1960-12-19

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: 
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that this question was raised on Friday by the hon. member for Vancouver South. The house will recall that this same member raised this question at earlier sittings and received a reply on December 1 from the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue.
I believe the house would be interested in some further information, because it was indicated by the Minister of Finance in his usual vigorous language that, as a result of the enforcement of this policy on December 1, the government would not tolerate advantage being taken of the Canadian consumer.
The Toronto Globe and Mail on December 1, following the commencement of this new adjustment of the duty, reported as the minister has indicated that certain companies raised their prices. The point was, however, that they had raised their prices on automobiles which had been imported previously. In addition to some of the price increases referred to by the Minister of National Revenue it was indicated, for instance, that Volkswagen went up $50 immediately on
912	HOUSE OF
Quebec Health Insurance Agreement December 1; and Vauxhall, the reporter discovered, had increased its price for cars already on the lot by $152, and so on.
In view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance that the government would not tolerate any advantage being taken of the Canadian consumer, I wonder what steps were taken to make sure that the price increase became operative only on automobiles that were imported after December 1 and therefore actually bore an increased rate of duty.



HEALTH INSURANCE


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at noon today I had the pleasure of signing, on behalf of the dominion government, an agreement under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act with the Hon. Alphonse Couturier, minister of health for the province of Quebec. This agreement marks the formal entry of Quebec into the hospital insurance program and means that this historic health measure will now be implemented throughout Canada.
From January 1, 1961, when the Quebec plan begins operations, residents in every part of the country will have access to the benefits of federal-provincial hospital insurance. It is estimated that federal participation during the first full year of operation of the Quebec plan will be approximately $70 million.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: It is extremely gratifying for the house to get this information. I am sure the house realizes, if it has not done so up to this point, that this is complete fulfilment of the promises of the Quebec government-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Ricard:: Notwithstanding the tax?


Lionel Chevrier: -as indicated by the premier of that province.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: The announcement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is particularly welcome.
I note with great interest that in one certain province, all their promises in this field have now been fulfilled. Since some other provinces want to go forward even further, I hope this government at an early date will announce that it is prepared to take part in a prepaid medical care program, the next logical step.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieife-L'Assomption-Monfcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the statement that was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare-
[Mr. Benidickson.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a point of order or a question of privilege, he would be entitled to the floor. However, he should indicate what it is.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did he know that the people of the province of Quebec have a new tax?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will reserve his question for the orders of the day.

On the orders of the day:


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that Mr. Lesage's government has failed to keep its promise and is imposing a new tax for its hospitalization plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might reserve his argument for the proper debating period.



VACANCY

Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Oilawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice, pursuant to section 10 of the House of Commons Act, that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the House of Commons for the electoral district of Leeds, in the province of Ontario, by reason of the death of Mr. Hayden Stanton, the member therefor.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the report submitted to the Department of Fisheries by Dr. Sinclair on the British Columbia fishing industry.
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the light of some information I gave this morning the hon. member is agreeable to having this motion stand until after the Christmas recess.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That procedure is agreeable to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Stands.
Motion stands.



RICHELIEU RIVER


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Roberge (for Mr. Dupuis):
For a copy of each of the reports made by the economists and engineers of the Department of Transport, in connection with the possible dredging of the Richelieu river between the St. Lawrence river and lake Champlain.
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: On Wednesday last the hon. member for Ri-chelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) asked on the orders of the day if I would table reports by my officials regarding the Richelieu waterway, and my reply was that it is not customary to table such reports. The papers asked for in the motion are departmental reports, and it has been the long established practice of the house to accept the proposition that departmental or interdepartmental memoranda or documents are privileged.
In the circumstances I would hope the hon. member would be willing to withdraw his motion.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, could we have this motion stand?


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member in whose name it stands, is it agreeable that the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



FEDERAL BUILDING EXTENSION, JOLIETTE, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Pigeon:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged during the years 1950, 1951 and 1952, between the federal government or any department or agencies thereof, and any persons, societies or organizations, with respect to the second extension to the federal building located on Notre Dame street, in Joliette.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Pigeon:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other department or agency of the federal government and the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other department or agency of the province of Quebec, concerning the conference of the trade commissioners, held in Ottawa, from December 3 to December 16, 1960.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this motion carrying, with the usual provision as to the necessity of first obtaining the permission of the province to have this correspondence tabled.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Cardin:
For a copy of the plans prepared in the Department of Public Works for the construction of a tunnel linking the main parliament building and the west block, and the estimated cost of the project.
Motions for Papers
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, could that stand for a week?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. minister.


David James Walker: Could it stand, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



RICHELIEU WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Cardin:
For a copy of the plans prepared under the authority of the Minister of Public Works since January 1, 1957, for the proposed Richelieu waterway and any estimates of costs of the possible alternate routes together with the proposed depths of each possible alternate route.
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for plans and estimates of costs of the proposed Richelieu waterway prepared under the authority of the Minister of Public Works since January 1, 1957.
As far as our department is concerned, there are no new engineering plans since that date and the estimates of the costs that have been arrived at have been based on plans previously prepared and are contained in departmental reports which, as has already been pointed out, are privileged documents under the established practice of the house.
In the light of the above, perhaps the hon. member would be agreeable to withdrawing the motion.


Mr. Cardin:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. gentleman and his seconder are agreeable. Is the house agreeable that this motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Cardin:
For a copy of the plans prepared under the authority of the Minister of Transport since January 1, 1957, for the proposed Richelieu waterway and any estimates of costs of the possible alternate routes together with the proposed depths of each possible alternate route.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have exactly the same thing to tell the house as my colleague the Minister of Public Works. No new engineering plans have been drawn up since the date of January 1, 1957, and the estimates of costs that have been arrived at have been based on plans previously prepared and are contained in departmental reports which, as has
914	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry been pointed out by my colleague, are privileged documents under the established practice of the house.
In the light of the above, perhaps the hon. member would be agreeable to withdrawing his motion.


Mr. Hellyer:: Have you made any new plans on anything since 1957?


George Harris Hees: A great many new airports.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable that this motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
TRENTON, N.S. STEELWORKERS-CORRESPONDENCE Motion No. 26-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, briefs, and other documents exchanged between the united steelworkers of America, local 1231, Trenton, Nova Scotia, and the right hon. Prime Minister or the Ministers of Transport, Labour and National Revenue, for the period January 1, 1960, to date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has considered the constitutional position resulting from the passage by this house of a bill giving the Senate sole power during this session to deal with divorce bills?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not studied the constitutional position since Friday, but I know the hon. gentleman will recall that while the government of which he was a member held office, and also since, there have been various suggestions made in this regard, and I believe that generally speaking constitutional authorities are of the opinion that such a course is within the jurisdiction of parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers this bill is an amendment to our constitution?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was not giving my own opinion. I was giving the constitutional opinion of the authorities. The hon. gentleman is in as good a position as I am to determine the answer to his own question.



FEED MILL PURCHASES-REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH FARM UNION COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has received a telegram from the interprovincial farm union council asking for a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to discuss the new wheat board regulations authorizing feed mills to buy grain outside wheat board price and quota regulations, and which the farm union contends has resulted in a break-down-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member need not repeat the arguments of the telegram.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet the interprovincial farm union council?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram on Saturday morning, I believe, and on that day I sent a reply to Mr. Gleave, the chairman. I think I can do no better, in answering the question, than to read the telegram sent in reply:
Government supports orderly marketing including quota system. However, western farmers want to market more grain. Standing committee on agriculture recommended flexibility in Canadian wheat board regulations concerning feed mills to facilitate sales. Advisory committee to Canadian wheat board composed of farm organizations divided equally on the issue. I have been informed that feed mill operations only local and amount of grain affected is 10 to 12 million bushels out of a total sales of 500 million bushels of wheat. Please supply evidence and particulars of your statement that "prices for seed grain breaking down". On basis of this information, will consider further action.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister prepared to accede to the request of Mr. Gleave that the order be not issued until such time as a meeting has taken place with the farmers' organizations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman had been paying attention to the answer that was given he would have had an answer to his question. As soon as the government receives the information from Mr. Gleave as to the alleged break-down in the prices of feed grain, then a decision will be made on the question he raised and also the question of the meeting.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister used the words "seed grain" and I believe what he had in mind were the words "feed grain".



I960

John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is
right.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with an earlier question and observation on the part of the hon. member for Assiniboia, I should like to point out that Mr. Gleave, the secretary of the western interprovincial farm union, used these words in his telegram:
Already prices for seed grain are breaking down.
I take it that he must be referring to feed grain, but his telegram dealt with seed grain and it was to seed grain, of course, that I made reference in my reply.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that last Wednesday city of Vancouver voters turned down the sale of the city-owned portion of the Vancouver international airport to the federal government by some 2.3 per cent less than the 60 per cent required to approve the sale, could the minister advise the house whether he has received any communication from the city of Vancouver as to whether any consideration is being given to proposing another referendum to the voters in the near future for sale of the airport? Or has the city decided to proceed with the financing and construction of the $13 million-plus terminal, which is badly required now and should be completed by 1963 at the latest?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any official communication from the city. But I should like to state that it has been my opinion that in view of the domestic and international importance of Vancouver in the air traffic world, it would be suitable for the Department of Transport to assume responsibility for the airport and I believe we made a fair offer for purchase of the city's assets. If, however, the city voters have decided that they wish to retain the airport, we will continue to co-operate with them in operational matters. It now becomes, of course, the responsibility of the city to provide any new terminal facilities which may be needed.



REPORTED SHELVING OF CANADIAN PROPOSAL FOR SUMMIT CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. Will he comment on the shelving in Paris of a Canadian proposal for a NATO summit conference in Ottawa to consider the United States concept of equipping the western alliance with a collective Polaris missile force?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. gentleman has brought two circumstances together. The request for a meeting of heads of government in Ottawa was to discuss the various matters that require to be considered in NATO to assure the maintenance and preservation of NATO.
The situation in recent months, indeed in the last several months, in NATO has not been such as to indicate evidence of that agreement or unity which one would hope would be characteristic of this great defensive organization, and the Canadian representative suggested a meeting of heads of government in Ottawa. The suggestion to hold the heads of government meeting was not generally accepted; as a result, the next council meeting will be held in Oslo.
It was not, as the hon. gentleman suggested, a meeting to deal with Polaris missiles; it was a meeting to deal with the whole field of NATO relations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question on a more general subject. Will the Prime Minister comment on the sentence in the NATO communique in which, presumably, the Canadian delegate concurred, which reads as follows:
There must be a proper balance in the forces of the alliance-
That is, the NATO alliance.
-of nuclear and conventional strength.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had hoped to be here today to give a report and an explanation of what took place at the NATO ministerial meeting. He is expected this evening. He will be available tomorrow to give a full report to the house.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the United States shifting the base for its early warning squadrons from Argentia, Newfoundland, to Iceland as reported in the press?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



QUEBEC CITY-INQUIRY AS TO PROVISION OF TELEVISION STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister say whether the C.B.C. is of the opinion that the cultural, artistic, historical and other elements present in Quebec city and also the importance of the city itself would justify the C.B.C. in establishing a television station and thus satisfy the many representations made along these lines in recent years?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will reply now because the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question yesterday and I asked for a report from the corporation. I am informed that consideration was given some years ago to the establishment of a C.B.C. television station in Quebec city and at that time it was decided that no action would be taken. The corporation is again studying the matter keeping in mind the desirability of providing more of the network program service for the Quebec city audience, as well as the possibility of originating more programs for the French network from this centre of French Canadian culture.



APPEARANCE OF PAUL ROBESON ON CHRISTMAS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware that the C.B.C. has advertised that on Christmas day one of its feature programs will include renditions by Paul Robeson, an international communist. If so, can he tell the house what he has done or intends to do about this program which is now stated to be sponsored?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is to report to the house on matters affecting the C.B.C.

On the orders of the day:


Lionel Chevrier: In the
light of the question put by the parliamentary secretary of the Minister of National Revenue, may I ask the Prime Minister when in the future we may expect ministers to ask each other questions?


George Clyde Nowlan: He is not my parliamentary secretary.


John George Diefenbaker: This used to be characteristic when the former government was in power. I remember so well when that happened on a number of occasions in November, 1956.


Lionel Chevrier: Never.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any information to give the house concerning his recent visit to Washington for negotiations between Canadian and United States representatives with respect to the development of the Columbia river?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have received communications from several members from British Columbia indicating their interest in this matter, so I prepared the following brief report.
The talks in Washington were extremely productive. They were scheduled for December 14 and 15 but were extended for another full day and lasted until 7 p.m. on Friday the 16th. As a result we were able to issue an official communique reporting that our consideration of various drafts of a treaty based on the principles of the progress report of September 28 had produced satisfactory progress toward agreement on a Anal text of a treaty.
As a matter of fact, agreement in principle for purposes of treaty drafting was recorded on all points of substance in connection with the operation of Canadian storages for downstream benefits in terms of power and flood control, and the relation thereto of non-treaty projects which may be developed in Canada. I am satisfied that an acceptable and advantageous result to Canada will ensue. Only one or two points of substance remain to be reduced to the form of agreement for treaty purposes, and these are not concerned with the agreed operation and returns for Canadian storages as such.
A further meeting of negotiators has been arranged for January 5 and 6, 1961, in Ottawa. On the basis of progress to date, I am satisfied that we can reach our Objective as negotiators, that is agreement on a treaty text, very early in the year.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that a Canadian Press dispatch mentions the hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) as a member

of the Canadian team conducting negotiations with respect to the Columbia, will the minister inform the house whether this information is correct and, if so, the date of his appointment?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I did notice that item in the Canadian Press dispatch on my return from Washington on Saturday. Of course I cannot assume responsibility for all that is said by the Canadian Press. In view of the interest of the hon. member for Kootenay West in the matter, I can assure him that if any change is made in the composition of the Canadian team, he and the house will be notified promptly.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received a recent billet-doux from the premier of British Columbia with respect to the financing of the development of the Columbia river? If so, can he give the house any information as to its contents?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have received a communication from the premier of British Columbia, although I do not know whether it would be accurately described as a billet-doux. It is a letter dated December 14, 1960, purporting to be a reply to the letter I wrote to him on December 6, which letter appears at pages 608 and 609 of Hansard of December 8. As Premier Bennett's letter is quite brief, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might read it.
Dear Mr. Fleming:
This will acknowledge your letter of December 6 in reply to my letter to you of October 27.
The financial proposals put forward by the government of Canada for hydroelectric development of the Columbia river are, regrettably, unacceptable to British Columbia. In order that there will be no delay in carrying out the development, however, British Columbia is prepared to guarantee Canada that this government will fulfill the terms of the treaty which is negotiated with the government of the United States. In return, British Columbia would, of course, expect the government of Canada to guarantee that the obligations imposed on the United States government by terms of the treaty will be fulfilled.
Yours faithfully,
W.A.C. Bennett Premier
Concerning the second part of the hon. member's question, I would say that it is a matter of deep regret and disappointment that the premier of British Columbia has undertaken to reject out of hand the very generous, indeed extremely generous, offer
Inquiries of the Ministry made to him on behalf of the federal government in relation to the financing of the Columbia river development. In expressing this very keen regret I think I may be permitted to say that the rejection came so swiftly that one is driven to wonder whether the federal government's offer was fully considered or adequately understood.
In that regard, I may express further regret that the premier of British Columbia did not avail himself of the opportunity that was offered to him at the time he received my letter to discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who was then in Victoria in consultation with ministers of the British Columbia government. I may add that if Premier Bennett is prepared to discuss this matter further I shall be happy to meet him at any time to discuss further the really very generous offer that has been put forward on behalf of the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Finance if this is another example of that new harmony which has been established with the provincial governments?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is another example of the unprecedentedly generous attitude of the federal government toward the provincial governments of this country, and it stands out in stark contrast against the stiff-necked attitude of the previous federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a further supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there had been advance notice of that first supplementary question I do not believe it would have been allowed, so I do not believe I should allow a second supplementary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West. My question is this. In what respect is the offer made by the present government different from the offer made by Mr. Sinclair on behalf of the previous government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The two can hardly be compared.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are exactly the same.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, they are not exactly the same. The fact is that this offer which was contained in my letter of December 6, and which had been the subject of previous discussions between the ministers of the two governments, is an offer that stands on its own feet, is marked by extraordinary generosity, and is the outcome of the success of my colleagues who represented

Inquiries of the Ministry the federal government in the discussions with the representatives of the United States and of the province of British Columbia in negotiating for the first time an agreement which led to the treaty embodying the agreement of the governments for the development of the waters of the Columbia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if he does not think it would be a good thing if the two governments stopped playing politics with this important matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I can only suggest that the hon. member should stop playing politics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should not allow that question, because it will lead to a debate and I shall not be able to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to reply and, therefore, there will be general discontent.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the importance of the lobster fishery, and also the heavy financial investment in fishing nets in Nova Scotia, will the minister advise the house whether steps are being taken to protect the equipment in the St. Margaret bay area and of other inshore fishermen of Nova Scotia from destruction caused by naval craft carrying out operations too close to shore?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving notice of this question. In answer I wish to say the following. In general, ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and other naval craft have always taken and will continue to take every possible precaution, consistent with safety, to avoid damage to fishing equipment, not only in the St. Margaret bay area and other parts of Nova Scotia but wherever such equipment is being encountered. When naval authorities are informed that fishing nets have been laid in given areas, local orders are given to naval vessels to keep clear of those areas. If the hon. member has a particular incident in mind I would be glad to ask for a report on it,



INTERNATIONAL HERRING CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  E. J. Brooms@Vancouver South: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries of which I have given him notice. In view of the importance of the herring fishery on the west coast, and the curtailment in herring fishing due to extremely low world prices for herring meal and oil, has a decision yet been reached with respect to Canadian participation in the conference on herring fish meal and oil to be convened by the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations in Rome this coming spring? If so, does the Canadian government intend to make any contribution toward the special cost of this meeting?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, it has been decided that Canada will be represented at this meeting if and when it takes place. It has only been tentatively called as yet. It has also been decided that the sum of $2,500 will be allotted toward the special cost of holding such a meeting.



REQUEST FOR DATES AND DETAILS OF EXPORT PERMITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the reluctance of the minister to table the export permits authorizing the sale to Cuba of goods on the export control list, would he advise the house of the dates upon which these permits have been issued and the type and quantity of goods covered by these permits in each case?


George Harris Hees: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker. If I find there is nothing contrary to the usual practice and the confidential nature of these permits, I will let the hon. member know.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is there any possibility of issuing interim pay cheque before Christmas to part time holiday help in the Post Office Department inasmuch as so many of these men have been unemployed for so long?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, most of these people are either students or housewives, and in their cases the question of unemployment certainly does not arise. Unfortunately the issuance of cheques to them at this time is not possible. The matter is a responsibility of the comptroller of the treasury, and there are difficulties in the way.


Erhart Regier: In view of the fact that in New Westminster unemployed persons are being given preference, would the minister look into the matter to see whether he might not be able to exercise some influence?


William McLean Hamilton: We
have, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Nipissing inquired if the review being made of proposals to deepen the Ottawa river would include the area above Ottawa. While the study at this time centres primarily on the section of the Ottawa river between Montreal and Ottawa, it will take into account the situation above Ottawa.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will be tabling today for the information of parliament any budget papers similar to those that are usually tabled prior to a budget, such papers as usually carry on the frontispiece the words "budget papers"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he received complaints from Mr. Joseph Thain of the international union of operating engineers in connection with working and health conditions at certain private construction camps on the South Saskatchewan river dam project? If so, can he advise the house what action has been taken?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Incidentally, I received notice from the hon. member for Saskatoon that he was also interested in a reply to this question. I have received today a copy of a letter written by Mr. Thain. Officials of the public health engineering division of my department are now investigating the matter, and I shall be pleased to advise the house of further developments.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the government given approval to the construction of six submarines which it is reported will cost $25 million each? If so, will the work on these undersea craft be shared by all shipbuilding yards in Canada, including the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I would reply that there is no contract demand from the Department of National Defence to my department for the construction or allocation of construction of submarines.



REPORTED INTENTION TO INCREASE INDEMNITIES OF MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: May I ask
a question of the Prime Minister involving considerations of extraordinary generosity. Knowing by repute that when Jackson of the Journal releases smoke there may be a prime ministerial fire, I would ask the Prime Minister where and when he expressed the view attributed to him in Saturday's Ottawa Journal that if and when there is a parliamentary pay raise it will have to be part of a package deal which must include a daily roll call?


John George Diefenbaker: I did not read that observation, but I can say this. At no time has there been any consideration given to an increase in indemnities for members; therefore there can be no package in respect of something that is non-existent.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration SHIPPING



REPORTED INTENTION TO ESTABLISH CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and ask him if the plans to establish a merchant marine will be based on a depreciation provision, financial assistance for construction of new ships and a tonnage replacement plan, as currently being reported?


Léon Balcer: Whatever plans are contained in that legislation will be made known to the house when the legislation is introduced.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: As this may be the last opportunity before the Minister of Finance brings in his budget, may I take advantage of his obviously generous spirit today and ask him if in the preparation and presentation of his budget he will give consideration to the representations made by the hon. member for Fort William and myself urging the elimination of the excise tax on automobiles?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may perhaps classify that question as pressing for action, but these questions relating to excise tax and other fiscal matters are not customarily asked on orders of the day.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Indian agencies-
578. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $50,000.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I was unable to be present on Friday when these estimates came before the committee, but I have read the report of the proceedings in Hansard and I propose to make what I think will be an explanation of the various points raised. If at the conclusion of these remarks any members feel that any points have not been covered, or if they have further questions, I shall be pleased to attempt to answer them with the aid of my parliamentary secretary, who did such an excellent job on Friday, and the officials who are here for the purpose of supplying information.

These explanations have reference to the total amount of $1,299,500 which is requested in these seven votes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a little quiet in the committee. Some of us are trying to follow the hon. lady.


The Chairman:: May I ask hon. members to lower their voices so we can hear the minister.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The votes requested in these supplementary estimates are in addition to those provided under the departmental votes for the current fiscal year. These additional amounts will enable the department to undertake work projects apart from those already carried out or yet to be performed under the regular construction program for 1960-61, and will provide additional employment on various Indian reserves across Canada.
Included in the total estimate is an amount of $250,000, which will provide funds to finance a departmental program of winter works for Indians on various reserves. The purpose of this program is to assist those bands which have insufficient funds to participate in the winter works incentive program sponsored by the Department of Labour.
It should be made clear that these items have no connection whatever with the Department of Labour program for which funds are being requested under item 592 of the supple-mentaries. I should add, however, that Indian bands that have funds at their disposal are applying for consideration under the Department of Labour winter works incentive program and as of December 9 some 32 projects were approved for an amount of $189,950. It is our estimate that these projects will supply 550 Indians with work.
However, to return to the supplementary estimates of my own department, may I say this. The $250,000 of which I spoke a moment ago is to be found in four estimates. In this regard I may say that I can see where there might have been a little bit of confusion because of these estimates having been split into four separate parcels. However, I can assure hon. members that this was not the doing of my department or my officials but rather was the course insisted upon by the treasury board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Confusion in the board?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I agree that it might have been a little bit clearer had we not been required to put in four estimates, but since they perhaps fall into four categories they felt that it was proper that the apportionment should fall into those categories. Under the first item, 578, Indian agencies, operation and

maintenance, the amount is $50,000. Under the next item, item 579, it is $150,000; under item 580 it is $35,000 and under item 581 it is $15,000 which brings the total tor this project to $250,000. Then there is a total of $5,000 in the next item, 582, which is also entirely for labour.
The projects to be undertaken under these items are of the type in which the maximum amount of day labour will be used, and Indians to be employed will be paid at rates prevailing in their areas.
As of December 13 some 124 projects had been approved. These projects we expect will call for an expenditure of $235,675. These projects cover such things as brushing and clearing roadways, housing, sites, school playgrounds, repairs to existing roads where possible, repairs to water supply systems, cutting fuel wood for destitute Indians and other work. Additional projects will be dealt with as applications are received from the field offices. It is estimated that approximately 1,430 Indians, mainly heads of families, will be employed on the 124 projects.
The remaining amount of this further supplementary estimate which will be in the amount of $1,049,500 is to cover works in addition to or to accelerate projects provided for in the main estimates of the current fiscal year. These additional works will provide for an additional amount of employment in areas where they are to be executed, not only for Indians but for non-Indians as well.
I think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who is momentarily absent from the chamber, asked some questions with reference to works which had been undertaken or were about to be undertaken in his area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. lady would permit me to ask one question before she goes on to that matter. It might clear up all our difficulties.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have listened as attentively as I could to the hon. lady's explanation of the whole amount of $1,299,500. I understand that a quarter of a million is for new projects in the winter works program, and the rest is for accelerated work on existing or regular projects, so that the whole of the additional vote that is being asked for is for construction work of one kind and another. Is that correct?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is true, Mr. Chairman. I thought I made that point clear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So did I, but I just wanted to make sure. I was trying to help the hon. lady.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member knows that it is sometimes a little difficult to draw the line clearly between what is an existing project and a brand new one. With regard to some of these projects it would be rather hard to say whether we have a chunk to add on to an existing project or whether we have merely accelerated one which was in process. However, I can assure him that this is all work, and we have tried to concentrate on the type of projects that will give the utmost in labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I was really trying to get at is this. There is nothing in any of these items for administrative expenses of the department or for school books under education. It is all for work or construction of one kind or another.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is quite correct.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 578 carry?


Mr. Howard:: No. I understood that the minister was going to embark upon an explanation with respect to some point raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked her to clear up this other point.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, I had started to do that. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked a question or I think made the remark that although some interest had been shown by the department, he did not think anything had been undertaken. I might inform him that at Kenora a packing shed and ice house was constructed at Shoal lake, Grassy Narrows, Whitedog, Dallas and Lake of the Woods at Scotty island. At Fort Frances a packing shed and ice house was contructed at Lac la Croix. At Port Arthur a packing shed and ice house was constructed at Gull bay on lake Nipigon. In line with our program of further developing commercial fisheries as licences can be obtained, we plan the following capital works investment for 1961-62. I think perhaps I had better not embark on that matter, because it comes in our next year's estimates and I do not want to confuse matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be extremely interesting.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not want to confuse the issue. So far as winter works employment projects are concerned among these agencies, we have appropriated between Kenora, Port Arthur and Fort Frances a total of $15,700; and the bands themselves have indicated their intention to contribute a further $265.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the minister say that one of those places was Dalles?

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: One of the places in which something had already been done previous to this program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is Dalles?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is not in Texas; I can say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is Dalles?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is in the Kenora district.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Does the former minister not know where it is?


Mr. Nixon:: Can the minister say whether any of this money is being expended on works in Algoma?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, there are works for that area. I was just answering the question asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Algoma West was the first one to ask the question.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, but I was dealing with only the one question. I shall be glad to answer the question of the hon. member for Algoma West. I am afraid I have them all together in one group for northern Ontario, and I cannot pick out the ones that are in Algoma.


George Ewart Nixon: We will take them in that form.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do you want me to read them out? There are about 20 of them. There is one project at Fort Severn. It will employ eight Indians, and is in the amount of $1,500. One at Moose Factory will employ ten, $3,000; one at Trout Lake will employ ten, $2,000. Is this the information hon. members wish?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is very helpful.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: One at Wunnummin Lake will employ six, $2,000. One at Kasabanika Lake will employ six, $1,300. Two at Deer Lake will employ six, $3,350. Ane at Sandy Lake will employ ten, $3,400. Three at Osna-burgh will employ 201, $4,900. One at Lac Seul will employ ten, $2,900.
I might say that the Indians are also contributing to some of these; for example, the one I have just cited. One at Cat lake will employ six, $1,400. One at Bearskin lake will employ six, $1,300. One at Rat Portage will employ three, $600. One at Islington will employ 25, $7,000. One at Grassy Narrows will employ ten, $3,000. One at Wabigoon will employ six, $2,000. One at Shoal Lake will employ six, $800. One at Couchiching lake will employ six, $500.


George Ewart Nixon: That is not in northern Ontario.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is in the division of the department which falls under the general heading of northern Ontario.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Algoma West are interested but they are not getting anywhere.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is not the same Couchiching. This is another one. One at Naicatchew-enin will employ nine, $800. One at Gull bay will employ five, $1,000. One at Batchewana will employ ten, $1,500. This makes a total of 22 projects, employment for 178 Indians and a total of $44,250 in addition to what is being contributed by the bands.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the minister could explain why Algoma West and Algoma East should have been omitted from this list of projects.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: These are projects that have been asked for by Indian bands for which application has been made. As I mentioned before, in addition to those for which application have been made for funds to be provided by the department, there are also the projects which will come under the winter works incentive program where the bands have funds and where they, in effect, take the place of the municipality.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would like to ask a question following the list of names of these particular bands which the minister has read. I think perhaps they should have been classified under three different headings, one of the headings being those which have been participating or are going to participate under the winter works program, another being those who have no band funds to participate with themselves and therefore are going to have some grants or some contribution made under these votes as indicated by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance on Friday last, and those who have insufficient band funds.
Perhaps I could make this quick reference to that list which the minister read. I did not get them all; I was trying to jot them down to the best of my ability, but she made reference to Moose Factory as a band which would participate in this way. As of February 29, 1960, the Moose Factory band did not have one penny in its capital account or one penny in its revenue account. I assume this would be one of those bands which would fall into the class of having money applied to it under one of these votes in order to equalize its position vis-a-vis bands which have money.
The minister also made reference to the Dalles band, Kenora agency, which as of the same date had $61,645 in its capital account.

The minister also made reference to Grassy Narrows, which band has $3,171; and Islington, which has $382, omitting the cents. I just wondered about the classification of those bands.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What I neglected to say, and should have said in the first instance, was that in addition to those bands which have no funds some of these projects would be for bands which have funds but which do not qualify under the terms of the winter works incentive program. In order to provide them with work we have put them in our list. But some of these have been referred to my department by the Department of Labour because a particular project which had been requested was not one which fell within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour in the type of program which it has promoted. I think that is the answer.


Charles Benjamin Howard: As I said earlier, I think this is why the projects relating to the particular bands concerned should have been broken down into different classes, because it has left it up in the air so far as I am concerned.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As the house knows, we do not usually have extensive discussion on these supplementary estimates such as we have had in this particular instance. We can break these figures down; we can put them into whatever classifications hon. members require. But unless we know what is required, it is a great waste of time and considerable expense to compile a wide variety of classifications. If those classifications and the information I have given to the house are not sufficient for my hon. friend's purpose, if he would like to put a question on the order paper we will make sure he gets a return giving him the information he desires.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I gathered from the hon. lady's reference that it is not so much our requiring information which perhaps normally is not required and advanced at this stage of a supplementary estimate, but perhaps intensive consideration on the basis of what the parliamentary secretary to the minister said on Friday last, that this was something new, that it really was not a supplement since it envisaged a new concept.
At that time we were trying to determine what was new about it, and we finally discovered that, so this is perhaps a carryover of the discussion we had last Friday. The minister undoubtedly gave the information to the committee on that basis and, as I said, by comparing the figures I have here it did not seem to jell with some bands having a fair amount of money and others having none. We were trying to find out what was
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the inconsistency, if there was one, between bands having some money and others having none.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I explained to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that it is very hard to say what is exactly new. When the parliamentary secretary said these were new projects he was referring to the fact that they came forward on application from the various bands and would probably be projects that in the ordinary course of events would not be proceeded with at this time of year. However, in line with the program of the Minister of Labour we decided to extend the same facilities to bands, whether or not they had funds, as were extended to municipalities. Without splitting hairs, a great many of them would be new. They are not new votes, but it might be an individual project that would ordinarily not have been taken up at this time of year.
I am sure that is a reasonable explanation. I am sure the hon. member does not wish to quibble over this.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No. I think you should perhaps convince the Minister of Finance, for future use, that he should not mislead the house when he explains what these things are all about, or the manner in which we are going to deal with them.


Mr. Michaud:: I wonder if the minister would care to explain how it is that none of the bands in the maritime provinces seem to come into any of these projects.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, they do come in. There are two projects which will employ 40 Indians for an amount of $2,000. One is at Indian Brook and the other at Devon. These are the only ones for which we have had applications. As I explained previously, if the bands are to participate they must in the first instance make application to the department.


Mr. Hardie:: Can the minister tell me what projects will be taking place in the Northwest Territories?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There are two in the district of Yukon, one at Old Crow and the other at Fort Rae, which will employ 22 Indians and involve an expenditure of $5,500.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Can the minister tell me what work these projects involve?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am informed that at Old Crow it involves bringing out logs for housing and at Fort Rae a brushing project.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Brushing what?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Removing brush.
924	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: For what reason? Is it brushing for an extension to a road or brushing sites that may be used for housing developments in the future? What are they brushing, or are they going out just for the sake of brushing?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not have this information nor do my officials have it. We will be glad to secure it for the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. lady say whether any of them are clearing the underbrush for the Prime Minister?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That seems to be adequately taken care of by the non-Indians, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the minister tell us the position of the contract of the Fort Frances residential school? My reason for asking is that I saw a notice from the civil service the other day asking for people to service this contract. I understood that the tender had been let and work would be getting under way almost immediately. This civil service bid made me wonder whether it will be next spring before that big project gets under way.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is not particularly under our department; it is a public works project. I understand that tenders have been received, but so far I have no information to the effect that the contract has been let. I am sorry I cannot answer that at the moment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is one other point about which I am curious. I am trying to see the pattern in Kenora and Port Arthur in relation to these projects. It seems to me that most of them-and this is probably to the good1- are undertaken with Indians who are off the beaten track, that is small bands not close to the major economic force of the particular region. Where can we get information to indicate that the perhaps more prosperous bands that are closer to general economic activities, such as pulp and paper and mining, have projects in hand that will provide them with work this winter?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As I said a few moments ago, these projects are not selected by this department on the basis of where we could establish a project. They are considered and allocated on the basis of the applications which are made to the department. For the information of the committee I propose to table a list of the 32 projects which are being handled under the winter works incentive program of the Department of Labour. Possibly in that list my hon. friend will find some of the bands to which he has reference.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thank the minister. I do not know the details yet, but in view of the attempts the minister's branch is making to
[Mrs. Fairclough.!

bring the Indian land under some greater form of forest management I thought there might have been projects considered this winter that would have had to do with improving, through intensive management measures, some of the land held by the Indians. I am thinking of measures that cannot take place in the winter, such as pruning and weeding. I have a general question. Have any of these projects any value as forest management projects?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All of these projects are under constant scrutiny by the department. If the hon. member wishes to telephone my office with respect to specific cases we will be glad to give him any information with regard to specific areas.
Perhaps I might say a word for the benefit of the hon. member for Mackenzie River. My officials tell me that in addition to what I have already said there is a road being constructed east of Yellowknife by Indian labour. I presume the hon. gentleman is familiar with that project. The money for that is being supplied by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I must say that during recent years, and after considerable prodding by myself, the Indian affairs branch have begun making little starts, and they are standing up to the onslaught of other departments in my particular area and are increasing their staff somewhat. I wonder if the minister could advise me why it is that the Indian agent appointed at Fort Rae, the biggest Indian settlement in my riding, has had no housing provided for him. Would the minister advise me whether or not this housing project will be a part of this winter works program?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, housing for an agent would not fall under this program. I might say in that regard that the whole question the hon. member raises is one of administration. We propose to look into this matter, of course, but it would not be under this program. The housing under this program is housing for Indians.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I wish to ask the minister for a break-down of the funds to be expended in my area without discrimination as to whether they are under the winter works project or from band funds. Could the minister indicate the bands involved under the supplementary estimates in the agencies of Babine, Bella Coola, Burns Lake, Queen Charlotte, Skeena River and Terrace in my constituency?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does my hon. friend want me to dig out this information now or will he be satisfied if I send it to him.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I thought it would be readily available, because the minister mentioned the Ontario ones.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure it will be readily available but it would have to be compiled. There are two separate projects at Bella Coola, one of which was voted the other day. That is a $3,000 project for a playground which is being undertaken with the help of band funds. The other is a housing project involving an expenditure of some $3,130-I am not sure of the exact figure offhand-going forward under these votes. I would have to break down this information according to band and project and what proportion of each particular one is paid out of band funds and what proportion out of departmental funds. I am quite prepared to provide that information to the hon. gentleman, but it would hold up the proceedings a while if we were to dig it out now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not wish to hold up things. I thought it was readily available. There is one particular item I should like to inquire into. It has to do with the communication which the minister addressed to me pursuant to an inquiry of mine dated December 7, and which lists the projects and the improvements with respect to the winter works incentive program. I appreciate the fact that this may not fall specifically under the minister's jurisdiction, since the Department of Labour is involved. I should like to know about one matter before I proceed to make inquiries about it. Perhaps I can make clear what I have in mind.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the hon. member mean the various projects at Skidegate?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am concerned with one of them. It is the question of the breakwater. There is an estimated cost of $1,475.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Where?


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is the specific one I am concerned about.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, that is one of the items included under the Department of Labour's winter works incentive program and to which the band contributes from band funds.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is perhaps one that should be inquired about when we get to supplementary item No. 592.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, possibly; that comes under the Department of Labour.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am wondering about item 578. Do I take it that the $50,000 is provided for construction items for Indians only, or
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration is this $50,000 a supplementary item that is needed to carry on the operation and maintenance of Indian agencies?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, these are winter works projects, and there are 29 of them in various parts of the country. I am told that they are mostly repairs. The item refers to maintenance of agency buildings, but it is mostly repairs, and work which will be given to the Indians.
While I am answering the hon. member, may I say I have now received some information on the Fort Rae project, which I am told consists of brushing of building sites and constructing sanitation facilities. On the Old Crow site, the hon. member may be interested to know that we expect to break out 15,000 feet of building logs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare of Indians-*
580. Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $35,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: This item is listed under welfare of Indians. I am having some difficulty with this item. I see that the explanation refers to employment projects for Indians, but the estimates book talks about construction and acquisition of buildings, works, lands, and so forth. I wonder whether this is considered as supplementary to what we refer to as welfare payments to native people in the same sense that we consider welfare payments in the municipalities to people who are absolutely desperate. This is not a contribution to the individual, is it?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Chairman. This is for work which is classified as welfare work; that is, houses or buildings which are constructed for use by some of these people. There is no cash remittance to Indians involved in it other than for labour performed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Economic development of Indians-
582.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, further amount required, $5,000.
Charles Benjamin Howard: If I understand it correctly, this item relates to a recently developed or a recently established division or branch within the department, namely the economic development branch. Am I talking about the right thing now? Is this what it relates to?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This would appear to me to be one of the most important functions of the Indian affairs branch at this particular time. It is a comparatively new item dealing with the economic development and economic possibilities of the native Indian people, and how

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration those people can best fit into our economic society, one which is not necessarily compatible with their own economic or social background. While it is true that this is a supplementary estimate, yet it is of such importance that if you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee would not mind, I wonder whether the minister would go a little beyond the rules of the house and give an explanation of the hopes and aspirations of the department in so far as this particular division or branch is concerned.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, we had not intended to go ahead with this particular item at this time, but in itself it is a new project under the general heading of this type of undertaking. It involves clearing of land by hand labour in the New Westminster and Nicola Indian agencies. The land when cleared will then be available for agricultural activity. I agree with my hon. friend that this is a most important part of the activity of our department. We are working as quickly as we can, without attempting to rush those people faster than they are prepared to go, but I think it is a most valuable part of the work of my department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian education-
583.	Administration, operation and maintenance, further amount required, $483,000.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather large item when we compare it with the following item of $245,000 for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment. When I read in the details that the repairs and upkeep of the buildings cost almost half a million dollars, I think this is a rather large amount to be found in estimates of this kind. Will the minister explain whether there is any over-all program under which it has been decided that Indian residential schools are to be completely renovated?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No. Under this vote we have a number of projects. It is largely for major and minor repairs and renovations to Indian day and residential schools, put forward at this time as a winter works program, which would not have been undertaken at this time of year otherwise. This includes painting, decorating, minor carpentry and such major installations as replacement of boilers, installation of tiles, reconstruction of fire escapes, installation of stand-by power plants, and so on. There are two full pages of these items. I will not attempt to read them. If there is any further information the hon. member would like I should be glad to try to find it for him.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, again I should like to indicate that this is one of the things that we should be prepared to abandon. I think we should get out of the education field and place the education of our native people in the hands of the provinces, where the education of other children is carried on. While I realize this is not the place to mention it, I think I should express the thought again and hope that the concerted policy and effort of the Indian affairs branch will be to move toward the complete integration of our native Indian children into the provincial educational systems so that we shall not have this situation any longer.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure that the hon. member, who knows a great deal about Indian affairs, will agree with me that there are still some quite remote places where, if the Indian child is to be educated at all, we will have to keep these schools in operation for some time. It is an admirable aim, of course, that all Indian children may at some time be integrated into our non-Indian schools so they will be educated under exactly the same conditions and associate with their fellow Canadians of non-Indian status. We are working toward that end, but it is something that I fear will take some time.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have a list of the projects approved to date under the winter works incentive program. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to table it but I will be glad to ask my colleague, the Minister of Labour, to table this list of projects when the appropriate vote is reached so that hon. members may have it for their perusal.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to make one comment about what the minister has said with respect to a number of Indian villages being relatively isolated and perhaps having to remain under the Indian affairs branch educational system for some time. I would point out that there are a number of nonIndian communities in British Columbia that, comparatively speaking, are just as isolated as some of the Indian villages, and they seem to get along fairly well under our provincial educational system.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: What method does the department use in recruiting Indians for vocational training in the Northwest Territories?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I cannot really see how that comes under these votes. If the hon. member would like me to write him a letter of explanation I would be glad to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

584.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $245,000.
Erhart Regier: Would the minister tell us whether this item covers only one institution or a large number? When the building of a new school is involved $245,000 is not a very large amount. If the item only applies to a limited number, could we be informed where they are?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is only one. This additional amount is required to complete the construction of St. Mary's mission Indian residential school. The rate of construction has been faster than we anticipated, and there are insufficient funds in our 1960-61 estimates to meet progress payments. Unless we have this additional item we will be unable to proceed at this time.


Erhart Regier: Where is this school located?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is up the Fraser river about 30 miles from Vancouver.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Contributions to international economic and special
aid programs-
Bilateral economic aid programs-
585.	West Indies assistance program-further amount required, $750,000.
Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether we could have some explanation of this item from the minister or the parliamentary secretary. Is the Minister of Finance going to look after this item?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the absence of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will be glad to endeavour to answer questions with respect to this item and the next one.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee the discussion of this very matter that took place on a further supplementary estimate not so long ago, at which time I asked a number of pertinent questions arising out of arrangements made with the federation of the West Indies. My understanding is that in the first instance the government made an arrangement with the federation for the provision of one ship. I have forgotten the year, but I believe it was 1957 or perhaps early 1958.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Late 1958.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister corrects me and says it was late 1958. Later there was a further commitment, following a statement made in the house by the Prime Minister, I believe, or someone else that a second ship 90205-6-59
Supply-External Affairs would be provided for the federation. I think the house should be brought up to date on what is happening, because it is now well over two years, I think, from the time the first ship was promised.
I believe the house was given some indication of the difficulties that arose between the government and federation as to the kind of ship required. I remember asking questions of the former minister of trade and commerce, whose responsibility it was at the time, I think, or who answered the questions in any event, with respect to whether this was to be a cargo ship with provision for passenger accommodation as well and also what was the tonnage, what was the cost, what was the scheduled service between the federation and Canada, and was the ship to be used exclusively between Canada and the federation or between several ports within the federation of the British West Indies and several ports of Canada as well.
I think I also asked at the time when it was expected that the ship would be completed and in readiness for operation, and I believe the answer given was "certainly by 1960". I know there have been some difficulties about the plans and specifications. I know that the federation has not been quite satisfied with the recommendations of the committee established for the purpose of supervising the construction of the ship.
I should like the minister to bring us up to date on this matter. Would he tell us whether this committee still exists and is still in operation? What is the status of the first ship and the status of the second ship? Has the idea of turning over a Canadian National Steamships vessel been abandoned entirely? The minister will remember that at one stage it was suggested that consideration should be given to handing over to the federation some of the vessels of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and I know that at the time the answer was that they were not suitable. Nevertheless, they operated between ports of the maritime provinces, the port of Montreal and the West Indies Federation over a period of many years and carried much of the trade between our two countries. In the circumstances it was natural that we should ask why these ships were not being used.
I do not know that we have had a satisfactory answer. Perhaps now, in the light of what has transpired and in view of the progress that has been made with the construction of these ships, it is possible to give a more complete answer to that question. Would the minister bring us fully up to date on this whole problem, which I am sure is of interest to the house?

Supply

External Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it was at the commonwealth trade and economic conference at Montreal in the autumn of 1958 that those of us who were there representing the Canadian government announced a program of $10 million of assistance to the new federation of the West Indies. It was intended that this program would be spread over a five-year period. What elements should enter into the program were, of course, to be a matter for discussion between the representatives of the government of Canada and the representatives of the federation. Very early the representatives of the federation asked for a ship.
Let me say at once that this was not intended to be a ship operating between Canada and the West Indies. That is why, as the hon. member for Laurier has indicated, it was stated at the time that the type of ships that were in the fleet of the Canadian National West Indies steamship service were not regarded by the West Indies Federation representatives as suitable.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just say a word there? The minister is aware that these ships in the Canadian National West Indies steamship fleet operated between the various islands now forming part of the federation today.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was sought by the representatives of the federation was a ship for interisland shipping purposes. The islands of the federation are scattered over 2,000 miles in the Atlantic ocean, and it was thought a ship, and then later a second ship, would be of great benefit in welding these scattered islands together with some sense of common interest. The provision of one ship for interisland service was, therefore, approved.
Soon after a request was made for a second ship, and that request was also approved. The letting of the contracts for this purpose was approved by cabinet in October, 1959. The contract for the construction of one ship was awarded to Port Weller Dry Dock Limited, Port Weller, Ontario, and the other to Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal. The ships are identical. Each will have a cargo capacity of 80,000 cubic feet. There will be accommodation for 50 cabin passengers and 200 deck passengers on each ship. Originally it appeared that the cost of the two ships would amount to as much as $7.5 million.


Lionel Chevrier: Each?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, in aggregate. Further discussions have taken place from time to time and changes have been made in the specifications. The present estimate is that the two ships will cost in aggregate $6


million. We had, as a government, some concern over so much of the aid program going into the provision of the two ships, at a time when it appeared that the cost of the two would amount to the larger figure I mentioned, the $7.5 million. We had hoped that some of the original $10 million program would be available for other purposes. The scaling down of the cost of these ships from the estimated $7.5 million to $6 million in aggregate opened the way for the provision of some other elements in the aid program. These will be coming forward, it is expected, in the next fiscal year.
Now, less progress was made last year, that is in the last fiscal year, on the construction of these ships than had been expected, and there was some money left in the vote for this purpose at the end of the year. In the main estimates for the present fiscal year, 1960-61, there was a total amount provided in item 78 of $4,510,000 for this West Indies assistance program. Hon. members will recall having approved that vote, and that it included provision for the ships.
In the meantime the pace of progress has quickened, and by the provision of this proposed additional sum in the present supplementary estimates, item No. 585, it will be possible to accelerate substantially the construction of these two ships. This sum of $750,000 will be required to carry forward the construction of these ships at this accelerated rate to March 31.


Lionel Chevrier: May I have a few further details? Would the minister tell the committee when the contract was awarded for the first ship and for the second ship, or were both awarded at the same time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My note is that it was on October 26 that the letting of contracts for both ships was approved.


Lionel Chevrier: What transpired between the year 1958, the time when the first ship was approved, and October 26, 1959? More than a year elapsed before the contract was awarded. What was the reason for the delay?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Discussions commenced, Mr. Chairman, in the winter of 195859, and it was in March, 1959 that approval was given on behalf of the Canadian government to the provision of the two ships. Then there were further discussions between the representatives of Canada and the federation with a view to settling the specifications of the ships. This required some considerable time. On the one hand the federation representatives were asking for certain things in the ships, and on the other the concern of the Canadian government was that the utmost value should be obtained from the

grants that were being made in terms of benefit in the construction of the ships, and there were extended discussions about the specifications of the two vessels.


Mr, Chevrier:: Are both ships alike?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, my information is that they are identical.


Lionel Chevrier: Will they be assigned exclusively to interisland transportation and not between the federation and Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am informed that is the intention of the government of the federation.


Lionel Chevrier: The cost of the ships, according to the minister, will run now to about $6 million, and we voted in the main estimates about $4,800,000. There is another $750,000 here-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not $4,800,000; it was $4,510,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, $4,510,000, then, and now another $750,000, making a total of $5,200,000-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is expected that the ships will be completed in June of next year.


Lionel Chevrier: In June, 1961?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the minister, then, how much has been spent thus far of the amount provided in the main estimates, $4,510,000?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot give the hon. member the precise figure on expenditures at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but the sum is largely expended and I am told that unless we make this provision, to continue the construction at the present accelerated pace the fund voted by parliament in the main estimates will be exhausted, and we will fall short of the amount required by $750,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Now, Mr. Chairman, from the time the announcement was made until the ships are delivered will be approximately four years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. member referring to the announcement of the government's plan at the Montreal conference in 1958?


Lionel Chevrier: I am referring to the first announcement in 1958.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Lionel Chevrier: I take it that all of this item is for the ships and for no other purpose?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister tell us what the other $4 million will be used for in connection with aid to the West Indies?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a matter
that is under discussion at the present time. I believe that in the estimates for the year 1961-62 we will have most of the program for the commitment of the balance of the $10 million.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister cannot tell us the purpose for which any of this will be used?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, there is nothing final in the way of approval on the balance of the program. There are some matters that are under discussion such as, for instance, harbour improvements and the deepening of harbour waters. There are some other proposals that are being considered. This question will be determined in the light of discussions between the two governments, as to where Canada's aid could be applied to the utmost advantage.


Erhart Regier: The minister is asking for $750,000 as part of a $6 million program to supply the West Indies federation with some ships for which they have asked.
I read in the newspapers that the government has announced the beginning of a Canadian merchant marine. Because the matter has been mentioned here within the past number of minutes I wonder whether the minister can tell us exactly what the position is today with regard to the sale of the vessels we had-I refer to those of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited- who owns them now and exactly what is the position. Have we already received the money for them or we are likely to find them back on our hands again? I am asking this question because we are now voting money to build new ships.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That question has nothing to do with the item under review here at all. That would have to be a matter in relation to the Department of Transport, not in relation to this item in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. That matter was fully reported on to the house two years ago, I think it was. The ships were sold at that time. I do not know what further sales, if any, were made of the ships in the meantime since the sales were made by the federal government at that time. However, that matter is not within the scope of the present item which is a matter of aid, according

Supply-External Affairs to the form of aid or assistance requested by the federation of the West Indies.


Erhart Regier: All I want to speak on is the point of order. I aim glad the minister has told us that he does not know the answer to what I asked him. However, the minister might have saved himself from raising a long point of order because we are asked to pay for some new boats while we may very well realize, within a limited number of months, that we have a large number of vessels for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special aid programs-
586.	Contribution towards the administrative expenses of the freedom-from-hunger campaign of the Food and Agriculture Organization, $23,000.
Erhart Regier: Can the minister explain this item? I do not notice an item in the blue book under this heading.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 586, which is one for $23,000, is for a contribution on a once and for all basis, not a continuing form of contribution, toward the administrative expenses of a campaign organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization and known as the freedom from hunger campaign. This matter dates from October, 1959 when, at the tenth conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations held at Rome authorization was given to the director general to proceed with the development of a five-year campaign, namely the freedom from hunger campaign, designed to speed up production in food deficient countries. The campaign has developed from that genesis. In July, 1960 the campaign was officially opened at Rome with messages of support from many countries. The director general of the F.A.O. formally asked the Canadian government as well as governments of other countries to provide a second grant toward the administrative expenses of the campaign and to permit the establishment of a local committee.
Canada's share has been worked out on the basis of the same percentage as applies to Canada's share of the United Nations budget, namely 3.11 per cent. The $23,000 represents Canada's share on that percentage basis. The United Kingdom has followed the same course, as also has the Netherlands government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister give us any particulars about the local committee which is supposed to be appointed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a Canadian committee but this vote has nothing to do with the Canadian committee. This vote

provides Canada's share of the campaign expenses of the committee set up at Rome.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister able to say whether this item has in fact anything to do with the proposed world food bank mentioned by the Prime Minister from time to time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course the food bank is something that must be taken into account in any plans that are concerted in this respect. However, the primary purpose of this present campaign is to do what may be possible to increase the production of food in food deficient countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE	*
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
587.	Miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses, subject to the approval of the treasury board, including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act-further amount required, $1,500,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it not rather unusual in the supplementary estimates to be asking for such a large addition as this one to the contingencies and miscellaneous item? Can the minister say how much of what was voted in the regular estimates has been expended in this vote and why it is necessary to have such a large sum at this time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I shall be glad to give that information. This present estimate is an unusual item. Normally, or at least in recent years, the house has voted $1,500,000 for this contingency purpose in the main estimates. The amount is often exceeded but the expenditure charged against the item at no time is permitted to exceed that sum. However, as amounts are paid out of the fund with authorization they are sometimes replaced as the result of the enactment subsequently of supplementary estimates.
In seven of the last eight years the amount of the vote has been $1,500,000. In the year 1955-56 it was $1 million, but $1,500,000 has become a sort of standard amount. The reason for asking for the additional sum at this time is in order to facilitate the acceleration of works programs; it is entirely intended for acceleration. The sum committed already against this item exceeds $1.3 million and it is expected that in order to take care of the acceleration of programs under a number of items it may be necessary to call on this sum, to have it available so that the utmost in work creation can be accomplished with respect to programs of construction and other work creating projects.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does this mean that the minister or his colleagues in the departments responsible for construction underestimated the speed with which they could carry on their operations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; not if the hon. member is speaking now of the time when the main estimates for the present fiscal year 1960-61 were compiled in the autumn of 1959 and tabled in the house in 1960. But as hon. members are aware, a definite effort has been made to expedite and accelerate programs of construction in various departments that provide work creating opportunities during this present winter. In the course of that acceleration which was applied in various departments the need for a contingency item naturally grows.
We have so far committed the contingency item that parliament provided for this purpose in the main estimates that it is the government's considered opinion that this additional sum is one that should be asked of parliament in order that we may be able to carry forward as much winter construction as may be possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not asking, in the other supplementary estimates of public works, transport and northern affairs, for example, and possibly even in the Indian estimates we have already voted, for a good many reimbursements of that $1,300,000 to which he made reference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In most of the cases of departments like public works and others of that kind that carry on substantial programs we have both enlarged the number of projects and sought to carry forward and accelerate as far as possible other programs that were in progress. Some of these have involved the provision of additional funds. In that respect the request is made for the voting of supplementary estimates. In other cases it was a matter of taking up what might have been the normal short fall in the expenditures under the item.
With respect to a situation of this kind where departments have programs in progress now which provide work opportunities, or have contracts out or are in a position to let contracts, all have been instructed, where they are for any work-creating opportunities for the winter months, to go ahead with them. In a situation of this kind there are so many more occasions, particularly at this advanced stage of the year, for requiring some sort of contingency fund that it was felt this additional amount was required. As I have indicated, the amount that parliament has already voted has now been very largely committed.
Supply

Finance


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the minister understood my question. My question related to the amount that has already been committed. It is customary, as the minister told us, for parliament to vote to the various departments a great part of what has already been committed and the Department of Finance is then reimbursed and can use this over again. I wanted to know whether these supplementary estimates did not include a considerable part of that $1.3 million in the form of supplementary estimates for public works, northern affairs, and so on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Indeed no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then why is that policy not being followed on this occasion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amounts that have been reimbursed are largely small amounts for individual matters, the sort of things, as the hon. member knows, that arise during the year. The reimbursement situation has not arisen here because of the fact that additional funds are being asked for in the departments for the projects I have mentioned.


Erhart Regier: I find this explanation very, very hard to understand, in the light of the traditional habits to which we have become accustomed. Is the minister now claiming that any other minister, when he finds he needs more money than has been allotted to him by parliament, is able to come to this department and dip into the money voted in order to meet his necessary expenditures? I would also like to ask the minister an unrelated question. How much of this additional $1.5 million asked for by his department is to pay for interest payments on the public debt that were not anticipated?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as the
second question is concerned, Mr. Chairman, none will. The items for payment of interest on the public debt are statutory items, so that does not apply here at all. So far as the hon. member's first question is concerned, let me direct his attention to item 117 in the main estimates. This is a standard item which it has been the practice of parliament to vote for many years. It reads:
Miscellaneous, minor or unforeseen expenses, subject to the approval of the treasury board, including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act.
That is the authority. The item is a standard one and has been voted for many years.


Erhart Regier: Might I ask the minister, is it not the custom of parliament to vote to each minister a certain amount of money for unforeseen expenses, and is the minister

Supply-Finance
admitting that other departments may come to his department and out of his appropriations receive money to pay for expenditures in other departments?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In a budget of the size of Canada's it has been found that even exercising the utmost ingenuity in the autumn of the year in the preparation of the estimates for the ensuing fiscal year it is not possible to anticipate everything that may happen during the course of that fiscal year.
Ofttimes matters arise that no one has foreseen. It may be a gift on the occasion of a royal wedding. Weddings are not always announced in the previous fiscal year before the estimates are prepared. So parliament, in its wisdom and with due regard also for maintaining strict parliamentary control over public expenditures, has seen fit to approve in the estimates of the Department of Finance this item which treasury board is authorized to draw upon for what are called minor and unforeseen expenses. That is the genesis of it; that is the use of it. The item is put in the estimates of the Department of Finance I presume because the approval required for payments out of the item must be given by treasury board.


Erhart Regier: I must repeat that I thought parliament should continue its old practice of allowing each minister a certain amount of leeway. However, I know the nature of the minister. I know his fellow colleagues in the cabinet will realize it will be almost hopeless to try to get any of this money in their respective departments.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we leave this item, in which the minister is doubling the amount of his departmental slush fund, could the minister tell us which departments have made the large drains upon it up to now. I do not mean every little item; but if $1,300,000 has already been drawn out of this vote, it must have been largely for two or three construction projects, one would think, in two or three departments. Could the minister enlighten us a little as to how it has happened already.


Donald Methuen Fleming: First let me observe, and observe very firmly, that this is no slush fund. This is anything but a fund that would warrant that kind of description. There is no form of parliamentary appropriation on which withdrawals are more rigidly and scrupulously supervised than are those from this fund. I can assure you that treasury board scrutinizes all requests from all departments for allotments out of this fund with an eagle eye. As to the requests that have been made against this fund, for instance we had an acceleration in the autumn in the

construction of the Mission City Indian residential school. We had a wedding gift to the Belgian king and his bride. The hon. member asked for the larger ones.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not interested in unforeseen items.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We had $65,000 for express charges on coin shipments at the mint because of the tremendous expansion in the mint operations this year. The hon. member is asking for the larger ones. There is the item in respect to the office of the trustee in bankruptcy, the Department of Justice, $50,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was that for?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Investigations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These reflect the bad economic conditions of the country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, they reflect the bad guesswork of the hon. member for Essex East in his observations just now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: More bankruptcies now than at any time in the last 25 years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It includes sums paid to the various royal commissions that have been sitting during the year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Too many royal commissions; this is a government of royal commissions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member does not wish royal commissions, he should make his observations at the correct place. We will be coming to them in due course.
There are a number of items in respect of the various royal commissions, an item of $110,000 in connection with the recent Ottawa conference on export trade organized by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce; an additional sum of $40,000 for the removal of wrecks from the harbour at Midland; the investigation of a marine haulout at Clarenville, Newfoundland, $30,000; the payment of an air line subsidy of Pacific Western Airlines, $50,000; and so on. That is the type of item that has been approved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am interested in these items for which the minister gave the sums. I added them up rather hurriedly and inexactly as he went along and they come a long way short of $1,300,000, and yet the minister is asking for $1,500,000 more. One of the items-he did not say what was the sum-was for the bankruptcy administration and he is asking to have another $50,000 in these estimates that are now before us which I presume will partly reimburse what he already has in this fund.

What I cannot see is why, if these unforeseen drains had gone to the point they have now, the minister did not come before us and ask us to vote an item so he could pay it back and replenish his fund and why he has to ask for $1.5 million more for unforeseen expenditures, because if it is anything the minister can foresee he should put a little more in the departments of public works, transport or northern affairs. He should not ask to have it voted blind to the Department of Finance which can then distribute it in any way that the treasury board sees fit without the knowledge of parliament until after the auditor-general has looked at it.
This is a pretty serious departure to double this amount. The minister does not like the word I applied to it. I was not suggesting that the minister was careless about it though some of the expenditures I observed suggest to me that the treasury board is a great deal more careless than it used to be and an inflation of $1 billion in the annual budget in four years would suggest the same thing.
This seems to be a rather extraordinary procedure, to be doubling this unforeseen fund. I know, of course, this government cannot foresee much. Anybody who doubts that should look at the minister's speech to the Canadian club in Toronto in January and compare it with what has happened in 1960. But this is a lot to admit you cannot foresee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the minister will not take too long.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I hope that the hon. member for Essex East will not be any more garrulous than usual.
If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate will have regard for the circumstances he will find nothing unusual in this situation. Every effort has been made in all government departments concerned to accelerate programs that provide for the creation of winter works and it is for that reason this item becomes necessary. The hon. gentleman asked me for some of the items and I have given him some. The figures will all be available as usual. These are always reported, of course.
As to the other departments coming and asking for sums out of this fund between now and March 31, hon. gentlemen may be very sure that the requirements of the items will be observed with usual scrupulousness on the part of the treasury board. The hon. member questions whether the treasury board is as vigilant as it used to be. I can assure the hon. member that it is much more vigilant than it was when he was acquainted with it-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Assertions do not make facts.
Supply-Finance


Donald Methuen Fleming: -as is shown by the operations of these recent years. This item is related to winter works programs in the various departments. That is the reason why it has come forward. There have been these substantial amounts drawn from it. If we wish to be in a position to step into situations where we can see that a program can be applied or accelerated to the advantage of employment in these winter months we are asking parliament to put us in a position to do so. That is the purpose of the item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am certainly not convinced by that. When the minister gave those sample items of the $1,300,000 he had spent already I think there were only one or two of them which had anything to do with construction at all. The rest had to do with presents for royal weddings and winding up bankruptcies and things of that sort. Moreover, if the government can now foresee an acceleration of the winter works program there should be larger items assigned to the specific departments involved. I am not talking about the winter works program of the Department of Labour but the construction program of some of the other departments. There are very big additional sums in these estimates for the other departments as will be seen if one looks at the items for the departments of public works, northern affairs, transport or any of the big spending departments. We are going to be asked to vote several millions for them. If the minister can now foresee these things they should not be included in the unforeseen item. There should be larger items assigned to those departments so parliament will know what it is doing. Notwithstanding what the minister has said it seems to me that this is a huge additional blank cheque being given to the government.


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, I see that the minister always uses the argument that this is for the purpose of the winter works program. That argument was good during the summer when the main estimates were voted. The minister at that time could not foresee that the unemployment problem this year would be as large or larger than it was last year. By reducing the expenditures in the main estimates in the summer the minister wanted to forecast a surplus of $12 million. It is easy to reduce expenditures by millions of dollars and then in a few months come before parliament and increase those expenditures. The $12 million surplus forecast by the minister is a smokescreen. During the summer the minister brought in deficit after deficit and then announced to the people of Canada that this year there would be a surplus of $12 million. We can now see how he could achieve a surplus, by reducing the

Supply-Finance
main estimates by millions of dollars and then introducing a baby budget or supplementary estimates in the fall.
The minister did not even know there would be a fall session. Maybe he was forced to his new recognition by the opposition and public opinion because unemployment was at its peak and something had to be done to remedy the situation. I do not know if the government just woke up and decided that there is some degree of unemployment.
The big amount of money we are asked to vote today represents a reduction given to the people of Canada in the main estimates plus the expenditure of additional millions of dollars which the minister could not evade. This is as true of this item as it is of the item concerning penitentiaries in the estimates of the Department of Justice. The so-called main estimates were reduced in order to cut expenditures and show a surplus. The government now comes before us and must make up that expenditure in order to break even with last year's estimates and it is adding something else as well.
Winter works provided a very good reason during the summer. We expected there would be unemployment this year. The winter works program was equally good as an excuse last year, the year before and two years ago. The government was asleep. The minister has now awakened all of a sudden after saying there would be a surplus of $12 million but I am afraid the surplus forecast is going to be a way down.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I am interested to hear that the administration of the Bankruptcy Act has now qualified as being a part of the winter works program. I am not interested in participating in the work of cleaning up the small businesses of Canada, but I should like to ask the minister, if we pass item No. 590 in the sum of $50,000, that he mentioned-that is, that the act needed an extra $50,000-are we going to be asked to vote $50,000 in order to repay the minister's department the $50,000 that he indicated to us had been over-spent in this other department?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Erhart Regier: I note the minister's answer, Mr. Chairman. It is a most amazing answer. We now have an indication that the departments which had used up the $1,300,000 have to submit their estimates to recover for the minister's department in effect $1,300,000 of unexpected expenditures and yet, three months before the end of the fiscal year, when we are allowing these departments moneys to repay the minister, he is asking in

addition to the $1,300,000 under various departments an additional $1,500,000. This is an odd explanation indeed. The minister might want to reconsider his answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, there is no occasion to reconsider the answer. Account has been taken of the fact in putting through this item, and items everywhere when there are some reimbursements. That is the ordinary course. Parliament is well aware of this. This additional amount is required, having regard to the demands that have been made upon the item this year and particularly the amounts that may well be required under it between now and March 31, for the reason I have mentioned, namely to assist programs and accelerate programs with a view to providing as much winter work as possible.


Erhart Regier: I must agree with the minister's contention that the course being followed is the right one in that every over-expenditure that the department has made has to be submitted for approval to the House of Commons. Under item 590 the government is asking for another $50,000 to compensate the minister's department for an over-expenditure of $50,000 that has already taken place. The minister has told us that those unexpected expenditures have totalled $1,300,000, and we can assume that under various headings of the various departments the minister is going to have returned to him this $1,300,000. I realize that the bulk of this $1,300,000-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what I said; I did not say that.


Erhart Regier: The minister himself admitted that the bulk of it-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that at all.


Erhart Regier: -had been for accelerating works. The minister claimed that the bulk of -the $1,300,000-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that that at all.


Erhart Regier: I believe the minister carefully explained to the committee, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that most of the $1,300,000 had been used for the purpose of accelerating the public works program. If that is so then we can expect that most of that money is to be returned to the minister's department under the various votes now before us. However, three months before the expiry of the fiscal year he is asking, not only to have that money returned to his department but for the exceptional amount of another $1,500,000. It seems to me there is some very poor estimating involved here when there is what might easily be a total

of some $2,500,000 in unexpected expenditures by the various departments from the end of this year until the end of March next. I think it is most regrettable that the minister did not have this estimate much more up to date. It obviously was prepared at least half a year ago or it would not be in such very round and loose figures.


Mr. Habel:: The minister seems to be in such good mood today that he will not object to my asking for the amount required to cover the trade and commerce conference held in Ottawa recently?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amount is


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Does the minister not think that this price is a little high for the minister to take advantage of this conference to condemn his predecessor by stating, as he did at that conference, that you cannot do business sitting on your seat? The minister will notice that I have changed one word to make the expression more parliamentary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one specific question that the minister might answer. He had some little difference with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam about how much he was asking to have reimbursed in this supplementary estimate. Will the minister tell us how much under the supplementary estimates for all the other departments is for the purpose of reimbursing the unforeseen vote of the Department of Finance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The sum of
$117,000 of the allotments which are reimbursed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It includes $50,000 for bankruptcy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is my information.


Erhart Regier: Does it also include the amount of expenditure at the recent conference organized by the minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. That is the reason why I said the hon. member was not quoting me correctly or understanding what I had said. That item is not reimbursed.


Azellus Denis: What does the Minister of Finance mean by unforeseen expenses? What is the amount of unforeseen expenses? How can you call $1,500,000 unforeseen expenses because this item reads:
Miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses, subject to the approval of the treasury board, including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other approprations, and for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act, further amount required, $1,500,000.
Supply-Finance
The details read:
Miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses,
How much of this $1,500,000 is in fact unforeseen expenses?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is all unforeseen in the sense that at the time the estimates were put together in the autumn of 1959 the particular sums were not foreseen and were not provided for by way of additions to other items, or other items elsewhere. These words mean the same thing as they have meant for years. We were not the first to introduce such an item; we were not the first to introduce the terminology of this item. It has a well recognized meaning, and is a long established item. For instance, if hon. members are interested in what happened in other years, they will find, for instance, that in the year 1953-54 the amount allotted out of this item at one time had reached $1,271,198; in 1954-55 it reached at one time $1,128,234. In many years the item exceeded $1 million in allotments at one time, as hon. members can see.


Azellus Denis: This is quite a large amount to be unforeseen. I can understand that Quebec did not have any hospitalization plan before. The government did not expect the Liberal party to take over and accept the hospital plan. That would be an unforeseen expense, but so far as Ontario is concerned, that province accepted the hospitalization plan years ago. If there were thousands of dollars for the province of Ontario one might expect to find small differences between the amount foreseen and what the actual cost was. I notice that the minister had to go back to 1953 to find such a large amount of unforeseen expenses.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To qualify for an allotment under this item the proposed expenditure in question must have been not only unforeseen but also minor in nature. The sum of millions of dollars such as is involved in relation to the inauguration of a hospital insurance program in any province can hardly be classified as minor in that sense.


Azellus Denis: But so far as Quebec is concerned that is an unforeseen expense which could be included in that amount, so when we ask what unforeseen expenses is included in the $1,500,000 I think we should get an answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was interested in the adjective "minor" used by the minister to describe the conference held recently at the instigation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and involving an amount of $110,000.

Supply-Fisheries
I imagine the minister did not consult his colleague, who has blown this conference up into such a big thing, before he described it as a minor matter. Could the minister tell us how long ago it was that treasury board was asked to approve of the expenditure for that conference and if the approval of treasury board was sought before the conference was called?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course it was asked of treasury board and obtained before the conference was called. It was requested in the autumn. From memory I will not attempt to give the precise date but it was during the autumn; I would say it was during the last two months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether the plans for that conference were not already made and authority sought before the present minister took over the office?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand not, but I speak subject to correction on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Special-
588. Assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to regulations established by the governor in council-further amount required, $12,992.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister will understand my curiosity about this item. Could he tell us just where this amount is needed?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should explain this item a little more fully. Under item 144 of the main estimates $30,000 was voted for the present fiscal year. To date four subsidies totalling $27,662.50 have been paid from the appropriation, leaving a balance of a little over $2,000. This further amount is required to meet additional claims for the balance of the fiscal year. Two additional applications for subsidies are now in readiness for payment. In one case the amount is $10,000 and in the other case the amount is $5,329.50. This supplementary item is to provide the additional funds required to process applications during the current fiscal year. The hon. member asked me where these facilities are located. Does he mean the ones where payment has already been made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There cannot be many. Perhaps the minister might give the whole list.


John Angus MacLean: The four that have been taken care of under the regular vote are: L'Association Co-operative des Pecheurs de L'llle Ltee, Lameque, New Brunswick;
[Mr. Pickersgill.1
Alfred C. LeBlanc, Wedgeport, Nova Scotia; Wilbert Sears, Wood's Harbour, Nova Scotia; and Stoney Island Fisheries Limited, Cape Sable island, Nova Scotia. The ones awaiting payment are: Cartier Co-operative Limited, Richibucto, New Brunswick and Jean B. Godin, Maisonnette, New Brunswick.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the program the government has embarked on to provide something in the maritime provinces similar in some respects to the bait service provided in Newfoundland.


John Angus MacLean: That is true. It has been in effect for quite some time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Department-
590. Bankruptcy Act administraton-further amount required, $50,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the minister? Perhaps we could go on with another vote while we are waiting for the Minister of Justice.


The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps we might wait a moment if it is agreeable to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance said that the ministers would be here.


Mr. Roberge:: I take it that the parliamentary secretary will carry on with this task. I have some questions to ask with respect to vote 590, Bankruptcy Act administration, further amount required, $50,000. We have just been told by the Minister of Finance that under vote 587 there is an amount of $50,000 having to do with the Bankruptcy Act. First of all I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary whether the amount we are now asked to vote is the same amount that we voted a few minutes ago, or what is the administrative setup? Is the Department of Justice going to reimburse the Minister of Finance or are these amounts two separate amounts making a total of $100,000?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what the Minister of Finance said but I think he answered that question when he spoke a moment ago. This is just a further amount that is required and it is impossible to determine the exact cost. It is estimated that $25,000 will be required by the end of the present fiscal year to cover the cost of expert accounting and auditing services and a further $25,000 for legal expenses and fees.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is this additional $50,000 required because of the increase in the rate of bankruptcies in Canada during the last year?


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not think I can answer that categorically but it is to cover the extra work that is required this year.


Gabriel Roberge: I note in the estimates for 1958-59 and also those for 1959-60 there was a subheading, "professional and special services", and in each of those years the amount was $500. In looking at page 227 of the main estimates for this year I see that under the subheading "professional and special services" the amount is $2,000. Now we are asked to vote $50,000 more which means a total of $52,000 for the year compared with $500 in each of the past two years. This is a tremendous amount of money having regard to the amounts required in previous years. I should like to know from the minister or the parliamentary secretary what is the purpose of this amount. Furthermore, I think what has been said so far is contrary to what the Minister of Finance said with respect to vote 587 and the $50,000 included there. Why ask us to vote the same amount twice?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of including this amount in the supplementaries is to cover our estimate of the requirements that it will be necessary for us to meet in connection with an investigation into bankruptcy administration which has been under way for some time. This investigation has now arrived at the point where it is expected that a good many charges will be laid. It is necessary for us to employ counsel in connection with the prosecution of these charges. It is also a feature of this investigation of this particular situation that the charges involve the suspension of the licences of the trustees and, in some cases, these trustees have been handling many flies of bankrupt estates. You cannot have these estates left up in the air. You have to bring in accountants and auditors and arrange for the appointment of an interim trustee to take charge of the files in connection with those estates.
There will be, therefore, not only legal fees to pay in connection with the prosecutions that arise, but also the costs of the accountants and auditors who will be going through the files and ascertaining the situation with regard to each estate, and also the costs of carrying those estates forward, in appropriate cases, to a conclusion where the original trustee has been suspended from the control of the estate.


Azellus Denis: If I understand the minister correctly and the expenditures are for 90205-6-60i
Supply-Justice
inquiries conducted in the previous year, I do not understand how the expenditures come within the supplementary estimates. They could easily have been put in the main estimates for the next session. If I heard the parliamentary secretary correctly, he said that the fees were up to $20,000, and this does not coincide with the statement of the Minister of Finance that most of the expenditures in this supplementary item were for the winter works program. I say that at least half of this $50,000 has not anything to do with the winter works program. I should like to know, therefore, how much of this $50,000 is specifically for the purpose of the winter works program. How many people will be employed as a result of this expenditure of $50,000?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This item of $50,000 has nothing whatever to do with the winter works program as those words are normally used, that is a program for the creation of employment in construction and other projects. This has nothing to do with that program. This is purely and simply an item to cover the disbursements which we expect we will have to make in connection with the prosecutions related to irregularities in the bankruptcy administration and in connection with the auditing and accounting costs to establish the facts and enable us to carry the files in those cases where the trustee has had his licence suspended.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The committee, of course, was well aware of the fact that this particular item had nothing to do with the winter works program.


Thomas Miller Bell: I did not say
that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one has suggested that you said that.


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member for St. Denis said that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice had been in the chamber, and I realize they could not because they were preoccupied with important government business outside, they would understand why the hon. member for St. Denis made the observation he did. It was the Minister of Finance who, with his understandably wide knowledge of the problems of government in Canada, made the statement that this $1,500,000 in vote 587 had to do with the winter works program. It was only after he had given us some of the details connected with the expenditures under item 587 that it became apparent his statement was wholly inaccurate.

Supply-Justice


Mr. Chambers:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I am sure the hon. member for Essex East would not wish to be intentionally inaccurate. I am sure he will recall that what the Minister of Finance actually said was that some of the amount was for that program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has his memory and I have mine. I do not recall the Minister of Finance giving that impression. It was only after the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out that moneys for a gift to some royal personages and moneys required for this particular bankruptcy administration had nothing to do with the winter works program that the true impression was given to this committee. I am not saying the Minister of Finance was doing this deliberately, but he certainly did give the impression that this was part of the government's dynamic, vigorous proposal to fight unemployment, and it has turned out to be no such thing. The Minister of Justice is embarrassed and his parliamentary secretary is exceedingly embarrassed by reason of the false declaration by the Minister of Finance as to the relationship between this item and the winter works program.
What I rose to ask the minister was this: What legislation does the government have in mind to deal with the very serious situation which has been exposed as a result of the requirements for this special, supplementary vote? The actions of certain trustees in bankruptcy reveal the basic weaknesses in the act. The minister has been reported as saying that he is prepared to give consideration to amendments to the act to deal with this particular situation. What is the government's intention with regard to that? When the minister replies perhaps he will give us an indication as to why there has been an increasingly alarming number of bankruptcies. We suggest, of course, and this must be the case, that it is due to the general economic condition in the country. The increasing number of bankruptcies reflects the weakness in business conditions. It would be of interest to know what the statistics are in that connection. I should like to know from the minister whether the government does intend to take action to strengthen the Bankruptcy Act and make impossible the kind of preferential treatment which has been accorded to certain individuals because of the actions of certain trustees in bankruptcy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, first may I assure the hon. member that I am never embarrassed by the products of his imagination. In so far as the situation in which I find myself is concerned, it bears no relationship to the situation which he described. There has never

been any pretence or any attempt to create an impression that item 590 is a part of the winter works program in the sense in which that term is generally used.
To deal with the question the hon. member for Essex East posed to me, it is true that there has been a disturbing number of irregularities brought to light in connection with the administration of bankrupt estates. This investigation, which has been under way for a good many months, has now resulted in establishing that there have been many irregularities which we are now proceeding to deal with on an individual basis in so far as prosecutions are concerned, and to regularize the individual estates.
I am not yet in a position to indicate what changes, if any, in the bankruptcy law will be made. I hope to be in a position to make a more definite forecast by the time the main estimates for 1961-62 are reached. What we have been doing so far has been to invite representations and suggestions from responsible organizations in this field indicating their views as to how the act might be amended so as to make better control of the administration of the estates possible than apparently has been the situation up to now. What we have before us now does suggest that the administration by individual trustees has been such that the inference can be drawn that there is a lack of supervision and control. This, in my view, and in a large measure, is inherent in the system envisaged by the act itself.
We are studying the matter on our own in order to see what changes could be made in the legislation so as to enable a better system of trusts to be devised. At the same time we are asking for representations by trust company associations and similar organizations which we are certain will be extremely helpful to us in arriving at our own conclusions as to what legislation should be recommended.
I am sorry that I cannot go further than that at the present time. If I were to attempl any definite forecast of what might be introduced by way of legislative changes I might find that I was obliged to change my mind between now and the time when the legislation was introduced and I should not like to be open to the charge by the hon. gentlemen of having been inaccurate with respect to the forecast that I made.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Under this item I should like to ask one question which is related to the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, and it is not a product of my imagination. It springs from the harsh reality of trusting employees and businessmen who are suffering from the administration of a United States lumber company in my district which

has gone into liquidation. The question I wish to ask is this. Have disgruntled or suspicious creditors with respect to a voluntary liquidation the right under the Bankruptcy Act to lay their complaints before the superintendent of bankruptcy and to seek an investigation of these circumstances?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be obliged to answer this question without the benefit of advice of my legal officers who are not here. It would be my understanding, however-and this is subject to correction-that voluntary liquidation would not be within the jurisdiction of the superintendent of bankruptcy or of parliament under the Bankruptcy Act but that liquidations are matters of provincial concern, with this exception. I know that certain clearances under the Income Tax Act are required before the affairs of a company can be wound up. However, I am not aware that there is anything in connection with voluntary liquidation which would come under the ambit of the bankruptcy legislation.
I understand that my hon. friend has forwarded certain representations in connection with the case to which he referred. I know that a check was made of my files and of those of the superintendent of bankruptcy in order to ascertain whether we have, in fact, received those representations. Up to the present time I am advised that we have not been able to locate them. It may be that the Chirstmas mail rush has delayed their receipt.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to inform the minister that I wrote a letter on December 9. I was advised by the superintendent of bankruptcy this afternoon that they had found my letter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member's information is a little bit later than mine.


Gabriel Roberge: From the minister's answer to a question by the hon. member for Essex East I understood that these inquiries have been going on for many months. I wonder whether the minister could advise the committee as to when these investigations started. Was it possible to foresee these investigations and the cost of them when the main estimates were brought down in the spring.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. It was not possible to forecast it at that time. Up until just a few months ago we had thought that we might be able, by the appointment of a single prosecutor, to dispose of all the cases. It was not until he began to get into the details of what would be necessary and to find that as the R.C.M.P. took possession of the files there were so many hundreds of estates involved and which, by virtue of the fact that the files were seized
Supply-Justice
and taken in possession of the police, were therefore in a position in which no one could deal with them from the point of view of administering those estates. As I say, it therefore became necessary to consider what to do in that regard.
It became obvious that, in addition to the legal services of a prosecutor, we would require the services of accountants to go through the files and find out just exactly what had been done, what was the nature of any defalcations and also to find out what was the position of the bankrupt estates themselves so that we could make some assessment as to how we were going to be able to deal with them and whether it was feasible to appoint a new trustee to carry on the administration of those estates. That situation and the complexity of the situation even arising out of the affairs of a single trustee in bankruptcy were not revealed until the main estimates for the current year had been prepared.


Gabriel Roberge: The first part of the investigation was carried on by the R.C.M.P.?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct.


Gabriel Roberge: It was only after inquiry by the R.C.M.P. that the situation came to light?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. An agent had arranged to take out the files and lay charges and it was when that stage of the investigation was arrived at that we saw for the first time the complex nature of the operation that was necessary to sort this whole thing out.


Gabriel Roberge: There is a question that was not answered by the Minister of Justice and it is this. Is this amount asked for here in this item of $50,000 the same amount that was asked by the Minister of Finance under item 587? We were told that in the $1,500,000 under item 587 there was $50,000 for the Bankruptcy Act administration. Is that the same amount? Is that to be reimbursement or what is it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think there must be a misunderstanding there. This item of $50,000 stands on its own feet. We do not look to the $1,500,000 item in vote 587 for any part of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance told us that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my hon. friend must inadvertently have misunderstood what the Minister of Finance said. I know that my colleague the Minister of Finance has too clear an understanding of these matters for anything he has said to be really capable on analysis of creating that impression.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can tell you that his lucidity in this matter was not great.

Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: In any event this item is asked for by way of a request to parliament to authorize us to spend up to $50,000 for the purpose of prosecutions and completion of investigations now under way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the Minister of Finance should be called back into this chamber in order to clear up this matter. I asked the Minister of Finance this specific question: Is the $50,000 now being asked for under item 590 to be used to reimburse the miscellaneous and unforeseen item and the minister said yes. That statement will be found in Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt about that.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Perhaps you might permit me, Mr. Chairman, to clear up the matter. The situation is this. In the commitments on the main item, the unforeseen item of $1,500,000, a commitment of $50,000 was made. That commitment is now to be reimbursed to that fund from item 590 which the committee is being asked to vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what the Minister of Finance said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what the Minister of Justice said. The Minister of Justice has said just the opposite.


Richard Albert Bell: I should say that it does not form any part of the $1,500,000 which parliament was asked to vote and has voted in item 587.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It goes back into the original item.


Richard Albert Bell: It goes back into the main unforeseen item voted by parliament at the last session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That matter is clear now. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice cannot both be right. The Minister of Justice is here. He can defend himself now in the light of the statement made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. If he makes a defence that will appeal to all of us, we will be on his side. But obviously he has taken a position that is absolutely contrary to that statement by the Minister of Finance. What the parliamentary secretary has just now said confirms that view.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This statement, of course, reveals the extent of the misunderstanding on the part of my friend. The question which he asked and the one which I answered was whether item 590 forms part of item 587 and the answer I gave was no, that it did not form part of item 587, and that it stands

on its own feet. That answer is perfectly consistent with the situation as outlined by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance who has just repeated what I now understand to have been the explanation previously given by this minister, namely that in the main estimates there was an item for $1,500,000 against which a commitment was made for the purpose of the Bankruptcy Act administration of $50,000.
We are now seeking parliamentary authority for an item under our supplementary estimates of $50,000 with which to reimburse that fund for which parliamentary authority was given on the earlier occasion. That fund is not the same; that earlier $1.5 million contingency item is not the same as the $1.5 million contained in item 587, so there is no inconsistency whatever between the explanations.


Gabriel Roberge: Up to now I fail to understand that distinction. We were told just a moment ago by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance that in the main estimates of $1,500,000 there were $50,000 for the Bankruptcy Act administration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not correct. I would like my hon. friend to have a proper understanding of this contingency item. There was an item of $1,500,000 in the main estimates to cover unforeseen contingencies. There was an encumbrance against that item of $50,000 because we had already to start paying out these special amounts to our special prosecutor and investigator. So there was an encumbrance of $50,000 against that $1.5 million contingency item which was authorized in the main estimates. We are now including item 590 in the supplementary estimates to obtain parliamentary approval under the Bankruptcy Act administration to reimburse that $50,000.


Gabriel Roberge: The question is-I want to take the word of the Minister of Justice for it__the Minister of Justice said that this investigation was not foreseen when the main estimates were compiled. How is it, with this unforeseen event, that there is an item of $50,000 for the Bankruptcy Act administration?


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the time of the main estimates there was no such item. What happened was that the main estimates were prepared, as is the usual custom, with a $1.5 million fund out of the Department of Finance to cover unforeseen contingencies.
Those main estimates were approved. Since the time of the passage of the main estimates a contingency has arisen, namely we went to treasury board and said, "We are faced with this very complicated investigation; we

are going to have to hire at least a lawyer and an accountant, and possibly another auditor; this will cost money, and we have no provision in our estimates for that money". We were told, "We will give you a commitment of $50,000 from the contingency fund that parliament has already voted in the main estimates; in other words, we will commit $50,000 to meet the contingency that has now arisen and in the supplementary estimates it will be included in an item under Bankruptcy Act administration to reimburse that fund in the amount of $50,000."
The specific contingency was not foreseen at the time of the main estimates. What was foreseen was the possibility of contingencies arising, so $1.5 million was authorized by parliament for that purpose. Now the specific contingency has arisen. There was a commitment against that fund and item 590 is for the purpose of reimbursing that fund that was voted in the main estimates.


Gabriel Roberge: Could we be advised how much of that $50,000 has already been spent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry; I do not have that information. I would have to get a good many particulars from the department to see what bills had been rendered and paid so far, and what telegraph and telephone bills have been rendered and paid so far in order to answer that question. Roughly speaking, we have estimated that one half of it will be required by the end of the present fiscal year to cover the costs of expert accounting and auditing services, and a further $25,000- or the other half-for legal expenses and fees.


Mr. Winch:: As this money is in the main to pay for certain investigations and prosecutions as outlined by the minister, I would like to ask him a question on one phase that I think is of importance and has rather intrigued me for some time. Has there by any possibility been any investigation into some individuals in Canada-and I know of some in British Columbia-who seem to be making a practice of going bankrupt, forming new companies and then, by devious means, transferring the business or the assets of the previous company in which they went into bankruptcy? I am afraid this is becoming a practice by certain individuals. I would like to know whether any part of the investigation has been into this practice, and whether any prosecutions are contemplated or have been carried out in that line.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No irregularities involving criminal prosecutions against trustees have come to light in British Columbia. However, the situation that has been disclosed as a result of the investigations we have made have, as I say, suggested to us that there is
Supply-J ustice
a certain lack of control with respect to the administration of estates by trustees generally. That is to say, there is an inability on our part to supervise as closely and as effectively as we would like the activities of individual trustees in connection with the administration of bankrupt estates. It is that aspect of it which we are studying in connection with the legislation generally.
It may be that there are cases in other parts of the country where there has been some laxity, but all I can say is that up to the present time no case has been drawn to our attention, either officially or unofficially, which suggests that there is a situation which would warrant criminal prosecution. But the general control of bankruptcy and the situation regarding the discharge of bankrupts may well be covered and, I hope, improved as a result of any legislative changes that we might introduce.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps I could add one word. If that phase has not been covered in the investigations already underway I would very sincerely like to ask the Minister of Justice to extend his investigation into what I am afraid is becoming too much a common practice in Canada by certain individuals; that is, going into bankruptcy and taking advantage of their own bankruptcy through the incorporation of new companies, and carrying on business as though they had never gone into bankruptcy.
I think a person who does a thing like that is just as much a criminal as a person who goes in with a gun and holds up a store or a bank. If they are allowed-as I am afraid they are now-to get away with that kind of legal robbery I think the minister should have that matter very thoroughly investigated and should bring in, when he brings in other changes to the Bankruptcy Act, a protection whereby those who pull that kind of stunt cannot carry on in business until they have made good the bankruptcy of their previous company in the same business.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend would bring to our attention any cases where he thinks there has been an abuse of the bankruptcy laws or the procedures of the courts under the Bankruptcy Act, we would be very glad indeed to investigate.


Harold Edward Winch: If they can do it inside the law now the law should be changed so they cannot do it again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is precisely the point I was trying to meet earlier, that our investigation has disclosed a situation which to us indicates there should be a revision of the Bankruptcy Act. I would hope that when that

Supply-Justice
revision is made it will enable us to deal with the type of case to which I believe my hon. friend is referring.
However, I must say that at the present time the discharge of a bankrupt is dependent upon an order of the court. If the bankrupt is able to satisfy the court that he has discharged the conditions of his bankruptcy, with the consent of creditors, and the report of the trustee is obtained, then the bankrupt may be discharged and he is free to re-enter businesss.


Harold Edward Winch: To start business the next day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is a case in which discharges are given too readily and the conditions that must be met can properly be made more onerous-these are the things we will be looking at in connection with the study of the legislation.


Azellus Denis: Can the minister tell the committee the number of bankruptcies in Canada last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I do not have that information before me, Mr. Chairman.


Azellus Denis: I know there are well over 1,000 a year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes.


Azellus Denis: Has there been an investigation as to the reasons why so many businesses go into bankruptcy each year? Has there been an investigation that would reveal the main and secondary reasons?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course, Mr. Chairman, my department is not concerned with the economic causes of bankruptcy but with the bankruptcy laws under which bankrupt estates are administered and under which bankrupts are required to make good on what they can of their liabilities and on their discharges. We do not conduct any economic survey. These investigations have not primarily been concerned with the economic factors underlying bankruptcies.
I should also say that this investigation was not started because of any concern over an increase in the number of bankruptcies but because of a growing indication as it came to our attention of irregularities in connection with the administration of bankrupt estates. It was with that aspect alone that this investigation was concerned.


Azellus Denis: I agree with the minister but does he not think that it would be a good idea to investigate in co-operation with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce the reasons for so many bankruptcies? Many bankruptcies occur because of robbery and some because of false

methods of accounting. The Minister of Justice might be interested in investigating the effect of trading stamps on small businesses. Recently the supreme court declared that trading stamps are legal. Perhaps many people patronize larger stores because trading stamps are not available in smaller stores. This may contribute to the bankruptcy of some firms. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Minister of Justice to amend the Criminal Code in order to declare trading stamps illegal. The minister should take these things into consideration because of the advisability of co-operating with his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce in investigating why so many bankruptcies occur in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I can only assure my hon. friend that the irregularities we are investigating-and our investigation is confined to that-are not of recent origin. Many of them go back over many years to the period before 1957 and were committed on the part of persons who received their appointment before 1957. We have nothing new about the situation we are investigating, only we are the ones who have brought it to a head.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman,
before you proceed to the other items I wonder if I might ask you to revert to item No. 587. It has been brought to my attention that an answer I gave to a question that was put to me was based on a quite wrong premise. To that extent I wish to put the record right and apologize for my misunderstanding of the basis of the question. May I have leave to revert to that item?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think we might give the minister that privilege without even reverting to the item. The hon. gentleman does not want to become unstuck again.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you very much. I think it was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who asked me about the total of the amount of the reimbursement. I gave the figure $117,000. The basis of that figure is items that have been reimbursed. In other words, there has been some reimbursement as a result of votes in the supplementaries earlier in the year.
It is not the fact that $117,000 is the amount in these present supplementaries that is to be reimbursed. The amount is much larger. I can give that figure to the committee. But in the misunderstanding I had about the basis of the question and my participation

in it I wish to express my apologies to the committee because we are dealing in the one case with a reimbursement made hitherto and in the other case-and I have been told this is the basis of the question-with the amount in these present supplementaries that will be reimbursable when the items are passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I was extremely incredulous that the minister would have committed such a large part of his $1.5 million and would be asking us to vote to other departments only $117,000 to pay him back. I thought it was shockingly bad business but the minister was so emphatic about it that I supposed he must have been right. Perhaps the minister wants to do the addition quite carefully and it may be rather complicated but I wonder if before the supplementaries are completely passed the minister would give us the correct figure, the global figure, as it were.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can do it now, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All the better.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I could give the figure now and save some time. I wish to finish up by six o'clock because if the committee will permit me I have some time to put in on another subject tonight in preparation for tomorrow evening.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How surprising.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The total to be reimbursed to the item of minor and unforeseen out of the present supplementary estimates now before the committee will be $828,100. The items where these reimbursements are to be found are Nos. 584, 595, 619, 620, 621, 643, 644, 647 and 655. The total of allotments and commitments in the present fiscal year to date was $1,556,623. Against that sum the $117,000 to which I have referred has been hitherto reimbursed leaving outstanding today $1,439,623 of allotments and commitments. With the reimbursement to which I have referred of $828,100 there will remain as a charge to the item provided in the main estimates a balance of $611,523.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may sum it up, the
minister thinks that for the remaining four months

or the three months and a bit-that remain of the fiscal year he is going to need over $2 million in a fund for which for the whole year he asked only $1.5 million?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is true. I wish to emphasize again the reasons that relate to the winter works program. We have brought it on as quickly as we can. The committee will appreciate that many of these programs just do not stop suddenly on March 31. In
Supply-J ustice
this area where we have been trying to accelerate the work creating programs as much as possible we find the reason for asking the committee to provide this additional sum to take care of the minor and unforeseen items.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the minister one question? Does the minister not anticipate having any more supplementaries in the present fiscal year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be the usual final ones in March, those that are commonly known as the clean-up items.
B-Penitentiaries-
591. Construction, improvements, and equipment -further amount required, $315,000.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I note from item 163 of the main estimates that the total amount asked for during the last session was $2,353,840. Of that amount, $900,000 roughly was for St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Collin's Bay, federal training centre, Joyce-ville and so forth. In this supplementary item on the average a 24 per cent increase is asked for those institutions. Why are those amounts required?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does my hon. friend ask me the question with respect to St. Vincent de Paul alone, or with respect to the whole item of $315,000?


Gabriel Roberge: All the institutions referred to, St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester, British Columbia, Collin's Bay, federal training centre and Joyceville.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; the 1961-62 estimates will contain, if approved by treasury board, certain construction proposals which it is considered are of sufficient urgency to justify asking authority to commence construction before the close of the present fiscal period. Those for which we are asking authority in these supplementary estimates to commence construction this winter include the following: at Dorchester penitentiary, an industrial building, $30,000, and an abattoir, $15,000; at St. Vincent de Paul, a penitentiary farm camp, $30,000; and a shops building, $40,000; at the federal training centre at St. Vincent de Paul, a vocational training building; $60,000; at Collin's Bay penitentiary.

Supply-Justice
an exercise hall, $60,000; at Joyceville, a shops building, $60,000; and at British Columbia, an exercise hall, $20,000.


Azellus Denis: How does the minister explain that as far as Dorchester is concerned in the estimates of 1958-59 the expenditures were $152,000 and in 1959-60 they were $150,000? In the 1960-61 main estimates they were $116,000 only, a reduction of $34,000. Those were the main estimates and an estimate of the expenditure should have been known at the time. At that time the Minister of Finance said we were going to have a surplus of $12 million. After reducing the estimates from $150,000 to $116,000 he comes back with a supplementary estimate and asks the committee for $45,000 more. This puts us in a strange position. The minister wanted to cut expenditures in order to get a surplus. He now comes back with a supplementary estimate which will make the total amount more than what was voted last year.
The same thing is true of the federal centre at St. Vincent de Paul. Does this amount apply only to Montreal or to all Canada? In 1958-59, $33,000 was voted; in 1959-60, $54,000 was voted; and in 1960-61, $147,000. The minister now asks for a further $60,000. I do not think the Minister of Justice can say that it was to give work to the unemployed because last summer and the summer before everybody knew there were people unemployed. Can the minister explain why it is that after reducing the amount spent in the previous year in order to produce a surplus he now comes back with a supplementary estimate which makes the amount larger than ever before?
Of course, he cannot tell the committee and the people of Canada that it is an unforeseen expense to provide employment for the people of Canada. Everybody knew there was unemployment last year and two years ago and also this year. What I do not understand is why the minister has waited so long to change the estimate of expenses in 1959 and 1960 in so far as the federal training centre is concerned. In 1960-61, $147,970 was voted for the federal training centre, and now the minister comes in with another supplementary estimate of $60,000. Surely, we are entitled to some kind of an explanation of these two points I have just mentioned. Dorchester, for instance, was reduced in 1960-61 by $34,000 as compared with 1959-60. Then, in the supplementary estimates the minister increases the amount by $45,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I do not know why my hon. friend should be so harsh with my very modest request for $315,000 in these supplementary estimates. If my hon. friend 
feels it is not necessary to improve the penitentiary system by this amount, that this is an unjustifiable estimate, I shall be very glad indeed to hear his points of criticism and try to meet them; but, as he knows, it is customary to present to parliament from time to time items in the supplementary estimates to cover projects which experience has shown can usefully be constructed to improve the operation of the whole program. It is in this spirit that we submit this item which I feel is well justified.


Azellus Denis: In almost every penitentiary there is a reduction and then an increase from the previous year. Take Collin's Bay, for instance. In 1958-59, $111,000 was voted; in 1959-60, $181,000 was voted. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Finance wanted to show a decrease of expenditure in 1960-61. Then you come here today with another increase of $60,000. I should like to know what is going on. There was no unforeseen expenditure up until now. If the minister wants to explain that the additional $60,000 will give employment to some unemployed people, that will be fine with me provided he can prove it. Was the government not in a position to foresee these expenditures last June and July when the main estimates came before the house? I think the purpose of the government was that they wanted people to believe that now, after many deficits, we were going to have a surplus. They said to the people that unless there were unforeseen expenditures there would be a $12 million surplus this year. Right?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never said anything of the sort.


Azellus Denis: That is what the Minister of Finance said and the Minister of Justice belongs to the same government. It was very nice for the government to tell the people of Canada that for once they were going to have a surplus. It was very easy to announce a surplus of $12 million when the government had in the back of their minds that through supplementary estimates they were going to make additional expenditures so that instead of having a surplus of $12 million it is possible that surplus will become a deficit of $12 million.
I do not see any unforeseen expenses as to the penitentiaries at Kingston, St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Collin's Bay and the federal training centre. In almost every case there was a reduction in the main estimates so far as these penitentiaries are concerned and now the minister comes along with an increase. Is this an unforeseen expenditure or are more people going to be employed?

Is the purpose to employ more people and, if so, could the minister not have decided upon that during the month of July when the main estimates came before the house?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise because I have any objection to the supplementary vote of $315,000 because I know that the money is required and I know that the house is going to have to ratify the expenditure of millions upon millions before our penal system is up to scratch. However,
I should like to ask the minister this question. Will the expenditure of the additional $315,000 give construction jobs to outside construction workers or is it going to be spent on the basis of the inmates doing the work so as to keep them out of mischief and so that they can learn a trade? Which is it going to be?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In answer to the last question I have to say that most of these items will represent contracts let to outside employers and the work will be done by outside labour. However, when I remind the hon. member of the nature of the project I think he will be able to see that they will make the useful employment and occupation of inmates in the institutions much more easy. It will give us the facilities for the useful occupation of inmates in the institutions.
At Dorchester, for instance, there is an industrial building which is designed to provide employment in three shops in manufacturing and finishing wood furniture and metal products. The shop design and the desire to get the project finished soon are of such a nature that it makes it appropriate to let the project to outside contract but when completed it will enable us to carry on a much better in-training program of the inmates of the institution.
With respect to the abattoir at Dorchester, I have to report that the present facilities for the slaughtering of cattle and hogs have been condemned by the department of health so we are not able to postpone the provision of better abattoir facilities.
Again, at St. Vincent de Paul we are asking for $30,000 to establish a penitentiary farm camp, that is, a camp on the penitentiary reserve itself. The construction of a farm camp will assist by providing living facilities for 80 inmates outside the walls of the main institution in healthy surroundings on the farm which forms part of the St. Vincent reserve. Then there is a shops building at St. Vincent de Paul which, when constructed, will enable us to provide employment in three shops, wood furniture manufacturing, tire reconditioning and centralized regional automotive repairs, which again will enable us to provide a better industrial training program at that penitentiary.
Supply-Justice
Another item is for the federal training centre-a vocational training building- which will contribute vitally toward the permanent rehabilitation of inmates who desire to learn a trade. This will provide shop accommodation and classroom facilities to train an additional 100 inmates at the federal training centre when it is completed.
So that with respect to this construction program I may say in general that although the construction itself is to be carried on by outside civilian contractors this will achieve three purposes. First, it will provide employment during the winter months. Second, it will give us better facilities, a considerable increase in the facilities with which we can provide in-training programs for inmates. Third, it will be an advance upon the construction program to which the hon. member for Vancouver East has referred, namely an over-all program of improving correctional institutions in Canada.
With respect to the strictures of the hon. member for St. Denis, again I find it is a little bit difficult to accept full responsibility for the diminution of the forecast surplus of $12 million simply because I submit this humble and modest item of $315,000 in the supplementary estimates for the penitentiaries branch. I think he is trying to heap on my shoulders a share of responsibility which is not quite appropriate to be landed there. However, I do remind him that I said at the beginning of my explanation that we have not represented this particular item so much as making up unforeseen expenditures during this fiscal year as we have put it forward as an advance on the construction program that would otherwise be entirely included in the main estimates of the next fiscal year.
All government departments have been asked to examine their potential construction programs and to bring forward any items that could profitably be started this winter for which their plans would otherwise have deferred until next year. We have accordingly brought forward from next year's plans these items for the penitentiaries branch which otherwise we would have deferred until next year.


Azellus Denis: That could have been done last spring.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are bringing them forward now and, of course, in view of the very severe condemnation of this construction program by my hon. friend it is perhaps open to me to suggest that the reason why we do it now is that we might find him in a better spirit at this time of the year than we would have at any other time.

Supply-Justice


Azellus Denis: I do not say I am against the expenditures but expenditures of this kind could have been provided for last spring. They could have appeared in the main estimates and the work would have been already started now. You have decided on a winter program in the month of December. What is the use? When are they going to start? Have they started already?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, but I can assure the hon. member-


Azellus Denis: I do not want to use too harsh a word, but was the government asleep for two or three years? Did it just wake up? If the need for these expenditures could have been foreseen they could have been included in the main estimates.
I see the parliamentary secretary is laughing and smiling. I do not know if he is smiling or laughing at me or with me. However, I believe he will agree with me that this winter works program comes too late, as usual. I simply submit that these estimates should have been included in the main estimates in order to help the unemployed this winter. This money should not be voted in December but should have been voted earlier in the year, and that is what I want to know from the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If we are too late, then it is my responsibility and I ask my hon. friend to help me rectify the error by passing these supplementary estimates.


Gabriel Roberge: This vote is for $315,000. Can the minister advise how much of this money is for St. Vincent de Paul, how much for Dorchester, British Columbia, Collins Bay, the federal training centre and Joyceville? Can he tell us how much is for material and how much is for labour?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not able to say exactly how much will be devoted to each of these subheadings because we have to wait until the item is approved before we can make the tender calls. It is only when we have made the tender calls that we will get a break-down of the contracts.
I had anticipated a question with regard to the number of jobs that this would create and I have done my best to find that out. I am advised, however, that until we have let the contracts I will not be able to give a definite figure. The projects contained in this item have been designed with two purposes in mind: First, to obtain an advance on our own construction program for next year and, second, by so doing to provide increased employment this winter. We are prepared to

defend each one of these projects as an essential part of the over-all penitentiary construction program. We are satisfied we can start this winter and thus be enabled to provide extra employment. However, I cannot, with the best will in the world, say exactly how many men will be employed on each job.


Mr. Bourget:: May I ask the minister how he is able to say these projects will cost only $315,000 if the plans are not prepared and the specifications have not been prepared?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can say that very readily because that is the limit of the authority we will have. We cannot spend more than $315,000 at this time because parliament will not have authorized more than that. You must remember also, Mr. Chairman, that in several cases this money will be advanced on construction projects, the continuation of which will be authorized in the main estimates for 1961-02. These will not necessarily be the limits of the projects themselves, and a whole project may well, in some cases, cost more than this. This is another reason why I cannot say at the moment how much will go for materials and how much for labour. We will be discussing with the contractors who tender the possibility of arranging their work during these winter months so as to provide the maximum of jobs during that season.


Maurice Bourget: This is just giving a blank cheque. You have no definite projects?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no blank cheque; No, we are asking for authority to spend $315,000 between now and March 31, and no more than that. We would have no authority to spend any more. All I am saying is that some of these projects may not be completed by March 31, in which case we would have to include a further item in the main estimates and come back to parliament to ask for more money.


Azellus Denis: Is there going to be a proviso in the contracts under which the unemployed will get priority in so far as the labourers are concerned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the policy of the government administered through the Department of Labour's winter works program. May I give an example to my hon. friend for Levis? The first project included in this item, Dorchester penitentiary industrial building, is estimated to cost $161,000. It is estimated we can usefully spend $30,000 during the period up to March 31, 1961.


Gabriel Roberge: I should like to know from the minister how many man hours are going to be spent by the inmates and how many by outsiders?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This program, Mr. Chairman, does not envisage the employment of inmate labour on construction. These projects will all be built by outside contractors.


Gabriel Roberge: Are the contracts let now or are they going to be let?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe some tenders have been called in anticipation, but so far as I am aware none of the contracts have been signed as yet. Treasury board approval would be required before that could be done.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask if the plans have been prepared by the departmental architects or by outside architects?


Edmund Davie Fulton: These plans have all been prepared by the engineering and architectural division of the penitentiaries branch.


Gabriel Roberge: I notice in the main estimates under this heading the amount for St. Vincent de Paul is $157,675; for Dorchester, $116,135; for British Columbia, $97,770; for Collins Bay, $164,280; for the federal training centre, $147,970 and for Joyceville, $216,425. The total amount requested in the supplementary estimates is $315,000. The break-down of this item is as follows: St. Vincent de Paul, $70,000; Dorchester, $45,000; British Columbia, $20,000; Collins Bay, $60,000; federal training centre, $60,000 and Joyceville, $60,000. This makes an aggregate increase of 34 per cent. When the main estimates were prepared was it possible to foresee that the work to be done on these institutions would add up to $1,250,000?


Edmund Davie Fulton: At any one time any department of government could spend far more money, if it were left on its own, than treasury board includes in the estimates. I have explained earlier in connection with this item, however, that this is not so much supplementary estimates to make up some deficiency in the current year's authorized expenditures as it is an advance on next year's construction program. We had a construction program for this year and we have a construction program for next year as well as one for the year after. What all departments, including my own, were asked to do in connection with this year's winter works program was to re-examine their construction program to see how much they could bring forward for this winter which otherwise would not have been done until next year. We so assessed our next year's building program and have brought this portion of it forward because we have been advised that this amount of work could profitably be started and carried out during the winter months of this year.
Supply-J ustice


Gabriel Roberge: Then you are saying that in March or April of last year this government did not know there was going to be a lack of employment this winter, and the government decided to increase employment by asking the committee to pass these further estimates?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This item is before the committee now in the same way that a number of other items are before the committee as projects designed to create employment during the winter months. I can only submit them in that spirit and ask the committee to approve them on that account. If the committee desires not to approve them, we shall be obliged to defer them until next year.


Gabriel Roberge: Let us suppose that there was no session at this time. Those people who are going to get employment would be obliged to wait until February. Would that be an emergency session or a regular session?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I could make a great many explanations on the basis of hypothetical assumptions but I am dealing with my supplementary estimates on the basis of the session having started on November 17. The session did start on November 17. I am here before the committee with this estimate on the basis of which, if approved, useful employment will be provided and a useful advance will be provided on the penitentiary construction program.


Maurice Bourget: Am I right in understanding that this amount of $315,000 is for new works that are going to be constructed until March 31? Are these new works?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. We have no money in the 1960-61 estimates for the purpose. We would otherwise have had to wait until the 1961-62 main estimates. In general we have brought forward this amount for a start on the increased construction program. On looking at my notes I find that this is not completely accurate with respect to the vocational training building at St. Vincent de Paul federal training centre. I find there that $30,000 has already been voted for this project this year and we are asking for an additional $60,000 this year because we think we can finish it before March 31, the total cost being $90,000.


Maurice Bourget: How is it that the whole amount was not voted in the main estimates? Plans must have been made. Estimates must have been calculated. I do not see why the minister is coming along at this time and asking us for an additional amount of $50,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am coming back now because we did not get the $60,000 in our main estimates. That is why I am back here. If I had

Supply-Justice
the $60,000, I can assure my hon. friend I would not be here before the committee.


Maurice Bourget: Then it was refused by the treasury board, was it not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was not included in the main estimates.


Maurice Bourget: For what reason? For the reason that it was refused by the treasury board. That is the reason.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It certainly was not included by the treasury board.


Maurice Bourget: The minister can say what he likes; it was refused.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend is labouring to produce a gnat and says that the treasury board did not authorize the amount in the main estimates, he is quite right. He knows how treasury board works.


Maurice Bourget: I do not know. I was not a minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have had the same answer on many occasions. I have said, and I will say it again, that we are asking for this money because it was not included in the main estimates this year and we can usefully do this work in the winter months. If the committee thinks we should do it, I hope they will approve this vote.


Gabriel Roberge: The answer is obvious. The question we are asking is why it was not possible, when the main estimates were brought down, to embody these amounts that are now being asked for.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Again, as my hon. friends know very well,-


Gabriel Roberge: I do not know. I was not here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry but I did not catch what my hon. friend said.


Gabriel Roberge: I said I did not know; I was not here in the previous year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But my hon. friend was here when the main estimates were being voted for this year?


Gabriel Roberge: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All the explanations necessary to support the items in the main estimates were given at that time. It is well known to all the members of the committee that when you are estimating what it will be possible to spend in one year and are then dividing up year construction program between 1960-61 and 1961-62, an error of $60,000 in a vote of say nearly $1 million for individual construction items is not untoward. The government has asked all the departments to reassess their reconstruction programs. As I recall it,

the members of the opposition strongly urged that the government should reassess its construction program. We have complied with both these requests and are bringing forward an item for $315,000 which I can assure my hon. friends can be properly and usefully spent on this construction program this winter. Unless my hon. friends think that we should not provide this employment, I would hope they might allow this item to pass.


Azellus Denis: It is about time the minister gave the real reason, namely that they made an error at that time. Do not tell the people that you are asking for $60,000 in order to help employment but rather that you made an error of $60,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was no error made unless it was that of assuming that my friend the hon. member for St. Denis understood the explanation we gave on the earlier occasion.


Maurice Bourget: What was the estimated cost of the federal training centre for which the amount is listed here as $60,000 in the supplementary estimates?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is on the vocational training building at the federal training centre. In the 1960-61 estimates $30,000 was included for initial construction on this project. We now estimate that we can advance construction to the extent of a further $60,000 by March 31. This is not to say that this is the total amount that will be required for construction of this building.


Maurice Bourget: Did I understand the minister to say that $30,000 was included in the main estimates?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Maurice Bourget: Surely the minister will agree with me that any company or any contractor can spend more than $30,000. We have the $60,000 asked for in the supplementary estimates and the $30,000 voted in the main estimates. Surely this amount could have been expended during the fiscal year 1960-61. Either there was a lack of design or a lack of provision. There is no other answer that could be given. Surely any contractor can do some work for $90,000 in a fiscal year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes, indeed; and of course it would be possible to accelerate all of your construction programs and thereby increase the cost of construction, as was done on some occasions by the government in which my hon. friend was a parliamentary assistant, as he should remember. But the question is the extent to which you should accelerate your construction program and therefore increase the cost of construction. It was therefore, I submit, a perfectly proper thing for this government to do when it included in the

main estimates the amounts which it thought could be properly expended in accordance with the normal construction program and then, at a time when it became desirable, to revise its construction program in the light of winter unemployment and then to decide to what extent it should accelerate that construction program by bringing forward parts of it which would otherwise be deferred until the next year: That is exactly what we have done. The $60,000 with respect to this particular project represents an accelerated pace of construction of this vocational training building.


Maurice Bourget: Surely the minister will agree with me that when we passed the main estimates, under which $30,000 was voted, that was the time at which to vote more. When the estimates were passed we knew there was a great deal of unemployment and at the time we could foresee a great deal more unemployment occurring this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I had included in the main estimates the whole amount which is now under discussion my hon. friends would have accused me of accelerating construction programs and wasting the people's money.


Maurice Bourget: No, we never said that. As a matter of fact, we will be voting $30 million in a few minutes for winter employment. On the other hand, when you take the construction items of all the departments which take care of construction we have deducted $73 million out of that program of construction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is my hon. friend prepared to pass items in the supplementary estimates for the purpose of providing winter employment, or is he not?


Maurice Bourget: I am.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I do not know why my hon. friend is holding up this very modest, humble item of $315,000 in respect of the whole-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because you have given a very bad explanation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -penitentiary construction
program in Canada as though this single grant to one department were responsible for all the ills which my hon. friends say they foresee for this country of ours.


Maurice Bourget: The only reason I rose is because, as I said, the government had no plans at all until faced today with the situation of having more than 400,000 unemployed. That is the reason they are now bringing some items forward to increase construction. That is the reason I rose, because I want to repeat that the government has no plans at all to
Supply-J ustice
face up to the situation which the Canadian people are now facing with over 400,000 unemployed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I assure my hon. friend that I have extensive plans for a penitentiaries construction program.


Maurice Bourget: That is the time to do it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend would restrain his enthusiasm for a moment and think of this calmly, and then if in accordance with what I would regard as a constructive approach he would, when my main estimates are before the committee-as they were last spring and will be again this coming year- urge that there should be more money devoted to the penitentiaries construction program, I shall be glad indeed to receive his support.
It seems to me that that is the time to express this support, instead of now, when I bring forward this modest item to make a contribution to help solve the present unemployment problem in Canada, raising petty points and quibbling because there was not this modest amount raised last year, which we have now included in the supplementary program.


Maurice Bourget: I do not know if the Minister of Justice was in the house when I was speaking for the opposition on the public works estimates. At that time I mentioned the fact-and he can refer to my speech-that just on the Department of Public Works estimates there was a deduction of $25 million in the construction item. I would also like to add that we have never opposed any construction item. Far from it; we have asked the government to do more, and we blamed the government for deducting $25 million just on the public works program.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asking for only $315,000. I hope my hon. friend will support it.


An hon. Member:: You will get it.


Azellus Denis: May I ask the minister the number of inmates who are in penitentiaries, compared to last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The number of inmates is just over 6,200.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would say if I am correct in interpreting what he said, that included in this estimate is money for the commencement of projects the ultimate costs of which are unknown.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I have not the total costs for these projects. I do not have all the figures before me at the moment because that is a matter I expect to present during my main estimates.

Supply-Labour


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister think it is appropriate to tell the committee what the ultimate costs will be, without giving details? It is something like giving a woman a cheque to buy a hat, when ultimately you know you will have to pay for a dress, a hat and other accessories.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a matter about which my hon. friend knows more than I, being in that business. However, in my main estimates I expect to give the total costs of all these projects. I can give some now. The shops building at St. Vincent de Paul is estimated to cost a total of $110,000, of which we are asking for $40,000 at this time. The farm camp at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary is estimated to cost a total of $225,000, of which we are asking for an advance of $30,000 at this time. The shops building at Joyceville is estimated to cost a total of $150,000, of which we are asking for an advance of $60,000 at this time. The exercise hall, British Columbia, is estimated to cost a total of $50,000, of which we are asking for an advance of $20,000 at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And in only one case is the construction already underway with the previous expenditure which has been authorized by parliament?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I think that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gabriel Roberge: Normally the R.C.M.P. item comes under the estimates of the Minister of Justice. I think the committee would be agreeable to going to item 642 right away.


[Stage Direction]
Marine services-
642. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $25,000.
Jacques Flynn: Is it the wish of the committee to go to item 642 right away?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 642 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Special services-
592. Payments, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1960-61 and 1961-62 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the loth day of October, 1960, to such day in the fiscal year 1961-62 as may be determined by the governor in council, $30,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, is the minister going to make a statement?


Mr. Starr:: I did not get a chance. Thank you very much. I am happy to report that the principal item of some $30 million in these estimates relates to the municipal winter works program.
You will recall that last year the amount was $15 million. This has now been doubled and I may say that the program in this expanded form has met with a tremendous response across Canada. You will recall that the municipal winter works program arose from the unemployment conference which was held in July, 1958. In that first winter work was provided for some 35,000 men on site. Last year the number was in the neighbourhood of 50,000 on site.
I should explain that these figures refer, as I mentioned, to on-site employment; but I would like to make it quite clear that for every person employed on site there is at least one other person employed or given employment off site in the provision of materials and equipment. The estimate which I have received for this winter is that some 100,000 men will be given employment on site and an equal number will be kept in employment off site as a result of this program.
I have said that the program is being well received. An indication of this is that the latest figures in my possession as of December 16 reveal that on that date some 4,589 projects had been accepted from the municipalities across Canada. I may say that this program has provided very important assistance to the municipalities in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can you give us the provinces, the areas?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member would be good enough to withhold that question we will be able to give him that information.


Lionel Chevrier: You gave it last year.


Michael Starr: I beg your pardon?


Lionel Chevrier: You gave this earlier. When we discussed the main estimates at the former session you gave a break-down of this for the date up to the time of the discussion. We are hopeful that you will be able to do the same thing now.


Michael Starr: Yes. I am just making a general statement on this item, and I will endeavour to supply all the information that will be required by the committee.
I may say that this program has provided very important assistance to the municipalities in this country. In the first place it has provided an easement in the financial position of a number of municipalities in relation to the undertaking of needed public works. It has made possible the undertaking of these works. It has brought forward a

large number of projects which otherwise would not have been undertaken and it has, of course, provided needed employment. I want to emphasize that this measure is one of a series of measures designed to maintain economic stability and to provide employment. When taken together these measures form the most comprehensive program of this kind ever placed before the parliament of Canada. In my opinion-and it is not just a matter of opinion because the figures are there-the municipal winter works program has been constructive, positive and effective.
I want to say that the results of the program to date this year are compiled in eight black bound books which hon. members see before them showing exactly what has been happening in every city, town and province under this program. As I mentioned earlier, I am happy to place this information at the disposal of any hon. member who wishes to question me on it.
As this program has gone on it has attained wider and wider acceptance. For example, the number of applications received to date is already almost over 2,000 more than that of last year's program. I may say that already at this date projects calling for a total expenditure of some $203 million have been approved. This will provide work for more than 78,000 men. To put it another way, the number of man days worked comes to 3,579,320 already. As the committee knows, the program came into effect this year on October 15, six weeks earlier than in previous years. I hope that this change will meet the approval of those who suggested last year that the program in addition to being too little was also too late. I think they will agree that this year it is neither. It is doubled in scope. It is six weeks earlier in time. In addition to that, it is considerably enlarged in substance.
This year, for example, we have added municipal buildings. This change has been welcomed with enthusiasm by the municipalities. We have also expanded the program by the addition of street lighting, traffic signals and municipal parking lots. We have also added pumping stations, filtration plants and sewage disposal plants. Meanwhile we have retained the projects of the past two years such as the construction and improvements of streets, roads, sidewalks and bridges, water, sewage and drainage facilities as well as parks and playgrounds. All in all the present program-the program embodied in this estimate-is the most extensive construction ever undertaken in the field of federal, provincial and municipal co-operation.
One of the happy features of the program is that it permits joint action and joint costsharing so that no one government is required to bear the whole burden. The administration
Supply-Labour
is carried on at the provincial level and the resulting provincial co-operation has been most gratifying. The federal government, as the committee knows, pays 50 per cent of the payroll costs of these projects. Five provinces are contributing an additional 25 per cent. One province is contributing 40 per cent. One province pays 25 per cent of direct payroll costs in respect of persons not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and an additional 25 per cent in respect of persons in receipt of social allowances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What province pays 40 per cent?


Michael Starr: Quebec. That in general terms is the program that this estimate represents.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I believe the committee will be interested in the information which the minister has given to us. We will, of course, require a great deal more information as the discussion proceeds. I believe that all of us will want to assist the minister in getting an item of this importance through the committee promptly in the hope that it will be of some assistance to those who are unemployed during the course of the present winter.
I cannot say the same thing about the other programs to which the minister referred in general terms and of course I refer now to the legislation passed within the last few weeks, the amendments to the housing act, the small business legislation, the vocational training legislation and the legislation establishing the productivity council. As the minister knows, there is little if any at all of that legislation which will be of any use during the course of the present winter.
Good as this program is and good as it appears on the face of it, as the minister himself has admitted, in the first year of its operation the winter works program provided work for 35,000 people in this country. In 1959 it provided work for 50,000 people. The minister estimates that during the present year-although he is not able to give us firm figures-there will be provided on-site employment for about 100,000. When one considers that the unemployed figure for the middle of November amounted to well over 400,000, namely 428,000-


Michael Starr: It was 429,000.


Lionel Chevrier: -429,000, and when at the time at which I am speaking there has perhaps been a substantial increase, the committee can get some idea of just where this program fits in the over-all picture. It is a program that is directed at winter works and seasonal employment, and it is also one largely directed toward the construction industry. There are, of course, other parts of

Supply-Labour
the economy that are suffering because of unemployment and they are not in the construction industry.
One of the questions which now comes to my mind is this. Has the minister given any consideration to the representations which were made to him during the course of the dominion-provincial conference in October of this year? I refer now particularly to the representations made by the premier of the province of Quebec. The minister will probably remember the brief which was read by the premier at the time. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to put on the record just one paragraph from the brief and then ask him what consideration, if any, has been given to this aspect of the winter works program as suggested by the premier of Quebec. I quote from his statement:
(Translation):
The tact remains, however, that a well thought-out works program could be helpful, particularly in wintertime, in stimulating the construction industry and related industries. In that connection, I should like to make a practical suggestion which I think would add greatly to the beneficial effects of the joint winter works program. At the present time, contributions paid to the municipalities are standardized and cover only part of the labour costs. The main cost of such works therefore remains a municipal responsibility.
Such a situation is not too hard on the more prosperous municipalities where there is little unemployment. Federal and provincial subsidies enable them to reduce their financial burden. However, the present system of standard contributions does not allow the poorer municipalities to fully share in the winter works program, despite the fact that, as a general rule, they have a higher proportion of unemployed. Under the direct control of the provinces, there might be established a system of subsidies scaled according to the proportion of unemployed.
(Text):
This is the part to which I have particular reference:
(Translation):
In such a case, maximum contributions should cover part of the cost of machinery and equipment. We hope this suggestion will be discussed in further detail during this conference.
(Text):
Among the suggestions made by the premier of Quebec were these two. One had to do with a distinction which might well be made between the poorer municipalities- if I may use that expression-as compared with the wealthier ones and the other was the question of the federal government paying a part of the cost of the machinery and equipment. The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Levis that I should enquire what consideration, if any, has been given to paying a portion of the cost of the materials as well as the cost of the machinery and equipment as suggested by the premier.

When the minister has an opportunity will he give consideration to this aspect of the case?
My main purpose in rising, was to discuss another aspect of this problem and one where I think the federal government has completely fallen down. I have reference now to the distress areas in Canada. What is the policy of the federal government with reference to those areas? There are in Canada at the present time many distress areas; certainly, I do not want to give them any publicity by mentioning them, but I do hold in my hand a number of publications, one of which is the Labour Gazette of May 20, and another is the same publication of January 21, 1960. In this publication a definition is given of the classes in which various communities are placed in Canada. Some are placed in group one, where there is a labour surplus and which are defined as areas in which current or immediately prospective labour supply exceeds demand in almost all of the major occupations. Then, there is the group two labour surplus area in which current or immediately prospective labour supply exceeds demand in about half of the major occupations. There is a third group where there is a balanced labour supply, and a fourth group where there is a labour shortage.
I propose to deal with the first two only and then as it affects the policy of the government. What is the policy of the government with respect to those areas where there is a labour surplus? The Labour Gazette to which I referred earlier deals with a number of those areas in our country. It has occurred to me that in one of those at least, not to mention the others, there is a serious situation. The only reason I mention it is that in the last few weeks considerable attention has been paid to it on television and elsewhere. I refer to the city of Cornwall where, as the committee and the minister knows particularly, there is a very serious labour surplus. I am wondering what, if anything, the federal government has done to meet the stiuation in that area? I do know that at the present time there is an application by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario before the national energy board for permission of that corporation to export power to the United States when that commission refuses to grant power to two local power companies which could assist the community.
I call upon the national energy board to give careful consideration to that application and to make sure that that application on the part of the Hydro Electric Power Commission to export power outside Canada is not granted when there is a demand for it in eastern Ontario, and particularly when that commission

in the province of Ontario refuses to set aside a block of power for industry in eastern Ontario, whereas on the opposite side of the boundary line in the state of New York power has been set aside for industry. I call upon the minister to tell the committee what is the policy of the government with reference to to those distressed areas.
I should like to put on Hansard a summary of what is being done in other countries, if I may. There is a policy in Great Britain having to do with distress areas. It has existed throughout the years since 1934. Incentives there exist to induce companies to settle in distressed areas and they have gradually been made more generous. Since 1946, these incentives have consisted of factory construction for rental purposes; grants loaned to companies wishing to build their own factories, and the improvement of basic services, such as road, utilities and the like. Of course, I understand that in our country, because of our constitution, the latter suggestion would not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Under the law in May, 1960 the board of trade has power (1) to acquire land by agreement and build factories for lease; (2) to give building grants amounting to 85 per cent of the difference between the actual cost of the construction of a private plant and the value of the building on completion; (3) to extend substantial loans or grants to private enterprise; and (4) to acquire land which is abandoned or neglected and improve it so that it may be brought into use or may improve property values in the neighbourhood.
In Belgium there is a program having to do with surplus labour in certain areas of that country. Aid to labour surplus areas in Belgium is still in the first stages of development, although the desirability of providing national assistance to certain regions has been much talked of since 1945. No major measures were undertaken toward this end until the enactment of what is known as the regional development law of July 18, 1959. This legislation recognizes the need to attract industry to areas which have labour surpluses. Incentives for this purpose are provided in the form of loans, grants, tax exemptions and government construction of factories for lease.
In Germany, where there was a very substantial labour surplus area in 1951, as a result of the program which was established and put into operation there, as the committee knows, the contrary exists today and there is a labour shortage. A wide variety of assistance is available in that country depending on the requirements of a specific
Supply-Labour
area. In 1959, assistance measures included the following:
(1)	loans for industrial and handicraft enterprises;
(2)	loans and interest subsidies for tourist enterprises;
(3)	loans and grants to public or private non-profit organizations established to improve the general economic conditions in an area;
(4)	loans and grants for agriculture improvement, vocational training and for the improvement of public facilities, such as roads, electricity and water.
In Sweden, in contrast to the three countries I have mentioned, there is no program to aid specifically designated labour surplus areas. Instead the Swedish program is designed to go into effect in any area at any time. It is, if you like, legislation in abeyance, ready to be applied to any ad hoc situation. Measures for aiding labour surplus areas consist of (1) assisting the unemployed to move; (2) promoting the location of new business in an area: (3) public works.
Therefore, from the discusion or the mention of what is happening in those four countries one fact emerges. It is that all of them have recognized the existence of the problem. They have all designated certain areas as being labour surplus areas. They have established programs to aid these areas. They have made progress in assisting these areas to improve their employment opportunities.
The question that naturally arises is, what have we done in Canada in this regard? Do we have legislation specifically designed to meet the needs of labour surplus areas? Have we studied the experience of the European countries in this regard? It is true that in dealing with the matter now before the committee the minister mentioned a while ago that the program was a most comprehensive one, but the fact is that the program, as the house knows, is directed toward one aspect of the economy only and is not directed toward the whole of the economy. It deals with one basic industry, namely construction, and does not deal with the others. Neither does this nor any other part of the program deal with structural unemployment or unemployment arising out of automation. Certainly there is, as far as I can see, no determination to meet the problem in distressed areas.
I wonder what the government has in mind with reference to such areas because while I mentioned one I have four others in my mind at the moment which I do not want to mention lest unfavourable publicity be given to them and lest I be accused by those who sit on the other side of the house of casting gloom and perhaps also of doing a disservice

Supply-Labour
to these communities. I hope that before this item goes through the minister will be in a position to tell the house just what the plans are for dealing with these areas, one of which I have mentioned, because I know that their plight is serious.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have had an interesting time listening to the hon. member for Laurier advocating this new found form of creeping socialism, something which he abhorred and rejected not too long ago when he sat on the other side of the house. I must say that it certainly sounded convincing. It sounded fine and I am sure it will read nicely in Hansard. However, there are a number of members in the house who know better and realize that this latter-day reformation of the Liberals that the hon. member for Laurier is trying to promote has a few drawbacks and perhaps will not get too far, even if he meant that this should become a part of Liberal philosophy.
He talked about economic planning but in reality we know that all he and the Liberal party are talking about is economic plotting, or perhaps one should say political plotting, in the hope that this will raise the standard of that party in the eyes of the general public some time in the future when we may have a test of strength in the country. My friend behind me says that it is quite high now. I remember that there was an election in British Columbia not too long ago and it is the only place in the whole country where Liberal party support dropped percentage-wise and also in total vote, so it is not too good there.
But this is one of the gratifying things that comes about by reason of the Liberals having been forced out of office for becoming stagnant and from the development of the new party, a new political force in Canada which is making some people think and wonder what sort of projects they should push in order to promote employment and take care of our economy. The situation has probably pushed the Liberals into a quandary because I do not see how even they can justify this stand on the one hand and attempt to reform Joey Smallwood on the other, he representing the rightist element of that party. As I say. the hon. member's remarks sounded fine and they will probably read well but the general public will remember the 22 long years that the Liberals were in power and people will perhaps not be quite so trusting as the Liberal party hopes they will be.
These remarks, of course, do not get at the basis of the particular item now before us. Needless to say, the pronouncements of the hon. member for Laurier about economic planning and dealing with distressed areas
[Mr. Chevrier.j
represent the expression of an admirable point of view. I doubt very much whether the Liberals really believe it or whether the Tory government will put it into effect but it is something that has been sadly needed for a long, long time, something that has been advocated by the socialist element in Canada for many years and which has been rejected by these arch free enterprisers. In fact, I am quite sure that if such an economic system of planning for distressed areas had been promoted when the hon. member for Laurier was the member for Stormont, Cornwall would not be in so much difficulty as it is today provided there had been something on the statute books to deal with the situation.
This so-called winter works incentive program appears to be the major and key part of the Conservative government's campaign to deal with the economy and to promote employment. Certainly the measures we have dealt with up to now during this session have had relatively little in them that would deal with the question immediately. Because they have touted this program for quite a number of years now and placed a good deal of emphasis on it, it would appear to be the major and key part of the government's campaign to deal with the economy and to attempt to get people back to work. There is no question that it will be of some help. With respect to certain projects of which I am aware it has already assisted in putting people to work so that they can accomplish something useful rather than remaining idle and collecting rocking chair money or not collecting anything at all.
It is helpful that the minister listened to what he was told when the plan was first instituted and what those on this side of the house said during the last session and as a result has undertaken to expand the type of work which can be engaged in under this plan. The unfortunate part is that this program, like so many others instituted by people with the political philosophy of those in the Tory party, was forced upon the government rather than being the result of leadership or imagination.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The economic conditions of the nation are what promote this sort of action. The hon. member for Essex East says "hear, hear". I am sure if he reflects he will recall that I referred to governments that have this particular political philosophy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have been pushing this matter for three years.


Charles Benjamin Howard: My friend has been advocating almost anything for the last three years as long as it would tend to improve the position

of his party. I am advocating, as I always have, those things which I think are sensible and right and by which I hope to place myself and the party to which I belong in a more acceptable position than we are. The only thing is that I admit it, unlike my friends who spent 22 years in arrogance and double talk, still want to engage in the same sort of thing and refuse to admit these facts of political life.
It was the collapse or near collapse of our economy a few years ago that really forced the government into some sort of patchwork program, and that is all this winter works incentive program is, another patch on the leaky, old free enterprise boat. It will help a little bit, but it will not solve the over-all problem. It is something that is acceptable because it will be helpful in that regard.
However, when we consider the fact that municipalities are going to get some assistance for certain types of jobs, and when we consider the exorbitant high interest rates they have to pay on the money they borrow, interest rates forced upon them by this government's foolish fiscal policies, then we wonder whether the help will be worth while. There are municipalities in my own constituency that have balanced these two things and have come to the conclusion they will not be any better off in terms of dollars. They have come to the conclusion they will be in debt and their interest rates will be higher over the long haul, so they will not be any better off under this particular program.
I think it would have been more advisable if the government, or the Liberals before them, had embarked upon a municipal lending fund, a revolving fund for the municipalities from which they could borrow at low interest rates to assist them in the development of municipal services. I am sure if something of that nature had been done a long time ago it would have prevented the municipalities from being driven around the bend as a result of their activities in Wall street. Perhaps our municipalities would now be in a much better position than they are today.
I feel that there are some weaknesses in the program that is advocated here, and I have communicated with the minister about one of them. I refer to the extension of this program to what is known as unorganized territories, that is areas which are not organized into municipalities, cities, towns or municipal districts. We have a number of them in British Columbia. I wrote the minister about one such area in which the people, because of the rural electrification program of the British Columbia power commission, wanted to extend the rural electrification into
Supply-Labour
Burns Lake. This is not an organized district but the people of the area are in a position, because of British Columbia's hydro policy, to provide some of the work and some of the material themselves. They wanted to participate in this federal program in order to clear the right of way for the power line, for digging the holes for poles, for providing the poles, cutting them and skidding them. They wanted to engage in some sort of participation financially with this government in that sort of project. I think it is an admirable type of project, and if we are going to have this sort of program we should extend it to jobs of this type.
In British Columbia-I do not know whether the same thing applies in other provinces-we have local improvement districts organized from time to time. They are not municipalities but are sort of ad hoc groupings of people who want to establish a water system or a sewage system, something of that nature. They establish a local improvement district and can actually borrow money with the backing of the provincial government. I believe this type of community should be included in this program. I do not see why because one person happens to live in a city and another person lives in a rural area, the person in the rural area should be placed at a disadvantage when it comes to assistance in providing local services such as the cities provide.
Apart from this and some discussion of specific details, I doubt very much whether one can contribute any more at this time. I would say that for many, many years we have wholeheartedly endorsed the idea of government assistance to industries in geographic areas and communities in which those industries are most needed. If necessary government financial assistance should be provided to ensure that industries are established in those areas in which they are needed most. The result of the lax sort of program we have at the moment is that industries will build where the services are available or where raw materials are available because this is their prime concern. They are not concerned that an industry be established where a number of people happen to live, and I think this should be the prime concern. We have seen a number of instances of so-called runaway plants which have resulted from this lax policy. Industries will be bought out by some large company, the facilities closed down and moved to another part of the country. This happened in Nova Scotia on a number of occasions and plants were closed down and moved into Ontario where there were more services. This is a serious hardship to the communities involved and the working people themselves.

Supply-Labour
This is one of the aspects in which the government should become engaged. We hope they do not become engaged in it merely because of the force of economic pressures. We would rather that the government become engaged in this sort of assistance program to the communities, the so-called distressed areas, and become involved from the humanitarian point of view of what will be beneficial to the people themselves rather than, as I said earlier, be pushed into it by the force of economic pressures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if the minister could give us some break-down of some of the generalizations he has given. He has told us, for instance, that there are 4,989 projects as of December 16. Could he tell us how these are broken down as between the various provinces?


Michael Starr: The break-down is, British Columbia, 489; Alberta, 538; Saskatchewan, 554; Manitoba, 191; Ontario, 1,137; Quebec, 1,287; New Brunswick, 145; Nova Scotia, 91; Prince Edward Island, 13; Newfoundland, 104; Yukon, 1; Indian bands, 39.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we have a break-down as between the cities in Ontario? For instance, how many are there in Cornwall?


Michael Starr: In Cornwall, there are seven projects under way.


Lionel Chevrier: For how much?


Michael Starr: The number of men employed, 173; man days worked, 11,229; cost of the projects, $358,339; the payroll costs, $117,251; government share, $58,401. I must give you the pay in the period from October 15 to the end of April, and that is estimated at $117,251, which gives the government's share of $58,401.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister tell me how many projects there are in Peterborough?


Michael Starr: There are 22 projects in Peterborough: number of men involved, 368; man days work, 11,293; total cost, $1,154,452; payroll cost for the period, $155,341; government share, $77,676.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked for some of these particulars Mr. Chairman, because they reveal the essential weakness of this program. No one denies the fact that any program that will put some people to work at this time is a desirable one. We have always taken the position in this party during the past three years, that this program would be supported by us, not because we regard it as an answer to the problem but because it was capable of putting a limited number of people to work. However, on the basis

of the figures the minister has given showing the number of projects in our ten provinces and the number of men thus far who have been put to work in certain communities, where unemployment is extremely high, it is surely evident how limited this program in fact is.
The hon. member who last spoke, the hon. member for Skeena, in noting with satisfaction the review made by the hon. member for Laurier, sought to indicate that his statement represented a change of attitude on our part. The hon. member, of course, forgets that during the past three years in this chamber it has been left to the Liberal members of parliament to prod the government, to urge the government to do something, in the matter of unemployment. It has been left to the members of the Liberal party each session- and the record is there for everyone to see- to urge the government to announce its policy with regard to the ensuing winter works program. Then when that policy was announced, it was again mainly left to the same party members in this chamber to criticize the measure. Hence when the hon. member for Skeena takes unto himself the responsibility for saying that the suggestions made by the hon. member for Laurier represent a change of attitude, and one prompted by political considerations, he is not addressing himself to the proposal in proper context, as I am sure he himself realizes.
We in this party take second place to no group in this House of Commons with regard to what we have sought to do during the past three years to bring home to the government its responsibility in this matter and its failure adequately to cope with the problem. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member for Skeena will go back and look up Hansard he will find that early last session the hon. member for Laurier, in listing 25 different proposals of the Liberal party in the matter of unemployment, listed as No. 8 the suggestion that the government should concentrate its attention on surplus labour areas, to assess the economic factors at work in them and1 to establish the means of providing work in those areas. Hence to suggest that in advocating that the government should make an attack on the distressed areas-


Michael Starr: A concentration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -or a concentration on the distressed areas, we are advocating tonight anything different from what we have been advocating for some time now in this chamber is erroneous.
Let us consider, for example, the figures the minister has given for Cornwall and for Peterborough. I believe that the unemployment figures in those two communities represent, in terms of the percentage of the


[Stage Direction]
labour force that is out of work, perhaps as high a figure as will be found in almost any city of our country. In Cornwall where the population is about 40,000, some 4,000 or 5,000 people are out of work. Those are the statistics. I may be out a couple of hundred; perhaps it is 4,000 but it is in that neighbourhood. I was in Cornwall about seven weeks ago. I paid some attention to the problem of unemployment in that city. I am now speaking from memory, but my recollection is that in that community there were between 4,000 and 4,500 unemployed out of a population, as I said, of 40,000 people. The minister has told us that this particular program has resulted in seven projects being accepted by the province and by the municipality for Cornwall and that it has put to work some 173 people.
Mr. Thrasher:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what the minister said. The minister gave those figures. Then he came to Peterborough. He said that in Peterborough there were 22 projects and that as a result it was estimated that work would be provided for some 368 people. Those are the figures given by the minister. I do not have before me the exact number of unemployed in Peterborough. However, I should think that I am not wrong-and the hon. member for Peterborough who is not in his seat at the moment, and I am not criticizing him for that fact, could possibly give confirmation-when I say that the unemployment figure in Peterborough is in the neighbourhood of 4,000 to 5,000.
Does anyone seriously suggest that in this period of emergency a program that can put to work in Peterborough only 368 men and in Cornwall only 173 men represents a real, dynamic, well thought out program designed to take care of unemployment?
I could talk about my own city in which there are nearly 11,000 people out of work. Can the minister tell me how many projects have been accepted for Windsor and how many men have been put to work or are estimated will be put to work?


Michael Starr: There are 13 projects; 219 men.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says there are 13 projects and that 219 men will be put to work, it is estimated. In a community with almost 11,000 unemployed, 219 men are given work by this program, the major effort of the federal government to deal with this problem of unemployment. Do we need to go any further than merely recite these figures to establish the inadequacy of this program? As I said, to the extent that this program will give work at all, it must be supported. But because this program now has been able to encourage the existence of
Supply-Labour
4,989 projects in the country the government must not think that it is on that account able to discharge its responsibility to the people of Canada with respect to this problem.
Undoubtedly the government is pursuing the development of this program in the following manner: it is saying to the provinces, "We are prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost of projects in respect of wages paid", and in connection with which the province and the municipality must be prepared to become partners with the federal government. But in a matter like this surely the government ought to reorientate itself, its attitude and its policies. Its approach ought to be altogether different.
This is something that is left to the decision of the provinces and the municipalities. No effort is made to select the areas where unemployment is most serious and to say to the governing authorities in those areas, "The unemployment population is thus and thus; this winter works program is capable of providing a given number of men with jobs, but this will not be sufficient. We would like to sit down with you"-the province and the municipality-"and ascertain what kind of steps may be taken to provide work"-in the case of Windsor for over 10,500; in the case of Cornwall for over 4,000; in the case of Peterborough for over 5,000 unemployed people.
But to think we are satisfying our responsibility by this program alone, in the face of this particular emergency, is really to demonstrate without any shadow of doubt that this government has no real unemployment policy at all. The minister began his statement by saying that this was one of a series of measures which the government had brought forward to resolve this problem of unemployment.
What are the other measures? The housing legislation is the only one to which the minister can refer as having any immediate potential value. He certainly cannot refer to the vocational guidance program, the act that he brought in the other day; he cannot refer to the Small Loans Act amendment that was brought in the other day; he certainly cannot refer to the productivity council, because on the basis of his own statement those are programs not designed to provide work in the short term.
What are these other measures of which this program is a part? The real fact is there are really no other measures. This government does not know what to do about this problem; that is the real fact. But it recognizes that it has to do something and it brings forward this program only as a result of

Supply-Labour
prodding on the part of those who sit particularly in this part of the house. Only because of this prodding have we been able to get any kind of program in this particular at all.
The minister predicted on October 19 that the work approved under the government's winter works program would provide 17,894 jobs. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is not as conservative as the Minister of Labour, when speaking on September 22 said he was confident that the winter works program would put 200,000 people to work in Canada. That is a very different figure.


Michael Starr: Would you repeat what I said about how many jobs it would provide.


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: I will read from the article in the Toronto Star. This is dated October 19 and reads:
Ottawa-The government has approved 964 municipal winter works projects for this year's incentive program, labour minister Starr said yesterday.
The federal government will pay $7 million of the total $58 million costs of these projects. Ottawa pays one half direct payroll costs.
The winter works program started Monday-six weeks earlier than last year-and will run to April 30.
Ontario has more than half-467-of the projects that were approved. British Columbia follows with 143 and Saskatchewan with 101.
Mr. Starr predicted the work approved will result in 17,894 jobs for a total of-


Michael Starr: That was up to date; that was not for the whole winter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The article continues:
Mr. Starr predicted the work approved will result in 17,894 jobs for a total of 970,160 man days of work.
I take it that the minister agrees that I have correctly quoted what he said.


Michael Starr: No. The hon. member for Essex East left the impression that I said this municipal winter works program will only provide jobs for 17,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Michael Starr: What was reported in that newspaper was that on that date, a week after the project started on October 15, already 17,000 jobs were provided. But I did say we estimated that later on-not at that particular time, because I only gave the facts up to the receipt of the applications, which was only a week after the starting date-and I said again today, that the municipal winter works program would provide on-site jobs for 100,000 men. And the Minister of Trade and Commerce was quite correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no quarrel with the minister. What I said was that on October 19, 1960 the Minister of Labour

predicted that the work approved under the government's winter works program would provide 17,894 jobs, and that earlier the Minister of Trade and Commerce, on September 22, was reported to have said he was confident that 200,000 jobs would be created this winter by the extended winter works program.


Michael Starr: He was right.


George Harris Hees: Quite correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On September 13, 1960 the Minister of Public Works was quoted as saying that it is uneconomic to construct public buildings to fight unemployment. This government really does not know what it should do. One minister says one thing and another minister says another. That causes the government whip to rise in his seat.
Mr. Pallet!: Would the hon. member say from whence the Minister of Public Works is quoted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I will be very glad to do so. On September 13 in the Toronto Star we have the following:
Public works poor way to make jobs: Walker.
Federal public works minister David J. Walker said last night it is uneconomical to construct public buildings to fight unemployment.
"We can only justify the expense of any such building if Canada needs it," he said. Public works for the sake of providing jobs he termed "one of the most expensive ways" of creating employment.
And so on. I hope that satisfies the government whip.


Mr. Palleil:: Read on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend want me to read on?
Mr. Pallet!: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be very glad to do so.
He said the newly completed $11 million Mackenzie federal building on Adelaide street provided. 1,300 jobs lasting approximately four months.
If this had been a project strictly designed to provide jobs, Mr. Walker said it would mean "$9,000 to provide one man with work for four months".
"Such an expense can only be justified," he said, "if Canada needs such buildings".
Speaking to the ward two businessmen's association, of which he is honorary president-


Lionel Chevrier: He is a ward politician.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The report continues:
Speaking to the ward two businessmen's association, of which he is honorary president, Mr. Walker claimed the real solution to the employment problem lies with individual Canadians.
That is not what the Prime Minister said and that is not what the Minister of Labour said. He said only 15 per cent of last year's gross national product of almost $36 billion was created by government expenditure.

Another feature of this program is that the Minister of Labour speaks as though this particular program, to the extent that it is capable of providing some work, is a program about which the federal government has the right to claim full authorship. One is given the impression that it is a program the implementation of which is made possible entirely by the federal government. The real fact is that to the extent that this program helps in providing some work, the greatest credit for that must go not to the federal government but to the municipalities and to the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "oh". The financial responsibility, the financial burden of this program rests on the provinces and the municipalities. This is seen in the very words I have quoted from the Minister of Labour when he made the statement on October 19, and I quote:
The federal government will pay $7 million of the total $58 million costs of these projects.
In other words at that time the total cost of the program was $58 million and the federal share was only $7 million.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Under you they
would not have got anything.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The rest, $51 million, was being paid by the provinces and municipalities. All I can say is that when we were in power there was no need for a winter works program.


Michael Starr: What about Windsor?


Jay Waldo Monteith: You would not have had the foresight to introduce one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have stated the facts. The figures have been placed on the record by the Minister of Labour himself. They were put on again by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The fact is that when we were in power from 1940 up until 1957 at no time was there continuous unemployment-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Eyewash.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -year after year such as we have had in this country since hon. gentlemen opposite took office.


Michael Starr: There has been continuous unemployment in Windsor since you have been the member.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the hon. gentleman a question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know, Mr. Chairman, that hon. gentlemen do not like-
Supply-Labour


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Essex East has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it unreasonable to ask the government to seek to deal with this problem in a practical and more comprehensive manner? We have not had at any time from the Minister of Labour a breakdown of the categories of unemployed people. We have never had the minister tell us how many unemployed came from agriculture, forestry, fishing and trapping, mining and quarrying, manufacturing, construction, transportation, public utilities, trade, finance, insurance and services generally. We have never had in this committee since this government came into office a break-down of the categories of unemployed in our country.
I say that we cannot possibly deal adequately and comprehensively with this problem unless we know the full nature of the problem. We do not know whether it is cyclical or structural or a combination of both. We do not know the extent of seasonality in the problem. Either the minister does not have that information at his disposal or if he does he is reluctant for some reason or another to give it to the committee.
Since the fall of 1958 we have been urging that parliament be given this information. We have argued that if the minister does not have this information then this house should constitute itself into a committee for the purpose of obtaining from the experts in the government service and outside an assessment of the problem so that, having an assessment of it, we would be in a better position to know what to do about the problem. That is now being done in another place. It is a reflection on this government that it has denied to this house the right to elicit that kind of information when it was being made available and1 now, only at the end of the third year, it is being given to hon. gentlemen who are not the elected representatives of the people.
I say this government made a mistake at the outset, first of all in gambling on the risk, in failing to take the necessary steps to make an assessment of what the problem was. Had the government done that then it could act more effectively on the suggestion made tonight by the hon. member for Laurier. That is being done in the United States.
Under the Eugene McCarthy commission every major distressed area in the United States has been examined. The commission, appointed by congress for that purpose, has gone in and made a careful study of the situation in areas like Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles and other communities in the United

Supply-Labour
States. There is now available for any student of the problem a careful portrayal of the nature of unemployment, broken down into the categories of the various occupations which I mentioned a moment ago.
We do not even have that in this country. If we have the Minister of Labour has never brought it forward. This is what we should have. This government at this late date should send in teams of assessment into Cornwall, Peterborough, Windsor, Toronto, Vancouver, Hamilton, Brantford and other areas where there are these heavy pockets of unemployment to ascertain precisely what is the nature of the problem of unemployment, and having determined that then take steps, in accordance with the government's policies and judgment, designed to deal with this problem in a comprehensive way.
The government has come forward and said that it has a program that will put more men to work this year. The minister said 100,000. What guarantee have we that a great percentage of that 100,000-if that is the correct figure-would not have been put to work under projects conceived, originated and maintained by the municipalities themselves or in conjunction with the governments of the provinces of which they are a part?
This particular program is good as far as it goes. It does not go far enough. It will not put enough people to work. It is a further indication of the complete bankruptcy of ideas of which this government day by day increasingly gives evidence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when I look upon the senatorial physique of the hon. member for Essex East and listen to his rollicking and rolling eloquence, I pay tribute to his impressive ability to make a verbal skirmish on economic injustice and unemployment sound like a major battle against evil. May I call it ten o'clock?
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day, reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader give some indication of what we will do tomorrow and from now until the recess?


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will complete the supplementary estimates. There is the intervention of the private members' hour on Tuesday at five o'clock, so the time tomorrow afternoon is not very great. If the supplementary estimates are completed quickly I think the sensible thing to do would be to follow the suggestion made last Friday. We might take up some of the special committees to which I have drawn attention on several occasions, the ones with regard to procedure, Indian affairs and research.
On Tuesday evening the budget speech will be presented. Wednesday there will be a continuation of the debate on the budget and the house will recess at six o'clock, I presume.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the house leader given any consideration to introducing before Christmas his legislation concerning veterans?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I had hoped to do that, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact the resolution was introduced one week ago on Monday night but the balance of the week was spent on a lengthy debate on the productivity council and we were not able to deal with that resolution again. Time has now run out on us. My hope was that we would complete the resolution stage, have second reading and refer it to the standing committee but obviously there is now no opportunity before the recess to give to this resolution the full attention it deserves. It is very important legislation.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1960, has the Minister of Transport had any meetings with other members of parliament regarding the question of a coastguard1?
2.	If so: (a) upon what dates were such meetings held? (b) who was in attendance?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of
Transport):
1. and 2. No, but the former minister of transport has made himself available at different times to meet with members of parliament who had indicated their desire to discuss with him the matter of search and rescue service. There is no official record of when such meetings with members may have taken place, or of those who were present, so that the correct official reply is that the detailed information requested is not available.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-
Indian agencies-
578.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $50,000.
579.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment-further amount required, $266,500.
Welfare of Indians-
580.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $35,000.
581.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment-further amount required, $215,000.
Economic development of Indians-
582.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment-further amount required, $5,000.
Supply-Items Passed Indian education-
583.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $483,000.
584.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $245,000.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS A-Department-
Contributions to international economic and special aid programs-
Bilateral economic aid programs-
585. West Indies assistance program-further amount required, $750,000.
Special aid programs-
586.	Contribution towards the administrative expenses of the freedom-from-hunger campaign of the food and agriculture organization, $23,000.

[Stage Direction]
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
587.	Miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses, subject to the approval of the treasury board, including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act-further amount required, $1,500,000.

[Stage Direction]
Special-
588.	Assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to regulations established by the governor in council-further amount required, $12,992.
Fisheries research of Canada-
589.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $50,000.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE A-Department-
590.	Bankruptcy Act administration-further amount required, $50,000.
B-Penitentiaries-
591.	Construction, improvements, and equipment -further amount required, $315,000.

[Stage Direction]
Marine services-
642. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $25,000.
90205-6-61i
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 20, 1960