Honour's ruling this afternoon and the interpretation of the rules of the house, that this practice should not be continued. I would submit to you, sir, that what we are now hearing is entirely out of order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am surprised that the hon. member would prevent a member from the Atlantic provinces from bringing forward-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is raising a point of order on the relevancy of debate. Before the hon. member who has the floor speaks to the point, may I remind him that the point refers undoubtedly to the amendment which was moved on the fourth supply motion, which was that a comprehensive plan and program of federal assistance be given to strengthen the basic economy of the Atlantic provinces. My conception of this debate would be that the hon. member should relate the setting up of this committee to its effect on the Atlantic provinces rather than to the policy of the government as such.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say a word on the point of order? I understand that on the supply motion on May 2, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) made the same kind of speech as he is making now, and that speech is to be found at page 3477 and following of Hansard for that date. It was the same kind of speech, the same theme, as he is giving now.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On the point of order, I may say it is true that I referred to one point which I have raised in a previous debate, but only one sentence. I want to relate it to a statement which has been made by the Prime Minister a few days ago in London, and which is altogether different from the point I raised in the previous debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member would be in order if he could, in dealing with the special interests of the Atlantic provinces, he could relate them to the setting up of the proposed committee. My hope is that all hon. members will refrain from repetition of other debates which have taken place on unemployment, and specifically one which was directed against the government's financial policy with regard to unemployment. In so far as hon. members deal with unemployment they might deal with it as a reason or basis for the establishment of the committee which is proposed in the amendment.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This is exactly the point to which I was coming. I want to refer to the last statement made by the Prime Minister when he said that we shall be able to welcome and absorb into employment many tens of 

thousands of immigrants. We are calling today for the setting up of a national advisory board to discuss economic development and automation. How can we relate this statement by the Prime Minister to the present situation? Is the Prime Minister, in his complacency, refusing to recognize the fact that Canada cannot absorb into employment today hundreds of thousands of her own labour force? How can he make such a definite assertion when there is heavy unemployment in every region, in every locality in this country? He said, when asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that there was no necessity for any comment. I challenge him to repeat such a statement before the 700,000 unemployed in this country and the 100,000 unemployed in the Atlantic provinces.
I agree that the question before us at this moment is, what could result from the recommendations of a national advisory beard composed of representatives of industry, labour, agriculture and the universities? I am convinced that many of the suggestions evolving from such a board would be in line with many of the recommendations which we of the official opposition have sought to bring to the attention of the government in the last few months. I cannot help-


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; the hon. member is reading his speech.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I admit that I am referring-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard the point of order raised. I shall be glad to hear what he has to say.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I certainly have heard the point of order raised. I am referring to notes which I have here on my desk, just as 99 per cent of the members of this house are doing.
I cannot help but remind the government, and particularly the representatives from the Atlantic provinces, of the pledge which was included in their Atlantic resolutions and which they failed to support when they had the opportunity to do so in this house. In order to achieve a high and stable level of employment in the Atlantic provinces this government must give a more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the establishment of new industries in that particular area. This goal may only be reached-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member did not understand my earlier reference to the scope of the debate. He is arguing now that this government should do something or other with respect to the Atlantic provinces, and that is not the subject matter

of this resolution. This resolution asks the government to consider setting up a committee. I hope the hon. member will address himself to that problem.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am referring to the Atlantic provinces, just as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, before recess and from eight o'clock to 8.15, referred to his province of British Columbia. We have problems in the Atlantic provinces and we feel that those problems can be met by the establishment of a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives from government, industry, labour and agriculture. Such a board would have many suggestions to make to the government. I feel that I have a right to bring to the attention of the government certain recommendations which could be made by such a board. This is what I am endeavouring to do now. As stated in the Gordon commission report:
The long term and ultimately effective solution of the problem must be expected from further resource development. The core of the problem is the creation of conditions which will attract capital into such development.
I have no doubt that a national advisory board, such as that suggested in the amendment introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Essex East, would bring in suggestions like the one which is included in the Gordon commission report.
Capital will not be attracted into such development until such barriers as exist today-such as heavy taxes, high cost money, unrestricted freight rate structure and many others-are removed by the application of bold and comprehensive measures such as those which could be suggested by an advisory board like that mentioned this afternoon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman made the same speech and dealt with the same matters in his speech on May 2. Is it proper to have the same speech made again? Surely if it was relevant to the amendment then under debate, either this speech or the amendment now under debate must be out of order now.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that I agree that we have been over this ground on the specific amendment which was moved on the fourth supply motion to which I have made reference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On May 2.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not seem to me to be contributing anything new. He knows that it is not consistent with our
23, 1960	4159
National Board on Economic Development practice to repeat, to rethresh or restate a proposition that has been disposed of by the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The suggestions which I am now bringing to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, are altogether different and are introduced before the house in an altogether different manner from that in which they were introduced in the debate which has just been mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said the Minister of Finance was the best minister of finance we ever had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I agree that he is the best Minister of Finance to raise points of order that ever sat in the House of Commons. He is also the only Minister of Finance who ever called a Speaker of the house back after he had left the chair.
I said earlier that our area was not blessed with the kind of natural resources which spurt out of the ground and produce large incomes. But we have in the Atlantic provinces thousands of miles of coastline, the sea and a shoreline which provide our population with excellent harbours in the proximity of choice fishing grounds. When I am dealing with this problem concerning the fishing industry of the Atlantic provinces I hope that at least for once the Minister of Finance will remain in his seat and not raise points of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He will do so if the hon. member will for once follow the rules.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is in the Atlantic provinces a resource which is not exploited to its full capacity. The fishing industry has been struggling for generations and has been partially developed by the hard work, the ingenuity and, I should add, the reasonable amount of good luck of the parties interested. The fishing industry means as much to the population of the Atlantic provinces as wheat means to the prairie farmer and as agriculture means to the farmers of Ontario and Quebec.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is still reading his speech.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members on the government side are not pleased when we of the official opposition try to bring to their attention problems concerning our respective areas.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not the point of order which has been raised. The point of order,
4160	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development according to the hon. member who has raised it, is that the hon. member for Gloucester is reading a previously prepared speech. As he knows, that procedure is contrary to the practice or, I should say, the approved practice of this house. I will not say it is contrary to the practice because, if I am not mistaken, I have seen other hon. members who appeared to read their speeches. If the point of order is taken, the hon. member should observe the proprieties and not do what was complained of.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to comply with the rules and requirements of this house. As I have said before, I have been referring to notes from time to time and I intend to carry on.
I was just referring to the assistance which is being given by the federal government to the fishing industry. When one considers the total assistance given to fishermen for the years 1946 to 1959, including all assistance that comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government-including all the direct assistance programs such as in the construction of draggers or long-liners, in the Newfoundland bait assistance operation, the assistance given in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, assistance in transportation of British Columbia frozen herring to the maritimes to be used as bait during the bait shortage period, assistance through the agency of the fisheries price support board such as the price support purchasing activities; assistance given under the salt assistance to the producers of dried and salt fish; assistance given under fishermen's indemnity fund and the bounty for the destruction of harbour and grey seals-we find that in the years I have mentioned from 1946 to 1959 the total amount distributed by the federal government comes to less than $13 million.
When during the same period we take into consideration the amount paid under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which alone was over $100 million paid by the federal treasury, and to this could be added the many hundreds of millions of dollars paid for grants to agricultural fairs, for premiums on high grade hogs, for grants on cheese and cheese factories, for payments made under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and for many other measures of assistance given by the federal government, through the Department of Agriculture-we must admit that the fishing industry as a whole, and particularly in the Atlantic provinces, is not receiving its adequate share of attention and of assistance from the federal government.
A national advisory board, as suggested in our amendment, composed of representatives


of industry, including the fishing industry, labour, agriculture and universities, could devote to this most important problem the consideration which it deserves.
If the Canadian fishing industry is to improve its efficiency it must have better attention and increased assistance from the federal government. As I have stated earlier, the potentials are available. We have the coastline, the harbours and the fishing grounds. With proper planning and adequate assistance I would venture to state that we in the Atlantic provinces could supply facilities to an additional 3,000 or even 5,000 to
8.000	more fishermen whose lucrative production would provide work to an additional
15.000	to 20,000 shore help in the processing and packaging of fish for market.
Such a proposal, when implemented-and I repeat that the potential is available- would reduce by 25 per cent the number of unemployed in our Atlantic provinces at this particular period of the year. I hope to have more to say on this matter when the estimates of the Minister of Fisheries are introduced for discussion.
If our country is experiencing today an unprecedented period of development and of economic activity, as is asserted by hon. members opposite, the fact remains that at every opportunity we hear government supporters referring to the hope which lies ahead, to the vision which is being offered by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton). Never since the period of the hungry thirties has there been a more urgent need for the setting up of a national advisory board to the end that the most effective use of the resources of Canada, and more particularly its manpower resources, may be assured in the interests of public welfare.
The government has failed to meet the situation and as a result the unemployment problem is growing from year to year. I firmly believe that the time has come for the setting up of such a board whose duty it would be to advise the government and to recommend proposals regarding economic development and automation. Representatives of industry, labour, agriculture and of our universities are the only ones in a position to submit proposals which would safeguard our economy and protect our labour force.
On every occasion when we of the official opposition seek to bring forward suggestions we are smeared by members on the government side and are accused of playing politics or of being prophets of doom and gloom. I would-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it proper under the rules of this house to say that some hon. members are trying to smear other hon. members? Surely it is a reflection on hon. members which is not in accordance with the rules and practice of this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I should like to say this. I think this last intervention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) clearly indicates that he has not raised a point of order but has raised his voice at this time for only one purpose and that is to interrupt the hon. member who is trying to put forward the point of view of this party. It is about time this was stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: An hon. member in rising to speak to a point of order should not impute improper motives to any hon. member who has a perfect right to rise at any time on a point of order. The rule of debate is that members shall refrain from making statements which are offensive; but this rule has not been strictly interpreted, particularly when it is not applied to an individual. I think that while it is a matter of interpretation of the rule, I could not intervene on the kind of statement which has been made in general terms about hon. members.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I have mentioned once before in this house, the Atlantic provinces offer an outlet, a market of one and a half million of population, for the production of central and western Canada. In return we of the Atlantic provinces must rely on export markets for 70 to 75 per cent of our production. Our exorbitant freight rate structure prevents us from competing favourably with the more fortunately located and endowed central Canadian region. As an outlying part of Canada our industrial development is handicapped by the long haul and the freight rate making policy which tend to accentuate the decline of manufacturing in our region instead of helping us properly to participate in the national trend of development which exists in other regions of this country.
When we of the opposition claim for a new deal, a more favourable sharing agreement for the construction of the trans-Canada highway, our Atlantic provincial premiers, friendly to the present administration, remain silent and seem satisfied with the present arrangement; this notwithstanding the fact that our construction cost of the highway on a per capita basis is at least double what it is in any other section of Canada, with the probable exception of British Columbia.
23, 1960	4161
National Board on Economic Development
If it was the intent of the fathers of confederation that the maritimes should have cheap access to the markets of central Canada it remains the responsibility of the central government to meet this specific problem which requires a solution if our transportation system is to serve the national interest without prejudice to the industries of other areas, and a national advisory board as we are suggesting could make suggestions to the government to this effect.
We of the Atlantic provinces offer an ideal opportunity for an era of co-operative effort to improve our living conditions, and this cannot be achieved by first aid of political expediency or of economic expediency which do nothing else but explore the surface and neglect the core of the disease. The patchwork effect of attempts made in the last decade, both by the present federal administration and by the previous administration, has had some influence in equalizing our pace of progress; but nevertheless there is continued evidence of lack of permanency, lack of sound permanency, which is essential if we are to provide the solution to our economic problems confronting the Atlantic region today.
Mention has been made of capital projects such as the Prince Edward Island causeway and the Chignecto canal. For the last three years the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) has been referring in this house to a preliminary engineering estimate of the Chignecto project which is being prepared by the Department of Public Works. On March 4 of last year, as reported on page 1593 of Hansard, the minister advised the house that arising out of the work which had been done to date he had asked that certain other estimates be worked out. Again on May 26 of last year he reported to the house that his department was giving close study both to the economy and the engineering feasibility of this project. Then on June 11 last year the minister referred to estimates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I intend to address myself to the amendment before us at this time. However, certain statements have been made by speakers of the Liberal group who have participated in this debate, by the mover of the motion and by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who has just sat down. The statements in question had to

National Board on Economic Development
do with the statistics which are issued showing those registering at the national employment service, and the hon. member has painted a picture which I feel should be rectified at this time.
I want to point out to the hon. member that in analysing the figures of those seeking employment the economists find that 48 per cent of those registered are seasonal workers. One of the reasons why these figures are to a great extent higher now than they have ever been with regard to those seeking employment during the period December 1 to May 15 is that the seasonal benefit formula was changed so that they could more readily qualify to draw these seasonal benefits. Also the actual formula of benefits as against contributions has changed in that those who made six contributions can draw five benefits, whereas under the former government it was two for one in the same way as the regular formula. Consequently more people are able to draw these benefits as a result of the change of formula which this government has brought about.
In addition to that the two additional months during which people can draw benefits have a great deal to do with this; and the hon. member must not forget that in the Atlantic region the people he talks about were never registered for employment under the previous administration because fishermen have been brought in to the scheme by this government and they are now able to register for benefits.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was the former government which brought fishermen under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Essex East can hold his patience-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Michael Starr: I did not endeavour to interfere while the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was speaking this afternoon, although more than 50 per cent of it was irrelevant to the amendment he ultimately brought in. Let us look at this amendment which has been submitted. It reads:
This house recommends for the consideration of the government the immediate setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives of governments, industry, labour, agriculture and universities, for the purpose of developing economic policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) on March 2 of this year submitted in this house 25 points on behalf of the Liberal group, and the second point read as follows:

Canada should have a national advisory board on economic development, automation, and employment to help deal with long term problems of production and employment.
This was what the opposition suggested on that occasion on March 2. Now they come back with the same suggestion. They have nothing new to offer. This is a method by which they feel they can have another committee set up. It was the practice of the former government to set up committees, advisory committees, and advisory committees to the advisory committees. That is one way of shirking the responsibility of government. This government does not intend to set up committees in order to shirk its responsibilities. This government feels it has a responsibility toward this problem, and intends to take action in order to do everything possible to relieve the problem.
I am sure hon. members on both sides will have studied the amendment with interest. Coming from the source it did, it is worthy of consideration. At least it represents a positive suggestion and, as such, it is welcome. However, I say it only repeats what was said on March 2. Many other ideas have been brought forward by the hon. member for Essex East on previous occasions on the very same topic. This is a topic which takes a great deal of his attention, because he feels it is one on which he can make political hay, and he has admitted that, probably, outside the house quite often.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order. Surely the hon. gentleman realizes that that is imputing a motive, which is contrary to our rules. I ask the minister to withdraw. The reason I bring forward the subject of unemployment is because this government is shirking its responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule to which I was referring a minute ago is standing order 35 which says:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
A good deal of latitude has been used in the interpretation of that rule, but I think that generally we have refrained in this house from imputing motives to members in the discharge of their duty. That is the substance of what the hon. minister has just said about the hon. member for Essex East, that his actions here were actuated by motives that are, perhaps, not improper; but as the hon. member has taken offence, I would suggest a modification.
MAY 23, I860	4163


Michael Starr: I will abide by that, although I am surprised that the hon. member would take offence to a description such as I have given of him. After all, he does profess to be an expert on agriculture, and I think that making hay was appropriate in describing it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are setting a good tone. Keep on that level.


Michael Starr: Anyway, the hon. member
remains unswerving in his devotion to the principle that anything can be done as long as we set up a committee to do it. I think the hon. member for Essex East looks at the economy of this country through dark-coloured glasses. He has advocated a great many committees, advisory committees, special committees, and now this one which is put forward today.
Let us take a look at this latest creation of his. Apparently this is to be one of those advisory bodies which would deal with the whole field of national development. That would take in a great many fields of endeavour. At the same time, so that this committee might not have too easy a job, the hon. member throws in automation for good measure. On that committee he wants representatives of government, industry, labour, agriculture and the universities to serve.
On that ground alone, I submit that because of the diversity of interests, the job of the committee would be impossible from the very outset. What would its job be? It would be to develop economic policies. Surely what that would amount to would be the setting up of a cabinet outside the cabinet; a committee set up as a government outside the government, bringing forth policies on a national level. This would be-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Liberal policy.


Michael Starr: I know that the setting up of such a large and unwieldy committee is a technique often used by governments that wish to evade their responsibility but, as I said earlier, this government does not intend to evade its responsibility. This government intends to continue to deal with the things for which it is responsible. One can, it is true, visualize the necessity of setting up committees from time to time to deal with certain specific matters, but I find it difficult to justify the necessity for setting up any group with such a wide and sweeping field of operations as is suggested in this resolution.
What does the amendment seek to do? The objective is, of course, a laudable one, the achievement of a high and stable level of income and employment. At this stage, two points arise in my mind for consideration. I maintain, first, that in setting this
National Board on Economic Development kind of objective the mover of this amendment is once again simply trying to get in at the back door when he could not get in at the front door. When it comes to designing new costumes for old issues the hon. member for Essex East is an expert, as he has proved time and time again in this house. Despite one disappointment after another he shows an uncanny ability to lead his colleagues of the opposition down the same trail of depression and doom and gloom time and time again.
I say this in all sincerity, because here is a member of this house who has on many occasions previously disregarded any statistical figures of any kind on employment in this country and has come out with statistics of his own doubling the figures which those who have the proper sources for compiling this material have put out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order. The hon. gentleman said I have come forward with statistics of my own. I would ask him to withdraw that remark or prove his charge.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, during the last session of parliament the hon. member for Essex East time and time again stated on his own authority that there were more than a million people unemployed in this country-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask the hon.
gentleman to point to the occasion when I said that. The minister is confused. I said at that time that because of the policies of this government a projection into the future would suggest that there might be unemployment at those levels, and I was not very far out. They were projections and statistics, as a matter of fact.


Michael Starr: When the hon. member for Essex East says he was not far out, evidently figures do not mean anything to him because he was out more than one quarter of a million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Give us the facts.


Michael Starr: Those projections of what he said would happen had a great deal to do with dampening the spirit of the economy of this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh.


Michael Starr: The hon. member should not underestimate himself. After all, he was a member of the treasury benches for many years. He came to be known as a national figure and there are people who take for granted that what he says may be true, even though he endeavours to paint a picture different from what is actually happening in
41G4	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development the country; and it has a psychological effect on the people of the country. I would not be one bit surprised if, because of his statements and his many predictions, many sales of automobiles were lost in his own city of Windsor. I would not be one bit surprised if that type of prediction caused unemployment in that city.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are being lost now by the policies of this government.


Michael Starr: What are the facts in respect of the economy of this country? In the first place labour income in this country is at a record high. Last month, for the first time in the history of this country, we passed the $75 weekly average of labour income in the country.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: So has unemployment.


Michael Starr: Industrial expansion has continued at unprecedented rates; steel mills were at 104 per cent capacity in March; production was up all along the line. What does the Canadian Statistical Review say on page 19 of the 1959 supplement? It shows that in 1954, those buoyant days of Liberal rule- 1954 is the year they always point to; the hon. member for Essex East mentioned that date this afternoon-industrial production stood at 128.5. This was in the buoyant days of Liberal rule. In March, 1960, the latest available figure, it stood at 169.3, a gain of nearly 41 points.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You said that this afternoon.


Michael Starr: Let us look at employment. In manufacturing, in 1959 there were 172,000 more Canadians at work than in 1954; 50,000 more in transportation; 110,000 more at work at construction; 315,000 more at work in service industries and 118,000 more working in trade. There has been a decline in farm labour, but this is due to two things: first, increasing mechanization of farms and, second, the movement of people from farm work to more highly paid industrial jobs. This transition, Mr. Speaker, has been going on since the second world war. There is nothing new in it. Economists have been pointing this out for many years and we get these reports from them continually.
The simple fact of the matter is that this is one of the symptoms of an economy in a state of transition. In the final report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, the following appears:
The record of growth reflects the emergence of this country as an increasingly versatile, skilled and rich industrial nation.
This change-over has been taking place at a rate unparalleled in any modern country,


with the exception perhaps of Japan. Even in Japan problems of technological change and automation are becoming increasingly difficult and, from the reports we get, even in the Soviet union.
What would this committee come up with? Would it come up with something similar to what the committee dealing with the Atlantic provinces came up with?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a point of order-


Michael Starr: The last commission-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is reading his speech.


Michael Starr: The last commission of this type was appointed by the previous government and it dealt with the problem of the Atlantic provinces. It made the suggestion that the federal government should pay the transportation of those residing in the Atlantic provinces if they wish to go elsewhere. I do not know whether this type of committee would bring out anything more than what was said then. I know the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) is very much interested in the Atlantic provinces. I am sure he would not agree with what that commission brought out with respect to the province in which he resides.
Our task in this country has been the greater because we have been attempting to affect those changes through the free efforts of free men and free institutions in a free democratic country rather than through government control or regimentation.
What is the situation with regard to persons with jobs? The D.B.S. report for March shows a total of 5,668,000 Canadians with jobs; in March, 1959, the figure was 5,552,000, or 116,000 fewer. In March, 1958, the figure was 5,401,000, or 267,000 fewer than this year. In 1957 the figure was 5,460,000, or 208,000 lower. In 1956 the figure was 5,309,000, or
359,000	fewer than this year. I am sure that even the hon. member for Essex East will admit that employment in Canada is at a record level for all time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is unemployment that we are concerned about.


Michael Starr: In comparison with any other year-


Peter Francis Martin: It is unemployment that we are concerned about.


Michael Starr: Of course the hon. member drew up this resolution and in it he dealt with employment. He refers to a stable level of income and employment. Surely, in these

circumstances, he must admit that employment in Canada is at a record level for all time.
There is no mention of unemployment in his resolution at all.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about unplaced applicants?


Michael Starr: That this is another method of camouflage that the hon. member is pursuing is borne out by the fact that he made his speech and would not divulge his amendment until he was able to get in what he wanted to get in for the purpose that he had in mind.
Industrial production in Canada is up 5 per cent over last year; retail sales are up almost 2 per cent; labour income is 5J per cent higher; employment is up 2 per cent over last year; and construction awards are up over 100 per cent over last year; that is for the first three months of this year-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: What is the increase in construction? Is that all construction?


Michael Starr: Yes, taken from the Financial Post of May 21 of this year. The article gives the figures for the month. In the field of construction, contract awards, changes from a year ago are up 106.7 per cent. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, from the figures I have given so far one can see no sign of an economy in the throes of disaster. In January and February this year exports climbed 27 per cent over the same period last year. This is a good sign. We are closing the gap that has existed between exports and imports. But the responsibility for doing these things is not the responsibility of any committee that may be set up. It is the responsibility of the government. I say that the government and the actions that the government has taken have brought about the situation I have outlined this evening.
I admit, of course, that it would not be realistic for the opposition to concede that the government is responsible for these things. That is not their job. Their job is to sit here and try to find how best to criticize the government. If the members of the opposition are any good at all they will find ways and means to criticize the government. We expect them to do so and so do the people of Canada. But anyone who travels across the country can see nothing but tremendous expansion, hustle and bustle. Sales are up and people are earning more, spending more and saving more-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And more unemployment too.
National Board on Economic Development


Michael Starr: -than ever before in the history of Canada.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And more unemployment too.


Michael Starr: I said that it is not the job of the opposition to praise the government for what has been done in this field. Nor is it the job of the Canadian Labour Congress but in their last brief the Canadian Labour Congress did not hesitate to commend the government for what it has done in the past and ask us to carry on in the same way. It is interesting to read their brief because it certainly gives a realistic picture of what is happening. It is not often that a government of this country can gain commendation from the Canadian Labour Congress. We are proud of the fact that we have been able to do these things which have led the Canadian Labour Congress to agree with us and to urge us to carry on the work we have been doing. They say that the government has done a good job and they ask us to keep up the good work.
That is exactly what we intend to do, Mr. Speaker. None of these things can be done overnight. I need not tell that to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It took him from 1919 to 1956 to bring in hospital insurance-


Donald Methuen Fleming: And even then he did not finish the job.


Michael Starr: -and I know he was working on it all the time. But there are certain obstacles in the way before you can bring these things into effect. Certainly some good suggestions were made with respect to this matter last March. I must say that the hon. member for Essex East was only partially responsible because his colleague, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), added 17 points. There may be some good suggestions but they require study. They only made their suggestions on March 2 last and surely they did not expect that we would put the whole formula into effect in a matter of months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not?


Michael Starr: We are studying these things and we are proceeding as rapidly as we possibly can. But the results of what has been done since we took office in June, 1957 are evident already. There are many problems in many fields. I feel that the most important problem before us is to put our manpower to work on a full employment basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: We all agree with that. As I have said, our economy is in a state of rapid transition and to bear me out I would point
4166	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development out that the royal commission on economic development has stated the same thing. While tremendous expansion continues in Canada there will continue to be problems, and automation is one of these problems. My department is currently studying the effects of automation, and we have already made a survey touching on the electrical industry, the heavy machinery industry, the household appliance industry and the automobile industry. The committee established by the department is composed of labour representatives among others, and they are studying these things. You have to be an expert. The board suggested in this amendment could not study automation. How would you be able to pick for the personnel of such a board people who would know anything about automation? Automation needs to be studied by experts and that is what we have in the department. That is exactly how we are proceeding in an endeavour to find out what is happening in the field of automation and how it affects labour and manpower. To illustrate how difficult a job this is, I might say that it takes from six months to a year to conduct an on the spot survey in only one industry.
To come back to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, the problems we have to face are not problems that can be solved by any committee. They are problems that must be met by the government which was elected to do the job and which showed in 1958 that it could meet these problems. I do not feel too disappointed when I hear the hon. member for Essex East and others endeavouring to find loopholes whereby they can gain favour in the eyes of the people of the country. That is exactly what I would be doing if I were in the opposition. It is something I did when I was in the opposition but on a constructive basis. I think the hon. member will admit that I did not stray too far from constructive criticism when I was in the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman did not have the same grounds. You had good government at that time.


Michael Starr: After all that is his way of survival in the political arena and we expect it. At first I used to feel hurt when I heard an attitude expressed that was not constructive and certain things being implied by using a particular method, but now I have come to know the methods of certain members of the opposition and consequently I am not as worried now as I used to be in 1957 and the early part of 1958. With respect to the criticism of the hon. member for Essex East as to the actions of the government in the field of employment and the government's


economic policies, I have come to the conclusion that you have to look closely to find out what his intentions are and then you can proceed on that basis.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that our economy is healthy and more people are working. There are problems because of the growth of our country but they are problems that the government intends to tackle and solve. Certainly we cannot do that in two months as the hon. member expects us to and the committee that has been suggested would not do it in two months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have been in office for three years.


Michael Starr: We would not have a report from such a committee for two years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have been in office for three years.


Michael Starr: We have solved a great many problems in those three years and when we have been here for another 20 years, as the hon. member was-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: You will not be.


Michael Starr: -there will not be too many problems left in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister a question? Can he tell us whether, as a result of the speech he made on Thursday last, it is the intention of the government to call a conference of industry and labour as he proposed should be done when he spoke in Gananoque and as reported in the Ottawa Citizen last Friday?


Michael Starr: There we go again, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. member says is not entirely what I said on Thursday in Gananoque. I do not know what the report in the paper was to which the hon. member refers. I will have to take a look at it and check it but I am sure that the report is not as the hon. member has described it so I cannot answer his question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Another minister misreported.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just misquoted in the house.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I should like to discuss certain parts of the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).
I do trust that the Minister of Labour will not take offence at my saying, first of all, that we have just heard a most disappointing speech.

Following the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), we would have expected the Minister of Labour to quote some figures and to come forth with consistent explanations, and with a plan providing much greater hope for the Canadian people than is now justified.
I think the Minister of Labour is a bit of a doubting Thomas.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not Thomas Aquinas.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: He has before his very eyes figures issued by his own department, but he does not believe them.
Just a few days ago, he referred to a photograph, published in Montreal newspapers, that showed an unemployment insurance office with such a crowd around it that it overflowed into the street. And the Minister of Labour's answer was that the photograph had been taken before opening time.


Mr. Martel:: It is true.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Whether it was before or after opening time, and whether those unemployed had been photographed on the sidewalk or inside the office, they are much more significant than a speech, whether in Montreal or in other offices across the country. They illustrate the sad and extremely serious employment situation now prevailing in Canada.
Now the Minister of Labour tells us: the figures are misleading, in the sense that they are improperly interpreted. He tells us that about 48 per cent of the unemployed are seasonally unemployed.
I would ask the minister to indicate what he has to offer as an excuse for the latest figures issued by his office on April 30 last, which show that 750,000 Canadians are now seeking employment, as against only 714,000 at the same date last year?
The Minister of Labour has pooh-poohed the suggestions put forward in this house and on television by the hon. member for Essex East, as well as the 25 proposals submitted to this house by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier).
He has even said that the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Essex East is the second point in the list of proposals submitted last winter by the hon. member for Laurier. Well, whether it is the second, third or tenth point, let me ask the Minister of Labour a simple question: Why did he
23. 1960	4167
National Board on Economic Development not make use of it? Why, as Minister of Labour, and as the person in Canada who is best informed on the extent of unemployment, and on the pitiful employment situation, why did he not take the lead in having the whole employment problem reviewed by a committee of experts and economists?
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour tells us that if the amendment of the member for Essex East was accepted, it would mean that the government would waive part of its responsibilities. That is an answer or an explanation that could have been expected from a child, but surely not from an adult, and still less from the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, it would certainly not be waiving part of its responsibilities to have a problem such as employment in Canada studied by experts. That would in no way affect the government's responsibilities; its only responsibility would be to decide, after that board had submitted its report, whether the suggestions are beneficial to all Canadians or not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, while I am taking up certain statements of the Minister of Labour, may I point out that not a single minister is in the house at present-


Mr.   Marlel@: That is untrue.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Not a single minister of the crown-I welcome the Minister of Labour and I thank him also for his courtesy, because I am now commenting on the disappointing speech he made here tonight.


Mr.   Marlel@: A member certainly has the right to go behind the curtains.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: During his remarks, the Minister of Labour said that the hon. member for Essex East, especially since he sits in the opposition, saw the gloomy side of the situation, that is, he made a pessimistic report of the present situation in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Labour chooses to mention the fact that the hon. member for Essex East looks at the situation through very dark glasses, he will allow me to deal with certain remarks he himself made when sitting in the opposition, and we shall see which one of us two described the true situation.
On March 3, 1955, the present Minister of Labour, who was then sitting on the opposi-
4168	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development tion benches, said, when speaking of the em-poyment situation as we may see on page 1693 of Hansard:
Consequently we find ourselves with unemployment on a scale of national emergency-
Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that present conditions in this country are much worse than in 1955. I therefore ask the Minister of Labour, if he thought that the situation was on a scale of national emergency in 1955, what terms we might use tonight in describing conditions on April, 1960, when there were 756,000 Canadians looking for jobs?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour went still much further when, as an opposition member, in 1954 he supported a political party which submitted to the government of the day a proposal to have a committee of experts look into the whole employment question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask him once again to explain his behaviour. It is quite obvious that in 1954-and figures are there to prove it- the employment situation in this country was not comparable to the present one. If the present Minister of Labour, when sitting in the opposition in 1954 wanted to have the whole question of employment submitted to a board of inquiry, why did he state today that he was opposed to an investigation of employment and income in this country, when present conditions are much more serious then they were in 1954?


Mr. Mariineau:: He gave us his reasons.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The Minister of Labour suggests that, as far as employment and income are concerned, we are now in a period of boom. I should like to offer the Minister of Labour a challenge I wish he would take up one of these days. I wish he would attend a meeting in Montreal, for instance, where a third of all the unemployed in Canada are to be found, and make before these people the kind of speech he made here in the house tonight. If he took up this challenge, I am convinced the result would have nothing in common with the "boom" he tried to describe a moment ago.
It is obvious that there is nothing to be hoped from the Minister of Labour, whom we have urged during this session, perhaps every week, to find some formula or plan whereby a committee might study the situation and make recommendations, any more than there is anything to be hoped for from this government which refuses to assume its responsibilities in regard to unemployment and labour in Canada. Consequently,


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but if I rightly understood the directions previously given by Mr. Speaker, there is no justification in this debate to review the government's policy, or lack of policy, with regard to employment, or unemployment. The only permissible discussion is one relevant to the reasons which would justify the appointment of a national consultative committee on economic development and automation. As I understand it, the most appropriate subject matter to be discussed would be the advantages that could be derived from the setting up of such a committee. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to adhere strictly to those directives.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not always easy to keep within the limits. I can assure you that I am doing my utmost to proceed along the lines you have just indicated.
I was saying that a complete study should have been made of the unemployment and labour problem at the very beginning of this session. We have repeatedly asked the government to do so several times.


An hon. Member:: Order.
National Board on Economic Development


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This government has
always refused to take heed of our warnings. You were asking me, a moment ago, to confine my remarks to stressing the usefulness of an inquiry such as is being asked in the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Essex East. I feel that any thinking person will admit that, in a country like Canada, whose resources are so abundant, we can no longer tolerate a situation where hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are unable to enjoy the same standard of living as other Canadians. It is for the sake of those people that, from the very beginning of this session, we, on this side of the house, have never missed an opportunity of pointing out the deplorable state of employment. Now today, we have had submitted to us a very concrete proposal by the hon. member for Essex East. You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to give special warning to my friends the hon. members from the province of Quebec, whom I would ask tonight to ponder seriously the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Essex East, before voting against it.
Mr. Speaker, I would also ask one of the authorized representatives of the province of Quebec in the government, namely the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), the associate minister of defence (Mr. Sevigny), the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) or the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley)-either of the four- to rise tomorrow and tell us how they feel about the employment situation, particularly in the province of Quebec, because they have been sent here to look after the interests of the citizens of the province of Quebec.


The Deputy Speaker:: As I understand the hon. member, he is asking the minister to be out of order in replying to that question, in view of the fact that the hon. member is out of order himself with regard to the directives I gave him a moment ago.


Mr. Johnson:: He wants to propose an
amendment.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I also hope that the hon, member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson), who has just interrupted me, will rise in his place tomorrow to say what he thinks about the unemployment situation in the province of Quebec.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I could do so right now, if you wish.
(Text):


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is obviously flouting your ruling.
4170	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development (Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I indicated a moment ago that it was rather difficult to keep within the prescribed limitations. However, I shall try to do so.


Mr. Pigeon:: You have got to be smart.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We have before us a very definite proposal, one which I think could be the answer to Canada's unemployment problem.
A moment ago, the Minister of Labour stated that the government could do much more and much faster than a committee of investigation towards the settlement of that problem.
Let me point out to the Minister of Labour that such a committee could suggest two possible courses.
First, there are short term recommendations, and then long term recommendations.
It is obvious that, because of the fiscal and monetary policy of this government, we cannot help being in any other situation than the present one, but it is also obvious that some adjustment is required in the economic structure of our country, because we cannot again put up with the sight of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens being unable to share in the standard of living enjoyed by other Canadians.
If the amendment of the hon. member for Essex East is the answer to the problem of the nine other provinces, and if there is a province where it is necessary to investigate, it is the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 1960, 236,000 people were looking for work in the province of Quebec. It is the highest figures since the Conservative depression of 1930. I wonder if my hon. Conservative friends from the province of Quebec are satisfied with this situation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) is ignoring your advice. You told him several times to comply with the rules. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you order him for the last time to cease ignoring your instructions.


Mr. Caron:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe the member who just rose is mistaken. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex East is so broad in scope that it is extremely difficult to wander away from it.
I believe the interpretation you made of it a few moments ago was a little narrower than that of the Speaker.


(Text):


James Stanley Speakman: That is not what the
Speaker said this afternoon.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I complete my point of order, without the hon. member interfering?
I think it is essential to speak of the existing situation because the purpose of the committee we are asked to set up, would precisely be to improve conditions.
The overriding issue in the province of Quebec today is unemployment, and I think we have the right to deal with it at this stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thought for a
moment that the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont would stick to the proposal now before us-at least he had given me some hope in this respect-but I must say that at the time when the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm raised his point of order, I believed he was just about to discuss the unemployment or employment situation, which, as a matter of fact, is not the subject matter of the motion.
It is simply a matter of dealing with the effect the establishment of a national advisory council could have on economic development and automation.
Indeed, we can deal with unemployment- I believe the hon. member has had many opportunities to do so-but the main purpose of the amendment is the establishment of the committee, and it is in that sense that Mr. Speaker indicated the limitations of the debate, because the government policy with respect to unemployment has been dealt with a ruling of the house, and it cannot be reverted to.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I trust the points of order which have been raised will not shorten the time available to me-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is not unanimous.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the main reason why-


Jean-Jacques Martel: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The main reason why I believe all members of the house should vote in favour of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Essex East, is that no one, until today, neither from this government nor from the government of the Union Nationale, has shown any interest in the unemployment problem.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The hon. member should adhere more strictly to the rules of the house. He should not take so much liberty with the rules. In fact, he is making fun of you.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, we listened to the Minister of Labour dealing for about half an hour with no other subject matter than unemployment itself.


Jean-Jacques Martel: No, of employment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I appreciate that Mr. Lesage is fully employed at this time-which should not be the case after June 22.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe it is not necessary to repeat to hon. members the limits of the debate; so I would ask the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont to keep within those limits, to abide by the directives of the Speaker.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to abide by your directives.
Now, the reason why I believe this amendment should be adopted at this stage of the session, is the fact that it is perhaps the last effort-
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I be allowed to go on with my remarks without further hindrance? I find that the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) keeps interrupting about everything-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: And particularly about
nothing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is recognized that the hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted unless he agrees and particularly, he should not be interrupted if it annoys him.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East, in view of the circumstances described a moment ago, is perhaps the most important amendment introduced before this house in the course of this session, and I am appalled at the irresponsible attitude shown by my hon. Conservative friends from Quebec with regard to this amendment, which is probably, for the province of Quebec-


James Stanley Speakman: For Canada.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: And also for the whole of Canada-


An hon. Member:: Including the Yukon.


Mr. McCleave:: Stop reading your speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest we call it ten o'clock?
79951-0-263
Business of the House


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is only two minutes before ten.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I shall go on with my remarks.
I	am appalled that hon. members from the province of Quebec, which is the province most affected by unemployment, show so little responsibility with regard to this matter-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That is not true.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -and the purpose of the amendment is to relieve it. I find it extraordinary that the Conservative members for the province of Quebec should joke instead of supporting us, because it is primarily for the citizens of the province of Quebec that the amendment was introduced. It is in that province that there are close to one third of all unemployed of the country.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Order. You have talked enough; Mr. Lesage will tell you the rest tomorrow. Phone Mr. Lesage to learn the rest of it.
(Text) :


The Deputy Speaker:: Are hon. members calling it ten o'clock? I understand the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is calling it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: My embarrassment, Mr. Speaker, arises from the fact that you apparently have not resumed your seat after calling it ten o'clock in order to permit me to ask what the business of the house will be for Wednesday of this week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for this week will be found on page 4072 of Hansard but I now suggest a change for Wednesday due to certain circumstances beyond our control. For one thing, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act will be postponed at the request of the members of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and the order of business for Wednesday will run this way: Item No. 8 on today's order paper, the resolution with regard to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, followed by the second reading of Bill No. S-27, an act to control and regulate the sale of feeds, followed by the budget resolutions.

Business of the House Mr. Mcllrailh: As I understand it, it was indicated on page 4072 that consideration of the budget resolutions will precede the legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the original intention, but there is a funeral ceremony that a number of hon. members are attending on the morning of Wednesday. They will be back late on Wednesday afternoon. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is concerned, and
he will be back in time to proceed with budget resolutions, though later than anticipated.


George James McIlraith: So that the order will now be the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and the act to control and regulate the sale of feeds and then the budget resolutions for Wednesday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 24, 1960