1960-07-28

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.
First report of special committee on broadcasting-Mr. Fortin.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short report to the house on the dominion-provincial conference. The premiers of all the provinces, together with a number of their ministers and advisers, met at the invitation of the government, as hon. members know, to commence discussions which are requisite in preparation for the revision of the financial arrangements with the provinces, which expire in March of 1962.
This meeting was a most active one at which many proposals were put forward by the various provinces, and an opportunity was afforded for the discussion of these proposals in camera. Now they will be studied by my colleagues and myself during the next several months in preparation for subsequent discussions. Most of the meetings took place in public, and the press has given a most full and comprehensive report as to what transpired in these meetings. I shall not, therefore, endeavour to summarize the many suggestions and points of view that were put forward by the ten premiers. I do, however, wish to table copies, in English and in French, of the preliminary verbatim report of the public proceedings of the conference. I would point out, too, that these reports still have to be corrected before they are issued in final printed form. When the copies have been revised the documents will be made available to all hon. members.
The financial proposals that were advanced covered a wide range of subjects and involved very large sums. Indeed, if parliament were to act upon even the more modest of them, it would involve far-reaching changes in the budget and tax system. There were two central problems; one, the nature and extent of the net payments to be made to provinces based upon some measure of
their fiscal need, which payments include the equalization payments, which this government insists shall be continued, and such other payments as the Atlantic adjustment grants, the special grants to Newfoundland and other comparable payments. The second central problem considered was the sharing of the direct tax fields. Not unnaturally, some of the provincial governments would prefer to have the federal government reduce the federal corporation and personal income taxes and estate taxes. It would be necessary to give careful study to the various provincial suggestions and thereafter, as was the case in 1955, make preparations for the agreements such as were ultimately entered into in 1957; that is, a further conference or conferences will have to take place. It has been agreed that the present conference will resume on October 26, at which time a period of three days will be devoted to it.
The conference, though called to discuss fiscal matters, provided an opportunity for discovering that there was now a wider measure of agreement on the desirability and possibility of having two fundamental improvements made in the constitution. It was concluded that we should proceed at once to seek agreement on a means of amending Canada's constitution in Canada rather than by petition to Her Majesty the Queen to request the parliament at Westminster to make amendments which have to do with the distribution of powers as between the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures.
There was discussion also respecting a bill of rights. I hope that in consequence of the meeting which has been arranged for the latter part of September or the early part of October, to be convened by the Minister of Justice and attended by him and the various attorneys general, we may possibly look forward to the day when the constitution will be brought home, so to speak, and that consideration will then be given to making arrangements by agreement to incorporate, following the return of the constitutional powers to Canada, all the guarantees of those fundamental rights for Canadian citizens.
I think I need say no more at this time than to give this general report; for, as hon. members know, the discussions that took place in Canada are not revealed at this time in accordance with the tradition that has been built up through the years.

Dominion-Provincial Conference
Questions have been asked with regard to the agenda. I might summarize the questions that were on the agenda following the determination by the conference on Tuesday. The first had to do with tax arrangements, a discussion of the possible arrangements after March 31, 1962, under the following headings: (a) arrangements with respect to personal income tax, corporation income tax and succession duties; (b) equalization and fiscal need payments, the principles underlying equalization and fiscal need payments and an examination of possible formulas; and (c) stabilization payments; indirect provincial retail sales tax; a matter such as uniform rules for allocation of corporate profits and the income of individuals to provinces; taxation of natural resource industries; sharing of the federal income tax collected from corporations whose main business is the distribution or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam. Then some time was taken on the question of action respecting the application of the sales tax to crown agencies. In addition to those I have mentioned were such matters as economic development and employment and capital financing. Constitutional questions also received attention, as did the important field of conditional grants and shared-cost programs.
That is a resume of those things that received consideration, and I feel it is only fair to say that it was most careful consideration having regard to the time available. All the deliberations took place in a spirit of frankness and with every regard being had by all to assure that the federal and provincial governments are not separate one from another when questions such as the welfare of Canada as a whole are being considered.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just told us that the conference which has just concluded was an active one. The record of the proceedings and the Prime Minister's own statement show that it was indeed an active conference. Part of that activity, so far as one can judge from the record, seems to have been the reaction of the provincial premiers to the statement of the Minister of Finance interpreting in statistical terms the requests made of the federal government by those provincial premiers who spoke on this matter, an interpretation which was challenged, as indeed the procedure adopted in the minister's speech was also challenged, by the premier of Ontario as repeating a controversial procedure in the conference of 1957.
On the side of more constructive activity one must mention the proposal taken on the initiative of the premier of Quebec that a

conference should be called in the autumn to consider ways and means by which Canadians can amend their own constitution. That was a proposal made by the premier of Quebec which was supported by other premiers, including the new premier of New Brunswick. The proposal also dealt with the possibility of a national bill of rights at a time when we have before us only a limited bill of rights. This activity at the conference, Mr. Speaker, was indeed constructive.
Perhaps less productive of a reaction was the request made by certain provinces that there should also be a discussion at this time of the unemployment problem. So far as the financial proposals are concerned, it would appear that after a long series of conferences, study groups, seminars and examinations by the federal government and federal officials, after nearly three years' consideration of this matter the federal government at this conference had no proposals to make to the provincial premiers. It appears that their attitude on this matter was negative and passive. This, Mr. Speaker, is a far cry from the new deal that was promised to the provinces in the electoral period of 1957 and 1958.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Leader of the Opposition proceeds I want to remind him that in these statements which are made on routine proceedings there is an opportunity for comment which I think the good sense of every hon. member will dictate should be of a constructive, non-provocative and noncontroversial character. Otherwise we are doing that which is not permissible, namely entering upon a debate without opportunity for reply, and that was demonstrated the other day.
So in giving this word of caution my suggestion to all hon. members who take part in such discussions is that they must bear in mind that it is not really a discussion but merely an opportunity for brief comment. I particularly felt that the Leader of the Opposition, in entering into political controversy of this kind which he was approaching, was perhaps getting beyond the proper scope of this kind of discussion.
Hon. members will realize that there are no fixed rules. There is no subject before the house. Comment by a spokesman for each party has been customary; it has usually been brief, and it has usually been constructive. I am sure the house does not want to limit any hon. member to concurrence or approval only, but I think some restraint is in order at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister has given the house a report on this conference. The Prime Minister has taken the initiative in making that report, and that report gives an interpretation to the results of the conference which we on this side do not accept. I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the result of this conference in our view, in so far as the federal government is concerned with the negative and passive attitude it adopted, is a far cry from the promises and assurances given by the Prime Minister to the provinces earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Cheap politics.


An hon. Member:: Flouting the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: It was at that point I intervened, and I think hon. members will appreciate why I did so. I did so because that is a controversial matter of political and party debate. If the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to attempt to follow our practice I must ask him not to make use of such expressions; otherwise I shall have to consider the whole question of permitting statements at this point on routine proceedings, and of permitting comments to be made on them. The simple fact is that there is nothing in the rules to permit debate, and if hon. members in following this practice which has grown up will not avoid debate I shall have to limit it or have rules which will govern it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, when spokesmen for the government make statements which are merely factual, any comment by our representative on this side of the house should be factual also. But surely when the Prime Minister or members of the government make statements which are political, and which are interpretative, we have the right to comment accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say that I do not wish to interfere with the right to speak of the hon. member for Assiniboia.
This is not the first time this has happened. It is not the first time the Leader of the Opposition has made a partisan attack-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -on an occasion when he realizes that you, Mr. Speaker, always direct me not to reply. I would point out this fact, that the Leader of the Opposition chooses this subterranean method of making his insinuations, and on every occasion from now on I am going to ask for the right of reply. I simply say this. I am not going to answer the hon. gentleman today, because that would be contravening something which he himself disregarded, namely a direct order from yourself.
Dominion-Provincial Conference


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I find myself in a somewhat difficult position. I want to obey your admonition, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to. At the same time I hate to sit out any partisan political controversy that may be going on in this house. There is an overall rule which says we are equal here, although some of us think there are some who are more equal than others.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for having taken this opportunity to report to the house on the federal-provincial conference, because that does give opposition spokesmen a chance to make some brief comment. As has been the custom in the recent past, the federal government approached this conference, I will not say in a negative and passive manner but with a blank sheet of paper. The government was not showing its hand at this conference, except that the Minister of Finance did add up all the proposals which the provincial premiers had made and then got into a controversy as to whether the total was $2 billion or some other figure.
A very definite theme was enunciated by the premiers as they rose one after another, and that was that the revenues of the provinces, as well as of the federal government, depend to a very large extent on the state of our economy. There was great concern at this conference about the weak and unhealthy state of the economy, and it was emphasized that everything should be done to make our economy more buoyant and therefore by that means to increase the revenues of all the provinces.
I was glad that the Prime Minister underlined today this belief in the principle of equalization grants. I think equalization grants are a part of our economic structure in this country today which must be maintained. I feel that in the future greater emphasis needs to be laid on the fiscal needs of the provinces. I would think that before the coming conference this fall there are two general economic areas that should be considered. First of all, there is need to embark upon programs on a co-operative basis which will strengthen our economy. Second, I submit there is need to make a broad attack in the field of welfare measures, and now is the time to go forth.
The Prime Minister has said, and very properly so, that if the many proposals that were made were acceded to by the federal government it would mean far-reaching tax changes. Undoubtedly that is true. I feel that as a parliament, or as a nation, we should not shy away from increased taxes where they appear to be necessary to provide improvements in essential services or to contribute to

Inquiries of the Ministry an expanding economy. Between now and the conference this fall I hope the federal government will consider economic proposals and will bring in something in the nature of those contained in the green book proposals of 1945, because I think once again our country is at the economic crossroads.
The Prime Minister has said there was greater acceptance among the provinces of the idea of bringing our constitution to this country, having it domiciled here, and there was greater support for embedding in our constitution a bill of rights. I hope the Prime Minister will proceed with all energy to endeavour to get agreement from the provinces so we can bring our constitution to this country and so we can have a bill of rights embedded in it which will provide for a strengthening of human rights and fundamental freedoms in this country.
I have expressed in another place the position of our group; that pending this conference there should be a postponement of further procedure on the bill of rights. I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to make any further comment on that matter. I merely say the Prime Minister should consider now every practical means of speeding the day when we may have a bill of rights embedded in our constitution.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister tell us what was the reaction of the government to the proposals made by the provinces concerning unemployment, and particularly to the brief presented by the province of Quebec?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question because, if the hon. gentleman will recall 1955, when a similar conference was convened, the federal government at the initial conference made no proposals nor did it indicate its attitude regarding the agreements that might be entered into. The first meeting, as I remember, was held in the month of April; then there was a later meeting in October. We have arranged, as I mentioned, for a meeting to be convened in October, at which time the federal government, in keeping with the experience of 1955, will submit its views, having secured from the provinces the benefit of their suggestions.
In so far as the particular question of the hon. gentleman is concerned, our discussions in respect of those matters took place in camera, and it was understood that nothing would be said regarding them.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. The Prime Minister has just made a statement concerning an earlier dominion-provincial conference. Does he not remember that at that time a suggestion was made by the former government for a proposal of unemployment assistance?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the particular conference to which I referred was the one at which, among other things, unemployment assistance was discussed as a subject. The present conference was to be entirely a fiscal conference. During the course of representations, naturally, matters dealing with the economy as a whole were brought forward. My answer still stands; that any replies or views expressed were, it was clearly understood by all present, not to be made public. Indeed, the only statement that came out of the conference was the one that I had cleared with the members of the conference, indicating that there would be a further conference after the preliminary one, in October, and that a meeting of the provincial attorneys general would be held with the Minister of Justice.



INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL PROPOSALS AT AUTUMN MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Finance, and in asking it, I am sure I should say that the house extends a warm welcome to him on his return from Europe and the federal-provincial conference.
In the light of the statements, requests and demands made by Premier Frost, will it now be the intention of the federal government to revise its program and put forward proposals when the federal government meets with the provinces next autumn, or does the government propose to insist on the position it has been taking that this will not be done until 1962?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first may I express my unqualified gratitude to the hon. member for his words of welcome. I really had a suspicion that on my return to the house today any welcome I might be accorded by some hon. members opposite might be characterized by warmth.
The hon. member is asking about the period to which the proposals at the autumn conference may relate. The conference which concluded yesterday was called for the purpose of discussing fiscal relations in the period following March 31, 1962. That was the scope of reference of the conference, and the discussions were within that scope. There are

one or two matters on the agenda to which the Prime Minister referred today which are not necessarily confined to that period, but the broad questions all relate to the period following March 31, 1962.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a related question. The minister was reported in the press as having said that the additional demands of the provincial governments add up to $2 billion. Would the minister give the house a break-down of these demands so it will be available for us in considering his estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, with pleasure, Mr. Speaker. The unrevised record of the conference reports that in the early part of the remarks I was called upon to make following the conclusion of the opening statements by all ten provincial premiers I said:
... to give effect to proposals that have been made here today would involve the raising on the part of the federal government and paying over to the provinces or for their benefit approximately $2 billion per annum.
The house will appreciate that I was called upon to speak immediately after the conclusion of the opening statements by the premiers. I had no advance copies of those statements. The calculation was one that had to be made by the Department of Finance under some pressure at the time. Therefore I indicated that the figure I was giving was an approximate one.
There has been an opportunity since to make a further calculation in the department, and the conclusion we have reached is that the approximate cumulative figure to cover the demands of all the provinces which I put forward at that time is somewhat on the low side. I can give the house full-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister proceeds with details, may I remind him that in his absence yesterday I stopped a question of that kind which an hon. member asked


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the same hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: -which the same hon. member wished to ask because I felt it was not one which could be answered succinctly enough to qualify for this period of the day. I am not asking the minister to desist, but only cautioning him that if the answer is extended it would be more appropriate to reserve it for his estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the house would like the minister to proceed, because it would be of great help to members of the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would involve a quite extensive reply with a number of figures. I have them here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister could not be permitted to put them on Hansard without reading them, because it would be a great convenience to the house in considering his estimates to have a chance to study these figures.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some objection to that course, and it could only be done by unanimous consent.



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I have a question for the Prime Minister which perhaps can be directed to the Minister of Finance, who was present at the conference. It has to do with the public statement made by the Prime Minister in connection with the bill of rights, in which it was stated that the next step will be to preserve and maintain and ensure our freedom by means of a constitutional amendment passed in Canada rather than having a declaration of freedom passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom. The question I had was this. May I ask the minister, who was present, what application this statement has to the bill of rights now before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I think on reflection the hon. member for Laurier will agree with me, or I hope he will, that the question relates to a matter which is within the possession of the house now, and will come back to the house in due course. It is not customary on orders of the day to ask questions which are anticipatory in that sense, that they relate to a matter which is coming up for debate, particularly when it is not strictly a matter of information but of opinion that the hon. member for Laurier is asking. I hope he agrees with me.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not disagree with Your Honour's general interpretation, but the point was that the statement made concerned a matter that was before the house and is still before a committee of the house. I think it is a fair question to ask either the Prime Minister or one of the ministers who were there, what application it has to what is now before us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the proposal which has been approved to hold a conference in late September or early October with the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general will

Inquiries of the Ministry provide an opportunity of discussing in relation to the amending of the constitution any subject that arises out of the proposed amending procedures. So far as the bill of rights is concerned, it has been made quite clear by the Prime Minister that it is the government's intention to ask that the present bill be enacted at this session of parliament and that will be a substantial contribution- indeed in the view of the government an essential contribution-to the kind of proposal that has been made in relation to constitutional amendments.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister had any discussion with the attorney general of Quebec, as reported recently in the press, concerning the Quebec provincial police and a possible commission to conduct a political investigation?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the report in the press with respect to a discussion on the Quebec provincial police. I had understood that our talks were private and confidential, at this stage at any rate; but since I observe the press reports that the Quebec officials have said that these talks took place, I see no reason why I should not confirm it. In fact there have been preliminary discussions between the attorney general of Quebec and myself with regard to the Quebec provincial police.
With regard to discussion of a possible commission to make a political investigation, which was also reported in the press this morning, I should say that there was no mention whatsoever of this subject during the talks I had with Mr. Lapalme. I would think, of course, that this is the natural situation, because I would think it would be necessary for me to reject any suggestion that the government of Canada be drawn in any way into a purely provincial political controversy.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My


question is based on a Canadian Press dispatch, reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, headed "Canada Studies Polish Theory on Bonn Claim", and which reads in part:
The Canadian government is studying a Polish note asking how far Canada goes in support of a West German claim to territories east of the Oder-Neisse frontier.
No reply to the note has been given yet, but informed sources said today the Canadian government is not likely to give any support to the West German claim.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has, I think, laid sufficient foundation for his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the great importance of this question, can the minister give the house any information at this time with respect to the government's attitude toward this request?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a note was delivered by the Polish charge d'affaires some days ago giving the views of the Polish government on a recent statement by Chancellor Adenauer. This note is being studied in the department and a reply is being prepared. At the moment I cannot give the house any further information.


HUMAN RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works based on a Canadian Press report in yesterday's papers that a West Indies born federal civil servant has said that he and his wife are being kept out of a housing project in Ottawa because they are negroes. Will the minister tell the house whether this Ottawa housing project which has barred a negro civil servant is being subsidized in any way by the government or any government agency?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. minister proceeds to answer that question, it strikes me that the operation of housing in Ottawa is probably a matter of municipal responsibility, and the question may be beyond the scope of the minister.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I say a word-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the simplest thing would be to hear the minister.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Nipissing, the incident to which


I960
[Stage Direction]
he refers did not happen in a federal-provincial project, did not happen in a limited dividend project, and did not happen in any project which has a mortgage from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Consequently, much as I should like to assist the hon. member, it is beyond my jurisdiction to do so.
I can say, however, that with respect to any projects which are under our aegis or over which we have any control we have already taken steps, of which I have given the house details, and we are also hoping to include a clause in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages, to protect people such as my hon. friend has referred to from being discriminated against. Ever since this government came into power in 1957 we have been attempting to do what the Prime Minister has always sought to do, avoid discrimination against anyone on the grounds of race, language, colour or religion.
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is there any provision in the Canadian bill of rights which would make this kind of discrimination illegal?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister will permit me, the bill of rights has not yet received final approval of the house, and even if it had I think the question is not the kind that can be asked on the orders of the day. It is really asking for a legal opinion and interpretation of the bill of rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Public Works a supplementary question. In view of the formula which he mentioned today and, also, several weeks ago, the purpose of which is to safeguard, so far as federal competence permits, against any discrimination such as that here alleged, is the minister now in a position to say that the formula could be discussed in the committee on the bill of rights? The minister was asked some time ago about this matter and he said he would give consideration to it.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member for Essex East that I would be very happy to notify the house as and when the formula had been finally drafted and was ready to be put in these mortgages, but that date has not arrived yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a very
Important matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
79951-0-449
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member asking a further supplementary?


Paul Joseph James Martin: A further supplementary. Does the minister not recall having said that he would give consideration-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are discussing a bill of rights at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have two problems of order. First, I was unable to hear the hon. member who was interrupted by others and, second, what I could hear rather indicated that he was asking an argumentative question rather than one seeking information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not; I was asking the minister if he did not recall having said to the house that he would give consideration to whether or not he could make available the formula that he had in mind to the committee on the bill of rights rather than await the passage of that bill in this house, in order to make sure that the formula was consistent with the bill of rights.


David James Walker: No, Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hansard will show that.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of my many representations, can the minister now say whether or not he has decided to permit the establishment of a second highway sufferance warehouse in the metropolitan Toronto area?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, which I received before coming into the house. As he knows, we have had many conversations on this matter. My departmental officials have given it careful consideration and have recently discussed their findings with me. Due to the heavy increase in truck movements from the international border to the Toronto area, as well as traffic movements generally, I have authorized the establishment of a second highway sufferance warehouse in Toronto for the convenience of importers in the eastern section of that city.
7108	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Charles McGee: I wonder if the minister could indicate what site is being considered for this warehouse.


George Clyde Nowlan: No decision has yet been made as to the site. This will be a matter for discussion between our collector in Toronto and the people concerned. I am sure, however, the hon. member will be a little hopeful when I tell him that the sites so far being considered are in Scarborough township.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex Wesi):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any information to give to the house relative to the representations recently made that consideration be given by the government to the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the problems of the automobile and automotive parts industries or, alternatively, a reference of the matter to the tariff board?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member generally I may say that earlier this month representations were made by representatives of the united automobile workers, and also by the parts manufacturers, in which the suggestion was made that a royal commission should be set up and a full study made of the various aspects of the Canadian automobile and parts industries, or that the matter might be taken under careful study by the tariff board.
We found on looking into the matter that the tariff board has a tremendous backlog of work and, however diligent that board is, it is very considerably behind in its schedule, having regard to the number of matters that have been brought to its attention.
The government has decided that the importance of the automobile industry to the Canadian economy is such that there should be a comprehensive investigation of the various aspects of that industry. During the last few weeks and months several departments of government, the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Labour, have been making investigations and gathering preparatory material, generally securing the fullest information in connection with this very important problem. With this background of information available we feel now that a royal commission should be appointed, and the government has so decided. I hope the particulars


of the powers and ambit of authority of the commission, as well as the personnel, can be announced next week.
Kon. Paul Mariin (Essex East): Mr. Speaker, in asking the Prime Minister to give consideration to the representation on that commission of management and labour, I hope the Prime Minister will also take into consideration the great desirability of giving effect to the recommendations made by the united automobile workers in this context.



SMALL CARS-INQUIRY AS TO TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE RESPECTING GOVERNMENT PURCHASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the house whether instructions to federal government departments to purchase small foreign made cars are still in effect?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): There is an interdepartmental committee that is charged with responsibility in these matters. I am not aware of any changes in its instructions in recent times.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the fact that on two separate occasions Canada's 900-man stand-by infantry battalion for use by the United Nations has not been required but rather that administrative forces have been required, is the department doing anything to make arrangements so that this kind of administrative personnel will be available at all times if required by the United Nations, thus avoiding the long delay in bringing them together?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisier of National Defence):: The matter is under consideration.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. E. Barrington (Chaleauguay-Hun-tingdon-Laprairie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising from an article in this morning's Gazette which states in part:
Federal promotion of Canadian ports by the national harbours board was attacked here yesterday as "weak, ineffective and without any continuity."

Has the minister any comment to make on this statement?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The national
harbours board has never conducted promotional activity on behalf of any single port, but has related its advertising and publicity to all ports under its jurisdiction. The board maintains a continuous advertising campaign throughout each year in the trade papers and magazines which are of direct interest to shippers and manufacturers. Further, it is in constant contact with export, import, traffic and manufacturing groups, urging the greater use of Canadian ports generally.
In the foreign field, the board has recently strengthened its association with the Canadian trade commissioners and has established a good working relationship under which they have agreed to promote traffic and interest in Canadian ports within their respective areas. Recently the board sent to the United Kingdom an exhibit for display, both there and in Europe, featuring enlarged photographs of the various ports and essential information as to their facilities and services.
The promotional program of the board is at present under review to determine the most effective means of further bringing Canadian port services to the attention of world shippers and manufacturers.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, arising out of the well known attitude of the government that countries within the commonwealth should come as quickly as possible to full nationhood where their citizens have equal rights. In view of recent press reports of mounting unrest in Southern Rhodesia in respect of the denial of rights to eight million negroes, has the Canadian government entered into any discussions with other commonwealth countries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is enlarging the responsibility of the government too much. It seems to me that the relations of Rhodesia are with the crown in the right of the United Kingdom and not of Canada, and that the matter would be quite beyond the administrative responsibility of the minister. If the hon. member who wished to ask the question can persuade me to the contrary I will permit it, but at the moment I do not see it.
79951-0-449J
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Argue: May I put the question in this way, Mr. Speaker. Has our government had any consultation with the government of the United Kingdom as to the situation in Southern Rhodesia and the desirability of bringing this country to full nationhood wherein its citizens have equal rights?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in reply to this question may I point out to the hon. member that the government of the United Kingdom does no need any prompting by Canada or any other nation on the question of promoting democracy in the various parts of the commonwealth. I am greatly surprised that he would suggest that we should try to prevail upon the United Kingdom to do something about speeding up the giving independence to members of the commonwealth.


Hazen Robert Argue: And removing racial discrimination.


Howard Charles Green: When the United Kingdom has actually launched five different nations, namely India, Pakistan, Malaya, Ceylon and Ghana and is launching Nigeria on the road to independence within the next few weeks, I suggest that she does not need any suggestions from Canada or from the hon. member for Assiniboia with regard to the need for this action.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think I could permit a supplementary question on that subject.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I might be permitted-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Minister of National Defence.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask another question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government had any recent reports on the racial situation in South Africa, and does the government s attitude in opposing racial discrimination in South Africa also extend to Southern Rhodesia?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that again is an argumentative question and not of the type which can be asked on the orders of the day.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked a question which I took as

71X0
Inquiries of the Ministry notice, as to whether Canada was represented at the three-day commonwealth conference recently held in Australia to discuss naval co-operation and, if not, why not?
The conference in question was in no sense a general commonwealth conference but was restricted to certain officers of the Royal Navy, the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy. The object of the conference was to discuss certain technical matters in connection with a naval exercise and manoeuvre which is to take place in southeast Asia. The reason no Canadian officers were present is that no Canadian ships are taking part in those exercises.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yesterday on my estimates, Mr. Speaker, I was reading a report of the survey that was made of the provinces as to their various statutes and legislation on archaeological site protection. During the discussion of my estimates I stated that in Saskatchewan there were no such regulations. I received a phone call this morning from the director of the museum saying there is an act respecting provincial parks and protected areas, chapter 50 of 1953, which was amended by chapter 14 of 1958. I should like to make this correction.


Lionel Chevrier: Is this an attempt to open up your estimates?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether any reply has now been sent to the message from the representative of the western liaison committee of grain growers dated May 10, 1960, requesting an opportunity of meeting the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues in order to discuss at their earliest convenience the question of acreage payments?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I believe that all communications from these gentlemen have been replied to.


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

on a statement attributed to the minister which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of July 7:
No federal aid for Saskatchewan farmers other than the acreage payments announced by the federal government several months ago are in store for the near future Agriculture Minister Douglas Harkness told the Leader-Post Wednesday night.
My question is this. In view of that statement, when is the minister going to announce this acreage payment program?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I did not tell the Leader-Post any such thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Misquoted again.


An hon. Member:: A government of misquotations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: An opposition of misfits.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a question supplementary to the one I just asked the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister give us the nature of the reply made to this telegram of May 10?


Douglas Scott Harkness: These telegrams were not addressed to me. They were addressed to the Prime Minister. The nature of the reply, and so forth, I think should come from the Prime Minister, not from myself.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question.
Would the minister make inquiries as to whether or not any reply was made, since the farmers' union say that such a reply was not received?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I had my files searched and there were no communications which had come in with regard to this matter from the Saskatchewan farmers' union or from the interprovincial farm union.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise with great reluctance on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises out of a press report in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday evening with respect to a certain statement made by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) at a board of control meeting recently. In order to get the point correctly I just wish to read briefly, as follows:
At one point in the meeting the discussion produced reference to the facilities sought by "M.P.'s" when they are sick. "I understand they do not always stay in the best of places, observed Mayor Nelms." Countered Con. Paul Tardif, who is M.P.

for Russell: "There are M.P.'s who are not accustomed to anything .. . There are five rows of them in front of me in the house."
My question of privilege is this, Mr. Speaker, and I rise more from a feeling of hurt than from a sense of anger. While members of this group are members of the working class and consequently are able to make only modest expenditures on food, dress and habitation, I consider it most unfair and ungentlemanly of a colleague in this house or any colleague who enjoys better financial circumstances to ridicule our humble circumstances.

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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
66. Departmental administration, $8,323,356.
The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of supply, Department of Defence Production, item No. 66. This item is to be found on page 16 of the blue book, the details on page 153.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Defence Production have been the subject of consideration by the special committee on defence expenditures; accordingly I do not propose to make a lengthy statement at this time. First of all, however, I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to the members of the special committee for the work they have performed and also for the action that has been taken in approving my departmental estimates and commending them to this committee. I would like in particular to express my appreciation to the hon. member for London, who carried out his duties as chairman of the special committee in such a splendid manner.
I would now like to refer to the content of the departmental estimates, and in this connection I propose to follow the order of the votes, Nos. 66 to 74 and votes 508 and 509 in the supplementary estimates.
Vote 66 shows an increase of $774,000 over last year's estimate. The largest individual item which contributes to this increase is salaries. In this regard I would like to point out that for the first time in eight years we have found it necessary to ask for an increase in staff. This increase amounts to an addition of 74 new positions, of which 42 are required for the intensified activities in connection with the Canada-United States joint production sharing program.
Supply-Defence Production
Vote 67 and supplementary vote 508, for the care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling, provides some $90,000 less than the total provision made last year, but about $450,000 more than was actually spent in 1959-1960. The provision under this vote is contingent to a great degree upon decisions which must be taken during the course of the fiscal year, and requirements therefore cannot be forecast with any close accuracy.
Vote 68 provides for capital assistance to industry and for the underwriting of certain tooling preproduction costs involved in bids submitted by Canadian industry for United States orders under the production sharing program. There is also a substantial contingent element in this vote, as it is not possible to anticipate the opportunities for bidding which are going to be open to Canadian industry nor the degree of success which they will enjoy. The total provision made this year is slightly less than that of 1959-1960, owing to a reduction in the forecast requirements for capital assistance.
The plants covered by vote 69 have been acquired by the crown under the capital assistance programs of previous years and are operated by private contractors on the same basis as industrial plants. The grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes are computed on the normal assessment evaluation by the municipality, taking account of the services rendered, and are estimated to equal the taxes which would otherwise be payable.
The provision made in vote 70 to establish qualified sources of supply of component parts and materials is identical with that made in 1959-1960. This is a selective program in which we must weigh each case in the light of the quantities of components likely to be required and existing manufacturing capabilities on which we can build. While it is intended primarily to establish sources of components which will be needed for future Canadian military requirements, the likelihood of United States defence requirements is also taken into account.
Vote 71 continues the provision which was made for the first time last year to support select defence development programs as part of our Canada-United States production sharing program. It is becoming increasingly clear that as a result of the rapid pace of change in military equipment, the future success of Canadian industry under the production sharing program requires that Canadian engineering capacity be maintained and advanced to the greatest extent practical.
Votes 72, 73, 74 and supplementary vote 509 relate to crown companies. Vote 72 provides for the expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the

Supply-Defence Production construction and defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence. During the past few days it has been possible to obtain a firmer estimate of the construction work required during the current fiscal year and it will be possible to reduce the vote requirement for the current fiscal year by $250,000 to a revised figure of $3,626,117. I propose to ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment in this connection when we reach the vote in question.
Vote 73 and supplementary vote 509 provide for an increase in the provision made for administrative expenses of Canadian Arsenals Limited. As I explained in my statement on the estimates for 1959-60 the decline in the sales of this company has made it necessary to revert to the practice of appropriating funds to cover a part of its administrative costs. At the time the main estimates for the current year were prepared it was thought that this financial requirement could be reduced by accelerating the production of ammunition needed by the navy in future years. Subsequently it has been found impractical to do this and the additional funds must therefore be sought under the supplementary estimates.
As regards vote 74 I would point out that the provision for the cost of construction improvements and new equipment for Canadian Arsenals Limited has been substantially reduced. This vote covers capital costs of a general nature and excludes any sums attributable to specific programs which would be covered by vote 68. The reduction is, of course, a reflection of the reduced volume of operations at Canadian Arsenals.
As I have already pointed out to the special committee on defence expenditures, there is an important new function reflected in these estimates. An emergency supply planning branch has been established within the Department of Defence Production to undertake the planning and organization necessary to permit a war supplies agency to come into existence immediately should a nuclear attack be made on this country. As the Prime Minister explained when advising this house of the government's decision to assign this planning task to the Department of Defence Production, the war suplies agency would be charged with responsibility and authority for all aspects of control over the production, distribution and pricing of supplies, both civil and military, during at least the early period of a nuclear war, other than production on the farm and the catching and landing of fish. Such a war supplies agency would combine the responsibilities carried out in the last war by the department of munitions and supply and the wartime prices and trade board.


I wish to emphasize that this new branch is a planning agency and should not be confused with the war supplies agency itself. Broadly speaking, the functions of the emergency supply planning branch with respect to supply planning are analogous to those of the emergency measures organization in the field of civil emergency planning generally. In addition to being responsible for the preparation of a basic plan for the creation of a war supplies agency, it will thus also have responsibility for co-ordinating those aspects of emergency supply planning that are properly the responsibility of other branches of the Department of Defence Production or of other departments and agencies of the federal government, particularly planning in the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries.
The initial staff of the emergency supply planning branch is small. In the future it is intended to establish a number of regional offices of the emergency supply planning branch across the country, similar to those already established by the emergency measures organization of the privy council office.
At this time I would like to deal with certain matters which arose in the course of the consideration of these estimates by the special committee. The hon. member for Trinity inquired as to the status of Iroquois engine tooling. In this connection. I can report that from the early development stages of the Iroquois engine, many groups engaged in aircraft production have expressed interest in using this power plant in various types of aircraft. My department and Orenda Engines Limited have received inquiries from governmental agencies and private interests in North America and Europe.
Officers of Orenda and of my department are co-operating in discussions with all groups who may be in a position to complete the development and put the Iroquois into production. The future use of the engine is now under serious consideration by one aircraft manufacturer in the United States. Proposals have been submitted to the manufacturer, and these are presently undergoing technical and economic evaluation. I regret that I cannot reveal the name of the manufacturer or any of the details at this time, because a premature announcement would not be conducive to the successful completion of negotiations.
Interest in the Iroquois for the purpose of furthering the "state of art" has been shown by a company in the United Kingdom. This company has requested the use of one engine and we have agreed, in principle, to make one or more engines available in the event that

the engines are not required for the production program which is now under consideration.
In the meantime 13 completed prototypes, components sufficient to complete an additional seven engines, and all essential tooling are stored in the crown-owned high altitude test facility at Malton. This facility is not in current operation but is being retained for future use. The storage costs are therefore negligible.
The hon. member for Renfrew North stated that invitations to tender are submitted to both wholesale and retail stores in Pembroke. My departmental officials have investigated this matter and I have been advised that the invitations to tender by my department, which relate to food requirements in the Pembroke area, are not directed in the manner suggested by the hon. member. The cases he has in mind may concern small local purchases which are made direct from the trade by service officers in connection with the requirements of various messes and canteens.
The hon. member for Renfrew North also suggested the inclusion of a clause dealing with the employment of local labour in contracts covering the construction of housing units at Camp Petawawa. As the chief engineer of Defence Construction (1951) Limited pointed out to the special committee, the construction of these units is a responsibility of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The comments of the hon. member have been brought to the attention of that corporation. As regards the firm price construction contracts which are placed by Defence Construction (1951) Limited, I would like to point out that the general conditions covering such contracts provide as follows:
To the full extent to which they are procurable, consistent with proper economy and the expeditious carrying out of the work, the contractor shall use Canadian labour and material in the work and shall employ labour from the locality of the work and reasonable proportions of men who have served on active service with the armed forces of Canada and been honourably discharged therefrom.
I am not going to make any further comments at this time. However, I shall be most pleased to deal with any questions that may arise as we proceed with the consideration of the estimates.


Mr. Hellyer:: As the minister has stated, his estimates were considered by the special committee which examined governmental expenditure, and since we went into this subject at length it is not our purpose to ask a lot of questions in committee of supply today.
However, there are a few questions we should like to put to the minister, and the
Supply-Defence Production first is this. Some time ago there was newspaper speculation about the possibility of obtaining for Canada a very large order for picket planes, long range radar aircraft. I wonder if the minister could tell us what happened in that case; whether the order has been let by the United States government and, if not, whether there is still a possibility of obtaining it for Canadian manufacturers.


Mr. O'Hurley:: I am advised that the United States did not continue with the purchase of these planes. As far as we know they have not purchased the planes in question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can I take it from that reply that as far as the minister knows there are no current negotiations which may lead to a Canadian order in this respect.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Not at this time.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I should like to ask the minister a question. I realize there is difficulty in obtaining an accurate statistical analysis because of the very nature of the operation, but is it fair to say that the volume of procurement for the armed services is down? The estimates of the department would tend to indicate that, and I wonder if the minister would go as far as is practicable in giving us information as to the volume of procurement this year as related to the last few years.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In my report to the committee I dealt with this subject. I should just like to repeat that part of the brief I read.


George James McIlraith: Would you give me the page reference?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Page 5 of my report. I might sum up by giving a few figures which are particularly relevant. We spent for supplies and services, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $654 million. This was about 12 per cent lower than the level of expenditure in 1958-59 and continued a decline in defence production expenditures which has been going on for some years. Out of the total spending last year, $593 million went directly to contractors in Canada. To put it in another way, expenditures by our department going to foreign contractors represented 9.3 per cent of the total payments during 1959-60.
Does that answer the question asked by the hon. member?


George James McIlraith: It does in part. As I say, I recognize the difficulty of giving precise information. Perhaps we could approach the subject from another direction. Can the minister tell the house in general terms the total number of staff in his department this year as compared with the last three years,
7114	HOUSE OF
Supply*-Defence Production or over a shorter period if the figures for the last three years are not available at the moment.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: There was no increase in the staff of the department for eight years; there were even considerable reductions. In 1959-GO the total number of staff was 1,510. We went into the production sharing program, and there has been an increase this year for the first time in eight years. For 1960-61 we plan on having a staff of 1,584, which is an increase of 74. These are positions available; the actual number of staff is somewhat less.


George James McIlraith: That is the establishment?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Yes the establishment.
The actual staff on March 31, 1959 amounted to 1,441. On March 31, 1960, it was 1,476 and on June 30, 1960, 1,483.


George James McIlraith: I think the point I wanted to make can be made from the figures given by the minister. The staff of this department has been decreasing for some seven or eight years. This year, for the first time, the establishment is increased. This raises a point which should be watched, namely that there is an increase of staff and administrative costs in a department which is facing less procurement responsibilities at a time when there is less material to procure.
Perhaps the point can be dealt with better when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are before us and we shall be dealing with the actual procurement for defence purposes in this country, but I wanted to put that general warning on record'; that there is a problem here which will require to be watched, and watched carefully, because at the very time we are reducing our procurement program for the defence department, as we have been doing for the last couple of years, we are increasing the administrative organization of the department which is charged with the responsibility of procuring those supplies, materials, equipment and so on. This is something that I think should be drawn to the attention of the committee for checking and watching in the future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, it looks as though government departments have to be on guard at all times with respect to Parkinson's law, that staff increases to fill the time available. The minister will keep this in mind as he considers his establishment from year to year.
Can the minister tell us the present state of negotiations with respect to the proposed United States purchase of CL-44 aircraft from Canadair Limited? As the minister knows, there were reports in the newspapers which indicated first of all that there was a possible order of some $900 million for those
IMr. Mcllraith.]

aircraft. Later reports indicated that the figure was reduced to something of the order of $150 million or $160 million. Can the minister bring us up to date on the matter?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the request of the hon. member for Trinity, I should like very much to be able to give full information to the hon. member at this time. If Canada is to have an interceptor, it will have to be a military requirement; it will also have to be the policy of the government. With respect to the question of the exchange of the CL-44, on the one hand and the F-101 from the United States on the other, this matter is under active discussion at the present time with the government. I should like to be able to make a declaration, but no decision has been made up to this date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister is stating, then, that the purchase by the United States air force of the CL-44 cargo carrier is dependent on the purchase by the Canadian government of a certain number of interceptors to be supplied to our air defence squadrons? Is that correct?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The position of the government and of the Department of Defence Production has been and is still today that we would wish the United States to purchase from us the CL-44, and the other question can be discussed at another time. It is fair to say that one of the conditions that is being discussed is the exchange of the two planes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the figures that have been given on the increase in staff are interesting. The minister has indicated that it is due to increased work, and I do not quarrel with that statement at all. I know how hard working the members of this department are, but it is nevertheless interesting to relate this increase to the reduced work of the department in so far as production is concerned for the armed forces.
But that is not really what I rose to speak about, Mr. Chairman. The minister has told us that this question of the possible exchange of the CL-44 air freighter for United States interceptors for our continental defence squadrons is now under consideration; indeed it has been under consideration for some time. It would be a very unfortunate thing indeed if this principle of defence sharing were applied, not only in this connection but in any other connection, in a way which brought about the result that "if you wish the U.S.A. to purchase certain material from Canada, which it may need and which it can get in Canada, we must in return purchase certain defence material in the United States to offset against that".



I960

[Stage Direction]
I am not suggesting that any such principle is being applied in that hard and fast way, but there have been indications that this is the situation in regard to this particular proposal. It would be most unfair for the United States to take that stand. For one thing, it would be pressure brought to bear on a Canadian government to do something which it might not otherwise feel necessary or desirable to do.
If this principle of defence sharing means anything at all, and it certainly should mean something, it means sharing-and not in the way I have suggested-in defence production generally, and it means sharing in the production of defence materials. The United States has certainly shown no awareness of the application of that principle in connection with such an essential defence material, for instance, as uranium. That has nothing to do with the minister's department, and I am only bringing it up as an illustration of the general argument I am making.
In connection with the CL-44 proposal- and I know how important this would be for the aircraft industry in Canada if it could be followed through, and I know the minister's department is doing its very best in this regard-I should like to ask the minister this question. Perhaps I should know this, and if I am ignorant on the matter I hope he will accept my apology. Has the bill which was submitted to the United States congress some months ago by Senator Mon-roney, which would have had the effect of compelling the United States federal government to underwrite 75 per cent of the cost of constructing air freighters built in the United States, made any progress? Has it been passed or not? If it has been passed, of course, it would have an effect on this whole problem. It is interesting to note that this bill was submitted to congress, I think last February, by Senator Monroney, who is a very great friend of Canada and who has been quoted in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as having given some resounding utterance about continental co-operation in continental defence. This is the kind of bill which, if it were to prevent Canadian competition in the defence field, would hardly be a reflection of that kind of defence co-operation and defence sharing that I would like to see brought about.
Also, it is difficult, at least difficult for me, to get the facts and statistics regarding the defence sharing program. I know how difficult it is to make exact comparisons on this matter or to get statistics on military buying by the United States in Canada and comparable military buying by Canada in the United States, which it was hoped would 79951-0-450
Supply-Defence Production
be facilitated, and of course we hoped to our advantage, in the defence sharing agreements about which we have heard so much. I remember reading in the January 23 issue of the Financial Post an article on this matter by its Washington correspondent. In that article there was a table which gave figures of direct military buying by the United States in Canada which would indicate that that buying has gone down very considerably since the years 1952 and 1953.
But those figures, which I remember reading at the time, which I have before me and which perhaps are familiar to the minister or his officials, do not harmonize with the figures that are quoted in appendix F to the report of the minister's department, table 6-a and table 6-b, and to which reference is made in the body of the report. Table 6-a shows United States contracts and expenditures in Canada just for the last three years. They do not go further back than 1957. Table 6-b is the value of expenditures by the United States government on defence contracts placed in Canada through the Canadian Commercial Corporation and Defence Construction Limited. These figures are not comparable, even in respect of the years which they cover, with the figures that were produced in the article I have mentioned. But if that earlier compilation is correct it does indeed show that we have not made very much of an advance in recent years so far as United States defence purchasing in Canada is concerned. Perhaps the minister might have something to say on this point.
Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: First of all may I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the Monroney bill, which was discussed at length and whose introduction came as a surprise to Canada, was finally quashed and was never passed. It was shelved. With respect to purchase of the CL-44 by the United States air force, my information is that there is no impediment whatsoever and that the United States could purchase these planes from Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about our intensified efforts to get into the field of production sharing with the United States. I want to be quite frank with the Leader of the Opposition. I am not enthusiastic about the results to date myself. I think it is a long range program. In my view we have to start now to get into this field, which involves engineering because there is a complete change-over in armaments. If Canada wants to produce in this field we have to start now and probably the first results will not be very satisfactory.
Last year was the first year that we really kept records, and we did not have the staff to do the work. We did it with our ordinary

Supply-Defence Production office staff which we had to spread out fairly thin. One reason we have had to increase our staff is that we were sending too many of the boys to the hospital. Production sharing is a very difficult matter. A lot of credit has to be given for keeping the program alive. Many Canadian companies have shown their interest by writing us or visiting the department and they are quite pleased with the results, but of course not all companies are happy about it. There are companies that are not pleased and where the results have not been good.
So far as the long range program is concerned involving production sharing by Canada and the United States, I give my frank view to the Leader of the Opposition that we have to keep harping on the subject, working on the matter and putting forth all our efforts to reach an understanding. I wish to say that I think the United States officials on the secretarial level and the heads of departments in the Pentagon realize the usefulness of the program and have really made quite an effort to help. But in the United States so much of their defence program is concerned with the missile field, and there are many contracts that are allocated. My goal was that the United States should spend at least an equal amount on defence production in Canada as we spend in the United States. At least it would have been something if we could have equalized our purchases in the United States. This year we will not do so on account of the expensive purchasing for the CF-104 program, involving licensing and so on.
We will certainly not achieve that result unless we are fortunate enough to have something unexpected happen before the end of the year. Several projects are being studied. I want to give credit to the secretaries in Washington and the heads of their departments for their real interest in doing something about production sharing. However, I still make the statement that the situation could be much better and that the present state of affairs is no fault of the department. We are doing everything we can with respect to production sharing under these different programs in the years to come.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not wish to minimize the importance of the program, its difficulties or the efforts that are being made by the officials of the minister's department to realize it. I think one aspect of this difficulty may well be that a defence production sharing program of this kind inevitably becomes linked with co-operation in defence strategy and defence generally. There is an interrelationship between defence production and defence generally which can operate to our


advantage, but when we are dealing with such a powerful nation can also operate to our disadvantage. I am sure the minister is much more aware of this than I am. For instance, on page 25 of the report of the minister's department there is the following:
At the beginning of 1959, production sharing arrangements were based mainly upon four projects of mutual Canadian-United States interest: the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile, the semi-automatic ground environment (SAGE) control system, heavy radars and gap fillers for the radar lines.
These are four projects which, though it is an arguable matter, in our view may well be of much greater interest to the United States than to us. Indeed our position is that we should not be participating in at least one of these projects at all. I mention that just to illustrate the interrelationship I have talked about and which undoubtedly will have a bearing on the minister's laudable desire to increase United States purchasing in Canada and bring it to a basis at least of equality with our own purchases from the United States. These as he has mentioned, have increased during the years because of the CF-104 contract and presumably the necessity of remodelling the earlier version to make it suitable for the purpose which the government has in mind of equipping our squadrons in Europe with it. I have just been reminded that no doubt this is another major worry in the minds of the minister and his officials as to how this can be done and at what cost.
I should like to ask the minister one other question, and again I refer to page 25 of the 1959 departmental report, where there is reference to the arrangements which were made for exemption from the buy American act through a revision of the buy American regulations in order, presumably, to make it a little easier for our manufacturers to get contracts in the United States. Is the minister satisfied that these amendments to the regulations are working satisfactorily from our point of view and that our people are indeed given a fair opportunity to compete with United States manufacturers for these defence contracts?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In reply to the last remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, I honestly think that the changes in the buy American act regulations are really fair to Canadian manufacturers.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, at the time the Avro Arrow was cancelled the Prime Minister informed the house that Canada was no longer able to participate in major development in this country, and he announced this new and visionary production sharing arrangement which he thought would be

of benefit to both countries and which we have been told is coming along slowly but is still pretty much in the early growth stage.
Subsequent to that, of course, our government arranged to purchase the F-104, which is to be built by Canadair in Montreal. The developmental work, however, is being done by the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in Burbank, California. The other day I saw a list of some of the major modifications necessary to this plane before it would be suitable for the role the government has in mind for it. This list covered two whole pages, which seems to be a fantastic amount of developmental work that is presently being done for Canada by the United States.
At the same time that the Prime Minister made this announcement, he said that in our production sharing arrangements we were going to obtain from the United States some developmental work. We were not going to be satisfied with just production, but we were going to insist that we have a share in the developmental work. Now, Mr. Chairman, my question is this. What developmental contracts have we succeded in getting from the United States armed forces, and to what do they amount in terms of dollars and cents?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In answer to the first question asked by the hon. member for Trinity, I wish to inform the committee that the changes made in the P-104 for its Canadian role are being paid for jointly by Canada, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Italy. We are partners in so far as payment for these engineering changes is concerned. In so far as developmental contracts that we get from the United States are concerned, I have not that information at hand but I will give it to the hon. member as soon as I obtain it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In the meantime I should like to ask the minister another question. He made reference today to the amount in these estimates for the storage of the Iroquois engine since production and development were discontinued. My question is really this. If we have not been participating to any great extent in the developmental projects of the United States, if the government had any faith whatever in this engine and its potential-as it must have had or it would not have kept the prototype in storage at public expense-and if the government anticipated that there would be opportunities for the sale of this engine; if production sharing were really working, if the system were sound, why would the Canadian government not have gone ahead with the development of this engine and put it into production? Then they could try to exchange 79951-0-450J
Supply-Defence Production it with the French or United States governments, as well as others who might need it, and get in return the military equipment which they have available and which we could have used for our armed forces.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Well, Mr. Chairman, we certainly had hopes that the Iroquois engine would have a future. We have been working for some months with the United Kingdom in relation to the future development of this engine, and we are working with the United States in connection with the future development and use of the Iroquois engine. We are certainly following this situation very closely. We have some hopes that this Iroquois might be developed in the future in collaboration with some other countries, and that the engine might be brought to the point where it is supposed to be as a new power plant.
However, at the moment I cannot give any assurance to the committee that this project is going to really be a success. We are hoping it will be. We are hoping that the Canadian engineers who have worked on the Iroquois engine will have made a contribution to the future. The Canadian government has great faith in Canadian manufacturers, Canadian engineers and Canadian developers, and given the opportunity Canadians will be out in front with new developments and will make their mark in the world.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The government had the opportunity to assist in the completion of the development work on this engine. The government showed a complete lack of faith in the potential of the engine when it laid it aside in moth balls for this period of two years, thus allowing it to drop further behind in this very competitive field. Surely the government is demonstrating a lack of faith in its own salesmanship, because if it had any confidence in its own ability to make production sharing arrangements really work it would have gone ahead with this project, developed the engine to the place where it was pre-eminent in its field, and then proceeded to make a swap with other countries for the military equipment that Canada needed. Obviously the government has no faith in Canadian industry, and no faith in itself. We feel that the whole policy of the government in the last two years has been timorous and lacking in imagination, and this has been evidenced by the contracts we have received and the lack of results achieved.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Surely the hon. member has forgotten some of the history of Canada. He is forgetting the latest developments in which Canada has participated. We have contributed to the development of the Caribou by De

Supply-Defence Production Havilland, which has proven to be very popular. What about the help we have given to Marconi in connection with the development of the doppler system? What about the help we have provided for the sonobuoy that the United States has bought? Within the last week or so Air France has shown an interest in the development of this doppler system. We certainly have faith in Canadian industry and Canadian engineers who developed the Iroquois engine. We have kept the Iroquois, and we have faith that at some time in the future we might And a country interested in it and that we might jointly develop this engine. I feel that Canadian engineers are tops, and they enjoy a lot of respect all over the world.
I wish my department had hundreds of millions of dollars available to spend on Canadian development to help Canadian engineers and Canadian industry, because everywhere in the world Canadian engineers and Canadian industry are highly respected. Here is a list of Canadian developments. There is the doppler navigation aid by Canadian Marconi; the radome development, Long Sault Woodcraft; the 500 HP turbine engine by Canadian Pratt & Whitney; the V/STOL aircraft, Canadair Limited; the Caribou improvement, De Havilland Aircraft; electro servo valve, Jarry Hydraulics; hydraulic pump, Lucas Rotax; oximetry, Aviation Electric; extended life sonobuoy, EMI-Cossor; Avrocar, Avro Aircraft; fuel system J.69, Lucas Rotax. These are some of the developments on which we are spending money and encouraging Canadian industry and Canadian engineers. I think this demonstrates our interest and our faith in Canadian engineers and industry.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would tell us in how many of the cases he has just cited the Canadian government participated in the development through all stages to completion, and can he give us the dollar total of the government's assistance?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In answer to the hon. member for Trinity, I may say that none of these developments has been completed as yet. It is very difficult to give a figure up to completion, because they are still in the developmental stage.
This is Canadian money put in on development, and we are continuing that. But they are still under development at the present time as the hon. member for Trinity knows. I spoke about doppler aid for the Canadian Marconi Company. That is what I was telling you. Air France are interested in that doppler system. Then there is the extended life sonobuoy at EMI-Cossor. But there is still development going on in each one.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the minister for the information. We give the minister and his department full credit for everything that is being done. The point, however, is that this is a small contribution when considered in proportion to the total industrial capacity of our nation at the present time. It is expansion on a considerable scale that we feel the government should have undertaken or should still undertake. I wonder whether the minister has now a list of the development projects which he has obtained from the United States government and about which I asked him earlier.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I cannot give a complete report of it here with the papers I have before me. I should be pleased to give it in the house or the hon. member if he so desires. We have not the list with us today of this development and production. Some we obtained as an exchange of civil suppliers, on the CF-104 program. Different companies are given part contracts. We have got into production sharing since about January 1, 1959. For example, we have concluded about $35 million of contracts from the United States government in production sharing since January 1. Many of them are projects that come in on this estimate. If the hon. member desires it I shall be pleased to give him the information.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would appreciate receiving it some time at the minister's, convenience. Will the minister agree that this portion of the program involving Canadian development of new projects is a small proportion of the amount of Canadian funds being expended in the United States for the development of military equipment?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: For the development of military equipment, the hon. member says. The main development of military equipment that is being done at this time is the reconfiguration of this CF-104 for the Canadian needs in Europe. As I said before, this cost is being shared with Germany, Holland, Belgium and Italy. I think it was a satisfactory arrangement for the Canadian government when we went into this arrangement. I think it was encouraging that we succeeded in getting this arrangement made. My officers tell me that the hon. member for Trinity raised this matter last year, namely that we should get co-operation from those countries in Europe in order to help in the development. We listened to that advice, and we obtained that help.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am glad the minister
listened to my advice but certainly not in respect of this aircraft, because I do not think it is a good aircraft for the job. I

think he is having some difficulty in trying to go into production of an aircraft which is not even designed yet. I should like him to tell us about those problems.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: We have no problems on this design. The program is on time and we are going ahead on schedule with the production of this plane.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have one final question on this item. Can the minister give us an estimate-and he probably may be reluctant to do so-as to what he expects the total dollar volume of United States purchases in Canada for defence equipment to be in the coming year to increase or decrease as compared with the year just past?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: It is rather difficult for defence production to give this figure. After all, we purchase when we get a demand from the Department of National Defence. We have not this facility of reading the mind of the Department of National Defence. It is therefore useless on my part to try to give a figure, as to whether it is going to be comparable to last year, until we determine what national defence will require from defence production.


George James McIlraith: I think the minister has correctly pointed out the difficulty that arises from time to time in dealing with the estimates of his department, namely that he does not have control over the items to be purchased. It means that a good many of these questions really have to be asked of the Department of National Defence, and there is always the difficulty of knowing, when we are considering the estimates of national defence, whether questions should be asked about the Department of Defence Production. However, there is one matter that I wish the minister would clear up. I want to quote a reference in Hansard of 1959 in order to lay the basis for my question. It will be found at page 1302, in a debate having to do with the cancellation of the Arrow contract. The sentence is this:
The cost of the Bomarc missile to Canada, as compared to the $781 million of the CF-105, is approximately $110.8 million.
That was the statement of the Prime Minister. There has been a great deal of confusion since that statement was made. Only at this session has it been made clear that the cost of the Bomarc missile would not be anything like that amount. Another figure, I think of the order of $15 million, was subsequently given, but I think that figure of $110 million was believed to be the cost of procurement of the Bomarc missile for Canada. The point I should like the minister to clear up is this. Can he tell me how
Supply-Defence Production much procurement he has provided in his 1960-61 estimates for the Bomarc missile?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I hope the hon. member for Ottawa West realizes that this statement by the Prime Minister just mentioned the Bomarc but of course this figure does not mean just that; it covered the SAGE system, heavy radar and the gap fillers. The figure for the Bomarc itself is something in the neighbourhood of between $12 million and $15 million. In my estimates this year there is no procurement for Bomarc at all; there is just construction this year.


George James McIlraith: I thank the minister for that explanation. I find as I think other hon. members have found over the last month, that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this item. Of course the matter being debated at the time that sentence was used was the cancellation of the Arrow contract. It was the Arrow figure that was being discussed. There was no elaboration of this sentence. I quoted it precisely and accurately. It is easy to see how, when the sentence is taken by itself, a misunderstanding arose in the public mind. It is regrettable, but I fear that it was not cleared up until this session of parliament when there was an opportunity to draw sufficient attention to it and to give the explanation that is now given to the committee.
As to the matter of production sharing, does it not come to this situation, namely that there is a long term continuing problem of great magnitude facing this country because of the rapid development of new and extremely complicated and expensive equipment as a defence requirement, and that by the very nature of things, notwithstanding the competence of our engineers and our industry-about which I agree wholeheartedly with the minister-there is the problem of development as opposed to production? Our problem in this country is in securing the participation of Canadians in development at a sufficiently early stage so that when it comes to the point of production they will be in a position to share in it.
I think that is the nub of the problem, and I think the term "production sharing", while I am not quarrelling with its practice, is sometimes an unhappy phrase to use. It seems to me too simple an expression to describe the problem. What I for my part would like to encourage the department to do is to seek to get Canadian participation at the earliest possible stage in the development of new weapons. Then we can follow up with getting all the production sharing we can at the production stage. It is really the participation at the development stage which creates the problem, because in many instances there is

Supply-Defence Production such abnormally high cost in relation to the ability of the taxpayers of this country to bear it, and that cost seems to be increasing as the nature of the weapons becomes more complicated.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In reply to the hon. member for Ottawa West, we have in fact changed the name of our defence production sharing program and now we call it defence production and development sharing. I realized at the outset that we wanted to get in on the ground floor of the development of these projects, and I think our engineers and our companies are wide enough awake. We have been much encouraged and are now really working on the development of any new missiles or weapons which come up, especially in the electronics field. It is very complicated, but we are really getting in on the ground floor on any new project coming up.


George James McIlraith: I agree with the minister's remarks about the engineers in Canadian industry, and so on, but the point I wish to make is that the term "sharing" and the use of that word rather indicates that there is participation by both Canada and the United States, and that we are trying to increase our participation in something already there.
What I am trying to focus attention on is this. By the very nature of things at the developmental stage the development may start outside of this country, and I wanted the minister, in addition to pressing to the maximum the sharing in the production stage, to be ever alert to see that we have the opportunity of participating in the development stage. It is a very real problem, and I am not trying in any way to minimize the difficulties before the minister; I am trying to encourage him to be very assiduous in the job of trying to protect our interests in this regard.


Mr. Speakman:: I want to ask the minister a few questions relative to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, and I am wondering if this would be the appropriate item.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Chairman, that is a separate item, and when we come to the item for crown companies I would be pleased to answer it. There is no vote for crown assets because there is no sum voted, but when we come to crown companies I will answer the question.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say on the estimates of this department. I would like first of all to thank the minister and his officials for the co-operation they showed when I and some members and leaders of the industrial world in my area

came to Ottawa to look into various methods and ways by which they could share in defence production in this country. They were given a fine reception by the minister and all the officials, and I want that to be put on the record.
I have heard talk here by the hon. member for Trinity about the department having no faith in Canadian industry. As far as I am concerned they have shown full faith in it. There are various firms in my constituency, including Maritime Steel and Foundries Ltd. and the Trenton plants of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation which are well equipped to carry out various types of work for this department.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are trying for orders.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The hon. member can make much better comments sitting down than standing up, because when he stands up he never says anything anyway. In any event, there are various plants there with machines of the latest type, including Trenton Industries Limited.
I would like to point out, further to the statement by the hon. member for Trinity that Canada is not leading in any field, that right in my own area we are co-operating with EMI-Cossor Limited in making the "fish" for the variable depth sonar for our navy on a subcontract. This is a step forward as far as naval defence is concerned and antisubmarine work. I also believe that the United Kingdom is interested in this type of equipment, and I also understand that the department is going to look into the possibility of the United Kingdom purchasing some of it. In the marine shop of the Trenton Steel Works they have been doing work on propeller shafts for destroyer escorts, and other work has also been carried out.
I believe the minister has taken the lead in promoting the idea of industry in the various parts of this country taking part in the defence production program. He has encouraged it and I know, speaking from my own experience in the maritimes and especially in my own constituency, that this policy will continue in this way, thus giving industry throughout the whole country the opportunity of taking part in various orders for his department.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the department's cost sharing development program I would like to ask the minister whether this program can be applied to the production in Canada of commodities which are not strictly used in defence production. I can think of commodities which are used in shipbuilding, in post office equipment and a great many other things. Is it possible that the program can be used for that purpose?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In reply to the hon. member for Lincoln, as far as we are concerned these arrangements we have made with the United States government concerning the buy American act, and so on, apply only to military equipment. I cannot give any further information than that.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the remarks of the Minister of Defence Production concerning his estimates, and I believe his efforts are very commendable. I hope continued effort will be made concerning tenders from Canadian industry in order that our workmen are continually employed. May I also say that the commendable efforts made in the past concerning foreign trade should always be given close study.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he has had any more offers for Polymer, and whether his sentiments have changed any since the last time he answered a similar question in the house.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: That is a crown company and I will deal with it when we come to crown companies, if the hon. member does not mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
67. Care, maintenance and custody of stand-by defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling, $400,000.
George James McIlraith: I note that the estimate this year is $400,000 and last year it was $882,011. That is apparently a decrease of $482,000. I note also that in the supplementary estimates there is an item, No. 508, amounting to $390,000 which seems to me to be precisely the same item, so there is no real reduction in the estimate this year as compared with last year.
Would the minister explain why this method was used this year of only putting half the real estimate into the main estimates and the other half in the supplementary estimates? The minister will recall that the question was asked in the committee on defence expenditures, but the chairman declined to allow it to be answered because he said we were not free to discuss supplementary estimates.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I remember the incident. After we had put in our estimates we found that our real requirement concerning one company-I do not want to give the name of the company-was established. We had engaged to give financial aid to that company if they had not sufficient work to meet certain commitments. That is, in the main, the reason for the supplementary estimate. We did not know what our full requirement
Supply-Defence Production would be when the estimates were first prepared.


George James McIlraith: I do not want the minister to tell us the name of the company, but was this a company which was getting benefits under this item last year? What made the department think the item would be less than it was last year?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: In 1959-60 the estimates under this vote amounted to $882,000. The expenditure amounted to $343,000. This year the estimate, together with the supplementary estimate, vote 508, will come to about $790,000. We had it in mind that last year, when there was a vote of $882,000, we did not spend the whole of that sum on account of the work done in this plant. They had work and we did not have to pay a certain amount.


George James McIlraith: The expenditure for last year, then, was $343,000 instead of the estimated expenditure for last year, given at page 156 of this year's estimates as $474,000. In fact we are expecting to double expenditures on this item this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
71.	To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs, on terms and conditions approved by treasury board, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $7,000,000, $5,000,000.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister can give us any indication of the main commitments he has in mind with respect to the authorization of $7,000,000 in future commitments.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The hon. member wants the commitments for future years in connection with this program?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The following information applies both to this year and future years.
ELECTRONICS Radar (detection, identifica-	1960-61	Future yearstion of ECM techniques) RPS-6 radar radomes Data processing, computing,	$1,500,000	$1,000,000display techniques 	
Communication (advanced techniques) 150 watt	250,000	500,000amplifier	250,000	1,000,000$2,000,000	$2,500,000Communications	
Navigation: doppler naviga-	300,000	600,000tion kits 	500,000	1,400,000Fuzing	100,000	200,000Instrumentation 	300,000	300,000Long-life sonobuoy (anti-	$1,200,000	$2,500,000submarine warfare) ....	300,000	1,000,000
Supply-Defence Production
Our tentative proposals in the field of aeronautics have not yet received approval by treasury board. We have requests in this field tor $6 million, and for future years, $8 million. However, only part of it will be spent and many of the procurements we have been talking about are not yet approved and work is still being done with regard to them in the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Crown companies-
72.	Expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence and procuring the construction of such other projects as are approved by treasury board, $3,876,117.
James Stanley Speakman: I was interested when the minister told us that his staff had increased, and I should like to put forward a suggestion which, incidentally, is not mine, which I think will enable the minister to effect a considerable saving and probably a reduction of staff.
This suggestion concerns the disposal of surplus equipment up to the value of $1,000. We know that government departments have responsible officials in charge, and these officials could, I think, be classed as sufficiently responsible to handle such matters as the disposal of assets in this category without the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation being involved. I should like to give an example of one instance which I think will clearly indicate the circumstances I refer to. It concerns a building which was leased by the crown over a period of years. Then a building owned by the crown was constructed. The usual procedure will be to remove the heating unit and equipment to storage where it will take up valuable storage space, or to dispose of it through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. There is one other method; to declare it obsolete and beyond economic repair and of no economic value, and write it off.
Returning the equipment to store would cost a minimum for crating of $15. Cartage would amount to $6. Storage at $1.80 per square foot for five years would amount to $45 and time and effort would amount to $50 or a total expenditure of $116 to preserve an article which would be declared surplus after five years and disposed of. The value of this particular item at the time of putting it into storage would perhaps be $20. I suggest that the disposal could be handled by a responsible official of the department concerned, and the money remitted to the crown by the department. This would mean a very considerable saving to the department and would perhaps eliminate some of the large staff in crown assets.

I should like to make a little further reference to crown assets, based on my own experience. I spent four years in the army in Whitehorse, and annually there was a collection of equipment that was no longer usable and no longer required. A tremendous expense was involved in having an annual sale, because at a point like Whitehorse very expensive travel is involved to bring people there for the disposal sale. It also involved very considerable expense to the prospective buyers of this equipment who, therefore, bid very low.
I suggest to the minister that this could be a method of saving time, money and people. He should cut down on these sales and allow the disposal to be done through the responsible officials of the department who are on site, who know the material and who could dispose of it perhaps at a slight profit to the government instead of, as in most cases, a very substantial loss.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, on this item I should like the minister to tell the committee what is the present attitude of the government with regard to the disposal of surplus United States equipment from their bases. I have had many representations on this matter. It is of great concern to my own industry. These machines, which the United States government will not allow to come back into their own business channels, are appearing on our scene in ever increasing numbers and in ever expanding areas. Can the minister make a statement on this problem? Can he tell us whether there are any taxes on these machines, and how the valuation is arrived at? In other words, what is the government's policy at the present time in regard to this matter?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I was interested in the
remarks of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, and they will certainly be brought to the attention of the officials. I think we have two sales, one on the Alaska highway and one at Whitehorse, each year. I will take up the matter with crown assets, and I shall speak to the hon. member about it.
With respect to the question of the hon. member for Regina City respecting the sale of United States equipment by crown assets, we have had a lot of correspondence on the matter; pressure has been put on the government, and memoranda have been submitted to me and to other ministers of the government concerning the sale of this surplus equipment, especially in Newfoundland. This question has been looked into by crown assets and myself, and we have taken note of it.
This information we think has been put out by equipment suppliers, by some Canadian

manufacturers and by the Canadian contractors association. On the other hand we have small municipalities and small dealers in local communities who wish the sale of this equipment to be continued. They repair it and sell it on guarantee. Two briefs have been prepared and will be submitted to the government right after the session closes. The government will study this situation and its decision will be made known shortly.
I wish to tell the hon. member for Regina City and any other hon. members who have written to me about the disposal of United States equipment that the matter is receiving the attention of the government, and a decision will be arrived at shortly.
The hon. member for Trinity spoke to me about Polymer. Polymer is a very successful crown company which is going to have a very good year in the sale of its synthetic rubber and even in its specialty rubber, which is something new. As hon. members know, Polymer is in a competitive field. It is the duty of the minister to have, as former ministers did, a review once in a while to see what is the situation of a crown company. This review is going on at the present time and the results will be submitted to the government shortly.
I have no views as far as the future of Polymer is concerned. The company has been very successful; it is under very good management; the sales of rubber this year have been very good. Even during the difficult time of the strike last year the customers in Europe remained with Polymer after having been deprived of their rubber for some time. But the government will look into the future development and the capital expenditures and any other questions that might pertain to Polymer.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the minister's answer that the government has not yet decided whether Polymer is to be sold?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: No.


George James McIlraith: I will not, therefore,
elaborate on that phase of the matter other than to say I am somewhat surprised to hear the minister say he has no views on the matter. I would hope that as the responsible minister he would have a great many views on the matter. I might think they were wrong, or I might not agree with him, but I still hope he will not persist in having no views on the matter but that he will acquire some and assert them to his colleagues successfully.
In any event, the point I want to make is that if Polymer is to be sold I hope the government will bear in mind the fact that this
Supply-Defence Production country is facing a problem of balance of payments that is quite severe. The adverse balance of payments last year, as the minister will well know, was of the order of some $1,400 million. Polymer Corporation has been a good earner of money; it has a very good record as a crown company, and I would hope that in any sale the minister and the government would make sure that it is not sold in such a way that the earnings of the company are drained off to another country and our balance of payments situation is further worsened by the sale of this company.
There is perhaps no purpose in elaborating a view on it unduly at this stage. I did want to draw that to the attention of the government because I think it is a matter of major importance, and because I hope that in any decision they take, if they decide to sell it, the company will be sold only to interests whereby the earnings of the company will be retained in Canada for the development of Canada. The history of the company so far has been outstanding; it is a very good story. I hope that in the years that lie ahead it will continue to be a very good Canadian story.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West. Mr. Chairman, my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce will move an amendment to item 72.


Mr. Churchill:: I move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys:
That item No. 72 be reduced in the amount of $250,000.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Before this item carries, could the minister tell the committee whether, with respect to the construction of the two Bomarc sites, there is any arrangement with the United States government whereby, in the event that congress should be successful in cancelling the whole program again next year, there would be any recovery on the part of the Canadian taxpayers from the United States government?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I think we can depend on the arrangement which has been made that any expenses will be reimbursed pro rata.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
73.	Administration and operation, $1,349,120.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister say a word with respect to his view of the future of Canadian Arsenals? He noted earlier that the government now has to come to its rescue with regard to maintenance and carrying charges. I know that some of the people who work there are a little embarrassed at the

Supply-Defence Production seeming inactivity. Would the minister give us his views as to what the future holds in store for Canadian Arsenals?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: As far as the minister's position is concerned respecting Canadian Arsenals, the government will certainly maintain Canadian Arsenals and will strive to give work to the different plants. Of course, in certain plants of Canadian Arsenals we have had to reduce the number of men because we have not the same use for the material they manufacture. On the other hand, we are trying to get extra work for the plant in the production sharing field for example, Long Branch. I think Canadian Arsenals is a very capable organization. I do not see the closing of any of the plants in the near future, but some of the plants will be operating on a reduced scale. I wish to state that we are interested in keeping all the plants of Canadian Arsenals in operation for the future needs of the country.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister mentioned production sharing. Can he say whether Canadian Arsenals have obtained any production sharing contracts to date?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: I cannot state offhand
whether they have any contracts. I know they are negotiating and working on a couple of projects at this time, but I cannot say whether they have a contract in hand. I know they are negotiating on at least two contracts. I also wish to state that it is the intention of the government to have a study made of Canadian Arsenals by management consultants, having in mind the arrangements in the different plants of Canadian Arsenals.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has a group of management consultants been retained for this purpose?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Not yet, because the matter has to go to the Auditor General for approval.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: That completes the estimates of the Department of Defence Production.


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the committee for their co-operation in passing my estimates. In terminating may I express my thanks to my officials, to the directors of the crown companies under my jurisdiction and to the whole staff of the department for the work they have done in the last year and since I have been the minister to whom they have to report. Now some of them can take a vacation.


George James McIlraith: I am sure the minister will agree that he inherited a very good department and a good set of officials when he took over the department.
[Mr. Hellyer.l



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
The Speaker of the Senate-
175. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Laurier would allow me to make a statement.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to ask His Honour if he intended to make a statement at this stage. Perhaps the chairman would recognize me afterwards.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you. I feel very strange in this position, and I hope that the chairman will not declare me out of order immediately.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We find it strange to see you there.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say only one thing as we commence consideration of the legislation estimates, and that is to express the appreciation which I feel, and which I am sure all hon. members feel, for the staff of the House of Commons which suffers with us through these rather arduous days when we are trying to complete the work of the session. It puts no small strain upon all the officers of the house and particularly upon those who must be with us throughout the entire hours of our sittings. I do not want to mention names, but I include in my remarks the Clerk, who is responsible generally for the administration of the House of Commons staff, his assistants, the reporting staff and all the other employees of the House of Commons who serve us so well. They look forward, of course, to the compensating benefits that come from service with the House of Commons, which are real and, if they are not too long deferred, do help to compensate for the extra hours which service of this chamber calls for.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think all of us will realize that it has been the custom and tradition over a long period of time not to consider the estimates of Mr. Speaker as contentious in any way, and certainly it is not my desire to so consider them at this time. There are, however, a few brief remarks I should like to make on behalf of those who sit on this side of the house.
First of all I wish to extend to His Honour the Speaker our thanks and our gratitude for the consideration he has given to the many representations we on this side of the house have made with respect to secretarial assistance. I should also like to let him know that even if His Honour has not always been able to meet all our requests and demands they were always received with such courtesy and such sympathetic consideration



I960

[Stage Direction]
that we could not in any way feel otherwise than grateful to him for the manner in which these representations were received.
Before I go farther I should like to join with Mr. Speaker in the tribute he has paid to his officers, the officers of the House of Commons, the staff and all who are associated with our work in parliament not only during the whole of the session but more particularly toward the end. I join with him in the laudatory words he has expressed with respect to them. We know that their task is a difficult one, particularly at this stage of the session, and I personally should like to add to the list of those mentioned the bureau of translation. The translators, as Mr. Speaker knows, comprise a new group which has become a part of the staff arising out of the simultaneous translation system. Frankly, it is amazing to many of us how well and efficiently they perform their tasks.
Your Honour will remember that last year when there was a discussion of the matters that I should now like to take up, namely assistance, secretarial and otherwise, which members of parliament as a whole have, Your Honour replied that he had asked the civil service commission to prepare a report, and that they had reported at the time. Your Honour at that time put on record a paragraph from that report which I should like to quote because it is by way of preface, I assure you, to the brief remarks I intend to make. This paragraph will be found on page 6336 of Hansard for July 18, 1959:
It is dated June, 1959, and I am reading from the summary of conclusions on page 37, as follows:
"That the plan to provide supervised, small groups of stenographers in offices located close to the members served, and restricted to individual political parties, would be the most effective secretarial system for the House of Commons, and that such a service should include provision for telephone answering, dictation equipment and allied services."
This, of course, is an extremely important conclusion which was arrived at as a result of the survey. I was wondering whether it was not possible for Your Honour, before we dispose of the item, to give a further report on that matter. I am sure it is the wish, not only of Mr. Speaker but of all of us, that some day there will be a secretary assigned to each member of parliament, together with the additional assistance which is referred to in the report.
There is also the question of the secretaries who are without work during the period when the house is not in session. I did bring this matter to Your Honour's attention toward the close of the session last year. While it was not possible for Your Honour to meet all our requests, I again say that they were met with fairness and, I am
Supply-Legislation
happy to state, on the whole there was not too much hardship, although there was some during the intersessional period.
I said earlier we were happy about the arrangements which were made for the secretarial assistance during the period after the session had prorogued. However, there are still a number of young ladies and others, whose names of course I cannot assign to the record, who have had in one case 10 years service, in another case 10 years service, in a third case nine years service, in the fourth case eight years service, and in the last case three years service, and I am sure Your Honour agrees with me that those secretaries who have had years of experience and who have attained an age-I say this with deference-where it is not always easy during the intersessional period to find employment, should be given special consideration. I wonder whether Your Honour would not take the request which I make now in the spirit in which it is made.
Then there is the very important question, which I know is in Your Honour's mind, not only of secretarial assistance but of technical and research assistance as well. I need hardly remind the committee that when the house met in 1957, under the present administration, the Prime Minister had it in mind then to give some additional assistance to those of us who sit on this side of the house. He had that in mind in the light of the difficulties, the plight, and the extra work which the Prime Minister and his associates had when they sat on this side of the house.
Well, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it has not been found possible to grant this additional technical assistance. I wonder whether it is not a matter to be considered by either Mr. Speaker himself or by the commissioners of internal economy. My friend the hon. member for Ottawa West says, while it is known as the committee for internal economy, it is eternal economy which they practise. I am not going to comment on that interjection, other than to say that I know that particular committee of the house have given to this subject, and to many others, very careful consideration.
I know, too, what the views of Mr. Speaker are with reference to additional rooms for members, and I at once commend him and those who are responsible with him for the establishment of these additional rooms. I do hope the day is not far away when it will be possible to assign to each member a room, with his own secretarial assistance. I know that must be in the mind of His Honour the Speaker and those who sit on the committee that is responsible for the decisions taken with reference to the proceedings of the house.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Legislation
I have no more to say, sir, other than to ask you once again to give consideration to those several cases that have already been brought to your attention, and with which I am sure you will once again deal fairly.
Mr. Winch:: I should like to join with the previous speaker in utilizing this opportunity to thank the Speaker for the co-operation he has always extended to us in connection with any problems we have taken up with him. We fully realize that he has not been able to accomplish all he himself desires, but we do hope he may be able to give us this afternoon some intimation as to still greater progress that he has in mind. I am not going to repeat what has already been said by the previous speaker, but will just add my words to his hope that in the not too distant future provision is going to be made for greater secretarial and research help.
I should like to add just a new thought on the subject of secretarial help. I should like to inquire why it is not possible for the secretaries, who sometimes have to work overtime because of the responsibilities of their members, either to get paid for the overtime or allowed time off for it. I think it is rather unfair that secretaries have to be placed in the position where they either do the overtime work on a voluntary basis or the member must pay out of his own pocket. I do hope something can be arranged in that connection.
While we are mentioning the staff, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I hope Your Honour can give us some information as to whether action is going to be taken on a matter that has been raised every year for a number of years. I refer to the supplying of new and adequate accommodation for the security staff. I know Your Honour has gone into the matter several times, but the accommodation provided is a disgrace to this house as employers of the security staff. This one room has to accommodate, I think it is, 52 men. They have to change their clothes there, spend their time off there and keep their clothes there. It is where they eat. The time is long past due for them to have received adequate accommodation. I hope that with the changes the Speaker is making now, he can inform us that there will be something better for those men in the near future. I am not going to say anything more at the present time, Mr. Chairman, because I can say the other things I have in mind under the various items.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should say what I can briefly on the subject which has been raised so considerately by the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Vancouver East.

The report to which the hon. member referred and which we discussed at this time last year was circulated in due course and was put in the hands of all hon. members, as was agreed at that time. Its relevance or the possibility of its implementation I think improves considerably now with the prospect we have for more accommodation for hon. members. Some have already been accommodated in the west block. I think it is no secret that plans are going forward which will, I hope, within the term of this parliament or in any event before long give us the objective which certainly has been mine and which I know has been that of many hon. members, namely one office for each member and the facilities which will permit each member to have one stenographer. To my mind that is a minimum service for members of this house and it has been my objective since I have put it forward and which I intend to continue to put forward in the expectation that we are nearing the point now where we can achieve that objective.
As to the stenographic staff of the house -I refer to the temporary staff or the sessional staff-it is true, as the hon. member says, it perhaps does not get compensation for the extra hours which many of them put in voluntarily and quite agreeably. I know there is no compensation for that. Those who are continuous, of course-and this consideration applies to all staffs of the house-receive holidays with pay beyond those which are the rule in the civil service and they have the advantage of shorter hours in the recess period.
But the point which was made by the hon. member for Laurier about those who have over the years given good service to this house as stenographers is one which gives me a great deal of concern and has done so as the problem arises each session. There are two considerations that must be taken into account. First, there is the service of the members during the recess and that is a basic consideration. The personnel who are selected by the whips of the parties to fill the recess quotas are selected on the basis of their usefulness to thef members whom they will be serving and, as all hon. members will agree, that is a prior consideration. The other factor is the circumstances of the stenographers themselves-and seniority is one of those important circumstances as well as the personal considerations which apply in certain cases-* which make it important that continuous work should be available.
As I have done in the past, I shall do everything I can to meet to the fullest degree the problem of those who have claims on the basis of seniority but are not required on

the other basis which I have mentioned. A problem is created not only for the whips but for the Speaker and the Clerk in making the choice which has to be made to keep within the limit of the vote. Hon. members will note that the vote provided for only 38 stenographers, 33 actually in the category of continuous temporaries and five who are in the permanent category and therefore have status which is not subject to termination. That is a total of 38 and the division of those among the parties is one which is made by arrangement and the choice is necessarily limited by the amount of the vote. Each session we have gone beyond the authorized amount with the concurrence of the commissioners of internal economy in order to meet the kind of problem mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier. I only regret that we cannot meet all the problems and that is due to the fact that the introduction of new staff is from time to time made on all sides of the house in order to meet the problem of the special service that is required during the recess.
The other matter mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier is a larger one and I think I shall not attempt to discuss it, namely that of technical assistance for the opposition parties. The staff which is available for the Leader of the Opposition I believe compares favourably with that available in any period in the past and it is perhaps larger now than it was previously. I have not made an exact comparison but I realize that a problem exists. However, I feel it is a matter which is really beyond my jurisdiction or scope.
I have mentioned the expectation of better accommodation for the members and that consideration also applies to all of the staff. The renovation and reconstruction of the accommodation in the west block will give us an opportunity to deal with such problems as the accommodation of security staff mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am sure that with those changes we shall meet some of the things that we have been unable to do in this building because of the severe limitations that exist here on our space. I think I have dealt with all of the matters that have been raised.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask this question of His Honour, Mr. Chairman? His Honour said that the vote provides for 38 stenographers only, 35 of a permanent nature and three of a non-permanent nature, I believe. I think he said that was an improvement on last year.


Mr. Speaker:: No. We went beyond the vote last year and the year before. Actually we began the recess with 44 or 45 last year in order to meet some of the problems to which the hon. member referred. But the vote has
Supply-Legislation
been for 38 in total for some years. This is larger actually than it was in the time of my predecessor although prior to that time there was a period when the sessional staff was larger. I think it was because of the fact that it included secretaries who served the parliamentary assistants of that time. But the estimates which are now coming before parliament for stenographers is not what had been asked for. The number is not as large as I had put forward. I asked for more. As a matter of fact, I asked for one stenographer for each member but in the circumstances it was not felt possible to accede to that vote. I also attempted to rearrange the recess staff so that the more or less permanent secretaries would be separate from the recess staff proper for service of private members which could be looked at as one unit and considered as such.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the Speaker for his explanation but I had not completed saying what I had in mind. What I had in mind was this. While I was under the impression that there had been more, apparently it was an erroneous impression. As His Honour knows there are in the list of persons who are going to be without employment quite a number who will be in difficult circumstances through the non-sessional period notwithstanding their priority and their years of service.
What I am coming to is this. I was going to ask His Honour whether it was not possible to increase this vote. I realize that that is what happened last year and perhaps this year the expenditure will go beyond the vote, which is all to the good. Of course, I am not inviting by the statement I make a reply to the effect that perhaps we did less when we were over there; but the point now is that there is a realization that we should be doing perhaps a bit more. I wonder if before the vote which will be coming forward next session it would not be possible to find sufficient funds to look after those secretaries who, because of their years of service, eight, nine or ten years of service, will find themselves in some hardship.
I remember one case which I brought to Your Honour's attention last year where there was real hardship and Your Honour fortunately was able to do something in that case. Again the matter repeats itself this year. It is impossible to put names on the record but Your Honour knows who they are, and I again simply bring them to his attention in the hope that it will be possible to go beyond the vote sufficiently to look after the requirements of those who will find themselves in these difficult circumstances.

Supply-Legislation


Mr. Drysdale:: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to draw to the attention of Mr. Speaker a couple of items of interest to me on the administrative aspect.
My first point is that I am wondering if Mr. Speaker could give consideration-and I am not too sure whether this comes under his jurisdiction-to having a loose leaf edition of Beauchesne where it would be possible to add at the appropriate place the frequent rulings which are made? From my own brief experience in the house I notice that one of the basic difficulties is that the majority of members do not seem to know what the rules are or what the previous rulings have been, and I thought it might be of some assistance to the house if we had an up to date loose leaf edition. Because even with a book such as Beauchesne it is extremely difficult to find the correct citation very quickly. Since it was published in 1958 there have been quite a number of decisions which Mr. Speaker has made which I think would be of considerable value to the house if they were available by this loose leaf method.
The other suggestion which I have made previously is that I would be interested in seeing an electronic roll call machine installed at the earliest opportunity to speed up the processes of the house. I realize that perhaps this discussion would have been more appropriate before the special committee on rules, but since their hearings are in camera I thought perhaps I would be permitted to put my suggestion forward at this time.


Mr. Robichaud:: I have a grievance I would like to raise at this time. I am not too sure if I am on the right item of the estimates, but it has to do with the condition of the typewriters supplied to members. I share an office with my colleague from Northum-berland-Miramichi and we have been complaining at least ten or twelve times since the opening of the session that our machine is only good to be thrown on the scrap pile. We have not been able to get any results and I hope that before next session we will be supplied with a decent typewriter which we can use if we need it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might reply to those comments now.
The idea of a loose leaf edition is interesting. With changes in the rules revision would be necessary. I can say this much, with all respect to the late and learned author of Beauchesne, that I myself have found difficulty with the index and have in course of preparation an index which could be supplied to all members and which I think would be helpful in finding much good material which is there.

The typewriter question has been solved and all hon. members will have new typewriters at the beginning of next session. And I may say, at every session thereafter.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring something to the attention of Mr. Speaker and the committee that we have had general comment on at various times and some views expressed. It concerns the problem of the development of more research help for members of parliament, and particularly for members of the opposition. I should raise this point just in connection with the office of the Leader of the Opposition, because I know the Leader of the Opposition is hardly in a position to raise it himself and perhaps members of his party feel the same way. But I do know that the more assistance one has, whether in a formal or informal way by people with certain expert knowledge, the better is the performance possible, not only in a party sense but in an individual sense.
Mr. Chairman, I have sat in some amusement, as I am sure other members have, and have watched the little corps of assistants in the Leader of the Opposition's gallery grow in the past two years and I know they now have a small corps of people. I do not know whether some of them are covered under this particular vote, but I do know that others are being paid through other arrangements.
I would like to suggest at this time that we make greater provision for assistance of officers such as the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me that the opposition is undermanned in relation to the expertise which is available to cabinet ministers, and the essence of our parliamentary system is that of the opposition against the minister rather than the opposition being against the ordinary members on the government side.
So far as ordinary members on the government side are concerned, I think they are to a degree in the same position as members in the opposition. I know, whether the general public knows or not, that they have no greater access to governmental expertise than we have. Or if they have it is in a limited way. I feel that both the official opposition and also the average member of parliament are short of the kind of research assistance which we need.
I would not like to try to mark off any suggestions as to how this could be done. Two years ago I said that I felt the library of parliament as a reference service was completely inadequate, especially compared with what is available in other countries. The British handle this somewhat differently than the United States. The British library is no more effective than ours in terms of

resources, but the party organizations in Great Britain are much more so. Our parties have not got that tradition. But from what I can see they show very few indications that they will ever get to it. In the United States system each congressman as a congressman and each senator as a senator is given much greater provision in order to do the job as an individual representing his constituency, his region and his nation.
It seems to me that they are the two areas in which this committee should consider providing more extra knowledge and assistance in order that members can do a good job. First of all, help should be given to the offices or position of the official opposition, if you want to put it that way; second, there should be some means of helping the general membership, the ordinary membership of the House of Commons whatever the party.
It may be a poor thing to say, but what I have seen of the general framework of the library, or the committee of the house dealing with the library, has not given me much hope of our getting help from that direction, and if I may make the point bluntly as to why, it is because there is an influence on that committee by the other place, which is so traditional and, I may say, out of date, that we are not going to get from any such group a modern and up-to-date way of looking at this problem.
I think the research facilities and the assistance available to members of this house in the light of what the cabinet ministers have is very slight and I have a great deal of sympathy for every member of this house in his task of looking after his constituency responsibilities and the larger and more national one in the light of the resources he has. It is just pitiful when you think of us as having one full-time secretary with so very limited time available during which the ordinary member tries to do the best job he can. There comes a stage when diminishing returns reach such a point that he can scarcely do his task. This is much more pronounced with what is happening in this parliament with more committees meeting, and the onus of attendance in this house. If you do your duty in attending even, say, half the committees and attend the proceedings in the house for half the time, at least, you have no time to keep up with correspondence or to see that letters are framed to go after research that needs to be done not only in connection with the responsibilities of this house but also with regard to questions raised by constituents.
I think we are a living example of a cultural lag. We are in the mid-twentieth century and we are still acting in the House of Commons with regard to ourselves as if we were
Supply-Legislation
living in the mid-nineteenth century. One of the reasons we have this cultural lag is because the House of Commons tends to be dominated-this has nothing to do with party -by a relatively small number of people and I should like the small number of people who do dominate the house, whether they are cabinet ministers or stars of the opposition, to stop and look at the situation. Members of the Canadian parliament come from a tremendously disparate background. In the main you do not have the kind of person focussing into it as in some other parliaments. Congressmen and senators in the United States are much more educated to a full time political career. It is much more a matter of choice than it is in Canada. Similarly, in Britain there is a common educational background, and aspiration that we do not have in this country. This, to me, not only explains our cultural lag and our unwillingness to live in the mid-twentieth century in legislative terms but it underlines the extra difficulties that we have.
I have said before I have no wisdom in making great suggestions but I do feel that if the parliament of Canada is really going to adjust and be the forum which I and most other members think it should be, we are going to have to do something in this particular area and it is more than a question of just better typing facilities or better copying facilities or getting a few extra books from the Library or putting a few extra librarians on. It seems to me we need a new approach, and I think that approach should be made by a committee of this house with no association with the other place to study this whole question. I should like to see senior people and some junior people from all the parties get into some kind of group and go and see how other parts of the world are doing things.
I know it is not popular to go around complaining that an institution is senile, though I hold this view strongly. This is not a commentary on the government, but I think it is senile. I would judge from talking to a number of other hon. members that this is not a strange or odd view. I remember one businessman told me not long ago that we are not worth a heck of a lot as politicians as far as he was concerned if business was run the way parliament is run, business would go broke in a hurry. I do not buy that criticism completely but I certainly know that in the way we individually as members are geared to face the problems of the nation we should be going broke, as I believe we are.
I welcome this opportunity to express this point of view and I hope that the Speaker,

Supply-Legislation
who is primarily concerned with the situation, will at least give it some attention and consideration. Any small improvements that he can make-and I can definitely say he has made them and this is very much appreciated by every member-are all to the good, but I do think there is a latent crisis here which needs to be met by much greater action than this, and one of the things that must be the goal or end in sight is raising and elevating the position and prestige of the individual member of parliament whatever his party and giving him some status, some real authority in the role he could play, a role I do not think he can play at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: There is much which has been said by the hon. member for Port Arthur with which I agree, as I indicated earlier in my reference to additional technical assistance and research help. His Honour did, however, reply that this was a matter outside his jurisdiction.
The hon. member for Port Arthur now presents this matter in another light and it may be it can be considered in that context. However, I rise to say to the hon. member that he is wrong in his assumption with reference to the Leader of the Opposition. While it is true that in the gallery which is used by those who assist the Leader of the Opposition there are more people who have joined it of late-within the last year -I should like to reassure him and tell him, so that he will know what the position is, that these are people who are assigned to those of us other than the Leader of the Opposition who sit on this side of the house, and that they are paid exclusively by members of the official opposition themselves and their salaries do not form a part of this vote or of any other vote that has to do with the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure the hon. member was not aware of that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was aware of that, but I did not feel I was the one who should be bringing it out. But I did not want to leave the inference that these people were all paid under this vote. I believe I know the people who are paid under the vote and those who are not. It is all to the good. I would like to see a larger corps up there because the greater the number the better the government, in a sense.


Lionel Chevrier: Anyway there is no difference of opinion on this matter between what I have said and what the hon. member has added. It certainly was not clear from what the hon. member said. Although he may have been advised what the position was, the hon. member may have left an

impression that the Leader of the Opposition was adding and adding to his staff. Such is not the case. There are three additional members who have been added during the last 12 months or, perhaps, two sessions, whose services are being paid for exclusively by those of us who sit on this side of the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to make a few brief remarks on this interesting item, an item which could be the cause of considerable debate, if we had plenty of time and opportunity. I fully appreciate the feelings of the hon. member for Port Arthur with regard to the situation in which members of parliament find themselves, although I do not take quite such a dim view with regard to the senility of this institution. I take an interest in this subject and I have been reading the proceedings of the committees which have been set up by the United Kingdom parliament to study procedure.
I find that this institution was becoming senile in Great Britain in 1860; frequent references were made to the disabilities that the institution suffers from and predictions were made as to how long it would function, and so on. But we must remember that parliament is an evolving institution which has to change its practices and its procedures to meet the changing circumstances in the country which are reflected in the work of the house. I remember reading some minutes of committees on procedure in which Mr. Campbell Bannerman expressed his views, and Mr. Asquith, later Lord Oxford, gave his views; Mr. Baldwin gave his views, and prominent members of the labour party gave their views. Mr. Chamberlain gave his views; Mr. Churchill gave his views, and Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin gave their views. All through the years of British history we find this recurrent concern over the efficient functioning of parliament, and rightly so, because from time to time changes have to be made to meet the circumstances under which parliament is functioning.
The criticism that we in this group have primarily is of those who refuse to make the changes which are required for parliament to operate efficiently under circumstances that change almost from day to day. As a matter of fact, in reading the history of the debates and of the committees in the British house particularly, one for which I have a particular affection-I think one rather finds inspiration than disappointment. One realizes that 50 years, 60 years, 75 years or 100 years ago parliament suffered the same concern and the same type of problem that we suffer from today, facing rapidly changing conditions. But the main point is this: with all the impact upon parliament because of the

entirely changed society today from that which existed when parliamentary institutions were first established as far as British countries are concerned, parliament is stronger than ever, and that is the test. That is all I wish to say with respect to general remarks on the parliamentary situation.
I do wish to say a word or two, while I have the opportunity, about the staff, because the staff functions here day after day, week after week and month after month, with possibly a good many people failing to realize that this whole process would come to a halt without the co-operation of a considerable number of persons who perform their duties responsibly from day to day. I think of the protective staff and the work they undertake day by day in assisting in the efficient operation of our parliament; the elevator staff, the public works staff around the building generally; the messengers, some of them quite on in years, whose duties on occasion take them many blocks around the city of Ottawa, meeting the requirements of members and so on; the page boys and the staff in general.
I also wish to make a reference to the Hansard staff who work under a particular strain during these lengthened hours. Speaking of the Hansard reporters and of the ladies -I always refer to them as the Hansard angels-who are required to work long hours and stay a considerable time after the house adjourns in the evening, sometimes until after midnight and later, in order to make certain that they have all the quotations and things of that sort that certain members have used in making speeches, I do trust, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the staff I have referred to, including the secretaries and all who are connected with this house, receive the increases in salaries that they are entitled to in relation to the increases received by other sections of the government service.
Now, again with respect to the Hansard staff, the reporters and the ladies in question, I feel that when one works the hours they work and at the salaries they receive at the present time one must realize they are underpaid, greatly underpaid, and I do suggest there should be some arrangement made to compensate those faithful people in a financial way for the unduly long hours they have had to endure in recent weeks and for the valuable service they have rendered by making it possible for parliament to continue to function for such long hours. Just imagine if they all fell ill what a state of affairs we would be in in so far as the operation of this house is concerned.
Supply-Legislation
In conclusion I come back to the theme that has been repeated over and over again by members of this group, and simply say that this state of affairs will not be remedied until we are willing to make changes to meet the changing circumstances of our lives and society today and so organize our sessions that we come here in January and continue until possibly the 15th of June, or the end of June, and then recess until the 1st of October and accept some planning. I see the hon. member for Greenwood shakes his head as though he were in disagreement with me; if so, I should like him to rise and give his reasons. I have given my views; I wish he would give his reasons and other hon. members would do the same who are opposed to a recess in the summer. We in this group believe it would make it possible for the staff and members of parliament to carry on more efficiently, and also it would represent some fair consideration for the members of the staff whose holidays with their children in many instances are completely upset at the present time by our unorganized and unplanned parliamentary habits.


Mr. Legere:: Mr. Chairman the reason for my rising today is one of gratitude which I should like to express for the service I have received. In doing so, I refer to the page boys. Their service has been given with a smile. They are to be commended for their forbearance in being sent here, there and everywhere, for a drink of water when you want it, for your mail when you want it, and so on. This sense of gratitude has caused me some concern also for their education. I have been told that these children or young boys have in the main about three half days education during the week when we sit at eleven o'clock in the morning. I should like to ask the Speaker to consider whether it would not be possible in the future to see that these children are given the same advantages through a tutor or a professor as those who are fortunate enough to be able to attend public school. I think we would be rendering a service to these children that would be most beneficial. Since I am the father of children myself I realize fully the importance of education. Therefore, I do not hesitate at this time to make this appeal on behalf of those who have rendered, and always render, this service with a smile.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Very often in rising one says he had not intended to speak, and I do not suppose that in 1 per cent of the cases it is believed, but possibly I shall be believed at this time, and particularly by the hon. member who interpreted the movement of my head in a way to suit him. It is quite

Supply-Legislation
true that I have been strongly against the proposal for two sessions a year, and for one very simple reason. To me it is clear- indeed, I believe this is admitted by those who advocate it-that it really means that to all intents and purposes we become professionals. At any rate, I was discussing this proposal the other day with some people who advocate it and they agreed. I think that can be taken as true and I take it as true.
I simply wish to say that would cut at the very root of the idea of parliamentary government. My idea of parliament is that it should be composed of people who have achieved some position in the community-
I do not necessarily mean in a money way- people who have done some service of some kind in business or otherwise and who therefore have something to contribute when they come to this house. If members of parliament become sheer professionals I believe we will lose a lot and parliament will be composed more and more of people who come here to make a living.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As another enthusiastic amateur like the hon. member for Greenwood, I should like to echo and endorse what he has just said.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I say it is worth while to have spoken when my words are greeted with such an endorsement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: To reply briefly to the hon. gentleman, with whom I am often in such complete agreement on matters of principles related to parliament, I cannot understand why a person becomes a professional if eight months or seven months are divided in two and part of the session is held before a holiday and part after. I cannot quite see the logic of his argument.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, one of our
respected members, the hon. member for Mackenzie River, has suffered serious damage to his health. I am very sorry that this is so. He is a personal friend of mine but he is also a valuable member of the house and I think part of his trouble is related to the inadequate expense allowance for those in outlying constituencies. He is not a member of our party, as hon. members know, but I know him personally. He has given of his time and of his health to the north country in no uncertain fashion. He knows his constituency because at great expense to himself and danger to his health he travels widely throughout the constituency. He could not possibly pay his way on $2,000 a year.
I think it is high time we reviewed the whole subject, particularly so far as our

undeveloped areas are concerned. His railroad pass is absolutely useless to him. There are no railways in his district. We are going to improve that situation somewhat in the near future, but I know personally that at the present time he is unable to meet the expenses involved.
The hon. member's remarks about the mounted police were very timely. I have a letter in my pocket from an ex-commissioner of the mounted police commending the hon. member for Mackenzie River for his very comprehensive remarks in this regard. The long sessions we are having exaggerate the situation. The result is that he only has a very short period, September and October, when he can travel throughout his constituency. He has to fly wherever he goes, and anyone who hires an aircraft for personal reasons in the north country knows that the hon. member could not make more than one short trip down the Mackenzie for $2,000.
I cannot ignore this opportunity to bring before those responsible the urgent necessity of looking into this matter. It affects others besides the hon. member for Mackenzie River, of course, but I have used him as an example because in my opinion he has suffered physical damage in the service of his country. I should like to see serious consideration given to reviewing expenses in general and the expenses of the hon. member for Mackenzie River in particular.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some detailed references covering a number of votes and perhaps I should do so at this time. I have never been able to understand why the highest officer of parliament, Mr. Speaker, should receive an allowance less than that of even the smallest cabinet minister. When I say "smallest" cabinet minister I mean one who is in charge of a not very onerous department of government. If we had greater respect for parliament I believe we would ensure that the highest officer of parliament received remuneration or compensation, call it what you like, more in line with the dignity of his office.
I should also like to refer to the plea I made a number of years ago on behalf of the deputy chairman of committees. I believe we are doing a wrong to him because in effect the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committees have year round employment. When the House of Commons is not sitting they are actively engaged in preparation for the next session of parliament involving research work and many other responsibilities of their offices. To pay the deputy chairman of committees only an additional $2,000 a year is in my opinion

most inadequate. I would not be adverse to increasing the remuneration of the Deputy Speaker, but I feel very keenly that the dignity of the office of Mr. Speaker demands that he receive at least as much as a cabinet minister and I believe we are doing a continuing injustice to the deputy chairman of committees.
In addition, I endorse most happily the views expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West. Over the years, both in the former parliament and in this one, I have been one of the harshest critics of government policy. However, I believe that I take second place to no one in my love for the institution of parliament. I believe it will be a sad day for us when we permit our institution of government to be governed by the experts. In one large area of the world there is a government where in effect the experts or scientists rule the nation. In Hitler's time we had another nation ruled by so-called scientists and experts.
The House of Commons is the place of the people. This is the place where the people speak. After having known many members of parliament it is my belief that they are as good or as bad as most Canadians, and on the whole it is my conviction they are on a higher level than the average Canadian elector. If there is something radically wrong with the institution of parliament or the members who compose parliament, it is my opinion there is something radically wrong with the Canadian electorate because I am convinced that we in this chamber are no more and no less than the people of Canada as a whole.
I do not like politicians and newspapermen making reputations for themselves by attacking fundamentally and basically one of the most sacred human institutions we have. I readily admit that changes and reforms are necessary. We do have a committee to consider our procedure and I am sure that such a committee should continue to work continuously in order to ensure that parliament adequately represents the people, not the government. Parliament was never intended to represent the government, it was intended to allow the people's voice to be heard in the presence of the government. We, I believe, must be continuously on the alert for ways and means for making it a more effective institution of the people. I do not like the inference that those who may be elected to this house do not deserve to be here. I have a tremendous respect for the right of the people to send here whoever they please.


Frank Charles McGee: I should like to interject briefly in this debate to comment on the
Supply-Legislation
action taken by Mr. Speaker during the past session as a result of recommendations made at this time last year, and I am sure in years before, particularly with regard to the appointment of extra guides to conduct people around the building and in extending the visiting hours. I have a few suggestions to make, one of which will save some money and the other of which might cost a little money, but I believe both would accomplish something.
First, I should like to refer to the documents that are placed at the seats of members of parliament. I notice behind me I have two French speaking members, and there is hardly room for them to get into their seats because of the pile of documents. Most other desks, at this stage of the session, are fairly full of bulky documents. My seatmate and I decided this year to experiment by eliminating one set of documents. I do not know if we have any other advantages over other members in the house, but at least we have a great deal more leg room and I suspect a more tidy desk. As I say, if all other sets of double desks were furnished with one set of commons bills, Hansard, Senate reports, and so on, I think that would be one way of saving a bit of money.
The other suggestion concerns what goes on in this chamber and in the building after the house prorogues. I have voiced this suggestion to Mr. Speaker earlier this year, but I should like to repeat it publicly now. It concerns something in addition to the information provided by the guides on the workings of the House of Commons. I believe the Speaker of the House of Commons has a copy of the film entitled "The Sceptre and the Mace", which deals with the opening of parliament and contains educational information on how we go about accomplishing things in the House of Commons and the Senate. It is my suggestion that when the house is in recess this film "The Sceptre and the Mace" might be shown at frequent intervals during the day, possibly in the railway committee room or some other appropriate place in the building, so that visitors and tourists, particularly Canadians who are visiting Ottawa in increasing numbers every summer, can get a vivid and clear picture of the working of parliament, even though parliament may not be in session.
Another suggestion which I should like to make at this point is related to a practice followed in Great Britain. I think there might be some fairly obvious point in the main lobby of the building at which some visual indication could be given of what is going on in the house, just what part of the proceedings we are dealing with, and so

Supply-Legislation
on. I do not know whether we would go as far as I am told they do in the United Kingdom, that is to indicate who is speaking at any particular time. However, this would provide some visual indication to the casual or serious visitor to this building concerning what is happening in the house.
I should like to agree with the suggestions that have been made here today, and at other times, concerning the desirability of providing an adequate allowance so that the first commoner could adequately represent us without going broke in the process. It seems to me there has been hardly a week go by when I have been on my way into the chamber that I have not observed our first commoner entertaining visitors on our behalf. I think it is important that he should be given an adequate allowance to cover these fundamental and necessary expenses.
I should like to offer another suggestion which concerns the position in order of precedence which our Speaker occupies. I am given to understand that we are almost unique in that we place our Speaker somewhat farther down the ladder than is the practice in many other legislatures within and without the commonwealth. I feel this is something that might be re-examined, and I would be very much in favour of placing our first commoner as high in the social spectrum as it is possible for him to be.


Mr. Carter:: I had intended to defer my remarks until we reached item 183. However, in view of the fact that I am going to ask for some information perhaps it would be more convenient if I put the question now, thus affording His Honour a little more time to answer it when we reach that particular item. Before I go further, I should like to associate myself with those who have paid tribute to the fine work and the devoted efforts of our staff in this House of Commons. I am sure we all appreciate very much the services that they are giving to us. I quite agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that, in view of the long hours they are putting in, they are very much underpaid. I agree also with the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the salary of Mr. Speaker himself is quite inadequate. I have been searching through the estimates to find under what item His Honour gets an allowance for entertainment. I have an impression that in view of present-day costs, that item, too, must be quite insufficient.
The hon. member for Athabasca referred to certain members whose expense allowance did not meet their costs incurred in travelling around their ridings and, therefore,

they had to pay those costs out of their indemnity. I am sure that we would not want Mr. Speaker to be placed in that same position where he would have to finance the expenses incurred by entertaining so many important delegations who are calling here, and who should be entertained on behalf of us all.
The question I wanted to put to His Honour has to do with the salaries of the staffs. The question was touched upon by the hon. member for Kootenay West when he referred to the recent increases in civil service salaries. I should like to know how many of the staff have already received the benefit of that recent increase, and whether the total estimate under item 183 has made provision for the increase.
(Translation):


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, for two sessions now we have had in this house the experience of simultaneous interpretation, and I think everyone has found it satisfactory. The system has been of great value and has enabled many members to understand speeches made in the other official language.
However, Mr. Chairman, the sessional work is not done exclusively in the House of Commons. I would therefore suggest that the simultaneous interpretation system be extended to the committees, that is to say in two or three rooms where the main committees of the house hold their meetings.
It was said at one point that French speaking members from the province of Quebec did not take an active part in the work of the committees. I do not agree with that statement, but I would say that, even if it were true, there might be a reason for it. When a member who is called upon to put his views before a committee and does as responsible a job as he can only to realize that his audience does not understand him, and that quite often even the chairman of the committee does not understand, it is an unpleasant experience; indeed, it is a bit discouraging for one who has taken the trouble to study a particular subject.
I think if that system were established in a few committee rooms, or perhaps on a trial basis in one of the committee rooms every hon. member would be in a position to make a more efficient contribution to the work which is being done in the committees.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the suggestion made by the hon. member who just resumed his seat, that the simultaneous interpretation system be extended to the discussions of some of the committees of the house. I have often noticed that French speaking members did not take part in

committee debates just because of the absence of a simultaneous interpretation system. Moreover, as a rule, the chairman of the committee is English speaking and does not understand French. It therefore becomes almost impossible for hon. members from the province of Quebec to take part in committee discussions. That is probably one of the reasons for the absence of French speaking members on some committees because, if they use French, they are not understood. If, on the other hand, they attempt to use English, they often risk expressing their ideas in a form which does not exactly represent what they have in mind.
I also wanted to associate myself with those who complained about the altogether too low salary being paid the Speaker of the house. The Speaker's task is a very difficult one; he has to be present in the house and I would say that it is, in fact, he who directs parliament. In my view, his salary should at least be equal to a minister's.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have found too that there is a certain inequality in the salaries paid to some of the staff.
For instance, I note that in the parliamentary library, the French assistant librarian is paid only $7,500 a year, whereas the salary of the English speaking assistant librarian is $8,580.
On the other hand, I notice that the salary of the editor of the English section of the Debates is $9,060, whereas the editor of the French section gets $8,580.
In the Journals division, I see that the head of the English section gets $9,060 a year, whereas the chief of the French section receives $8,220 only. Moreover, in the same division, the salary of the assistant chief of the English section is $7,500, and that of the assistant chief of the French section is paid only $6,660.
I cannot admit such a difference between the salaries of English speaking and French speaking members of the House of Commons staff.
Mr. Chairman, during three and a half days we dealt with human rights and the elimination of all discrimination with regard to language, religion or race. Yet, there seems to be some discrimination in the House of Commons, as the salaries are not the same for identical work, because, after all, it is probably more difficult for French speaking employees to accomplish the work required of them.
I am therefore of the opinion that it is time that such a situation be corrected.
Supply-Legislation
(Text):


Mr. McCleave:: I shall be brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to make two points only. The first is with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet. I would suggest to Mr. Speaker for his consideration that the simultaneous translation system, if it is extended, should first be extended to the seats in this particular chamber for the audience. I give this fact to the house merely by way of illustration. Any time when debate is in English, they might look around the chamber and note how many of the French speaking deputies now need to use the simultaneous translation here in order to understand the words in English. The plain fact is that all our confreres from Quebec are adept, as they always have been, to quickly pick up the use of the English language. I suggest that priority should be first for the spectators in the galleries before extension of the translation system to other parts of the house and then to one or two committee rooms, perhaps as a start.
The other reference I should like to make comes from a remark made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, in dealing with what he called the cultural lag in the institution of parliament. I think that his argument and particularly an article he wrote for a national magazine have been rather effectively met by his confrere, namely the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. But if that be not the case, I certainly want to challenge the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur with regard to parliament being in a cultural lag. This, of course, is a term or phrase that has popular usage among the social scientists. It indicates a feeling on the part of those who use this argument that parliament should be as bright and shiny as next year's model car with souped up horsepower, covered with chrome and completely geared for all the vicissitudes of life in the twentieth century.
My own attitude toward parliament is this. May I say that I have been here no longer than has the hon. member for Port Arthur and I certainly would not want to press my young and presumptuous views on the House of Commons. I think any good hard look at our system comes best from members like the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate or others who have been here a great deal longer than we have. We are still junior leaguers.
However, my idea is that the people are quite content to have an institution that has about it a faint odour of moth balls, one that does not show signs of becoming a factory with modern and swift assembly lines and the use of automation. I think they prefer parliament to be perhaps a little bit slower than the fast pace of the twentieth century.

Supply-Legislation
After all, the House of Commons is a place for meditation and reflection. I certainly decry the suggestion that our institution is behind the times from a cultural or any other point of view.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to say something on this matter also. It seems to me that we have had probably two extremes and I am not in favour of either one. I think this parliament of ours does not function as well as it might function. I do not think it functions as well as most of the members think it can function. I think we are being silly to stand on tradition and say, "Let us not make a change because it is a change". I think we should consider those changes that are necessary and that all hon. members agree are necessary. This is one place in which there should be no government and no opposition. The members themselves should be free to agree on what changes will make this parliament much more efficient.
I have been satisfied with the operation of this particular department in the past year. We have received courteous consideration. But I should like to make a plea which I am sure Mr. Speaker would also like to make, namely a plea for more money to do the things that should be done particularly in relation to the staff. I am sure the public does not know that the staffs, having regard to their overtime, in the main are not getting paid at all for the work they have to do. That statement applies to the Hansard reporters, the Hansard staff and all the people concerned, not only those in front of the committee but those in the back rooms who never come to the attention of the public. These people are working till one and two o'clock in the morning in order to get the work done so that parliament will function. Their job does not call for them to work until one or two in the morning; they should be finished by 11 or 12. This is a hardship being imposed on them which we have not been able to do anything about because money has not been made available to take into consideration these things.
I should like to ask another question. In the Senate they have an internal economy committee. I did not know who composed it or what its function was because I was not involved and therefore can plead ignorance because it did not affect me personally. But in the Senate they have already made their fourteenth public report and it is reported in Hansard. They have gone into the changes which have been made with regard to the salaries of the people involved and with regard to some of the people who have been promoted. It would seem to me that they
fMr. MeCleave.l
should follow us, because after all we make the arrangements for the money which they spend and they have spent the money before we have spent it on our own people. 1 would like to see this internal economy committee report to the House of Commons in the same way as it reports to the other place.
In their report they state the class of employees concerned. They do not name the people by name but they state how much they get and this keeps them in a pretty open and well understood position so that members of the Senate if they wish, and they did wish in this case, can discuss specific classifications and receive information which is very difficult to receive in the House of Commons.
I think there should be closer liaison between the two internal economy committees so that members of one house do not receive increases before they do in the other and so that increases are kept on a fairly equal basis so that friction does not develop between the two groups of employees.
It would seem to me that some of the changes we could make would bring up to date the advances which are necessary for modern way of living. Many of the members themselves have bought photostat equipment, copying equipment, and some of us have reproduction machines of our own. It seems to me we should give some consideration to the recommendations made a year ago by the consultant from the civil service who recommended quite a number of changes, some of them not acceptable to the House of Commons but some of them very acceptable.
I am pleased to note that Mr. Speaker has given consideration to some of them and that new typewriters are forthcoming next session, because some of the typewriters which we have are museum pieces and I am sure the national museum would be happy to have them. Some of them could never be used economically in a business office because they just are not in good enough shape. The money spent on repairs must be greater than the money the machines originally cost. I would also think that we could put in a number of dictating machines. These are quite costly but they could be attached to a pool where they could be loaned out on a limited basis. They could be kept for only a limited time and one dictating machine would probably do quite a number of members and would be of valuable use, particularly at the end of the session.
I might say I do not need a secretary at this time of year because it is impossible to be in my office and attend committee meetings and the house. I cannot attend all the committee meetings I am supposed to and I

cannot be in the house the length of time I am supposed to, and certainly the place you neglect is your office and your correspondence.
It seems to me that this brings up the major problem with which we are faced. In the first part of the session you have lots of time to decide the things we are going to do during the session, the committees to which you would like to give consideration, time for research, and so on. Then when the session is part way through and the committees are set up you are no longer in a position to do that work because the committees are meeting at an accelerated pace and the house is meeting at the same time. Surely we are adult enough in this country for members to sit down and decide to make better use of our time and facilities.
I met a lawyer the other day and he said to me, "Why is it you people are so stupid? We in the legal profession do not work in the afternoons anymore, it is too hot and you cannot get any work done".


An hon. Member:: He must have been a C.C.F. lawyer.


William Arnold Peters: No, he was not; he was one of the rankest capitalists I ever talked to. He is not a personal friend of mine but an acquaintance, but even he was of the opinion that this was certainly not an economical way to do business, that we should go home for the summer, come back in the fall and carry on with whatever business is required.
Mr. Chairman, I violently disagree with the argument being used that you have to be old and rich to be a member of parliament. If we have to depend on decaying members of society to run our country just because they have the means whereby they can afford to support themselves, then this will be a fine state of affairs. You will not find businesses which are going ahead and expanding and in competition with other businesses hiring old men who can afford to work for nothing. They hire young men and are willing to pay them, as they sure work them when they get them, and when they get to 40 or 50 years of age they shove them out, and perhaps they run for parliament. This does not seem to me to be a good way of doing things.
Mr. Chairman, I ask you to look around this House of Commons. You will find many young people here who have to buy homes in their own areas, because after all this is a temporary occupation. Nobody can say that he will be here tomorrow or a year from now. This is not the Senate. We have to go back to the people, and all sorts of factors have to be taken into consideration. It seems to me that there is a tendency for young people to take part in politics these days,
Supply-Legislation
which is a good thing; but we have to change our way of doing things. I think you will be surprised to find how many members have children who are even going to public school. If you compare this situation with 25 or even ten years ago, you will find that the number of young people has increased very greatly.
This means that we should as members of parliament sit down and decide what we are going to do about this matter of hours. There is no better place to do that than in a committee under the guidance of Mr. Speaker, who is impartial. I think we should all reach the conclusion that we would come back here and do the work before us as rapidly as possible and then, if it was not possible to complete it at the end of June, agree to come back in the fall to complete that work. Surely it would not be necessary to repeat everything we had said in the spring-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


William Arnold Peters: We could go on with the business in an orderly fashion. If there was an exchange of ideas between members of all parties I am sure we would find that an arrangement of this kind could be arrived at.
Another problem we face is the problem of offices. I am sure this is receiving consideration. A number of members have been asked to move into other accommodation and I would humbly submit that this is not a good idea. Those hon. members should be in the House of Commons close to the seat of business, which is this chamber, and the committee rooms. If anybody has to move-and I think somebody does-I suggest it should be some of the senators who have time and who have no pressure of business. If they have to move to the west block or to the east block or even further down town I shall be happy to make a contribution towards their expenses in travelling up here or going through the underground tunnel which, apparently, is to be constructed.
Another subject I should like to raise concerns radio facilities in the House of Commons. I had the privilege last year of attending the United Nations and I was very surprised and pleased with the facilities which have been installed there. There are four or five studios there and every morning these studios are being used by representatives of the various delegations. There are facilities for making live radio broadcasts or recorded radio broadcasts. These facilities are free and available to all delegates. I think this is something which we should consider. I am one of those members who use the Report from Parliament Hill which is a facility of the press. We are pleased with that. We think it is an asset. But in the

Supply-Legislation
last two or three weeks every time a radio broadcast has to be made 1 have had some important committee to attend or an obligation to be present in the house. It would appear to me we have now reached the stage when radio and television facilities should be supplied in the House of Commons and it should be done on a formal basis. We all know that there is at the present time a small radio station in the House of Commons, but this is a private set-up. I think it is a good thing, and it speaks well for the enterprise of some of the press and some of the radio stations, but it is not under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
Another problem I should like to raise- and this seems the time to raise it-is the matter of the committee rooms themselves. I have always been very disturbed by the meetings which are held in the railway committee room. I do not know if members of parliament 30 years ago had better lungs than members who sit here now, but at every meeting I have attended in the railway committee room there is always a continual request by members of that committee for the members who are speaking to speak up because nobody can hear them. I suggest that some consideration be given to improving the acoustics of that room whether by putting drapes over the windows or installing an address system. Some attention should be given to this room because the acoustics are worse there than they are in any other room or section of this building.
In closing I should like to raise one other problem. I think the hon. member for Mackenzie River has been mentioned, and the fact that he has suffered a serious illness. This reminds me that we have a higher mortality rate in the House of Commons than exists even in the Senate where the average age would be 20 or 30 years greater. In the last three years a great number of our colleagues have passed on. It has been suggested that those members who have been here for a long time should be in a position to make provision for their dependents but that is not true with regard to all members of parliament. I believe that when the pension plan for members was put into effect more consideration should have been given to the position of survivors and to placing the widow of a deceased member in a much better position. I highly recommend the method which was adopted-I am not suggesting it was for financial reasons-by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas who ran for office and came here herself. That certainly is one solution, but I think it would be of more general benefit if we were to put

better protection into the plan which members of the house now have and I would ask that consideration be given to this as soon as possible.
I should like to make one reference to the press gallery. I have always been surprised when I walk into the press gallery to see the number of people who crowd into that small space. I have had the opportunity a number of times of reading the sections of the Ontario factory act which prevent people from being crowded into too small a space. I think we are treating these people in a way which we would not allow people in a factory or some similar place to be treated; we are cramming 50 or 60 people into a space which would supply offices only for three or four members, and when we move the senators into another building, which should be in the near future, the opportunity should be taken of expanding the space available for these members of the fourth estate.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the estimates of the hon. Speaker of the house (Mr. Michener); however, I should like to take a few minutes of his time to make some brief remarks.
In the first place, even though others have already expressed appreciation to the staff of the house, I should like to do the same, and to voice my own appreciation to staff members.
I also wish to endorse the views of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) in asking the hon. Speaker of the house that the simultaneous interpretation system be extended to the galleries, so that both French speaking and English speaking visitors to the galleries may find it more convenient to follow the proceedings.
I also wish to make a suggestion which I think would improve the Parliamentary Guide.
If, for instance, the biographical sketches of every present member of the Senate and of the House of Commons, carried a small inset photograph, I think it would improve that publication and, at the same time, it would be helpful to us in identifying those with whom we work.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take this opportunity to support the hon. members who have suggested that the simultaneous interpretation system be extended to every committee of the house. If the system is not installed at the next session, I would now ask the hon. Speaker of the house to

do what has been done this year, namely have interpreters in all committees, so that members may take a more active part in the proceedings.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
181.	Subscriptions to publications of the commonwealth parliamentary association to be distributed to members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the Canadian share of expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association, $11,000.
Harold Edward Winch: I should like to say a few words on this vote. During the past several months there have been a number of distinguished visitors to our capital city. Perhaps the two most prominent were the prime minister of Australia and the premier of Northern Nigeria. I was most interested in the remarks of those two world statesmen when they addressed the members at the Speaker's luncheon in their honour. Both of them emphasized the importance of the work of the commonwealth parliamentary association, and they both expressed the view that that organization of parliamentarians of the British commonwealth had perhaps a greater potentiality in the furtherance of freedom and democracy and in solving the urgent problem of these days than any other organization. I agree with all the vehemence, energy and understanding that I have with these sentiments. It is because of the work that I have seen the association undertaking in the past few years, but in particular in the past few months, that I am vastly disappointed to find in the estimates this year the sum of only $11,000 for the furtherance of the work of the commonwealth parliamentary association. It may be said that $11,000 is quite a bit of money for the Canada branch; but I am concerned with the fact that $8,000 of that is to go to the headquarters in London for the purchase of publications; only $3,000 is available for the work of the Canadian branch.
There has been a great increase-and I think a great deal of the thanks for the increase in the interest in the work in Canada must go to Mr. Speaker who has been applying himself so thoroughly and intensely to the work of the organization-in the interest in the work of the parliamentary association; but its potentialities are increasing, and Canada is not able to take advantage of the invitations that are issued and is not able itself to issue the invitations in the numbers that I feel the Canada branch should be doing.
There is a regional conference in Malaya this year and Canada has been invited to send an observer. Canada will not have an observer there because we have not any money. Invitations come from other parts 79951-0-451
Supply-Legislation
of the world, and especially from the United Kingdom, to parliamentarians from Canada to go over for certain special studies. We have not got the money. Recently, a regional conference was held in the West Indies at which we were represented. I have heard from all sections of this house and from the West Indies how much they would appreciate the opportunity of attending a conference in Canada, but this Canada branch association has not got the money.
In these days of conflict and misunderstanding I feel certain, as a result of the honour that was given me last year of being able to make a trip to Australia and, of course, to visit Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan and Israel, that the greatest need of today is for the peoples of the world to know each other better and to know each other's country better. If we only did that we would go a long way toward resolving the difficulties, the problems and the misunderstandings of the present day.
I join with the prime minister of Australia and the premier of Northern Nigeria-and I think I am safe in saying I express the point of view of the Speaker-in saying that great as has been the contribution of the parliamentary association in the past it can be of even greater use and serve a greater purpose in the future, but that means that more money has to be available for the work of the commonwealth parliamentary association.
Instead of having only $3,000 available to the Canadian branch in the next 12 months and only $8,000 as our contribution to the United Kingdom headquarters, we should have $100,000 in this estimate. As an absolute minimum I say there should be not less than $50,000 in this estimate. I sincerely hope that the Speaker can say a few words on the work of the association and on his admiration for it. I hope he can give us some indication of his being able to approach the treasury benches for some more money.
May I also point out it was the unanimous feeling and decision at the biennial conference in Australia last year that the conference should be held every year and not every two years. There is a need for that. Unfortunately under the old system is has to be a host country that can afford all the expenses of putting on the conference. Therefore, the suggestion was made that all the governments be approached with the idea of holding the conference annually but instead of the host country having to put up all the expenses there should be annual grants by the governments to the association so that the association could pay the expenses of the conference. If my memory serves me correctly, the estimate for Canada will be approximately $24,000 annually. On that basis, sir, I think it would

Supply-Legislation
be one of the finest investments that this parliament could possibly make.
I did want to make these few remarks not only in support but in appreciation of the work of the commonwealth parliamentary association, in its regional meetings or in its world meetings to express the hope that we can get more money for this most worthy cause and advance the commonwealth parliamentary association as a still greater instrument for freedom and for peace.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take the time of the committee by repeating what has already been said, but I do want to indicate my support of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. He has made a good case and described in detail why this item should be increased. I might say that his arguments apply equally well to the following item which has to do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Without going into further detail, I want to indicate my support for an increase in both of these items.


Mr. Souiham:: Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I find myself in accord with the principles expounded by my good friend and colleague from Vancouver East, but I should like to take a few moments to reiterate and agree with the remarks he has made, and also my colleague from Burin-Burgeo. I am one of the newer members of the house and it has been an honour and a privilege for me to be an active member of the commonwealth parliamentary association during my tenure here. May I also say it has been a special honour for me to be the executive member of that body for my great province of Saskatchewan. By virtue of this experience, I have worked in close association with the commonwealth parliamentary association and also with the NATO parliamentary association in the house here. I feel they are doing very important work. Because of the fact that Canada has taken such an active part in world affairs, especially since the last world war, we are beginning to realize more than ever that we are not independent but are becoming interdependent and our friendly relationships with other countries are gaining a wide importance in world affairs.
I think our commonwealth parliamentary association is taking an active part in the cementing of good international public relations. It was brought to our attention during the recent annual meeting of the association that our limited resources were cramping the work of the association. I should like to support the suggestion made this afternoon to increase the appropriation for this very worthwhile work. Instead of having to try to get along with an inadequate amount of $11,000, I think the amount should be increased to

$50,000 or $75,000. In my view the money would be well spent and would be one of the best investments that we as Canadians could make.
His Honour the Speaker pointed out the other morning that we had as visitors in the gallery two members of the commonwealth parliamentary association from Australia. As a member of the committee, and in association with the hon. member for Vancouver East and other members, I have had the pleasure of helping to entertain these gentlemen during the last couple of days. In the course of our association they paid particular tribute to the visit made by Canadians to that great country last year. They associated themselves with the idea that we should come back again and said that they would like to see these visits by members of the association increased. As I say, I fully realize the very important work that is going on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks in relation to something in which the Speaker had an interest last year. In checking through the various committee reports last year I noticed that in the one committee where we had a translator, the special committee on broadcasting, there was much better participation by French Canadian members than in other committees. This year we have had translators in several committees of which I have been a member, especially the one that investigated the Jacques Cartier bridge-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the hon. member was not here when we passed that item. We are on the commonwealth parliamentary association.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
182.	Grant to the Canadian North Atlantic Treaty Organization parliamentary association, $14,000.
Mr. Speaker:: As several hon. members
have been good enough to comment on the work of the various parliamentary associations, I want to acknowledge their references very briefly. It is a pity there is not more opportunity in the House of Commons for members of the house who are members of delegations that go abroad to report to the house and to share the benefit of the experiences they have. As hon. members will see from these three items, our principal parliamentary exchanges fall into three groups, the commonwealth parliamentary association, to which several hon. members have referred and which now has a very large and active branch here of 280 members in the two houses, more than ever before; the NATO parliamentary association; and the Canada-United States joint parliamentary group.

These bring many of our members into close touch with countries with whom we are most directly connected and associated in the commonwealth, in the NATO alliance and with our neighbour across the border.
I mention these associations because I am thoroughly convinced that their value cannot be estimated in dollars in a world which has been so drawn together by communication and transportation but is so far apart in many of its thoughts. If more of this kind of exchange between members of parliaments is made possible I feel that it has had a very salutary effect and I have observed that it has had very useful consequences with relation to these three groups.
As hon. members will see when we come to supplementary item 529, we are asking for additional funds in order to join the interparliamentary union, an association dating back 75 years or more and with a membership among countries with whom we now have no parliamentary exchange, Latin American countries, Central American, Asian, African countries which are not in the commonwealth and European countries which are not in NATO. I strongly commend this proposed new application as well as the additional purpose of this supplementary vote. I apologize for anticipating it but I deemed it appropriate to deal with these items together.
The additional purpose of the supplementary vote is to permit the house to reciprocate the hospitality of those who have received Canadian delegations. That becomes rather necessary in the circumstances which have arisen in the last two or three years. I see a number of members here who were on the Canadian delegation to the commonwealth parliamentary association meeting in Australia. Their expenses were paid, of course, by the Australian government as it was their turn to have the conference. But in the course of that journey members of the Canadian delegation were official guests of the state of Israel for one week and of the Indonesian Speaker and parliament for four days. That is only by way of illustration. Last year the Federal Republic of Germany invited a delegation from the House of Commons and five of us went. This year they have invited a delegation from the Canadian Senate. We saw the new German federal state and its democratic processes at the centre as well as in three of the states as a result of their hospitality.
The Speaker there told us that the Bundestag at Bonn had voted one million marks annually, which is over $200,000, for the express purpose of sending delegations from 79951-0-451i
Supply-Legislation
the Bundestag to other parliaments and inviting others to come to Germany. We were the beneficiaries of such an invitation. I think it is important that the Canadian parliament should be in a position to accept these bilateral exchanges, which means that we must be in a position to repay them in kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
183.	General administration-estimates of the clerk, $2,085,293.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in a few fleeting minutes today we have a delightful opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Speaker, and I have two I wish to address to him. In Votes and Proceedings No. 124 for July 14 of this year there is a report of the civil service commission dated March 22, 1960, which reads in part as follows:
Pursuant to sections 10 and 62 of the Civil Service Act, the commission has approved the following, effective from April 1, 1960:
1.	Abolition of the classes, second clerk asistant and chief of English journals, chief of orders of the day and parliamentary papers, assistant chief clerk.
2.	Creation of the classes, second clerk assistant, chief of English journals, clerk of parliamentary papers.
Does that mean that the office now held by Mr. Crossley Sherwood is being abolished? Would the Speaker mind explaining what this change means? Second, pursuant to a question I asked the Acting Secretary of State last night which was out of order, would Mr. Speaker mind explaining to the house what arrangements are made for the purchase of the Parliamentary Guide and its cost to parliament each year?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure I would be in order in discussing the first question which is raised by reason of a report of the civil service commission tabled the other day, concurrence in which will be moved in the house in due course, but the answer is yes. It does mean a reorganization and the abolition of that particular office but it does not abolish the duties of that office. It is a consolidation under the administration of the English journals branch of the orders of the day and parliamentary papers. It was thought, and so found by the commission, to be a more efficient administrative arrangement and the change itself does not affect the tenure of office or the position of any individual.
The answer to the other question is that the Parliamentary Guide is purchased from a gentleman who publishes it as a private enterprise, and we purchase it through the vote under the heading "Sundries", I believe. The quantity purchased is 420 copies an-anually, 265 for the members, 96 for the press gallery, 45 for officials and the table, making a total of 406, with a surplus of 14

Supply-Legislation
for contingencies. The price is $6 and the editor is Mr. Normandin, who has published the book for years and, of course, has other outlets than the House of Commons.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask one or two questions of His Honour, the Speaker, concerning pay increases granted to the staff of the House of Commons, both the staff under this item and under item 184. As I understand the matter, pay increases have been granted to a large number of the staff, but some members of the staff have not yet received any increases. I want to find out and make sure that is merely because the classifications or groups not yet receiving pay increases have not been dealt with, and also to make sure that pay increases, when granted to them, will have the same effective date as those already granted.


Mr. Speaker:: In general, the answer is along the lines suggested by the hon. member. There have been 415 members of our staff who have already received the increase, as part of the series of civil service increases which the house has discussed from time to time, leaving 291 who have not yet had the increase, but who will when their categories are reached in the rest of the civil service. They are in categories which have not yet received the increase in the civil service generally, and we have timed our action with that of the civil service generally, so that the corresponding categories will be increased at the same time. Perhaps that answers the question.


George James McIlraith: There is one part of the question which perhaps I should develop a bit further. The pay increases in the civil service outside of the house have not been made effective at the same time; that is they have come into effect on different dates, depending on the particular group involved. I would express the hope that the internal economy commission dealing with this matter in so far as the House of Commons is concerned would adopt the principle of having all pay increases effective at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's concern that that should be done. Actually there are two different dates for those who have already had increases, April 1 and May 1. In so far as those who have not had the increase are concerned, most of them are not temporary employees of the House of Commons but are on the regular establishment of the civil service, and they will receive their increases as a matter of course when those categories are dealt with by the civil service commission and presumably the same commencement dates would be applied to them as to their corresponding employees in other departments.


George James McIlraith: May I ask one further question? Is the matter of their increase a matter for the civil service commission and the government or is it a matter for the internal economy commission of the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: If they are, as most of these people are, permanent civil servants, then it is automatic. The action of the internal economy commission is taken with respect to those who are not under the Civil Service Act, and they were dealt with on a class analogy to the action of the civil service commission.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to raise a question in connection with translations in parliamentary committees. I believe most members of the house have enjoyed the change that has come over the house itself since the translation system was installed. I should like to ask the Speaker whether it would not be possible to make a more consistent arrangement for translation services in the house committees. I should like to know how the service we have had so far has been arrived at. In the broadcasting committee of last year, and in the Jacques Cartier bridge committee this year, there has been someone in attendance to translate, I understand at the request of the French speaking members.
It seems to me that in fairness to both the French speaking members and the English speaking members on the committees, a more thorough and complete job of translations might be available than exists at the present time. I shudder to think of the position I would be in, as well as many of the English speaking members, if we had to express our thoughts or our questions in French. I am sure that cuts both ways. If bilingualism is recognized in the house by the translation system, with the proliferation of committees and the increase in their work, it seems to me we might think more seriously of taking better care of this problem in the house committees. I would be interested in Mr. Speaker's comments on that, and any background information he may be able to give as to how what we had was set up, as well as to any possibility in the future of extension of such facilities.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, this is a question which has also been raised earlier by the hon. member for St. Boniface, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, and which has been receiving consideration. I, myself, have spent considerable time this session in discussion with the engineers of the organization which services our sound system in the chamber. They are in the course

of preparing quotations for installations which will deal with this problem of simultaneous translation in committees. We are working experimentally. It was my thought that if we had one room properly equipped, where committees which particularly needed the translation could experiment with it, that might be the first step. The cost of equipping all of our committee rooms with facilities, and more particularly with personnel for translation, is quite a sizeable undertaking. We are definitely working on the problem and I hope next session we shall be able to supply translation for at least one committee at a time.


Chesley William Carter: I should like to ask a supplementary question to the one I asked earlier. Of the 415 members of the staff who have received increases, are the sessional stenographers included?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, all of those who are sessional stenographers received the increase which was effective as of April 1, I believe.


Chesley William Carter: My second question is this. Does this figure given here of $2 million plus take into consideration the further increases that have not yet been granted?


Mr. Speaker:: No, it is not in that vote. However, there was a vote of the house to cover the increases as they were brought about and that includes the House of Commons staff as well as other civil servants.


Mr. Valade:: I know that Mr. Speaker will be glad to know that I am not rising on a point of order or a question of privilege at this time. My purpose at the moment is to congratulate him on the wonderful way in which he has presided over the debates of the House of Commons in French and in English. I am sure all members of the committee share my point of view in this respect.
I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would consider my proposal to place on the shoulder band of the protective staff the bilingual designation of their functions, as the House of Commons and Chambre des Communes. I think this would be a fine gesture toward the tourists that come here and would also signify the bilingual characteristics of our country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know that anything I might say on the subject which has just been raised is prejudiced because of my long and, for me, highly rewarding friendship with the Speaker. However, notwithstanding that fact, as one whom he keeps in order when the occasion seems to require it may I say that I am sure it has been a long time since this House of Commons has had such a good Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Labour Library of Parliament-
186. General administration, $352,828.
Mr. Speaker:: May I answer one question which I should not like to leave unanswered? It relates to the library. The hon. member for St. Boniface raised the question of salaries or rather the difference in salaries as between the assistant librarian in English and the assistant librarian in French, which salaries in the column are shown to be different. May I say this to him.
(Translation):
The salaries are exactly the same, but the two staff members referred to do not have the same seniority within the service.
(Text):
It is an explanation which is not apparent but the range of salaries is exactly the same. One happened to have started his services earlier than the other and is further advanced.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: That concludes the legislation estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: May I thank all hon. members who have been so cordial and assure them that their remarks will encourage me in the performance of my duties in the future.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
164. Departmental administration including a grant of $10,000 to Frontier college and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,118,255.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: In bringing before the house the estimates of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission, I do so in the knowledge that the efficient functioning of these two departments is of concern to many thousands of Canadians and, of course, to the members of the House of Commons.
As all members are aware, the number of men and women in the working force in Canada has increased considerably in the short period of ten years and the functions and the services of these two departments have been extended to meet the new demands which have been created.
In 1950 the labour force numbered slightly over five million. Today there are some 6,454,000 Canadians in the labour force which shows an increase from 1950 to the present time of some 20 per cent. Hon. members are also aware of the rapidly changing pattern in Canadian industry in a period which has seen a change-over from primary occupation and an increase in the employment in secondary

Supply-Labour
Our women's bureau works closely with other branches of the department, the national employment service, and other departments and with the national women's organizations, tor the promotion of good standards in the fields of women's work and a better understanding of the problems of women in the labour force. I might say at this point that two public spirited bodies-the vocational training advisory council and the apprenticeship training committee-are most helpful to my department in the administration of these agreements.
Having mentioned these bodies, I trust the committee will grant me the indulgence of pausing for a moment to express my appreciation of the valuable work of the loyal and devoted staffs of both the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission. In a period of change they have magnificently met the challenge and have performed a service that is greatly appreciated by myself as minister.
While I am dealing with training I might mention that enrolments in all training programs have continued to increase and that this presents a problem to practically all provinces in finding adequate staffs and accommodation. This is particularly acute in respect of technicians and trades training programs. Eegistered apprentices in training, for example, have increased to some 20,000 persons. Last year training was extended to unemployed persons on a much wider basis than previously. This, as was recently announced, will continue on an expanded basis. Training for disabled persons has increased by about 15 per cent. Apart from apprenticeship training there are some 15,000 persons receiving training under these co-operative federal-provincial agreements. In additions, enrolments in vocational schools across Canada number more than 130,000.
I may say that at the present time vocational training facilities are filled to capacity and there is a need for additional facilities. To meet this need the provinces are being encouraged to establish additional facilities and to take advantage of capital funds which are available under these agreements. More facilities are particularly required to train persons who have left the regular school system either before or after completing it.
In a program of the magnitude we have in Canada caution must be exercised to maintain a proper balance between the long term educational and training needs and the shorter range programs to retrain or refresh those who need such training to adjust to rapidly changing conditions. We also have agreements with the provinces sharing costs of

movement of farm labour, and I shall be pleased to discuss these in greater detail on the individual estimates.
As hon. members know, my department has been active in promoting a program encouraging people to have certain types of construction and repair work done in winter. Following the slogan of "Do it now" this program has had a degree of success over the years. The slogan has become popular and well known and the program was intensified last winter and also in the present fiscal year. My officials inform me that the modest amount spent in advertising by the department has stimulated some $3 million worth of advertising in this field by private industry and has been instrumental in providing a good many jobs during wintertime for persons who otherwise would have been inactive.
The special services branch was responsible for administration of the municipal incentive program which contributed to some $75 million worth of municipal construction during the winter months and provided direct onsite employment for some 50,000 persons. Since this program is dealt with generally by supplementary estimate, and has already been discussed in the house, it does not appear in these estimates.
In the field of civilian rehabilitation, in which my department, together with the Department of National Health and Welfare, also co-operates with the provinces, a simple illustration will serve to show the effect of this program. Of the first 4,689 cases reported as successfully rehabilitated, 3,600 when referred had no earnings whatsoever and with their 3,410 dependents, were being maintained at an annual cost of $3,500,000. After rehabilitation their estimated earnings in the first year will total $8,500,000. I think that this indication in itself justified the program. We have the benefit of the advice of a widely representative national advisory committee in the promotion and operation of this program.
In this respect a great deal of attention has been devoted by my department and the unemployment insurance commission to the problem of the older worker, and we are continuing to pursue this policy among employers.
The information branch of the department also disseminates factual information through press, radio and television, dealing with the various functions and activities of the department.
The annuities branch is of course, concerned with the administration of government annuities, and I will be pleased to answer any questions in this regard at the proper place in the estimates.

In dealing with the unemployment insurance commission one is confronted with a department numbering some 8,500 employees, staffing some 200 offices across Canada. This department deals in a direct and often personal way with many thousands of Canadians across this country and as such its administration is of considerable interest. Costs of administration, including the government's contribution to the fund, in the present estimates come to something over $88 million which as I have said is an increase of some $13,500,000 in the federal government contribution. The commission is charged with administering many millions of dollars annually within the terms of the act and, of course, is concerned to see that proper controls are maintained at all times.
The administration of this department caused me some concern when I first took over my present responsibilities. Over the past two and a half to three years I have endeavoured to help in any way I could to obtain the maximum possible service from this department and to see that the maximum possible service was rendered to all Canadians. To this end I have continuously emphasized the need of courtesy on the part of the commission staffs. I have also made it a point to emphasize the placement side of the operation so that officers whose function it is to find jobs for Canadians were given every facility to do so.
Let me say that it was quite evident from the first that salaries in this organization, particularly on the placement side, were not such as to attract the type of qualified person necessary to perform an efficient job in this regard. At the same time, and perhaps as a result of this, there were acute shortages of staff. Steps have been taken to adjust both of these situations.
The increase in the commission's administration costs this year totals $857,000, which may largely be attributed to salaries. Further salary provisions totalling some $2,794,000 will be provided through the general civil service salaries vote. There is an increase of some $200,000 in the vote relating to transfer of labour, and this covers anticipated removal expenses of workers owing to the decline of the uranium industry in Elliot Lake and Uranium City.
During the fiscal year employers listed some 150,000 more jobs with the placement service than in the previous year, indicating a growing acceptance of this service. The number of placements effected was 987,481, an increase of 120,000.
At the present time, an estimated 70 per cent of urban employers avail themselves of the services of the national 79951-0-452
Supply-Labour
employment service, and the national employment service endeavours to bring to the attention of Canadians this service that we have available to them. The commission during the recent months published a booklet entitled, "N.E.S.-Geared to Canada's Employment Needs" which tells the story of how the national employment service can help employers in recruiting their employees. I know that hon. members would like a copy of this booklet and they may procure it if they ask my office for a copy.
It will, of course, be realized that a national employment service cannot properly operate unless both employers and employees make use of such a service. During the coming months an effort will be made on the part of the commission to contact an increased number of employers in order to obtain a larger number of orders for employment.
The total amount of benefits paid out during the year was $415 million, down somewhat from the $479 million in the previous year. Owing to higher contributions, revenue was up by $40 million to $275 million. Some 190,000 audits were completed and 37,340 investigations were undertaken by the unemployment insurance commission. The enforcement branch carried out 73,547 investigations compared with 67,702 in the previous year.
May I say that the chairman and members of the commission are co-operating fully in the endeavour to constantly improve the administration of this important service. During the coming year the placement service will continue to be strengthened in order that it may fulfil its function of finding jobs for Canadian workers. It is my aim, Mr. Chairman, and I know it is shared by all members of the staff, to provide the best possible service for Canadians. We are making every effort to provide better accommodation, to secure more qualified people for the service and to enlist the co-operation of labour and industry in the general administration.
This government has already announced a number of measures which will help to stimulate employment in the coming months. One of these was announced by my colleague the Minister of Public Works in respect of housing that, commencing on September 1, the ceiling for those who can qualify will be raised to $7,000 and to $7,600 for those with families. These loans will be available to builders of pre-sold homes, with as much money as will be necessary and required to fulfil this need. This most certainly should stimulate a great deal of employment.
Our winter works program, which has been announced by the Prime Minister, has been expanded on the basis of the recommendations of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. An earlier announcement

Supply-Labour
had been made in this respect and we hope that here, too, there will be a substantial increase in the number of people employed during the coming months.
The training of unemployed workers is a very important thing because at the moment, in my opinion, there should be very few unfilled vacancies, but we have quite a number of unfilled vacancies, and it is probably due to the fact that we have not the properly trained persons to fill those jobs. We hope that because of our incentive to the provinces, the provinces will undertake to train at an increased pace more and more workers in this country and this, too, will help a great deal to stimulate unemployment.
We have been interested in our winter works program in the home improvement field and it has been our thought that the chartered banks of this country would be interested enough to put forward their facilities and make them available to those who want to avail themselves of home improvements in order to help the situation during the coming months. We have taken this further step in this direction to increase domestic construction in the wintertime.
The government has been in communication with the chartered banks through my colleague the Minister of Finance and all the banks have undertaken to co-operate fully in a program of expanded home improvement and home extension construction luring the coming winter. As hon. members know, under the National Housing Act the government guarantees bank loans for purposes of home improvement and home extension. It is hoped, Mr. Chairman, that with this announcement house builders across Canada will take advantage of this program this winter, providing an expanded volume of home construction and improvement in order to provide employment in the building trades during the winter months.
I mentioned earlier that at the request of the hon. member for Vancouver East for a full statement on automation I would be prepared to give it, but before doing so I wish to refer to Hansard of July 23 when the Prime Minister, in announcing the municipal winter works program, said in the last paragraph at page 6817:
I should point out that in addition to this announcement the Minister of Labour has another announcement to make at this time,-
Which I did make.
-and that further projects and plans to meet the unemployment situation will be announced in due course.
Now, as to automation: the Department of Labour, with the assistance and co-operation
[Mr. Starr.l
of management, labour and provincial training authorities, has been examining the employment effects of automation and other kinds of technological changes for several years. Research work began in 1956, and has continued since that time. In 1957 an advisory committee on technological change, with representatives from labour, management, government and the universities, was established to consider and discuss the work undertaken and planned. The findings of the studies conducted so far have been published as the work was completed. Reports have been issued for the electrical and electronics industry, the heavy machinery industry and the household appliance industry. A full report on the automobile and parts industry has been completed and is now being considered by members of the advisory committee on technological change before release.
Studies have been conducted of office automation as well as of technological changes in industry. A case study is being made of a large electronic data processing system recently installed in an insurance company office. A more general survey of all companies with medium and large size computers is now under way and will provide information on the extent, growth and manpower effects of electronic data processing equipment in Canadian offices.
There are a number of significant findings emerging from these studies. One of the most important concerns the effects of technological changes on skills. In the industries studied technological changes have been accompanied by a rise in the employment of engineers, technicians and skilled tradesmen, a decline in the employment of semi-skilled workers and a still more marked decline in the employment of unskilled workers.
Another effect has been a relative decrease in the number of direct production workers and an increase in non-production employment. One reason for this is that most of the semi-skilled and unskilled occupations so far affected by technological changes have been those involved in direct production tasks, while the resulting increasing need for skilled manpower has been in such areas as maintenance and tool room work which are non-production functions. Another reason is that new products, improved production methods, greater quality control and increasing research and development have all resulted in more technical specialists who are not directly involved in production.
Technological changes are not affecting all kinds of semi-skilled and unskilled workers to the same extent. They are resulting in a decreased need for semi-skilled machine operators. Automated transfer equipment and conveyor systems have replaced much

unskilled labour formerly employed in material handling jobs. On the other hand, assembly occupations which are usually semiskilled have been affected to a much lesser extent.
Mechanization is having important effects on office employment, although not to the same extent on the various office occupations. It appears, for example, that middle level supervisory and senior clerical jobs are going to decline. In addition, much routine clerical work will be carried out by machines. On the other hand, evidence suggests that needs for secretaries, stenographers, typists and a growing variety of office machine operators will continue to expand.
Another important result of office automation is an increasing demand for employees to fill the new occupations that are coming into existence-systems analysts, programmers, computer operators and maintenance technicians. On the whole, these new occupations are more complex than the old clerical ones they are replacing and tend to require much more formal education than routine clerical work.
The studies carried out so far suggest that while little difficulty is usually encountered in retraining production workers for the jobs created by technological changes, problems have been encountered in retraining workers for the more skilled and technician jobs which are growing more rapidly. The main difficulty appears to be the insufficient formal education held by many semi-skilled workers today.
The extent to which automation and technological change result in employees being laid off varies a great deal from one industry to another. In growing industries such layoffs rarely occur because the workers affected can usually be transferred to other jobs. In industries where employment is stable or declining, however, lay-offs do take place. In these cases the national employment service tries to find new jobs for those concerned and we are endeavouring to make available more facilities for the retraining of such unemployed. The extension of federal government assistance to the provincial authorities for training programs for the unemployed, announced just a few days ago, had this problem in mind. Our stay in school campaign is also important here because the more education one has the less are the chances of losing one's job or being unemployed for long because of technological change.
We are continuing this research work and will be publishing detailed reports on findings as studies are completed. Our work is discussed regularly with the advisory committee 79951-0-452J
Supply-Labour
on technological change and general reviews of our findings and plans are made to the Canadian vocational training council and the national advisory committee on apprenticeship.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us a general account of the work of his department. When we reach the details of his estimates there will be an opportunity to comment on the several items which he covered. I regret that in the statement he has just made he has not highlighted, as I propose to do, the most important single domestic problem in Canada, which is the continuing high level of unemployment in our country. I would have expected the minister to deal forthrightly with this problem, which he knows concerns all of us in this house as well as the people of Canada generally. He referred only at the end prior to his statement on automation, which did not really traverse new ground, to the four prongs of attack devised by the government to mitigate the severity of unemployment.
As I have said on other occasions, notably last Saturday, the government's announced program does not represent the vigorous approach to the solution of this problem which we have a right to expect. It certainly is not a program consistent with the assurances given by hon. gentlemen, when they confronted the Canadian people and indicated that plans which they would devise would remove the spectre of unemployment and the consequential suffering from that economic disease. We have therefore not had, in these the closing days of the session, any demonstration by the government that it has a program capable of resolving or mitigating this serious situation.
All through this session, we in the Liberal opposition have sought to bring home to the government, not with any success, our concern for this problem, and the fact that it requires vigorous action on the part of the government. The government's laissez-faire policy, and its relaxed attitude toward the problem are reflected in the kind of answers we have had to questions. We have had no less than seven questions put to the minister asking him when we might expect, for instance, a report from the interdepartmental committee set up for the purpose of establishing a new measurement for unemployment in our country. We have not yet, in spite of this interval of four and a half months, been given anything that would indicate what progress this interdepartmental committee is making. It may be that the committee has made a decision. It may be that the decision arrived at by the committee simply confirms

Supply-Labour
the pattern pursued in the past, namely a pattern of sampling a number of unemployed, only in the new formula increasing the number of people to be covered by the sampling process.
Then we have had the persistent refusal of the government to treat this House of Commons, composed of the elected representatives of the people, in a manner at least equal to that accorded by the spokeman for the government in the other place. We have asked for the right in this house to examine the problem of unemployment in all its aspects, to examine these proposals that might be embarked upon to relieve this situation, but no recognition of the right of this chamber has been accorded. This has occurred in the face of the fact that the industrial relations committee, set up for the purpose of organization, met only on that one occasion, and still has a motion before it on unemployment, put forward by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River designed to provide corrective action in unemployment.
There is still the refusal of the government to call a conference of labour, management and government to try and resolve this problem in accordance with the recommendations made by the Canadian Labour Congress, and indeed publicly supported in a speech made at Easter by the Minister of Labour when he spoke in the town of Gananoque. Today, following the conference between the federal and provincial governments, where unemployment undoubtedly was discussed-we certainly know from the statements of Mr. Lesage and other provincial premiers that they initiated such a discussion-we have not had from either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour any report whatsoever as to the conclusions reached at that conference or as to the nature of the discussions. Yet the Prime Minister, disagreeing with the Minister of Labour the other day, said that the provinces had a responsibility in connection with this matter. Notwithstanding this we reminded the Prime Minister, at that time, that he was repudiating the declared position of the Minister of Labour, who said that this was a federal responsibility.


Michael Starr: I am afraid I have to rise on a question of privilege if the hon. member is again trying to distort statements in this house. I made my position abundantly clear, as it has been in the past, on shared responsibility. In the first instance, I have stressed the fact that the federal government does not wish to shirk its part of the responsibility, but there is a responsibility lying with other

bodies. I have said that time and time again, and what the hon. member wishes to convey now is not so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no objection to the Minister of Labour rising and seeking to correct me. I think in debate it is desirable, that he should do so. I can only point out to you, sir, that the time at my disposal is limited. I have no objection to it but I hope he will remember-


Lionel Chevrier: He has no right to do it, either.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I have no objection to the minister doing it, because I want now to deal with the correction he has made. I say that the statement the minister has made now, consistent with the statement of the Prime Minister, is not consistent with the position he took as a private member and later as a member of the government. I now propose to establish that fact. On June 29, 1960, the Prime Minister said as reported at page 5535 of Hansard, inter alia:
The Minister ol Labour can speak for himself in that regard, but I am glad to have support for the stand taken by the Minister of Labour in the position taken by the new premier-designate of Quebec, who throughout the campaign, made it absolutely clear that the responsibility for unemployment rested on the provincial administration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the Prime Minister not give some members of the house who did not hear him the opportunity of hearing him confirm the statement he has just made, that the federal government has no responsibility for unemployment?


John George Diefenbaker: I said no such thing.


Michael Starr: Since my name has been brought into this discussion may I say that, on several occasions, I have said on behalf of the government that we have a responsibility in the matter of unemployment. We do not shirk it. But at the same time I have said, time and time again, that in order to carry out the responsibility and in order to solve the problem of unemployment co-operation is needed from provincial, municipal and, yes, even labour bodies and other interested organizations in this country.


Mr. Brunsden:: Do you agree with that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Wait until you have heard the whole story. This was a statement made by the Prime Minister on June 29, 1960. Now, the Minister of Labour spoke in this house on March 3, 1960, and here is what he said as reported on page 1699 of Hansard:
The government as a whole-I have said this on previous occasions and I repeat it-has assumed the responsibility for unemployment. We have said that right from the start, and this is possibly the only time that a federal government in this country within recent years has accepted that responsibility.


Michael Starr: On a shared basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend did not say on a shared basis. I have other

statements that the minister made, and I suggest my hon. friend should not destroy the credibility of his own witness. The fact is my hon. friend, in a statement on March 3, did make a statement that was consistent with the earlier statement that this government, attempting to solve unemployment, was not going to look to another level of government to assist; it was going to solve the problem of unemployment itself. That was the statement made by the Minister of Labour. It was in direct contradiction to the statement made by the head of the government.
I do not deny that Mr. Lesage, recognizing the failure of this government to do anything about unemployment in a fundamental way, has not hesitated as the premier of a province to recognize that he must in the face of this situation seek to do something. I commend him for that kind of initiative. However, I am dealing now with the policy of this government. Here is what the Minister of Labour said as a private member of this house, and it is consistent with his second last reported statement. He said on March 3, 1955, at pages 1693, 1694 and 1695 that unemployment had reached a dangerous and alarming figure. Then he said:
It is not a situation which can be brushed aside nor can the problem be shifted to another level of government. It is a problem which only the senior government of this country can tackle effectively providing they feel, as they should, that the responsibility is theirs.
Then further on he said:
The important thing at the present time is to place the blame and the responsibility for unemployment on the proper government. Delegation after delegation is becoming fed up with the shirking of responsibility on the part of this government. We must place the responsibility with the federal government where it belongs.
Is that statement of March 3 the policy of the government or is it the revised statement the minister has given today, supported on June 29 by the Prime Minister? Is that the way in which this government is now seeking to escape its responsibilities, now that Liberal governments have come into office in two of our provinces, and there will be more?


An hon. Member:: Where?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that the situation? I ask the Minister of Labour not to hesitate to maintain the position he has taken that this was a responsibility of the federal government and one which he did not propose to shirk.
The problem facing us in Canada is a serious one. Unemployment now persists on an increasing scale since hon. gentlemen came into office. The situation month by month
Supply-Labour
reflects the justification for the statement I have made. Here we are on the 28th of July, when on the basis of past experience there should be such an improvement as to indicate that the problem at best is temporary. From the last available figures given to us by the minister and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce-that is the figures on the basis of the bureau of statistics, the lowest figures-on June 18 there were 300,000 people out of jobs and seeking work. That was in June of this year. That means that 4.6 per cent of the labour force in Canada was unemployed.
How does that compare with countries with a like economy? From the minister's own publications we know that in May of this year in the federal German republic out of a population of over 50 million people, with a working force of 30 million, there were only 135,000 unemployed or 0.8 per cent of the German labour force; that in Sweden 2 per cent of the labour force was unemployed; that in Britain, with a labour force of 23 million, 2 per cent of that country's labour force was unemployed. That is a situation that should agitate the minister as nothing else should agitate him. We know that for the first time in May of this year unemployment was higher than it was in the samo period in 1958, and that was a post-war record. To attack the unemployment problem, as the government is doing as if it were merely a question of having more of the year's work done in the wintertime is to indicate a profound lack of knowledge of this problem on the part of the government. We still have distressed or depressed areas such as Sydney, St. John's, Quebec, Levis, Windsor, Winnipeg and Vancouver.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Did the hon. member say Sydney?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; Sydney.


Donald MacInnis: Sydney where?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sydney, Nova Scotia.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member had better take another look.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Cape Breton South had better look at the publications put out by the Department of Labour and he will see that is a distressed area.
Not only have we that situation, but we have regional pockets of structural unemployment showing that the problem is more than only seasonal in its character. I have given you minimum figures, Mr. Chairman, but these do not tell the whole story. One form of

Supply-Labour
unemployment which we have in this country and which the government overlooks is underemployment. The figures that my hon. friend quotes do not touch that matter. They refer only to people who are working for more than 33 hours a week. What are the facts taken from my hon. friend's own publications? We know that in June, 1958, 669,000 people were employed for less than 33 hours a week and in the month of June, 1960, 730,000 people worked less than 33 hours a week. In other words, 10 per cent more .people worked short time. That is part of this problem of unemployment.
From the claims for unemployment insurance benefits we know how serious the problem is. We know that on June 30 last claims for unemployment insurance benefits were made in the number of 296,400. This is a rise of 35 per cent over last year's figure. More than 75 per cent of this increase was accounted for by males, normally regarded as a primary earning unit of the family. These claims rose by 25 per cent in Quebec to 91,800. In Ontario as of June 30, 1959 there were 77,600 claims; as of the same day in the same month of this year in that province there were 111,100 claims, or an increase in the province of Ontario of 43 per cent. There was nearly a 50 per cent rise in the number of claimants in British Columbia, from 23,000 to 33,000. Need one spend any more time in indicating how serious this problem is?
The minister mentioned the problem of older workers. That is a problem, it is true, but there is also the problem of the young, the problem of the youth of this nation. Of the expected 780,000 increase in the Canadian labour force during the next five years it is estimated that 300,000 will be in the age category under 25. During the first six months of this year there were on an average 580,000 who were from 14 years to 19 years of age. Of this number approximately 496,000 held jobs. This means that 89,000 were without jobs during the first half of 1960; that is nearly 14.5 per cent of this age group in the labour force or double the rate of unemployment in the total labour force, as 7.5 per cent of the total labour force was without jobs for the first six months of 1960.
How does the government propose to resolve this problem? The minister told us or made an announcement the other day about an acceleration in vocational training. He did not refer to the speeches made two years ago by the hon. member for Trinity, the Leader of the Opposition and others who two years ago urged that this very thing be done. He has made no mention of the complaints of the advisory council last fall. He made no

mention whatsoever of the statements made by the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission last year, namely that only one in ten was trained and that something must be done about the problem. Nevertheless the minister seeks to resolve this problem by the winter works program, a program which, when we had close to 700,000 people out of work, was able to provide jobs in the amount of some 55,000, assuming, of course, that that program was responsible for providing those jobs. Surely the minister does not think that that program represents an effort that would satisfy the Canadian people that this government is seriously tackling this problem?
The Prime Minister announced some modification of that program. He said the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the wages on municipal buildings. But that modification does not represent the demands and the requests of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. All one needs to do is to look at their brief in order to see their recommendations and to decide whether they are consistent with the minister's statement today that these demands have been met.
If the Prime Minister wanted to give some substance to that program he might have included underground parking garages. He might have mentioned a policy that would guarantee municipal debentures issued in order to raise the municipalities' share of costs for after all the municipalities, many of them in the very areas in which unemployment is greatest, are not able to meet their share of the cost of this program.
Then the government, through the Minister of Public Works two weeks ago, after the prodding of the hon. member for Nipissing, announced that it was going to increase its housing loans in order to meet the problem of unemployment. All I want now to say about that matter is this. No one denies that construction is an important constituent in unemployment. The Minister of Public Works, in the announcement of that program, said that one of the expressed purposes of that program was to create jobs in the wintertime. Since this government is responsible for the low level of starts so far this summer, what they are in effect doing is replacing unemployment in the winter with unemployment in summer. That is the consequence of this program. Instead of embarking upon a real program and instead of taking those steps which were recommended by the Leader of the Opposition and by practically every member in this house who spoke, and which were finally summarized

by the hon. member for Laurier in 25 different suggestions, what did the Minister of Labour do? In the face of this serious problem, more serious in Canada than in any other country in the western world, the Minister of Labour said the problem would be solved by the winter works program, by training more unemployed workers along the lines mentioned by the minister in his announcement, and by the housing program.
What is that going to do for the people in these depressed areas? What is that going to do to provide employment in places like the city of Windsor? Why did the government not recognize at the beginning of this session, let alone the two earlier sessions, the desirability of treating this problem as a government responsibility, not as the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and of that department? Why did they not establish an organism within the government of Canada along the lines now proposed in the province of Quebec, along the lines which have been proposed in the United States, along the lines now proposed by the two candidates for the presidency of that country, and along the lines proposed by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, when on May 11 they called upon the federal government to appoint an impartial board of inquiry or royal commission to investigate unemployment in Canada?
Here we are in the dying days of this session, and no further ahead so far as eliciting from this government a policy in keeping with the character of the problem, and certainly a program in keeping with the assurances which were given by the hon. gentlemen when they went before the Canadian people.
This problem this fall and this winter on every available index gives indication of being as severe, if not severer, than in the months which we have just traversed. What is the government doing to meet and to anticipate this situation? Parliament is going to conclude this session very shortly. Will the government call this parliament back into session in the fall to deal with this problem if it becomes serious? Can the government escape the responsibility of calling parliament together to meet the emergency if it should appear, as every indication now establishes? Or are we to prorogue, come back here next year, have a report from the government in the speech from the throne in two or three sentences, meanwhile allowing all these months to intervene, during which the problem of unemployment will stare us in the face as it has now for three years?
That is not what the people of Canada expect this government to do with regard to this matter. I am sure hon. gentlemen are
Supply-Labour
aware that their prestige and their support in the country has very seriously dwindled. The Gallup polls indicate that, and the last Gallup poll was taken, by the way, before the elections in New Brunswick and in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: But after Nova Scotia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After Nova Scotia but before Quebec and New Brunswick, which is significant. I venture to suggest that because of the way the government has handled the problem of unemployment in particular the next Gallup poll, later to be published, will show that hon. gentlemen have lost still more support from the Canadian people.
I say that, because there is a growing dissatisfaction with the way in which this government is confronting this problem. We have had no estimate by the government of its plans, not only for next winter but we have had no projection at all for the foreseeable future. This government will have to try to provide in the sixties if it is still in office, and that I believe is a doubtful possibility, for another two million jobs if its promises and assurances are going to be kept. That will be a great task and if two million jobs are provided there will still be 200,000 people out of work.
Are we just to receive from the minister dodging answers, answers which do not in any way convey information? Are we to be again confronted with a refusal to allow this house to examine this problem on the ground that members are going to play politics with this problem? Is that a justification for the contemptuous way in which hon. gentlemen have treated the House of Commons with regard to this matter? We have not had anything from the minister today about the seriousness which will develop as the result of the state of the unemployment insurance fund.
The other day we were given by the minister the figures for four different years showing the extent to which that fund has been reduced, in itself a reflection of the level of unemployment in Canada. What is going to happen next year? Will there be enough money to take care of the unemployed of our country, who have contracted with their employers and with the state for sustenance and maintenance in the event of unemployment? That fund has reached a level way beyond $300 million, in spite of the fact that last year the hon. minister introduced amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which provided for an increase in the contributions from 25 per cent to 55 per cent, higher without basically changing

Supply-Labour
the pattern of benefits. In spite of that $78 million by way of additional revenue we are to be confronted with a situation which should cause anyone concerned about that fund, based as it is upon contributions from the employers and the employees, to be greatly alarmed.
We have had nothing from the minister today about the actual losses in that fund, actual losses which were reported by the Minister of Finance when he advised us on May 31 that during the fiscal year 1959-60 the fund realized losses totalling $8.4 million, a further $1.5 million in losses realized in April and May of this year. The Minister of Labour did not tell us anything about the loss in the market value of the fund's securities on March 31 of this year, which was approximately $55 million less than their book value, only $5 million less than the book value loss of the fund during the fiscal year 1958-59. The government told us it made advances to the fund, but the Minister of Finance, when this question was put to him first denied it and then corrected himself the next day and said there were advances to the fund from April 1, 1960, to May 6, 1960 totalling $20 million.
I say to the minister, are we not entitled to have from him, and should we not have had it from him at the outset today, not a recital of the valuable and important work of the department, all of which could be given to us when we discuss the estimates in detail, but instead a statistical statement about the problem now? He has figures in his possession, which are later than those in the last release by the Department of Labour and the Department of Trade and Commerce. He should have talked about the problem not only of the old but of the young workers as well. He should have told us what are his prognostications for the next fiscal year. He could or should have told us what the government proposes to do about that problem.
I say to the minister, then, because the minister has not done these things, because he reflects in his statement a complete bankruptcy of policy on the part of this government, I believe he must recognize and be made to see in a friendly but nevertheless in a responsible and vigorous manner, what is the temper of this committee and what is the judgment of the Canadian people. If the minister says this problem is beyond the ability of any government to resolve, if he now takes the position that it is no longer an exclusive federal responsibility, if he takes the position that the assurances given to the Canadian people will no longer be satisfactory, he will win the support and the confidence of this committee to an immeasurable degree. But to sit there day after day and refuse to give

satisfactory answers either on his own part or on the part of other members of the government, notably the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, is not discharging the functions of government in a manner such as the hon. gentleman stated in 1957 and 1958 this government would undertake to do. Every member sitting behind the ministers on the treasury benches who made similar claims in the elections shares the responsibility, along with the government, for not joining with the rest of us in bringing this problem home right where it belongs-right to the treasury benches.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Once again I find I must follow my namesake and once again it seems to me that about the only thing the two of us have in common is our last names. The hon. member for Essex East has once more clearly stated to the committee that apparently, as far as the Liberals are concerned, their sole responsibility is to place the blame for unemployment on the shoulders of the government. I wonder what the hon. gentleman and his supporters would say if the Minister of Labour stood up and said: Yes, we are to blame, and we are to blame because we have done exactly what you people did in the same situation. What would the answer be then from the Liberal benches? This is exactly the same problem as that which the Liberals were unable to meet, and they were unable to meet it because they were incapable or unwilling of facing up to the nature of the problem and the steps necessary to deal with it. This is exactly the present government's failure. It is trying to use the same methods which were used by the Liberal governments of the past, and they have failed dismally. In fact, I would go one step further and say that this government has failed even to follow its own advice. For the last couple of years they have been asking Canadians, in an expensive advertising campaign, to "Do it now". But they have failed even to follow their own advice.
I should like to deal now with an aspect of this problem a little different from those which have been discussed so far, namely to consider some of the effects of the unemployment situation upon our economy. It seems that in this country we have become conditioned to the idea that we must have massive unemployment. It has come to be regarded as a normal state of affairs. In the main, unemployment has ceased to be news, and that seems so strange to me, because let there be a strike in any part of the country and it will fill the newspapers. Articles appear about the loss of man-hours, the loss of purchasing power and the way in which the economy of the country is being upset. We

completely ignore the tact that hundreds of thousands more man-hours are lost every day through unemployment than are lost through strikes during the course of the whole year. But that does not make news.
Another thing we forget when we talk about the cost of strikes and their effect on the economy is that the harm done to local trades people and others is offset by the funds which the strikers very often receive from their local or international union. I know whereof I speak, because in 1953 eight out of the 11 producing mines in the Timmins riding were idle through strikes, some of them lasting eight months or more. Not one business in that town failed during that period or in the year following, because the united steel workers of America spent over $2,500,000 during that strike. I have just been checking the home town news and I find that two businesses have gone under in the last month, just as a result of the slow down in our economy and the resulting unemployment. The people laid off in Elliot Lake coming into Timmins seeking work have been enough to tip the scale with regard to at least two businesses which have been operating for some time. As I say, we make big news headlines out of a comparatively small problem and tend to ignore much greater problems. When are we going to realize that unemployment has effects more serious on the public, on the workers, on the stores and on the whole community than any strike which ever took place in this country?
Little can be said in defence of strikes as such. I forget who said that democracy is the worst form of government in the world except any other, but I would say the same about strikes; they are about the worst possible way of settling a dispute. I wish strikes were unnecessary, and I feel that if both sides played the game they would be unnecessary. In this country we seem to have failed to realize that strikes have to be settled some time and the longer they go on the more disruption they cause. I often wonder why the parties concerned cannot sit down before a strike starts and possibly arrive at the same solution as they reach after perhaps months of idleness and frustration.
Why have we failed to face up to this problem of unemployment in Canada? I say it is because no serious attempt has ever been made to do so. We have always approached it with dribs and drabs and considered it in little pieces. We have never faced up to the fact that we have a serious problem on our hands, and I think the reason is very simple.
All we have ever had in this country are Liberal and Conservative governments and
Supply-Labour
their basic philosophy is that as far as employment is concerned, it is the responsibility of production and industry, and government's should keep their noses out of it. That is the very basis of the principles that the two parties have preferred to believe in. I do not say that the members of the Conservative party or of the Liberal party want unemployment or like it. I think they are just as much opposed to it as I am, and I think many of them have tried very sincerely, within the limits of their philosophy, to find some solution. They take this worn out old tire and put patches on it here and there and finally they get to the stage where they are putting patches on patches, and still they have not found a cure; they still cannot get away from a flat tire. I think it is about time they realized that the best cure is to buy a new tire.
I should like hon. members to think back over the past 50 years and see whether they can find any time in our history, when for any reasonable length of time, where we have solved the problem of unemployment unless the government took a hand in it. The only time we have ever had full employment was when the federal government accepted the responsibility of having all-out production. During wartime we had full employment, full production and jobs for everyone. As soon as the war was over the government stepped out of the picture and free enterprise took over again. What did we have? We had the same thing as we had before the war started. How many times do we have to be taught this lesson before we realize it?
Unemployment is caused by three main problems. One we have always had with us. It is quite true that technical advances have been made in this field, but conditions are such in this country that Canada will always have some degree of seasonal unemployment. Because of climatic conditions in this country certain jobs cannot be done in certain months of the year. As I said, technical advances have been made. We have these new plastic covers which are used to cover buildings and keep the employees working in the winter where formerly they could not work at all. There have been various other technical advances which have assisted us to cut down on this problem to a certain extent, but certainly at least in the foreseeable future it is a problem that is always going to be with us.
A few attacks have been made on this particular problem with some considerable success. The first was the implementation of unemployment insurance. The basic principles of unemployment insurance were carried out at least when the system was started, but I am sorry I cannot say the same for it at the present time. The idea was that over a period of months when you worked

Supply-Labour
you paid a premium, the same as you paid for the insurance on your home, and then during those months when, because of climatic or change-over conditions, or something of that sort, you were unavoidably out of work, from this insurance policy that you had built up you received enough to keep yourself and your dependants going over that short period of time until you went back to work again. That was the basic principle of unemployment insurance.
Another way in which seasonal unemployment has been attacked successfully, although in a very limited way, is by the institution of the guaranteed annual wage. At one time it was very profitable for certain industries to work only six or eight months of the year. They closed down for the other six months or four months to re-tool, to do some repair work or something of that kind, and they did not care about the men who were laid off for those months; it was no responsibility of the company. Since it was more profitable to operate that way, that is the way it should be done. That is the way our free enterprise economy works.
Some trade unions have been strong enough to acquire across the bargaining table what is known as the guaranteed annual wage by which a company, in addition to the individual, accepts some responsibility for year around employment and year around pay cheque. I think it is a very good principle, Mr. Chairman, because surely with all the facilities, all the brains, ingenuity and ability at the disposal of the company, together with the individual, they can arrive at a much better solution than the individual can when he is left to his own devices. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that these two attacks made on this one cause of unemployment can go a long way toward solving that particular problem. Between the guaranteed annual wage and the unemployment insurance fund the problem of seasonal unemployment can, I think, be licked.
If that was the only problem we had it would not be too bad, but unfortunately it is only one of the three major problems we have. As time goes on we find that we have two other major ones as well. The second one is that of automation. Machines are taking over jobs formerly done by 20, 50 or 100 men. There are only two possible solutions to this particular problem. There is a bad solution and a good solution. The bad solution is not to use the machines. We all remember the make work programs we used to have, where a man would pick up a stone here and take it over there and then another man would bring it back again. We had work but we did not accomplish very much. That is the way it would be if we attempted to

hold back the scientific progress that automation is bringing about in our society. But we have to realize that if automation is to bring progress, if it is to benefit mankind, then we have also to take into consideration the problems that automation creates.
That is something that we have not been doing. We have made little dabs here and there. I was very pleased to hear the minister tell us the other day in his announcement to the house that they were increasing the federal contribution to 50 per cent to the provinces which went ahead with some kind of technical training scheme which would retrain workers so that they could fit back into society again. I think that is a very good step and in the right direction, but we have to take a great many steps before we reach our goal sometimes. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today, or else we would not have 300,000, 400,000, 500,000, 600,000, 700,000, 800,000 unemployed every year.
The third major problem of unemployment involves two different fields. I do not know of any better example than the position of the coal mining industry and the uranium mining industry in this country. The end result of both is the same: the eventual shutdown of the industry and a complete shutdown of the employment provided by the industry to many men who have spent their lives in the industry. The uranium industry was much more dramatic because it was much quicker. What took 50 years to happen in the coal mining industry happened in five years in the uranium industry. It was drawn to our attention much more quickly, much more dramatically; it was much more newsworthy, but the end result is the same. Whether it is a uranium miner in Elliot Lake or a coal miner in Alberta, both of them find themselves in exactly the same position. Here again the only solution certainly that we can offer is similar to the one suggested to meet the problems caused by automation.
I say that this problem must be tackled and tackled vigorously because it is not being cured but rather is increasing very rapidly all the time. It is true that bad as things were last winter they were still not quite as bad as they were in 1938 when a Liberal government had been in office for some three years. At that time unemployment reached the highest peak in the history of this country. But if we are to believe the economists, who are almost unanimous in their predictions, unfortunately next winter is going to set a new record in this field.
I was also pleased that after considerable prodding from opposition members, and

I assume and hope from government members as well, the Minister of Public Works announced the other day that as of the beginning of September they are taking the lid off the housing fund. I am glad to see that he is finally following the example of the previous minister who in my opinion almost single-handedly, so far as government action was concerned, was able to turn the tide of recession in 1957. I think that the building program embarked upon by the minister at that time did more than anything else done by this government to prevent what could have been a very much worse recession.
These problems and other related problems are certainly the responsibility of the federal government because they are the only group in the country with the resources at their disposal to meet such problems. Over the past number of years we have had examples of how formerly the Liberal government and now the Conservative government have tried to meet the problems of unemployment. The difficulty has been that they have applied the only remedy they have, unemployment insurance, in an effort to try to cover the waterfront and the result has been disastrous. Unemployment insurance was never designed to cope with the problem raised by automation. It was never designed to meet the problem of closed industries. The result has been twofold. In the first place, in the last three years the fund has been reduced from something over $900 million to approximately $200 million, as I believe I heard the other day, in spite of a substantial increase in premiums.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is $290 million.


Murdo William Martin: But there is something far more serious which is going to be much harder to cure. While the government has been doing this, while they have been adding weeks to the period of payment of unemployment insurance benefits, they have been building up in the country the old political gimmick involving the idea of something for nothing so that today we are receiving letters from people who say that they have paid into the unemployment insurance fund for ten years and they should get a dividend from it. I have such letters in my office that I can show hon. members, as I am sure many other hon. members have. The people have no idea what the principle of unemployment insurance is at all. They look upon it as something they get from the government not realizing that they are the ones who have paid for it in the first place and the purpose for which they made their payments. I cannot blame people for doing this
Supply-Labour
because certainly there is no insurance principle today in the unemployment insurance fund. All it is today is a sort of glorified welfare fund and everybody in the country from coast to coast is trying to climb on the bandwagon.
There is another very dangerous trend developing in the country, a trend that takes us back to the last time a Conservative government was in power. I refer to the tendency of government members more and more to try to create the impression that the only people who are not working today are those who do not want to work. Many of us can remember all the so-called bums who were wandering across the country from coast to coast in the thirties. I was one of them.


Mr. Thrasher:: Not bums.


Murdo William Martin: I know a number of other hon. members who were in the same boat. They were not able to get work in the places where they were born and because they sought employment elsewhere throughout the country they were chased from town to town by municipal police officers for the sole purpose of getting them out of there before they became a charge on the community and had to be fed, clothed and housed by the community. What happened to all these bums during the forties and fifties? Where did they go?


Donald MacInnis: Apparently the hon. member thinks there are a few of us here.


Murdo William Martin: Very true. Many of them joined the armed forces. Many of them shed their blood for the country, came out of the armed forces, went to work and worked for 15 years, but now things have run their full cycle. I have talked to men who rode the rods during the thirties seeking work from coast to coast and who now find themselves in the same position.


An hon. Member:: They do not ride the rods today.


Murdo William Martin: No, they do not ride the rods today. We have progressed a little since that time. We have passed social measures so that people do not have to starve today. They can always get enough to keep body and soul together provided they stay in their own community. Possibly that is one of the reasons we have not realized that the situation is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as it was during the thirties. In those days you could starve to death in your home town but today you can always go to the municipal welfare office provided you can establish residence and that you have lived in the community for a year. It may be that in some cases the fact that a man has to

Supply-Labour
remain in the community prevents him from going elsewhere to seek work. Because of this restriction, the social measures we have passed possibly are adding in a small way to the problems today.
We see the same situation raising its ugly head again. Although I hope this is not so, I am afraid that the spreading of the idea that the only people who are out of work are those who do not want to work will increase as time goes on. I have heard hon. members refer to various jobs being available and have seen them produce advertisements to prove it, but what we do not realize is that many of the men who have been thrown out of work are not qualified for the jobs that are available. Furthermore, many of them have the responsibility of a family so that they cannot afford the length of time it would require to take the necessary training in a technical school in order to qualify for these jobs.
That is why I was pleased to see the government take one more little step in the right direction but I think they should take a much bigger step because in view of the facilities the government has at its disposal, whereby it is able to ascertain in the first place what jobs are available and where the surplus of manpower is, the government, if it has the will and desire, should be able to do much more about the problem.
I should like to refer to what happened just after the last war. We had over a million men in uniform, many of whom had never worked a day in their lives as civilians. They had either been out of work from the time they left school until they joined the forces or they joined the forces directly on leaving school. What did we do? We made training available to these men so they would be better qualified to fit into society again. If they were married and had families we made sure that they had enough to keep their families going while they accepted this training, whether it was university, technical or whatever training they took. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that was one of the best things we ever did because we not only helped those individuals but, as a result of this training, they were better qualified when they went back into society and they were more of an asset to this country.
I would say this was the method by which we should approach the unemployment problem today. All we have had in the past from governments in relation to this problem has been a little dab here, a little dab there and a little dab some place else. It has been something like feeding a headache pill to someone suffering from a brain tumour. Sure,

the headache is stopped for a while, but we do not cure the condition; we just postpone the inevitable. That is exactly what we have been doing in regard to unemployment over the years.
I believe it is a fair thing to say, Mr. Chairman, that during the past two years we have never had less than one quarter of a million unemployed. We have had as high as three quarters of a million. As I mentioned before, economists have been predicting that the unemployed could amount to over a million this year. I cannot see any sense in a society which since the war has spent $20 billion on obsolete defence to defeat communism, yet still permits a million unemployed in this country which breeds communism. If the communists ever get a start in this country it will be because of unemployment, and not because they came in from the outside. I should like to back up that statement by asking when communism was at its strongest point in this country? It was back during the thirties and early forties.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Murdo William Martin: I have very little more to add, Mr. Chairman.


Michael Starr: We would be agreeable to allowing the hon. member to complete his remarks.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to permitting the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murdo William Martin: I mentioned the other day, Mr. Chairman, that the million-naires have proven they are not socially responsible but rather that they are socially rapacious. I say that this government has a responsibility to all the citizens of this country to ensure that the actions they take are going to be in the interests of all the people of this country and not just in the interests of a few selfish individuals.
(Translation):


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to a couple of facts, one of local character and another national in scope.
On the local level, I vigorously protest the new delay on the part of the unemployment insurance commission in dealing with the dispute between 369 workers of the Dominion Textile of Sherbrooke and the

commission. I shall read a statement published on July 8 last by the workers union of the Dominion Textile of Sherbrooke:
The employees of the Dominion Textile in Sherbrooke heard to their great surprise and dismay that consideration in respect of the right to unemployment insurance benefits of the 369 employees who were dismissed on November 6, 1959, will only be taken up three weeks from now by the arbitration board in Sherbrooke.
Considering that annual leave for workers in that company is to be taken in the last two weeks of July, it is rather difficult to expect the hearing before that board to take place before early in August.
Considering that the case of those 369 employees has been up for hearing since early November 1959, it	is high	time that public opinion	bearoused and informed of the policy and attitude of some officials in the unemployment insurance commission with regard to the claimants who have been unemployed for the greater part of last winter without receiving any benefits (from November 6, 1959 to	February	27, 1960),	and who are	stillwaiting	for a final decision	to be rendered	by
which they would be declared eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
Having been laid off on November 6, 1959 by the Dominion Textile plant in Sherbrooke, those 369 employees went to the unemployment insurance office, during the following week, to fill out their claim forms. On	November	19, they were	disqualified by the local unemployment insurance official.
The union representing those employees lodged an appeal with the arbitration board in Sherbrooke (of which Mr. Antonio Pinard is chairman). The arbitration board having considered the whole case with much attention and having rendered on December 21, 1959, a unanimous decision which was. in every respect, favourable to the employees concerned, the said local official appealed that unanimous decision before the single arbitrator in Ottawa on January 6, 1960. The arbitrator's hearing was held in Montreal on March 16, and his decision rendered on May 27, 1960.
During the hearing, the attorney of the commission submitted copies of newspapers, claiming this constituted new evidence. All actions or representations by the representative of commission employees only had the effect of beclouding the issue and confusing the arbitrator.
As a result the said arbitrator referred the new evidence to the local board of arbitration for consideration, so that a new hearing might be held on the matter in dispute and a decision rendered on the point at issue before the single arbitrator made a final ruling on the whole matter.
The Sherbrooke board of arbitration has been ready to hear this case since early June, but has been unable to sit because it is still waiting for the file on the investigation conducted by the regional officer, which is not yet ready after over two months' delay.
In view of such useless delays and abusive procedures on the part of certain representatives of the unemployment insurance commission, the executive of the Association des Employes du Textile de Sherbrooke Inc., on behalf of its members, strongly and publicly protests the inconceivable attitude of some officials who seem to be resorting to a method that can only be used by a public authority or by a party without financial responsibility for the costs of a case, and with little regard for the hardship sustained by employees who have been laid off and have been waiting to receive their benefits for over eight (8) long months. The employees are not asking for charity, they are merely demanding their rights, which
Supply-Labour
should be enjoyed by anyone insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock? (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if the hon. gentleman would be kind enough to speak a little more slowly?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, before the six o'clock recess, the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked me to speak more slowly. It gives me pleasure to meet his request, but I must say I am surprised at his interest in the textile workers in view of the fact that as a member of the last Liberal federal cabinet he was among those largely responsible for sabotaging that Canadian industry.
Having read the statement of the workers union of Dominion Textile in Sherbrooke, I wish to say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that I fully support the statement.
I urge him to intervene immediately, in order that an early solution be found to this difficult problem for the benefit of the workers concerned.
The second aspect of my remarks concerns the unemployment in the textile industry and the numerous difficulties this Canadian industry has to face on the domestic market.
Some 20 years ago, Canadian textile products were supplying about 75 per cent of the Canadian market. Today, they barely supply 44 per cent of the national market.
The major cause of this situation is the quantity of foreign textiles flooding the Canadian market.
In 1959, United States mills sold in Canada 6 million more yards of cotton than did Canadian mills.
Besides, in that same year, 1959, Japanese textile exports increased by 56 per cent.
The situation last year was becoming so alarming that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made protests to the Japanese who agreed to voluntarily reduce their quotas in 1960. They were supposed to make their views known to us in December 1959, but they postponed their decision until early May, 1960.

Supply-Labour
However, in spite of our warnings, Japan continues to flood the Canadian market and its quotas, according to Mr. Laz Peters, chairman of the Canadian textile manufacturers association, are still excessive.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, a few months ago, when he visited Washington, the Minister of Finance asked the U.S. government to suspend subsidies on U.S. exports of textiles into Canada. The answer he got was a flat no.
Therefore, in the face of the U.S. government's categorical refusal, and of the Japanese government's tacit refusal, followed by a continued flooding of the Canadian market, it has become necessary for the Canadian government, after observing amenities at the international level, such as representations which I mentioned a moment ago, to fix its own quotas with regard to the most vulnerable sections of the textile industry.
It goes without saying that the present government, since it came into office has done a great deal in its attempt to settle this difficult problem of textile products that we have inherited from the previous Liberal administration.
Allow me to summarize under 12 headings the efforts made by this government in this field.
1.	In 1957, a request for inquiry and recommendations to the tariff board concerning tariff duties on textile products;
2.	In 1958, the present government raised the British preferential tariff on woollens and carded wool under tariff item 554b;
3.	In 1959, the government raised the most favoured nation tariff with regard to section 554b, in order to restore the British preferential margin;
4.	In 1958, the government considerably amended the definition of the word "dumping" in the act;
5.	Additional assessors were appointed and instructions were given to request more detailed invoices, accompanied by samples;
6.	Certain measures are taken with regard to particular groups of commodities on receipt of recommendations from the tariff board, while due consideration is given to the overall pattern of our international agreements;
7.	Negotiations were started in Geneva during the 1959 GATT session, with regard to a number of textile products;


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are speaking too
fast.


Maurice Allard: 8.	Official authorization was obtained to pursue negotiations with regard to consolidated textile items under instructions No. 125 to the tariff board;
Japanese textiles.
10.	Following the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, on March 31, 1960, and following the four budgetary resolutions, a tariff increase of about 15 per cent was imposed on many foreign textile products.
11.	On May 5, we received information about Japanese quotas for the year 1960.
12.	In 1960, the Minister of Finance asked the American government to cut down subsidies on textile products exports to Canada.
Those are, Mr. Chairman, serious steps which make one understand the efforts and the spirit shown by this government to settle the unemployment problem in the field of textile products. And as I said at the beginning of my remarks in the face of events which happened recently, namely the refusals of the American and Japanese governments, I humbly think that it now becomes necessary, in order to relieve unemployment in the textile industry, for the Canadian government to establish quotas in the most vulnerable sectors of that important field of our secondary industries.
This is the recourse which is left to us in order to reduce unemployment in this area and allow our Canadian industries to recover a larger share of our domestic market.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, every time the estimates of the Minister of Labour come up, we are reminded of this famous statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) in an election campaign:
(Text):
As long as I am Prime Minister no man or woman is going to suffer from employment, as long as public works will provide them with the assistance they require.
(Translation):
That was a long time ago, yet unemployment is still a very important factor in Canada's economy.
During the first year and for a good part of the second year, the people of Canada were perhaps inclined to side with the Prime Minister, who stated that the Liberal party had not laid the ground work in anticipation of a depression.
I thank my hon. friends for this applause.
However, the Conservative party has now been in office for three years, and the excuse used in former years is no longer valid. Our friends have now had time to review

the situation and to apply corrective measures. That, however, would have required appropriate steps, which they failed to take.
I feel sorry for the minister because he is a nice chap, who has acquired much experience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Again, I thank you-who, as I say, has acquired much experience in the field of labour and I know he means well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Thank you.
But, his position is unstable, and I am convinced that he does not enjoy the cooperation that he is entitled to expect from his colleagues.
And to support this, I will refer only to what appears on pages 1406 and 1407 of the English Hansard of February 24, when, following a certain discussion with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), he said:
(Text):
I must say at once that, in my opinion, no unemployment has ever been solved in this country through conferences.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Quebec East-I am sorry, the hon. member for Essex East-


An hon. Member:: He is mixed up.


Alexis Pierre Caron: -urged the ministers to call a conference of trade unions and labour of the provinces in order to try to find a solution to the situation. This is, in fact, what he said:
(Text):
That is what the hon. minister recommended himself; a dominion-provincial conference and1 a parliamentary committee.
(Translation):
And the minister replied: "I did."
I am surprised by the statement of the hon. member for Essex East who replied: "Your party, and you supported it". And the minister replied:
(Text):
-I speak for myself in this regard. What has been said by others in the past is their own responsibility.
(Translation):
Therefore, he could not take the responsibility for the statements of others, and this proves beyond any doubt that he did not have within the cabinet the full co-operation he might have expected. I know that he would like to accomplish great things, but he is misunderstood.
Supply-Labour
All the same, as Minister of Labour he has to take responsibility for government action in the field of labour.
At present, unemployment stands at a dangerous level for this time of year. We can expect an extremely serious situation when the cold season comes around.
To prove my case, I shall refer to a D.B.S. bulletin released on July 26, 1960, this very week. That bulletin reads in part as follows:
Unemployment insurance applicants reached 296,400 on June 30. This is 35 per cent more than the 220,500 registered applicants on June 30, 1959.
A 35 per cent increase. And farther on, the bulletin reads:
More than 75 per cent of the increase over last year applies to male workers, and 70 per cent of them were in Ontario and Quebec.
The two leading provinces are the ones most affected, and are turning to the other provinces for assistance in finding an answer to that problem. And yet nothing comes from Ottawa.
And further down, in the same D.B.S. daily bulletin, we read the following:
Unemployment payments reached $26,800,000 in June-and $18,200,000 in June 1959.
A substantial difference.
The increase in payments over last year (48 per cent) is much higher than the increase in claims at the end of the month (35 per cent) and the extension of benefits over a few additional weeks (39 per cent).
The figures are as follows:	In Canada
296,400; and last year, during the same month, that is on June 30: 220,500. And what about the original and renewed claims in Canada: 128,500; and, last year, in 1959, 107,100?
That is to say, Mr. Chairman, that the situation we have to face at this time is extremely serious. However, the government does not seem to be overly worried about it.
The minister spoke about some changes, some improvements which had been brought about. But he did not seem alarmed, and appears to take things with a disconcerting ease. As in the song: "Everything is just fine, madame 1'electrice". Our chief cause of concern-


Mr. Asselin:: That is Mr. Lesage's way of doing things.


An hon. Member:: He has been elected, has he not?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: By default.


Martial Asselin: We are anxious to see what he will do.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Very well, sir, I shall have the opportunity of referring to that, of deal-

Supply-Labour
ing with those matters a little later, if you will be just a little patient.


Mr. Brassard (Chicoutimi):: We are very patient.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Our chief cause of concern is the optimism of the minister who does not seem to realize the seriousness of the situation.
Yet, in business circles, even the most optimistic have to admit that, unfortunately, the way things are going at present, we will probably have over 800,000 unemployed next winter. Others maintain that there will be over a million.
Is Canada able to afford the luxury of such unemployment next winter?
Those conditions exist and are getting worse from year to year, since this government took over in Ottawa. Everybody is worried, except the government. How can responsible people consider the situation with such complacency and without appearing in the least alarmed? Unless they be consummate actors, I am unable to understand that their faces should not reflect any worry at this time.
(Text):


James Stanley Speakman: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he seriously believe what he has just said, that the government is not concerned about this situation?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I said they should be concerned, but what surprised me was this-they must be good actors because it does not show on their faces.
(Translation):
In any case, at present, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are not earning enough to pay their unemployment insurance contributions, which would entitle them to benefits next winter. The situation is thus rendered alarming because, once again, the burden will fall on the municipalities and provincial governments. At the present time, as the public welfare officer told me last week in Hull, the number of welfare applications is increasing substantially in this period of the year when, normally, it tends to decline. This is not calculated to hearten those who dare think ahead for next winter; and our provincial governments will have to bear a responsibility that the present Prime Minister of Canada did not attribute to them in 1955, because I remember that the present Prime Minister then said, as recorded on page 2036 of Hansard for March 15, 1955:
"Over the past seven or eight years there have been recommendations by the national employment

commission, the Sirois commission and others, that the dominion should assume responsibility for necessary relief to the employable unemployed. It has been generally suggested that the dominion should accept this obligation as part of any general settlement with the provinces."
That, at the time, was the attitude of the present Prime Minister; he asserted that the main responsibility with respect to the employable unemployed rested squarely on the shoulders of the federal government, which could, of course, call for the co-operation of the provinces in that field. However, he emphasized the fact that the main burden rested on the federal government. The tune seems rather different today.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What does Mr. Lesage have to say on the subject?


Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Lesage has no need for the advice of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly, I am in a good mood at the moment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Does the hon. member know that in the years 1951 to 1957, 23 textile mills were forced to close down in the province of Quebec, according to the Primary Textiles Institute?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was not a federal government responsibility.


An hon. Member:: Was it the responsibility of Mr. Lesage?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I recognize that that may be true, I am no expert in the field of textiles; there is no textile industry in this area, and I have not studied the subject. Moreover, in view of the fact that the hon. member has been reading from a report which seems to be genuine, I accept it as I accept his word. I would add, however, that if previous governments did certain things that should have been corrected, that does not absolve the present government from taking its full responsibilities. That, as I say, is my present position, and I can assure the hon. member-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And that of the previous
government.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. (Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will say to the hon. member that I try to live in the present, not in the past. I try to look to the future, because, being of a Liberal frame of mind, I cannot live in the past as do the Conservatives.

So far, what action has been taken in that field, Mr. Chairman? Oh, the government has made a few changes, on the recommendation of the opposition with regard to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As announced the other day by the Prime Minister, there have been a few changes to the winter works program, but that is all.
Are those formulas a remedy to the present illness? They might be of some help, I admit. All we can do might help, and we are glad they are trying to do something, but the problem is too much-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Once again, thank you for the applause. But the problem requires very much more than those small remedies. We must look much farther; besides, this is not what our hon. friends opposite were saying or thinking at the time they sat in the opposition. In fact, I would like to indicate with the help of Hansard, what the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said in 1955 as found at page 2261 of Hansard:
In the midst of abundance, in the midst of surpluses, in the midst of evidences of prosperity this ugly fact of unemployment continues.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this ugly fact of unemployment continues. While government members talk about prosperity, that ugly fact of unemployment not only continues but grows worse. And there are those who claim that the government which had promised to right all wrongs, to improve everything, to change everything, is doing what it should do under the circumstances.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I accept questions from certain members, but I know the others, and I do not accept anything from them.


An hon. Member:: Write to Mr. Antonio Barrette.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You cannot answer.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I feel I am entitled to be a bit contemptuous.


An hon. Member:: Of you?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then I find at page 3396 of Hansard of May 3, 1955 what the present Minister of Finance said when he sat on this side of the house:
The second problem which has been ignored by the government is the problem of unemployment. This problem has been discussed at length in this session-
Supply-Labour
He said:
-or I would seek to go into it at greater length today. But let me content myself, in this limited time, with making this limited observation on the subject, that the government throughout this session has observed a conspiracy of silence in regard to unemployment-
Were we not faced with the very same situation? We have put questions time and again, and the hon. member for Essex East did not let a week go by without asking the minister for information not only on the unemployment situation but also on what the government had in mind to meet the situation. All we got were evasive answers. We were not supplied with the documents which would have enabled us to study the situation. Why? It is precisely because on the other side of this house they realized that nothing substantial had been done to relieve unemployment.
I have another quotation, this one from the Prime Minister. When he was on this side of the house, in 1955, the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 3612 of Hansard:
At the beginning I am just going to say a word in regard to employment. Strangely enough, there has been no serious answer from the government regarding the unemployment problem that still fills the hearts of many Canadians, no answer whatever as to what is to be done now by the government, except a speech by the Prime Minister at the dominion-provincial conference-
How like today.
-as to what is to be expected at a further meeting to take place this coming fall between the federal and provincial authorities.
Again a striking similarity.
Indeed, the great and abiding principles that were to bring about a new millennium in dominion and provincial relations now have been embalmed in the records of history.
Isn't that just like the meeting which took place this year. Provincial premiers wanted to discuss that unemployment matter which is of concern to everybody; but instead of dealing with unemployment, they talked about bringing back the constitution to Canada. Nobody dared tackle that matter. They tried to embalm the whole matter so people would forget about it. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, people are suffering at present and cannot forget this vital matter.
Mr. Chairman, I still have another quotation, but it is the last one. This is a statement made by the Minister of Finance at the time when he was concerned with unemployment. He seems to have forgotten about it since then. He is so busy trying to avoid deficits. As reported on page 2261 of Hansard of 1955, he stated this:
There are people In Canada today who are going hungry as a result of unemployment. There

Supply-Labour
are ruptures in family life that are occurring day by day as a result of unemployment. In the great urban centres where unemployment is acute it is the experience of all those connected with welfare, church or philanthropic work in any capacity, that men are deserting their families deliberately because that is the only way in which their families can qualify for relief assistance.
The same situation exists today, the same which was described by the Minister of Finance when he was on this side of the house. This is exactly what we have today.
I maintain that the government has failed to do its duty, in a fair way, in a way consistent with the seriousness of the situation. It may be still time for the government to take action. Therefore, I ask the minister to urge other cabinet members to look around and realize the seriousness of the situation. The minister if not in this house, at least in his own office, certainly heard, some members of his party complaining of the seriousness of the situation. I do not blame them for not mentioning it in the house because they are "party men", but they are always complaining because they have to admit that the government is making no effort to improve conditions.
Earlier today, a certain member asked me what the government of the province of Quebec did with regard to unemployment. I was just about to mention it.
There are two kinds of unemployment: seasonal unemployment, and almost permanent unemployment, which is caused by automation, by machines replacing man. Well, I am among those who believe that each of the two governments has its part of responsibility. The provincial government has a certain responsibility, and so has the federal government. But the larger part of responsibility is that of the central body. It is up to this government to bring relief to the jobless and to give him work at a time when he is unemployed. The utmost will have to be done in order to prevent those people from suffering hardship; and yet, nothing seems to be done at this time.
On the other hand, I maintain that it is the responsibility of the provincial government to try and increase the setting up within its boundaries of a variety of industries, so as to be able to supply the people with jobs. May I be allowed to suggest that the government consider the proposal made to the Americans in 1920 by the Hon. Mr. Gouin when he told them: "You want to use our forests, etc.; in that case, come and set up your industries in our country." It was at that time that the International Paper emerged which established itself here, as well as the Anglo pulp and paper company. Besides,

those industries gave rise to the magnificent town of Gatineau, in my constituency.
That suggestion came to us from the Gouin government in 1920. We hope the provincial government will find the means of solving the unemployment problem. But while the provincial government is considering the situation, it is the responsibility of the federal government to see to it that people do not suffer from the hardships brought about by unemployment. It must see to it that families have something to feed, house, clothe and warm themselves in winter. That is the immediate responsibility of the federal government, because it is the one that has the greater source of income; its responsibility is the most complete, total and immediate.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that time is flying so fast, because I would have liked to deal perhaps a little longer with the dilapidation of the unemployment insurance fund.
When the Conservative party came into power in 1957, the unemployment insurance fund had accumulated about $900 million to provide for difficult years.
Today, we hear from the minister, according to the latest figures he gave us, that the fund has now gone down to $296 million. If that situation is allowed to continue, the fund will go down substantially, because each month, according to statistics, there is a decrease of $26,800,000. So, if we take off, at one stroke, $26 million from those $296 million, only $270 million are left.
And if this situation should continue, it will become worse next fall and winter and it will mean that the unemployment insurance fund will be totally depleted next winter.
What did the minister provide? What did the government provide to replenish this unemployment insurance fund which is essential to continue to help the unemployed?
This very year, despite the fact that last year, the house raised the payments into the unemployment insurance fund by $78 million through increases in the contributions of workers and employers, the government should have asked the house to vote $300 or $400 million to replenish the fund. But nothing was done. Why? Is it because they fear a deficit?
We have said this in the past, and I repeat it: we think it is quite proper for the government to run up a deficit to alleviate the people's hardship, to bring about social improvement or to prevent human suffering. But when the government does nothing and in spite of that, runs into expenses which might be avoided, I think it is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, this morning I had the visit of a number of my constituents. Never have I had so many calls from heads of families who are in need.
I even had a man crying in my office this morning over the problems he is faced with. That man told me he has been looking for a job for six months, without success. He is reduced to begging. He has no money. As he is reluctant to beg, I had to get in touch with the welfare service in the city of Hull to find out whether they could look after him. That man cried in my office, and you know, Mr. Chairman, how sad it is to see a man cry. Now that is not a unique situation; there are many similar cases, so I should like to close my remarks with this simple quotation-
Mr. Chairman, has my speaking time expired?
(Text):


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member permit an interruption? I would appreciate it very much if the hon. member would give me the name and the address of this person. I think I can do something for him.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I certainly will do so and I thank the minister for making that offer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What is his name?


Charles Edward Rea: Order.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I am in a good mood and I will not allow those individuals to make me lose my temper.
So, Mr. Chairman, may I conclude my remarks by quoting these words from Franklin D. Roosevelt:
(Text):
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the government will draw its inspiration from those wise words of Franklin D. Roosevelt and that it will try to give much to those who have nothing in order to alleviate their troubles.
(Text):


Mr. Graffiey:: Mr. Chairman, it is with much pride that I rise in my place at this time to support a government which is led by a Prime Minister who said that as long as he is Prime Minister directing the government and as long as any one man is unemployed this government will consider the
Supply-Labour
problem most seriously and enact most vigorous measures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Give the quotation correctly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Denis:: No one will suffer.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my
generous and amiable friend if he will give us the exact text and where and when these words were used by the Prime Minister who. if I am correct, said no one will suffer-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I feel that was not a question; it was a statement. Before getting into the substance of my remarks this evening-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Give us the time and place.


William Heward Grafftey: -I should like to say that this is the tactic that hon. members to my right often employ. Every time we bring in a measure to help the employment situation they say it is nothing and they try to indicate to the people of Canada that this is the only measure with which we are facing the employment situation. Such is never the case. To summarize very briefly, may I say that we have heard speech after speech in the House of Commons by the Minister of Labour indicating that the government has enacted sound measures based on basic Progressive Conservative doctrine; measures which recognize the dignity of the individual, measures which are designed to encourage activity on the local level, measures, I repeat, which in short are in complete accord with the basic doctrines of the party I support. These are the measures, housing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: I ask hon. members to my right, will the recent announcement in relation to housing not stimulate employment and the economy? Of course it will. But hon. members laugh. The leader of the C.C.F. party or new party has just laughed, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that he laugh in front of the people who will be employed because of these measures. The Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister announced recently, and earlier this year, an expanded winter works program, a program which, according to the principles of our party, will be enacted on the local level. I remember what the hon.

Supply-Labour
member for Port Arthur said when I spoke last year on a similar occasion and reported the fact that I hoped that in some way I had helped to put this program over in my own area. We all know that the hon. member for Port Arthur has some very funny theories in relation to the functions of a member of parliament. At any rate he accused me of usurping the functions of civil servants. Such was not the case.
I suggest, that the winter works program is a program toward which every member of parliament can take a bipartisan attitude. It is a program designed to stimulate winter employment on the local level and I feel that every member of parliament on both sides of the house has a responsibility to help to put the program over in his or her respective area.


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


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would he explain where the C.C.F. comes in in a bipartisan program?


An hon. Member:: You cannot tell the difference between the Liberals and the C.C.F.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that any problem regarding employment demands bipartisanship, even from the C.C.F. Then we have the measure announced by the Minister of Labour providing increased funds for the education of unemployed people. We also have the increased emphasis that is being put on the national placement service by the Minister of Labour. Every hon. member of the house must recognize the fact that since the government has come to power-


Peter Francis Martin: We have had disaster.


William Heward Grafftey: -workers from one end of
the country to the other realize the efforts that are being made through the national placement service offices to place men in jobs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unfortunately that is true.


Mr. Howard:: Apple polisher.


William Heward Grafftey: I could go on to say that these measures are not a cure-all, but in the face of that record, which is not a cure-all, I think opposition members are being most irresponsible, as was the hon. member for Hull, when they say that the present government is not vitally concerned and is not acting in a real way in the face of the present situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Negative and passive.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to say that the hon. member for Essex East in his usual fashion, with plenty of thunder and fury- in fact I think it was William Shakespeare who said, "Much sound and fury signifying nothing"-made one good suggestion and I will refer to it later. But what in fact did the hon. member for Essex East propose in his speech? In essence the hon. member has demanded a conference to study unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I demanded action.


William Heward Grafftey: In his usual way he tried in his speech to convince the house that the government has attempted in some unknown fashion to stifle debate on the employment situation. Time and time again he said that the house was denied an opportunity to discuss the unemployment situation. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what are we having now if it is not an opportunity to discuss the unemployment situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the last days of the session.


William Heward Grafftey: Just five minutes ago we heard the hon. member for Hull say that the unemployment or employment situation had been discussed often in the House of Commons. Who is right? I suggest that there has been a lot of debate in the house as to who is responsible for unemployment. Frankly, I am not interested in these detailed niceties. I can say one thing-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the Prime Minister on January 20, 1958?


William Heward Grafftey: -that a man who is out of work is not interested in who is responsible, the municipal, provincial or federal authorities. He is interested in finding a job. I am not going to get into these detailed arguments. I should like to inform the hon. member for Hull that during the last Quebec provincial election campaign the new premier of the province said that unemployment was entirely a provincial responsibility.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is the quotation?


William Heward Grafftey: I frankly do not agree with this but he said it nevertheless in a burst of political enthusiasm.	.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman tell us where and when he said it? That statement is untrue and the hon. member knows it.


William Heward Grafftey: I often wonder, Mr. Chairman-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We know it is untrue because it was made by the premier of the province of Quebec.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair cannot permit more than one member to speak at a time. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when an hon. member, even the amiable hon. member who is speaking, makes a statement which is challenged and he is asked for the authority for the statement I believe it is our practice for the hon. member to give us his authority. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked for the authority.


Frank Charles McGee: He was out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He modestly asked for the authority, and I think we have a right to ask the hon. and vigorous member for Brome-Missisquoi to give us the authority for his statement.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


Charles Edward Rea: Order; the hon. member for Essex East asked a question, and repeated his question. If the hon. member has another point, or is he rising on a point of order?


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has just made a remark from his seat that the member speaking has made an untrue statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Charles Edward Rea: I understood he asked him the source of his statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Cape Breton South is correct. I stated, and I repeat, that the statement made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that the premier of Quebec stated unemployment was exclusively a provincial responsibility is a statement which is completely untrue and the hon. gentleman knows it is untrue.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; we are just having contradictions here, and they can be taken up after the hon. member has completed his speech.


William Heward Grafftey: I have been asked so many questions that I am only going to answer them very briefly. Before I answer them I should like to say this, and it is a very interesting point. During the many election campaigns in my province I find that in the campaign literature published by the Liberal party they always say, "We were not responsible for that."


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I shall have to ask the hon. member to come back to the subject under discussion.
Supply-Labour


William Heward Grafftey: In answer to the question posed to me by the hon. member for Essex East, may I say that I have in my hand a copy of a full page advertisement in Le Devoir, Montreal, dated Tuesday, May 10, 1960, concerning the problem of unemployment. It reads:
(Translation):
The Liberal solution:
1. To consider unemployment as a family problem and a provincial responsibility.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was that statement made by the premier of Quebec?


William Heward Grafftey: On May 17, 1960 Le Devoir reports, and I am translating the article:
St. Joseph d'Alma: The leader of the provincial Liberal party, Mr. Jean Lesage, promised Sunday that his government will tackle the problem of unemployment not by "reverting to the system of direct relief"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are reading the wrong quotation.


Mr. Bourgel:: Read it all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go ahead.


William Heward Grafftey: I continue reading:
-not by "reverting to the system of direct relief", founded by the Conservatives in 1931 under Mr. Bennett, as it has just been promised by the leader of the Union Nationale-Mr. Barrette -at Granby, but by a planned economic development of the province and by tactical training of workers at home ...
It is further reported that Mr. Lesage observed that Mr. Barrette had, nevertheless, recognized that the provincial authorities have their responsibility in the solution of the unemployment problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: I want to revert to the original point I tried to make, and that is that the man out of work is not really interested in the niceties of who is responsible for finding him employment. It is for this reason I reiterate time and time again in this house, that I feel the problem of employment or unemployment is a problem that often demands a bipartisan approach from hon. members. It is for this reason, that so many of the utterances of the hon. member for Essex East in this chamber ring hollowly in my ears.
I can say this, as well, that we must recognize the government is taking active measures in the face of the present situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Name them.


William Heward Grafftey: As I have already mentioned, the hon. member for Essex East had many suggestions to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Labour


William Heward Grafftey: However, I ask him this one question. Over and above the fact that he demanded that we initiate a grandiose conference to discuss the problem, what concrete measure was proposed-


Peter Francis Martin: The hon. member has asked me a question.


William Heward Grafftey: I am not interested in what-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Order.
The Depuly Chairman: Order; the hon. member for Essex East has the floor.


Peter Francis Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman has asked me a question.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Peter Francis Martin: He has asked me a question.


George Harris Hees: He knows he would not get an answer.


Maurice Bourget: Are you afraid of the answer?
The Depuly Chairman: Order; once again I must remind hon. members that we cannot have more than one speaker at a time. The hon. member for Essex East was asked a question. I must remind hon. members that they cannot interrupt the hon. member who has the floor unless he permits a question to be asked.


Peter Francis Martin: The hon. gentleman for whom I have a deep affection, asked me a question-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Peter Francis Martin: Unless it was a rhetorical question and not meant to be answered I shall be glad to deal with it if the hon. gentleman wishes me to do so.
The Depuly Chairman: That is not a point of order.


William Heward Grafftey: In point of fact, I was asking myself a rhetorical question. I have put on the record this evening some of the active measures, undeniably active measures that have been taken by this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What are they?


William Heward Grafftey: I am not going to say these are a cure-all; I am not for a minute going to suggest that employment or unemployment, as such, is not a problem, but I am going to suggest that active measures have been taken and more active measures will be taken. I am going to suggest that the people of Canada are not interested in the constitutional niceties relating to the role of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?


William Heward Grafftey: I am going to say that at times it would be nice to hear a constructive suggestion from the opposition in a field as important as this. I believe it is irresponsible partisanship to suggest for one minute that the problem of employment has not been given full discussion in this house since we convened here in January.
Another point with which I feel we must deal is the sort of straw man that deserves to be burned as quickly as possible. Hon. members opposite have suggested that the premier of the province of Quebec made a statement in relation to the unemployment problem, and that it may have been discussed in camera during the recent dominion-provincial meetings. The Prime Minister was attacked for not making a statement with regard to what was discussed in this conference recently. Hon. members opposite well know that no statement, either from provincial premiers or the Prime Minister, could be made in relation to those meetings that were held in camera, so I feel this is just another instance of partisan bickering and hollow hankering over an important issue that merits better attention. Everyone here knows that the Prime Minister or the provincial premiers cannot make statements regarding meetings that supposedly have been held in camera.
This is the type of responsible debate for which I make a plea this evening in relation to the problem of employment. I refer to the type of responsible debate that merits the bipartisan consideration of every hon. member. I may say frankly that I do not think the average working man in Canada, when he finds a job, is interested in knowing whether it is supplied to him by a Liberal administration or a Conservative administration or whether it is supplied by a municipal, provincial or federal government. He wants to find a job. I think that is the attitude that we should all take.
Without carrying on much longer there are just a few more things I have in my mind before terminating my present remarks. Like every other hon. member in this house, I have naturally devoted some serious attention to this problem. I cannot help but think of some possible long term national objectives that we might have in relation to the problem of employment. I am not going to suggest any cure-all; they are not perhaps even suggestions. They are merely thoughts, Mr. Chairman. I often wonder how much immigration, for instance, over the next ten years we should have, and what kind of immigration we should have over the next ten years, taking into consideration the expected natural birth increase, in order best to develop the Canadian economy at an

optimum level. These questions are the sort that I think we should ask ourselves about long term national objectives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the hon. gentleman doing about it?


William Heward Grafftey: 1 heard another facetious remark by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate place before us in all sincerity what he believes is the best idea. After all, what is this forum except a place for offering what we hope are constructive ideas. If, when I offer suggestions in a true spirit of trying to be helpful, I wonder why my remarks evoke facetious interjections from some hon. members opposite.
I should like to say that I am a supporter of the government and that it allows its backbenchers to speak frankly. We are not under the dictates of any C. D. Howe. I realize that while I am speaking of long term national objectives, I am expanding this debate in a broad fashion. While the Minister of Labour is often seemingly responsible in the narrow sense for statistics that hon. members opposite throw at him, unemployment statistics depend, as we all know, on the economy at large. I therefore go on with other thoughts. I have heard it suggested that expanded trade will help our economic and thus our employment situation.
I should like to suggest to all the businessmen in Canada that under the aegis of the Department of Trade and Commerce we have trade commissioners who are second to none in the world. I feel we should make even further use of them than we are. While the government can take the lead, I feel that private enterprise can help by availing itself of the real facilities of, I repeat again, one of the finest trade commissions in the world.
Then it has been suggested that under the Department of Trade and Commerce some time in the future we might have a revolving export credit fund which in the initial stages might involve $50 million. These are things that all hon. members must look upon at some time in the future with the hope that they will help our economy and thus in turn our employment situation.
Another thing is this. Many of my confreres realize that I whip this matter a good deal but I feel that both government and private enterprise should strees the simple general notion of what I call "Buy Canadian". I do not think you can hope or feel that the housewife on the retail level in the stores can differentiate or would want to differentiate between Canadian made goods and foreign made goods. Once they
Supply-Labour
have reached the retail level, I think it is too late. But I think both the government and private enterprise should initiate and support what I call a "Buy Canadian" policy.
I know that there seems to be a feeling abroad in Canada that because something is imported it has an aura of perhaps snobbery about it. I think a great many good things are made here in Canada by Canadians for Canadians. I look forward to the day when we can increasingly encourage the situation. The government has already taken a great lead in this matter. I feel that more is going to be done and that more will be done by private enterprise, enterprise that is always stimulated and helped by Progressive Conservative doctrines and principles.
I know that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as he has done in the past, will perhaps accuse me now of entering into the classical field of high or low tariffs. I am not doing that. I have been one who has always said that we should take a close look at our dumping regulations. I am pleased that the Minister of National Revenue has appointed officers to police more closely the dumping regulations vis-a-vis Canada and outside powers. These are regulations that must be strictly enforced, not only in relation to the textile industry so ably touched upon by the hon. member for Sherbrooke but in relation to many other Canadian goods. Perhaps we shall be obliged to take a more serious look at our position in GATT.
Mr. Chairman, I have been broad in my remarks tonight but these are all things that affect our economy and in turn affect our employment position. They are just a few superficial highlights that I felt might merit attention at this time. I would suggest to some hon. members alongside me that rather than trying day in and day out to make a political football of the employment or the unemployment situation it is time to stop this sort of thing. I know we all like a little bit of infighting now and again but I am sure the people must say at times, "Enough is enough".
The Minister of Labour in these past months during this session and between sessions has posed many problems in relation to the employment situation. He has said time and time again that this government is seriously concerned about it and is taking serious action. I repeat myself. But let us realize one thing and in saying this I hope I am not going to be misunderstood for making these remarks. In my opinion there is such a thing as statistical unemployment. Whether we are taking the unemployment insurance statistics, the national placement service or dominion bureau of statistics statistics or the Martin bureau of statistics;

Supply-Labour
no matter what statistics we are taking, we must take a good look at them.


An hon. Member:: Especially at the last ones.


William Heward Grafftey: I think every Canadian should realize that we have many social welfare measures today, especially since this government has come to power, in that we have extended unemployment insurance benefits. We have social welfare benefits, as well we might, that will never allow anything to happen such as that which happened in the depression days of the thirties. However, Mr. Chairman, I think we must be careful when we are dealing with what I call the problem of statistical unemployment for when statistics are irresponsibly used there is created, not only a lack of confidence on questions of domestic concern but also a lack of confidence among our neighbours to the south and among far away powers. No member of parliament is doing any service to his country or even to his party in the long run when he irresponsibly quotes or reiterates in this house or outside this house statistics that he knows are basically not correct.


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


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he think that was equally true between 1953 and 1957?


An hon. Member:: Who is living in the past?


William Heward Grafftey: I know that hon. members in my party whether in power or out of power, have always been most responsible in their use of statistics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page the Minister of Labour.


William Heward Grafftey: I think perhaps the minister might refer to this matter in his remarks but as I understand it the dominion bureau of statistics samplings are taken from one end of this country to the other. No matter how accurate the samplings are as such in their initial stages I also understand that on these matters the only possible information that can be put down is whether or not the man was in or out of work during the preceding week when he was interviewed.
I might be wrong here, but I think with just those facts alone we realize we are dealing with a very serious problem. In other words, everybody is aware of the fact that we should not for political reasons try and build up what I refer to as statistical unemployment. Certainly there is unemployment and it must be dealt with seriously, but I feel these are statistics which must be dealt

with seriously too. I repeat time and time again that it is not serving our country well when they are irresponsibly used either on the home front or abroad.
In summary, I have felt obliged to refute some of the straw men put up before this House of Commons by members opposite. Second, I have tried my best to outline some of the vigorous measures introduced by the government. They are not cure-alls, not the complete answer; and do not let hon. members alongside ever go to the people of Canada and try and tell them we said any one of them is. The hon. member for Essex East has called our winter works program a mere bagatelle, and this from a member of a government which in 1954 and 1955 told the municipalities that nothing could be done for them. Nevertheless, these measures by themselves are not cure-alls. Taken in toto maybe they are not cure-alls either, but they are certainly a step forward in relation to a problem which must be met and is being met.
I have outlined these measures and made what I hope are at best some helpful suggestions.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. gentleman's time has expired, I wonder if I might be permitted to ask him one question. Can I ask the hon. gentleman if he recalls that in the year 1955 the Liberal government assumed half the cost of unemployment assistance to help the municipalities, notwithstanding the fact that he said we did nothing for them?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee seem to be in a rather peculiar mood tonight, and one hardly knows what kind of reception one will get. But I do know that we all enjoyed the tour de force of the previous speaker and that his remarks will be a great deal relished when they appear in the press and in Hansard tomorrow.
As a matter of fact, I think there is only one thing wrong with what the hon. member had to say, and that is that it is not going to pay the rent or buy the food or the clothing of the unemployed in Canada today.
The hon. member in his closing remarks said quite a bit about statistics. Good, bad or indifferent, I do not know, but I am afraid that what is happening today as far as the government is concerned is that they are trying to reduce unemployment to a statistic. We hear more talk and more arguments about statistics and whether they are right or wrong than I think we do about the actual question of unemployment itself. That is the

problem, the real fundamental problem, which we have the responsibility of dealing with, not one set of statistics compared to another or whether it is 300,000 or 325,000. It is the problem of unemployment and there is a great deal of it in Canada today.
I feel all of us are concerned with the fact that unemployment in Canada seems to be a perennial and an increasing problem. It is quite all right for hon. members to get up and say that you should not say this, you should not say that, and do not bring that up because it is dangerous to Canada and to countries outside. The real danger is in refusing to face realism, refusing to face facts and refusing to try and work out some plan to handle the problem.
We would be betraying our country if because it may be a little bit unpopular or obnoxious to certain people we were to say the problem does not exist; if we were to close our eyes and say the problem is not there. That may be the attitude of some hon. members but I do not think it is the attitude of the majority. We must be concerned when we pick up our newspapers and read such statements as this, which is taken from the Toronto Star of April 30:
With unemployment figures steadily mounting, many economists and business leaders feel the time has come for a long range look at the problem ...
A cross section of economists and business experts, applying their statistical stethoscopes to Canada's body economic, come up with this general report:
This summer: A substantial boom.
Next fall: A down-turn in the economy.
Next winter: Unemployment worse than this year.
The winter after: A post-war peak of unemployment.
When some of the chief economists and business men of Canada give that general analysis, when we hear from the provinces and our constituencies, and when we get the statistics from the Minister of Labour about this problem, I say we have got to try to face up to the situation and see what can be done now in order to offset any possibility of an increasing tempo of unemployment.
I am not going to go into any long harangue on the details and the broad general picture; that can be done by others. I want to concentrate for a few minutes on the question of the problem of unemployment as it is now being brought to bear through the medium of automation.
I was very grateful to the Minister of Labour this afternoon when he reported on the research studies undertaken in his department on the question of automation. That is something which is inevitable but it is a problem we have got to face up to now if we are going to be able to offset the conditions which new technologies and efficiencies will bring about in this field. If we do not face 79951-11-453
Supply-Labour
up to it, then I say we are being irresponsible as elected members of the people of the country.
I would just like to give a couple of examples as to how automation is operating. Only this week I received a communication from the oil, chemical and atomic workers international union in Vancouver which pointed out that in the 18 months ending May 31 of this year 150 hourly paid jobs had been eliminated through automation in refineries in the Vancouver area. In addition to 150 hourly paid jobs being eliminated through automation, approximately as many staff jobs were also eliminated. So here is a process in the refining industry of my own city of Vancouver which, according to the union affected, has created unemployment for 300 men owing to automation in the industry. I am also informed that the workers who are still employed have been notified that there are going to be more lay-offs yet as they increase efficiency by putting in new automation machines.
That is just one example and I would like to give just one more, because I think it is well known to the Minister of Labour and to the majority of the members of this committee because of the fact that there was a delegation here not so long ago from the united steel workers of America who were representing the employees of English Electric Company at St. Catharines where because of the need for greater efficiency from the company's point of view and because of automation we have the closing of the English Electric plant in St. Catharines.
There have been employed there until recently according to my information approximately 500 employees. As a result of the closing of this plant and the consolidation of the operations in Toronto only 160 of the 500 employees are being invited to sell out at St. Catharines and take employment in Toronto. I understand that the average age of these 500 employees is 53. Nearly one quarter of them are 50 years of age or over and the average length of service of the employees is 16 years. I understand that 80 per cent of the employees are home owners in the St. Catharines area and one third of the homeowners own homes which they value at more than $10,000. In addition, the average number of dependents is 2.26. This means that about 1,000 people are being affected by automation, the need for greater efficiency, the closing down of a plant and its moving to Toronto.
This is not a rare instance. This is happening more and more often and in the new technology it is going to happen more and more often in the future and we have to

Supply-Labour
face up to it. It is inevitable. You cannot hold back styles and new methods. But the people must be taken care of. We cannot take care of the people affected in this way by just expressing pious hopes and saying we are giving continuous study to the matter. Excellent as may be the research work being done in the minister's department and marvellous as undoubtedly are the reports the hon. gentleman receives, we have reached the stage where we should get down to planning; we must get down to something definite with regard to meeting the situation, and I feel that this is where the government has fallen down up to the present time.
The government has failed to demonstrate to me that they are taking a sufficiently serious attitude toward this phase of the unemployment problem or that they recognize that this difficult situation must be met by distinct policies. I feel that if action is not taken we may get into a worse situation still. Though I appreciate what the minister had to say on the studies on automation which are being carried out I should like him to go further and tell us what practical steps the government has in mind.
We are faced with the need to evolve practical plans to handle the situation. If labour and industry do not get together and reach agreement about the way in which this problem is to be met, then it becomes the duty of the government to take a definite stand and bring in definite policies and even special legislation if required. I have heard it said that when this matter was brought to the attention of the government some time ago-the concentration of industry, the closing down of plants in the smaller towns and so on-the government expressed an understanding of the situation but said it had no power to deal with it.
I feel it is necessary for us to get away from this increasing concentration of industry in a few centres. Decentralization of industry is necessary. Plants must be encouraged to continue their operations in centres which depend upon them, and if necessary assistance should be given to these undertakings to stay where they are, to stay where the homes of their employees have been built and where they have earned their livelihood for years and years. I think we need a more satisfactory and a more militant declaration of government policy in this regard. Canada will not reach its real maturity and potential until, by legislation if necessary, we have decentralization of industry, not only within provinces but throughout Canada.
I believe that when there is notice of approaching automation, whether it affects 400

employees, as in the case of the electric company which I have mentioned in some detail or in the case of the refineries in British Columbia where 300 people have been affected in the last three months, the government should take the initiative, if the industry declines to do so, and say: You have got to start planning; if this move is required, then fine, but you have got to plan now, either to bring a new industry in or to take care of these people; if you cannot take these people with you you have got to have a system of portable pensions. This is the sort of thing which has to be planned before the effect of automation comes into being.
I have only one plea, and that is that we do not ask ourselves rhetorical questions as the previous speaker said he was doing but that we face the realities of the situation, that we face up to the inevitability of evolution and recognize that nothing is here forever. The only thing that is constant is change. I say that we have passed the planning stage. We have reached the policy making stage and in the very near future we shall reach the point at which action must be taken with regard to this particular phase of the unemployment problem to which I have confined my remarks this evening. Let us all, irrespective of party, instead of continually looking at the past, start looking at the future.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I should not want to delay the passage of the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), but I feel it is my duty to speak in order to correct certain misstatements or to disprove some irresponsible statements made in this house.
I listened to the remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and I was greatly surprised to realize that members did not break out in tears on hearing the heart-rending description he gave of the situation. He exerted himself to make us believe that the present situation, and especially in the field of textiles, was an exclusive responsibility of the Conservative party. Mr. Chairman, allow me to refer to the official report and to acquaint the house with the true situation. I have here a report of the Primary Textiles Institute, dated July 5, 1960, in which I read the following:
But during the last decade, serious changes in the situation and in the trend of the industry were noticed.
Needless to say that that industry is the textile industry.
A difficult period set in in 1951 and it is continuing. During that time, 23 spinning mills had to close down, which deprived some 2,000 people of employment opportunities.

On the last page of the same report, we find some statistics according to which, from 1935 to 1939, 120 million linear yards of fabric were imported, while in 1956, under the administration of our friends the Liberals, those imports reached 316 million yards.
During that same period, that is from 1935 to 1939, Canadian industry provided for about 71 per cent of domestic consumption, while it provided for only 55 per cent in 1956.
Mr. Chairman, I should like now to call the attention of the house to a statement made by Mr. Laz Peters, chairman of the Canadian Association of Clothing and Textile Manufacturers. As recorded in the minutes of a meeting of the said association, held in April:
Mr. Peters lauded the efforts made by the Canadian government to put a stop to "the immoderate influx of Japanese clothing and textile" which wrought havoc in the Canadian market and inflicted hardships upon thousands of workers.
He said that imports of clothing and textile from Japan had increased from $5 million in 1954 to $26.5 million in 1958. "If it had not been for the determination of the Canadian government authorities in their negotiations with Japan in the last five months, that torrent would have been still more devastating."
And Mr. Peters concluded:
Only voluntary limitation on the part of Japan can stop Canada from inserting restricting clauses in its trade agreements.
We know, Mr. Chairman, that we are ruled by the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which was negotiated by our predecessors and we necessarily have to face a situation which is of their making.
Mr. Chairman, the unemployment problem is not the sole responsibility of the federal government. That was proved a few months ago. And, as further evidence, if I remember rightly, in 1958 the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) stated that unemployment could not be exclusively attributed to the Conservative party.
The settlement of the unemployment issue demands joint action, which concerns all classes of society. Governments, public bodies, and even individuals, have to do their part and try to create as much employment as possible, for without close co-operation from all classes of society, our efforts will be useless.
During the last few months, and I might even say during the past two years, our Liberal friends have bent over backwards trying to proclaim that there was unemployment, to the point of making every worker believe that he was jobless. As a matter of fact, following such baleful propaganda 79951-0-453J
Supply-Labour
by our Liberal friends who resorted to all available media-radio, television, papers and speeches-several of our workers going to work in the morning had a feeling of being also among the unemployed.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that people now are beginning to realize the situation and are taking Liberal claims with a grain of salt.
The hon. member for Hull paid an unusual tribute to the Conservative members of this house. He paid us a tribute we were not expecting from him. He said that all of us or almost all of us had made representations to our ministers in order that steps be taken to put a stop to unemployment. I can assure the hon. member that it is so, because in the Conservative party it is not only the front line people, the ministers, who express their opinions, but also the backbenchers; and our ministers listen to us, contrary to what used to be the rule in the past.
Everyone recognizes that there are weak points in the Canadian economy. The present Minister of Labour and the other ministers recognize the fact, and all of us are endeavouring to take steps so that there may only be a minimum number of unemployed in Canada. Unfortunately, there are problems that we cannot solve and it has not been possible to this government, in a period of three years, to make up for all the inaction and the lack of foresight that our predecessors have shown during the years they have been in power.
They take pleasure in saying that, in the last war, Canada has experienced an unprecedented period of prosperity, but they hide the fact that in 1936, 1937 and 1938, and even in 1939, the number of unemployed in relation to the population, was much higher than it is now. They hide this information because they believe they can continue to mislead the papulation and that the people will continue to believe them.
Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat, I would like to emphasize two points from those facts. First, there are more jobs now in Canada than ever before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And more unemployment.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Second, this Conservative
government has taken the necessary steps, has made huge sums available to the unemployment insurance fund in order to alleviate the difficulties of the workers who, unfortunately, though nobody wants it to be so, are necessarily unemployed for some time.
So, I ask my hon. friends on my right when they make their great statements on the

Supply-Labour
situation, to take those facts into consideration and act accordingly by giving people the information they are entitled to get.
(Text):


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest this afternoon to the minister giving a review of certain studies by his department but I was greatly disappointed that he did not deal with the problem of unemployment as such. 1 think that all of us should be greatly interested in unemployment and should be giving the utmost consideration to putting men back to work. We spent four days on the bill of rights. That bill is very important, but the people in my area are more interested in getting work. The bill of rights has no apparent effect unless they get a job. I think we are getting things a little bit out of focus because, as I said, we spent four days on the bill of rights and we have not spent five minutes in the house on any new government legislation to put one man back to work.
In the Department of Public Works the estimates have been cut by approximately $25 million which is a far cry from the $1| billion which the Prime Minister promised for public works just before the June election in 1958. One man who spoke for the Conservative party in my area thought this was a wonderful thing. He was so entranced by the northern vision that he said he doubted there were enough people in Canada to do the job.
The minister announced that the government would carry on a winter works program on a cost sharing basis with the municipalities. The municipalities are heavily in debt and it is very difficult for many of them to assume more debt at the present high interest rates in order to carry out such projects. The municipalities have had no share in the fiscal policy of the government and I do not think it is fair for the government to call on them to assume more debt at high interest rates in order to help to bail the government out of its mistakes with respect to fiscal policy.
It is true that unemployment was discussed in the house on a motion to go into supply and my leader made some suggestions, as did the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Laurier. I have some 29 suggestions here but I do not think the government has paid much attention to them. At that time they made fun of most of our suggestions and spent their time debating which figures regarding unemployment were right. I have heard much tonight about sta-
[Mr. Ricard.l
tistics but in my area we certainly have unemployed people who are entitled to more consideration than statistics.
I think the time is long overdue for the government to bring measures before members of the house to relieve unemployment. Unemployment is our No. 1 social and economic problem and I think members of parliament should be able to debate some of the proposals which the government must have. I know when the Minister of Labour is asked about anything having to do with unemployment or any measure that might be taken he generally says that this is a matter of government policy and that an announcement will be made in due course. I have heard nothing new. It is true that the government announced a cost sharing winter works program with the municipalities but this is nothing new. They had the same thing last year and it took care of comparatively few of the unemployed.
The hon. member for Essex East referred to a national advisory board and suggested we should have such a board to look into the matter, a board which would keep employment and unemployment under review. I think this is a very good suggestion. For instance, I think it would be very helpful for the government to know how many are out of work because of automation so that they could be able to make proper plans for vocational training. I think it is also necessary to know the number who are registered because of seasonal unemployment and also those who may be unemployed because of shifts of trade and shifts in government policy. We get shifts in government policy because sometimes they are building houses and sometimes they are not. When they are not certainly many men are out of work in my area.
One of the first measures that should be undertaken is a study of our manpower resources. The minister reported in the house some time ago that there was a shortage of certain skilled workers at Elliot Lake. If we had some idea about our manpower resources we would have no difficulty in filling these jobs. I think it is very important that the government should encourage students to stay in school longer than some now do. In my view it is better for our young people to finish their education and to learn different skills before leaving school rather than leaving and adding to the numbers in the unskilled labour market. I think the unemployed could be put to work at this particular time because they are at leisure and not doing anything. I was glad to hear the minister say today that he intended to carry out that program.

Supply-Labour
I heard the hon. member for Essex East say that there was very little unemployment in Australia, western Europe and England. From press reports I have read I know there is a boom in England. I read an article a day or two ago which stated that in western Europe production was up 15 per cent and foreign trade was up 40 per cent. We know that western Germany is importing skilled workers from Italy, Greece, Spain and even from Canada. I understand that in some of the foreign newspapers in Canada there are advertisements for certain skilled workers and I happen to know that two or three German families in my area are returning to Germany. The heads of the households have jobs awaiting them in Germany, and in his particular skill there are more jobs in Germany than there are people to All them. I do not believe it is a very good thing for us in Canada to be losing skilled workers, people who have come to this country and who want to make Canada their home. We are losing them because they cannot get work in this country.
I note that the other place has a committee set up to inquire into unemployment. I heard over the radio this morning that they were sending out a questionnaire. I do not know how much secretarial help the committee of the other place will have, but it seems to me that this is something that should have been pursued by the government itself and not by the other place. It seems to me that also the committee of the other place will not have an adequate staff to deal with all these questionnaires. They might amount to half a million if everyone answers them, but I doubt that everyone will answer them.
I do not believe that a country like Canada can continue year after year with 6 per cent to 8 per cent of its people unemployed in the spring. I am not going to give any figures in connection with the number of unemployed, but I have read that it was as high as 8 per cent, and the year before last it was 6 per cent. I feel that the policy of the government has been one of drift so far as this problem of unemployment is concerned. They have been waiting for something to turn up, and nothing has. The trouble with this government is that they have depended on the unemployment insurance fund. If they did not have that unemployment insurance fund they would be in trouble. If we did not have an unemployment insurance scheme we would have people waiting in breadlines, just as we did in the days of Bennett. Even today, we see people in long lines at the unemployment insurance offices waiting to get their unemployment insurance cheques.
In so far as the unemployment insurance fund is concerned, I was interested in looking at the statement the minister gave which indicated that in the last three years the fund has gone down from $852 million to $296 million. This means it has gone down by $556.5 million, without taking into consideration the depreciation on the bonds in its portfolio. Some people may think this does not amount to very much money, but it amounts to at least $32 for every man, woman and child in Canada and it amounts to $125 for the head of every household in Canada. This represents a cost of running the government. If, as one hon. member suggested earlier, our unemployment is just statistical, why spend so much money out of the unemployment insurance fund? During the years of Liberal administration this fund increased and now it has gone down precipitously, in spite of the increase of nearly 30 per cent in the contributions from employers and employees.
As I have said, this represents a cost of government. When we talk about the operations of the Department of Finance we find that has a lot to do with this particular fund. For instance, in three years the aggregate extra interest we will be obliged to pay will be half a billion dollars, so you can see that the charges on the unemployment insurance fund and the extra interest of the Department of Finance will amount to about $250 for every family in Canada. I believe this is an indictment of a government which said it would not raise taxes and yet, ever since coming into office, it has steadily gone into debt, as well as taking more money from all Canadians in taxes.
One of the difficulties in which the unemployment insurance commission finds itself is that it has taken on long term bonds. We know that in Canada during the last two years it has been better to hold short term bonds. The result of the way our fiscal policy has been handled has been that we have had two markets for bonds, a short term market and a long term market. At the time of the bond conversion the unemployment insurance commission converted its short term victory bonds into long term bonds which went down precipitously. They sold some of these bonds well under the present market price. I believe the price of these bonds went down to 82, and I do know that the unemployment insurance commission sold some at the time the market was around 85. The unfortunate part about the unemployment insurance commission having these bonds is that when they came to sell them in order to get cash to pay these unemployment benefits the market was very thin. The people in the market know the Bank of Canada is offering these bonds, and

Supply-Labour
they immediately withdraw their offers. It is extremely difficult for the Bank of Canada to get a firm price for these particular bonds.
I feel that the basic thing back of much of our unemployment is our own fiscal policy. I believe that the high interest rates we are experiencing tend to stagnate our economy. Certainly in this country it costs more to build houses, and it costs more to go ahead with a project that has to be financed. It costs more for the small businessman or for any industry to expand because of the high cost of money. Certainly this government has found it costs more to operate. The municipalities have to pay more in order to float their debentures; they pay more interest. I know of two or three projects in municipalities right now, one of which is a much needed school, that will not proceed because of the high cost of money. This is certainly contributing to unemployment.
I see unemployed people every week end. I feel heartily sorry for them. I believe when a man is unemployed for a long time he loses his morale. Many of these people have made commitments; they have purchased homes, and their savings are gone. They are just living from day to day. I feel this government should take some action to alleviate the situation. If this government had followed a proper fiscal policy we would not have the number of unemployed we have in Canada today. You cannot blame the Minister of Labour for all of this, but he is a member of the government and since he is a member of the government he will have to share in the responsibility. The people of Canada will be paying out more for unemployment insurance because there are more unemployed. As one hon. member suggested, whether they are statistics or not, the unemployed have needs just as we all have, and the people of Canada will have to go on paying for the mistakes of this government, not only because of its fiscal policy but for unemployment as well and the Canadian people will have to absorb the cost of the depletion of this unemployment insurance fund.
(Translation):


Mr. Parizeau:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on the subject under consideration. In the last three sessions, we have been listening to criticism levelled by the opposition at the present employment situation in Canada, but we have heard few constructive suggestions. They have just been passing the buck and saying that when the Conservatives were in office, there was unemployment, and when the Liberals were in office, there was prosperity. There was
CMr. McMillan.]
that phony prosperity in wartime and in the post-war period, and then in 1957, the Liberals did not see fit to consider the recommendations in the confidential report on the economy, no doubt in the hope that the people would go on believing everything was fine. They hoped something would happen to check unemployment, such as the Korean war. The Liberal party kept hoping for a war, which would have checked unemployment. What did the Conservative government do to correct that deplorable situation? It spent over a billion dollars on housing. It initiated a winter works program. Was that enough? While I am not prepared to say yes, I am not prepared to say it was worthless. The winter works program provided employment for over 50,000 people last winter.
In areas such as mine, where the winter starts around late November, and snow banks reach heights of six or seven feet, and the thermometer drops to 30 degrees below zero, it is hard to build water mains, sewers, etc.
Thanks to the representations made to the Minister of Labour by Conservative members, the provisions will be broadened and thus municipalities will be able to share in the winter works program to a greater extent.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few suggestions to the Minister of Labour and also to the government. I hope that our good friends of the opposition will take them into consideration, since they never made any themselves.
In my opinion, the government should assign $1 billion or more to carrying out important works that are needed throughout the country. I am thinking in particular of the famous maritime causeway, the pipe line from Calgary to Montreal, the building of bridges in Montreal and of a tunnel between Levis and Quebec, and many other necessary works that could be done. Where will this billion be found? In wartime, bonds were being issued. Why, then, could the government not issue Canadian bonds that the Canadian public could buy in order to help reduce unemployment and provide jobs for our people.
I feel that the Canadian people would make a point of buying those bonds in order to help the government to solve the unemployment problem.
Could the federal government not also establish a federal-municipal bank in order to help our municipalities? I agree that we do not always have the right to help our municipalities directly, but through such a

bank we could help them carry out certain projects. If we loaned money to them at a reasonable rate, say 3 or 34 per cent, our municipalities could carry out public works programs all year round. And whatever Mr. Lesage may say, we all know that unemployment is a provincial responsibility, we all know that unemployment is the responsibility of all three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. However, I think that the federal government could establish a federal-municipal fund in order to help municipalities to carry out public works programs.
I also suggest abolishing unemployment insurance and setting up work insurance instead.
If the government were to follow up my suggestions, our municipalities might employ people who are temporarily out of work. We would not see those jobless filing up at the unemployment offices in the fall, where a qualified worker with experience is told that there is no demand for his specialized services, but that he could obtain some other work. And so he refuses and says: "I have enough insurance stamps, I am a qualified workman, have you anything to offer in my own line?" And he gets as an answer: "No sir, but we have something else for you". And the man replies: "If it is outside my line, I would rather receive my $24, $30 or $34, and stay at home, with my feet near the oven, and be warm." And the worker goes on receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
In replacing unemployment insurance by work insurance, the unemployed would have to accept employment on works done by the federal, provincial or municipal governments.
That work insurance would be contributory, just as unemployment insurance, but the contribution would perhaps be higher. I think my colleague from Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard! had made that suggestion early last winter.
I believe our trade unions would be in favour of such a project. If we had work to be done the year round, all across Canada, I am sure everyone would be at work and would be adequately paid, and no one would have to depend on unemployment insurance. As I said a moment ago, a great number of people prefer to be idle rather than to be employed at jobs which are not in their line, and it is thus that statistics are hurled at us with the cry: "Murder! It's unemployment!"
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will take note of my suggestions. I admit, they are not very elaborate, but, I believe, they reflect the general ideas stated by my colleagues. They might be considered by economists, who may draw from them, some
Supply-Labour
practical solutions, not in two or three years, from now, but immediately. Let us establish a public works program. I say, once again, let us subscribe $1 billion in government bonds. I am convinced that Canadians will do it gladly in order that major public works be carried out to alleviate unemployment.
(Text):


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, when I state we are all worried over the prospective unemployment next winter I believe I am expressing the sentiments of every member of this committee. When I crossed swords in a mild way the other day with the Minister of Labour over the winter works programs plan he mentioned that the cost of labour averaged 34 per cent of the total cost. It had been my idea that the labour on an average did not average more than 22 per cent. However, I take his word.
I have worked out here a table showing how little the municipality gets in the end and how little incentive there is for a municipality to undertake a winter works program. Most of the municipalities in Canada can ill afford to undertake any works programs, whether winter or summer. The financial standing of most municipalities precludes them from making any issue of debentures and borrowing money, especially at 5f per cent. Works programs cost approximately 10 per cent more when executed in the winter plus the interest on the money borrowed. A $100,000 program would cost in winter $110,000. The Minister of Labour said that about 34 per cent of the cost would be represented by labour. That would mean that approximately 66 per cent of the cost, in round figures, would be for materials or $72,600. Labour then would cost $37,400. The government would pay $18,700. The municipality also would pay $18,700. The government's share would then be 17 per cent leaving the municipality to pay 83 per cent or $91,300 as its share of $110,000.
If the municipality had not carried on the works program in the wintertime the cost to the municipality would be $100,000. That would be the real cost of the job if executed at the municipality's pleasure. As it would have cost the municapility $91,300 under the government plan, the municipality, to carry on the work whenever it wanted to do it, would expend only $8,700, so all it would really get from the government would be 8.7 per cent of the total cost of the job. There is not much incentive when only 50 per cent of the cost of labour is to be granted for any municipality to undertake any winter works program because if you deduct from the

Supply-Labour
$8,700 the interest at 5f per cent on the money borrowed it would leave little saving.
However, I should like to make a suggestion to the minister and if he carries out this plan I think it win help very much with regard to unemployment next winter. It would be a great incentive to the municipalities which are ready to undertake winter works programs.
To my mind the cause of a lot of unemployment amongst intellectuals and men in the best paid trades is due in large measure to United States magazines. In the case of the United States magazines printed in Canada, all the preparatory work is executed in the United States and plates ready for printing are sent to Canada. Editors, writers, artists, make-up men, lay-out men, compositors, monotype and linotype operators, stereotypers, electrotypers, all United States labour, depriving our citizens from enjoying these situations and causing a serious slump in the graphic arts industry and adding greatly to the ranks of the unemployed in these highly remunerative situations.
United States magazines that claim to put out Canadian editions are not doing anything of the sort. They are for the most part merely dumping United States magazines into Canada. True there might be a slight change made in the contents by inserting a few pages touching on Canadian matters, but the majority of the text is still American. These United States magazines sell a lot of advertising space to Canadian advertisers and funnel back the profits to the United States. Canadian publications are facing an abnormal and unfair competition from these United States magazines and many of our large Canadian magazines are being forced out of business, adding greatly to the ranks of our unemployed.
In 1951 the total combined circulation of Canadian national periodicals per year was 42 million copies, against a circulation of United States magazines coming to Canada of 86 million copies. In 1957 Canadian magazines combined had reached a circulation per year of 45,600,000 copies against a circulation of United States magazines coming to Canada of 154 million copies.
Now, Mr. Chairman, intellectuals as well as editors, writers and newspapermen contribute greatly to the progress of any country. They stimulate and inculcate in the minds of the citizens that pride of citizenship which stirs them to greater deeds and to the creation of activities which eventually leads to more employment. By depriving our Canadian citizens of the leadership of these intellectual minds we are rendering them a disservice by forcing them to read United States magazines. These magazines in many

cases are a serious threat to our Canadian culture, for they inculcate in the minds of our citizens an American ideology that we do not appreciate. We have a great admiration for our United States friends and we value their friendship. We want to remain on friendly terms with them-


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, is the hon. member in order in discussing periodicals from the United States under the Minister of Labour's estimates?


Romuald Bourque: They all bear on unemployment.


Edwin William Brunsden: Well, let the Chairman rule on it.


Jacques Flynn: Frankly, I would say that unemployment touches a lot of subjects and I think up until now the hon. member has related his remarks to unemployment to a great extent. He may have been straying a little recently.


Romuald Bourque: Above all, we want to remain Canadians and we want to preserve our Canadian way of life and expression and thought. We prize our Canadian heritage. We are proud to be Canadians. We have two main cultures in Canada and we respect the rights and ideals of one another. We want to preserve these cultures. We meet in harmony and not in conflict and we want to continue to do so; hence our need for magazines with a Canadian mentality so that we may continue to enjoy and cherish the inheritance left to us by our forefathers who were willing to endure the greatest of hardships and even die for the maintenance of the high Canadian principles in which they believed.
In the Gazette of Monday, July 25, 1960 there was an editorial and I would like to comment on it. The editor expresses surprise that in a country like Canada with so many advantages over other countries we should find ourselves with hundreds of thousands of unemployed at a cost to the unemployment insurance commission of approximately $500 million a year. And he asks this question:
-what form of economic activity creates the most jobs for Canadians?
And he answers:
Manufacturing creates more jobs than anything else. And in the last decade manufacturing has tended to decline in relative importance.
He further says:
-about 100,000 more young people every year reach the age when they are seeking jobs... Construction and "service" industries like transportation, communications, trade, finance and so forth offer the most jobs but they can scarcely hope to continue their expansion, unless manufacturing, which is by far the greatest employer of labour, itself maintains its rate of growth.

It is a fact that the most ambitious and highly trained of our citizens are leaving Canada because we do not seem to be able to provide them with the wider opportunities they seek.
Our prospects for an increase in population and in job opportunities depends largely upon the extent to which manufacturing is encouraged. Manufacturing is falling behind at the present time. We import more manufactured goods per capita than any other country in the world.
I am particularly interested in the fate of our unemployed. I believe we should gauge our economy to provide a job for everyone who is able and willing to work. I believe it is an inherent right for a citizen to be able to procure for himself a job of his liking, and I believe it is the duty of the government in power to seek ways and means to provide these jobs, to seek the cause of unemployment, and to do everything in its power to create work for all.
I should like for one moment, to give the committee a little information contained in the Canadian apparel and textile manufacturers association's bulletin of March 25, 1960, which bears on the unemployment situation. This bulletin says:
Value of Japanese exports to Canada of clothing, textile products and fabrics during 1959 showed an increase of 56 per cent from 1958 totals, and in many cases volume outstripped domestic production, reports the Canadian apparel and textile manufacturers association. During 1959 shipments to Canada of clothing and textiles from Japan were valued at $41.5 million, an increase of 56 per cent over the 1958 figure of $26.6 million.
The United States, at least 15 times the size of our market, took only six times as much Japanese textiles in 1959. Imports from Japan of man-made fibre fabrics amounted to 1.4 million square yards in 1958 and 3.4 millions in 1959; imports of cotton fabrics rose from 18 million square yards in 1958 to 25.3 million in 1959. As the committee will realize that is a great cause of unemployment in Canada.
Imports of man-made fibre sports shirts amounted to more than double the Canadian production. I point that fact out to members of the committee and ask them to draw their own conclusions about it. Exports to this country amounted to 370,000 dozen compared with Canadian production in 1958 of 163,000 dozen. Japanese exports to Canada in 1959 generally showed a considerable increase and, if I may, I will mention a few of the items we imported and the quantities in which we imported them.
Towels	 6,300,000 units
Gowns, pyjamas and underwear ..	1,332,000 units
79951-0-454
Supply-Labour
Woven outerwear (coats, dresses, etc.) 3,708,000 units Bed sheets and pillow cases .... 3,100,000 units
Blouses	
4,092,000	unitsSport shirts	
7,536,000	unitsDress and work shirts	
2,148,000	unitsTrousers and shorts	
5,364,000	units
Knitted garments (outerwear and
underwear)	
6,372,000	unitsGloves and mittens	
6,216,000	pairs
Is it any wonder that we have an undue number of unemployed in Canada? Is it any wonder that the textile industry is experiencing such serious financial difficulties at the present time? The same applies to the rubber industry, to the shoe industry, to the automobile industry and to a dozen of our most important manufacturing industries.
May I be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to read in French a few lines from a letter issued
(Translation):
May 5, 1960, by the garment and textile manufacturers association of Canada:
Canada cannot go on indefinitely importing from Japan to the tune of 50 per cent of its needs for certain textiles without destroying a large part of its industry.
Canada cannot buy Japanese textiles in larger volumes than other industrial countries such as the United States and Great Britain without taking protective measures such as have been taken by 14 other countries which have had to defend their markets against Japan.
Total shipments of Japanese garments and textiles to Canada represent approximately 113,000,000 square yards of cloth; or 6J yards of cloth for every man, woman, child and infant in this country.
The Japanese have set themselves a quota on shipments of jumpers and shirts to Canada for 1960, which is about equal to what the Canadian manufacturers could hope to produce in 1960.
(Text):
The following is from a bulletin of the cotton institute of Canada, dated May 3, 1960:
Canadians in 1959 used 540 million yards of cotton fabrics, an increase of 8 million from the previous year, according to figures released today by the Cotton Institute of Canada.
Despite this, Canadian mills were able to sell only 228 million yards on the home market, a decrease of 12 million yards from 1958. Meanwhile, volume of imports sold here increased to 312 million yards from 292 million.
We have all worried over the unemployment situation. The prospects for employment next winter are far from bright. Our citizens are most anxious that some plan be formulated to relieve the unemployment situation and I hope that the Minister of Labour will take my remarks in good part and set the necessary machinery in motion to create jobs so that the Canadian people will not suffer next winter and so that their families and particularly their children may be properly fed and clothed.

Supply-Labour
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) when he threw the responsibility of unemployment upon the new Quebec premier.
The present Quebec premier is ready to assume his responsibilities and, as he rightly said, unemployment comes under the federal government, the provincial governments and municipalities.
I found it very improper that politicians, men who call themselves politicians, take advantage of those who are now having trouble finding a job and who can hardly manage to make both ends meet.
Mr. Chairman, we each have our responsibilities. The present Quebec premier, the Hon. Jean Lesage, is ready to assume his responsibilities with regard to unemployment in the province of Quebec and to co-operate fully with the federal Minister of Labour in order to enable our fellow citizens to earn a decent living.
Attempts were made to distort statements made in the province of Quebec during the last election campaign. Some of our Conservative friends from the province of Quebec in this house tried to distort statements or announcements published in the Quebec press during the last election campaign saying that the present premier wanted to take upon himself the entire responsibility for employment in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat the present Quebec premier is ready to assume his responsibilities and to work in close co-operation with the federal Minister of Labour and with the present government in order to find an answer to unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak any longer about unemployment, because other members who rose before me treated that question competently.
During his last election campaign, the present Prime Minister of our country (Mr. Dief-enbaker) solemnly stated that as long as he would be Prime Minister of our country no one would suffer in Canada.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Canadian people and especially the people of the province of Quebec will agree that never in all the history of this country, have so many of our fellow Canadians suffered as much from unemployment, as since the Conservative party took over.
Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who would like an answer to be found to the

unemployment problem. Certain members on this side of the house offered concrete proposals to the present government in order to solve the unemployment problem, but those suggestions fell on deaf ears.
Mr. Chairman, I should like now to deal with another problem which I have already mentioned since being elected to this house, and I am sure that the Minister of Labour will listen with kindness to the remarks I have to make on that matter.
There exists in this country a social problem which all of us parliamentarians have a duty to solve. I am thinking of those who are 45 or over and who, on account of their age, cannot find work. I have been speaking of this for the last four or five years and tonight I want to mention it again and insist further so that legislation is introduced in our statutes in order to put an end to the kind of discrimination which is practised against our fellow citizens who are 45 or over and who are looking for a job.
I admit that some efforts have been made in that direction during the last few months. The Department of Labour has published a pamphlet to facilitate the hiring of workers 45 years of age and over. I am glad it did, but on the other hand, I believe that this publication of the Department of Labour is not enough. So, I again urge the Minister of Labour to place in our statute books an act which would eliminate this discrimination.
In the last few days, we had, in Ottawa, a federal-provincial conference attended by the representatives of the federal government and of the various provincial governments in this country. At some later conference there should be a proposal to study some way of enforcing legislation which would prevent the discrimination I just mentioned.
The representatives of the federal government should, together with those of the various provincial governments, insert in the statutes of parliament and in the statutes of the various legislatures, some legislation tending to prevent such discrimination. The problem is acute and it is up to us to solve it. Something should be done at all levels to settle the matter.
I trust, Mr. Chairman, that at 40, at 45 or even at 50, a man has acquired enough experience in life to be of use to his country and to his province and to be able to earn his living decently. We who are the legislators have no right to tolerate such discrimination. We have only to read advertisements in the papers, or published by the

federal government to realize that such discrimination exists and that it is useless to ask for employment when one is over 40. It is evident, therefore, as I say, that there is discrimination with regard to those people.
The various American states have passed legislation in this respect in order to help their fellow citizens who are 45 years old and over. Now I shall make a special appeal to the Minister of Labour, asking him to put aside party politics and to accept the request I have been making for a number of years to help our fellow citizens.
Ever since I have taken an interest in the matter I have received correspondence from several parts of Canada, and I should like to quote only a few extracts of letters I have received, in order to show the house that the problem does really exist.
Among others, I received a letter from a fellow citizen of Longueuil saying:
I had a job at the Canadian Pratt & Whitney Engine in Longueuil. I was told that past 45 years of age we were dismissed and I tried to get another job; but I was refused all the time on the grounds I was too old at 40. Mr. Rouleau, we will have to wait until we get our old age pension, or else open a blind pig in order to live.
I received another letter from one Mr. Laforce, in the constituency of Chateauguay, who told me, among other things:
I am 54 years old and I am still able to work very well, I am looking for work, but each time I am told that I am too old.
I received another letter from one Mr. Laurent Blais, of St. Roch, who tells me:
When we go and look for a job, we have to state our age and, each time we say we are more than 40 years old, we are turned down.
I received another letter from one Mr. Ernest Pausner, of Montreal, who told me:
(Text):
Dear Sir;
On May 8 I read with pleasure an article in La Presse, in which your intention of projecting a new law concerning employment of workers over 45 was reported. Such a law would indeed be the only means to terminate this eternal discrimination of age. This discrimination has sometimes even the effect, that people in that age bracket have to work in strange, unskilled, and badly paid occupations, despite the fact, that these people had a special vocational education.
(Translation):
Here is another letter, which was addressed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson); it comes from Toronto, and is signed by one Miss Grace M. Parker. It reads in part as follows:
(Text):
I believe the government will first have to pass a new law regarding company benefits. It appears 79951-0-454^
Supply-Labour
that firms will not hire females over the age of 45 years and males-the age limit is 35 years. I have been told by businessmen that benefits are not transferable in case anyone wishes to make a change and that the insurance companies have set the age limit for hiring. The new law should change this to permit a firm to hire older people and either grant benefits on a lower rate or else without benefits. Also that benefits should be transferable. There are many thousands of people out of work through no fault of their own.
(Translation):
Here is another letter I have received from Vancouver. It is from a Mrs. Bonsmiller. I quote:
(Text):
My husband passed away in November, 1958. Since that time I have found that it is impossible to find work because I am 49.
(Translation):
I could go on quoting dozens of such letters. I therefore make a very special appeal to the Minister of Labour in the hope that no later than at the next session, he will introduce a bill to eliminate this plague.
There is another point I should like to raise tonight. As a student at Montreal university and McGill University, I found that a large number of my young fellow citizens lacked the money to pursue their education. I realize that in my province, the new government will soon be instituting free education. However, we in the federal government, without encroaching on the rights of the provinces in the educational field, could help our young fellow citizens to get an education and provide for their needs during their school years.
The federal government could initiate a program to enable our young fellow citizens to work in the summer months and earn enough money to pursue their studies. Here again, I urge the Minister of Labour to do his utmost to sell my suggestion to his colleagues in the cabinet so that we may offer to students across the country jobs that will enable them to earn the few hundreds dollars they need to complete their education.
I know the Minister of Labour, and I know he has great sympathy for our young people. Therefore I feel sure he will give sympathetic consideration to my remarks.
The Minister of Labour has run into many difficulties since the Conservative government has been in power. On several occasions since the Conservative government took office we have dealt with the confusion which exists in Canada because of this government. There is confusion in parliament because of this government. But I am convinced that the

Supply-Labour
Minister of Labour, despite this confusion, will do his best to solve the two problems I have pointed out.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, again we have the opportunity of speaking on the problem of unemployment and some of the things that go with it. We have heard many suggestions that in my opinion can be implemented to some satisfactory degree but there seems to be a terrific over-all problem that we have not yet been able to face. I notice that in today's Ottawa Citizen there is an article entitled, "Senate to Send Questionnaire to Unemployed", which reads as follows:
Canada's unemployed are ro be asked to fill out a special Senate-sponsored questionnaire about themselves-who they are, why they can't find jobs, their training, background and vital statistics. This was indicated Wednesday in the Senate by Senator Leon Methot, chairman of the special Senate committee. on manpower.
. "X understand these questionnaires are going to be printed in many languages and sent to every unemployment insurance commission office in Canada", he said in reporting that the manpower committee was launching a research study "in depth" into the unemployment problem.
The questionnaires would be drawn up in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of the applicant. The committee has retained Professor John Deutsch of Queen's University, Professor William Hood of University of Toronto and Warren James, a statistical expert with the defence production department, as the nucleus of its research team.
Very seldom is the Senate ever on the right track, Mr. Chairman, but I hope this is one of the times they are. It seems surprising to me that the House of Commons industrial relations committee has not seen fit to employ people of this calibre to do research work into what is unemployment and what is not unemployment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not allowed to by the government.


William Arnold Peters: I realize the government is responsible for whether or not they do it but it seems funny that the Senate should be the ones to do this in-depth study that they appear to be going to do. There is a considerable difference of opinion as to who is unemployed and who is not. I have heard a number of government members say, and I think sincerely, that those people who are registered with the unemployment insurance commission just do not want to work. I do not think that accusation should be made about anybody in Canada until these people are offered the opportunity to work. If they are offered jobs and turn them down then I think it is quite safe to say they do not want that particular employment at least. If we have no jobs to offer, which is the case in most instances, then we cannot very well

say that a person is just lazy and does not want to work. I think that members who use this argument are being unfair to many Canadians who have travelled from one part of the country to another looking for work and have not got it.


Mr. Graff  ley:@: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member suggesting that any hon. member actually used this argument in the house? I do not think such is the case. There may be a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: I do not know whether the hon. member wishes to make it a question of privilege. However, I did not say that anybody had said it in the house. Some members of the government have said this to me and one of them said it today. I do not think it -was said facetiously but rather quite sincerely. I do not think he is in a position to offer employment himself but he mentioned that many of these people do not want to work. It is true that we are having trouble in connection with unemployment insurance. There are people receiving unemployment insurance benefits who do not deserve them in my opinion but I would be much happier to find people receiving unemployment insurance payments who do not deserve them than I would be to find any person being turned down who deserves unemployment insurance benefits.
It is quite true that certain married women are drawing unemployment insurance benefits because of conditions we did not realize when the act was first drafted. It is quite true there are people seasonally employed who are making very close to a yearly income out of such employment and yet are able to draw unemployment insurance which is being paid for by people who are getting less than some of these construction workers earn on a seasonal basis. While this is true, I think we have to be very careful in limiting the provisions so that we will not take away the benefits from those who need them just to stop the very few who are abusing the system, and I think there are some now who do abuse it.
The whole matter of unemployment should be given very serious consideration because it seems to me we are reaching the stage now where we are reaping the effects of automation and yet we have done absolutely nothing to overcome the difficulties. This afternoon the minister mentioned that we are extending training for unemployed people who wish to take technical trade training. I hope this will mean that we will turn out more bricklayers, painters, plumbers and mechanics rather than more clerks, storekeepers and inventory keepers in government offices and

that sort of thing. It seems to me that the problem facing the government is a manifestation of the fact that governments have not yet been able to meet the demand for change in industry.
One problem affecting many Canadian workers has to do with automobiles. In tonight's newspaper there is a letter from an economist who points out that there was an increase of 38,800, or 157 per cent, in the number of new cars imported into Canada from the United Kingdom between 1957-58 and 1959-60, and this was accompanied by a fall-off of $5 million in the value of our wheat exports to the United Kingdom. New car imports from the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1960 were 26,800, a greater total than our imports for five of the past 10 years. In 1959 Canada imported 73,000 British cars.
I think this illustrates that it is time we took a look at the automobile industry. It is quite true that there is all this ballyhoo about bigger cars, faster cars and so on. However, the Canadian people have decided that they do not agree with the automobile industry. They do not want big cars with powerful motors that use more gasoline. They want the small economy cars. They are not interested in the terrific expanse of tailfin, with the consequent increase in price. They are interested in a small car. I think this is the time for the government to give leadership and say to the industry, you will give the people a number of small cars, and you are going to balance the number of cars against what we need to establish an export-import balance.
You may ask me, Mr. Chairman, why we should tell the automobile industry these things. It is very simple. These automobile companies would rather shut down and lay off their workers than change their system of production. They would rather do this because they do not care a hoot about their workers; they do not care a hoot about the country; they do not even care much about the buyer. What they do care about is making a profit. They can make just the same profit from the cars they manufacture in plants they own in Europe as they can from the cars manufactured in the plants they own in the United States. If it gives them more dollars to import cars they produce in other countries, then they are willing to bring those cars into the country and put them through their own dealerships and make their profit in this way.
It seems to me that the government itself is going to have to take some position in connection with directing industry, especially
Supply-Labour
when an industry continues to produce something that is not going to sell. The only people who are going to be hurt in this situation are the workers. Industry will not be hurt because it will at least break even. However, the workers, the municipalities, the storekeepers and the people who are dependent on the auto workers for a living, these are the people who are going to be very hard hit. In the final analysis, the government which is being asked to support these welfare ventures that are necessary is going to be hard hit because there will be no taxes paid.
In the last few weeks notices have appeared in the local newspapers in my area that there will be two of the major mines in Kirkland Lake closed down. One of these is Sylvanite which has operated for nearly 25 years, and the other one is Kirkland Lake Minerals, which has operated for a long time. At the end of this month Kirkland Lake Minerals will lay off half its working force, and will continue operations with less than 100 employees. Sylvanite, which I think has employed about 100 persons for a number of years, sometimes a great deal more, is going to lay off all its employees.
I think it is interesting to note what they are going to do. This company, like a lot of other companies which close out, is not considering the federal government which has financed the company for a number of years. This company is not concerned with the community or their workmen. The company has done no more than it should have for the community or the workers. It has not even given the worker a decent standard of living or a pension plan. It has paid as little income tax and other taxes as possible to the government, while at the same time obtaining as much from emergency gold mining assistance as it could get. However, when it comes to closing out the company is going to dissolve, according to newspaper reports. It is not going to establish an exploration company to look for another mine in order to employ these workers. The company will close down and hopes to be able to liquidate its assets and repay every stockholder all the money put into that particular operation. They are going to do very well by the people who financed them, but they have not done very well by the people who have worked in this industry. They have not done very well by the government which paid a great deal of money to the company in order to help the community exist during the last 15 years.
I think this highlights what I am saying. If the government does not start directing industry into places like Elliot Lake, then there will be more unemployment. There is no great need for a park at Elliot Lake. What

Business of the House
do the miners want with a park? If they want to go fishing, they can fish in the surrounding lakes. The miner does not need a park with a campsite. He has a $15,000 or $20,000 house in that area, and he does not want it in the middle of a park. He needs a job and industry should be directed there to provide him with a job. I suggest this government should take industry out of Toronto and other municipalities that do not really need it. They have more industry than they have room for now, and some industries should be moved from there to places like Elliot Lake.
Today, with all the technological changes, a worker can produce five or 10 times as much as he could 20 years ago. However, he is going to wear the same amount of clothes, buy the same amount of food and need the same amount of entertainment. I think it must be obvious to everyone that we are not going to solve unemployment problems until we start supplying new jobs to replace those jobs that are no longer there. If our standard of living continues to increase, it will mean more jobs and more purchasing power. People who are unemployed cannot buy anything. They cannot continue to increase their standard of living and they become a burden on those who remain in the productive field.
At the same time this government is not going to solve unemployment, nor is any other government, until it goes into "depth", as the Senate says. However, I do not believe the government will want to wait as long as the Senate has to find the answer because governments do not last as long as senators.
May I call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow and Saturday, and what he intends to do next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will commence with order No. 5 on today's order paper, the motion pertaining to amending the British North America Act, followed by the estimates of the Department of Labour and the other estimates as already outlined which still retain their position, defence, finance, trade and commerce, and privy council. The business for Monday and Tuesday, I will announce tomorrow night.
There is just one other matter. My understanding is that all parties opposite agree that tomorrow at five o'clock we carry on with estimates rather than the private members' hour. Is that procedure agreeable to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the chamber?


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as we are concerned, it is agreeable. May I ask this further question? Will the Prime Minister be here to deal with the item announced by the house leader?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Justice will take that matter in charge. I wonder whether the representative of the C.C.F. is agreeable to that arrangement tomorrow at five o'clock?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to an order that the house will continue to sit tomorrow without interruption from eleven o'clock a.m. to eleven o'clock p.m.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: With an interruption for dinner.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; an interruption from six o'clock until eight o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Oh, I understand; we suspend the hour for private bills. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
department of defence production A-Department-
66.	Departmental administration, $8,323,356.
67.	Care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling, $400,000.
68.	For the establishment of production capacity and for capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to the approval of treasury board, $2,731,500.
69.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $129,175.
70.	To establish qualified sources for the production of component parts and materials, subject to the approval of treasury board and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $1,500,000, $950,000.
71.	To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs, on terms and conditions approved by treasury board, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $7,000,000, $5,000,000.
B-Crown Companies-
72.	Expenses incurred by Defence Construction (1951) Limited in procuring the construction of defence projects on behalf of the Department of National Defence and procuring the construction of such other projects as are approved by treasury board, $3,876,117.
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
73.	Administration and operation, $1,349,120.
74.	Construction, improvements and equipment $282,085.
A-Department-
508. Care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling-further amount required, $390,055.
Supply-Items Passed
B-Crown companies-
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
509. Administration and operation expenses- further amount required, $1,500,000.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
The Speaker of the Senate-
175.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
176.	General administration, $734,334.
[Stage Direction]
The Speaker of the House of Commons-
177.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000. Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons-
178.	Allowance in lieu of apartments, $1,500.
179.	Allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
180.	Expenses of the Canada-United States joint parliamentary committee and delegates attending other inter-parliamentary conferences, $7,500.
181.	Subscriptions to publications of the commonwealth parliamentary association to be distributed to members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the Canadian share of expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association, $11,000.
182.	Grant to the Canadian North Atlantic Treaty Organization parliamentary association, $14,000.
183.	General administration-estimates of the clerk, $2,085,293.
184.	Estimates of the sergeant-at-arms, $871,855.
185.	Pension to the unmarried sister of the late Colonel Harry Baker, M.P., $700.
Library of parliament-
186.	General administration, $352,828.
House of Commons-
529. Expenses of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group and delegates attending other inter-parliamentary conferences-to extend the purposes of vote 180 of the main estimates, 1960-61, to include Canada's fee for membership in the inter-parliamentary union and to provide a further amount of, $12,500.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 29, 1960

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.
First report of special committee on broadcasting-Mr. Fortin.