1960-12-16

STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER RESPECTING ERROR IN VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I inform the house of an error in the English version of Votes and Proceedings for yesterday. In the copy sent to the printers last night there was an item showing that Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company, had been received from the Senate and given first reading, pursuant to section 2 of standing order 103. In the printed copy of Votes and Proceedings received this morning-that is, the English version-this item was inadvertently omitted.



O.E.C.D.-REPORT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE ON SIGNING OF CONVENTION IN PARIS

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer the house a report on the successful outcome of the meeting held in Paris on December 13 and 14 to consider and sign a convention under which the organization for economic co-operation and development is to be established next year.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) and I represented the government and signed the convention on behalf of Canada. Other representatives signed on behalf of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the three European communities; that is to say, the coal and steel community, the atomic energy community and the European economic community. It is the intention of the government to seek parliamentary approval of the convention at this session.
On January 18 last I made a report to the house on the events that had led to the establishment in 1948 of the organization for European economic co-operation in connection with the Marshall plan, to the subsequent associate membership of Canada and the United States in that organization in 1950, and to the recent decision to reconstitute the organization to meet the needs of the future 90205-6-55i
and to provide for the full membership of these two countries. It is gratifying to be able, less than a year later, to report to the house that the task of reconstitution has been accomplished, subject to the necessary processes of ratification.
Negotiations have proceeded very actively throughout the past year. In July a second ministerial meeting was held in Paris in order to give guidance and direction to the negotiators. My report on that meeting was read to the house by my parliamentary secretary on July 25.
The aims of the newly constituted organization, as set forth in article 1 of the convention, are to promote policies that are designed: (a) to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; (b) to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and (c) to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations.
The activities of the organization may be broadly classified under three heads: trade, aid', and the harmonization of the economic policies of member governments. Of these the third is the least familiar but it might well emerge as the most important. Therefore I should like to speak of it first.
In the field of economic policy there is growing recognition of international interdependence. National economies have become more sensitive to changes in world trends and to measures taken in other countries. Actions taken by individual governments often have external repercussions and, indeed, the efficacy of national action is to a large extent dependent upon the policies followed in other countries. Accordingly it has been agreed that in the new organization the economic and financial situation in member countries and policies pursued by member governments will be kept under review. Special attention will be paid to the international effects of national policies. And, as set out in the convention, member countries have undertaken to pursue, both individually and jointly, "policies designed to achieve economic growth and internal and external financial stability
866	HOUSE OF
Report on Paris Trade Convention and to avoid developments which might endanger their economies or those of other countries".
Similarly, in the field of trade member countries agree to review together their general policies and practices and to devote special attention to the international effects of their actions. The organization will provide a continuing forum for consideration of the effects, on member countries and on others, of the trade groupings that are emerging in Europe. I refer, of course, to issues arising from the formation of the Six and the Seven. Such matters as these are of concern currently and for the future. On the other hand, it has been decided that much of the earlier activity of the O.E.E.C. in the field of trade, which was of a regional character and often discriminated against the rest of the world, should be discontinued. The new organization is, as I have said, to promote the expansion of trade on a multilateral and non-discriminatory basis, thus contributing to the achievement of the purposes of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Turning finally to the field of aid, it should be explained that the existing organization, the O.E.E.C., is already engaged in useful programs of technical assistance in the less fully developed countries amongst its own membership; these are countries bordering the Mediterranean sea. Such programs may be expected to continue. However, the organization also includes the most fully industrialized countries of the world and, under the new constitution, these countries are recognizing a responsibility for aid not only to their less advanced neighbours and associates but also to underdeveloped countries throughout the world. Without awaiting the new constitution, the chief aid-providing countries of Europe, along with representatives of Japan, have already during the course of the past year held three meetings, two in Washington and one in Bonn. This group is to become the development aid committee of the new organization. Its purpose is to promote, by means of consultation and harmonization, an improved flow of aid to underdeveloped countries.
The new O.E.C.D. provides great hope for the economic future of the free world. The significance of its role will depend on the willingness of all member countries to make their full contribution and, through co-operation and consultation, to ensure effective use of their capacities and potentialities, and to promote the highest sustainable growth of their economies and those of other countries. It will be the intention of the Canadian
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1

government to make the organization an effective instrument for the betterment of our own people and of people throughout the world.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table copies in English and in French of the convention and the communique issued at the time it was approved for signature, and copies in both languages of the statement which I made on behalf of Canada, partly in French and partly in English, at the signing ceremony at the Quai d'Orsay on Wednesday, December 14.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the minister back from his short visit to Europe; and his close friends, among whom I propose to include myself, regret that on his return to Canada he did not take advantage of the festivities participated in yesterday in Montreal by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The minister has given us a review of the organization known as O.E.C.D., the organization for European co-operation and development. It is perhaps sufficient to say at this time that until the convention has been tabled and we have been given an opportunity of examining in detail its contents it would be wise to perhaps no more than note that this organization, a successor to the O.E.E.C., is a step in the right direction. Obviously in the new organization Canada and the United States will have a more active role in relation to the formation of the two new economic blocs in Europe and the European nations generally than we had in O.E.E.C. Undoubtedly the new organization about which the minister has reported to the house owes its existence primarily to the initiative and the leadership of the United States, in which Mr. Dillon of that country played a notable part.
The minister said nothing about the free trade association under the leadership of the United Kingdom in Europe, nor of the E.C.M., or the European common market, in connection with which O.E.C.D. will have, of course, an important part to play. We will reserve our full judgment on this matter until such time as we have seen the convention in full context. We hope that it will be possible for the government to reconcile its adhesion to the convention with the observations made by the Minister of Finance a few weeks ago when he was in England, and which made extremely difficult any contact or association by the United Kingdom with the formation of one of the European economic blocs, something that means so much not only to the people of Europe but to the peace of the world.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we all welcome the return of the Minister of Finance, and listened to him with a great deal of interest. 1 think it can be said that the initiative and the impetus given to this conference and its conclusion have come about not particularly because of action of the North American nations but because of the success that is attending the setting up of the European common market and the outer seven, and the dangers and the advantages that flow from this action to other parts of the world.
More than any other nation, perhaps, Canada has a great stake in such a successful arrangement of nations to meet these great problems. Canada's life depends to a large extent upon a successful export trade. The O.E.C.D., properly managed, I believe can bring about great benefit to the Canadian nation. We hope that this move is but another indication of the growing community of world nations, another indication that nations in the world can co-operate for their mutual advantage. In any effort the government puts forward to extend Canadian trade through this organization and others I am sure it will receive the support of the members of the house.



STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON CURRENT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, during the past few days there has been considerable discussion about trade with Cuba, and I should like to clarify some of the points that have been raised.
Yesterday a request was made that copies should be tabled of the seventeen export permits which have been issued since October 1, 1960, for shipments to Cuba. I should like to make it clear that I would have no objection whatever to the tabling of these permits in this instance if it were not for the fact that, as a matter of principle, it has been the consistent practice of this government and of the preceding government to respect the confidential nature of the information which must be disclosed by firms applying for export permits. We do not intend to depart from this practice.
Having said that, let me go as far as I can to reassure the house that this stand is in no way adopted for the purpose of refusing information to the house. Because of the importance of this subject I will go further than I would in normal circumstances consider appropriate, and without in any way committing myself to follow a similar course by such a precedent, advise the type of goods which were export licensed. All but five of the permits issued were to cover supply to
Statement on Cuban Trade the Cubana Airlines of parts and instruments and reserviced engines which initially had been sent to Canada from Cuba for repairs. These were for the Viscount and Britannia aircraft operated by Cubana Airlines. The other items include part of a cobalt therapy unit, some rebuilt automobile transmissions, some rock drilling supplies, and parts for radio sets. I can assure the house that no application has been received for a permit to export goods of a strategic significance to Cuba.
There was some confusion apparent in yesterday's debate on the part of certain hon. members regarding what might be defined as strategic materials. The acting minister referred to the range and variety of products which are on the export control list. The export control list incorporates materials which are classified as strategic by COCOM, the co-ordinating committee in Paris, in which agreement on strategic items is developed among NATO governments. The list includes arms and ammunition, military and related equipment, and raw materials which are of strategic significance. No permits have been, or will be, issued for export of these goods to Cuba.
It also includes materials under control for supply conservation purposes, such as logs, iron and steel scrap, pancreas glands, and so on. There are items on the export control list which in some circumstances have strategic significance, but in other circumstances, none. For example, aircraft engines might have strategic significance if they were for military operational aircraft, but not if they were for ordinary civilian aircraft. Aircraft engines are subject to strict permit control, and the circumstances in each case will govern whether or not there is any strategic significance to an export and, accordingly, whether or not a permit is issued.
As the Prime Minister stated, in our trade relations with Cuba, consideration is given at all times to the strategic nature of any goods involved, and no permits have been issued this year for equipment which may be regarded as having any strategic significance.
As the Prime Minister has also stated, there is no intention of permitting what, in effect, would amount to bootlegging of goods of United States origin to Cuba. To implement this policy, no permits will be issued for the re-export of United States origin goods to Cuba.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the minister in this matter of such immediate importance is entirely unsatisfactory so far as we on this side are concerned, both the
B68	HOUSE OF
Statement on Cuban Trade position he has taken in refusing to table the export permits and the explanation he has given for that position.
The minister has indicated that no permits will be given for any commodity of a strategic nature. He has indicated already this morning that aircraft engines and parts thereof have been given permits. An export permit is required for Canadian shipments to Cuba under an act respecting the export and import of strategic and other goods. This is the act which governs the necessity for obtaining an export permit, and section 3 provides:
The governor in council may establish a list of goods, to be called an export control list, including therein any article the export of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes-[DOT]
There are only three categories outlined in the act. One is that the goods are arms or military equipment, or are of a strategic character. The other categories are:
-to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment;
And the third is:
-to ensure that there is an adequate supply and distribution of such article in Canada for defence or other needs.
In other words, these export permits have been granted, I take it, under section 3 (a) of this act; therefore their strategic character does arise. That is why the minister's explanation is entirely unsatisfactory.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think one of the principles that should govern Canada's relations with Cuba in regard to trade at this time is that no strategic materials should be shipped to that country, nor should Canada be used as a back door for the bootlegging of United States goods through our country to Cuba. But having said that, I think Canadians are in favour of carrying on trade relations with Cuba in normal, peacetime goods. I believe the action that has been taken in keeping trade relations open with Cuba is, in fact, a contribution to good international relations in the world. If we are going to shut off trade with Cuba merely because the United States has decided to do so, we will be playing a part in putting Cuba more firmly in the Russian orbit. I am suggesting that the government is following a proper course in keeping trade open with Cuba and not forcing that country more firmly into the grip of the Soviet union and, more important still, not aiding those forces in South America that would like to have their countries follow Cuba along the road she has taken.
When it comes time to debate this question in a formal way, Mr. Speaker, we shall be very pleased to point up the inconsistencies


in the position taken by the Liberal party, and the fact that very prominent members of that party are already speaking on this question with two voices. We suggest that the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon, member has himself indicated that is what he will say when the matter comes up for debate. I hope he will refrain from making any provocative comments that might make it necessary for some hon. member to intervene.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are not in support of those who say let us keep trade relations with Cuba at the $15 million level and let us not allow it to go above that. We are in favour of trading with this country in normal, peacetime goods, and we think such action will make a real contribution to the peace of the world.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps I might answer-I do not know whether it was a question or an assertion by the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would leave that until we come to orders of the day, since the subject was raised yesterday during the question period.
lLater:l
On the orders of the day:


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whom we are glad to welcome back to the house, a question on the subject of international economic cooperation, and it is this. Would the minister comment on the statement attributed to him in the Ottawa Journal from its Paris correspondent, to the effect that unless the European common market substantially reduces its tariff schedule against this country, Canada will retaliate by increasing its barriers against imports from the six European countries?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I shall be glad to answer that question. I thought the hon. member might ask it. I am very glad to be able to report that while in Paris I talked with our representatives who are conducting tariff negotiations at Geneva. These have been going on for some time and will continue for some time yet. From these representatives of the government who are conducting these negotiations I learned that there appears to be some inclination on the part of the countries in the groups of six and seven to increase trade restrictions against Canada in the future, and in talking to the ministers of trade of these various countries in Europe who

were present at this conference I took the opportunity to make it very clear that Canada is most anxious-and I underlined this very clearly-to continue our present harmonious trading relations with the countries of the Six and the countries of the Seven, and that we would be very loath to see any increase in restrictions placed against Canadian goods by the governments of those countries. I pointed out to them that we hoped that such restrictions would not be increased.
However, I made it very clear that if that was the intention on the part of these governments, Canada could not stand idly by and see our goods discriminated against. In this approach I believe this government is different from the former government, in that we have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister proceeds along that line he will, I think, provoke a response, and I suggest that he keep to the facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Will the minister now deal with my question, and comment on the report that he stated that if the common market countries did not reduce their tariffs, Canada would retaliate by raising tariffs against them?


George Harris Hees: I have outlined to the Leader of the Opposition the tenor of my remarks in Paris, both to reporters there and to the trade ministers to whom I spoke. I think I have made it as clear as I possibly can, and I hope the hon. gentleman is now able to understand what I said and the purpose of my taking a far clearer and firmer stand than the former government apparently dared to take.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question to put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the minister's refusal to table export permits. Has there been such a refusal on previous occasions?


George Harris Hees: I am very glad the hon. member happened to ask that question, because it gives me the opportunity to point out some facts to the Leader of the Opposition, who took such a holier than thou attitude


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twil-lingate):: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and my point of order is that a question which relates to something that happened before the election of 1957 can hardly be an urgent question to be asked on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to sustain the opposite view I will hear him, but it seems to me that the question is not
Inquiries of the Ministry one which is of urgent public importance, but rather that it is of the kind to encourage debate.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and, at the same time, join in the welcome home extended to him and to the Minister of Finance on the completion of their latest successful trip overseas to boost Canadian trade.
In view of the great interest in the more than 11,000 personal interviews between Canadian manufacturers and businessmen and the 111 Canadian trade commissioners recalled to Ottawa to emphasize Canadian trade possibilities, can the minister inform this house whether any digest of the meetings or any summary of proceedings will be made available to other manufacturers and businessmen-


Some hon. Members:: Time.


James Ernest Pascoe: -who also are tremendously interested in the project but who were unable to be in Ottawa for personal participation in the government's great drive to stimulate Canadian business?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice of his intention to ask this question. I should also like to thank the hon. member for Kent, (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth), who also spoke to me about this matter. A report in the form of a digest or summary of proceedings of the export trade promotion conference now going on in Ottawa will be prepared in due course. As soon as my departmental officials have had time to assimilate the large number of proposals and suggestions put forward, and to analyse the reports submitted by the 111 trade commissioners who have taken such an active part in the conference, this report will be made available to Canadian manufacturers and businessmen, including those who are unable to be in Ottawa at this time.
I might say it will also be made available to all primary producers, who have shown interest in this conference.



VISIT OF RUSSIAN MISSION TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, as recorded at page 701 of Hansard, the hon. member for Kootenay West asked two questions.
The first question was:
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?
The answer to this question is no.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The second question was:
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?
The answer to this question is that no arrangements have been made for such a meeting during the present calendar year.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON VISIT OF CUBAN DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he is in a position to make a report to the house on the visit of the Cuban trade delegation, which has just left for home, and of which the minister has spoken in such glowing terms.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to do so. I met with the delegation that arrived here quite unexpectedly last Friday, and I was interested to hear the purchasing plans of the mission. I was advised by the minister that they intend to buy products made in Canada, produced by Canadians, and are anxious to pay cash for them. They assured me that they are asking for no credit terms. They also assured me that the articles they are interested in buying are of nonstrategic nature, normal Canadian products, the manufacture of which will give employment to Canadians. That, of course, made me very pleased because I like to see Canadian people busy, and because it will provide employment for Canadians. In that, of course, we differ from the opposition who are pleased at all times, judging by their smiles-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can make a speech at the appropriate time.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What actual orders did the minister see placed, to which he referred?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He didn't see any.


George Harris Hees: Will the hon. member repeat his question?


George James McIlraith: In this answer the minister said he saw orders placed. Will he tell us just what those orders are?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say I saw orders placed; but I am sure the hon. member reads the papers and read in this morning's Globe and Mail that the head of the delegation, the minister, reported to the Globe and Mail reporter that he had been around Canada for the past week and had placed quite a considerable number of orders.
[Mr. Hees.)


George James McIlraith: I have another supplementary question. The minister, in speaking of the visit-and I think I quote him correctly from the Toronto Telegram of December 10, is reported as having said this:
They're wonderful customers. You can't do business with better businessmen anywhere.
What special ingredients made those businessmen better than any other of our trading customers?


George Harris Hees: As I think the hon. member will realize if he thinks deeply into the matter, I was not referring to the people as personages, I was referring to the kind of trade which they offered to Canada. The hon. member, I think, will agree with me that when people come here, with whom we have normal trading relations, and are willing to buy for cash goods produced by Canadians, in Canadian factories and on Canadian farms, that will provide jobs for Canadians, that will be a good thing. His party does not believe in that. They like to see increasing unemployment. Every day they hear increasing unemployment figures in the house, they smile.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister had been looking in the right direction he would have saved a lot of breath.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take the supplementary question first in the interests of orderly discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did I understand the Minister of Trade and Commerce to say that he was misrepresented by the Toronto Telegram?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. I never claim to be misquoted by any newspaperman, which is contrary to what is done across the way.



OLYMPIC GAMES-ANNOUNCEMENT OF GRANT TO CANADIAN ASSOCIATION

Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce my department's intention to provide financial assistance to the Canadian Olympic association in studies it is conducting in connection with the 1968 winter Olympic games.
The association has requested a grant of $10,000 to finance an engineering survey of the most probable sites in this country, to determine which site would give Canada the best opportunity for selection as the host country for these games. I was pleased to accede to the association's request, and hope

that parliament will give its approval if it should be necessary to include this item in final supplementary estimates for the current year.
The Canadian Olympic association hopes to make a definite choice at its annual meeting in March, 1961, after a report from its consultants has been received. The final choice as to the host country will be made by the international Olympic committee in 1963. However, it is most important that one Canadian site should be settled upon as quickly as possible, in order that the financial aspects and conditions of eligibility may be considered in advance by all the parties concerned.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and for obvious reasons I was unable to give him notice. Would the minister be interested in saving the people of Canada $10,000, to which he made reference this morning, by taking my word for it that the Fernie area is the most suitable site in all Canada for the 1968 Olympics?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In case there are other claimants I should like to say that the question is not a question but a statement of fact and is out of order at this time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister been informed that the finest ski run in Canada is at Rossland?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have been informed by many such places in Canada that they have the finest ski run.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, December 21 next, it shall stand adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Monday, January 16, 1961.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It may not appear to be a question of urgency, but it is a matter of daily fluctuation.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Can the minister inform the house whether the senior officials of the water resources branch of his department are still quite confident that the Creator has provided satisfactory foundations for the proposed High Arrow dam on the Arrow lakes?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minisier of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I think the hon. gentleman would be the first to agree with me that in many respects the ways of the Almighty are somewhat inscrutable. I can assure him, however, of the outstanding competence of the senior engineers of the water resources branch, and I can further assure him that preliminary studies would indicate that there are no insurmountable difficulties in the way of the establishment of the dam.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Could the right hon. gentleman advise the house of the latest information on the situation in Laos, particularly regarding the position of Canadians in that country?


John George Diefenbaker: The only information we have indicates a confused dangerous situation in that country. Fighting seems to be continuing, and the left wing forces are reported to be retiring from the capital. In so far as the safety of Canadians is concerned, there is nothing at the moment which indicates that they are in any danger.



ETHIOPIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reports of disturbances in Ethiopia, will the Prime Minister advise the house regarding the availability of any reports on the safety of Canadians who may be there?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the only reports we have indicate a confused state of affairs which may be going on spasmodically at Addis Ababa. There are some 200 Canadians in that country. While we have no diplomatic mission there, the United Kingdom mission is looking after the welfare of Canadians and, at the moment, there seems to be no fear regarding their safety.

Inquiries of the Ministry



NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON OTTAWA MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister in a position to report to the house on the discussions held in Ottawa yesterday between representatives of the federal government, the province of Nova Scotia, union and management in connection with the coal industry in Nova Scotia?
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester will allow me to answer him in my own language.
As a matter of fact, discussions were held yesterday with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), the premier of Nova Scotia and the Hon. Edward Manson, minister of mines of Nova Scotia. Also present was the president of the miners' union, Mr. Marsh, accompanied by three of his colleagues, and representatives of the Dominion Coal Company.
We looked into the situation for the greater part of yesterday, and I must say that up to now the company's representatives have been adamant in their decision to shut down mine No. 4 on January 14, 1961.
We also discussed the case of the two other mines the shutting down of which was announced during 1960, namely the Florence mine and mine No. 16.
I feel I may say, however, that the discussions are not concluded. Others will be held these next few days and I hope to be able to report further to the house next week.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to assure the house that action will be taken in time to prevent the shutting down of mine No. 4, in Cape Breton?


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question, but it goes without saying that we are certainly doing our utmost to prevent the shutting down or to postpone it as long as possible.
I must also correct the statement I made a moment ago and inform the house that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) was also among the group taking part in the discussions.

(Text):



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last, as reported at page 703 of Hansard, the hon. member for Laurier asked a question with reference to the form of question respecting racial origin in the forthcoming census.
Under date of November 15 I received a letter from the assistant dominion statistician, Mr. J. T. Marshall, in which he discussed at great length the origin question on the 1961 census form. Appreciating the keen interest of members of the house in this matter, I sent a copy of this letter to each member of the house under date of October 18. Page 3 of that letter, under item No. 10, origin, states explicitly the answer to the hon. member's question of last Monday. I am pleased to send him an additional copy of this letter both in French and in English.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, arising out of the proposal of Mr. Neil J. McKinnon, president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, that there should be a thorough examination into the policies of the Bank of Canada and the country's financial structure. Since similar requests are being made by other prominent Canadians, will the government give consideration early in the session when it resumes after Christmas to having referred to the banking and commerce committee the question of the central bank's policy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: A similar question was asked of me about a week ago in relation to the annual report of the governor of the bank. I pointed out at that time that the annual report of the governor normally reaches the hands of the Minister of Finance in the month of March. At the moment I do not know what precisely could be referred to the banking and commerce committee in this regard, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter for the house to decide.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister consider having the banking and commerce committee called to have Mr. Coyne come before that committee to explain the central bank's policy, and to hear Mr. McKinnon and other prominent witnesses? That is what I am asking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have no authority over the calling of the banking and commerce committee. I presume that at the proper time that committee could be called by its chairman. Over what that committee chooses to study, what the house may choose to refer to it, I have no control; for normally, Mr. Speaker, the banking and commerce committee deals with matters that are referred to it by the house.
I was asked a question about a report which was intended, I understood, by the questioner, to serve as a vehicle for discussion in this regard. I pointed out that that report normally would not reach the minister as early in the year as the hon. member asking the question apparently wished this question to be discussed in committee.



AUTOMOBILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister inform the house what will be the net increase in the price of imported cars at port of entry as calculated by his department, due to the change in regulations governing discounts allowed in calculating fair value for duty and taxes? At the present time this whole situation is confused, and I am sure such a statement will be very much appreciated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has given notice perhaps the minister can answer, but the question asks for statistical information which can hardly be expected on the spur of the moment.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to answer the question with the information available at the moment nor would you permit me to answer, because I am sure the answer would be too long. However, with the consent of the house I would be very glad to make a statement on motions on Monday.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, but as he is absent I will address it to his parliamentary secretary. Would the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works advise the house if the rents paid by air force personnel residing in married quarters at Rockcliffe air station were raised recently?
90205-6-56i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the parliamentary secretary wishes to take the question as notice he may do so, but it is an appropriate question for the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question based on the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on Tuesday last that Canada had not been officially informed of a proposal made by General Norstad to NATO parliamentarians regarding the pooling by NATO of nuclear weapons? Has the government been informed of a United States proposal to make the NATO organization the fourth nuclear power, and if this is a fact, is this a matter that is now going to be discussed at the current council meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as this question is concerned I do not think it is one that can be answered on the orders of the day. I suggest that it be allowed to stand until the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, at which time a report will be made on the matters that came before the Paris meeting.
I might say that personally I do not believe such a decision would be made at a council meeting of NATO. Such a proposal, if and when officially made, would, I feel, be one that would deserve the consideration of the heads of government of the various NATO countries. It is because of such problems, so comprehensive in their nature, that I have advocated the calling of a meeting of the heads of NATO governments as early as possible. I hope that idea will be accepted to the end that as soon as possible, perhaps in the early spring-the necessary preparation will take some time-there will be such a meeting; for these are matters that deserve not the consideration of officials or of ministers in general but are of such high importance as to deserve the fullest consideration and deliberation by heads of governments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the secretary of defence of the United Kingdom stated in the House of Commons on Tuesday that this matter would be discussed at the NATO council meeting, and that he

Inquiries of the Ministry also indicated in a general way the position of the United Kingdom government with regard to it?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I read the papers, too, and I have also had information in that regard directly.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Keni, N.B.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the house when the C.B.C. French network microwave system will be completed as far as Moncton, New Brunswick, and made available to the C.B.C. television station at that place?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice and I made inquiries from the C.B.C. I am informed that this will be done in January of 1961, in other words next January.


Hervé J. Michaud: Is the minister in a position to say whether any consideration is being given to increasing the transmission power of the station at Moncton so as to cover all the area which should be served by that station?


George Clyde Nowlan: That is now under study by the C.B.C.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the recurring strong opinions expressed during commission hearings by the chairman of the royal commission on publications, could the Prime Minister give the house an assurance that this particular commission's function is to give judgment on the situation after the hearings rather than liverish prejudgment?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all commissions, of course, determine their decisions after hearing the evidence. I would point out to the hon. gentleman the fact that on a number of occasions during my experience in the courts the judge expressed himself very strongly in the course of the progress of a trial. On a number of occasions I thought this indicated


that the outcome was going to be in favour of my client, but I found out otherwise when judgment was handed down.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On Monday last I inquired of him about certain dental practices amongst native Indian children at Ha-zelton, and at that time he replied in part as follows:
Full details should soon be received from the regional director in Vancouver ...
Is the minister in a position yet to indicate whether he has received these details?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker, but I am studying the problem very closely.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the house how the Canadian delegation to the United Nations voted last night on a resolution before the political committee, which was carried there, providing that the Algerian people be permitted to decide their own future in a referendum organized, controlled and supervised by the United Nations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had rather anticipated that question, and I asked for information on the matter so as to be in a position to be able to answer, although notice was not given. Canada voted against the Afro-Asian resolution, and did so on the grounds that General de Gaulle's program for Algeria held out hope for a solution of the Algerian problem which would be fully consistent with the charter, and that no other agency existed which was in as good a position as General de Gaulle to promote a solution. It was considered that the Afro-Asian resolution could not obtain the support of those whose co-operation would be necessary to make it work and that, without offering a solution itself, it might jeopardize the success of General de Gaulle's present initiative.

I do not have the actual figures here but I think approximately 40 odd voted for the resolution, 20 odd voted against and about the same number abstained.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the great interest in a national system of portable pensions and the report that Ontario has in preparation a portable pension plan, has the Department of National Health and Welfare had any consultation with Ontario officials in the preparation of this plan, and is the minister's department now carrying on studies regarding a national plan of portable pensions?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the
officials of my department are maintaining liaison, one might say, with the studies that are going on in Toronto, and we are keeping very much abreast of them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a second part to my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps it would be in order to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia, since he has a supplementary question.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but a second part to my question. I want to ask the minister whether there are any studies going on in his department with regard to a national plan for portable pensions.


Jay Waldo Monteith: All these matters are under constant study in the department. We, of course, will be very interested to receive the report from the Ontario committee and give it study as well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. In view of the study the minister is giving to this particular aspect of the problem of pensions, may I ask him whether he has completed his three-year study of the report made by Professor Clark regarding the old age survivors' system of the United States, which was promised to the people of Canada by the Prime Minister?


Jay Waldo Monteith: In answer to the hon. member for Essex East I may say that, as usual, his statistics are quite erroneous.
Productivity Council We have not had this report of Dr. Clark's for anything approaching three years. I would say, however, that this is all under consideration, as always.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position today to reply to a question I put to him on Wednesday.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I regret that I was away yesterday, and I have not had a chance to look into it.



PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Starr for the third reading of Bill No. C-52, to establish a national productivity council.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rose last night a few minutes before the house concluded its deliberations for the day to explain why the official opposition intended, notwithstanding the rejection by the house of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), to vote for third reading of this bill.
I was asked by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Martineau) if I would explain to the house how I could justify voting for this bill after describing it as a farce. I believe the whole debate on both sides of the house has shown that, as a measure to deal with the present unemployment problem, this bill is a farce. If there had been any doubt about it, that doubt surely was resolved when the vote was taken on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East and the house rejected that amendment which would have included among the purposes and objects of this council the promotion of employment.
Now, the rejection of that motion was a decision by the house-and a similar decision had been made previously in committee-to the effect that the promotion of employment was not an object of this measure.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister, who is an authority on the subject, says this is nonsense. No greater authority on that subject, I think, exists. Since the Prime Minister was absent from the house at the time, I shall

Productivity Council
read to him what was said by the Minister of Labour when he rejected the amendment I moved in committee. These remarks will be found at page 832 of yesterday's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds, does he not think that since the house has voted on the question of including among the powers of the council the promotion of employment, that subject has been determined by a vote of the house in so far as it relates to the council and its powers, and therefore should not be taken up again when we are on the motion for third reading?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there is a good deal in Your Honour's contention, but since the Prime Minister has interjected and described a bald statement of fact as nonsense I feel, in view of the latitude that has been allowed to other hon. members in this debate,
I should be allowed to quote the precise words of the minister in rejecting the amendment. This is all I propose to do, and I do not intend to go beyond that. These remarks are reported on page 832 of Hansard for December 15, 1960:
The purpose of this productivity council is to bring about increased efficiency in the productivity of industry. Because of that, naturally, employment will be created to a greater degree.
Then follow really the important words.
The effect of this amendment would be that the council would he dealing directly with the employment or unemployment factor. That is not to be the case.


John George Diefenbaker: Go ahead and finish the statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister has asked me to go ahead and finish the statement, and I am very happy to do that because, unlike some hon. gentlemen, I do not like to denature other people's words. I shall come to that in a moment.
That is not to be the case. This council will be dealing with the efficiency of productivity in industry, and employment will be a natural consequence of its work.
It is our view that employment will not be a natural consequence of the work of the council. We expressed that view over and over again in the debate.


Mr. Siarr:: You hope it will not be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say, and it has been said by many other hon. members and at one stage of the debate it was even implied by the Minister of Labour himself, that increases in productivity very often have the effect of making workers redundant and creating unemployment; that is our position. Our disappointment over this bill is precisely because it did not do what we thought it would do before it was introduced, and what the Leader of the Opposition indicated

as much as two years ago should be done. We believe that a study of automation should be made with a view to dealing with an urgent problem, the problem of finding alternative employment for redundant workers.
I should like now to reply to the question asked by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. Why, in that case, do we vote for this bill at all? I must say that is a very good question to be asked, because what this council is likely to accomplish in the light of the arguments put forward by its sponsor, its godfather and its stepfather is so confused, so uncertain, that I do not believe we could be blamed very much if we raised some questions as to whether or not it would be worth even the $150,000 a year it is going to cost. However, if we can get 100 men employed for a whole year or even 50 men employed for a whole year, and if we can bring about some increase in productivity at the same time, I would think perhaps a gamble with that $150,000 would not be, in the circumstances, unjustified.
Moreover, as everyone who has spoken on this side of the house has said-the hon. member for Ottawa West, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, and every other person on this side af the house-the long term objective of increasing productivity, in the kind of world in which we live, is a good thing. If this bill had been introduced later in the session, not under false pretences but simply to deal with that problem, a lot of the debate that has taken place now would not have taken place. At any rate, it seems to me that there is no reason for voting against it and, by itself-


John William Kucherepa: That is pretty weak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. member says that is pretty weak. What kind of argument can you give but a weak argument for voting for this weak bill? The second reason is that the Minister of Labour told us that this council was going to show some results in terms of employment in six months, or by June 14. We might be wrong and he might be right.


Mr. Graffiey:: You are wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We shall find out next June. We are not going to stop anything that might have that effect, even though we are extremely sceptical about it.
The third reason is that we feel there is an economic emergency with respect to unemployment when 429,000 people, an increase of 61,000 between October and November, are unemployed this early in the winter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And there are
more now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We think there is an economic emergency even it the government does not think so. We recognize the fact that the government and not the opposition has the responsibility and the power to act, and that the government alone has that power. We believe that a responsible opposition should not thwart government policies to deal with unemployment unless we think they are positively harmful. We do not think this measure is positively harmful. We feel that the government should be given a chance to get this law on the statute books, to set up this council and to show that we were wrong. However, that feeling does not alter our duty as a responsible opposition to point out our scepticism about it; and I may say that our scepticism is, as we have all indicated, very great indeed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say this, and perhaps I could sum up all the rest of my argument in this way. If we cannot have a loaf or even half a loaf, we are not going to reject a crumb. For that reason we will vote for this bill although we do not consider that it is even an approach to the urgent problem of unemployment. The fact that this is an urgent problem, and an extremely urgent one indeed, I think was underlined by a statement which was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia last evening and which will be found at page 851 of Hansard. The hon. member stated as follows:
-we have a higher rate of unemployment than we had in any time during the last 15 years.
There was some exchange of remarks and I took some exception to that statement. I pointed out that there was not a higher rate 15 years ago, and I was seeking to indicate merely that the dominion bureau of statistics figures on which these figures are based started only 15 years ago and that is why there is this 15-year date. In fact I took the trouble to look the matter up. The fact is that in November of 1945, 3.8 per cent of the labour force was unemployed as compared with 6.6 per cent at this time, notwithstanding the fact that this date was in the middle of demobilization and immediately after the cessation of war production.
I noticed that in another place, namely in Fredericton, on December 10, Saturday evening last-this is from the paper of December 12-the Prime Minister made a speech in honour of the new Minister of Forestry, who is present with us and whom I have not previously had an opportunity to welcome to the house. In the daily Gleaner, a newspaper not notoriously unfriendly to him, the Prime Minister is quoted to the following effect:
Productivity Council
''When the Liberals talk about unemployment, they do not talk about their own record in this regard," said Prime Minister Diefenbaker.
"The reason is quite obvious when we look at the figures. The facts are that except for the war and immediate post-war period, unemployment in Canada was higher in almost every year of Liberal government than it is today."
That statement I can only describe, in a word dear to the Prime Minister, as a fiction, and I intend to show that it is a fiction by giving the percentage for each of the past 30 years. I want to show the Prime Minister that we are not a bit ashamed of any part of the Liberal record in this regard as compared with the record of this government and the government which he supported 30 years ago.
I can give these figures quickly, Mr. Speaker. The percentages are based on the figures that appear here in the Canadian labour force estimates, 1931 to 1945, for the first period up to 1945 and from 1945 onward the labour force, September, 1960 supplement. It will be found that in 1931 the percentage was 11.6. I perhaps should explain that prior to 1945, before the dominion bureau of statistics started to make these spot checks on which the unemployment estimates are now based, an estimate was made only once a year, in the month of June and it was based on the census. It is all described in great detail here in this dominion bureau of statistics publication. Hence there is no figure for any month except the month of June up to 1945. In order to have the figures strictly comparable, I am giving them for the month of June right through the whole period. The percentages are as follows:
Year	Percentage
1931		 11.6
1932		 17.6
1933		 19.3
1934		 14.5
1935		 14.2


An hon. Member:: It is going down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is almost the same. It went down the next year, the first Liberal year. The figures continue as follows:
Year	Percentage
1936		 12.8
1937		 9.1
1938		 11.4
1939		 11.4
1940		 9.2
1941		 4.4
1942		 2.9
1943		 1.7
1944		 1.4
1945		 1.6
1946		 2.6


An hon. Member:: Korea.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was the year of demobilization and the year of remobilization

Productivity Council
that the Liberal government has no reason to be ashamed of. I draw attention to these figures from 1946 on:
Year	Percentage
1947		 2.0
1948		 1.6
1949		 2.0
1950		 2.8
1951		 1.6
1952		 1.7
1953		 1.7
1954		 3.4
1955		 2.8
1956		 2.0
1957		 2.7
1958		 5.2
1959		 3.7
1960		 4.7
From these figures it will be seen that after 1940, when the Liberals were in office there was not one single year in which the figure was not lower than it was in each of the last three years.
To go back to the years before the second world war when the Liberals were in office, may I say this. The Liberals had been in office in peacetime for three and a half years. We have it on the highest authority in this country that it requires a government three and a half years to clear away the undergrowth. That is all the time the Liberals had. However, in that period of clearing away the undergrowth the Liberal government managed to get the unemployment figure down from a high of 19.3 per cent under the previous Tory government to an average-although it was far too high-of something like 10 per cent. That is what happened in that period. In the three and a half years during which the undergrowth was being cleared away or during which the present regime have been underbrushing, the figures have gone up from an average of certainly below 2J per cent on a comparable basis to 5.2 per cent, 3.7 per cent and 4.7 per cent in June, which is one of the most favourable months.
It has reached a higher figure since June; the figure is higher than it was in 1958. Up to June the figures were higher than in 1959 but not higher than in 1958, but since then they have been higher than 1958.
It is not yet a year since the Minister of Finance told us that 1960 was going to see great rising levels of employment and income; since the Minister of Labour said on television on February 4 that the recession was over, and since the Prime Minister went on television on that famous broadcast of March 4 which he will remember. In closing the debate on second reading of this bill the other evening the Prime Minister said of

this bill and the other legislation associated with it-and this is at page 780 of Hansard:
We intend to follow a regular and proper plan to the end that the house and parliament as a whole may have the opportunity to fully consider all these matters, and we believe that out of this general plan, when finally-
And I stress that word "finally":
-it finds its way to the statute books, we shall have gone a long way toward carrying out those promises which we made in 1957 and 1958 in their entirety, and that we shall also have gone a long way to bring about that degree of economic prosperity which is the objective of this government.
The Prime Minister at Fredericton, as I said the other day, said that the Liberals were not willing to talk about their period in office. I have given their figures, the government's figures, the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, and I say that no Liberal needs to be the slightest bit ashamed of any comparison on the basis of those figures, either pre-war or post-war, with the previous or the present regime. It may not be an accident that the Prime Minister made this statement in Fredericton, where the subject of security frauds is of great interest at the moment; because the greatest job security fraud ever perpetrated on this country was perpetrated 30 years ago when a certain gentleman got into power by saying he would cure unemployment or perish in the attempt.


An hon. Member:: Was that Mackenzie King?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest the second
greatest job security fraud perpetrated on this country was perpetrated between January and March of 1958, when the right hon. gentleman said no one would suffer by unemployment. If I have a little time left, I think perhaps the prospectus for that security fraud might be drawn to the attention of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member could find a more appropriate word than "fraud", having regard to parliamentary usage. It has a very serious connotation alone, and to combine it with a couple of other words does not seem to me to remove the sting. I suggest he could use some other word.


William Heward Grafftey: He is headline hunting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not suggesting for one minute that there was any fraud in any financial sense.


Mr. Henderson:: You said it. What are you talking out of, the other side of your face?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By "fraud" I simply meant representing that something would be done that was in fact not done. However, I will-


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -say "promised". I am quite content to use the word "promised". I would like to draw to the attention of the house what the unemployed were promised before the government started to say that Mr. Lesage should settle unemployment instead of them.


An hon. Member:: He said that himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In 1958 the Prime Minister did not go around this country saying that Mr. Frost, Mr. Duplessis and Mr. Flemming, the premier of New Brunswick, should solve the unemployment problem; not at all. This is what he said. For example, at Brantford on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know hon. gentlemen do not like to hear the Prime Minister's words.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have interruptions both from inside and outside the house. I think the hon. member who has the floor should be given the attention of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister spoke at Brantford on February 17, 1958, and he is reported as follows in the Toronto Daily Star-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I have some other papers that the hon. gentleman will not say "Oh, oh" about:
Like Mr. Pearson, the Prime Minister said he does not regard the unemployed as mere statistics. He knew how grim unemployment was from personal experience.
"The humblest of our people will not be forgotten", he promised. "The people who are unemployed will not be put in the false position of being put on relief".
You need only get the relief figures which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has promised to bring down later to see how much has been paid in the last three years and how many people have been on relief in this country. The report continues:
Instead, he said, they would be given an opportunity to earn wages-through a nation-wide program of works projects which would involve a federal expenditure of $1,185,000,000.
Then in a live telecast in Montreal on February 18 the Prime Minister said this, and this is taken from the Montreal Star of the following day, February 19:
On the live telecast, Mr. Diefenbaker said he would take any practical step to ease unemployment in addition to his billion-dollar public works plan.
"As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada", he said in the live telecast, "everything that can be done-everything without regard to limit-will be done to the end that no one will suffer."
Productivity Council
Then at Cornwall on February 24, 1958, the Prime Minister is reported, in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 25, 1958, as having said:
The Conservatives had launched a winter works program and were putting forward a huge public works program to take up some of the slack in unemployment.
"We have acted. We are meeting unemployment. We have given young Canadians the hope. W. have given them the vision", Mr. Diefenbaker said.
Then in Toronto in another telecast, reported in the Canadian Press report in the Montreal Star of March 5, 1958-the telecast was made the previous day-he said this:
Referring to other government actions aimed at easing unemployment, he said the government, "will not hesitate to budget for a deficit this year".
And again:
"As long as I am Prime Minister, this government will not rest while one Canadian remains out of work".
"One Canadian":
"No one will be allowed to suffer".
Then at Edmonton on March 9, 1958, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 10:
The Prime Minister said, "the worst has taken place in regard to unemployment in this country and we are now on the way back".
That was on March 10. But unemployment figures kept mounting and they had to extend the seasonal unemployment program:
He added: "When I give you the facts they are the truth".
Then in Halifax on March 24, 1958, the Prime Minister said:
His government was launching "one of the greatest public works program this country has ever seen" in order to stimulate employment. "I am able to tell you that we're over the peak as the result of our policies. I can see the light ahead and employment reasonable and complete-
"Reasonable and complete":

over the next few months".
Yet unemployment, for the first time since the war, has extended, has not been seasonal; it has extended all through even that summer the recession was over, the summer of 1959. In our view the unemployment problem is an emergency problem, and indeed this bill and the other three bills we have had before us are wholly inadequate to meet the problem. But if this bill provides even a crumb, I think it is unwise to prevent the government from going ahead with it.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in brevity and in seriousness I want to display a real non sequitur that has come before the house at this time. I am going to be brief.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the hon. member was going to ask a question. I have recognized the parliamentary secretary.

Productivity Council


Mr. Paul Marlineau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: I know the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) will be of great interest, but there is always this view, that the longer the suspense is maintained the greater it becomes. I think this will apply to hon. members opposite, and while they are listening to me their suspense can mount with regard to further wise observations that can be made, I do not doubt, in answer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
There is one aspect of that hon. member's frequent interjections in the course of this debate which has puzzled me; that is his references to the paternity of this bill. Sometimes he refers to the father of the bill. At other times he talks about the father in law and, again, at other times he speaks of the stepfather. Well, in view of the amendment which the hon. member proposed, and which was voted down, and in view also of his past prolific record in producing different things, including a famous work of fiction, and including also famous Canadian babies, I think the hon. gentleman is not at all in the position of a father. He is certainly much more in the position of a rejected suitor. Incidentally, someone has just asked "What does that make the baby?" We might as well not get into that aspect of it.
Before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate spoke, I intended to deal, and I still intend to deal, with some of the more or less serious criticisms which have been directed against this bill. A few minutes ago the hon. member quoted many figures relating to unemployment in past years under Conservative regimes and under Liberal regimes. If I may, I should also like to delve a little into history and refresh the memory of hon. members opposite. Reading from the records we see that on May 15, 1939 the then minister of labour, Mr. Rogers, proposed in the house the following motion-and this was almost four years after the Liberals had taken power-
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Is that not in itself a striking indictment? Is it not a proof, and a very lucid proof, that there then existed, after three and a half years of great Liberal rule, an enormous amount of distress both in industry and in agriculture? During the same debate the minister stated that in those days one lived continually in an atmosphere of distress. He pointed to unemployment as a persistent condition, and well he might have. Here are some of the figures which I should like to quote in order to illustrate in a graphic way the great progress achieved in four years of

Liberal administration from 1935 to 1939. Here are the elements of the story, one by one:
1.	A survey carried out by the Canadian youth congress showed that 465,000' youths between 15 and 30 were not in gainful employment.
2.	In February of 1939, 1,012,000 people were in receipt of direct relief.
Well might the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have talked a few minutes ago about relief paid by this administration. If he looks at the record he will find that while the Liberals were in power there was a sorry record of direct relief and subsidies being paid out to a suffering Canadian population years after the administration of the late Mr. Mackenzie King had reached power. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to Right Hon. Mr. Bennett as having perpetrated what he called a fraud upon the Canadian people by saying he would solve the problem of Canadian unemployment. If the hon. member will refer to the campaign of 1935 he will find that the whole appeal of the Liberal party during that campaign was based on a claim that they, the wise Solomons who are now sitting opposite, would solve that problem. But they never did.


Mr. Peiers:: What is the good of telling the Canadian people this?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to intervene he should at least rise in his place.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I will give hon. members one further proof of the unemployment which then existed in agriculture and in industry.
3.	In addition to the million and more people then receiving direct relief, countless others remained unemployed but were unable to get even the pittance which direct relief signified. Then, again, a further million people or more were receiving not a gainful wage but mere sustenance. In 1939-not 1931 or 1932 or 1933 or 1934 or 1935 but in 1939, three and a half or four years after the Liberals had come to power-at the very time indeed, when the hon. member for Essex East who is now looking at me in an affected stupor-


Mr. Churchill:: It is real.


Paul Raymond Martineau: When these grave questions were being debated in this house, the hon. member rose to interject and asked one of the speakers to hurry up because he was in a hurry to catch a train. That was his concern at that time for the million and more who were then on direct relief. I could go on. It was stated that the gravity of the situation at that time was such that it affected directly or indirectly every home in Canada.

What had the Liberal administration done to cure such a situation? Someone says "Nothing"; indeed, nothing, and this will be illustrated all the more glaringly if one considers that after three and a half years in power the Liberal government-and this is proven by the statistics then issued-had succeeded in decreasing the number of unemployed by only 19,000; 17 per cent of the labour force remained unemployed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a question I should like to ask the hon. member, because it bears on this point. Will he tell the house whether the situation in 1939 in respect of the matter he is talking about was better or worse than it was in 1935 when the Liberal government took over from the Conservatives?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has posed this question, because I have the answer. After three and a half years in power the Liberal government had succeeded in decreasing the number of unemployed by only 19,000. During the four years, of course, the labour force kept increasing, so that in effect it means that the proportion of unemployed remained higher than it had been even in 1935.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he repudiating the bureau of statistics figures which I put on the record, which showed that the percentage in 1939 was 11.4 and in 1935 it was over 14?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The only answer I can give is to refer to the hon. member's own observations; at that time the statistics were taken only in June, and the figures I refer to have to do with the month of February, 1939.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were no statistics for February.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The figures were high; the statistics were taken by people who had an interest in this matter. I know hon. members opposite do not like the details of the sordid situation from 1936 to 1940 revealed publicly and in this house. I realize that, because if the facts become widely known, then it will be a striking condemnation of the whole attitude of the party throughout the years, and especially of their sour grapes attitude of the last three years.
Yes, I could go on and cite many other figures to prove that that party was absolutely powerless to do anything at all to resolve that situation; powerless then and powerless now. That is the record-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: It won't be very long, though.
Productivity Council


Paul Raymond Martineau: -as it stands out by statistics, by figures, by the unanimous opinion of impartial observers of those periods.


Mr. Deschalelels:: That is why we were re-elected for 15 years afterwards.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is true that you were re-elected; it is true that the Liberal party stayed in power for a number of years, but let them never, never state that the reason they stayed in power was that they had succeeded in solving the unemployment problem in Canada, because that would be a downright falsehood.
I could go on to the post-war years, the years of the glorious 1950's, the years of the great Liberal illusion, as they have been so aptly described. Don't think they were trouble-free years, Mr. Speaker, because they certainly were not, and I should like to indicate some proof that they were not. I can think of no better authority than the national Liberal federation of Canada. I think that is an authority that may be respected by hon. members opposite.


Murdo William Martin: Is it respected by you? That is the question.


George Harris Hees: No.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I go back to the years 1954 and 1955, when the Liberals were in office. On March 28, 1955 the advisory council of the national Liberal federation of Canada met here in Ottawa and, Mr. Speaker, what do you think was the prime topic on the agenda of that meeting? It is very interesting to know-


Murdo William Martin: Unemployment.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, exactly, unemployment.


Mr. Chevrier:: We were concerned.


Murdo William Martin: We were concerned about it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The advisory committee met to devise ways and means of meeting the spectre of large scale and country-wide unemployment.


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Paul Raymond Martineau: These were the words used by the Liberal federation.


Murdo William Martin: We were not afraid of it; we dealt with it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, you dealt with it-


John William Kucherepa: Nineteen years after you came into power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John William Kucherepa: Nineteen years after you came into power.

Productivity Council


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman Mr. Mariineau: That is exactly what you permit a question?	said.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Certainly not at this time. The hon. member for Essex East says, "Yes, we dealt with the problem".


Murdo William Martin: Hear, hear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: We will see how well they did deal with the problem. At that time, Mr. Speaker, they did not like the word unemployment to be mentioned, despite the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East. I should like to quote none other than the then president of the national Liberal federation, Mr. Duncan K. MacTavish, Q.C., in the opening address to the advisory committee. He did not like the mention of unemployment; he thought it was a great disservice to the country. But let me quote him:
The situation is not as bad as has been represented by opposition politicians who want to believe that the country is faltering, that the Canadian nation is on the downgrade.
Several observers pointed out that the main reason for calling the meeting was to draft a Liberal party line of action in regard to the matter of unemployment.


Murdo William Martin: Hear, hear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Let us go on with Mr. MacTavish. He said:
By harping on unemployment they help to weaken confidence. This might result in slowing down the nation's economy.


Murdo William Martin: It sounds like the Prime Minister.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Here is the situation. When the Liberals are in power and criticism is voiced about conditions in the country, growing unemployment, economic crises and so on, the Liberals call advisory council meetings, meetings of the national Liberal federation, and they say, "Now, look, be very careful, for this criticism is harmful to the country." But, of course, it is quite different when the shoe is on the other foot.
The hon. member for Essex East also participated in those sorry deliberations, shall we say, and he also made some remarks about the criticism that was directed against his government in regard to unemployment.


Murdo William Martin: Read what I said.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Do you know what he said, Mr. Speaker? He said, "Don't listen to these voices; it is the old Tory cry of blue ruin".


Murdo William Martin: If you are going
to quote me, quote me exactly. Now, what
did I say?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Essex East is anticipating. If he is misquoted he will have the opportunity to make the correction.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am very glad to be able to oblige the hon. member, because his exact words were reported by the Montreal Daily Star on February 22, 1954, and this is what it says about the hon. member for Essex East. Criticism against the government about unemployment was nothing more than:
The old Tory cry of blue ruin.


Murdo William Martin: Hear, hear; that was true, too.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, let us go on
with this because I see that the hon. member seems to enjoy the story. After all, it is his own story so why should he not hear it?


Murdo William Martin: I have arisen from my stupor.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. MacTavish, the Liberal federation president, had this to say:
The prophets of gloom reported the fact that unemployment was up, but not the encouraging fact that employment also was increasing.
That sounds very familiar.


Murdo William Martin: It sounds like the Minister of Labour.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Then he described those who voiced criticism as "mischievous little boys playing with fire". Would these mischievous little boys like to stand up now and be counted? Of course in those days the contribution of the hon. member for Essex East to solving the unemployment problem was the following profound observation; that unemployment at that time was "no permanent thing" and things would pick up in the spring.


Murdo William Martin: And they did.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Maybe they did.


Murdo William Martin: That is the whole point.


Lionel Chevrier: Not maybe; it is a fact.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am not quite so sure about that because we are now reaching the end of the trail for the Liberals, the end of that long and seemingly endless era of great Liberal illusion.


Murdo William Martin: I will return soon.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Even in February of 1957 the former prime minister of this country, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, was chastised

by party supporters, the young Liberals of Quebec city, for failing to keep election promises to the voters back home. What did they say?
Nothing has been done, they noted, in the Quebec region, and there is less employment in the county of Temiscouata.
That was in 1957, right at the end of the trail for the Liberals. It might also be worthwhile to put on the record the words of Mr. Blair Fraser, parliamentary reporter for Macleans magazine. He was commenting on the wonderful story, the roseate story that the Liberals were then spreading from one end of the country to the other. Certainly he cannot be described as being, to use the words of the hon. member for Essex East, too unfriendly to hon. members opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An objective-minded newspaperman.


Paul Raymond Martineau: What was his comment? He said that nothing could be further from the mood of the now famous hidden report than the super-roseate Liberal advertising of 1957, all dedicated to the same theme that Canadians never had had it so good.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was true too.


Paul Raymond Martineau: There is the story, Mr. Speaker. We have brought it up to date, right up to the end of the chapter, the end of the trail for the long Liberal regime. On the one hand, they were advertising far and wide that people never had it so good.


Paul Joseph James Martin: True.


Paul Raymond Martineau: They were saying that times were extraordinarily good, but at the same time the unemployed were with us. They were with us in the pre-war period and they have also been with us in alarming proportions-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now we have never had it so bad.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -from 1945 to 1957. That cannot be denied, because the quotations I have given are from the very men whom hon. members opposite respect the most.
I wanted to bring out this point because when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate puts forward statistics and stories and so on I think it is only fair that we should look not only on one side of the coin but on both sides. Unemployment constitutes a very grave situation and always does, because people suffer. I ask you in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, is there a magic word, as the Liberals would like us to believe, or a magic twist that will solve unemployment forever and wipe it off the face of this country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course not, but
you made promises.
Productivity Council


Paul Raymond Martineau: "Of course not" is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How about your promises?


Paul Raymond Martineau: If I may be permitted, I will cite the very words of the Leader of the Opposition in the course of a debate on unemployment last session. Certainly these words contrast very strongly with some of the utterances we have heard from hon. members opposite in the last few days. The quotation is from the French Hansard and I will read it in French.
(Translation):
Here are the words the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) used on March 3 last, as they appear on page 1687 of Hansard:
We on this side do not underestimate the difficulties of the problems of employment and unemployment with which the government is confronted. We know also that this problem has to be faced and dealt with by the government within the limits imposed on the government by a free society which means, of course, limitation on government authority. It means, of course, that we do not want to order people around, even in the interests of employment.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the words I would like the hon. members of the opposition to know about.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:
The very complexity and the very difficulty of this problem and its human importance surely underline the obligation of any government on any level-indeed on all levels-to take every step possible to meet it.
In other words, the obligation is not only a federal obligation. It cannot be when you consider Canada's constitution and particularly the fact that most natural resources are under the direct control of the provinces. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with some of the criticisms voiced against this bill. And when I say "criticisms", I obviously do not mean the frivolous exaggerations of hon. members opposite, and more particularly the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
Now what are those criticisms? It has been said that the bill alone would not succeed in eliminating all the evils affecting our economy; that it would fail to settle the unemployment problem at a single stroke. But

Productivity Council
who on this side of the house ever made such a statement? On the contrary, it is the hon. members opposite who put those words into our mouths.
Now, in order to eliminate all misunderstandings in this matter I could not do better than quote the very words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), uttered in this house on December 13, as they are reported on page 779. This is what the Prime Minister said:
I simply say this: this is one more of those pieces of legislation. We do not say it will effect wonders but it is a major step forward. Placed alongside the steps already taken and those yet to be taken we believe we have outlined a plan which will give to Canadians as a whole new hope and new opportunities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I go from the sublime to the ridiculous and quote the words of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, who was one of the spokesmen of the opposition when this measure was discussed. Here are the words of the hon. seer:


John Whitney Pickersgill: On what page?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The statement was made on December 14, 1960, and is reported on page 808.
To fob off this as a measure to deal with unemployment is a farce and a fiction-
That, Mr. Speaker, is the way the serious problem now confronting Canadians is discussed. In dealing with this question they use words such as farce and fiction. There is the complete and unmitigated condemnation of the opposition. That is its position in the face of the serious problems caused, as they know only too well, by an administration long in power, through the various episodes I recalled one by one this morning.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are a few truths that needed to be told.
What about the criticism, voiced with such false concern by the hon. member, to the effect that this bill will not cure all evils? Of course it will not, but it will cure some of them.
And now, the second criticism: "Oh, as a long term measure, it may not be too bad." They did not even say it was good, they just referred to it as not being too bad. They said it is better to have the crust if you cannot get a full loaf, and other similar remarks.
Mr. Speaker, even if you consider the immediate aspect of the bill for the estab-

lishment of a national productivity council -and when I say immediate, I mean within the next few months-is it really true that the bill will have no beneficial effects?
Mr. Speaker, you have noted that this bill provides for the establishment, across the country, of local productivity councils. So what is there to prevent Canadian citizens, guided as they are by the government's leadership from starting right now to set up, under the authority and direction of the national council, local councils that would be spread out across the country and could conduct on the spot investigations of the evils affecting the community, and then take action to check unemployment? The local councils could get going immediately.
The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Anderson) stated, the other day, that one of his constituents had already taken action accordingly, and with beneficial results.
Then too, some hon. members, the other day, made fun of the act on technical and vocational training assistance. They said it is good legislation, but for the remote future. And yet even before the bill was passed provincial governments announced that new technological institutes would be built with the assistance provided by this legislation brought forward by the government.
How can anyone contend that the construction of large, up-to-date technical schools, under this legislation, will not immediately relieve part of the unemployment? The building of those schools requires labour and material. Activity will thus be created, and the same holds true for all stages of the government program. It will promote business in general, which is precisely within the orbit of the general scheme to which the government has pledged itself and which it is about to-


Mr. Habel:: The vision.


Paul Raymond Martineau: No, Mr. Speaker, this is no vision. It is enlightened action, in accordance with Canadian spirit, with the principles of private enterprise and the free enterprise initiative system which has been fundamental to this country. I am sure of it, Mr. Speaker, that spirit will solve the difficulties which this country has to face at the present time.
We shall remain true to those truly Canadian principles. In fact the program submitted to the house by the Prime Minister is precisely and fully in accord with the spirit of the fathers of confederation, and particu-

larly with the spirit of the pioneers of our nation.
Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition are amused; they probably do not relish my remarks but this government has shown that it does not fear critical comment. It has gone into action; it has had to cast aside the spurious optimism and tactics that have been described as those of Madison avenue, tactics with which the Liberal party had been so familiar, and this government is now bringing forth long term, medium term and short term measures.
In view of its long term aspects, I feel that this is one of the most important bills ever brought before this house. Why? Because the bill tackles the very essence of the problem, is designed to adapt this country to the requirements of modern technology, and to increase productivity.
In his masterly speech on productivity, the other day, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Best) explained what he understood by productivity. He stated that it was a relation between input and output, which in turn is related to manpower. That is what productivity is, and the purpose of this bill is to increase efficiency in the Canadian industry.
Mr. Speaker, can anyone in full possession of his faculties maintain that efficiency is bad for Canadian industry? Yet, some members of the opposition have gone so far as to make such a statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nobody made any such statement.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You have understood absolutely nothing about it.


Murdo William Martin: Nobody made any such statement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have only to quote from Le Droit of December 15, 1960. We see there, under the heading "Federal Politics", some comments on this measure-


Murdo William Martin: Name one member on this side of the house who expressed such a view.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the newspaper report is as follows:
As to the bills on technical training and the productivity council, they are long term remedies, so to speak, but they are essential measures, made necessary by technological changes. More technical schools must be built; that is one of the objects of the first bill; it is no less necessary to give leadership to industry, and that is one of the objects of the second bill.


Murdo William Martin: Agreed.
Productivity Council


Paul Raymond Martineau: Dealing with the criticism offered by opposition members against this measure the newspaperman concludes by these words:
It is worthy of note that all members, including Miss LaMarsh, with the sole exception of two C.C.F. members, have approved the principle of the measure.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not acting in accordance with the practice of this house in quoting newspaper articles which reflect in any way or comment on the conduct of members in the house. The first part dealt with policy in general, and that part was all right. However, I think the hon. gentleman should refrain from reading the latter part.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I have now shattered the hope and illusion built up patiently through the years by the party of the official opposition. However, that was no great task because straw houses fall easily. That is what has been built up by the opposition throughout the years.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by stating that the present bill, perhaps one of the most important ones this house has studied in years, will have as one of its results the cutting out of sluggishness from industry, the elimination of waste and duplication and in particular it will make the whole of our population productivity conscious. That result in turn will have as an effect more efficiency in industry and more efficiency in industry will mean a better quality of goods at better prices; and that is the essential purpose of this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member accused me of misrepresenting unemployment in the year 1955. I sought to ask him a question at that time and he, as was his right, did not wish to have the question asked then. I should just like to make a correction now. As I told the house, I gave the figures for the month of June in every year. It is quite true, as the hon. member said, that in the month of March, 1955-a figure which I did not pretend to give-the figure was 421,000 and that was the highest figure during the whole postwar period of the Liberal government. The figure I gave is for June and by June it had gone down to 159,000.


An hon. Member:: Selective choicing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes; by the hon. member.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances one would hesitate to take the time of the house

Productivity Council
on third reading of such an important bill as is this one because I am sure we should all like to see it get through as quickly as possible. But when one stops to consider the course of action that has been followed by the opposition in this debate, in view of the importance of the bill I think we must make certain that the facts are brought clearly before the public of this country.
I think we should give some consideration to the whole course of action followed by the opposition in relation to the government's program this session. Their policy has now become fully apparent. They do not want to deal on its merits with each one of the individual bills. Indeed they have had little to say about this bill. They use this bill, important as it is to the people of this country, in order to launch a malicious attack on the government for political purposes and nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is using language which is not normally considered proper in that it imputes maliciousness to the opposition. I appreciate the fact that it was not directed to any particular individual member but to the opposition as a whole. However, may I remind him that the imputation to hon. members of improper motives such as malice is not in accordance with the best practice of the house.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John Ferguson Browne: Of
course, Mr. Speaker, that may not have been their motive but it would have that appearance.
I wish to say that of all the members of the opposition, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), in particular who was the main spokesman for his party on this particular bill, should have been the last member in this house to attack this particular piece of legislation because of the peculiar interest he has in foreign affairs or external affairs and international events. He has been one of those who has warned us in this house that we are entering into a period of great struggle with the communist nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


John Ferguson Browne: Here is a bill designed to increase the productive efficiency in this country in order to enable us to compete on world markets with those communist countries; but instead of getting behind the country at this most important time and standing up in support of a measure which I am sure they are going to vote for, as they have done in connection with all the other measurestMr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway).]


Paul Joseph James Martin: We told you that we would vote for it.


John Ferguson Browne: -they try to detract from this bill not by criticizing the bill itself; instead they launch an attack on the government in a general debate, try to lead us down the garden path and try to get away entirely from the measure with which we are dealing. That is exactly what they have done. They have had little to say about the bill except that they are going to vote for it and they try to make some minor criticisms of it.


Murdo William Martin: You are making a good speech.


George Harris Hees: Shame.


John Ferguson Browne: It is
perfectly clear that if we are going to have full employment in this country it is going to be brought about by having Canadians working in industry, primary industries and secondary industries, making goods that we can sell. We are only going to make goods we can sell in those industries if we can offer them at competitive prices throughout the world.
That has been recognized over and over again by the opposition, and in fact the hon. member for Essex East and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) have brought this to our attention time and time again, that we must be in a position to compete with the communist countries.
I would like to refer to one instance where the Leader of the Opposition did bring it to our attention. This is in this 1960 session of parliament, volume II of Hansard at page 2266 where he is reported as having said:
We are just beginning to realize how much one of the blocs could hurt not only Canada but all the countries of the free world.
He was here referring to the various trading blocs in the world.
I am speaking now about the communist bloc. We have learned in the last year or two that the U.S.S.R. and its trade satellites, with trade controlled from one central office, are in a good position to compete successfully with our traditional exports. Even though they might lose financially in the competition, they are willing to accept that loss for reasons which have nothing to do with trade. They can do that and disrupt normal trade channels to our disadvantage. We are just beginning to see the effect of this. Although there has been relatively little damage as yet, we have learned from what has been done what might happen if more were attempted. And Canada, as X have said, is very vulnerable.
Mr. Khrushchev no doubt had this idea in mind when he said: "We will bury you".
If anybody can take any comfort out of the actions of the opposition in this debate it is Mr. Khrushchev, because at a time when everybody, including the opposition,



I960

[Stage Direction]
agrees that we must get together in this country and produce goods efficiently enough to be able to compete with these communist countries and maintain our trade markets, we get nothing but useless opposition. There is nothing constructive about it; not one positive statement was made on the part of the opposition. It was anything to try and detract from the bill. As I said earlier, it was not only on this particular bill.
It makes very clear the policy of the opposition all the way through bill after bill that we have brought forward this session. They have not dealt with the bill individually on its merits, but in each instance have used that vehicle to launch a general attack upon the government at a time when it is most important that we should have unanimous support on these kinds of measures. We will have it when it comes to the voting, but we do not always have it when it comes to the talking*
George Harris Hees: Scurvy tactics.


John Ferguson Browne: I am
not going to suggest there is not a duty and responsibility on the opposition to take up differences with the government when differences in principle arise. There is then, of course, an obligation on the opposition to bring it to the attention of the country. But I say that when we are agreed on a measure which is one that can be supported by the opposition and is one which is going to act in the interests of this country, it should not be raised for political purposes by the opposition in order to launch a general attack upon the government. That can do nothing but detract from the bill.
It is not going to be generally known to each individual member of the public of this country that the Liberal party voted for the bill in the long run. All they are going to read is the headlines, the fact that the Liberal party has attacked this terrible measure of the government. That is what they are trying to put across to the public.
As I said, that course of action can only be of comfort to those in the communist countries. This measure is not a single item that is being brought forward by the government, but it ties in very closely with all the other things that are being done, at a time when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) has called the trade people together and the whole tenor of our trade picture has been good. It has received good support throughout the country from our businessmen. Also, all the trades commissioners are very happy with it.
When we take this other measure which ties very closely in with other measures we see that the position taken by the opposition can
Productivity Council
do nothing but help to undermine the whole confidence in the government's program. I do not think that is the duty of an opposition at times like these, when the country is facing difficulties both within and without. It may be the duty of the opposition to oppose those things which should be opposed: it is not the duty of the opposition to try and undermine confidence in the government for their own political purposes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was a very good, fighting speech.


Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a few remarks on third reading of this bill. May I assure the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) that we on this side of the house are sure that those who sit on the righthand side of the Speaker's chair are just as concerned about unemployment as we who sit on the left-hand side of the Speaker's chair.
What we have here is, I think, a difference of political philosophy, and perhaps this difference was brought out very well in an editorial published in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning. I read this because I think it does represent the views of at least some members of the house. I will read a very small part of it. It is an editorial which suggests that the Liberal members are simply criticizing the Diefenbaker government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member intends to read an editorial which relates to public policy, well and good. But if it goes into the detail of actions of individual members with respect to matters before the house, I just want to caution him that this is not in accordance with our procedure.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, this editorial deals with this bill and is not concerned with individual members. Perhaps I might read only the last two or three lines.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Walter George Pitman: It says:
There is little government can do to create employment. The unemployment problem rests essentially with the Canadian people themselves, and it is from the Canadian people that the solution must come.
I cannot remember any political party that has gone to the people of Canada and suggested that they themselves must give the solutions for unemployment. It must appear rather passing strange to the Canadian people that at election time every political party, and this one included, has all kinds of solutions for unemployment and solutions to put people back to work right away; but suddenly, when they come within the hallowed confines of this chamber all the solutions disappear.

Productivity Council
I am afraid the people who are unemployed -these 429,000, their thousands of wives and their hundreds of thousands of children-will receive very little cheer from that solution which is found in that particular editorial. I suggest also that they will find very little cheer from the copies of Hansard covering this debate on this particular bill which will go out possibly to the various constituencies.
I do not think the people who are unemployed are very much concerned whether the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) caught or missed a train back in 1940 when unemployment was being discussed in this chamber.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He may have been going to solve unemployment elsewhere.


Walter George Pitman: I do not think the people of this country are going to be very concerned about this continuous argument as to what we would have done if we were over there, and what you did when you were over here.
We have fought over very carefully, the 1930's and the Bennett regime, the 1940's and the Mackenzie King regime. But we happen to be in the 1960's, and there are 429,000 people, as 1 have said, who are out of work. My few remarks are these. The member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), I think, last night gave a very moving address, because he brought this situation down to its basic element, and that is human suffering. Let us realize there is human suffering in Canada today.
I am very glad the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) touched on this problem and its international implications. It is trite, extremely trite to say that Canadian democracy is on trial. I would suggest that if democracy is on trial it is losing its case in Canada in December, 1960.
What we have here is a suggestion that government can do nothing in our economy, in our western democracy, for unemployment; that somehow the people must receive from somewhere else the solution to their own unemployment problem. I suggest that every one of us was sent here to deal with the question of unemployment here and now, in December 1960. We were not sent here essentially to deal with problems arising 20 or 30 years from now; the government did not have a mandate from the electors to do that. I think it is time to forget about who did what in 1930 or 1940. We have only a few days left, and I suggest we should make progress. In a few days we shall be going back to the warmth and comfort of our families, but there will not be very much warmth and comfort in many family circles unless they receive some glimmering of hope as a

result of the debates in this chamber; some assurance that something will be done, and done soon.


Ernest James Broome: This is the first time I have entered this debate. I have not spoken on any of the previous stages although I think I am more qualified to speak on this bill than perhaps any hon. member of the opposition who has spoken to date. I wonder how many jobs the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) or the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) have created?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you like an answer to that question?


Ernest James Broome: It was a rhetorical question, and I know the answer. It is, none. As a result of my background of industrial engineering I have had the job of setting up plants, of providing employment, of using capital, machines and men in order to build up or make a product which can be sold in the markets of Canada and the world. That is not an easy task, but it would have been easier if we had had the benefit of the facilities which are envisaged in this bill. I would recommend to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that he should visit a little place north of Oshawa where he would see an old barn where Robert McLaughlin built the famous carriages which bore his name. I have seen a picture of the working force there, some 12 men. Out of this group came a corporation with 15,000 employees. This is progress, though it also means unsettlement. The blacksmith lost his job, but 200 metal finishers found jobs.
This present measure is in my opinion one of the most important bills which will be introduced in this or any other parliament, because this bill points the way to co-operation between all sections of the economy and particularly between management and labour in order to construct an economy in Canada which will survive. This represents a means of co-operation by government with labour, with industry and with agriculture. It is something which we are attempting to do and which is already working in Europe, the United Kingdom and in the near and far east where there are over 30 productivity centres which have in fact increased employment, increased production, increased earnings, reduced operating costs and introduced new products, all of which this measure is intended to bring about.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate quoted the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) as saying, on page 832 of Hansard:
This council will be dealing with the efficiency of productivity in industry, and employment will be a natural consequence of its work.

The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate said this was a fiction and a farce, and that employment will not be the natural consequence of the work of this council. I suspect that the hon. member, because of his recent literary efforts, may be called an expert on fiction. Maybe that is the cause of his bias against this word. I suggest he should go to Hong Kong. There he might see women carrying two wicker baskets over their shoulders moving earth. A good front end loader would take the place of 20 or 30 of them. This is the type of thinking which typifies the hon. member. It is rickshaw thinking, and rickety rickshaw thinking at that. I think we could call both those hon. members who sit on the front bench opposite the rickshaw twins from now on, because in their thinking they want to go back to the rickshaw.
By using machines you get more work done, and you get more pay. You take the drudgery out of the work. That is the aim of our western civilization. That is what we stand for. The standard of living in Canada depends on the productive efficiency of our industries and related services. The purpose of the proposed council is to stimulate this efficiency. Our products are sold in fierce competition on world markets, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) said, and if we lag behind our competitors in our methods or technologies we shall certainly lose those markets and our economy will decline. Jobs will be fewer, wages will be lower and there will be that degree of distress which hon. members opposite seem to think would be the best thing that could happen, from the way they have been talking.
I am glad the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) spoke. We have now heard three views on this question. That party was split with regard to the second reading; they could not agree how to vote. Two of its members are against any form of productivity, but the rest are for it. The hon. member for Peterborough says we have got to cure unemployment now, and that if we do not get these people back to work tomorrow we are no good.
All the members on the front bench on the other side have said that this bill will have no effect with regard to increasing employment. I do not know to what extent you have to spell out a measure. All I can say is that this lack of understanding must be due to the training, or lack of training, of members opposite. They should go to the people and find out what is happening. Productivity-the idea and philosophy behind it -represents a new step. It means that this is a joint effort by both workmen and management. The old idea was that management
Productivity Council
gave orders and the workers obeyed those orders. The more modern concept is that it is a co-operative affair. I would recommend to hon. members in the far corner of the chamber the words of Samuel Compers, the founder of the United States labour movement when he said that a company which did not make a profit was the worst enemy of the working man. New products mean expanded markets and greater trade. This is the background, and these are the objectives. This government has taken short term measures and it has taken intermediate measures to deal with this problem, but it is also the duty of a government to think ahead.
In spite of what the hon. member for Peterborough said-and this question is a rhetorical one; I do not want the hon. member for Essex East to answer it, because, of course, the answer is nothing-may I ask what measures did hon. gentlemen opposite bring forward when they first came to power? Mr. King did say "Not a five cent piece to help unemployment" though he qualified that by saying he would give five cents to provinces which had a Liberal government. What did they do about increasing aid to municipalities, about providing credits for exports, or aid to small business, or a winter works program, or the whole pantheon of constructive ideas which has been put forward by this government since it took office in 1957? This government has been a government of action. It has been a government which has done things. It has been a government of imagination; it has been a government that has won the confidence of the people, and it still has the confidence of the people.
I say that if hon. members on the other side cannot understand what this bill is about, then perhaps if they would go to some youth in the first year at high school he would try to tell them a few of the basic economic facts of life. I do not want to labour this too much. I suppose I should be taking the "more in sorrow than in anger" approach because the remarks which have been made on the other side are really pathetic. Hon. members over there just have not got any case; they have not got any ideas. That is why I say that this is rickshaw philosophy which has been brought forward-and I hope the hon. member for Essex East will not get to his feet on a point of order or a question of privilege; I expected it before this time, but I think it is strictly a good parliamentary description, and so those rickshaw twins had better get out of their rickshaws and get into the automobile age.
(Translation):


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up too much of the

Productivity Council
time of the house because the bill now under consideration has been discussed thoroughly at the resolution stage as well as before the first, second and third readings.
I have a few remarks to make which are, I feel, of general interest and deal with the purpose of this legislation introduced by the Conservative government for the establishment of a national productivity council.
Before doing so, I should like to refer to a part of the economic report for 1959 where it is stated, contrary to suggestions made by opposition members, that the Conservative government, as soon as it came into power, has done its share to remedy the situation and intends to keep on advocating legislation calculated to relieve the situation still further and thus provide Canadians right now, and not only in a few years, with a solution to the problem with which we are faced.
And now, Mr. Speaker, let me refer to a review of the 1957-58 recession published in the "Canadian Economic Outlook, 1959". To save time, I shall quote only part of the conclusions of the report, and since they are in English, I shall read them textually. I quote:
(Text):
Review of the Recession in Canada.
On duration, some indications of weakness became apparent earlier in Canada than in the United States. This was most apparent in unemployment, where the increase in employment failed to keep pace with the rise in available manpower after the summer of 1956, while unemployment began to increase in the United States only in the spring of 1957. The United States recession was checked in April, 1958, (with the nine month recession being unusually short by historical experience) and significant and persistent increases began thereafter. In Canada, the stimulative effect of federal government fiscal changes and assistance to housing temporarily offset the weakness in other areas during the second quarter. However, renewed widespread weakness reappeared during June, July and August, and this can be seen in industrial production, retail sales, bank debits, freight car loadings, exports, imports,-
And so on. I continue:
Although government measures contributed to the early strength, the weakness still present was reflected in an irregular period of consolidation, with a suggestion of a "double bottom". (Translation):
Such was the situation of the recession in 1957-58. The report goes on to say:
(Text):
The two main factors contributing to the milder recession in Canada than in the United States were the differing role of international trade, and stronger government measures in Canada.
(Translation):
And please note this sentence:
(Text):
. .. stronger government measures in Canada.

(Translation):
At that time, the government took action to stop the recession which had started under the former administration. And I am sure that the government intends to take the necessary steps to relieve unemployment and also to continue to remedy the situation in the best interest of all people in Canada.
Now I should like to add a few remarks of international nature, somewhat along the line of those made earlier by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). (Text):
It was announced recently, Mr. Speaker, that the Russian government will devaluate in January of next year its money by some 56 per cent. That will intensify, I believe, the economic war the communist countries are waging against the west or what we know as the free world. Canada being a country which produces and exports large quantities of raw material, we will be caught in a squeeze, since communist Russia also has tremendous resources and exports raw material for economic or cold war purposes.
Improved productivity, therefore, is a very logical aim and that is what our government is trying to achieve with this new bill we are now about to approve. Improved productivity and a better product are certainly the long term solutions to these problems but as a result of Russia's action to devaluate its money we may have a rough time in the months ahead or even in the next few years.
Communist countries, as we all know, have been unfair competitors in many instances and for numerous products, so we can wonder how it is going to be in the months ahead if in addition to underquoting us all the time all over the world they further use devaluation of their money to invade not only all the markets of the world but our traditional markets as well. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that this legislation is most timely. Indeed the national productivity council will set up a program that will prevent our industries being placed in an unfavourable position and will curb the unfair competition to Canada on the part of the other countries, particularly in the case of raw materials. The interests of Canadian exporters will be protected, which should result in an improved economy for the country as a whole.
I feel that this legislation will achieve its end, considering the following which is to be found in the preamble:
In order to provide expanding opportunities for increased employment and trade and rising national standards of living, it is in the national interest to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity:

Mr. Speaker, in closing may I say that, to my mind, some planning in our economy will be necessary in the years to come-not any arbitrary planning imposed by the government, but rather some clear guidance and adequate information that would help private enterprise survive in this complex world, without handing over to the state or to self-styled experts, to civil servants or bureaucrats, the freedom of action of our privately owned concerns and industries. Those famous experts who are constantly expounding new theories, without always being able to put them into practice, often change their minds according to the times. The case of the present head of the Bank of Canada was a striking instance of the fact.
Indeed, he is advocating devaluation of the Canadian dollar, something he has never mentioned before.
Therefore, while indicating the best path to follow, on the basis of serious and practical studies and with an eye to the future, the government, through the national productivity council-which may also be used to achieve a certain amount of economic planning-must be particularly careful not to impose its views in socialist fashion, in an attempt to control and regulate everything. We are not here to add more controls, we have enough of them already. We do not want to destroy, we want to build. We are here to help the Canadian nation, by finding means to provide more jobs for the people of this country.
(Text):


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on Bill No. C-52 but the opposition has followed certain tactics in trying to delay the bill and I thought I might as well get up and say a few words too. I am quite disappointed to see that the Liberal party continues to throw cold water on bills which at this time of the year are intended to help the people of Canada. I do not know why they continue to throw cold water on them.
In the first speech I made after I became a member of the house I referred to the department of gloom the Liberals had set up and how it was certainly not good for the people of Canada at any time, let alone at a time when changes are taking place in all countries. It is very disappointing to see these so-called leaders of some time ago sit here with their sour faces. I suppose it is the outcome of the 1957 elections when the cream of the Liberal party were completely whipped. All we have left now is skim milk and it is terrible to see that skim milk now going sour. I think one of them said something the
Productivity Council
other day about an election. Apparently he would like to go through the separator again but I do not think it would do him a bit of good.
The Liberals formed this department of gloom and now they have turned around and formed a new one which I would call the department of cold water. Each one of them seems to be equipped with a bucket of cold water which they like to throw on everything that is good for the people of Canada. It is quite apparent that that is what they are doing and I say right now that if Canada ever has frozen assets it will be because of the cold water the Liberals are throwing.
I was quite surprised when I heard one former cabinet member refer to the bill as a farce. I have also noticed a headline, a paid advertisement by this Liberal party in which the bill is referred to as a farce. It is a funny thing to me that a headline should appear in a paper terming this bill a farce because it certainly is not.
I do not want to take too much time but I have a bone to pick with the Liberals and have had for a number of years. It dates back to the time when I came out of the air force without any money and tried to get a job in Canada. I approached some members of parliament and some of the members of the provincial legislature. I was promised jobs but I was given the runaround. At that time both the provincial and federal governments were Liberal. I thought some of these members were friends of mine but they certainly were not. I even tried to borrow $250 to buy a JN-4 Curtiss aircraft and go barnstorming but I could not get it. So, like a lot of Canadians at that time, I left this country to try to find employment because the government of that time was doing nothing to encourage young people to stay in Canada where they belonged. I went to the United States and I got the $250 for my Jennie. I stayed there 10 years but I came back again because I could see possibilities on the horizon that a good government would come back into office.
I am very disappointed at the way some of these Liberal strong men of the past carry on in the House of Commons. It made me really sick and tired when I heard the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill). When I first came to the house I thought he was a good speaker and that I would really hear something. However, I did not. The hon. member referred to the Prime Minister and what had been said at certain meetings. I was quite interested to read an article in a Vancouver paper, or it may have been a Victoria paper, which dealt

Productivity Council
with a meeting in Victoria to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate drew 75 people.


Michael Starr: He did?


Walter Franklyn Matthews: You have not heard it all. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was here in Ottawa and when he heard there were 75 people at the meeting he asked for a recount. He certainly could not believe it because he was billed to go out there in two months' time and he figured he was going to draw those 75 people. Half the people who were there were there because they thought the new member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) would be there, and I can certainly understand their interest. The other half just went along for the rye.
Some of them who were there must have thought it was a leadership convention. Six little green men knocked on the door and they said to the doorman, "Take me to your leader". It stumped the doorman but it did not stump the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He had been on the stump so long that he had started to look like one. I will give him credit. He got off the stump but he went out on a limb. He said, "Bring them in, I am the leader". He has been out on the limb ever since. He has become pretty good at hanging by one hand. After all, you need the other once in a while to scratch yourself.
At about the same time I noticed in the Vancouver Sun that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had written a book. I am not sure whether I have the article here because sometimes I throw stuff away. Yes, I have it here. I am not going to take very much time on this but the article in the Vancouver Sun of October 27 last reads in part as follows:
The Mackenzie King Record, by M.P. John W. Pickersgill, is pretty dull reading.
That is a fact because here was an attempt by a man to put something into circulation which people would buy. He did not tell them that it would drive them crazy. The article goes on to say:
Nobody will buy Pickersgill's Mackenzie King Record; its only place is on the stuffy shelves of reference libraries, to which it will add more stuffiness.
I know now where he gets his speeches.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suppose the hon. member is leading up to the effect which the new productivity council will have on all these things he has been speaking about.


Mr. Matihews:: Mr. Speaker, actually I had no intention of speaking. After listening to the gloom, this is simply an attempt on

my part to introduce a little fun and something of the Christmas spirit. I am quite happy to see members of the opposition laughing and enjoying themselves. I think they are very fine fellows. I said that without giving it much thought, however.
Many times in the past we have heard predictions from the Liberal party and I should like to deal with one for a few minutes. This weird prediction came from the Liberal department of doom. Ever since they went out of office in 1957 they have claimed for Canada and Canadians all types of ruin and destruction. None of their predictions have come to pass or are they likely to come to pass. A few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition put one prediction into orbit across Canada that tops them all. He told his party followers that the Liberal party would soon be in power again. That is just more gloom, and to help them on their way I would suggest an old theme song to them: I'm forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air, and you know what happened to those bubbles.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Aihabasca):: Mr. Speaker

it is trite to say that democracy is on trial- I have heard this from our latest and learned friend in the corner. Communism is also on trial and has been condemned by freedom loving men wherever it has reared its ugly head. Socialism is nothing more than a wooden horse within which are red soldiers. All I ask is that Canadians take a good look at this monstrosity outside our walls before they welcome it within.
I should like to see this measure go to a vote but I cannot allow this new voice to go unchallenged. I had expected more from our newest member than the usual emotional balderdash. I had expected dynamic plans for solving the unemployment problem. What do I hear, however, but the usual defeatist propaganda? Now, we have nine gods on the socialist Olympus full of thunderbolts and wind. They are ready to share the results of other people's labour but have no suggestions as to how to create more wealth to share. I appeal to labour to help produce this new wealth, and I appeal to our newest member to add to our efforts or show a modicum of wisdom by waiting until he has some constructive criticism to offer before wasting the time of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on December 6 I addressed a question to the Minister of Finance in the following terms:
I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance whether he expects to be in the house between now and the Christmas recess to justify the supplementary estimates.
To that question the minister gave the following reply:
I do not expect to be in the house constantly, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that the supplementary estimates are fully justified and that the ministers of the various departments will be here to deal with the estimates pertaining to their respective departments, according to the usual practice of the house when supplementary estimates are considered.
I note that the hon. lady who presides over the department whose estimate has now been called is not in the committee at the present time. I would suggest that the minister allow this item to stand and proceed to the department of some minister who is in the committee, in accordance, in his own words, with the usual custom.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course, this is a nonsensical observation, as no one knows better than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In this particular case there is a spokesman here. The parliamentary secretary will be here to speak for the department concerned and information that is sought in relation to the estimates concerning that department will be forthcoming.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to recall to the mind of the Minister of Finance, who seems to be suffering from amnesia in this matter, that on one occasion when the previous government was in office his then leader, Mr. Drew, took the strongest possible exception to proceeding with the estimates of one of the departments because the minister happened to be absent, notwithstanding the fact that the parliamentary assistant to the minister of fisheries was there. Quite a scene was made about this until I happened to come into the chamber-[DOT] I was acting minister-and there was no longer any substance for this contention.
If the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-who I believe is the Minister

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of Justice, unless some change has been made-is present and willing to speak for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or at least to throw his cloak over the parliamentary secretary, in accordance with the rule laid down by Mr. Drew, that would seem to be an appropriate thing to do. Otherwise I think the usual practice, as the minister told us on December 6, ought to be observed in the committee on this occasion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, just for the record I think it is important to state that the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration this afternoon is due to illness.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the Minister of Finance will explain to us what he really did mean when he said:
-the ministers of the various departments will be here to deal with the estimates pertaining to their respective departments, according to the usual practice of the house when supplementary estimates are considered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 1 think it is a perfectly obvious comment. I would not undertake to be a reader of the mind of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


An hon. Member:: Do not do that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have had some discussion in times past about the handling of the final estimates, those that are normally introduced in the month of March and which are often left to the Minister of Finance to pilot through the committee. The reason for that is that those are normally what are called clean-up items; they are not items that normally introduce any new principle, but simply involve what are called further amounts required for purposes that have already been approved by the house in the normal appropriation act which in ordinary years would have been passed some months in advance of that particular time.
What I meant when I made the remark last week in reply to the question of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is, I think, quite clear. I meant we would follow the usual practice in a case such as the one we have now, but the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate thinks he can score some advantage, by reason of the absence through illness of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and impede the work of the committee.
I just point out that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is here and is prepared to answer any questions in relation to these several items of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, so that the work of the committee will not be impeded. The information that any member requires
[Mr. Pickersgill.l

will be forthcoming as long as the hon. member opposite does not seek to impede it by this ill-founded observation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege; the hon. gentleman reflected upon my conduct in the house by suggesting I was trying to impede the work of the committee. If the hon. gentleman had listened to what I said he would know perfectly well that I suggested the exact opposite. I suggested that as the minister was not here, and the acting minister was not here, we should continue with some department where the minister was present so the work of the committee would not be impeded. I suggest we do that, in accordance with the usual practice of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we proceed in accordance with the usual practice of the house. Under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration we have seven items, all of which involve further amounts required in relation to programs which have already been approved by the house during the earlier session of the present year. All these programs were approved by the house, and what is involved in each of these seven items is simply an additional sum which has been found to be required in order to carry through the program which has already been approved.


Mr. Badanai:: I should like to ask the minister if he could tell us how many jobs this would provide for Indians. I do not suppose he has the exact figure, and perhaps he could give us an approximate figure.


Mr. Charlton:: We have not the exact figure, but it is estimated that some 2,560 jobs will be available for Indian people.


Frank Howard: I think that this is an extremely important supplementary estimate, because the employment prospects as far as our Indian people are concerned have been few and far between in past years. Unfortunately, and perhaps by inadvertence, many of the Indian people have been prevented from obtaining an education, and this in itself makes it impossible for them to enter the employment field on the same basis as people who are not Indians. One reason why it is difficult for Indians to fit into our present day society, in some parts of Canada at least, is that we have in effect destroyed their economic system and foisted upon them our own concept of an economic system, which is one very different from the life they had originally known. We injected them into an employee-employer relationship in a wage structure economy without in any way preparing them to accept a change of that sort;

without giving them an educational background which might have fitted them for an economic structure of this type.
For this reason and others, the Indian population finds it extremely difficult to engage in employment except in very limited fields. For example, in the coastal region of British Columbia the Indian population is primarily engaged in the fishing industry. If the fishing industry is closed down, or when the season ends, the Indians find themselves with little possibility of additional employment. In effect, they have the opportunity of working part of the year in an industry which, to a certain extent, is connected with their traditional way of life in earlier years. They had to be good fishermen or they could not eat, so the transition in this regard is not too drastic. In recent years the logging industry has to a certain extent supplemented the income earned by fishing but even here the opportunities are extremely limited. It is my belief that we cannot think in terms of employment for Indians, that is, in the narrow sense as is reflected in this particular estimate, without keeping in mind the entire relationship of the Indian to the economic structure in which he has been forced to participate.
During the discussion of the bill which has just been passed concerning technical and vocational training I raised a question with the Minister of Labour having to do with the application of the principle contained in that measure to our native Indian people in so far as technical and training is concerned. The reply I received, and perhaps it was a correct one, was that that bill did not deal with Indians whose education comes wholly under the jurisdiction of the Indian affairs branch. Those Indians who attended provincial schools would, of course, receive the assistance made possible by the grants for vocational and technical training.
In the light of this situation I do not think it is altogether profitable for us to consider employment prospects for Indians on the strict basis of this supplementary estimate. Perhaps it involves projects sponsored through the Indian affairs branch rather than seeking to provide employment possibilities on projects outside the reserves after an initial period of vocational guidance has been given. This failure to provide the necessary education and training has been, I think, one of the most serious failings in government activities. To some extent the present government, and certainly its predecessor in office, failed to realize that in dealing with Indians we should not think of them as people living on reserves and eking out a livelihood 90205-6-57
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration as best they can, relying on occasional employment outside, such as in the fishing industry.
I appreciate that perhaps I am wandering from the specific item under consideration but I think this subject is of such importance that it is necessary to mention the broader question at this time, and it may be that additional consideration will be given to the matter when the estimates for the coming fiscal year are presented. We must encourage an all-out crash program for stimulating the creation of industrial projects near Indian reserves together with an education system to prepare Indians increasingly for working in those undertakings.
Having said those few words, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the minister, who has already indicated how many Indian people may be employed as a result of this supplementary estimate, could relate this estimate to the main estimates and perhaps compare the type of project with the projects which are mentioned in the main estimates so that we may see how the estimated number of Indians expected to find employment as a result of this item compares with the number employed under the projects mentioned in the main estimate.


John Alpheus Charlton: I will be the first to admit, as the hon. member for Skeena has said, that it is most difficult for Indians unaccustomed to the white way of life to accustom themselves to a different economic system. I think the hon. member would also be the first to agree with me that many of these Indian people have succeeded well in doing so, especially in the fishing industry in British Columbia.
To answer the question put by the hon. member, this is an item to take advantage of the winter works program in most instances and in others it is to help the Indian reservations, which have not sufficient band funds, to carry out this work themselves. I might say that in this winter works project there are about 30 bands carrying on the work directly though the Department of Labour, but this amount of $50,000 is to help bands where they have not sufficient funds to carry on this work. The main part of the work, of course, will be done on reservations in the way of brushing, clearing existing right of ways for roads and maintenance of agency buildings and repair of agency buildings, repairs to homes, and that sort of thing.


Frank Howard: I take it it is not an estimate which is supplementary to an item in the main estimate?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, it is.
896	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: What item in the main estimates?


Frank Howard: I mention this not only to refresh my own memory but to recall it in the minds of other hon. members that in the main estimates this year there was listed under the Department of Labour, under the winter works project, a reference to Indian bands participating for the first time in the winter works project. It will be recalled that at that time I inquired as to how Indian bands were to participate in this, and complained about the fact that the program in the main estimates was being confined to those bands that had sufficient band funds to participate and the bands that did not have sufficient band funds were in effect not considered. I requested at that time that some account be taken of those bands that did not have sufficient band funds. This is the result of the representations I made to the house earlier this year. If there was an amount in the Indian affairs branch vote in the main estimates for participation in the winter works program by Indian bands that did not have sufficient band funds, then it escapes my memory. I should like to have that point looked up and to be told where it appears in the main estimates.


Mr. Nixon:: Did I understand the parliamentary secretary to the minister to say that item 578 would give employment to 2,560 additional Indians?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, that is the figure.


George Ewart Nixon: Surely the hon. member is not serious. That will amount to less than $20 apiece. What kind of job would that be?


John Alpheus Charlton: This is for the entire estimates, not just the first one.


George Ewart Nixon: I am sorry; the hon. member said item 578.


John Alpheus Charlton: Not the first item alone,
naturally; that is only $50,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the parliamentary secretary tell us what is the amount of the original estimate for the purpose of providing employment?


John Alpheus Charlton: I will get that figure for the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman ought also to tell us where those projects are. I would be particularly interested to know how many are in the Atlantic provinces and if any are in Newfoundland.


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, I can tell the hon. member that. In the maritime provinces there are not any projects at the moment; there are two in Quebec; three in southern Ontario;


one in northern Ontario; two in Manitoba; 10 in Saskatchewan; none in Alberta; 11 in British Columbia; and none in the Northwest Territories.


Hubert Badanai: Can the parliamentary secretary indicate where in northern Ontario the project is located? Which of the bands is participating in this program in northern Ontario?


John Alpheus Charlton: I have not that information for him, Mr. Chairman, but I can get it for the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where are they in southern Ontario? Three were mentioned there.


John Alpheus Charlton: As I told the previous hon. member, I have not that information before me but I will get it for the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the number of unemployed among the Indians in southern Ontario? I would like to get an answer to these questions.


John Alpheus Charlton: I wish the hon. member could answer it for me so that I would know exactly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I were sitting over there I would have the answer but I am not. Since this is intended to provide in part a solution to the unemployment problem I think we should have the answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is entirely for that purpose.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can understand my hon. friend I am sure he is in an embarrassing position today. No one wishes to take advantage of him, but the Minister of Labour ought to be able to give him that information because this program is one that comes under his direction. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in this instance is acting vicariously, trying to implement in this particular area this dynamic program of putting people to work.
I have not taken the whole of Canada, I have taken only the choice part of it, namely southern Ontario and I have asked the parliamentary secretary to tell us how many Indians are affected by this project in this section of the province of Ontario. The parliamentary secretary says there are three areas in southern Ontario affected. Having brought the problem down to that smaller unit, the parliamentary secretary ought to be able to tell us what is the result of this program in this area. If we cannot get that, then surely we have in the inability of the parliamentary secretary, whom I do not charge personally, as I am dealing with him only through his statements, a demonstration of the justification for the position that we

have taken at this time in the Liberal party of charging the government with not having a real unemployment policy or an employment policy at all.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to have an answer to the question.


John Alpheus Charlton: I will get the answers for the hon. member. In the meantime could we not proceed with the estimates?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to make some general inquiry since it has been suggested by the parliamentary secretary that this money is for bands that do not have any funds. I have not the information up to the moment, but several years ago there were several bands in my own constituency whose funds were very low. I think the Sand Point band is one, and one of the bands at Longlac. I am just wondering what has been the overall effort to assist the unemployment situation among the Indians? We have had the problem at the lakehead of Indians moving over along the trans-Canada highway and the eastern shore of lake Nipigon to take advantage of job opportunities in the pulp and paper industry. How has this plan been developed, and how up to date is it in its development? We should have that information now because it is not specific; it is an expansion of the general approach of the department in keeping up with the employment that develops in this winter situation.
The hon. member for Essex East asked how many of those unemployed resided in southern Ontario. I cannot expect to find that information myself from our local figures, but I do gather that the pattern is the same in our part of the country as in the general labour force. As winter goes along the figure creeps up from 10 per cent to 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the working force out of work. What is the departmental policy so far as this expenditure is concerned in meeting the situation in a more flexible way as winter goes along?


John Alpheus Charlton: The question the hon. member has asked actually comes under item 581 and I can give him some information, though not detailed, about that item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The parliamentary secretary did not answer the first part of my question which was, in what three localities in southern Ontario were these projects provided? If he cannot answer that, I notice there is a whole galaxy of officials in the gallery, and while I would not object to having them all come down, the parliamentary secretary should at least ask one 90205-6-57i
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of them to come down and assist him. Usually the Minister of Finance undertakes this responsibility and we have always criticized that, but even the Minister of Finance is not here today. Therefore I think it is not asking too much that the competent staff sitting in the gallery should be asked to come down to help the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the fact that we are dealing with a supplementary estimate which is supplementary to the main item under administration in the estimates for 1960-61. I think we have been told that there is nothing in the main estimates equivalent in its purpose to this vote. If that is so, I think the observations of the hon. member for Algoma West are very pertinent when he says that $50,000 does not mean very much if it is being advanced on the pretense that this is an employment measure. If it is an employment measure it is natural that the hon. member for Essex East should make inquiries as to its effect in southern Ontario but the hon. member for Algoma West and myself are very concerned about its impact in northern Ontario and, in Canada as a whole. What are the actual prospects for employment? In the details of further supplementary estimates No. 4 it is definitely stated that this item covers employment projects for Indians. I am not one to say that $50,000 is nothing but I know that I have been negotiating with the Indian affairs branch to try to develop employment opportunities for Indians in my own riding and while there has been great evidence of interest I have not succeeded in having a vote brought forward. This amount of $50,000 across the country does not impress me very much.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: If I may say a word or two, Mr. Chairman, I am interested first in putting the mind of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate somewhat at rest. He will recall that on one occasion when he was minister of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no.


John Angus MacLean: I thought it was on that occasion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. gentleman speaks about it, perhaps I had better tell him what did happen. His predecessor as minister of fisheries was absent from the house and I happened to be acting minister.


John Angus MacLean: But the hon. member was actually minister of citizenship and immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I was secretary of state.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Angus MacLean: I may be in error. In any event, he found himself acting minister of fisheries, and I want to assure him that on this occasion he cannot assume there is no acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the house. I happen to be acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the parliamentary secretary is handling these estimates.
Perhaps I might be able to clear up a misapprehension in the minds of some hon. members. This item of $50,000 is a further amount required for operation and maintenance. There is no item in the main estimates for winter works as such but certain items in the main estimates-I cannot quote numbers at the present time-for given purposes cover the same type of work that is provided for in these estimates. As far as Indian reservations are concerned, this in effect is a do it now project and these funds are made available for certain bands whose band funds are low so that they may take advantage of the winter works program like that provided for in the estimates of the Minister of Labour. It is only to provide for the element of the winter works program which, if it were a municipality would come under the municipality.
In this case two departments of the federal government are filling both roles, as it were. They are on both sides of the scheme for supplying winter work. The first item here applies to the maintenance of roads on reservations and other fairly minor items of that sort, but they do provide a certain amount of employment during the winter months when seasonal unemployment is naturally high. It is to cope with the problem of seasonal unemployment that these items are provided. The parliamentary secretary to the minister may have further details.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the acting minister if he is suggesting that this item is related to item No. 592 in further supplementary estimates No. 4, which is the main winter works item? In the last couple of years the ordinary vote under the Department of Labour has had included therein a clause with reference to Indian bands having a relationship to the vote of $30 million set out in item 592. Could the acting minister relate the $50,000 vote in item 578 to item 592 which is an amount of $30 million and has to do with the major program for winter works?


John Angus MacLean: That was what I was attempting to do a few moments ago but perhaps I did not make myself clear. The item we are now discussing is an item for certain Indian bands whose funds are low or non-existent for the purpose of putting them in a position to take advantage of the winter works program like that being
(Mr. Pickersgill.l
provided for in item 592, that item having been broadened this year to include Indian bands under certain circumstances as well as municipalities.


William Moore Benidickson: It will be realized when one relates $50,000 to $30 million the comparison is very striking. We are wondering whether or not the assistance to Indians for winter works is in actuality very effective. Has the acting minister any comment as to what portion of the $30 million which we will be asked to vote later is related to Indians because there is reference in the text to the vote to Indians?


John Angus MacLean: I am not in a position to give that figure accurately but one can arrive at an approximation. Many of the seven items under the Indian affairs branch which appear in these estimates are provided in whole or in part to take advantage of item 592 for winter works under the Department of Labour, and the total of these seven items is over $li million. I am not stating that the whole amount is for winter works. In addition to that there are, as I understand it, many Indians who out of their own band funds want to take advantage of the winter works program. It is, therefore, unfair or unrealistic to say that this amount of $50,000 is to $30,000,000 as the assistance to Indian bands is to the entire winter works program. That does not follow; it is proportionately greater.


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps to clarify this for the committee it might be possible for the parliamentary secretary, who I welcome for the first time in speaking to him in that capacity, to give the committee a break-down of the $50,000 as to projects. I know that usually treasury board has a list of projects in some detail. The details on page 9 of the supplementary estimates indicate these are employment projects, in the plural, for Indians, and perhaps he could indicate to us what projects are involved and the location of the projects.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have an apology to make to the committee. When I spoke on the first question I said these items were extensions of previous estimates. I have learned since that items Nos. 578, 579, 580 and 581 are new items and not extensions of old items. I was in error, and I apologize to the committee. In the first four items $250,000 were brought in to help those reservations, as I said before, that had not sufficient band funds to take advantage of the winter works program themselves. That, under 592, is altogether separate and was for bands that had the funds to take advantage of the winter works program. So far as the $50,000, the first

item, is concerned and where those projects are located, I shall have to get that information for the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a most extraordinary thing. The parliamentary secretary has now told us that this $50,000 is a new item, and it is not a supplementary item at all. It is an entirely new estimate. Surely the parliamentary secretary can tell us on what he is going to spend this $50,000, whether he is going to spend this on roads, building materials, and so on. There must be some blurb or something on it. I was the minister of this department and I know when I was there something was prepared to show precisely upon what this money was being spent. The treasury board, in those days when we were there, was careful of the people's money and insisted on having that information. It seems to me that if the parliamentary secretary would just read off the description he has in his black book we would understand what this is all about. Perhaps the Minister of Finance carried it off with him when he left the chamber. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could send for it because I cannot believe that the government has really come into this chamber to ask for $50,000, which they first said was an addition to an existing vote and they have now discovered is an entirely new vote, and they do not know what it is for.


Frank Howard: The remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate hit the nail on the head. However, I do not believe he is really surprised that this government does not know what certain things are for. This is the point I was getting at when I initially asked the question as to whether this item was an extension of an existing vote. We find now that we were, in fact, misled by the Minister of Finance when he said earlier that in the ordinary course of events the supplementary estimates are additional estimates and therefore it is the custom for the Minister of Finance to handle them. There is nothing new in them. This is what led us stray in the first instance.
We find this is a new item, and I want to try to relate it to the details contained in the estimates for the year ending 1961, pages 141 and 142, where the details are under exactly the same heading as the item we are now considering, Indian agencies, operation and maintenance. It has always been my understanding that the operation and maintenance section applied primarily to people in the civil service, employees of the department itself. I understood this vote was to look after the painting, repairing and maintenance of buildings. Is the $50,000 to employ additional
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration people to work under this item of operation and maintenance of Indian agencies or is it something new? If it is something new it should have been shown as a new item. If it is in fact part of employment projects for Indians, what are those going to be, and who is going to be employed? Are the Indians going to be employed merely to make repairs and do maintenance work as the original item might indicate?
I think it is absolutely necessary, Mr. Chairman, that the committee be given a complete account of the use to which this $50,000 will be put, especially in view of the fact we are told it is a new item altogether. I believe that it is asking a great deal of us to recommend this item without giving us any details, even for this government.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The hon. gentleman has suggested gratuitously that the Minister of Finance, in some way, misled the committee.


Frank Howard: I did not do it gratuitously at all.


Richard Albert Bell: The situation in respect of this item is quite clear. This particular item is supplementary to the item No. 55 in the main estimates. It is for new objects under the main item, and those new objects the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has explained to the committee. This is for the purpose of equalizing the position as between those bands with funds and those bands without funds so that it is possible for those without funds to take full advantage of the winter works program. Now for anyone to suggest that there has been any misleading of the committee by the Minister of Finance or anyone else in relation to that I suggest is a most gratuitous statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the person who is now misleading the committee is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, and I must say he is doing a pretty good job. What we want to know is, who is going to get this money? On whom or on what is it going to be spent? That is what we do not seem to be able to get at all. Is it going to be paid out $20 a head as the hon. member for Algoma West said to 2,500 Indians or is it going to be paid out for telegrams that will be sent out from the department saying which Indians can work and which cannot? What is it going to be used for?


John Alpheus Charlton: I gave the information previously, but perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not hear me. I did not give it in full because I did not think it was necessary. About 95 or 96 per cent of this $50,000 will be labour-

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whose labour?


John Alpheus Charlton: Indian labour. Perhaps I should just read the item. The purpose of this item is to provide funds to meet the cost of construction put under way to create employment for employable Indians during peak unemployment periods. The works program is designed to equalize opportunities between bands with funds, as I said before, and those without sufficient funds to participate in the Department of Labour's winter works incentive program. The works consist of repairing and resurfacing roads, including brush clearing, etc., existing roadway maintenance and maintenance of agency buildings.


Frank Howard: This is most helpful, and at last we are getting somewhere. I must apologize to the parliamentary secretary if he mentioned this matter earlier. I was obliged to leave the committee for about three or four minutes and he may have mentioned it when I was absent. I apologize for that absence. However, I did not hear it mentioned while I was here.
It obviously has nothing to do with band funds. It is merely for straight employment of Indian people working on particular reserves where those bands have no funds themselves or have insufficient band funds. If this is the case, as I gather it is, then I do not see how it can, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance intimated, equalize the position of the bands. I have not the list of bands with me but there are some bands that have band funds in their capital accounts to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars. One I know of has $1 million or something of that nature. Others of which I know in my own constituency may have $31 or $22. How $50,000 spread out among all these bands that have not any band funds or have only a small amount of band funds is going to equalize them with bands that have hundreds of thousands of dollars in their capital account and perhaps a similar amount in the income account is more than I can understand. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could perhaps give a break-down of the villages to which this item will apply.


William Moore Benidickson: Would he also indicate to the committee where they are? It is obvious that this is an extremely slender amount of winter work assistance. It involves about $19 per person having regard to the number he mentioned might be involved. Surely we want to know where these people are. Out in the riding of Kenora-Rainy River it just happens that during the harvesting of wild rice it is not unusual for an Indian

to earn $40 in one day. But this item provides for $19 appropriated over the whole winter to a particular Indian. What is this item all about?


John Angus MacLean: Perhaps I might be permitted to make a brief explanation, not that I have any particular detailed knowledge of the item. However, I think it should be fairly clear to anyone that this item is to provide one small segment of winter works on Indian reservations in the case of bands which do not have funds of their own which would put them in a position to take care of the matter. It is only for a particular type of work, namely for the maintenance of certain roads and certain reservations and for the maintenance of some agency buildings. However, it is only a small segment of the total winter works program which may be provided under this group of items which is to allow bands having small amounts of band funds or no band funds to take advantage of the winter works program.


William Moore Benidickson: The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been specific in reading out, as he was encouraged to do, an excerpt from the submission that I imagine went to treasury board and the minister recommending this particular expenditure. In the text of what he read I heard mentioned that some
2.560	Indians were involved. Is it possible for the parliamentary secretary or the acting minister to tell us where these people reside? It is not a matter of being difficult with either the parliamentary secretary or the acting minister as I appreciate their embarrassment. I think it is caused by the fact that the Minister of Finance made an unusual assertion. He asserted it was a usual thing to have ministers present on the supplementary estimates. Actually I am not sure that is so. However, he made this flamboyant statement, as is his custom.
We therefore expect on this occasion, in this special section, to receive from ministers details with regard to these items that are required as second thoughts after the main estimates come down for approval as they did last session. We simply want to know this. We are interested not in embarrassing the parliamentary secretary or the acting minister but in ascertaining that there is no discrimination across the country, in ascertaining that a program that is advanced for
2.560	Indians is equally available to people all across the country. That is why we want to know where the reserves are.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are none in the Atlantic provinces.


John Alpheus Charlton: This first item for $50,000 is only a portion of the amount of the money that is going to be spent. The situation is being misunderstood when it is suggested that only $50,000 is going to be spent. The sum of $250,000 is going to be spent under the first four items in these estimates; that is $250,000 in total. We can give the exact situation.


William Moore Benidickson: That is under items 578, 579, 580 and 581?


John Alpheus Charlton: That is right. The amount of $250,000 of that amount will be spent on this type of program to assist those bands which have not sufficient band funds. As I say, we can give the exact location of these expenditures which might take some time to get the information and I question whether you want to wait now for it. We can get it for you and have the answers available for you later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The parliamentary secretary told us that this $50,000 was to be divided among 2,560 Indians.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes. If he wants to revise that statement I am only too happy to allow him to do so. However, that is the figure he gave to my friend the hon. member for Algoma West who promptly divided the number of Indians by the $50,000 and reached a figure of $20. Then the minister reduced it to 96 per cent of $50,000, which brought the figure down to about $19 a head. We are not convinced that $19 a head is going to provide a winter income for the Indians, even the 2,500 who are participating in this benefit. If the minister's parliamentary secretary was wrong about that matter and if the 2,500 Indians are not related to the $50,000, how many Indians are going to participate in the $50,000?


John Alpheus Charlton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I was misunderstood but I thought I made it clear that the 2,560 Indians were those that would be employed with this additional amount that is being spent now under the supplementary estimates. The $250,000 in the first four estimates will give employment to approximately 1,430. The welfare accelerated program of $200,000 will give employment to approximately 300 Indians; the agency accelerated education program of $116,500 will give work to approximately 150 Indians. The education vote is supposed to give work to approximately 650 Indians. Then the construction or acquisition of buildings under the economic development vote of $5,000 will give work to approximately 30. Those in total amount to 2,560 for all those items, not just the first one.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Hervé J. Michaud: I think I understood the parliamentary secretary correctly when he said none of the Indian bands of the maritime provinces were taking advantage of that special vote. I am given to understand that this amount of money is being provided for those bands which have not sufficient band funds to take advantage of any winter works program. Are we therefore to conclude that all the Indian bands of the maritime provinces have moneys of their own with which to initiate any of these winter works projects?


John Alpheus Charlton: I am told there is still $5,180 over and above those amounts which I gave before for the various districts. There is that much money, $5,180, that is not allocated as yet. It is quite possible that some of the reservations in the maritimes will come under this.


Frank Howard: I do not mean to be necessarily difficult or to appear obstructive in any way, but the parliamentary secretary said it would take a bit of time to compile a list of the names of the bands which would be covered by these four items. I understood this is what he meant; or it would take some time at least to deal with the $50,000, to which bands this is supplied and for what types of work. I think it is extremely important to consider this matter before we proceed. Apparently the four items are sort of in a block; they are all for substantially the same purpose, that is to assist Indians to work in those bands where they have no funds or insufficient funds.
In order to see the relative distribution of this amount of money and compare it with the position of the band itself I think it would be advantageous to the committee to know to which bands it applies. As I mentioned earlier, I know there are a couple of bands in my own constituency that have practically nothing in their bands funds. I know there are others, such as the band at Bella Coola, for instance, that is putting in $3,000 under the winter works program. There is another one at Kitasoo, where there is another $3,000 being put in. These are in the constituency of Skeena.
I know there are others who have just a few hundred dollars in their band funds. I think it would be helpful to the committee if the parliamentary secretary could give us some information about this. Could he provide the committee with a list of the names of the bands which will have something accruing to them as a result of this. Then we would be in a better position to compare the effect as it affects our own constituencies.


John Alpheus Charlton: In other items I have a list for the maritimes. Under item 581 I have

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration a list for the reservations in the various districts. The figure I have is a little over the figure which the hon. member just gave. Bella Coola is $3,130. I have that information in further items, but it would not be in order for me to include it in the answer relating to item 578.


Frank Howard: Perhaps we are talking about two different things. If the parliamentary secretary has an item for the Bella Coola band listed for $3,130, then he is not talking of that $3,000 these particular items that are to provide work for bands which do not have sufficient funds. The Bella Coola band has already applied to put in half the total cost under the approved winter works incentive program of the Department of Labour. Therefore, obviously the Bella Coola band has money which it wants to put into a playground, according to the information I have here, the total estimated cost of the project being $3,000. But this is money part of which will come from the band funds.
Surely you are not going to provide money for a band that already considers it has sufficient money to participate. I am talking about the bands to which these particular items will apply; those bands which do not have any band funds, or which have insufficient band funds. I am talking about the ones who will benefit from the attempt at equalizing their positions, as both the parliamentary secretary and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance have said.
I would like to put two questions; first, as to the bands who are participating in the winter works program out of their own band funds; and, second, as to the bands which are considered by the department to have insufficient money and will therefore receive some benefit from these particular items.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the parliamentary secretary attempts to answer that complicated question could he not answer the very simple question we have asked. Precisely where and for what purpose is this $50,000 to be spent that we are now being asked to vote? Never mind about the other items. What is going to be done with this $50,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us make the question even more simple. Disregard the last question and answer this simple question. What three districts in southwestern Ontario are going to be included in this; how many Indians will be covered; what kind of projects are involved? Having answered that question, I would suggest you answer

the question of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate and then, if you have any time or energy left, you can answer the hon. member for Skeena.


George Ewart Nixon: May I ask the parliamentary secretary whether any of this money is to be spent in the Garden river reserve, the Goulais mission reserve or the Michipicoten Harbour reserve in my riding?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the parliamentary secretary starts to answer any of these questions, a protest was made about the failure of the minister to be here. I do not want to reflect in any way on the parliamentary secretary, who has obviously done his outright best without any assistance except a little from the acting minister, who has also done his best. However, it seems obvious that neither of them is informed. The Minister of Finance took it upon himself to lecture, not the whole house but me because I was impeding the progress of this committee. I think it is now evident that if the minister had taken the advice that was given to him and had called the estimates of his own department, since he was here as minister, something might have been accomplished in the last hour instead of the work of the committee being impeded by the lack of preparedness and the lack of underbrushing by this government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is just a filibuster on your part.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Nothing but a filibuster.


William Moore Benidickson: Uninformed administration.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. It being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of public and private bills it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to rise and report progress on this resolution and to request leave to consider it again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


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



DIVORCE


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: the second reading of Bill No. C-ll, respecting procedure in relation to parliamentary divorce.

He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) who seconded the motion for first reading, and also the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) for his support on second reading of this bill which I think can be of great assistance to us in solving a problem that has been before this house for many years.
This bill is likely to prove to be of great assistance to us in solving a problem which has been bothering the House of Commons for many years. The purpose of introducing it is to seek authority to permit such divorce actions to be tried by the Senate without reference to the House of Commons. I think it is a fair observation that the majority of our members on both sides of this house consider that the House of Commons should not be required to deal with divorce actions, for the following reasons. First, we are primarily a legislative body and we are not in a position to give proper judicial consideration to divorce actions. Second, the House of Commons has far too many national problems of greater importance than these individual actions. Therefore, in order to deal with individual divorce actions in a proper manner, if we are to act as a rubber stamp, we should be practical and logical; we should delegate our function relative to divorce matters to the Senate.
The same problem was encountered in the United Kingdom. They dealt with the question differently by means of the matrimonial causes act of 1857. Over a period of 150 years prior to that they dealt with 230 divorces, and apparently felt that these were too many to bother with. In other words, 230 divorces in 150 years were enough to stir the United Kingdom parliament into ridding itself of dealing with divorces. In Canada, 200 years later, we spend time dealing with more than 500 divorces each session. Either members of the Canadian parliament are more long-suffering or they have less regard for the true functions of parliament.
I think the time has come when we can deal with this matter realistically, in a way which will not offend the feelings of those who do not believe in divorce and, at the same time, provide relief to those who because of the laws of their province cannot obtain a divorce in the same manner as their fellow Canadians in other provinces.
It is suggested that each session we pass an act which will authorize the Senate to deal with all divorce cases during that session. The passing of this act will be a regular event; the house will not be divesting itself of its authority for an indefinite period. The effect of the act would automatically come to an end at the end of each session.
Parliamentary Divorce
There is precedent in the United Kingdom for one house alone dealing with a matter. The parliament act of 1911 in the United Kingdom, as amended by the parliament act of 1930, permitted, in the situation outlined in that act, the passing by the House of Commons of a bill on a certain number of occasions. If it were rejected by the House of Lords on a number of occasions, then the bill was passed on to receive the royal assent. So we have a precedent there.
I realize that this may not be the best way of dealing with the situation. It would be better if the problem were handed over to a special divorce court. However, we must be realistic. This cannot be done at the moment. The present proposal would be a first step; we in the House of Commons would delegate this power to the other place and then continue to study the whole matter. It might be objected that this bill will offend those who oppose divorce, especially in provinces which do not provide for divorce actions, but I would make the observation that there should be no more objection to this method of procedure than there is to passing on each application as it comes before this house.
Perhaps there may be some constitutional objection as regards section 55 of the British North America Act. But this is a question, really, of when royal assent may be given, and I feel that taking into consideration the rules of this house as set out in Beauchesne, especially paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 which state in effect that parliament is master of its own house, we can set our rules accordingly. I would point out that this involves private petitions, and that the house is in no way delegating its powers in respect of public matters. This involves people who come to us for relief, and we have on many occasions set up boards to deal with petitions of other types. As I said, this is a first step in the solution of this problem. The increasing number of applications for divorce places an unfair and unwarranted burden on the House of Commons, which has the responsibility for dealing with so many national problems during the time available. I appeal to the reasonableness of the members of this house, and to the moulders of public opinion, to exert their influence to the end that this house and, better still, this parliament shall be relieved of this task of dealing with divorce applications.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Parliamentary Divorce
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. McCleave:: Perhaps one note of explanation should be given in reference to this bill. In previous sessions we have remarked on the fact that our own chamber performed a useful function in cases where the principle of appeal was involved. Assuming that this measure passes, and I fervently hope it does, I am sure hon. members would wish to be satisfied that some method of appeal would exist for a party who felt aggrieved as a result of a decision in the other place.
I had a meeting earlier today with the chairman of the divorce committee of the other place and we discussed certain facets of the operation with which I will not burden this chamber. However, I think it can confidently be stated to this house that the other place will make certain changes in its procedure in order that an appeal procedure will exist. I think it is always very important that a parliamentary system of law should carry out a judicial process in a manner which provides the parties concerned with rights as close as possible to those which they would enjoy, for example, in provincial courts. I think these steps will be provided for petitioners and respondents in the other place, and I am sure the committee will be interested in having this information.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I may make one or two comments under clause 1 and say we hope that if this bill passes through all its stages it does not end up in the same way as many other "first steps" by becoming the last and final step. We hope that if this bill does become law it will be the forerunner of a broader measure dealing not only with parliamentary divorce but with divorce itself.
One thing we might say at this stage, apart from the question of appeal which was mentioned by the hon. member for Halifax, is that, perhaps only as an oral expression, we hope the other place will undertake to reduce the cost of these parliamentary divorces by either eliminating or reducing to a bare minimum, the parliamentary fee for such private bills. Perhaps it could be a token fee of $5, or something of that nature, rather than the present exorbitant fee of $210. Apart from that, I have no other comment.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reinforce the argument used by the hon. member for Skeena. I think the suggestion he has made is a good common-sense one. I think this is a good first step. I do not want hon. members to think that this first step absolves us from the responsibility of revising the divorce law.
On the question of fees, this should result, I would think, in a lower fee. I think this is a first class bill and I congratulate the hon.

member for Davenport on it. I quite agree with the bill and I trust that it goes through the committee this afternoon.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, since I have had some role to play in these cases in the past, apparently I am going to have to draw unemployment insurance, or something of that kind, when the bill goes through.
May I reply to the points just raised about the parliamentary costs. Given this year's experiment-and I presume we should call it an experiment-we can then determine just how much the costs will be. As hon. members know, there has to be a great deal of printing; the printing of evidence itself, for example, is one of the substantial costs connected with the parliamentary handling of divorce. It may be that with this year's experiment under the parliamentary belt, ways will be found to cut out some of those expenses and to cut down on the fees which, as I think the hon. member for Skeena rightly pointed out, are $210. I would also point out that it has been the practice in the other place to remit part or all of this $210 to poor litigants when proper cases of need are made out.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I cannot resist just rising to say a word or two. I have rather some sympathy for the tall member for Halifax, knowing that he may have to go on unemployment insurance if this bill passes; but I am sure he will find some other very useful and satisfactory employment within the bounds of this house.
Like the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Vancouver South, I think this is a first step in the right direction. This is a constructive approach, and shows that divorce can be satisfactorily handled by the other place with all the safeguards to persons concerned. I am sure that not only will members of this house be pleased to see this bill pass but a large number of people in this country will also, and I trust that this action on the part of this parliament as a first step will give members cause to give this question of divorce further consideration and bring in, in due time, the reforms that many persons in Canada are seeking.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Powers of the Senate in matters of divorce.
Mr. Mandziuk:: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am not permitted to go into a general discussion of this bill, but I wish to compliment the sponsor. I also wish to point out I feel that there should be an amendment to clause 2. I should like to move that clause 2

be amended by adding, in line eight, after the word "Senate" the following:
including the bills of divorce already passed by the Senate during the current session.
I think that is necessary, Mr. Chairman, owing to the fact that a large number of bills have been passed by the Senate. We have received some of them; others will be coming through, and I think the intention of the sponsor is that the procedure that the bill contemplates shall apply to all divorce petitions placed before the other house during this session.


Frank Howard: I think it is commendable to do this sort of thing. There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper now and perhaps more will be coming to this house before this bill actually is passed by the other place and receives royal assent, if it does. We would be in an awkward position if we do that, because, for argument's sake, next Tuesday we would be confronted with a large number of public and private bills at five o'clock, with private bills having precedence. What would we do with the private bills next Tuesday? It would require unanimous consent to pass all of them. No doubt the sponsor of the bills would undertake to stand them at that time and we would be confronted continuously with the question of not wanting to proceed with private bills of divorce in this chamber, pending the hope that this particular bill would become law. If it did not, then what would we do? We would be faced toward the end of June, on having stood a number of private bills relating to divorce, with a much more effective filibuster than the one we raised last year because we would not have a debate. I think what we should do in so far as these are concerned is not to include them, and proceed with the private bills of divorce in the normal way; otherwise we are almost caught in a trap.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the amendment perhaps offers a better solution. It would be my intention to have the bills that are in my name stand. They would probably come up next Tuesday. The problem will have resolved itself, I imagine, early in January, or rather around January 24 or 25 when I understand the other place resumes. Certainly as soon as they come back and find themselves presented with this piece of legislation they will quickly snap it up and pass it in order to prevent it becoming a mirage that can be snatched away from them. But seriously, I think the first group of bills, as far as I know from reading them on the order paper, contains no contentious cases. In any event, they could not become law or final until sometime late in January, because I presume the other place 90205-6-584
Parliamentary Divorce
will have to consider this legislation. I think the amendment gets us over the hurdle and is in order.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I really do not see the purpose of the amendment. I am not a lawyer, but I note that section 3 reads:
This act shall remain in force during the present session of parliament and shall expire on the date of its prorogation.
The session started back in November. Section 3 would certainly include all of the bills that would be passed by the Senate. I should like to be enlightened, perhaps by the chairman of the private bills committee. It seems to me that section 3 covers the point being made.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is one of those moot points about which it is better to be safe perhaps than sorry. The hon. member makes a point which probably has validity, but the amendment presented by the hon. member for Marquette is to take from it all question of doubt and get it into the realm of certainty. We know that the act continues until the end of the session. However, some argument might be made that it does not commence its operations at the start of the session but rather from the date that royal assent is given. I think that was the purpose of the amendment of the hon. member for Marquette and I think it has a great deal of reasonableness behind it. When you are dealing with divorce you think of people remarrying and questions of the legitimacy of children and so on arise. To pass an imperfect bill at this time could have grave consequences on somebody's life in the future and that is the reason I think the hon. member for Marquette has tried to put the matter beyond all question.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, as some hon. members have already mentioned, I can see that there may be some difficulty about this. My intention in moving the amendment was to take care of petitions that had already been granted by the other place. The amendment was drawn up in a hurry and, if I may have the permission of hon. members, I should like to withdraw it and submit one that is perhaps worded more carefully.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member permission to withdraw the present amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Parliamentary Divorce


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox, that these words be included:
including all such bills passed during the present session of parliament.
They would then all be presented to the governor general. I think this amendment might serve the purpose better than the first one I submitted.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I am very keen on this suggestion. Indeed I am wondering why we were not able to do it many years ago. I remember during one of my first sessions in the house Mr. Ilsley, then acting prime minister in the absence of Mr. King, regretting that we had to have this procedure but saying that there was no way of avoiding it. Apparently we have better lawyers now who are able to find a way of avoiding it. It seems to me that after taking all this time it would be a great pity to draft an amendment in a hurry and then find out later that we had done something that did not exactly meet the situation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to support the hon. member for Greenwood. He referred to what Mr. Ilsley said and like the hon. member I too swallowed the same doctrine hook, line and sinker, but like the hon. member I was also a freshman at that time. This is a very important step and I am very interested in making certain that what is done is properly done. I suggest that the hon. member for Greenwood made a good suggestion when he said that it might be wise to delay the debate on the bill for another private members' hour in order to make certain that what is done is correct.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, I think we can perhaps deal with the matter today and I should like to submit another revised version of my amendment. It does not materially change the intention but I think it clarifies it. It would read as follows:
Including all divorce bills sent down to this house prior to the enactment of this measure.
I hope this will indicate more clearly just what we have in mind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the amendment mean that the house will have to refer back to the other place all divorce bills now in the possession of this house?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I might answer the points raised by the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Kootenay West with regard to why this was not done before. It is not that we have changed our lawyers though I suppose lawyers can be changed. The fact is that previous research
[The Deputy Chairman.]

on this matter of a solution had been along the lines of conveying such power outright and in perpetuity to the other place. The sponsor of the bill explained, I believe, that the measure is being limited to one year which I imagine will be a surprise to the lawyers in the house because I know it is their opinion this is the only way to get around the difficulty. However, we have not been advised that we can give such powers indefinitely and that is the reason that the bill has been put before us in this form.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Perhaps I misunderstood the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West when he referred to what is going to happen to the bills now before us after this measure passes. In my judgment those bills would simply go to the governor general for signature. They will not be referred back to the other place. They have already been passed by the other place.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have bills before the house, Mr. Chairman.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: That is the intention of this bill unless the sponsor desires to explain it otherwise.


Charles Edward Rea: Perhaps I should read the whole clause as it will read if the amendment should carry. It would read as follows:
Notwithstanding section 55 of the British North America Act. 1867 when a divorce bill has been passed by the Senate, including all divorce bills sent down to the House of Commons before the enactment of this measure, they shall be presented to the governor general and shall become an act of parliament on the royal assent being signified, without the necessity of the said act being sent to the House of Commons for concurrence.


Mr. Baldwin:: There is an admirable principle embodied in this bill, and it is one which I hope will meet with the approval of the committee. However, in so far as the amendment of the hon. member for Marquette is concerned, I understand he is seeking to give retroactive effect to this bill. I wonder if I might respectfully suggest that he may well secure his objective by the addition, at the appropriate place, of a clause 4 to the effect that this act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 17th day of November, 1960. This would then give retroactive effect to the measure which I think the mover of the amendment is seeking to achieve.


Mr. Morton:: As sponsor of the bill, I would say that would perhaps answer the question very well. This would, in effect, approve all the bills passed in the other place and avoid the difficult principle involved in the amendment that has been made. Perhaps the sponsor of the amendment would suggest this in place of his amendment.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think I will be happy to withdraw the amendment because I think the hon. member has made a wonderful suggestion. It serves the same purpose that we have in mind.


Charles Edward Rea: Will the committee give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of this amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On the title-Parliamentary Divorce Act.
Gerald William Baldwin: May I move this amendment? 1 shall have to write it out. I move:
That the following be added as clause 4 of this bill:
''4. This act shall be deemed to have come into effect on November 17, 1960."


Frank Howard: This amendment seems so unnecessary. I think if you just leave the thing the way it is we will be in substantially the same position. Supposing for the sake of argument this measure is proclaimed on March 1. Then, it will come into effect on March 1 and no more bills will be sent by the Senate to the house. In the meantime those bills that have been presented to the house will be dealt with in the regular manner. If this is not done we may be in a quandary as to what we shall do next Tuesday and on subsequent Tuesdays until such time as this particular bill becomes law.
I would suggest we are far better off to leave the bill precisely as it is, and deal with the bills as they come before us from the Senate in the normal course of events. If this bill is proclaimed, say on February 1, then we will get no more divorce bills from the Senate and we will dispose of those bills which are before us in the usual manner. It may be that on Tuesday the hon. member for Halifax will want to withdraw certain bills which are before us, and this can be done only by unanimous consent. If someone fails to give that unanimous consent, do those bills then die on the order paper? This would be unfair to the individuals involved. I think the only sensible way to solve this difficulty is to leave the bill the way it is. After it receives royal assent, then we will get no more divorce bills.


Murray Douglas Morton: May I make this observation? I feel the amendment is the most effective way of dealing with the problem. We may be in a quandary on Tuesday and for one or two Tuesdays thereafter, but that will be no different from the position in which we were last year. I feel that we can judge what is going to happen to this bill. I think if it receives royal assent, it will receive royal
Parliamentary Divorce
assent early in the session. Then we would have a vehicle by means of which we could deal with these bills that have now been passed by the other place and referred to this house. I think rather than leave ourselves in a greater quandary as to what might happen to bills that may be left and not caught up in this bill, I would suggest that we carry the amendment and hope that the luck of this committee today will prevail and the bill will be passed in the other place and receive royal assent very shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall said bill be read a third time, now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: the third reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just prior to this bill passing third reading, I should like to make a comment to indicate what can be done in about 41 minutes. In this time we have passed a bill which indicates an application of common sense on the part of members on all sides of this house to a question that has been discussed for over half a century. I trust that this is an omen of the effective manner in which we can pass and deal with other legislation this session concerning other matters of even greater importance to the Canadian people.


Frank Howard: I should like to make a few remarks somewhat along the same line and to reply briefly to the query of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). Perhaps one of the reasons we are finally, after many years, taking some steps in this field, is due to the fact we have a new group of legislators here who have some fresh ideas about this problem. Perhaps it is to the credit also of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) who proposed this bill. It is also due to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) for the assiduous work he has done in years past on the divorce committee, although he and I engaged in what you might not call pleasantries from time to time. I think it is also due in some small measure-and I say this with some modesty-to the engagement or attachment to this particular question that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and I had regularly on Tuesdays and Fridays during the last session.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope the legislation will not mean that the hon. member will be joining the ranks of the unemployed.

Parliamentary Divorce


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to thank all those in this house for their co-operation and support-


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order may I say that I think the hon. member for Davenport moved the motion and is therefore precluded from speaking further.


William Arnold Peters: I will not hold up this legislation and I will allow the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) to close the debate as soon as possible. However, I should like to give warning that this problem has not been solved. I refer to the problem with which we have been concerned for a long time. It has been solved only as far as the conscience of the members of parliament themselves are concerned. We have now passed this responsibility over to the other house, and we have not had any particular reason to believe that the other house is going to handle the matter in the future in any better way than that in which they have handled it in the past.
I have in my pocket a note from one of the members who asked me to look up a case for him. He is a member who comes from the province of Quebec and therefore does not do it himself. I find that this woman has been divorced and that she only found out that she had been divorced by our process, by reading about it in the paper. When these things have happened I think the house must be warned that if the other place is not more studious with regard to the job for which they have been asked to do and if they will not gear their machinery to handling this matter in a more legalized manner than that in which they have handled it in the past, it may be necessary for the members of the House of Commons again to give consideration to this matter that has plagued us.
In conjunction with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) I hope that this type of co-operation may occur in the future. This is a step in a forward manner. It is a step that we promised we would support if we were given the opportunity to do so; we said that if any consideration were given to it we would support it. I think the hon. member for Davenport is to be congratulated on having developed a solution. Although it is only, as I think he will admit, a partial solution to the problem, it is a solution that has met with the support of the majority of the members of the house.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could make reference to one of the points raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and perhaps put a slight blot on the otherwise sunny landscape we have been enjoying here for the

last hour. However, before I deal with that matter, I also should like to compliment those who have played a part in connection with this most significant bit of legislation, particularly the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) and my jousting partners on Tuesdays and Friday last session, namely the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
The hon. member for Timiskaming has made a point with regard to a problem that is not unique in this country to the parliamentary handling of divorces. It is true that there are abuses. There are particular abuses with regard to the service on parties. Once a divorce has been granted it is impossible to tie again the knot or cord that has been untied. I know of several cases-perhaps three-in the last half dozen years in which parliamentary divorce was granted and then it was found that the parties had not been served. There are also cases which plague provincial courts exercising divorce jurisdiction where exactly the same thing has happened.
This difficulty is known to the people in the other place. They continually revise their rules and do their best to deal with that most vexing problem and I think that we can safely entrust to them this chore. They know our views on this matter. They themselves are anxious to have things run properly. They are a fine group of people and are extremely conscientious about their work. I should not like to have left on the record any suggestion that they deal with it in a cavalier fashion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house of the unanimous view that it is six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we would be agreed on that matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the house leader would not mind if I took the place of his colleague on this side of the house and inquired what we are going on with on Monday and whether the same business will be followed up in the private members' hour on Tuesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I compliment the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on his alertness today. As to the business for Monday, which will be a government day, we

will carry on with supplementary estimates. Those being completed we will deal with the resolution on veterans pensions and it that business should be completed, we shall take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, dealing with the subject of agricultural development. That order of business will hold for Monday and Tuesday, unless some extraordinary circumstance should arise. For instance, if we have just an hour or so available on Tuesday we might find it more suitable to set up one or two of the special committees that I have mentioned on several occasions.
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister whether the government has any serious expectations of getting any other business through both houses before the recess except the supplementary estimates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Everything depends on the active co-operation of the members on the other side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not to judge by today.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
			:r: '* [DOT]'
		. t * j	;[DOT] - . -
			' pi. :
			* * ; r * ; . v. ,
			- . - [DOT] : *
[DOT]			[DOT] [DOT] T * :-~z
			
			
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 19, 1960