1960-12-12

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-51, to amend the Broadcasting Act (human rights abuses remedied).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In introducing this bill Mr. Speaker, I strike a blow in defence of legitimate free enterprise. While the bill itself contains lengthy explanatory notes which I trust hon. members will read carefully because they have been carefully drafted by what the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) would term eminent counsel, I want to give a brief explanation of what inspired this bill and its purpose.
The News Publishing Company Limited of Nelson owns the Nelson daily News and radio station CKLN at Nelson. Recently it was brought to my attention that Mr. A. R. Ramsden-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Churchill:: I think all we require at this stage, Mr. Speaker, is an explanation of the bill without going into the argument as to why it is introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, that is correct. The explanation should be as brief as is consistent with clarity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is not customary in this house, Mr. Speaker, to be clear and brief at the same time. I am just quoting this paragraph in order to indicate the purpose of the bill.
Recently it was brought to my attention that Mr. A. R. Ramsden, manager of CKLN, cancelled the advertising contract of the Kootenay Graphic News on the ground that the Graphic News was a business competitor competing for the same advertising. I considered this action on the part of the radio station manager a violation of the principles of legitimate free enterprise and of the spirit of socially desirable competition-


An hon. Member:: Give it on second reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and on that account brought the matter to the attention of Dr. Andrew Stewart, chairman of the board of broadcast governors, who advised me that his legal advisers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think, as the point has been taken, the hon. member should come to the purpose of the bill rather than explain the reasons which prompted him to bring the bill forward.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was just explaining the reasons for the purpose of it. Anyway, I was advised there was no law or regulation at the present to prevent this practice. Apparently it had not happened before. Therefore, in order to provide the board of broadcast governors with the authority to deal with this type of discrimination, I introduce this bill to amend the Broadcasting Act. Apparently this is the first time this form of discrimination has been brought to the attention of the board.
When this bill comes before the house I intend to suggest it be referred to the special committee on broadcasting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now at a further stage of the proceedings. I take it the hon. member has completed his explanation; at least it seems fairly clear to the Chair, and I daresay to the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SHIPPING


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-3, to repeal certain laws relating to the signal station at Halifax.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether this is the first and only bill that has gone to the Senate?


Léon Balcer: It is the first that I know of.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
698	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT



STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF C.P.A. ON U.S.-CANADA AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport-it has nothing to do with the bill in the other place, I can assure him- and ask whether he has seen the statement made recently in Hamilton by the president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines calling the Canada-United States reciprocal air agreement "ludicrous and frustrating" and influenced by "selfish, short-sighted and restrictive policies imposed by special interests"; and has the minister any comment to make on that statement?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have only seen a short extract from the speech in the Montreal Gazette of Saturday morning, I think. I look forward to reading the complete text of the address of the president of C.P.A. before making any statement or expressing any opinion on the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Does the minister think it is reasonable that no Canadian air line can fly Montreal to Chicago, while several foreign air lines may do this and carry Canadian passengers directly between these two cities in competition with Canadian air lines?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make until I have read that speech.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any report to make to the house on the lost premier of British Columbia, or on the lost week end he spent in Victoria with respect to developments on the Columbia?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to ask this question. I also received notices of desire to ask questions about the Columbia river from the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh), the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) and several other British Columbia members.
In reply I would like at once to assure them that the only thing that was lost on the week end was knowledge on the part of his staff


of the whereabouts of the premier of British Columbia. Since, however, some hon. members have indicated that they would like to know what implications this has for the future, perhaps I should take this opportunity to say a word or two about the present situation.
As the house probably knows, while my colleagues and I were meeting with members of the British Columbia government on Thursday afternoon in Victoria for the purpose of discussing all aspects of the Columbia river development, the premier of British Columbia announced publicly that he rejected the federal offer of financial assistance. This announcement was made while we were meeting, without advice to us until some hours after it had been made, with no opportunity having been given to discuss either our offer or its rejection.
On Friday, accordingly, I made a statement outlining our position in the matter. I emphasized that we remained ready and determined to continue all discussions and negotiations necessary to conclude a treaty to enable the commencement of construction and operation of the Columbia river project at the earliest possible moment. We remain ready and determined to do so, notwithstanding the attitude of the British Columbia premier, because we believe that the public interest demands the conclusion of this treaty.
I also attempted to arrange a meeting with Premier Bennett while I was in British Columbia to see whether, through personal discussion, I could do anything to remove what is apparently a complete misunderstanding on his part as to the nature and effect of the federal offer. I attempted to arrange this meeting on Friday afternoon when the premier was known to be in his office, but later his staff informed me that he had left his office with a visitor and they did not know where he was. I said I would be in British Columbia until the middle of Saturday afternoon and that I would be prepared to change my plans and stay over and return to Victoria if the staff could reach me and let me know what time would be convenient for a meeting.
I made this suggestion because I believed that notwithstanding the difficult position created, it is in the public interest that the Columbia river project should commence as early as possible, and that it was therefore appropriate that notwithstanding the attitude which Premier Bennett had taken, I should do anything I could by a personal meeting and discussion to see if misunderstandings could be cleared up in order that the matter might proceed on a proper basis.

Unfortunately, as I say, Premier Bennett's staff assured me that they were unable to locate the premier; that they had no knowledge of his whereabouts, either in Victoria or, as far as I know, anywhere else in British Columbia, and no message was received from him up to the time I left Vancouver at about five o'clock on Saturday afternoon.
As to the future, it is our intention, as I have indicated, to press on with all the negotiations and discussions necessary to complete this treaty. I hope the government of British Columbia will reconsider its decision to refuse financial aid, because if they maintain it, they will only do so at the expense of the people of British Columbia, since they will be rejecting the most generous offer which any federal government has ever made to any province for assistance in the financing of a hydroelectric project.
However, if British Columbia does decide it does not wish financial assistance from Ottawa, that does not mean that there is an obstacle to the conclusion of a treaty. We have scheduled further meetings with the United States representatives during this week in order to complete the drafting of a treaty. We have also made tentative arrangements for further meetings with representatives of British Columbia to conclude an agreement governing the relations between Ottawa and British Columbia in this connection. Whether or not British Columbia decides to avail itself of the financial assistance which has been offered, we remain ready to conclude a satisfactory agreement governing the relations between our two governments with respect to this project.
I should reiterate that the federal government, which will be accepting extensive international obligations under the treaty, must have such arrangements with British Columbia that it is in a position of being assured of the ability to discharge those obligations. That is the position which we maintain and which we insist upon seeing written into any agreement, and which can be written into an agreement or arrangement with British Columbia whether or not they accept our offer of financial assistance.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask the minister a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government, then, to conclude an agreement with the United States government on this important matter whether or not a satisfactory financial arrangement has been made with the province of British Columbia?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, the financial arrangements with British Columbia, as I say, need
Inquiries of the Ministry form no obstacle to the conclusion of a treaty. What is important is a satisfactory agreement between British Columbia and the federal government in relation to preserving our ability to discharge our obligations under the treaty.


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a supplementary question with the Minister of Justice in relation to the Columbia river project. In view of the urgency of the situation, in the event that the premier of British Columbia continues to delay, could the minister urge or arrange, for example, a meeting between the Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia? Could the meeting be arranged at, say a week end, should the premier be willing to attend? Could the minister urge that this meeting be brought about by formal invitation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as I said in Victoria and as I should like to repeat here, we remain ready and indeed determined to do everything necessary to enable those negotiations and discussions to come to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion. Having said that, I think I must point out that with respect to the financial aspect of the matter, it would seem difficult to envisage further developments unless and until the premier of British Columbia modifies his stand. We have made a very generous offer. It has been rejected out of hand; indeed, rejected in terms which make it perfectly clear that the offer has not even been read and studied, indicating clearly the premier did not appreciate what were its nature and effect. It would therefore be difficult for the federal government to do anything with respect to the financial offer until the premier of British Columbia indicates some counter offer or some modification of his position.
Notwithstanding this, as I have said, I remain ready, and my colleagues who are on the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee are ready, to meet with their opposite numbers or with the premier at any time to discuss these matters personally. I think the first essential, however, is that we should receive some word as to whether Premier Bennett has been relocated.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask whether the premier of British Columbia had been made aware of the substance of the letter of December 6 before that letter was dispatched to him?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker; at meetings here in Ottawa on November 23 and 24 of the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee, we discussed the federal offer in

Inquiries of the Ministry some detail with the British Columbia members of that committee. We were informed at that time that the British Columbia ministers had been instructed by the premier of British Columbia that they were not to enter into detailed discussion of the financial offer. That made discussions rather difficult, but we were able to take advantage of the opportunity, to outline to them the federal offer in fairly specific terms so they might make a preliminary report to the premier as minister of finance of the province. So the premier, I assume, would have been advised by his colleagues as to what was the nature of the offer toward the end of November.
Then the Minister of Finance wrote the premier of British Columbia, outlining the offer in specific detail as Minister of Finance and answering certain questions of the premier of British Columbia.
There was thus a quite complete indication to the premier of British Columbia of what the offer was before the letter was dispatched to him. But his rejection of it, made on Thursday last in Victoria, seemed to deal more with the preliminary outline of the offer which had been made in February and April, and bore very little if any relationship to the expanded offer as outlined in detail by the Minister of Finance in his letter of December 6.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: May
I ask a supplementary question. Even though financial assistance is not given by the federal government to British Columbia, will there have to be a measure of control by the federal government?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go into too much detail, but I think I should emphasize generally what I have already said, namely that the federal government will be entering into very extensive and specific obligations under the treaty with the United States, when it is concluded, under which it will be our obligation to see to it that dams are constructed in certain places, in accordance with a time schedule, capable of achieving certain objectives which are specified, and that they are operated in a certain manner. In return for all this we will receive very substantial downstream benefits.
I am satisfied that this house and the people of Canada will expect us to ensure-and indeed we would not be conducting ourselves properly if we do not ensure-that we are in a position to meet these international obligations. Therefore, whether or not there is financial assistance from Ottawa to British Columbia, the central thing that is necessary, as I say, is that the federal government be in

a position, in any agreement with British Columbia, to see that it is capable of discharging these obligations.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingate):: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand the minister, then, to say that there must be a prior agreement with British Columbia before the federal government would be in a position to conclude the treaty?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the federal government would be in a position to ratify the treaty. But I can see no reason why discussion of what should be in the treaty cannot proceed in the meantime.



CANADIAN ATTITUDE TOWARD INCREASED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of various statements regarding trade relations with Cuba and in view of the presence in Canada of a Cuban trade delegation, could the Prime Minister say anything further about the attitude being taken by the Canadian government toward trade with Cuba?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rather expected a question along that line today in view of certain press references during the week end, and with the leave of the house I might make a statement in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to make a statement on the subject raised by this question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I assume if the statement requires any comment from this side that comment will be permitted?


Mr. Speaker:: As a statement, naturally that would be the consequence. In other words the Prime Minister is content to revert to motions to make the statement. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the house on Friday, in trade relations with Cuba consideration is taken at all times of the strategic nature of any goods involved. In fact, in view of the troubled situation in the whole Caribbean area, we have not for some time permitted the export of arms, munitions and closely related goods to any part of that area including Cuba.
With respect to other goods of Canadian origin, there can be no valid objection to trade with Cuba as with other countries. The

businessmen concerned will have to make their own judgments on the prospects for advantageous transactions.
It is our wish, consistent with our relations with other countries, to maintain the kind of relations with Cuba which are usual with the recognized government of another country. It is, of course, not our purpose to exploit the situation arising from the United States embargo, and we have no intention of encouraging what in effect would amount to the bootlegging of goods of United States origin.
This situation is fully understood by the Cuban authorities. We respect the views of other nations in their relations with Cuba just as we expect that they respect our views in our relations. I would add that it is our hope that in so far as mutually beneficial economic relations are maintained or developed, conditions in Cuba may be eased and the general relations of western countries with Cuba may be promoted. The government will of course keep a careful watch on the situation and will follow policies which we consider most likely to be constructive.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the statement which the Prime Minister has made on this matter of considerable importance raises more questions than can be commented on at this time. The Prime Minister has said that in respect of trade with Cuba under present conditions, consideration will be taken of the strategic nature of the exports in question. I understand that there are some 228 items on the list of goods and materials for which export permits are required in Canada; therefore it should not be difficult for the government to apply the export permit provisions of our law to exports of a strategic nature.
I am sure that no one wishes to interfere with legitimate trade with Cuba. Anything we can do to increase our legitimate trade with Cuba will be supported, I am sure, by all hon. members of the house. I am also sure, however, that no one wishes to take advantage of the present situation existing between Cuba and the United States to strengthen the forces of communist imperialism on that island.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was
going to say on behalf of this group that we appreciate the Prime Minister's very sensible statement on a very important question. In our opinion this course of action will result to the advantage of all in the long run.
Inquiries of the Ministry With respect to goods of Canadian origin, we were very glad to hear him say that the government would have no valid objection to business being undertaken on that basis.



CUBA-REPORTED CANADIAN REFUSAL TO CO-OPERATE WITH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister care to comment on the report that Secretary of State Herter said he had sought and failed to gain Canadian co-operation in the matter of exports to Cuba and export control?


John George Diefenbaker: There has been no request from the United States government for any particular action with regard to trade with Cuba.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: I do not
think the Prime Minister understood me. I wish to have a comment with regard to Secretary of State Herter's statement that Canada failed to co-operate in the matter of export controls to Cuba.


John George Diefenbaker: I was pointing out the fact that there has been no communication from the administration, and of course that includes the secretary of state of the United States, in this regard.



INQUIRY AS TO VISIT OF RUSSIAN MISSION TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In the
absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary. In view of his minister's present efforts to remedy Canada's difficult trade position, will the parliamentary secretary inform the house whether a Russian trade mission will visit Canada this year as intimated by the former minister, Mr. Churchill, on July 12 last? Will the parliamentary secretary also inform the house whether any meetings have taken place between the authorities of the U.S.S.R. and Canada, as specified in the letters exchanged on April 18, 1960?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: While the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give notice of this question, in my minister's absence it reached me only a short time ago and I have not yet been able to prepare a detailed reply. I will give an answer tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



HAZELTON, B.C.-ALLEGED INADEQUATE DENTAL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I direct a question to either the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whichever one has jurisdiction. I wonder whether the minister has received a telegram from the staff of the Hazelton amalgamated school, which telegram lodges a bitter protest against the current dental program for native children in that area and complains that the native health program is inadequate? If such a telegram has been received, is the minister in a position to report upon what action has been taken?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I did receive a telegram from the staff of the school complaining about the dental services provided to the Indians of that area. Incidentally, I am also greatly interested in the quality of the service given in this respect. As I advised the school principal last week, I have asked for a report on this matter from the directorate of Indian and northern health services. Full details should soon be received from the regional director in Vancouver, at which time I shall again contact the principal.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REPORTED LAY-OFF OF 104 PILOTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that 104 T.C.A. pilots are being laid off as a result of the increased speed and carrying capacity of the new jet-propelled aircraft? What steps are the crown corporation or his department taking to find adequate employment for these pilots?


Léon Balcer: I am aware of these lay-offs. The government, and I am sure the management of Trans-Canada Air Lines, find them very regrettable. I can assure the house that both the air line and the Department of Transport are looking into the matter very closely, and anything possible to ensure jobs for these personnel is being looked into.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of several letters which I have received, one of which I have in my possession now, to the effect that there will

be a substantial number of these pilots without adequate work, I wonder if the minister would not be good enough to look into the situation and perhaps report to the house?


Léon Balcer: I shall be pleased to do so.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaieleis (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether or not, since the end of the last session, he has had any consultation with the provincial authorities concerning restriction of the issuance of permits for small arms?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any discussion with provincial authorities. There may have been discussions between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial police forces. I shall inquire to make certain and, if necessary, give a further answer tomorrow.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I answer a question which was asked by the hon. member for St. Ann in my absence on December 8, and which was taken as notice by my parliamentary secretary. The hon. member asked me with regard to an investigation into the construction "des appartements metropolitains", at Montreal. The answer is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have carried out an investigation, and as a result crown counsel at Montreal has been instructed to institute criminal proceedings against certain individuals. It is expected that charges will be preferred in the very near future.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if she will be in a position to introduce and get first reading of the bill respecting immigration, so there would be an opportunity for hon. members and others to study it during the Christmas recess?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that the answer must be in the negative, time being so short between now and the Christmas recess.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND SEXUAL PSYCHOPATHS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. My question is based upon a reference in the speech from the throne to the fact that amendments will be proposed to the Criminal Code concerning capital punishment and the treatment of criminal sexual psychopaths. I wonder whether the minister will consider introducing the amendment to the Criminal Code which relates to capital punishment as a separate measure in order that the house may consider it as such and, perhaps, vote on it in a free manner?


Edmund Davie Fulton: will give some consideration to that request, certainly, but I think it would be a difficult procedure. Subject to that comment, we will give it our best consideration.



CHRISTMAS RECESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the house leader, and ask him when the house will be reconvening after the Christmas recess.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That announcement will be made later this week.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce in the absence of the minister, and ask him if instructions are being given to enumerators in the next census directing them to modify the form of the question relating to racial origin so that instead of asking the question, "What is your origin on your father's side", the question will be "From what country came your first ancestor on your father's side" or "What was the language spoken by your first ancestor on your father's side", as outlined in an article appearing in La Presse on December 9 last?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I don't know whether the hon. member has given notice of his question, but it seems to involve a rather detailed answer and perhaps might be put on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not believe it is a question that normally should go on the order paper. It is a question that has some urgency in view of the enumeration that is taking place-


Some hon. Members:: Next June.


Lionel Chevrier: Even though it is next June the documents have been printed and probably have gone out for the census, so it is important that we should have this information.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is prepared to take this as notice, I have no objection, but it is a question which should go on the order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will take the question as notice of motion for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who will be back later this week and will able to deal with it. I might say that the instructions to enumerators have not yet been finalized.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: I do not know whether my question should be addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, or to the Postmaster General. However, an answer from either of you will, I am sure, please the house. I am informed that the House of Commons has been without a postmaster since January, 1960. Is it your intention, Mr. Speaker, or that of the Postmaster General to fill that vacancy?


Mr. Speaker:: I can inform the hon. member that it is not an administrative responsibility of the Postmaster General, and that if he will communicate with me privately I will give him the answer.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I must inform f the hon. member that no supplementary question is possible where the question itself is not possible.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

Vocational Training
Public Works. Has the minister received a telegram from a Mr. Howard Chaisson, chairman of the citizens committee of Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, protesting the location of the new post office to be built on Sydney road?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid that the hon. member goes a bit beyond what could be considered urgent to occupy the house at this time. Numerous post offices are being located, and on previous occasions I have not allowed inquiries of that kind on orders of the day. I do not think I should play favourites.


Murdo William Martin: From the information that has been handed to me, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a December 15 deadline on this matter, making it really urgent as far as the people in this community are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member communicate with the Postmaster General.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that a notice of motion appearing in my name concerning the plans and specifications for certain information at Dorval airport was made an order for return some time ago. I should like very much to get the return.


Léon Balcer: In the absence of the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 9, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-49, respecting technical and vocational training assistance-Mr. Starr-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Friday last we had reached clause 4.
On clause 4

Agreement authorized for training facilities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When we were discussing clause 1 of the bill I put to the minister a question about projects that had already been begun or that were already under way for the building of technical schools, technical

institutes or vocational schools before the introduction or the coming into force of this act.
If I might recapitulate what I understood to be the minister's answer I should like to do so, and I shall be happy if he will correct me if I misrepresent him in any way, because I am certainly not seeking to do that. As I understood the answer, it was that, notwithstanding the fact that the contract might have been let and some expenditures might have been made on a project, that project would qualify for the additional federal assistance with regard to any expenditures that took place after the coming into force of this act. Before I go on to make any further observations, perhaps I should ask the minister whether that is a correct interpretation of his answer. If he will just answer that question, I should like to make another observation.


Mr. Starr:: Yes, that statement is correct. With the permission of the members of the committee I should like to clarify a statement I made last Friday with regard to the effective date of this legislation. The assistance provided in this bill is made available to the provinces by way of agreement with each province after the bill is passed. The new provisions of the bill will come into effect as soon as the revision of the agreement we have with the province at the present time is made or new agreements are authorized and completed with the provinces. I just want to make that clarification. I did not want to leave the impression that as soon as this act came into force, these further additions would be made available to the provinces. They will not be made available until a new agreement or a revision of the old agreement is put into effect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does that answer by the minister relate to construction projects?


Michael Starr: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely the reason I am pursuing the subject. This matter is not an academic one at all, and I am not seeking to have any kind of quarrel with the minister. I think we ought to know in the committee precisely what we are being asked to do in the legislation.
This is a matter of great importance. In the case of one project about what I happen to know personally, it is of the utmost importance for the provincial authorities to know as soon as possible what proportion of the expenditures on a structure that has already been started, although they have not gone very far with it, will in fact be borne by the federal government. It seems to me that the minister ought to consider carefully having this matter actually spelled out in the

legislation so that we shall be equally fair to all, instead of leaving it to depend on the time it takes to make an agreement with the provinces; because one might make an agreement with one province almost immediately and with another it might take six months.
I wondered whether the minister has given any thought-I am not going to put forward any suggestion myself-to actually putting a date in the bill in order to show that any expenditures incurred after that date on a project actually under way would be considered, and any incurred prior to that date would not be considered. In that way parliament would itself be laying down what the expenditures should be instead of the matter being left to a subsequent agreement. If the minister has not given any consideration to this matter I suggest that in order to save time and a great deal of discussion-because I do not think there is any fundamental disagreement on this point-the minister might perhaps allow this clause to stand and go through the others, and give this matter a little consideration in the meantime.
I refer to the matter of putting in a date. If the minister does not want to put it right in the bill, at least he could state here in parliament that it would apply to expenditures made after such and such a date-the date of first reading, or the date of enactment, or any other date-so that all provinces, regardless of how long it takes to make an agreement, will be treated alike.


Michael Starr: I am advised that we have the revised agreements all ready, in the hope that just as soon as we have the act passed we will be able to communicate with all the provinces simultaneously and immediately. We do not expect any hesitation on the part of the provinces to signing these agreements immediately. So they will be almost simultaneous as to date with any province that is particularly anxious to have some worthwhile project come under this bill that is in the process of construction at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What objection would there be to putting in a date so that every province would be treated alike notwithstanding? What objection would there be to saying that any expenditure incurred before the date of enactment would not be counted, but any expenditure incurred after the date of enactment would be counted? Then we in parliament would know they would all be treated alike.


Michael Starr: 1 see no advantage in having such a date included. It is pointed out to me that it is actually the agreements that have effectiveness as far as the provinces are concerned. A date in the bill would have 90205-6-45i
Vocational Training
no effect at all, or would not have the same effect. Personally I do not see any worth-while value in having a date in the bill, if we are prepared and anxious that the provinces launch upon a program or step up a present program during this period of time between now and March 31, 1963. I see no real hindrance in not having a date and having the bill as it is, provided we go right ahead with the agreements. As I said, we have these revised agreements ready to communicate to the provinces at once.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can perhaps explain to the minister why there might be difficulty. I do not say there would be, but there might be. I quite agree; the minister is quite right about any project that has not yet been started. I am sure no province will start a project between now and the date it signs an agreement with the federal government, and start spending money on it, because the provinces were told last Friday by the minister that they will not get any portion of that money. Anything they spend up until some undefined date, anything that has already been spent, they cannot get back; at least they cannot get the full benefit. Therefore I am sure no province will start anything in the interval. But there is one case I know of, and there may be others, where the project is already being built, and where every day the province goes ahead with it now, it is losing money. Every day that goes by the province will lose money, because it is going right ahead and doing what the minister wants.
The date I would like to see put in is the date on which this bill was introduced. It seems to me that would be fair. Then there would be no incentive on the part of anybody building a building to stop it, to delay it or to hold back expenditures in the meantime, and there certainly is now. This is not a theoretical matter at all; it is a practical matter of dollars and cents. Some of the provinces have shown enough zeal to go ahead before this bill came in. It does not seem to me that they should be penalized for having done so.


Michael Starr: Putting in a date as the hon. member suggests would be a case of retroactivity, retroactive payment. It is not usually the case, when a bill is passed to have it go back prior to the date when it became law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says that is not usual?


Michael Starr: Not to my knowledge. It may be to the hon. member's knowledge of course; he has more experience in legislation than I

Vocational Training
have. I am told by the departmental people that it would not be too practical to have the date in the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to suggest to the minister that he has apparently forgotten that his colleague whose seat is next to him, and who is not here at the moment because he is on the other side of the Atlantic-the Minister of Finance-regularly introduces retroactive legislation in every budget. When he imposes any commodity taxes, those taxes are made effective that night and the bills may be months in passing.
What I am asking the minister to do is exactly the same thing in reverse. Every day that any vocational school or technical institute is being built, every expenditure that is made from now until the time the agreement comes into force, the province is going to lose on it unless we fix a date. It seems to me we should have such a date for projects in being.
There is another matter about which I might remind the minister. What he is doing, the way he has the clause now, is saying that the governor in council will fix this date instead of letting parliament fix it in connection with the expenditure of money. It seems to me that far from being more impractical, but would be much more practical if it were known to us here what that date would be.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, has the minister any figure as to actual construction of vocational training and technical schools at the present moment?


Michael Starr: To our knowledge there are only two at the moment. There may be a third one. There is one in Newfoundland, as you could have guessed, and there is one , in New Brunswick at the moment. I might say that I saw the plans of the one in Newfoundland. They were presented to me. I think it is a worth-while project, but they are really not in full stride in the construction of these schools at the moment; they are very slow. I think that answers your question.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes. I have a supplementary question.


Michael Starr: I would say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, about the date he suggested-what was that date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggested the date of first reading, but I would not quarrel with the minister about the date.


Michael Starr: You could never draw a line anywhere, because once you suggested the date of first reading, for example, New

Brunswick would say, "We started ours a month ago. Why do you not go all the way back and help us?"


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not suggesting that.


Michael Starr: In that way you get into a position where you never satisfy anyone, regardless of whether you do spell out the date, because they can always say, "Why do you not take it back ten more days; it will help us more?"


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite willing to yield to the minister's observations and withdraw the suggestion of any earlier date than the date of the coming into force of the act, the date on which this act receives royal assent. I would be quite satisfied, so long as there is a certain date, if that date were put in, instead of waiting until the agreement is made with the province. Of course if there is no agreement with the province, there will not be any date. But if an agreement is made, it is not retroactive; we are not putting it back a day before royal assent, and then all provinces would be treated alike. If the minister is willing to accept that I think it would meet my whole point.


Lionel Chevrier: Agreed.


Michael Starr: I can say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that without spelling out in the bill the exact date, we would make the commencing date-and this would be understood-the day of royal assent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister. I think that is clear. As far as I am concerned, knowing that the minister himself will have to sign these agreements, I am quite willing to accept his word that the date of royal assent will be the date of starting payments under these agreements. I think it would be preferable to put it in the bill, but I am not going to insist.


Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two points that I would appreciate the Minister of Labour clarifying. No doubt he realizes that in Ontario especially there has been quite a trend toward the composite school, at which both vocational and academic education are dealt with in the same school building. I would hope that the training facilities which are mentioned in this bill would refer to the vocational and commercial wing of a composite school, and that such a school would receive the same grants as a vocational school.


Michael Starr: In all instances, whether they be separate schools or trade schools or composite schools where a section is devoted to vocational training, the federal government provides 50 per cent.


Walter George Pitman: My other question really
should have been related to clause 3. Will the grants be given in respect of young people who are actually taking academic courses but who are also attending vocational training classes? Will the grants be made available in respect of these occasional classes, when the students are not following a complete vocational training course?


Michael Starr: The basis for reimbursement is that 50 per cent of the students' time must be spent on vocational training.


Walter George Pitman: My last question is this. Would the minister be good enough to indicate why there is a six-year limit on these agreements? It seems to me it will take some time before results begin to flow from this scheme, and I wonder why agreements for such a short term are being made, particularly with regard to the clause which mentions a three-year term; construction has to be complete in three years in order to qualify for the extra 25 per cent grant. I realize that the government wants to get this thing started and under way, but it seems to me it is bound to take a great deal of time to erect these buildings. Plans must be prepared and approval obtained, and it seems to me it is bound to be a long term project. Would it be the case that if a vocational training school were started within the next three years grants would be paid in respect of that institution?


Michael Starr: In respect of that portion they will be able to complete up to March 31, 1963. Our previous agreements with the provinces in this field were on a five-year basis. It is proposed that the new agreements shall be on a six-year basis. However, that does not mean that at the end of the six-year period there will be no further agreements. I think this six-year period will give us time to review the situation and form an opinion of what is likely to happen. Then, of course, new agreements may be drawn up to deal with the situation after 1963.
I think, also, that the proposals in the bill will help to accelerate construction of this type. If the period were lengthened there might be a tendency for some provinces to say, "Instead of doing anything about it now, we will hold off and start in three years' time." I think the shorter term of six years adds a sense of urgency to this matter and will accelerate the efforts of the provinces.


Mr.   Morion@: I should like to bring one question to the minister's attention, particularly as it affects the Toronto area. I know this is not a matter in which the dominion government can interfere, but has there been
Vocational Training
any discussion with the provinces with respect to their increasing their grants to the municipalities?
The reason I ask this question is that in the province of Ontario at the present time the grant is limited to 35 per cent to 38 per cent of the cost of a classroom being set at $25,000; whereas the actual cost of an academic classroom is about $60,000, and a classroom fitted for vocational or technical training would cost a good deal more. If this program is to be encouraged and a further burden is not to be placed on the municipalities, it seems to me the provinces must increase their grants or the proportion of the costs which they pay. Unless this is done the program is bound to advance less rapidly than it otherwise might, and that is why I was wondering whether there had been any discussion with the provinces along these lines.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman. We do not feel it is our responsibility to tell the provinces what they should do in their relations with the municipalities. However, I would say this; that if the provinces wish, they can follow the good example set by the federal government in this field.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Agreement authorized for continuation of projects, percentage of cost, etc.
John Whitney Pickersgill: With respect to these agreements which are to be continued, perhaps the minister could tell us whether there are agreements in force with all the provinces and, if there are not, which provinces have no such agreements.


Michael Starr: Agreements are in force in all the provinces with the exception of Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except Quebec. Now, to deal with the formula itself, the minister has said frankly that it was so incomprehensible that even he did not understand it. He said that while we were discussing clause 3. Nevertheless he is now asking parliament for authority to pay money out under this formula. Perhaps the minister has done some homework over the week end and is now in a position to explain to us how these things are financed.


Michael Starr: That is not the formula for clause
5.	It is the formula for clause 3, and I should be glad-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are being asked in clause 5 to continue some of these agreements which were in effect under clause 3. That is the reason I raise the question at this time.


Michael Starr: I am advised that everything in clause 5 is on a fifty-fifty basis.

Vocational Training


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but 50 per cent of what?


Michael Starr: We pay 50 per cent of the provincial expenditure in this field.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but what is it on?


Michael Starr: The present agreement provides $15 million for the five-year period April, 1957 to March, 1962. This amount is made available by way of annual allotments of $2,500,000 in each of the first two years, $3 million in the third year and $3,500,000 in the fourth and fifth year. These funds are for payments to the provinces to assist in the operating costs of the training programs of technical and vocational high schools, trade schools, technical institutes and institutes of technology.
The annual appropriation for the present year is $3,500,000. It is made available by an initial allotment of $30,000 to each province and $20,000 each to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The balance of the $3,500,000 is divided among provinces and territories on the basis of the percentage of population in the 15-19 age group residing in each province or territory. However, the federal contribution to each province cannot exceed 50 per cent of the provincial expenditures.
The present legislation proposes a quota allotment on a similar basis in support of approved programs of technical and vocational high school programs, limited however to 50 per cent of provincial government expenditures for this purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the government makes this payment without setting any standards as to the provincial expenditures? It is simply a matter of the provincial government saying that it has spent so much money for this purpose, and the federal government is willing to pay half of what the province pays?


Michael Starr: This is all set out clearly in
every agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But we are members of parliament, sir, and not all of us have as much time for reading as the minister's officials do. That is precisely what I was seeking to get on Friday, exactly what the federal grant was paid for. I presume that before we make these payments certain standards are laid down.


Michael Starr: It is the total cost of the teachers' salaries, the operating expenses, the cost of the equipment and everything in connection with this training force which is an approved training force under the technical and vocational program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And any course that is given in the schools is an approved course?


Michael Starr: That is right. I made a general statement in answering questions that all courses of training below the university level participate under this arrangement.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister what he means by paying half the capital cost. If, for instance, a building or equipment were amortized over 25 or 30 years does the federal government under this agreement pay half the capital cost for 6 years?


Michael Starr: During the period from the date that royal assent is given this bill, any projects in the school system undertaken by the provinces that come under this legislation will be affected. The actual expenditures in relation to a project between that particular date and March 31, 1963 will be reimbursed by the federal government to the provinces to the extent of 75 per cent of that expenditure in that period of time, and after that date to the extent of 50 per cent of the capital cost of construction and equipment.


William Hector McMillan: If a municipality undertakes a building, for instance, and receives municipal grants, would that municipality receive a certain percentage in toto from the federal government?


Michael Starr: No, we deal with the provinces only. We do not deal directly with the municipalities.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Federal research program.
Mr. Peters:: I see that the provinces undertake this general study. Has the minister any form of training in mind he thinks is necessary that has not been undertaken by the provinces? What specifically are we trying to develop under this clause? Are some of the courses enumerated not undertaken by some of the provinces? How well equipped is the federal government to conduct training courses such as these?


Michael Starr: I am informed that we are equipped to do so. We have done a great deal and expect to do a great deal more in this field.


William Arnold Peters: With respect to the trade analysis course, have we schools where this type of training is given? Does the department send out one or two experts in the field to the provincial educational system? How is it done?


Michael Starr: There is a committee that examines each trade and develops the analysis.


Mr. Caron:: This is not clear, Mr. Chairman; therefore I wish to ask a question of the minister. Clause 7 reads:
(1)	The minister may undertake and direct research in respect of technical and vocational training and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may undertake and direct research in respect of any of the following matters:
(a)	trade analysis courses content;
(b)	training aids, examinations and standards;
(c)	the changing needs of the economy for trained workers;
(d)	the relationship between technical and vocational training and the needs of the economy; or
(e)	any studies that, in the opinion of the minister, would assist in improving technical and vocational training in Canada.
(2)	The minister may, where he deems it appropriate, undertake and direct any research referred to in subsection (1) in co-operation with any province.
Does this not mean that there is an erosion into the autonomy of the provinces in the domain of education?


Michael Starr: This is done with the complete co-operation of the provinces. There is no infringement upon their autonomy at all.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The clause provides that the minister may, where he deems it appropriate, undertake and direct any research referred to earlier in the clause in co-operation with any province, but it does not say "with the provinces". The minister may decide on a standard with one province and impose it on the others.


Michael Starr: Oh, the minister would not do that.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I hope not, but would it not be clearer if it were specified in the bill? I understand the good intentions of the minister, but he may not always be there. Should it not read "the provinces" instead of "with any province"?


Michael Starr: The intention of this is to have it with any or all. That is the intention of the wording in this clause. You can read all sorts of things into it, but the actual intention is "with any or all".


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would it not be clearer if it were worded as I suggested? It would be a very slight amendment and would not affect the bill at all, because it is the minister's intention that it convey this meaning. It would be much clearer.


Michael Starr: Although I am not a lawyer I see no harm in the hon. member's suggestion. The hon. member seeks an amendment to have included the words "any or all". I would ask my colleague to move an amendment to this effect.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: I so move.
Vocational Training


Mr.   Chairman@: It is moved by the hon. member for Queens:
That subclause 2 of clause 7 be amended in line 21 by adding the words "or all" after the word "any" and by adding the letter "s" to the word "province".
Is that the amendment? The sentence would then read:
(2) The minister may, where he deems it appropriate, undertake and direct any research referred to in subsection (1) in co-operation with any or all provinces.
I was wondering whether it would read better if it said "with any province or all"?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you want it to be grammatical that would be better.


Jacques Flynn: The amendment would be that subclause 2 of clause 7 be amended in line 22 by deleting the colon and adding thereafter the words "any province or all of them".


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Or all provinces".


Jacques Flynn: "Or all provinces". Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that this confuses the wording even more. If you are going to change it, then add "in one of the provinces or all the provinces". If you want to make it clearer that is what you should do. The minute you say "any province or all" you are complicating the construction of the sentence. If you want to make it general, then by adding the words suggested you are going to complicate it more. I think we should say "in co-operation with any one province or with all provinces".


John Whitney Pickersgill: That amendment has already been made.


Mr. Nugent:: It seems to me the wording is perfectly clear the way the paragraph reads right now. There is nothing to prevent the minister from making an agreement with a number of provinces. I think the amendment moved is going to muddy the situation instead of clarifying it. I suggest that the minister is trying to be altogether too agreeable here. Just leave it the way it is.


David Vaughan Pugh: I certainly agree with the last speaker. With what little legal knowledge I have I see no sense in adopting the amendment. Is there not probably a better reason why we should change the section? It reads:
The minister may, where he deems it appropriate, undertake and direct any research referred to in subsection (1) in co-operation with any province.
The idea behind it is that a province has a particular point of view to get across so far as jobs are concerned. Therefore, in dealing

Vocational Training
with a particular province there is no need to tie in all the other provinces of Canada. If two, three or more than one want to come in on something similar, that is fine. I think the whole object of this thing is that the federal government can deal alone with any provincial government. I see no sense in changing it.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, actually the amendment does not change the original intent of the bill, but it will make the hon. member for Hull happy and I am glad to co-operate.


David Vaughan Pugh: Build two bridges instead of one.


Jacques Flynn: Shall I put the amendment, or is it withdrawn?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The amendment was presented by the minister and it should be put.


Michael Starr: Let the amendment stand.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 7 as amended carry?


Mr. Carter:: I should like to ask the
minister whether any thought has been given to the working out of a standardized certificate for people who take these courses, so they would have a certificate which would be recognized in every province?


Michael Starr: A lot of work has been done on the objective which the hon. member has in mind, and a great deal of progress has been made.


William Arnold Peters: Has the department in its advice and technical assistance in the past been able to reach a standard which in effect is accepted in each province? Has the training been the same or similar in the provinces, or does the minister expect that it will eventually result in equalization of qualifications from province to province? What influence has the federal government assistance had toward that end?


Michael Starr: Interprovincial standards have now been obtained in the automobile mechanics field, the electrical construction field and the plumbing field. Others are being worked on at the moment, and the work will continue.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 8-Federal technical and vocational training programs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is one point with respect to paragraph (b) that I should like to raise. I am very glad the

Minister of Fisheries is in the committee at the moment, because it does seem to me that there is one area in which, as the Minister of Fisheries knows very well, there is a good deal of need for improved technical methods, and that is in the fisheries. We also know that under the British North America Act fisheries come exclusively under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I understand that there are some technical schools in some of the provinces where the fishery is prosecuted, where courses are given of one kind or another to assist the fishermen, but since most of the provinces where fishing is an important industry, except British Columbia, which is so very wealthy, are not among the wealthier provinces of Canada, they are not in a position to do this on a large scale. I wonder whether the minister has had any consultation with the Minister of Fisheries with a view to the stepping up by that department, or in co-operation with it, of a technical training and technical educational program for fishermen and for young men who might wish to go into the fisheries?


Michael Starr: There are extensive courses on fisheries carried on now in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia. We are in constant touch with the officials of those provinces; that is, the federal department and the provinces, and we are prepared, as far as we are concerned, to participate in any stepped up effort on the part of the provinces in this field and with the federal Department of Fisheries.


Mr. Weichel:: I should like to ask the minister a question concerning paragraph (a) which reads:
For any person serving in the naval, army or air forces of Canada and for any person who formerly served in such forces and who has been approved for such training by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
We know that a great many veterans had previously received vocational training, I imagine that if it is approved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs they can receive further training. Is that right?


Michael Starr: That is right, and the cost is borne 100 per cent by the federal government.


William Arnold Peters: How many federal schools are operated by the Department of Labour? If there are any, where are they located and how many students are enrolled in each school?


Michael Starr: There are none.


William Arnold Peters: Do I understand, then, that this means that federal technical schools will be set up again, similar to the one at Brockville?


Michael Starr: No; just courses, specific courses in this field, paid for 100 per cent by the federal govermnent.


William Arnold Peters: In provincial institutions?


Michael Starr: That is right.


David Vaughan Pugh: In that connection, does the provincial government have to initiate the course or does the federal government ask that it be started?


Michael Starr: No, the federal government requests.


Chesley William Carter: Can the minister clarify the procedure here? If a veteran wishes to take advantage of this clause, does he get in touch with the provincial government or does he apply directly to the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Michael Starr: To veterans affairs.


Walter George Pitman: This clause refers to any person serving in the naval, army or air forces of Canada and any person who formerly served in such forces. Do I understand that any person who is serving now in the naval, army or air forces of Canada can attend these schools in any of the provinces, and that the cost of his course will be paid for by the federal government; is that the idea?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Walter George Pitman: Has that ever been done before? I always thought the federal government looked after the training of their own forces.


Michael Starr: This sort of training has been carried on since world war II. The cost is carried by the federal government and the training is instituted at the request of the federal government, but the province undertakes to provide the location of it, that is in some existing school building.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one point for clarification. In so far as persons who are actually still enrolled in the navy, army or air force are concerned, it is not contemplated that the Department of Labour would carry the cost of their courses in its estimates, is it? They would be paid for by the Department of National Defence?


Michael Starr: If the person is still enrolled in the forces and he takes training, then of course we do not have financial responsibility there. There are minor instances, I am informed, where the forces do not-whether it is the navy, as you suggest-provide for 90205-6-46
Vocational Training
these people; then they ask the Department of Labour to take on this responsibility and we pay the cost of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, the Department of Labour is assuming part of the cost of training the armed forces.


Michael Starr: That would be the result.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have just one more question, and perhaps I could ask it of the minister now. Are these courses required because the individual is going to continue in the service or are they courses taken because the individual contemplates being discharged and returning to civil life?


Michael Starr: They are trade courses to qualify the individual for work in the service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And it is paid for by the Department of Labour?


Michael Starr: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A kind of secret defence budget.


William Arnold Peters: This raises another question. In so far as the old federal trade schools were concerned, money was allotted to take care of living expenses connected with taking the training at these schools. Is there going to be provision of that nature for people attending these schools? For instance, if there are 200 or 500 people at Elliot Lake who should be given certain types of training to qualify them for some employment, then I presume they would be sent to an institute like Ryerson, which is within the province of Ontario. Does the government contemplate allowing them a certain amount of money for room and board? How is that arrived at? The same question could be asked in connection with the service personnel who are attending provincial schools, although they are probably paid; but will that be done by the Department of Labour?


Michael Starr: Transportation is provided for the person himself, plus living allowances for himself and for his family.


William Arnold Peters: What would be the amount? For instance, it would cost a lot more in the city of Toronto compared with a place like North Bay or London. Is there a set amount?


Michael Starr: No, it varies. The cost of living is established by the province for that province, and we participate in that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 13-Report to parliament.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before this clause carries, Mr. Chairman, I may say that I have

Vocational Training
examined this bill fairly carefully. I am not a lawyer any more than the minister is, and I do not even have the benefit of advice from lawyers at the moment, but I cannot find anything anywhere in this bill that says when it is coming into effect. Usually it is provided that a bill will come into effect either on royal assent or on proclamation. It may be that if there is no specific provision there is something in the Interpretation Act about it. I wonder if the minister could tell us about that.


Mr. Palleil:: The hon. member knows the answer to that from past experience.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member does not know from past experience, and he is not ashamed to admit once in a while that he is ignorant.


Michael Starr: The hon. member is referring to the bill itself rather than the provisions of the bill coming into effect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is the same thing.


Michael Starr: Well, no; the provisions of the bill come into effect on the basis of the agreements with the provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not mean when the agreements will come into effect. They will not come into effect until they are signed, but every provision of the bill will be in effect as soon as the bill is in effect.


Michael Starr: I am told it will come into effect as soon as royal assent is given.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time; now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Michael Starr: the third reading of the bill.


John Cameron Pallett: Call the yeas and nays.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman need not get so excited. Since the motion for third reading of the bill is debatable, I wish to make one or two brief observations. We gave consent to third reading today because the amendment which was suggested by the hon. member for Hull was not of such a complicated character, notwithstanding the observations made by the hon. member for Victoria-Car-leton (Mr. Montgomery), that it was not readily comprehensive, and we saw no reason to hold up the bill for another day to have it reprinted.

The second reason was that the minister has stated that the date for the cost sharing of existing projects will be the date of royal assent to this bill, and there are many of us who think that date cannot come too soon. We believe it would be desirable to get this bill to the other place at the earliest possible moment so the ladies and gentlemen in the other place could have a look at it before they take what is suggested might be an earlier departure than ours. For that reason we are neither holding up third reading of the bill nor do I intend to make any extended observations about it.
However, so there may be no misunderstanding of the position of the official opposition with regard to this matter, I wish to say this. While in two respects the bill does not go as far as we should like to see it go, nevertheless it is a considerable advance- and we make this admission at once-on the present law. We shall therefore unhesitatingly support this inadequate step, at the same time wishing, however, that it was an adequate step. In doing so we want to reaffirm our view that in one important respect we think the bill is inadequate, namely with respect to the training of unemployed persons.
As was said I think by almost every hon. member who spoke on this side of the house on second reading, and as was said by one or two, even in the committee stage, we feel that the bill should provide that unemployed persons who receive training will have the total cost of their training defrayed out of the federal treasury. We feel that this is a national responsibility, and that it should have been assumed by the nation. We believe that it may not be long before this government, or another government, comes back to this house and asks to have that done, as was done, as I myself observed on a previous occasion, in the case of the training and education provided for veterans at the end of the second world war.
The analogy is not a bad one. Many of those persons who are now unemployed are not seasonally unemployed; they are not unemployed because of a cyclical fluctuation in business. They are unemployed because of the vast technological changes which have taken place, which have made their existing skills, or even their lack of skills, redundant, and which make it necessary, if they are to make a useful contribution to society, that they be trained in these skills whether or not they had skills previously. That is the most important respect in which we feel that the legislation could and should have been improved.
We also feel that some greater initiative should be taken by the federal government

in respect of the positive encouragement of training. While that provision need not necessarily have been made in this bill, we feel that in some legislation during this session of parliament steps should be taken to provide additional incentives, over and above those that exist at the present time, to persons who are unemployed to take training, and to make clear to them the advantages of training and the opportunities that additional training will offer. That statement is made perhaps not so much as a direct criticism of the inadequacy of the bill as a suggestion with regard to some other action that might appropriately be taken by the government.
There is one other point that I think needs to be made. This legislation will undoubtedly tend to make our population more employable in the future in so far as it operates successfully; and I certainly hope it will operate successfully. I know that in some provinces steps are already being taken in the direction in which the minister wants to go. As I say, to the extent that the legislation operates successfully it will undoubtedly tend to make our population more employable in the future. But let us not fool ourselves. Except to the extent that a few more technical schools may be built and a few more jobs may be provided for teachers in the next few months, this legislation will not itself contribute in any way to dealing with the immediate problem of unemployment.
That statement is made not in criticism of the legislation at all; it is made only because there is a tendency on the part of some of the uncritical supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite-


Mr. Thrasher:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be allowed to finish my sentence; then I shall be pleased to answer any questions. As I was saying, there is a tendency on the part of some of the more uncritical of the followers of hon. gentlemen opposite, and perhaps on the part of some of the less critical members sitting on the treasury benches, to make extravagant and exaggerated claims about what the legislation is likely to accomplish. As I have said, while it is our view that the long term effects of this legislation should be good, and therefore it should be supported and we intend to support it, it is not honest to assert that it is going to have any considerable or, indeed, any appreciable effect upon the immediate problem of unemployment.
I understand the hon. gentleman wished to ask a question?


Richard Devere Thrasher: It is not necessary to do so now. I will do so later.
90205-6-461
Vocational Training


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
view of the fact that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has reiterated several arguments put forward by members of this group during the debate at the resolution stage and on second reading, I must emphasize my great pleasure in noting the influence we have on the hon. member. While this group has expressed its firm support for the principle and purpose of this bill, as we said on a previous occasion its merit and its value will be determined only in the light of experience, and the acquiring of that experience will take some time.
There are a number of aspects of the administration of this legislation that make it extremely difficult for opposition members to, shall I say, judge its merits. There are a number of intangibles in a bill of this type; there are present here more intangibles than are usually present in legislation produced by the Minister of Labour. For instance, a great deal will depend upon the form of the agreements with the provinces and the initiative taken by the federal government to secure those agreements, the terms of those agreements and the application of the agreements to meet the particular needs of particular provinces. I suggest that it will require a certain flexibility of approach if this legislation is to have an equally beneficial effect in all the provinces in Canada.
On behalf of this group I want again to say that in the first instance we do not for a moment consider that this legislation is any solution to the immediate problem of unemployment. I am sure no one could fairly say that it was, in any degree, a solution of that problem. However, we trust that over the long term it will be beneficial legislation and will assist materially in the reduction of unemployment in the days ahead.


Murdo William Martin: There is only one further point I should like to mention briefly. It has to do with the point I raised the other day. As we have said on more than one occasion, there are many good provisions in this bill but of course they are subject to agreement with the provinces. One that particularly disturbed me had reference to the technical training of the armed forces. Unfortunately I was out of the house when the minister answered in this regard. However, I have been assured by some of my colleagues that he stated that there is no intention on the part of the government to pass off on to the provinces any of the responsibility for this technical training of the armed forces, and I accept their word in that regard.
The only thing that puzzles me a bit is why the matter was mentioned. It appeared to me that in the process of reaching these agreements with the provinces there was a

Division
danger that some of the good measures outlined in this bill could be held up, as far as reaching agreement with the provinces is concerned, if the federal government, as part of the agreement, was going to put off some of the responsibility for the technical training of the armed forces.
The minister has stated that is not the intention of the government, and I am very pleased to hear that, but I still wonder why it was contained in the bill.



PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 6, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hees-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment and operation of a national productivity council and the appointment of its members and staff, to define its duties and objects, to authorize it to exercise certain powers and to provide for other related and incidental matters.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the other day I had only a moment or two in which to make comments. I mentioned that the minister had been inordinately brief in his explanatory remarks especially in view of the fact that this is something new in governmental activities. The minister's brevity left a number of questions in our mind which we propose to place on the record in the hope that they will be answered so we can more intelligently decide whether to support the resolution. To a large extent we are now in the dark about the intent and purpose of the council. We hope we will not be kept in the dark until the bill is introduced at which time, of course, we will have a clearer picture of the government's thinking in this regard.
We are concerned about whether this council will engage to any extent in the field of research. Will it draw upon the research experience of such agencies as the pulp and paper council and others which are active in the field of research in their own particular industries? What will be the relationship of this council to these groups? Will it work in conjunction with them? Will it have access to this research material? If the council

engages in research will it work independently starting from scratch in each instance?
I am wondering if we are still in that period described by the Prime Minister in his phrase "we ain't seen nothin' yet" or are we finally seeing something in the way of government action with respect to employment and unemployment. This council will have little or no effect on employment this winter and the following few months. I understood the minister to say one of the functions of the council will be to make recommendations to industry in the fields of production and distribution in order that costs may be lowered and our position in the world competitive picture improved. The council will not have much effect on the situation now unless the appointment of members to the council can be considered as giving gainful employment to the few people concerned.
I hope this will be more than a group of national efficiency experts carrying out the functions usually carried out by efficiency experts. We hope such a council will not confine its studies and recommendations to the questions of productivity and distribution in industry. There are other areas in which the council should function. We feel there should be some sort of council like this although different in structure advising the government about its activities and the role it should play in the economy. Of course, from time to time we have received the National Economic Outlook or whatever it is called about which the Prime Minister was so proud a few years ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been strangled since.


Frank Howard: We do not know if it was of any value in the first place. Certainly the Liberal government did not follow the recommendation contained in it.
A council could function in this field regulating government expenditure and the public sector as Galbraith calls it. Such a council could advise the government about co-relating various activities in the economy. It could make recommendations about the extent to which private capital should be invested in certain fields and certain geographic areas. Private investment has been haphazard in the past based on the narrow concept of the profit of the individual or group making the investment and it has not always followed that this was advantageous to the economy as a whole. To a degree haphazard investment contributes to the high cost of goods just as any other inefficient body in the structure of a corporation does. Such a council should be able to recommend what segments and geographic sections of the economy need investment at any given period.
Productivity Council
I do not think we can divorce the idea of productivity itself from the economy, and the relationship of the government has therefore to be envisaged in all of this. We would hope-this is all we can do at the moment, as I said, because of the scarcity of information that has been made available to us by the minister in his opening remarks-that the minister at some later stage would give us a bit more information about the questions that we have raised and about other questions so that we shall be in a better position to decide at the resolution stage whether we should recommend the introduction of the bill.
As it is, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we are in the dark; we can only think that it is a good idea without being sure whether it is, because we have not been given a clear or full picture as to just how this council will function. Beyond this there is nothing much more I have to say. Unfortunately, the minister is not with us today. I hope that before this phase of the debate closes he will be able to return, or someone else on behalf of the government, the acting minister or the Prime Minister, and undertake to give us a clearer picture of the purpose and the idea behind the establishment of this council.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, it was with the greatest interest that I listened to the minister's remarks in the course of his introduction of the resolution to establish a national productivity council. I listened with interest and indeed with satisfaction, Mr. Chairman, because it was only last year, in the course of the budget debate, that I made a somewhat similar proposal. You can therefore appreciate the feeling of gratification which I have in rising to speak in support of this resolution.
In the course of my remarks I hope to indicate the similarity of the aims of the proposed national productivity council and of the Canada trade council which I suggested last year. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I want to place on record my appreciation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for mentioning in his remarks that I had spoken on this subject. It is this kind of recognition from members of this government which gives to private members the incentive to continue to bring forward what they hope are constructive suggestions.
Hon. members will recall that in my budget speech last year I spoke at length about the changes in our Canadian economy as we entered a period of transition, and which period of transition was aggravated by the economic offensive of the communist world.

Productivity Council
I said then-if you will allow me to quote from my own speech-as reported at page 2697 of Hansard:
The communists have declared economic war on us. Whether or not we can survive will depend upon our ability to meet their competition. All this calls for a mature and realistic appraisal of our obligations. In this connection I suggest that government, management and labour must take time for deliberation and co-operation. Failure to do this will result in our way of life being overwhelmed without one shot being fired.
I think that one of the greatest tasks facing government, business and labour is to embark upon a program of education so that everyone will clearly understand and appreciate the magnitude of the economic war which has been declared against us by the communist countries. In these communist countries there is a continuing process of education. You can call it propaganda or indoctrination or what you will; but there is a program aimed at telling their people again and again what is their goal. We must admit that they can see the results of their planning. We in the free world have nothing comparable because we have been brought up in an atmosphere of plenty. We cannot conceive that, materially at least, things could be better. The other countries have a sense of urgency because they see our material accomplishments and so their goal is not only to equal us but also to surpass us. This economic competition is competition in the fullest sense of the word, and there is no prize at the end but merely survival.
By way of digression, Mr. Chairman, it is significant that when the Prime Minister spoke this year in the debate on the throne speech he also referred to the-and I quote his words-"ever increasing competition from the communist world". Then I went on to say this;
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, 1 spoke about the responsibilities of government, business and labour in co-operating to meet the economic challenge of the communists. How should we go about this task? I suggest the establishing of an organization which will include not only government, business and labour but also representatives of the press. In the economic education of the Canadian people I feel that the press, with all its related media, is the only way in which the man in the street can become acquainted with the facts of this economic struggle.
I then went on to cite some specific examples of this economic challenge and competition which we are receiving. I mentioned as an example that cloth which was manufactured in Great Britain and which sells for $1 a yard1 is produced by Japan for 60 cents a yard, but communist China produces and sells the same thing for 33 cents a yard. This is an example of the type of competition that we are meeting. Then, I concluded my remarks on this particular subject by saying this:
In the composition of this organization which I propose to call the Canada trade council, for want of a better name, I should like to see more rank and file members of the labour organizations included because, in the final analysis, they are the oiies who will have to produce more and make the most sacrifices.

This idea of a Canada trade council, is s subject which 1 said had international ramifications, even though it was national in concept, because this council could be expanded to include all members of the commonwealth. Hon. members will recall the commonwealth trade and economic conference which was held in Montreal last September. The theme was an expanding commonwealth in an expanding world. This theme was singularly appropriate, but I suggest that there should be greater continuity in thought and co-ordination in action beyond the commonwealth. The idea of a national trade council, designed to educate the people of each country within the commonwealth to the urgent necessity of meeting this communist trade offensive, could, if projected to the international level, provide the driving force to maintain the momentum of the decisions taken at the commonwealth trade and economic conference. Without a larger goal, without a more urgent purpose, trade conferences could become bogged down with national restrictions and considerations. I cannot express too strongly my concern for the need for this economic education, because in the end it is education for freedom.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for quoting at length excerpts from my own speech, but after a careful re-reading of what I said I saw no reason for changing one word of what I had said earlier. Indeed there is, in my opinion, an even greater urgency to implement that suggestion, and it is for that reason that I feel some satisfaction and indeed a measure of pride because the government has acted so quickly. I also think that the aims of the two proposed councils are similar; certainly, trade and production are closely allied because you cannot have one without the other, and irrespective of whatever name we choose to call the council, the aims are the same.
The minister indicated that the United Kingdom has a productivity council and that it has been successful. Because the Prime Minister also indicated that the proposed national productivity council would be based on the one operating in the United Kingdom I checked the British Hansard for 1952 which contained the Queen's speech and which contained the first indication that the British government was giving serious consideration to ways and means of increasing production. The reference is this, and I quote:
My ministers will encourage all engaged in agriculture, mining and industry to co-operate in increasing productive efficiency and thus to produce at lower cost the goods needed at home and by the export trades.
One week following the Queen's speech, the minister of labour announced in the British House of Commons the establishment of a British productivity council which included representation of British employers, the federation of British industries, the trade union congress, the association of British chambers of commerce, the national union of manufacturers and the nationalized industries. It might be of interest to note that the

first chairman of the council was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of labour. The aim of the council was to encourage an active interest of industries in the pursuit of higher productivity and to give to it all the possible help in its independent activities.
Certainly, no one could quarrel with that aim. If our proposed national productivity council is to have the same aim I can see that it will be a most useful organization which will be of tremendous assistance to management and labour. The government in its wisdom has kept its own participation in this council to a minimum. This, in my opinion, is as it should be in connection with any advisory board, but by showing leadership in establishing the council, by lending its prestige to the organization, I suggest that the government has established the necessary atmosphere which will be conducive to constructive thinking.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has given to us the proposed membership of the national productivity council, but I do not see any provision for the press. For the reasons which I stated in my earlier speech, I feel it is extremely important that the press be represented. I urge the minister to consider this point. The need for such communication between management and labour was recognized by the British minister of labour, and this is what he said when he spoke in the debate on the economic situation in November, 1952, the same debate in which he announced the creation of a British productivity council. Speaking about the need for communication the minister said:
What we need today is to encourage the mutual confidence which is being surely developed between workpeople and employers. I have tried in this sphere constantly to do my best to stimulate joint consultation and the spread of works information. I am sure the more workpeople are kept fully informed by the management about the business and the prospects of the undertaking in which they are engaged, the more there will grow up a feeling of common purpose and of confidence.
The proposed national productivity council will be of tremendous assistance to the government. But I might suggest one word of caution. There will be dangers facing this council because every new organization tends to propagate itself immediately, especially if it is financed with the taxpayers' money. There will be the temptation to branch into many fields, many of which are related, and the council could easily become bogged down. However, if the council does not forget its primary purpose, namely to seek ways and means of increasing production, we can look forward to constructive suggestions from the council.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to quote the words of the British minister of labour who spoke in the debate on manpower
Productivity Council
and productivity on March 3, 1952. He concluded his speech with these words, and I can only commend them to hon. members:
All men of good will at this moment are united in the determination to regain our national prosperity. The most effective use of manpower, which we are discussing today, can make a great contribution towards this end. What could defeat our purpose would be the reckless use of industrial weapons for political purposes. Therefore, I welcome the resolute speeches of the right hon. gentleman and some of his colleagues and of responsible leaders of trade unions, which have condemned such courses, which are, are they not, the very negation of democracy?
I know that we all wish every success to this proposed national productivity council.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, representing as I do the heavily industrialized area of Waterloo South, with some 243 diversified industries large and small, I am naturally very interested in the setting up of a national productivity council at this time. The need for such a council was accepted by the leaders of both industry and labour at the conference on labour held here in Ottawa last October. However, we must all realize that to make a productivity council of the type proposed work successfully we require the full support and active participation of all Canadians.
We are all aware of the fact that for the last few years competition from other countries has been very keen. Most of our former foreign customers are now our keen competitors. As the minister said in his introductory remarks, Canadian industry must be as efficient as possible, and by combining the knowledge and skills of representatives of commerce, industry, labour, agriculture, primary industries, consumers, professional groups and those from other walks of life, industry could be assisted in achieving a more effective utilization of Canadian resources. This would go a long way toward strengthening Canada's competitive position both at home and abroad.
It has been suggested that the national productivity council would be composed of 25 members consisting of five members representing industry and commerce; five members drawn from organized labour; five members from agricultural groups and primary industries; five appointed from the general public; four highly technical and qualified persons from scientific departments of government, and one person to act as the executive director. All appointees should consider the gravity of the nature of their undertaking, and consider it an opportunity to serve Canada in an all-important way.
I come now to a very important part of the: over-all plan, the setting up of regional and area industrial teams and committees.

Productivity Council
This is something in which I have been deeply interested because of the activities in my own constituency. These industrial teams, I suggest, would cover all types of industry from coast to coast across Canada. As I mentioned, this has already been contemplated in my constituency and a movement has already been started among leading industrialists to meet and discuss many of their problems as well as the problems that affect Canada as a nation. I should like to read from a letter I received last week from the owner of three particular industries in my riding. I refer to Mr. Jarry Havlik of Preston, Ontario. If the committee will bear with me for a few minutes, I might say that this particular gentleman has been interested in this type of thing for the past two years and has been advocating the establishment of a sort of advisory board or council to act as liaison between industry and government. In order to give you some sort of idea of the type of gentleman he is I will take just a moment or two in order to give some of his past history.
He is now a Canadian. He is a native of Czechoslovakia and was both a financial and technical adviser to the government of his country before the war. He came from a highly inventive family, his father being the inventor of the famous Bren gun and also of several types of excellent printing presses and woodworking machines.
To show the interest this particular man has in this type of advisory council I must tell you of some of the reverses he suffered and the result of his experiences. He has come through many trying times. When the German army overran his country he was the owner and operator of an extremely large business employing hundreds of employees. In that particular invasion he lost everything and ended up in a German concentration camp. On release from that camp he started in business again and then the Russians overran the country with the result that again he was cleaned out. On release from the Russian prison camp after many months he went to Ireland and went into business; then he went to the United States and then came to Canada where he settled and became a Canadian citizen. I might also say that at the time of the closing of the A. V. Roe plant 85 per cent of his business was with the Canadian government, and for the third time he was cleaned out. However, he is one person who sees a great Canada ahead. He has been talking about this type of productivity council and I have been working closely with him on this particular matter.
I mentioned earlier that he is a keen inventor himself and has come up with two new inventions recently which are firsts in

the world. One is a heat treating process in which he can heat treat and forge aircraft parts and missile parts in the same number of seconds that it takes the finest United States plants hours to do. He has a real background as a technical adviser and also as a financial adviser. In his own inimitable way, in a letter from which I should like to quote these paragraphs, he writes as follows:
It is most difficult for me to express myself and my feelings of the present situation in Canada. It brings to my mind more and more each day the disaster that happened in my native home of Czechoslovakia when taken over by the communist union.
Many times I have been asked why I am so active in promoting my opinions in today's situation, especially of the unemployment in our country. May I assure you, and the Prime Minister, that I do not wish to gain anything for myself personally, but for the people of Canada.
I have seen many happenings in the past of a political nature in my native home similar to what is being done by the Canadian opposition. They are today forgetting, that only solidarity and willingness to help the employment in Canada, and to be in a position of working together in the crisis that we are now facing from the economic war from the communist countries .. .
When I came to Canada, I was very busy in business to realize what could happen and what is happening. We are facing a situation toward socialism in our economic decline for the future and, therefore, I will try to bring together some of the leading persons in my district to make them realize that we will have to help ourselves and in the same instance, help others.
He goes on to say that he is anxiously awaiting a copy of the government proposal to promote an advisory consulate for a better understanding to work with government and industry. Then he states as follows:
From our conversation, I understand that perhaps this would be a government paying job from a selected group of people by the government. This in my mind, is losing the spirit and importance of the situation in the industry and government co-operation. Therefore, it is my suggestion that the part the government must play is to inform industry just how important it is to help the economy and country, and while doing so, will also be helping themselves .. .
I would like to have the promised government proposal and will let you know in the very near future how my organization of the leading manufacturers in this district is progressing.
I cannot help feeling that there are many others who are able and willing to assist in promoting the future of Canada on a voluntary basis. Regular area reports would be of great assistance to a national productivity council. Similar types of productivity board have operated successfully in the United Kingdom and in many other countries of the world, resulting not only in increased productivity but in regulating quantities, and advising various industries of possible over-production in various lines. A recent editorial in the Globe and Mail stated as follows:
The council should be able to promote a significant improvement in productivity, which will do far

more to cure unemployment than any number of emergency measures or crash programs. The council, in fact, will be tackling the roots of unemployment, rather than attempting to alleviate the symptoms.
The "Outlook" article in which the editorial is quoted states:
The corresponding British productivity council has proved to be especially successful in improving labour-management relations. As a matter of principle it was decided that employer contribution would not be larger than that of unions in order to avoid any suggestion of employer domination. Of the 60,000 industrial firms in the United Kingdom today 58,000 are of the category employing 1,000 or less. It is part of the task of the productivity council to extend to the companies of the smaller category the efficient and progressive methods evolved and applied by the big companies.
Personally I feel that area groups of responsible business people through a reliable spokesman could bring to the attention of the national productivity council and thence to the government a wide variety of constructive and valuable views. Greater productivity would surely result from this type of action and with an accelerated selling effort on the part of all Canadian manufacturers many more jobs would be made available.
I congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on his calling together the trade commissioners from all around the world and feel sure that the results will be astounding. I also congratulate him and the government on introducing this national productivity bill. I look forward to the day when the benefits of this plan are known and recognized in every country in the world.


Mr. Martineau:: I should like to make a few remarks on the resolution before the committee. First of all, may I say that I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Waterloo South who spoke in favour of the resolution. I was particularly interested to hear his report about certain constituents of his who have already taken up this idea of a productivity council and who are fully aware of the need to increase productivity within industry and throughout Canada generally. These people, being themselves industrialists, manufacturers and businessmen, believe that this work must begin on a local level.
That is one of the purposes of the productivity council. As I understand it-of course, we are only at the resolution stage-there will be a national council whose work, among other things, will be to co-ordinate the activities of local productivity councils to be established throughout the country, grouping together similarly minded citizens who are themselves engaged in business or who by their special knowledge and experience have ideas to suggest that are conducive to increased productivity.
Productivity Council
It is certainly encouraging to hear the hon. member for Waterloo South make his report to this house, because the motion is not even through the house yet. No legislation has yet been adopted and yet the public-and I am sure that is only one example among many-is anxious to go ahead under the direction of a national council to promote the aims of greater productivity, which is one of the prime concerns of our government and one of the great needs of our economy at the present time.
The other day I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that this house was much interested in taking note of his views on this council. As far as I understand it, the hon. member favours the idea, and I suppose that his group on the other side will fall in with that approval. But nevertheless there are a few points that arise from the remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa West that I think it would be well to bring out.
In particular, he referred to a motion made by his colleague the hon. member for Essex East in this house on May 23, 1960. This motion, as reported on page 4142 of Hansard, called for the following:
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 interesting point about this is that the hon. member for Ottawa West uses that motion-which was voted down by this house -as an indication to show that the government, and in particular the Minister of Labour, may have repudiated some of their ideas concerning productivity and economic questions in general. But I really do not see any inconsistency between the position that was taken on that date by the government and its present position of proposing to this house a resolution favouring the creation of a productivity council.
If one examines the motion made at that time by the hon. member for Essex East, it is quite apparent that there is no relation between it and the present productivity council, because that motion suggested that an advisory board be set up composed of different people:
-for the purpose of developing economic policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment.
In other words, that motion would have had the effect, had it been accepted by this house, of substituting a policy-making body for the present government.

Productivity Council


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; nonsense.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In other words, an advisory board to tell the government what policy it should adopt. I believe that under our democratic process it is up to the government that has the confidence of the people-


An hon. Member:: More or less.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -to produce policies and then, if it is necessary to establish different boards or different advisory bodies to put the policy into effect, of course the government sees to it. This is the purpose of the present resolution.
The resolution is of a technical nature. The policy of the government is to promote greater economic activity in all phases of our nation. One of its purposes in particular will be to promote and increase productivity in industry, manufacturing and other pursuits.
So we are faced with a technical body. That is why there is no difference and no inconsistency whatsoever between the position then taken and the position now being taken by this government by the introduction of this resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that since the earlier proposal was for an advisory council, in his opinion the present government needed no advice in formulating policy?


Paul Raymond Martineau: As usual, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate displays an astonishing difficulty in comprehending even the simplest proposition. What I said was that the government does not need a body to indicate to it what policies it should adopt, that under our democratic process policymaking is the special and reserved field of the government. But having adopted a policy, and that policy being greater productivity, it is in the execution of that over-all policy that it now calls upon this house to approve the present resolution. It is as simple as that and no amount of twisting or apparent misapprehension on the part of the hon. member will change the clarity of that particular statement.
Scanning further the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West, he said in particular that we cannot take the example of the British productivity council as it could not serve as a model in this particular case. The hon. member stated, if I understood him

correctly, that the British productivity council was established for the purpose of correcting the shortages that existed in the British economy at that time, shortages of raw materials and goods.


George James McIlraith: Of goods. That is the purpose for which it was established.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member concluded that there was therefore probably no resemblance between the British productivity council and the one proposed here, either in name or in activities.


George James McIlraith: I am sure the hon. member does not wish to misinterpret my remarks. They are all set out in Hansard. What I pointed out was that the British productivity council was set up to meet a situation in which there was a shortage of goods; its object was to increase the quantity of goods available, while the economic problems which the minister outlined in presenting this resolution, and which we have to face now, are of a somewhat different nature. I had hoped that our productivity council would be established under legislation which would recognize this difference, legislation which would be adapted to meet the needs of 1960 and future years rather than conditions of shortage in 1948 and 1952.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is scarcely a question. It seems to have been more of a speech. Yet what the hon. member had to say is available here and I should like to quote it textually as reported at page 568 of Hansard:
The point I wish to make is that its purpose was to meet shortages, and that was the genesis of the British productivity council.
I have looked at certain progress reports and other publications which have been put out by the British productivity council and in them the purpose is stated as follows:
The purpose of the British productivity council is to stimulate the improvement of productivity in every sector of the national economy by every possible means.
Surely that is identical with the aim we now have in treating the present subject, which is precisely to stimulate the advance of productivity in every sector of the national economy. A further report of the same council, published in 1953, formulated the objects of the council, and one of these was:
To create a wider appreciation of the need for higher productivity and all the methods that lead to it; to stimulate the best use of plant, materials and) labour available in whatever is the prevailing economic climate and circumstances.
Here again the purpose is expressed as follows. The council, that is the council itself reporting its own aims, says its object is a continuing one, nothing less than to develop and maintain in the various-


Mr. Richard (Ollawa Easl):: What are you reading from?


Paul Raymond Martineau: -and changing circumstances of industrial life a more positive attitude of mind in industry at large toward productivity, just as much among managers as among workers. That should be clear.


Joseph-Adolphe Richard: May I ask
the hon. member what he is quoting from?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I told the hon. gentleman.
I have it here. I was not inventing it. I told the committee I was quoting from a progress report issued by the British productivity council for the years 1955 and 1956.


George James McIlraith: What page?


Paul Raymond Martineau: There are different quotations and I think I have sufficiently identified the publication, but if I may be given extra time I will give the exact page. This is page 9, paragraph one, and this publication states the objectives of the British productivity council as:
The standard of living of all in Britain depends primarily on the productive efficiency of British industry and the related services.
The purpose of the British productivity council is to stimulate productivity in every sector of the national economy by every possible means.
That is what I was saying. If we examine the objectives of the productivity council we would be convinced that its objective is identical with that of the council now proposed and in no way incompatible with the aims which we are at present pursuing in this country. This will become even more apparent if we examine some of the constituent organizations represented on the United Kingdom productivity council. I will give credit to the hon. member for Ottawa West for stating that the United Kingdom council formed in 1952. He was correct in regard to that. These organizations include the British employers' federation, the federation of British industries, the trades union congress, the association of British chambers of commerce and the national union of manufacturers. In other words, most of British industry is represented in addition to organized labour in Britain. We propose, also, to include such representation on the proposed council, that is to say, labour and industry.
Moreover, under the United Kingdom system, local productivity councils have been established throughout the British Isles and in every sector of British industry. In case I should be asked again to quote the source of my information I shall continue to set out some of the activities which the British productivity council and its many local components throughout the British Isles have carried on, and I will read from a publication with which
Productivity Council
my hon. friend is certainly familiar, namely the second report of the select committee on estimates of the British House of Commons for the session 1959-60 dealing with the board of trade. At page 279 there is a report on the volume of activities carried on by the British council in recent years, and paragraph 17 states as follows:
It is only in the last two years that any attempt has been made to keep statistics concerning local productivity council events. These must be interpreted with judgment, because "event" is a very wide term.
Here is the interesting part:
Examples might include, to take some cases from the past year (1959), such widely differing activities as a "productivity week" (involving an exhibition, lectures, film shows, competitions and a supplement in the local press); a week end conference on suggestion schemes; and apprentices study visit (entirely self-supporting) to Switzerland; a series of team visits to other firms to study office methods; a one-day school for trade unionists; a conference for small firms on "Research at the Service of Industry"; a series of inter-factory visits; an evening discussion centred round one or more of the British productivity council's films.
I submit that there is indeed a very wide scope of activities that can serve in every way as an inspiration and a model for the organization of our national council and also the organization of the local councils throughout the country, and then to fully occupy all of these councils in work that will be fruitful in achieving increased productivity.
Another interesting British experiment is the publication of a magazine called Target, which is subtitled "The Bulletin of the British Productivity Council". I understand it circulates widely on a free basis among all trade unionists in Britain and moreover it has a paid circulation of 18,500 on the basis of the latest figures for the year 1959.
On a cursory inspection of that publication I was struck with the summary of news reported in that magazine. For instance, the September, 1960 issue covers the following news topics. I think it is well worth the time spent reading them because they indicate how by stimulation various groups of workers and various industries have found means-and this is interesting-by themselves to increase productivity, to better develop products and also to improve working conditions.
Here is an example at page 2 where you may read an item dealing with steel firms who succeeded with group training. On the same page there appears a news item relating to induction courses for new employees and, here again, an item entitled "Shoemakers Train 1,000 in a Year". Various other items in this publication are entitled:
T.V. tube output up and costs down. Faster loading with fork-lift device. Fifty seven thousand ideas from suggestion schemes. Modernised stores


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Soufham:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support this resolution on the establishment of a national productivity council I should also like to join with fellow hon. members of this committee in congratulating the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the Prime Minister for bringing this suggestion to the attention of the unemployment conference held in Ottawa in October. I also wish to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce who has recently received such widespread acclaim of his colleagues and fellow Canadians with reference to the meeting being held in Ottawa at the present time. I am very pleased also-and I am sure all hon. members are-with the widespread acclaim expressed by Canadian leaders in commerce, industry, labour, finance and education toward the government on the setting up of this productivity council. I wish to suggest that one of the most important functions of this council, once it becomes operative, will be its relation to my home province of Saskatchewan.
We are interested, not only in the establishment of the acceleration of productivity in Canada and with trade and competition with other countries. We are also definitely interested in the redistribution of productivity and commerce within Canada itself. I am thinking that now we have a great opportunity in certain parts of Canada for the redistribution of sales from productivity. This affects my own home province of Saskatchewan, but I think it is also important in eastern Canada.
In the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958 we made it very clear that we were going to take active steps toward industrial redistribution in Canada. This is a very important and serious problem owing to the size and geographic extent of this country. We find in Saskatchewan, for instance, that owing to high freight rates-and they have been accelerating over the years-we are almost priced out of the eastern markets in some commodities. In setting up this national productivity council serious thought should be given to the fact that part of its responsibility should

be to take a serious look at the situation in so far as redistribution of secondary industry is concerned.
I should like to quote a few figures to show how it might affect Saskatchewan. In 1930 we had in our province approximately a million people. At that time our neighbouring province of Manitoba had about 675,000 people, Alberta about 785,000 and British Columbia around 765,000. Twenty seven years after, namely three years ago, in Saskatchewan our population had declined to 865,000. Today it has recouped some of its losses and we now have 913,000. Had we been able to maintain our normal population growth, as the other provinces have, in the intervening 30 years Saskatchewan today would have around 1,400,000 people. Today Manitoba has around 917,000, Alberta around 1,300,000 and British Columbia, 1,500,000. Speaking in terms of gross national product and productivity, this has been a serious setback to Saskatchewan.
If we calculate the average gross national product of an individual in Saskatchewan in the last 30 years as around $4,000 per year and compare it with the population loss in those 30 years we come up with a loss of around $12 billion roughly in productivity. These are alarming circumstances. I suggest that we have to take a very serious look at the problem.
Hon. members might ask, why has this problem occurred in Saskatchewan? It is due chiefly to two reasons. The prime reason for it was automation in agriculture and secondly an unfavourable political climate. Owing to the development of modern machinery the farmer and his son could do two to three times as much work in a given amount of time. In other words, owing to the fact that Saskatchewan was primarily an agricultural province and the technological advances were such that the farmer and his son could possibly handle two or three sections of land compared with maybe a half section or three quarters of a section 30 years ago. The result was that with the normal increase in population the farmers' sons had to move out of the province to find employment in other parts of Canada. This resulted in a terrific gross national loss in productivity. This loss in gross national productivity is reflected right down to everyday financing as far as municipalities are concerned.
As hon. members know, we have a federal-provincial tax rental arrangement. We find that when we have no industrial growth in Saskatchewan other than in agriculture, with this loss in population the result is that the remaining people are asked to carry the burden of the increasing and accelerating tax
Productivity Council
load. When we travel from one part of Canada to the other we see how our fellow Canadians are living and enjoying a better standard of life. The result is that we want to attain that same standard for ourselves. We want as good roads and hospitals and as good an educational system and all the other various provincial services. In order to achieve this we have to tax our agricultural element or population much higher in order to maintain this standard of living.
I feel that anything we can do in Canada to redistribute industry will help to even out this tax burden. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think this productivity council could take a serious look at this situation. This applies not only to Saskatchewan but to maritime Canada as well. If they did that they would be doing a great service in encouraging industry to redistribute. The council should make a special study of how the subsidiaries of established industries in Canada could go into Saskatchewan or to the east with the help and advice of this council and establish there so that they in turn could find a ready market in these areas. With the industries established in those areas the youth who are coming along would find work opportunities. The over-all result would be an enhanced economy in Canada as a whole which in turn would be reflected down to the individual welfare of every Canadian.
At six o'cloek the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Drysdale:: I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity tonight to make a few comments on the productivity resolution now before us. I admit that when I first thought about discussing the matter at this particular stage of the proceedings I felt a certain amount of frustration and dissatisfaction because of the tendency to draw resolutions in relatively wide terms and because of the difficulty of a member in knowing what is behind the resolution. However, on contemplation I can see the advantages offered to a member to make some positive suggestions without the impediment of having the rigidity of a bill before him. I hope to make a few random observations on some of the matters which I feel should be dealt with by a national productivity council.
I feel that this resolution is the culmination of some of the earlier pieces of legislation which have immediately preceded it. The interest of the government in the productivity of this nation has been exhibited

Productivity Council
during this session by the legislation covering small business loans, the legislation on vocational training and the trade promotion conferences called by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We have had some 111 trade commissioners come from 49 countries throughout the world. The interest of the government has also been exhibited in the guarantee of export credits. I feel that this resolution concerning the productivity council is the logical culmination of all these ideas.
I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated very succinctly the objectives of this particular resolution. We will have a 24-man productivity council with an executive head. The council will be in existence for a term of some three years. I think the most important thing that was pointed out in the course of the debate was that some $150,000 will be put up on a yearly basis by the government.
At first blush this $150,000 seems relatively small. I am inclined to agree that it looks rather small, but on the other hand I think it underlines very clearly what is the objective of the government. The government has stated, we are prepared to start this national productivity council and if labour, management and industry generally think this council is worth while they are going to be prepared to put up their money. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated in introducing the resolution that the government is prepared to match the money put up by business. I would hazard a guess that the amount is not unlimited, but I also would imagine it will be relatively extensive.
One of the things I should like to see in the productivity council is a close liaison with the dominion bureau of statistics. I feel that the main function of this council, with its relatively small initial staff-it will have to be small with a budget of $150,000-will be the preparation of statistical information. I hope that in preparing this information the council will work very closely, and I am sure it will, with the dominion bureau of statistics. I feel that, with an organization of this nature, the way the organization starts off is of prime importance.
As hon. members know, I come from British Columbia, one of the outermost provinces of this great nation, and we are some 3,000 miles away from Ottawa. It is my feeling that the only way to bring the reality of the productivity council to the outermost provinces and cities is to have the members of the productivity council visit all parts of Canada. They could visit the major cities and indicate to industries, labour and management, what the productivity council could do for these people. I somehow imagine that the initial start of the

productivity council, in so far as its local organizations are concerned, will be a meld of some local chambers of commerce and local trade unions. I feel that will be basic to the success of this organization because one of the things that is facing Canada is the tremendous technological change that is occurring all the time. It is only through the planning of labour and management, government planning on a long term basis so that there will be a minimum of effect on the workers in the various industries, that technological changes will be accomplished smoothly and to the maximum possible advantage to the country generally.
In that connection I think the productivity council could well concentrate on what I consider is one of the symptoms of the difficulties between management and labour. I refer to the strike. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, in 1958 there were some 2,872,300 man work days lost because of strikes. In 1959, some 2,386,000 man work days were lost because of strikes. These figures refer only to strikes in which more than 100 people were involved. Personally, I am not interested in whether labour is right or whether management is right. I think these strikes and this lost time are symptomatic of a break-down in labour-management relations. I feel that the productivity council could be of immeasurable assistance in providing the statistical information on productivity and by narrowing down the areas of difference between management and labour. I feel this would have the effect of cutting down the losses through strikes.
Canada has one of the highest standards of living in the world, but the rest of the countries do not care. Japan does not care; Germany does not care; Russia does not care. The only people who are going to be interested in the Canadian standard of living are Canadians. I think it is important that Canadians work through the productivity council to maximize the productivity of this nation and maintain the singularly high standard of living that we have.
There have been references to the British productivity council and there has been an allusion to the United States. In 1957 their joint congressional economic committee in the 85th congress made a complete survey of productivity and prices. Their objective was to integrate as much as possible of the data on productivity. I feel that our productivity council would do well to take this example as their initial objective. I think that within their definite limitations such an objective is a most important and immediately feasible thing.

What is the scope of the productivity council going to be? To what extent can this council examine into research? We shall shortly be setting up a committee on research that was started in the last session, namely the one that is examining into the national research council. I think it is important that the productivity council work in close cooperation with this particular body. We must consider whether the productivity council will be a clearing house for ideas in Canada. I hope that it will be such a clearing house. I hope that industry will be able to support it financially to the extent that it will become a Canadian clearing house.
How far is research going to go? We think of technical research such as research into medicine and into engineering. Will the productivity handle, for example, the problems of the aviation industry? From time to time the hon. member for Laurier has mentioned the bilateral agreements and the fact that he has felt that Canada has very often come out second best. Perhaps in certain instances he is right. There are small nations such as Holland and Belgium with first ranking aviation companies such as K.L.M. and Sabena and they have done the background research necessary to get the bilateral agreements that brought the greatest benefit to their particular countries. I feel that is one field that should be investigated. That is one field perhaps in which the productivity council might offer encouragement and work with the aviation industry.
I mention the aviation industry because I feel that to a large extent it is perhaps underrated or is taken for granted in Canada. I make that statement because in Montreal we have the International Civil Aviation Organization. Montreal is a world centre for aviation. In the commercial transport field we have the International Air Transport Association which is also based in Montreal. We also have McGill University which has an institute of air and space law drawing people from every corner of the world for the study of aviation. In my opinion that is a field in which the productivity council can produce the necessary initiative in order to provide for the exchange of ideas and to put Canada into a better competitive position having regard to world aviation.
I have tried at this time to indicate in general the direction which I feel the productivity council should take. In my opinion the step taken by the Prime Minister, in initiating this idea in October, and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the introduction of this resolution is yet another indication of our aggressive attitude to get out and become competitive. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce underlined the
Productivity Council
situation quite clearly when he pointed out that the other nations do not owe Canada a living. Our only hope of maintaining our present standard of living and increasing our productivity is through the establishment of this council with the active participation of labour, management, farmers and the public in general and with the awareness that we are basically all Canadians and must get out and fight for our share of the market.
When the bill is brought into the house I hope we shall find some of these ideas embodied in that particular piece of legislation. If not, I hope that close attention will be given to those ideas so that we may establish a national productivity council for Canadians.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, this council is of vital importance to give a boost to our Canadian economy, which has been severely shaken by the shortsighted policy of our predecessors and by the attitude of Mr. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada. Mr. Coyne, whose resignation I demanded before, has lost the people's confidence and was denounced by his fellow economists. To my mind, it is high time that, in the interest of the Canadian people, and of our national economy, he resign his position without delay, before a march on the Bank of Canada is organized to oblige him to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I blame the opposition members for being prophets of gloom, sowing despondency and defeatism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Those gentlemen in the opposition may laugh and applaud now, but they will not do so for long.
We are now going through a period of transition. I am convinced that many important branches of our economy will reach new records.
The opposition is causing our Canadian economy great prejudice by preaching despondency and gloom. I strongly protest the statements of Mr. Walter Gordon, who is an economist and a politician, or rather who is playing politics, and has confidence neither in the future of Canada, nor in this government's legislation to stimulate our national economy.
Mr. Walter Gordon, this gloomy economist, under the former administration headed a royal commission of inquiry on the economic prospects of Canada. These are more or less the conclusions of his report:
Canadians of the maritimes, leave your jobs and your farms, evacuate your ancestral soil, and emigrate to other provinces.

Productivity Council
On the other hand, when he addressed the A.P.I. convention in the Chateau Fron-tenac, Professor Maurice Lamontagne, the prompter of the opposition, stated, as reported in La Presse of November 19, 1960:
Mr. Lamontagne however added that there was some ground for optimism, because this country still has some marked advantages over other countries. It has abundant natural resources, its techniques are improving constantly and it has no shortage of qualified labour.
During the conference on national problems, which took place at Queen's University, Mr. Lamontagne said, as reported in Le Devoir of September 9, 1960:
Today, there is no fear of any protracted depression.
Mr. J. R. Petrie, a responsible economist, said, when addressing the annual convention
of the federated council of sales finance companies-


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I remind the hon. member that the resolution before us reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment and operation of a national productivity council.
Perhaps the hon. member's remarks are pertinent to that question, but I should like him to indicate the connection.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, we are now
discussing the establishment of a national productivity council as a means of stimulating the economy in Canada's interest.
1 am quoting the views of Professor Lamontagne and other economists on the nation's economic position.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, that is quite pertinent to the resolution which, as a matter of fact, is quite vague in itself.
Mr. J. R. Petrie, a noted economist, in a speech to the annual convention of the federated council of sales finance companies, held at the Queen Elizabeth hotel, made the following remark, as reported in La Presse for November 15, 1960:
Mr. Petrie views with confidence the development of our trade with European countries which are now going through a period of great prosperity. He expects that in 1961 new investments will be made in Canada, and that consumer buying will also show a slight increase. On the whole, the Canadian economy will show some slight progress.
The Right Hon. C. D. Howe, as guest of honour at the thirty first annual dinner held on the occasion of the international brotherhood month by the authorities of the Emmanuel Temple, on Sherbrooke street west in Montreal, made the following statement as recorded in La Presse:

We cannot expect to be sheltered from conditions prevailing in the world, so we shall go on having slack periods and periods of growth. On the whole, however, there is no room for pessimism as to Canada's future.


Mr. Boulanger:: La Presse? What kind of a paper is that?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Ask the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier); he knows something about it.
Mr. Chairman, those quotations from Messrs. Lamontagne and Petrie show that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is right, and that Walter Gordon and the hon. member for Laurier and other members of the opposition are wrong in their pessimism and defeatism.
In fact, Walter Gordon's assertions were recently torn to pieces by Michael Barkway, head of the Ottawa office of the Toronto Star and formerly on the staff of the Financial Post.
Mr. Chairman, I must also mention the fact that the United States are now faced with a very serious unemployment problem. The number of unemployed in the United States rose by 200,000 last September-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think I have given the hon. member sufficient time to relate his remarks to the resolution under consideration. Whether one is an optimist or a pessimist, the question is whether one favours the creation of a national productivity council and I would like the hon. member to give his opinion thereon if he wishes to go on speaking.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the government would like to set up a legislative policy in the interest of Canadian economy by creating a national productivity council.
In the face of the economic drive of communist countries and those countries where labour is cheap, Canadians will have to agree to certain efforts.
We have been living in what the economists call a sellers' market, that is to say a period where all you had to do was to put goods on sale to find buyers at your own terms. We are now beginning to experience the conditions of a buyers' market, which means that the producers have to make special efforts to attract customers, due to foreign and domestic competition.
That is why such a council, which would include members from different social circles, that is employers, employees and experts from every branch of our economy-


Samuel Boulanger: What about the unemployed?


Mr. Habel:: Will the unemployed also be represented?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) wishes to ask a question, let him resume his seat instead of hiding behind the curtain.
Reduction of production costs also appears as a vital problem when the matter is considered from the viewpoint of exports. Canada has difficulty in penetrating foreign markets and keeping them because of our high prices and the stiff competition that has to be met. To solve the problem, it would be necessary to sell at more attractive prices, which is impossible unless production costs for raw materials and finished exports can be considerably lowered.
Production costs are undoubtedly not the only problem to solve if our economy is to be balanced again, but it does seem the main obstacle, an obstacle that will be most difficult to overcome because, to do so, we need the active co-operation of a majority of our population as well as the co-operation of the main union and employer groups.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the creation of a national productivity council will be ideal to promote Canadian progress and assist our economy.
May I congratulate the minister and the government for their action which will be of great assistance to Canadian economy.
(Text):


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree that this resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not only constructive but is following up the resolutions and' legislation previously passed to give a boost to our economy at the present time. I think we all agree about that. I noticed when the minister spoke in the house that this particular resolution provides a good deal of free-wheeling when it comes to discussing it. I would like to mention part of the minister's speech. He said:
The objects of the council are to foster and promote the development of improved production and distribution methods; the development of improved management techniques; the maintenance of good human relations in industry; the use of training programs at all levels of industry; the use of retraining programs to meet changing manpower requirements; the extension of applied industrial research; and the dissemination of technical information.
It is quite apparent from that and from what the minister said previously that this council has an objective that provokes a challenge to the people who are going to be members. We are all glad to see that this membership is going to consist of people from commerce, industry, labour, agriculture and other primary industries, government,
Productivity Council
consumers, professional groups as well as those from other walks of life. They are to pool their combined knowledge and skills to assist industry in achieving a more effective utilization of Canadian resources.
In the course of his speech the minister also referred to the importance of agriculture. If time permits, I will have something to say about the effect of research, science and technology on agriculture in Denmark and Holland as compared with what we have here in Ontario, say, where the climate and soil conditions are pretty much the same.
Like everyone else in this country and elsewhere we would like to see a Utopia, permanent prosperity. Some people seem to have the impression that we should be having that in this country and in every democratic country. However, I believe that people with an ordinary amount of judgment do not fall for such a fallacy. There are various reasons, though I cannot develop them at this time. One is purely economic; the second is economic as well as political, because the keystone of our economic situation in this country as well as in the United States is spending for military purposes-the same applies to many other parts of the world. It also depends on the spending of governments. The third reason is the growing debt structure in every country in the free world', together with creeping inflation. The fourth reason is the nature and history of business cycles. Unless we have regimentation, which none of us. thank goodness, will accept, we are bound to have these cycles in the course of our existence.
I should like to refer, first, to a statement in a book by Solomon Fabricant which has been quoted before by myself and by others* entitled-"Basic	Facts on Productivity
Change":
Productivity has been much discussed in recent years, and too frequently misunderstood.
Productivity deserves the attention that it has received, for it is a measure of the efficiency with which resources are converted into the commodities and services that men want. Higher productivity is a means to better levels of economic well-being and greater national strength. Higher productivity is a major source of the increment in income over which men bargain and sometimes quarrel. And higher-or lower-productivity affects costs, prices, profits, output, employment and investment, and thus plays a part in business fluctuations, in inflation, and in the rise and decline of industries.
Indeed, in one way or another, productivity enters virtually every broad economic problem, whatever current form or new name the problem takes-industrialization, or research and development or automation, or tax reform, or cost-price squeeze, or improvement factor, or wage inflation or foreign dollar shortage.
A good deal is likely to be said about productivity before this debate ends. We in this country realize the important part

Productivity Council
research has played in placing us in a competitive position with respect to world trade. Even now that we have priced ourselves out of the market in many fields, we carry on in an endeavour to meet the competition which faces us. Unfortunately, our standard of living is such-second only to the United States-that we have priced ourselves out of world markets. Countries such as Germany, France, Japan and even India have arisen to challenge every nation in the world. We have resorted to research, and I think it is important that we have become research conscious in a fashion. However, I have my doubts whether that can be applied to industry.
We are fortunate in this country in having a national research council. We also have other activities in research going on in the various provinces and in universities of which we are very proud. But I have maintained over the last ten years that industry in this country has lagged with respect to its responsibility for keeping pace through increased research with world demand and requirements. We have not had it. We have been depending too much on research in foreign countries, because much of our industry has its head offices in the United States or in some other foreign countries.
We have repeatedly suggested that these industries in Canada should set up research establishments in this country in order that we might participate as a country in the advances which research makes possible. Moreover, we would be keeping our scientists and research men here in Canada instead of exporting them to the United States after this country has been put to great expense in providing them with an education, only to find them leaving for the United States and becoming a valuable asset to that country where they find themselves, because of their brains and ability, in competition with their former homeland.
In comparison with the United States and the United Kingdom the main deficiency in Canada is in the industrial field. I have said that almost yearly for the last ten years. In particular, industrial research by firms themselves is lagging behind. It is known that in a number of fields there are industrial processes which have direct application in Canada, but funds are not available for research and development work in connection with these projects. The government has indicated a definite interest in promoting things which may lead to the more extensive processing of materials in Canada on an economic basis. We do not need to go very far in order to realize that we are exporting our natural resources, in many cases in the
lMr. Murphy.J
raw form, when, probably through investment and research, a good deal of those products could be processed or partly processed in Canada thus providing employment for Canadians.
To meet the deficiency in industrial research and possibly to do something in response to the government's interest in further processing, the government might wish to consider the establishment of a new organization which for the purposes of these remarks is referred to as Industrial Processes Limited. I suggest that the government might give consideration to this idea. We set up just recently, and it is all to the good, a medical research council independent of the national research council and I think that action commended itself to every member of the house. At the present time the government takes action to assist purely scientific research-N.R.C.-scientific research with a defence application-D.R.B.-applied research with a defence application through -D.D.P.-and pure and applied research in the atomic energy field-through A.E.C.L. If action in these fields is desirable, it is at least worth considering action in a field now omitted-applied research of an industrial character in on-defence fields.
I make this suggestion after thinking and talking research in this house for a great many years, and this is a non-political subject of great concern to every Canadian. We have had marvellous participation and support not only by members of every party here but also by the press across Canada. I make it for the purpose of accelerating and promoting research in this country. Let there be no mistake about it, we are more research conscious in Canada today that we have ever been, but we still need an awakening. I think that through more research in the industrial field in particular Canada would reap many benefits far out of proportion to the amount of money that is spent by the government, by industry and by other organizations concerned.
I have not time to explore this topic at any length, though I should like to. Perhaps an opportunity will be afforded later. As the previous speaker indicated, we are to have a committee set up known as the research committee, and perhaps at that time some further comment would be in order. I am making my present remarks very briefly, but they could be enlarged upon later.
The purpose of Industrial Processes Limited would be:
1.	To receive applications for assistance in the proof or development of new processes or adaptations of processes that would be applicable to materials derived from Canadian resources.

2.	To confirm the possible feasibility and likely application of such processes.
3.	To determine the possible importance of economic application of such processes for Canadian industry or trade.
4.	If confirmed, to provide assistance in a suitable form.
5.	To keep in touch with and advise on actions taken for proof or development of processes.
One could go into the question of organization and assistance, and so on. It would not require a great deal of government financial assistance because as I visualize it this particular company would require only a small amount to get it initiated. I am sure this company could be a success and the initial assistance could be followed by industrial contributions and royalties. This could be set out and explained at greater length.
I suggest that in an economy such as ours if industry will not spend its proper share in research perhaps it could be urged to spend more through an organization such as this. Possibly there are other avenues that industry could use to increase productivity through research.
The council will be able to take cognizance of our population growth over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. I think that is important. The council must have a basis upon which to make assumptions from which they must later on adduce facts and arguments leading to particular conclusions. The reason why we can be so certain of our population expansion is that in reckoning the adult population for the next two decades we do not have to predict because we know. The same applies not only in Canada but in any other country. The major events that determine the future have already happened irrevocably. The economic population of the next 20 years, its numbers, its age and its sex distribution is not just predictable, today it is already in being.
There can be little doubt that total hours of work will continue to decline as a result of longer vacations, more holidays and a shorter work week. People have decided to make it very clear that they desire greater leisure, a big slice of any increase in productivity. There will be a population increase of one fifth in the next 10 years. Total population of working age will increase only by one tenth. Population actually available for work will increase only by 6 per cent. The total hours worked by the whole economy in the course of one year may not increase at all.
There is only one effective way to control long range inflationary pressures, and that is increased productivity. The president of
Productivity Council
General Electric announced a year ago that by 1965 his company will have to produce and sell twice the volume of goods it turned out in 1954 with only 11 per cent more people on its payroll. Adjusted for the expected decrease in working hours this means that 10 years hence General Electric must be able to produce twice as much for every hour its employees work. To achieve this, productivity will have to increase 40 per cent in the next 10 years. It will have to be doubled in the next 20. Despite all the emphasis we have given to productivity in recent years we really know very little about it, and we certainly do not know how to measure it.
To obtain productivity the first requirement is capital. We must increase the productivity of capital itself by one sixth during the next decade and by one third during the next 20 years. The economic progress might even be defined as the process of continually obtaining more productivity for less money. The means to achieve this is by innovation. Without constant innovation all the capital invested in this country since confederation might have been barely enough to permit the present population to live at a confederation scale of living. The entire improvement of living standards since then is the result of innovation. Innovation has been the real frontier of the western world these past two centuries. What now distinguishes an underdeveloped country and keeps it underdeveloped is not so much a shortage of capital as it is shortage of innovation.
To the layman and the typical business man innovation means research or engineering, new products or new productive processes. The most important area of innovation and the most productive one may well be the opposite of technological, that is changes in distribution methods. Another would be development of new concepts of business organization and, third, management tools.
I believe we must take a close look at the present setup in Canada concerning presentations to governments that are made by all segments of society. There has been a need for an examination of this kind since I have come to this house. In many instances those making presentations do not receive the understanding to which they feel they are entitled. We do not have to go far in searching for illustrations.
I mentioned that firms attempting to do business in this country have been subject for far too long to delays by government officials. I know of concerns over the past 10 or 20 years that have applied for an interpretation or explanation of a tariff item and have had to wait for as long as two years or more for the usual unfavourable decision.

Productivity Council
Thank goodness an arrangement has been made under which the tariff board is able to hold more frequent sittings.
We have in this country a sort of free trade mentality among some of our advisers. I wish to show that some people believe that the words "free trade" or "tariff" are so entirely opposite that it almost amounts to a crime to use either one. We have people in Canada who believe that when you mention the word "tariff" you are in favour of higher tariffs.
The policy of this government and even of the previous government has not been to tinker with tariffs to any great degree. We all have to agree with that. When hon. members on this side sat on the opposition benches we heard arguments from people who did not know any better to the effect that a certain idea being promoted was a high tariff or free trade concept. It is time that Canadians understood that there is no such thing as a free trade party in this country and there never has been. Some of the advice that industry receives from some of our senior officials would indicate that the officials favour the importer over the manufacturer in this country. I do not think that is fully consistent with what we require under today's conditions or even under tomorrow's conditions.
_ Let me take for an illustration the chemical industry. This industry has existed in a flourishing state not only in Canada and the United States and elsewhere in the free world but behind the iron curtain as well for only a short period of time. It is still in its infancy. Plastics are produced in Canada today. Twenty years ago the Canadian chemical industry did not amount to anything. We had some oil refineries but they were neither chemical or petrochemical industries. Today we have chemical and petrochemical industries from Ontario through to the west. I know of one company, the Dow Chemical Company, whose Canadian parent office is in Sarnia, which has practically a $100 million investment in Sarnia, Toronto, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia. They are producers of many products including plastic products.
The chemical industry is a huge industry, a huge empire, a giant in the United States and elsewhere, and it is becoming easy for many of the other countries which can produce these products to ship into Canada. The complaint I am making to this committee and to this government-and I made it often to the previous government and it is time that somebody took notice of it; I expect this government will; if it does not it will hear from me again-is that we have flagrant out and out dumping in this country. That dumping continues while checks are being made. I submit that when a responsible industry,
tMr. Murphy.]
a producer of, say, plastics in this country makes a protest or a suggestion to the government that there has been dumping that protest and suggestion should not be just ignored. Unfortunately, it is the foreign manufacturer who apparently has the ear of those people who formulate policies which are laid on somebody else's desk. A United States manufacturer can sell an off grade product at a depressed price in his home market, and then move the same product into our market at a depressed price so long as he calls it off grade. It is about time that we took notice of this.
I still have six minutes to go, Mr. Chairman, if you are rising to call me to time. It seems to me we have now reached the crossroads in Canada's economy. The world has divided itself into trading blocs. We have two huge ones in Europe; maybe others are in the making. We hear some comments respecting an American bloc. At the moment we are being urged not to trade with certain nations but we have shown the proper spirit in that regard. I suggest that we have to avoid the fiscal errors we have made in the past. We can no longer allow the economists to practise on us. We must use economic methods which to some degree have been tested and found to have merit.
Before I close, I should like to say-and I have said this before in the house-that this council will have to consider tariffs or rather the administration of tariff regulations. I hope it does consider some of the answers that industry has been receiving about its suggestions and representations. If you take the actual tariff exactions levied during the Laurier regime and the later regime of Borden and Meighen, King and St. Laurent, up to date, you will find that, taken as a percentage total of imports, they vary by less than a fraction of 1 per cent. If anybody wants to verify that all he has to do is to spend about $2,000, which I did, to make this survey some four or five years ago, and it took a lot of research to do it, but that is what it amounts to.
We hear people talk about free trade and tariffs. I would suggest they make a study; they can have my study at no cost to them. What we should try to escape from is this state of academic anaemia in which our discussions on trade policy are conducted. In the face of the record I have mentioned what is the use of discussing free trade as a practical political proposition? All such discussions do not alter the fact that there is no genuine free trade party in Canada and there never has been. I have said that before and it is worth repeating.
Since we have a tariff which, as I said, has not varied one half of one per cent from the

days of Sir John A. Macdonald who laid the cornerstone of that policy, why do we not be fair and reasonable about its application? Why should good industries that have entered Canada at the request of the government-and we have many of them-to supply vitally needed war materials and which now employ many thousands of Canadian workers at the best prevailing rates of pay be made the victims of a hypocritical trade policy? We want people employed in the country; we want to import what we require, but I say here and now, we want to give our industries the opportunity to hire people, to hire Canadians to produce what we want. We must expect to continue to have imports; we welcome imports because trade must be a twoway street. I am not advocating higher tariffs. This party has never advocated higher tariffs, in spite of what has been said by speakers at various times since I have been in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes; I can say that with all sincerity. My hon. friend knows it.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: All you have to do is to read a little bit more and do a little research work and you will find out that we have not advocated higher tariffs.


Lionel Chevrier: Read the speeches of some of your colleagues.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I have read the speeches. I said a while ago that I spent some money to find out about the tariff policies of your party as well as mine. I will defy the hon. member or any member of your party to deny what I said respecting the amount of tariff increase-


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Has he read the speech made by the hon. member for Stormont advocating an increase in tariffs against those countries we can not get more trade from.


Mr. Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):: Have you read the speech of the hon. member for Essex East?


Lionel Chevrier: What is the answer?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Unfortunately, I must confess I did not read the hon. member's speech but he does not pretend to establish policy.


Mr. Heliyer:: Economic bilingualism.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
Productivity Council


Joseph Warner Murphy: I should like to finish one sentence.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: You have another 40 minutes; there were questions.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am not taking an extra 40 minutes for anybody. I should like to say that we cannot pursue an inflexible policy which stifles industry and denies labour an opportunity of steady employment. Foreign exporters to Canada and Canadian industries cannot expect to sell much to unemployed Canadians.
I want to conclude by saying without any hesitation that the policies which our party follows have been declared very completely over the years by the leaders of our party. I know the hon. member for Laurier may not agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Essex East or by some other members of his party respecting the question of tariffs and free trade.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I did not rise to take part in this debate. My purpose in rising is twofold: first, to tell the hon. member who has just taken his seat that it is a fact, notwithstanding his statement that members of his party and the government itself have by their conduct tended toward a policy of protection in this country. If there is any necessity to prove these statements which I have made, then all one needs to do is to look at the statement made by the Minister of Finance in Ste. Adele quite recently in which he indicated clearly to those people of the common market countries that if they continued to reduce their tariff there would be only one alternative that Canada could adopt in connection with meeting the competition of those countries.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Where is the high tariff?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not rise for that purpose; I rose to reiterate sentiments which I expressed in another debate having to do with emergency legislation in this house. It seems to us who sit on this side of the house that far too much time is being taken on this emergency legislation, far more than should be taken under the circumstances. We have been given by the government four measures of great importance, so the Prime Minister told us, and we have by all the means at our command assisted the government in bringing that legislation into being. This resolution, which has now been before the committee for some time, has seen no less than eight speakers from the government side take well over two hours, as compared with one speaker from this side.
I should like to draw to your attention, sir, the fact that much of the discussion on the

Productivity Council
resolution was entirely irrelevant and had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the establishment of a national productivity council.
Mr. Pallet!: Utter nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: You, yourself, Mr. Chairman, indicated this when you interrupted one member. The hon. member for Lambton spoke at great length on matters that had absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of the council. I rise simply for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the government this fact. If you have emergency legislation, bring it on; we want to assist you and help you in getting it through so that it will be of assistance to those who are in dire need and who will be unemployed during the winter months. There are five or six days left before the Christmas recess. If there is any other legislation in connection with this matter, I think the house should have it.
We had one example today of a bill which was introduced in the other place entitled an act to repeal certain laws relating to the signals station at Halifax. How could that be associated with emergency legislation? I am unable to see how it could be. Why legislation of that character should have gone to the other place I am unable to see. I do want to reiterate to those who sit on the government benches, if there is any emergency legislation, let us have it. We are anxious to assist the government in putting it through the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in spite of what the hon. member for Laurier said a few moments ago, I do take the risk of rising at this time to make a contribution to this debate on the resolution stage. As the Minister of Labour I feel that I should make some remarks in respect to this measure to indicate the part that will be played by the labour department and labour generally in this country. Last week the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave us an outline of the objectives of the organization and the other arrangements for the proposed national productivity council. There are a few comments I wish to make at this time in connection with this resolution.
I should like to say, first of all, that I am pleased to note the interest on the part of those who have already spoken in bringing about further productivity improvements in Canadian industries, and the wide support of the action proposed to help accomplish this. In my opinion, two points stand out clearly. First, productivity is the cornerstone of economic growth in today's increasingly technical and competitive world. Second, strenuous efforts are being made by many
fMr. Chevrier.]
countries throughout the world to raise productivity levels in their industries.
Now in view of these two considerations, Mr. Chairman, it is essential I feel that we take steps in Canada to achieve the greatest possible industrial and business efficiency by the most effective use of manpower, plant materials, and other resources. This, in turn, will help to bring about expanding employment opportunities and improved living standards. The fear is sometimes expressed that productivity improvement may lead to a displacement of manpower or to unjustifiable speed-ups of work for employees. These are understandable concerns, all the more so because on some occasions they do in fact take place. With a proper regard for the human factor in industrial production, the latter should not occur, and I would hope the national productivity council, when it is set up, would be able to encourage positive action in this matter.
Improvements in productivity almost inevitably involve employment adjustments. In some cases the workers affected are able to take advantage of new employment opportunities created as new products are developed; new types of equipment and machinery are brought into use and increased sales are realized through improvements in industrial efficiency. In other cases workers may have to find other jobs, perhaps requiring different kinds of skills and knowledge. It is particularly for these workers-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are no other jobs.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Trinity says there are no other jobs. This government is endeavouring to do everything possible to create an atmosphere of opportunity for more jobs. I do not know what the hon. member means by that interjection, whether he wishes that this condition exist or whether he wishes to improve it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish you could do something about it instead of just talking about it.


Michael Starr: It is particularly for these
workers that the retraining programs are needed and another objective of the national productivity council will be to stimulate such retraining activities in plants and in industries. The council in this respect will be able to work closely with federal and provincial training authorities to help ensure that public training facilities are of maximum assistance to industry.
I feel that it will be the task of the council, with its secretariat, to promote greater activity in industry in these and other fields. In doing so, it will be able to work with interested agencies on all management, union, educational and government levels and to

make proposals to them for further action. The council, I am sure, would undoubtedly want to take advantage of the lessons learned elsewhere as to the kinds of things which a national body of this sort can most usefully do. I want to underline that the proposed council should not merely copy the productivity programs of other countries.
As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, we must have a national productivity program tailored to our situation and our needs. It is helpful to know what others have done. However, in the last analysis we must do those things which are aimed at our own problems and take into consideration our own conditions.
I should also like to underline the importance of those serving on this council being persons knowledgeable of the basic production, distribution, technical and human problems affecting industry. I think this is an essential factor in the case of those from management, unions and the other groups which will be represented on this council. I think it is important that the members be fully aware of and deeply interested in the basic objectives of the council.
I feel that through leadership in this important field-as a matter of fact, I am convinced of it-based on careful study and sound educational and promotional efforts, this national productivity council can make a substantial contribution over the years ahead to increased employment, to improved standards of living both in Canada and elsewhere and to our national development generally.
For the most part I feel that the council will encourage more research, particularly at the plant level in industry. It will encourage greater use of the facilities of the national research council, particularly of the technical information service which has field offices in the provinces and works through various research organizations in the provinces. I am sure the council will encourage more work in all types of technical and economic research but it will not have the staff itself with which to carry out extensive research in this field.
We hope to have the council in action as soon as possible. The sooner a start is made on improving efficiency in industry, the sooner will the result become apparent. In some fields the results will appear fairly soon. In more complex fields it will take longer. However, the important thing is to make a start on this work as soon as possible.
The work of this council will not be restricted to manufacturing and distributing industries. In order that its work should be
Productivity Council
as broad as possible, representatives of primary industries such as agriculture, the extractive industries, lumbering, fishing and others will be included on the council. In addition, the council will include representatives of the general public who will represent consumers and certain of the professions.
In order to be most effective I feel that the council should limit its activities to questions of productivity at all levels in the economy. This is a major task and will require all of the time and energy of the council and its staff. We want an effective body to implement active policies. We do not want an advisory body dealing with broader questions in the economic field.
I am sure that the committee has noted with approval the fact that both management and labour as well as agriculture and the general public will be represented on this council. This fact means that all these important segments of society will be fully represented.


George James McIlraith: Will the minister permit a question just in order to clarify a point he made a moment ago?


Michael Starr: Yes.


George James McIlraith: The minister said he did not want a policy making body. How does he reconcile that statement with the minister's statement in introducing the resolution when he said, as reported a page 566 of Hansard, that the national council should act as a policy making body.


Michael Starr: In the field of productivity. What I said a moment ago was that we did not want a policy making body in the field of economics.
I mentioned that the committee would be interested in knowing that these important segments of our society would be fully represented on this council. On this basis I am sure there need be no fear-and I stress this point-that the productivity council will take a one-sided approach to the problems with which it will deal. I feel that this consideration in some measure accounts for the wide acceptance which this measure has already received from all sides.
I am sure that the collective knowledge, the skills and the experience of commerce, industry, labour, universities, government and of citizens generally is needed at this time. With the help of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I trust that we can push ahead vigorously with this large but imperative task.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Pension Act
Mr. Starr (for Minister of Trade and
Commerce) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-52, to provide for the establishment and operation of a national productivity council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSION ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases to disabled veterans and their dependants; to permit payment of supplementary pensions in certain cases; to permit appeals from decisions of the former board of pension commissioners; and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I find that it is an honour, Mr. Chairman, to be able to rise in this committee, after several years of service here, in order to introduce a measure on behalf of the veterans of Canada. I recall that when I first entered this house about nine years ago and attempted my maiden speech it was on the subject of the problems of veterans. It has now fallen to my lot to advance in this chamber certain legislation on behalf of veterans.
Before doing so I should like to pay a well deserved tribute to my predecessor, the Hon. Alfred Brooks, who during the 25 years of service he gave to the House of Commons was always active in support of measures that concerned veterans. When he became minister of veterans affairs he launched a program of review of the veterans charter. It is the continuation of that review of the veterans charter that I should like to follow up and continue the work so ably started.
During Colonel Brooks' term of office $47J million was added by the consent of parliament to the amounts already being received by our veterans in disability pensions, war veterans allowances, increases to widows and dependent parents, educational assistance to children, and increases for hospitals. Under Colonel Brooks' guidance the house increased the basic rates for war veterans allowances and raised the ceilings for permissible earnings. Residence requirements for allied veterans were lowered from 20 to 10 years; veterans with a year's service in the United Kingdom became eligible for allowances; that is, veterans of world war I. Equity in recipients' homes were raised; allowances may

now be paid to veterans living abroad who had 12 months prior residence in Canada; loans under the Veterans Land Act were increased, as well as home construction loans. That, in summary, is part of the work for which my predecessor was responsible during the time he served as minister of this portfolio.
Carrying on with the review of the veterans charter it is our duty to consider the resolution which is before us, which is based on quite a bit of work that was done during the last year and is brought forward in response to a need that parliament has recognized, and I am sure will continue to recognize as the debate continues on this resolution and on the other stages of the bill.
In the course of the preparation for this measure very considerable assistance was received from the veterans' organizations across this country, who have consistently through the years given sound advice to members of parliament. During the time I have been here I have noticed that parliament has taken a great interest in any problems concerning veterans and any legislation pertaining thereto, and very many members of the house have served on the committees that have had to deal with such legislation.
I am sure the situation is the same now; the house contains so many veterans who are -this applies to all members, for that matter -interested in the problems of these men who served and who through the difficulties they experienced overseas and the danger they underwent have had, in some cases, a very difficult time after the war.
We sometimes forget the number of people who are involved in our pension legislation. They are not all the veterans by any means, but there are a substantial number and it is on their behalf that veterans' organizations take an interest in these matters and that parliament itself shows concern.
From world war I there are now approximately 240,000 survivors. Of that number approximately 49,000 are pensioners; slightly over 25 per cent of the total number of survivors of the first world war. The veteran survivors of the second world war number
826.000,	and of that number somewhat over
100.000,	or slightly over 12 per cent, are
pensioners.	_
On behalf of these pensioners we are now bringing forward for consideration of the House of Commons a proposed increase in the rate of pensions payable to war disabled and to the dependants to those who lost their lives in the service of Canada. Let us not forget that in the two wars 104,000 Canadians lost their lives. During the last 40 years the dependants of those who gave their all have been assisted to a certain extent through

action taken by parliament. We quite realize that dollars and cents cannot adequately compensate a man for the loss of an arm or a leg, or a mother and children for the loss of the father, but I think parliament has shown that it is desirous of doing whatever is possible with the means at the disposal of our country.
In introducing the present amendments to the act I feel that we are doing something which will improve the lot of Canada's war veterans and their dependants. I think it is the desire of the people of Canada that veterans and their dependents shall receive reasonably adequate compensation.
I should like to explain some of the other proposed amendments in addition to the increase in the rate of pensions. One which I am sure will meet with the approval of all members of the committee is that which provides for an increase in the maximum grants for burial expenses of pensioners. This amendment provides that the rates for such grants will keep pace with similar payments to veterans who die in our treatment hospitals. This has always posed a problem to the Canadian pension commission because while the maximum rates payable on behalf of pensioners have always been established by section 35 of the Pension Act the departmental rates may be changed by regulation.
Since the Pension Act can only be amended by parliament and is, as a result, amended infrequently-and it has not been amended very frequently for a good many years since it was first brought into the house-the rates for pensioners having always lagged behind the departmental rates. It is hoped that the present amendment will overcome this situation.
Then with regard to Canadian citizens who served in allied forces during either of the wars, it is proposed to bring in an amendment so that they may claim entitlement from the Canadian pension commission when their claims have been rejected by the government of the allied force in which they served.
It is also proposed that when such applicants have established their entitlement with the Canadian pension commission they shall be entitled to receive their pensions or supplementary payments no matter where they may choose to live in the world. Under present legislation Canadians who served in an allied force, including forces of the United Kingdom, must first establish entitlement to pension with the government of the allied force with which they served and have been awarded a gratuity or pension by that government. Only then may the pension be supplemented by the Canadian pension commission in order to increase it to the amount payable to those who served in the forces of Canada.
Pension Act
Also, the supplementation can only be paid so long as the pensioner continues to reside in Canada. This is a form of discrimination which will be removed by the proposed amendment.
Then there are certain amendments which will affect payments to children. The rates are, of course, being increased, but in addition it is interesting to note that there are roughly 5,000 children of first world war pensioners who are receiving assistance and over 160,000 children of pensioners of the second world war.
Under the act as at present additional pensions on behalf of children are required to be discontinued as of the day they reach age 16 in the case of boys and 17 in the case of girls. Among the proposed amendments is one which would permit the commission to continue this additional pension to the end of the month in which the child reaches the age limit. This will not only provide a small additional pension to these children, but it will relieve the commission of an expensive and arduous procedure in arriving at the amount to be paid during this final month under existing legislation. In fact, the saving which will result from reduced cost of administration may equal, if not exceed, the cost of the additional pension paid out.
A further amendment provides for the equal distribution of additional pension to all children of a family rather than continuing the present procedure whereby a greater amount is paid on behalf of the first child than on behalf of the second, and a greater amount on behalf of the second child than on behalf of the third. There will be no reduction in the total amount paid; if this house approves, the all-over rate will be increased, and substantially more will be paid on behalf of all children, no matter what the number. Under the proposed amendment the pension on behalf of a single child will still be greater than half of the additional pension paid on behalf of two children. This proposed amendment will ease an administrative problem in connection with payments to children and abolish the distinction which appears in the act at the present time.
Then there is a further amendment which will affect a small number of children of certain pensioners. The present act provides that when a pensioner who is a widower dies, an additional pension equivalent to the amount paid on behalf of a wife may be continued if a daughter, or other person competent to do so, will take care of the children. This proposed amendment would make it possible for the commission to continue payment of additional pension on behalf of a wife in cases where a widow dies and the care of her children is taken over

Pension Act
by an aunt or some relative or person other than an older daughter. This will mean that where the widow in receipt of pension for herself and her children dies the pension for the children and the widow's pension may be paid to some person who is competent and who assumes responsibility for the care of the children. This amendment will cover what was perhaps an oversight in the act in making provision for orphan children.
There are, in addition, a number of proposed changes designed to facilitate the administration of the Pension Act, and these will all react to the advantage of Canada's disability pensioners and the dependants of those who died in service.
The pension commission is anxious to administer the Pension Act in a manner which will ensure that Canada's veterans receive in full the benefits provided by the act. I think that over the years those of us who have had close contact with the pension commission have reached that conclusion. In some instances, the act and the interpretation of the act have limited the activities of the pension commission, and in the revision that is now going on it is our hope that some of the sections which have hindered the commission from time to time may be altered so that its work may become more effective.
That is the purpose of the resolution which is now before us and of the amendments which will be brought in when the resolution carries. They are designed to give the commission a greater measure of freedom to carry out its objective, and they are also designed to make the administration of the Pension Act more uniform and more equitable. I commend to the committee the resolution now before us. When it passes we shall then have the bill before us to study and, after second reading, if the house approves, the measure will be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs for further consideration.


Mr. Forgie:: First, I should like to pay tribute to the present minister's predecessor who was in command of the committee on veterans affairs. It has always been a very pleasant task to serve on this committee. If there is any committee in the House of Commons which is non-political, I am sure it is the committee on veterans affairs.
We are very glad indeed to hear of this proposed legislation. We do not think there is any benefit to be derived from a discussion of this measure at this stage. As the hon. member for Laurier reiterated tonight, we are prepared to facilitate the introduction of legislation announced in the speech from the throne, reserving our comments until the bill is actually before us.

This bill is late in appearing but it will nevertheless be welcomed by all disabled veteran pensioners throughout the country. The measure will, no doubt, be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs where it will be carefully considered. I do not think that at this time anything further need be said.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On behalf of this group I should like to say a few words, and first of all I must congratulate the minister on his appointment to his present portfolio. This is a very important cabinet post, the minister in charge having the responsibility for administering a department which affects the welfare and the livelihood and the interests of hundreds of thousands of veterans across Canada. I wish the hon. gentleman every success on behalf of this group in all he undertakes to improve the veterans' charter and veterans' legislation and to improve the service rendered by his department to veterans and their dependants.
I cannot continue without making some reference to Colonel the Hon. Alfred Brooks, the former minister of veterans affairs, whom I am sure we all miss in this house after 25 years of service and whose absence will, I know, create a void in the veterans' affairs committee. Regardless of our differences of opinion on matters political, I think all of us recognize the fact that the Hon. Alfred Brooks always had the interests of the veterans and their dependents at heart and did the best he could for them in the circumstances in which he found himself. He has rendered years of devoted service to veterans and to their dependents and I am sure this is recognized from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Personally, without meaning any reflection on the present minister, I am one who rather wishes that the former minister had had the opportunity of introducing the legislation which has been introduced this evening. I feel quite sure, in my own mind, though I cannot speak from definite knowledge, that this legislation was prepared in essence during the last session but that its introduction into parliament was delayed owing to some unseen forces behind the scenes. Anyway, the former minister of veterans affairs has not had the opportunity to introduce this legislation which, I am sure, he would have welcomed if he had had that opportunity. Having said that, we are pleased that his successor has introduced this resolution this evening.
I had the opportunity with other hon. members to attend the eighteenth biennial convention of the Canadian Legion at Windsor last year. When the former minister was speaking I noticed that he mentioned that the Canadian Legion had always given sound

advice to the government throughout the years. I support that contention although I must say the government has been rather slow in accepting the sound advice given it every year since 1958 by the Canadian Legion. That fact was recognized by the former minister. I wish to quote from a statement made by the minister to the convention last year:
These conventions are often referred to as "Veterans' parliaments", and the term is not inappropriate. They provide opportunities for veterans from all over Canada to discuss matters of interest to members of the legion, to veterans and their families, and to the country as a whole.
Consequently, your deliberations are important to Canadians everywhere, and the reports about them are read with great interest.
This prestige has been justly earned, for delegates over the years have demonstrated over and over again an acute sense of responsibility and duty. I am sure that this will be equally characteristic of those attending this convention.
I was present at that convention and they were equally characteristic. Throughout the years whether a Liberal government or a Progressive Conservative government has been in power this group has consistently supported the representations of the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans and other major veterans organizations because we believe, as the minister said that they gave sound advice to the governments in power at the time.
The convention last year was very spirited. I have attended a great many conventions of the Legion throughout the years but never before had I observed so much impatience with the government owing to the delay in introducing important legislation with respect to increases in the rate of disability pensions. On that account we are particularly pleased to see the resolution introduced this evening.
Now a few comments on the minister's remarks and I will be finished. We want to cooperate by getting the resolution through this evening. The minister mentioned that during the period in which his predecessor was in office the total increased expenditures on veterans and their dependents was $37.5 million. That is a lot of money and we are pleased that those improvements were made. But let us not forget that when we pat ourselves on the back because we spend this sum on veterans and their dependents it is a small proportion of the total budget. We owe it to these veterans and their dependents to do the best we can for them to the limit of our ability.
The minister mentioned an increase in pension rates. I listened carefully to the figure we are anxiously awaiting. However, in case the bill has not been drafted and the matter might be considered overnight I want to read into the record one resolution passed by the 90205-6-47i
Pension Act
Canadian Legion and contained in a brief presented to the Prime Minister and the cabinet today:
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends-that the rates payable under schedules A and B of the Pension Act be increased so that pensioners will regain the position of equality of income with customs guards, cleaners and helpers and army privates that was in effect in 1920.
That is all they are asking for, equality with the level of income they enjoyed in 1920. We hope that when the bill is introduced the wishes of the Legion, the sound advice given by the Legion, will be met by the legislation.
The minister mentioned the removal of some discriminations with respect to those failing to qualify for pensions with commonwealth or allied forces. We are pleased to see the amendment. While the expenditure is not large and the numbers not great there was a certain measure of injustice suffered by a few people.
The minister mentioned an amendment to continue the pension to children to the end of the month. I presume this is more an administrative matter than one of expense and that the extra amount expended by paying the pension to the end of the month will be almost balanced by the reduction in administrative costs.
The minister then mentioned equal payments for all children. We believe that is a sound principle and welcome the introduction of that amendment.
The minister also mentioned payment to widowers who have persons caring for their children. That is an excellent amendment and something that should have been done years ago. Numerous cases have arisen throughout the years where children lost their mothers and the husband had to engage a housekeeper to care for them with no provision for the extra expense. I give the government full marks for the introduction of that amendment.
We were pleased to hear the minister announce that the bill will be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs so that the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans and other organizations including the little group of non-pensioned widows in which the minister has taken such an interest throughout the years will have an opportunity to appear before the committee.
We will have to wait and see whether the key to this bill, the substantial increase in pensions referred to in the throne speech, meets the standards established by the recommendations of the Canadian Legion group presented to the Prime Minister and cabinet today.

Pension Act


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question. I understand the hon. gentleman to say I had used the figure of $37.5 million when I was speaking about the increase; I actually said $47.5 nillion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad of the correction. It was my mistake due in part to my advanced years.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Kootenay West I also attended the convention of the Canadian Legion at Windsor but as an active and not a fraternal delegate. I went as the representative of 15 Legion branches. I heard the former minister make the statement which was referred to by the hon. member. I also heard the expression from some of the delegates present to which the hon. gentleman also referred. I thought such comments were rather unjust and said so at the time because in my opinion the hon. gentleman who was then minister of veterans affairs and who is now a member of the other hon. house, a long time member of this House of Commons, was a champion of veterans in Canada throughout his entire service in parliament and now in the other place and during his service in uniform. I should like to pay my tribute to a very distinguished and honourable gentleman.
I speak, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this House of Commons. I speak also as a privileged member who has the honour to serve on the standing committee on veterans affairs and I speak as a member of the Canadian Legion. I think this government has been generous to Canada's veterans. In 1957 this government granted the first increase in disability pensions which had been granted in many years. Slightly over three years later this government is considering and preparing to make another increase in those pensions, an increase which we agree is justifiable in view of the cost of living today. It is not the first increase that this government has given; it is the second in a short period of three years. We are pleased to see this increase being contemplated. Like other things that this government does, I am sure it will be generous and meet the approval of the war disabled and their dependents and the veterans of Canada.
I was also very pleased to see in the resolution that there will be further amendments which will permit payment of supplementary pensions in certain cases. I am sure that all of us know of dependents or of disabled veterans and pensioners who are in necessitous circumstances through no fault of their own and this increase in supplementary pensions will certainly be very welcome because these are the hard shell cases who need this extra income.

I am also very pleased to see that the amendments will permit appeal from the decision of the former board of pension commissioners. All of us who have been active over the years in the Legion know that there are many such cases where the applicant either for an increase or for the beginning of a pension thought he should have been treated much more equitably than he was because he was depending on what is known as the benefit of doubt clause. In some cases it appeared that the benefit of doubt clause worked for the pension commission and not for the veteran.
All in all, Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to congratulate the government and our new minister who I am sure will give to Canada's veterans the same consideration and the same attention on the introduction of these amendments as the former minister gave. I will be looking forward to the bill and to a study of it in committee of the whole and in the committee on veterans affairs.


Oscar William Weichel: Mr. Chairman, as a disabled veteran of the first great war and one who has carried his disability for over 40 years, it gives me great satisfaction to take part in the discussion of this resolution. November 17, 1960, must have been a red letter day which stirred the hearts of disabled veterans and their dependents when they heard the speech from the throne in which our beloved Governor General included the following words:
Amendments to the Pensions Act will be recommended, which will include substantial increases in the pensions payable to veterans or their dependants.
Throughout the years the war amputations association of Canada, the Canadian Legion, the army, navy and air force, the Royal Canadian Air Force association and others have placed before the veterans affairs committee amendments to the Pensions Act and other worth-while legislation concerning their disabled comrades of world wars I, II and Korea. May I on behalf of those comrades express our thanks to the government, the veterans affairs committee, the Canadian pensions committee and the Department of Veterans Affairs for the loyalty and support in bringing about from time to time better conditions for those who gave so much at a time when their country was in urgent need of their devotion to duty.
It is a privilege for me to congratulate the former minister of veterans affairs, the Hon. Alfred Brooks, on his appointment to the Senate. This gentleman throughout the years has been a real friend of all veterans, and his untiring efforts for the welfare of tens of thousands of Canadians will long linger in our thoughts.



I960

[Stage Direction]
I understand the total number of pensioners under the Pensions Act as of December 31, 1959 was 185,536, as compared with 195,635 in 1950. This decrease is mainly due to the sad fact that world war I pensioners are steadily passing away. On the other hand, the number of world war II pensioners has increased from 88,233 in 1947 to 122,296 in 1959, an increase of 34,063. It is interesting to note in regard to this group that the number of children in respect of whom additional pension is being paid is 176,409, an increase of 54,759 since 1947. These figures were supplied by our comrade, Mr. T. D. Anderson, chairman of the Canadian pension commission, to the veterans affairs committee in April 7, 1960.
Progress reported.

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the house will be doing tomorrow and the next day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall take second reading of the bill relating
Business of the House
to the productivity council, followed by continuation of the debate on the resolution just now before us, on amendments to the Pensions Act. These two items being concluded, we would carry on with supplementary estimates. I think that order of business will hold for Wednesday. If there is any change it will be announced tomorrow night.


Lionel Chevrier: Has any decision been taken on what the house will do on Thursday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not yet. Thursday might be a government day. Under the new rules it could be used for that purpose; otherwise it might be used for private members' day. But we will announce tomorrow night what vve will be doing on that day.


Lionel Chevrier: Can I indicate our willingness to abandon our rights under the private members' day and co-operate with the government in getting additional legislation through.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you.


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

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

Mr. Boulanger: 

$ 108 76 148 77 258 244 225 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 13, 1960