1960-12-14

Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Has any government owned electrical generating plant and/or distribution system been sold or otherwise disposed of to the Yukon Electrical Company since January 1, 1959?
2.	If so, what equipment and/or system was transferred?
3.	On what date?
4.	What price did the Yukon Electrical Company pay for this plant and/or system?
5.	Were tenders called?
6.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The wartime generating and distributing facilities installed in lower Whitehorse by United States armed forces which had been handed over, at no cost, to the Department of National Defence at the end of the second world war, were transferred to the enfranchised electrical utility company (Yukon Electrical Company).
3.	May 1, 1959.
4.	A nominal price of $1 and the assumption by Yukon Electrical Company of responsibility and cost of rehabilitating, repairing and maintaining the distribution system and dismantling and removing the building and contents of the old generating plant. As a result of this transfer and the associated maintenance agreement, the electrical rates to the civilian community have been reduced and the defence department saves approximately $40,000 per annum and is relieved of all responsibility for distributing power to the civilian community.
5.	No.
6.	The distribution facilities were required to provide continued electrical service to the community of lower Whitehorse including federal government requirements. These facilities could be utilized for that purpose, only by the locally enfranchised utility company, the Yukon Electrical Company.


MAILMOBILES
Mr. Denis: 1.	How many motor vehicles commonly referred to as scooters or mailmobiles have been purchased
to date by the Post Office department for transporting or delivering mail, and what was the cost of each?
2.	At what locations are these vehicles in operation at the present time and how many in each location?
3.	What is the average cost per year for (a) storage; (b) repairs; (c) operation; (d) maintenance; (e) depreciation, of such vehicles?
4.	How many employees would have to be hired by the department in order to provide an identical service were such vehicles not being used?


Hon. W. M. Hamillon (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the four parts of the question are as follows:
1.	41 Cushman mailmobiles, $1,275 each; 15 Gamalin mailmobiles, $1,375 each; 1 Willys jeep, $1,807 each.
2.	Ottawa, Ontario, 5 machines serving 4 routes. Winnipeg, Manitoba, 8 machines serving 5 routes. Montreal, Quebec, 6 machines serving 5 routes. Halifax, Nova Scotia, 6 machines serving 5 routes. Quebec, Quebec, 6 machines serving 5 routes. North Surrey (New Westminster, British Columbia) 19 machines serving 18 routes. West Hill, Ontario, 7 machines serving 6 routes. Total-57 machines serving 48 routes.
3.	(a) $84 each; (b) $340 each; (c) $931 each (total cost, including storage, repairs, maintenance and depreciation, but without driver); (d) Gas, oil, grease, etc.-$141 each;
(e)	$366 each.
4.	It is estimated that 19 additional employees would be required for delivery duties if delivery were being made to these areas on foot.


GASTON JEAN-MARIE
Mr. Denis: 1.	Is Gaston Jean-Marie employed by the Post Office Department, as postmaster at Dixville, county of Stanstead, Quebec, or has he been so employed?
2.	If so, for what period?
3.	Is he still in such employ? If not, for what reason?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	From 23rd May 1947 to the present.
3.	Yes, but his dismissal for active political partisanship has been authorized following an investigation.


PURCHASE OF U.S. STEEL HELMETS, 1945
Mr. Pigeon: 1. Were any American made steel helmets purchased by the Department of National Defence in 1945? If so, how many?

Starred Questions
2.	What was the purchase price thereof?
3.	How many of these helmets are still in storage?
4.	On the present basis of disposal, how many years will be required for complete depletion of such stock?
(Translation):


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 33 is as follows:
1.	In 1945 66,000 steel helmets were bought from the United States army, in anticipation of the despatch of Canadian armed forces to the Pacific.
2.	$5.66 each.
3	and 4. 3,800 complete helmets and 15,000 unlined helmets remain in storage. It is estimated that the stocks of complete helmets will be adequate for five years' requirements in the matter of replacements.
(Text) :


JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE REVENUES
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Has the new automatic method of collecting silver coins or tokens at the Jacques Cartier bridge produced increased revenues?
2.	If so, what has been the increase in revenue from the Jacques Cartier bridge, from November, 1959 to November, 1960 inclusive, as compared with the increase from November, 1955 to November, 1956 inclusive?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is that since the installation of automatic toll collection equipment on Jacques Cartier bridge the bridge revenue from tolls has increased.
The answer to the second part of the question is that for the one-year period from December 1, 1959 to November 30, 1960 the total bridge revenue from tolls was $3,258,024 and for the period from December 1, 1955 to November 30, 1956 the revenue was $2,132,639, the increase in one period compared with the other being $1,125,385.



EXPORT PERMITS, SALES TO CUBA

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 35
Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Have any exports permits been issued since October 1, 1960, for the sale of strategic materials to Cuba, i.e., materials which are included on the export control list established under section 3 of the Export and Import Permits Act?
2.	If any such permits have been issued, on what date, to whom, and to which group of goods on the export control list is any such permit applicable?
3.	How many applications for export permits for the sale of goods to Cuba have been made to the Department of Trade and Commerce since October 1, 1960?
4.	Of any such applications made (a) how many have been approved; (b) how many have been denied?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answers to the four parts of this question are as follows:
1. No export permits have been issued since October 1, 1960 for shipment to Cuba of strategic materials.

2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Twenty-one.
4.	(a) Seventeen have been issued.
(b) One has been refused.
"(c) One has been withdrawn.
(d)	Two are under consideration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Badanai: 1.	Has the federal government given any consideration to the expense involved in the shifting of the border crossing between the province of Ontario and the state of Minnesota from its present location at Pigeon River to High Falls?
2.	Has an estimate been made of the cost of removing immigration and customs offices and homes built by the government to house staff and families? If so, what is the estimated amount?
SECTION 96a (2), INDIAN ACT



RESOLUTIONS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since July 1, 1960, has any Indian band in British Columbia submitted a resolution to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asking that section 96A(2) of the Indian Act be proclaimed to be in force?
2.	If so, what is the name of each such band, the date of each such resolution and the present status thereof?



SELECTION OF INDIAN BAND COUNCILS

Mr. Howard: How many Indian bands, by name, follow: (a) the elective system; (b) the hereditary chieftainship system, of selecting band councils?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the report submitted to the Department of Fisheries by Dr. Sinclair on the British Columbia fishing industry.
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the motion be allowed to stand.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am quite agreeable to that.
Motion stands.



PREVENTION OF BOOTLEGGING OF U.S. GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the house what steps, if any, have been taken to prevent the bootlegging of goods of United States origin from Canada to Cuba.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: With the hon. gentleman's knowledge of the procedure that was followed in the past to deny transshipment from Canada of goods coming from the United States, he will have an answer to the procedure now being followed.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister tell the house whether he shares the view of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who described the Cuban trade delegation as follows:
They're wonderful customers. You can't do business with better businessmen anywhere.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement was made some days ago, and at that time the hon. gentleman did not see fit to ask any questions in the house. I see no reason for making any observation at this time on the minister's statement.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement was made two days ago.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Laurier-unless he has a further supplementary question, and that would be unlikely in view of the answer-is not permitted to comment on the answer.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to ask a supplementary question, and it was this. In the light of the fact that the statement was made two days ago, has the Prime Minister any comment to make on the statement made by his colleague?


Some hon. Members:: No; why should he?



INQUIRY AS TO INCLUSION IN AREA CONTROL LIST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, who may take notice of the question if he so wishes. Can the minister tell the house whether Cuba is on the area control list prepared under the Export and Import Permits Act and, if not, whether the government is giving any consideration to having Cuba included in this area control list?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If that question appears on the order paper, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be back in a day or two and will be able to deal with it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As to the point raised about the previous question being appropriate for the order paper and not for the orders of the
Inquiries of the Ministry day, that question dealt, surely, with a matter of urgency, namely ways and means of controlling exports to Cuba. Surely that is a matter of urgency and is appropriate to be dealt with on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I made no observation about the question. I rather took the answer which had been given as an objection to answering the question at this time rather than as raising a point of order.



O.E.C.D.-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CHARTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact, as reported, that the charter of the organization for economic cooperation and development was signed in Paris today. If so, can this important international agreement be tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: The only information I have is, I presume, from the same source as that from which the hon. gentleman is able to speak. I have not seen any dispatch on the question as yet, but the signatures are being placed on the charter today, and as I said yesterday, as soon as the minister returns from Paris consideration will be given to the request.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, notice of which I gave just before the house opened.
In the light of the press report that the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization has approved an emergency assistance program for education in the Congo, by calling for the recruitment of up to 500 French-speaking teachers, has the Canadian government made any response to this request and is Canada prepared to assist in the recruitment of French-speaking teachers and technical experts in education?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to check the files of the department, but if I find there is anything in addition to say after having done so I will give a supplementary answer tomorrow. In the meantime, I would point out that when Mr. Lumumba was here the question arose as to the recruitment of French teachers, technological persons and the like. At that time we informed him that any recruitment he chose to carry out would

Inquiries of the Ministry be most acceptable, and that the government would make available to him any information it had in that connection.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I was wondering whether he could give any indication to the house as to when parliament is likely to reconvene after Christmas.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house is most anxious to have some information in this regard. Under ordinary circumstances it might have been possible and expedient to call the house together earlier than is now anticipated; but, having regard to the fact that a national political event will take place in Ottawa, according to press accounts, on the 9th, 10th and 11th of January, I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite would naturally not want anything to take place in the house which might impede their opportunity of being present at the other event. Therefore, under all the circumstances, in order to assure that there will be the fullest attendance at that meeting, the date of the reconvening of the house shall be the 16th day of January.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime
Minister not aware that if there is important legislation to deal with unemployment problems which should be introduced earlier than the 16th, the Liberal rally on the 9th, 10th and 11th will not stand in the way of that legislation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the hon. gentleman. I notice that the event is going to deal with unemployment and suggestions as to what might be done, and we will be glad to have these ideas.


An hon. Member:: You need them.


Mr. Denis:: You have not seen anything yet.


Mr. Robichaud:: Four hundred and twenty-five thousand unemployed.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 12, the hon. member for Laurier asked me a question regarding a statement by the president

of C.P.A. about the Canada-United States bilateral air agreement. At that time I had not read the statement, but I have since obtained more detail about his comments.
In so far as it related to the need for revision of the air agreement between Canada and the United States, I am in agreement with the statement. We have regularly and frequently pressed the United States government to agree to a renegotiation which would be designed to broaden considerably the number of transborder routes between our two countries, but so far our efforts have not been successful in this regard.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask the minister a question. In the light of the statement made by the minister in commenting on the speech made by the president of C.P.A., may I ask the minister again in another way if he thinks it is reasonable for a foreign air line to fly non-stop Montreal to Chicago, whereas T.C.A. must come down at Toronto before proceeding to Chicago?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the views expressed by the president of C.P.A. are, of course, views expressed by the president of a private company, and I do not think I should be called upon to comment on them. As to my personal opinion on the matter just brought up by the hon. member for Laurier, I would say that many of these agreements were made by the previous government-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not this one.


Léon Balcer: -and representations about the facts of the matter were put before the United States government while we were discussing these agreements.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister not know that the agreements about which the president of C.P.A. was complaining were made pursuant to an amendment to the Canada-United States air agreement made by the present government?



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Laurier asked me a question about layoffs of T.C.A. pilots. As I indicated at that time, T.C.A. took this action with considerable regret. It is, however, a problem which has had to be faced by every major air line when they switched to jet powered aircraft.
I should like to mention some of the steps taken by T.C.A. to ease the impact on those affected. Furloughing of the 104 pilots will be arranged in a progressive fashion over the

period February to August, 1961, to avoid the more difficult winter period. The company has approached other air lines to ascertain possibilities of other employment and has met with a favourable response. The company has also agreed to an earlier furlough for any pilot where this will assist in employment by another air line. Every effort will be made to assist those pilots who wish to remain with T.C.A. in a ground capacity pending recall for flight duties. Every one of the pilots affected has had three years service or less with T.C.A., but pension and other rights will be protected during furlough and pending recall to service with T.C.A.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. In an answer he gave yesterday to an inquiry by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), the minister suggested that he had on hand several reports prepared by his departmental economists and engineers on the Richelieu seaway project. Could the minister table those reports so that the house might take a look at them?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, those are interdepartmental reports, and it is not customary to table them.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I should like to ask an additional question. Would the minister tell us how the economists and engineers of his department were able to come to the conclusion that the deepening of the Richelieu river was too costly when no decision has yet been taken with regard to the depth and route of the Richelieu seaway, and when no detailed planning has yet been done with regard to the project?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I personally received several of those reports and, I repeat, they very clearly indicate that, in the opinion of those economists, the projects suggested to date are too costly to be undertaken at this time.
(Text):


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberf):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with great respect I suggest that these questions have no urgency. I would point out also that Your Honour has previously ruled on two occasions against any discussion on orders of the day relating to a certain canal in the maritimes.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point of order relates to the last question, does it, about the Richelieu canal?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the question has been asked and answered, I shall take note of what the hon. member has said.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the question arose yesterday because of one asked by the hon. member for Renfrew North with respect to surveys that were being made on the Ottawa river. The minister answered the question and indicated that he would have certain information later. This prompted a question by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville as to what the position was on the Champlain cut-off. I feel the question was in order.



REPORTED PROPOSAL TO DEEPEN OTTAWA RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he is ready to answer the question I asked yesterday.


Léon Balcer: Yes. In answer to the question asked by the hon. member yesterday I would like to tell the house that at the request of the hon. members for Carleton (Mr. Bell), Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Villeneuve), Vaudreuil-Sou-langes (Mr. Bourbonnais) and Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Latour)-


Lionel Chevrier: All points south.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All aboard.


Léon Balcer: -I have asked the staff of my department to co-operate with the staff of the Department of Public Works in undertaking a general economic and technical review of proposals to deepen the Ottawa river, with a view to providing me with a preliminary report which would assess in broad terms costs and benefits that might be derived.
This study, which will involve considerable and lengthy work, is designed to provide basic information which would enable the government to decide whether the heavy expenditure involved in more detailed technical, economic and engineering surveys would be justified.
It is my expectation that the information I have asked for will take several months to prepare.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker,

Inquiries of the Ministry prefaced by the remark that I think the house will welcome the statement made by the Minister of Transport, but it prompts this supplementary question. Why does not the minister undertake the same study with reference to the Champlain cut-off on the Richelieu river?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday and today. The same inquiry was made by my staff about the other matter.


Lionel Chevrier: With what result?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. I wonder whether the minister would be willing to table the plans of the Richelieu waterway that were considered by the government as being too costly.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand a similar question was asked of another minister relating to studies of the Richelieu waterway and the answer was given, namely that interdepartmental communications were not customarily tabled.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the plans with reference to the Champlain cut-off are not interdepartmental. If I understand them aright, they are not plans having to do with communications from one department to another. If they are made by the Department of Public Works there should be some explanation why they are not tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not deciding whether or not they are confidential.) I simply pointed out that it seemed to me the answer had been dealt with by one minister and was being repeated in another form to another minister, which did not seem to me to be the appropriate practice.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he could be more specific in the answer he gave today concerning surveys proposed in connection with a scheme to deepen the Ottawa river. I wonder if he had in mind the area of the river above Ottawa, or was he referring to the section below Ottawa? If he was thinking of the area above this city, is he including in that study the areas covered by the old Georgian bay canal?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Léon Balcer: I shall have to take that question as notice. I am under the impression that what is being studied at the present time is the area below the city of Ottawa, but before committing myself I should like to make sure.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT AS TO EXCHANGE OF VIEWS SINCE OCTOBER MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier asked me a question yesterday as to whether or not I had had an opportunity to look into the exchange of correspondence or verbal exchanges which may have taken place between the federal government and the provinces following the dominion-provincial conference of last October.
There have been no written communications. In the absence of the Minister of Finance, who is at the NATO meetings, I have not had an opportunity of inquiring from him as to whether or not there have been any verbal communications. When he returns the question will be asked of him and an answer will then be given.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Are there any plans in the mind of the government to reconvene the conference which took place in the month of October?


John George Diefenbaker: When the government has available to it information in that regard, it will be brought to the attention of the house immediately.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport based on several lengthy telegrams I have received which indicate a sense of urgency on the part of the communities concerned. However, in the interests of brevity I shall paraphrase the questions raised in the telegrams.
Has the minister received telegrams from the member of the legislature for Pictou Centre, Nova Scotia, and the mayors of Trenton, New Glasgow, Stellarton and West-ville, together with other leading members of these communities, with respect to the critical unemployment situation existing there, and in particular requesting that Maritime Steel and Foundries Limited of New Glasgow be given the right to quote on the construction of the floating crane wanted by the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and that the federal government place a substantial order for freight cars with Eastern Car Company Limited of Trenton, Nova Scotia, at the earliest possible date?

Can the minister inform the house why the government has denied Maritime Steel and Foundries Limited the right to bid on the floating crane contract, and if it is possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was prepared to accept the hon. member's question until he got to the argumentative part of it at the end. The inquiry about orders I would accept.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have received this lengthy telegram referred to by the hon. member. This matter has been under very close study by the department for some while, and I am very pleased to be in a position to announce to the house that we have taken the decision to call on this company to tender on this project.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to hear the minister say that.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General received any protests from the people of Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, about the location of the post office in that locality?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Azellus Denis: If so, does he intend to take those protests into account?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member's question relating to the location of an individual post office? We have had several such inquiries and I have resisted inquiries of that kind, for the reason which will be obvious to hon. members, that there are a great many post offices in Canada and if we spent our time dealing with the location of post offices at this period of the day it would open up an unlimited inquiry. I suggest that is a proper question for the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, is this not a special case; is this not different than the location of all new post offices across the country-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: -since the proposed location has been opposed by resolutions of the local council, I am informed, and by local members of the legislature, and is a controversial question? I think, therefore, it is of the type that could be raised on the orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what the hon. member says, but it seems to me that when we look back at questions of the location of post offices there is usually that element of controversy. Otherwise the matter would not be one of note. But if it is of considerable importance and public interest, of course it would be properly raised. I have no knowledge of the facts about which the hon. member is inquiring. I would ask him to put the question on the order paper in this particular case.


Azellus Denis: A post office is going to be built in this case, and if we wait a couple of weeks it might be too late to take into account the protests of the people of Reserve Mines.


Mr. Speaker:: There are other ways of bringing these matters to the attention of the government than by occupying the time on orders of the day.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that Nova Scotia constituents are well represented on this side of the house.


Azellus Denis: But he is not the Postmaster General.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a point of order; that is an eruption.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Fort William asked whether the railways proposed to move express and freight shipments from southwestern Ontario to western Canada via the United States.
Inquiries have been made and both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have advised that no such proposal is under consideration by them.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on November 25, the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Lessard) asked me a question with regard to the Champlain bridge. I am pleased to reply as follows.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I am informed by the national harbours board that work on the Champlain bridge has progressed satisfactorily in 1960, except for the steel structure over the St. Lawrence seaway. The Dominion Bridge Company, to which the contract has been awarded for that section, was faced with a strike from August 16 to October 27 noon, and this caused a delay in the fabrication and erection of the steel parts which were required to instal the eastern section of the steel structure in the winter of 1960-61, with the result that the work now has to be postponed until next spring.
Consequently, completion of the steel section, including the apron, may be delayed for a few months because a new winter season must be taken into consideration.
A number of meetings have been held at the Dominion Bridge Company in an effort to speed up the work, but in view of technical difficulties it is apparently impossible to achieve anything but minor improvements to the work schedule. New meetings will be held with Dominion Bridge Company to speed up construction.
All other contracts have progressed satisfactorily. However, because of the above-mentioned delay the national harbours board has now informed me that it expects to open the bridge for traffic in the late summer or early fall of 1962.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, further to the reply which the Minister of Transport has just given to a question from the hon. member for St. Henry, would the minister inform the house whether the authorities of his department have reached a decision on other approaches to the bridge on the Montreal island end. As I have already indicated to the house, the approaches now contemplated connect with the Atwater street tunnel, something that will cause a serious traffic situation. I have heard that the department was considering new approaches. If so, has the department reached a decision?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, following
the representations made to me by the hon. members for St. James (Mr. Campeau) and St. Mary (Mr. Yalade), I referred the question to the national harbours board, and I am informed that the board is having discussions on the subject with the city of Montreal.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister


read the items published yesterday and today in the Gazette about the traffic on Victoria bridge which has been intolerable for the last two days? Does the government intend to do something in order to remedy the situation?
(Text) :


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I followed the hon. member's remarks a little in arrears by reason of the use of the interpretation system. It seems to me he was proposing to give the house some information rather than to ask for some. He must understand that is not in order.


Gérard Loiselle: On that point of order, I am just asking the Minister of Transport these questions on account of articles which appeared in the Gazette yesterday and today.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member was doing so, and it appears to me that the presentation of the views of the Gazette is rather an argument than a search for information.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: I have a question which I should like to address, if I may, to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the press report this morning that Mr. Gizenga, a close supporter of Mr. Lumumba, has proclaimed himself ruler of the Congo with headquarters of the new regime at Stanleyville?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It appears to me that the hon. member is enlarging somewhat the ministerial responsibility of the Prime Minister.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to issue a stamp in honour of Fidel Castro?
( Translation):


Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: I knew that the member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) was dotty, but not that much.

(Text):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Discoveries of oil in the French Sahara and in Libya, plus the expansion of production in the Soviet union, western Canada and the oil rich lands of the Middle East, are bound to increase world supplies. Can the minister inform the house what effect this glut on the oil market will have on the exploration of our northern regions?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member has an interesting subject for debate at the appropriate time.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a telegram from the president of Manitoba pool elevators on the subject of the railway application for increased rates on the handling of bulk grain, in which it was pointed out that any increase in rates would prejudice the farmer as well as Atlantic ports?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to be unfair to any hon. member who is asking for current information, but as I recall the discussion in the house, railway freight rates have been what is called frozen, and will be frozen for a considerable period. It seems to me, therefore, that the question which the hon. member raises is not one capable of immediate or even possible disposition at the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point of order, my understanding-and I hope I am mistaken-is that this particular rate and rates like it are not frozen, but can be increased at any time. It is therefore my view that the question which has been asked is a proper one subject always, of course, to the correctness of the statement by Your Honour that this is a rate which has been frozen. As I say, my understanding is that this rate has not been frozen.


Mr. Speaker:: My reflections on the question were based entirely on the assumption that this was a matter which is being dealt with by a royal commission and not subject to other action at the present time. If that is not the case, I have no objection to the question.
Productivity Council


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: The question asked by the hon. member does relate to rates which may be increased by the railway company under permissive regulations. In answer to the question, I have not, to my personal knowledge, received a telegram yet from the head of the Manitoba wheat pool.



PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 13, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-52 to establish a national productivity council-Mr. Hees-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Peters:: We have before us a bill which has as its purpose the setting up of a productivity council. An indication was given during the discussion yesterday that this would automatically be of benefit to the Canadian people. It was indicated also that this will be part of the government's program to overcome some of the ills of the present employment situation, and many of the workers will look on this measure as one of the methods adopted by the government to end the employment crisis.
In Canada over the years, and particularly in recent years, we have increased the productivity of many segments of our economy by leaps and bounds. However, in many cases this has done very little for large sections of the national economy. On many occasions when increased productivity does take place none of the benefit accrues to the workers and none, or very little, to the general public.
I object to the government saying that this measure is one of the solutions they are advancing in order to cope with unemployment, because it seems to me that even if we put into effect all the good which could flow from the work of this council we should still have heavy unemployment. It seems likely that the effects of this bill will be felt only in the future, and then to a very questionable extent, and that is not likely to have any beneficial effects at the present time.
This bill contains no provision to make possible the bringing of recommendations to parliament for consideration and implementation. The representatives on the council can voluntarily accept the recommendations that will benefit the group with which they are associated. I am in many instances distrustful of the use industry makes of the advances, in productivity that are achieved. In the mining industry, in which I have been engaged, productivity per man hour

Productivity Council
has increased tremendously in the last number of years. Within my memory the mining industry has undertaken a reduction in employment of approximately 30 per cent because of automation and has maintained the same level of production, but there has been little increase in wages for those miners remaining in the industry.
Let me cite one example which should be of interest to the government because of the representations made yesterday by workers in the automobile industry, but before doing so let me say the Canadian public should examine the problems arising through segments of the economy using production improvements to their own advantage. A startling illustration is the uranium industry at Elliot Lake.


The Chairman:: Order. May I caution the hon. member that the discussion on clause 1 of a bill is not the same as on second reading. In my view the hon. member is reviving the debate we had on second reading. The hon. gentleman may have made some relevant remarks, but I think generally he has been discussing those points which could be discussed on second reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, this matter was threshed out in the previous parliament when the hon. gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs successfully asserted over and over again that a general discussion not only of the bill in a broad sense but of the whole field embraced by the bill was allowable on the first clause. Never before in my seven years' experience in the house has it been suggested that there should be a restriction on an hon. member such as the Chair is now proposing.
The hon. member for Timiskaming was talking about the precise purpose of this bill. It is true that he was not talking about the individual clauses but about the purposes of the bill as a whole. It seems to me the ruling would be unduly restrictive, particularly after the performance of the Prime Minister last night when he spoke for nearly an hour and neither mentioned the bill nor anything connected with it.


Jacques Flynn: May I point out that when the Prime Minister was speaking it was on second reading-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even speeches on second reading are supposed to be related to the bill.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member suggested that this point had never been raised. I must say that to my knowledge it has been repeatedly raised when I have been in the chair. I do not intend to unduly restrict the hon. member, but I must state that generally

what is relevant on clause 1 is a discussion of the scope of the bill, whether as drafted it is sufficient to meet the objectives contained therein. In my view that is what is relevant to discuss on clause 1.
I simply want to caution the hon. member for Timiskaming that he should not revive the debate we have concluded. That is a general principle which is well established.


William Arnold Peters: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I will not repeat or discuss anything the previous speaker mentioned on second reading, because that would be completely out of order and if I did so I would not be talking about the bill at all. The hon. gentleman did not say anything relevant to the bill and I could not be accused of repeating anything like that.
Many of the objectives it has been suggested this bill will accomplish will not be accomplished in fact. It is relevant to discuss this on clause 1. The bill will not produce employment except on a long range basis.
To return to my illustration of Elliot Lake, which is an example of industry using production improvements to its own advantage, the old miners' song about mining 16 tons certainly would not apply, because the miners at Elliot Lake mined 400 or 500 tons and eventually mined themselves out of a job, not in the space of 15 or 20 years but within one or two years. It is not always advantageous to increase productivity, as can be seen from this example, unless we give consideration to the important question of disposing of our surplus productivity. The bill contains no provision to meet the problem that will arise as a result of increased production.
Let me quote from a booklet entitled "Research Program on the Training of Skilled Manpower", No. 8, relating to technological changes and skilled manpower in the automobile and parts manufacturing industries, published by the Department of Labour. In a comparison of the number of employees in that industry from 1948 to 1958, we find the following statement:
Thus production, (in units) increased in the ten years approximately 36.4 per cent, in value added (not deflated) about 75 per cent, and the volume index shows an increase in production of 54.6 per cent, while total employment increased about 7 per cent. It is interesting to note that the increase in total employment obscures divergent trends with regard to direct and indirect labour. The proportion of direct labour expressed as a percentage of total employment was 82.8 per cent in 1948, 81.6 per cent in 1953, 77.0 per cent in 1954 and 72.5 per cent in 1958.
This is the interesting part:
Indeed while total employment increased 7 per cent during the period 1948-1958, the number of employees engaged! in direct production fell approximately 6] per cent during the same period.

This bill would be effective if we were to implement the recommendations of the various groups comprising the council, and if the government were to introduce marketing legislation in which the same groups would participate, and introduce means of disposing of the increased production which will worsen the present unemployment picture and heighten the causes of that problem. Consideration should be given to the disposal of present production. There are a few segments of the economy which can overproduce at the present time, and reasons should be given why this production cannot be disposed of.
I think the government has been unfair to the Canadian people. It has been unfair to those who are being asked to participate in this program, and it has been unfair to the unemployed, because in each and every pronouncement of the government there has been the implication that this council is going to supply more jobs to the Canadian people; that this is going to meet part of the problem that we have encountered because of automation and technical changes, and that something can come out of this which will produce solutions to these problems.
I suggest that this bill cannot be satisfactorily implemented unless the government does two things. First of all, in conjunction with this bill the government should set up marketing legislation which will, in the light of the national economy, handle and dispose of production as it increases from year to year. Second, the government will have to be honest with the Canadian people and tell them that this is a long range program and that it is no solution to the present problem. Unless the national economy is taken into consideration and everything is not left to private industry, this legislation can bring about an aggravation of the employment picture as we see it today.


Frederick Coles Stinson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some observations on this bill to establish a national productivity council. In doing so I will say what I have to say using as few words as possible. In this debate so far we have heard members from all parts of the country giving their approval of the principles of this legislation. I do not intend to go over ground they have covered, but I do wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour on the leadership they have given in this matter. In recent weeks I have talked to many businessmen and leaders of the organized labour movement who have knowledge of this legislation, and found them unanimous in commending the government for this far-sighted bill.
Productivity Council
The bill, as I envisage it, is not one which is expected to create employment in the immediate future, but it is intended to give rise to studies and investigations as described in clause 10, which will increase the productivity of the working force of Canada and thereby raise our standards of living. I think it would be a good thing, Mr. Chairman, if we reminded ourselves that while we have many problems to solve, and there are difficulties in the economy, we in Canada live in a very prosperous country; we enjoy the second highest standard of living of any people in the world. We have only 18 million people in this country. Most of the country is under snow for five months of the year. Tens of thousands of square miles of this country are uninhabited, and much of the territory of Canada does not produce any wealth. Thousands of Canadians live and work in areas where they have a closer relationship, commercially and otherwise, with the United States, than they have with other parts of Canada, and they do not contribute to the Canadian economy as much as they do to that of the United States. Many producers live in areas which are a long way from the big Canadian markets, and to ship their goods to Canadians in other parts of the country is very costly.
I think we can all be proud of the fact that, with these limitations, Canadians have achieved a very high standard of living. The main reason for this, I think, is that we have rich natural resources, an enterprising population, and relatively less developed nations and the United States of America wanting our goods. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, there is much unwarranted criticism of that great country these days. This is the country on which the western nations, including Canada, are depending in large measure for defence against aggression. That country is our best customer; that country has invested money in Canada without which our economic growth would have been much slower. The citizens of the United States, directly and indirectly, have introduced manufacturing techniques which have brought great benefits to Canada. And so, I say, let us acknowledge that we would not be where we are today if we did not happen to be situated alongside the United States of America.
One of the general purposes of this council, as I see it, is to raise the material standards of life in this country, through working toward the objectives set out in clause 10 of the bill. In the election in the United States much was made of making America strong. In my opinion we should be concerned about making Canada strong. We must find good paying jobs for our workers. It is estimated that we must find

Productivity Council 4 million, new jobs for Canadians by 1980. Another reason why we must make Canada strong is so this country can pull its weight in maintaining military defences. I am sure every member in this house regrets that so much of our national revenue-a little less than one third-is spent for defence. We cannot shirk this responsibility, and the only way to meet it is with a strong economy.
I believe another reason for increasing productivity is to show the people in the communist and the uncommitted countries that a high standard of life can be maintained and increased in a free enterprise economy.
Finally, I think that only with greatly increased productivity can we extend our efforts to help less developed countries. I believe that here the western nations may meet their greatest test. It may well be that if we fail, the communist political and economic system may be imposed on large areas of the world which are still uncommitted. I am thinking particularly of Africa.
The council appointed under the terms of this bill will have a broad and important responsibility. I am sure it will have the cooperation of governments, members of parliament, representatives of management and organized labour and many private citizens in reaching the objectives outlined in the bill.


Miss LaMarsh:: I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday when I was speaking I asked certain questions of the government, and had it not been for the right hon. gentleman discouraging it perhaps they might have been answered. However, I wish to inquire from the Minister of Labour how the design, which was featured in the newspapers in headlines-that this was the Prime Minister's solution; that the productivity council arising from the unemployment council was to create jobs, and that the 25-man council was to plan for more jobs-is to be carried out. I would ask the Minister of Labour, Mr. Chairman, to inform the house how they plan to create more jobs other than, of course, the 25 jobs on the council.


Mr, Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister not going to answer?


Mr. Starr:: Yes; don't get into too much of a rush.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: There are one or two remarks I should like to make on the benefits that will come from this council, as I see them. There has been


a good deal of discussion as to what will be done in the way of improvement of our export markets by increased efficiency in production.
However, I think one thing that has not received too much attention is the question of our own domestic markets, which in my view constitute a very important problem in Canada. We have not gained control of our own markets. We import a great many goods that I feel we could successfully produce and distribute in this country, but we have not been doing so. However, as the council is to be made up of representatives from industry, commerce, labour, agriculture, the primary industries and the general public, I believe it will be in a very strong position to encourage Canadians to buy products made in Canada. By increasing our productive efficiency the council will also help in working toward this end.
I hope the council will take this view of their powers. I think clause 10 would give them the power to undertake such a program. From time to time there have been efforts in Canada by different organizations to encourage Canadians to buy made in Canada products. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian electrical manufacturers have had very worth-while programs of trying to encourage Canadians to buy Canadian products. However, I feel that the idea has not caught on generally throughout the country. It has not been supported generally by the public or by labour, and I think it is most important that this should be done. I hope that under the powers given in clause 10, which also deals with distribution and production methods, the council will see its way clear to support a program of encouraging Canadians to buy products made in Canada. If that is done I am sure the council certainly can do a great deal to create employment.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
Michael Starr: That is right.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not say that because I want them to end there. I say so simply because as I read the bill I am certain that is where their powers end. The government is doing something to tackle the important problem of improving the efficiency of Canadian industry, and in my view the more efficient our industry is the better will be the position of both industry and the nation. However, I emphasize the fact that the government is only dealing with one small part of this very great problem. If our industries are more efficient their total production will be increased, but what assurance is there that there will be a market for this increased production?
In my judgment the government is dealing with this question in a very piecemeal and inadequate fashion. By severely limiting the area of inquiry of the productivity council, the only power contained in this measure, they have already condemned the council to a limited success at the very best in a field where it is necessary for the government to take broad and immediate action. I think the minister should reply to the definite questions we are asking at this point; or if he prefers to reply to them later he should say when he wishes to do so. Certainly when members ask for answers to their questions they deserve to get them.


Michael Starr: Of course they do. If the hon. member had looked behind him he would have seen that his colleague was rising, and I was waiting until he and others had spoken.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, the bill has been reasonably well covered by various speakers, and as a result my remarks will be quite limited at this stage. However, I think there are certain aspects of the bill that should be emphasized. In considering this productivity council it is my view that we have to keep in mind that there is a sort of three-pronged dilemma facing the country at the present time. One prong has to do with productivity itself. The second prong has to do with a market for the results of productivity. In the third place, although 90205-6-51
Productivity Council
we have never had too much consideration of this point in the past, we certainly must give consideration to the loss of employment caused by increased productivity brought about through automation or other methods.
The bill only deals with one of these three prongs. It is geared only to increase productivity and does not give very much consideration to the other two prongs of the dilemma. It appears to me to be like an aeroplane trying to land on one wheel. If planes try to do that they find themselves in the same trouble that our economy has been confronted with over the last number of years.
Another thing that bothers me about the bill is that it appears to be just another instance of the various types of window dressing that the Prime Minister and the government subject the Canadian people to every once in a while. In fact it is beginning to look as though the Prime Minister is a serious contender with a former distinguished prime minister of this country. I should like to refer to a poem written about him by Professor F. R. Scott of McGill University, and I shall only quote two lines:
The height of his ambition
Was to pile a parliamentary committee on a royal commission.
Unfortunately this seems to be the method used in trying to deal with many of the problems of our country, the setting up of commissions and the piling of parliamentary committees on top of royal commissions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And vice versa.


Murdo William Martin: There is another thing that concerns me about the bill, and in this regard I should like to refer to the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he spoke at the resolution stage. As found on page 565 of Hansard for December 6 he said:
We are proposing that representatives of commerce, industry, labour, agriculture and other primary industries, government, consumers, professional groups, as well as those from other walks of life, should pool their combined knowledge and skills to assist industry in achieving a more effective utilization of Canadian resources.
From these words it appears to me that the bill is designed primarily for the one purpose of assisting industry. I do not think we have to look very far, Mr. Chairman, to satisfy ourselves that in the past, with one or two exceptions, industry and business have not shown too much of a sense of public responsibility.
I realize, of course, and it has been mentioned many times, that labour is in full agreement with this measure. I should like to add one word of caution there. This would not be the first time labour has been led up the garden path by this government. It is my intention to move some amendments at the

Productivity Council
appropriate time when we are discussing the various clauses of this bill, in an effort to make this bill much more effective than it is now because, in its present form, I cannot see how I can support it.


Michael Starr: May I say, first of all, that without increased productivity Canada cannot possibly hope to compete in either the Canadian or foreign markets. If we cannot compete in these markets, then our workers will not have employment. Industry alone is not going to benefit from this bill, as the hon. member for Timmins has intimated. I submit that in the long run labour will benefit more from what this council will be able to do than anyone else. I want to say that through increased productivity since the end of the second world war, the standard of living has risen considerably.
It has been found from experience in the United Kingdom, Mr. Chairman, that reductions in cost can be brought about more often through greater efficiency in plant organization, in the use of machinery and in the use of fuel as well as raw materials rather than through reducing labour. This is where cost reductions have been effected rather than through reductions in labour. They have found very frequently that when these changes have been made there has been as much if not more labour required in production. In other words, as a result of these savings effected in fuel, machinery and material, labour has maintained its position and in many cases more employment has been provided.
The hon. member for Timiskaming referred to a study that was made in the automobile industry. I do not question the figures which he set forth because they were supplied by our department. I should like to say that they are factual. However, regardless of that, many other areas have had increased employment as a result of the improvement in automobile production. As examples I would cite gasoline service stations, garages, highway construction and maintenance, the tourist industry. All these areas have bene-fitted as a result of the efficiency of production and the higher level of production in the automobile industry.
The hon. member for Assiniboia raised the question of how we would get rid of these products. This, of course, raises the question of trade at home and abroad. The distributive and service industries are included in this measure, and there is no need to add consumption. The levels of consumption depend on the levels of employment and income and, in the main, government and non-government programs are involved in these things. I want to say now that industry must be efficient

to bring about higher levels of income and employment, and I am sure the productivity council will help in this regard.
There was a question as to what could be done through the establishment of the productivity council to provide employment in the short run and the long run. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that a productivity council such as we have in mind and such as is outlined in this bill can generate new employment opportunities in the short run as well as in the long run. Over the long term it is obvious that the productivity council, by fostering and promoting increased industrial efficiency through the greater use of technology, improved techniques and overall management practices, will aid many Canadian industries in the production and distribution fields to be more competitive. That is the most important thing, to be competitive and able to sell more in both the foreign and domestic markets. This, I submit, will create new employment opportunities and a higher national standard of living.
The productivity council could have a beneficial influence on employment opportunities in the short run. An increase in productivity does not only come from increased use of machinery and equipment, or new types of machinery and equipment, or from the increased use of automation, although significant productivity increases do come from the application of capital to the industrial processes. I feel that a rise in productivity will bring about efficiency, lower costs and with that combination the product will find a ready market both domestically and abroad. Second, it will give more employment, and that is the object of this bill.
I feel that these people who will be the members of this productivity council will take into consideration, because of the makeup of this council, all the aspects from the industrial viewpoint, from the labour viewpoint and from the agricultural viewpoint. I am sure that the representatives on this productivity council will bring about the desired result in producing products that will be competitive in this tremendously competitive export market with which we are faced. We must sell our products, and the only way we can sell them is to produce quality articles that will appeal to the export market at a cost that will be within the reach of the people in other countries. As a result of this, benefits will flow right down the line and employment will be generated.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, for a change I should like to thank the Minister of Labour for putting this bill in better perspective than has hitherto been the case. Certainly the

answer which the minister has just given put this measure in much better perspective than did the remarks of his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he introduced the resolution, or the remarks of the Prime Minister when he spoke twice on second reading of the bill.
I think it is quite clear that any desirable and good effects flowing from the establishment of this council, in so far as they may affect employment, will undoubtedly come indirectly through improved efficiency of industry making it more competitive in both the domestic and foreign trade fields.
Of course it is quite clear that since they come in that wholly desirable but none the less indirect way, the immediate effect of relieving unemployment does not lie in this measure. I am referring to immediate relief of the unemployment situation. It is something that will have to develop gradually as the industry becomes more efficient. I suppose no one can say precisely how long that will take, but we hope the process will continue to grow as the years go on. It would be quite wrong for anyone to assume that this meets any immediate problem of unemployment at this time. None the less, the other objective is wholly desirable and as long as the measure is understood properly, in its proper perspective, there is no objection to the true objective of the bill.
There are one or two specific questions I would like to ask the minister. As I understand it, there is no attempt by this measure to deal with the whole problem of the distribution of goods except in the physical way. That is, the whole problem of distribution is not dealt with in this bill at all and is not intended to be. My purpose in asking this question is to have the position clarified. In his remarks dealing with this subject the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke on this point in a way that is certainly capable of two or three interpretations. I refer particularly to page 566 of Hansard, where the minister is reported as having said:
The objects of the council are to foster and promote the development of improved production and distribution methods-
I take it that refers only to the improvement of distribution through the improvement of the efficiency of the industries in the distribution trades, as opposed to the larger problem of distribution. I wonder whether the minister would clarify that point?


Michael Starr: My understanding in this respect is that we will distribute these products in the same way as they are now being distributed under our free enterprise system.
90205-6-51i
Productivity Council
However, I want to point out that we will have on this productivity council representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I think their thinking will naturally go along these lines, and in discussion with the other members of the productivity council no doubt these things will be discussed. But of course it is not provided in the bill or set out as such that distribution is one of the things with which this productivity council will be charged. However, I am certain that if the material that is produced is of a quality and price that will be competitive as a result of what may be brought about through this productivity council, then we will have very little trouble in distributing these products.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. In presenting the resolution the Minister of Trade and Commerce used language that was capable of a wider interpretation than that now given by the Minister of Labour. I think the explanation of the Minister of Labour is the one that seems to be supported by the bill. I quite accept that.
The point I want to make perfectly clear is that this productivity council is to have nothing to do with suggestions of policy having to do with the larger question of distribution through monetary policy, making money available, currency distribution and equalization of wealth and things of that sort that are in another field altogether. I wanted that point clarified. I think there should be no doubt, from reading the bill, that this was never intended to be covered, by the reference made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
At the same time I should like to raise another question. Where in the bill is the authority provided for the setting up of plans for the planned use of material and other resources? I do not see it in the bill.


Michael Starr: Without any limitation I would point out to the hon. member that clause 10 on page 3 sets out the objects and the powers of the council. There is set out the scope under which this council will function.


George James McIlraith: I wanted to obtain a little more specific information on that matter. The Prime Minister pointed out as the objective of the council, among other things, "the planned use of material and other resources." I can find nothing in the bill that provides for the council dealing with the planned use of material and other resources.
There is no such authority given in the bill. Indeed, later on in his remarks the Prime Minister went on to say that if there were planning, that would be socialism. He made

Productivity Council
a reference to socialism at that point, indicated that he was opposed to socialism and so on. There was an apparent contradiction in the Prime Minister's remarks. I find the bill does not give any authority whatever for the planning of the use of material and other resources, as stated by the Prime Minister on second reading.


Michael Starr: The hon. member will note that the powers given are pretty broad. They are as set out, that this council will foster and promote the development of improved production.


George James McIlraith: Not plan, but promote.


Michael Starr: It can be of assistance, as I am sure it will be, in helping out with any problems that any industry may have in particular and on which they would wish to seek the advice of this council.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, it is being made perfectly clear as this discussion goes along that the powers of the productivity council are exceedingly limited.
The Minister of Labour said a little earlier that the effect of the work of the productivity council should be to raise the level of employment and income. Of course, if this happens it will be merely an effect, a result of the work of the council, because the council obviously is not being given any powers to consider the general level of employment in the country, nor is it given any powers to consider the general level of income in the country. This is a piecemeal measure; this is a measure which is exceedingly limited in scope. As has already been said, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have painted pictures of a council that had much larger powers than in fact this council is now being given.
For the life of me I do not know why the government has not given this council the power of inquiring-and that is all the power the council has-into the whole field of consumer tastes, into the whole field of consumer income and into the whole field of national economic policy.
If this government wants to solve the problem of unemployment, if it wants to bring about full production and a full employment economy, and if at the same time it has any faith whatsoever in a council composed of the kinds of people who will be members of this council, it should not be binding the hands and feet of the council at the same time it is being established.
I say that the government has not gone nearly far enough in this measure and is not giving this council the power of inquiry which might lead to full employment. I do not know what the government is afraid of; I do not

know why it does not give this productivity council increased powers so that it might do a real job, instead of condemning it to major failure initially by limiting its powers. I have no objection to the powers that are being given to the council, but I say that those powers are inadequate and that in consequence the objective of full employment cannot be attained by this measure. It is doubtful how far the council can go in bringing about the results to which government spokesmen have referred.
I wish to ask the minister another question. I think I know the answer, but I hope, once again, that the minister may be able to persuade me that I am wrong in my conclusion. I ask the minister whether the productivity council has power to make any recommendations whatsoever to the government. I would suggest that under the terms of this measure the council has no jurisdiction to make a recommendation to the government. It can look into conditions, it can inquire into the situation, it can "promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity"; it can do certain specific things, but it cannot recommend to the government. It is not in a position to advise the government as to what action should be taken by the government in these fields. I suggest that this measure should be amended in order to give the productivity council, not only the broader powers I have mentioned but also the power to come to a conclusion and, having reached a conclusion, to make a recommendation to the government.
This government is giving the council fewer powers than it has given to royal commissions. The government has been setting up an almost countless number of royal commissions which have the power of inquiry and the power to make recommendations to the government. I ask the minister if the productivity council has the right and authority to make particular recommendations to the government from time to time and, if so, in what provision of the bill is that power contained.


Michael Starr: There is no provision in the bill which says the council cannot make recommendations to the government. Consequently it is my opinion that if, in the belief of this council, the over-all effect of its work could be improved with more beneficial results for all Canadians as a result of some action of the federal government, this council would be free to make such recommendations and suggestions, and these would be welcomed and given consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Minister of Labour has checked this very interesting theory with the Department of Justice and

the law offices of the crown, or whether it is his opinion-one which I, personally, welcome-as the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Labour only. I would think that this is a very slipshod way of drafting the bill, to say the least; to give this council, by a statement of the minister, the very broad power of making recommendations to the government while at the same time failing to write this power into the bill. If the minister really means what he says-and I have no doubt he does-then I suggest that the proper way to do this would be to have a colleague of his present an appropriate amendment which would spell out the power of recommendation which, I think, is essential. This would be far better than any back door method of achieving this object.


Mr. Baldwin:: It seems to me that these arguments are without foundation. The real meat of the powers of the council are found in clause 10, and they are not limited to those powers which are established in the subclauses which follow. The clause states:
The objects of the council are to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity-
How much wider, how much further could the government go in order to promote what the minister has suggested is necessary? The clause goes on to say:
.. . without limiting the generality of the foregoing. the council may, in furtherance of its objects-
Then it goes on to set out what else can be done. But that first subclause is in terms as wide as it is possible to imagine, and I think it is wise to have it so. As the council, in the pursuance of its duties and functions, becomes aware of things that must be done, it need not go back to seek additional powers but finds them within the four corners of this particular clause. I think that is an ample answer to the hon. member for Ottawa West who asked the minister certain questions on this subject. The authority for what the council may wish to recommend and do is found in this clause. I do not think there is any doubt about it, and any attempt to tie the hands of the council by saying it can only do this and this and this is bound to have the result of limiting its accomplishments.
Some question has been raised as to whether the appointment of this council would have the effect of increasing employment. I think it would have precisely that effect, not necessarily today and tomorrow, but in due course. As a matter of fact, this organization should have been set up ten, or 12 or 15 years ago.
Productivity Council


John Whitney Pickersgill: Three years ago.


An hon. Member:: Twenty one years ago.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am being moderate in my judgment. It would then have been of great benefit to the economy of this country as, from time to time, it passed through those vicissitudes which any modern industrial state can expect to encounter.
With regard to this question of employment. Surely, if as a result of increased efficiency, goods are continuously made available to the people of this country at a lower rate, there will then be available sums of money to be expended on other goods, commodities and services, as a result of which increased employment will be made available to the labour force of this country.
Finally, the hon. member for Timmins, I think it was, was complaining because he did not see in the bill anything which would give the council power to deal with that part of the labour force which might find itself temporarily without work because of increasing industrial efficiency. But these powers are specifically set out in clause iota):
(iii)	the maintenance of good human relations in industry,
(iv)	the use of training programs at all levels of industry,
(v)	the use of retraining programs to meet changing manpower requirements.
Obviously, these powers are specifically designed for the purpose the hon. member had in mind.
I read not so long ago about a situation on the west coast of the United States. One of the most militant of unions, the international longshoremen's union, which has had a long history of strikes and troubles, had reached an agreement with the ship owners and employers under which the employers had established a fund of some $5 million for the purpose of providing an education scheme for the union members, for making possible earlier retirement, and for supplementing other benefits. The whole purpose was to obtain the consent of the unions to the establishment of techniques of automation in connection with the loading and unloading of ships and cargoes so that fewer people could do the work in a shorter time. That is the sort of thing which I assume under the provisions of this bill will be made available to the people of this country. For the life of me I cannot see where there is any merit to these objections which we have heard detailed this afternoon.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wish to follow up the answer given by the Minister of Labour to the question about the authority of the council to recommend changes in

Productivity Council
policy to the government. As I understood his answer, supported by the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River, it was to the effect that the council could do this even although it was not given authority under the objects spelled out in clause 10 of the bill. I only want to suggest to the minister with great deference that if any council financed by the taxpayers of this country as this one will be through the grant of $150,000 a year for three years were to so far exceed the powers given to it in such a basic matter as that and in such a basic way, I am sure there would be a reference in the Auditor General's report the very first year drawing the attention of parliament to the misuse of funds, to the fact that they were used for a purpose not provided for by the vote of parliament.
Surely on reflection the minister will revise his opinion. It is my own view that the council should have the authority we were discussing so that it could make recommendations to the government for the government's decision as to whether or not they would be adopted. It is clear in the bill that the council is not given that right and I do not think the minister can give the council that right by merely saying that it can use the money granted by parliament for that purpose even although it is not set out in the bill.


Mr. Howard:: This is perhaps the first time I have seen something emasculated even before it was born. That seems to be precisely what will occur with the productivity council. I listened with interest to the interpretation of the hon. member for Peace River with respect to clause 10. I gather the council can do anything and everything it likes because of the words "without limiting the generality of the foregoing" and because of the reference to its objects there. I assume the minister agrees with the interpretation that the council has all-embracing power and authority which is not even referred to in the measure. I wonder if the council will have authority to make recommendations not only to the government but to specific industries or specific segments of the economy concerning what they should or should not do. Does the council have this authority? Is that included in the all-embracing phraseology of clause 10? I think it is not.
I think the sole relationship between the council and various segments of the economy is to be channelled through the editorial branch of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour and perhaps even the Prime Minister may be involved in squeezing out what little substance there may be in the council's reports.
[Mr. Mcllraith. I
What is the relationship of the council to the agricultural industry? The minister should explain this before we proceed further.
Has the council any authority to tell industry what to do? No, of course not, yet the hon. member for Peace River suggested it did and the minister by maintaining his silence perhaps agreed. One could reach that conclusion. We know full well that the council has not that authority. The council has no authority to invade the files of various groups in the economy with respect to the research and development ideas they have acquired in order to disseminate that information among various segments of the economy. The council does not have that authority and the minister would be the first to say so. When we talk about this all-embracing authority we are talking through our hats. We have to colour a little the interpretation placed on this by the minister and his supporters in the government.
The minister mentioned the long range possible accomplishments with respect to employment. The council may disseminate information or foster the development of techniques which would mean that production costs could be made lower than they are now. The implication is that employment would be stimulated and consumption would increase but I think it is nonsense to piously expect that this would take place.
A professor of economics was engaged by the Eisenhower administration in the United States to study the question of why we have increasing costs of living and increasing prices of goods and commodities and at the same time a decline in employment and a condition of over-supply. The answer the professor gave which has been supported by Canadian economists is that there is in both countries a system of administered prices under which producers take the position of keeping prices as high as possible and not reflecting in lower prices the lower cost of producing the goods-in those cases where costs are lower

and keeping the margin of profit to themselves. The experience with combines in the field of price fixing indicates that lower costs are not necessarily reflected to the advantage of the consumer because of the system of administering prices through the collaboration and connivance of several groups in the same field.
It is quite obvious that this government is stretching things quite a bit because a few months ago, during the last session, this parliament, at the behest of the government and over our violent objections, endorsed and passed amendments to the Combines Investigation Act which will allow those price administrators to operate with this great freedom. What is being set up in this bill



I860

[Stage Direction]
as an objective and a hope has already been defeated by the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act which were made by this government during the last session.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, all sorts of questions that were in our minds during the resolution stage were voiced. Even when the bill was introduced there were still questions in our minds. During the second reading we had a person who was substituting for the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced the legislation, namely the Prime Minister, and he certainly was not enlightening as to the objectives that this particular council was going to accomplish. He was extremely eloquent and emotional, as he is on many occasions, but enlightening, no.
Now we have the Minister of Labour, and this is the first opportunity we have had of questioning the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, in this committee. The minister has been far more enlightening about what may or may not occur under this bill than either his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Prime Minister himself. To this extent it is a change for which we are thankful. Incidentally, we wish more cabinet ministers would act in the same way and would be as open and as sincere as the Minister of Labour. As I say, the minister has been enlightening to some extent, and has admitted that there are a number of weaknesses in the bill. This is appreciated.
As more and more questions are asked, more criticisms made and answers given to the questions and criticisms, I wonder whether I should be asked to participate in squandering at least $150,000 a year of the taxpayers' money on something which is going to accomplish practically nothing in the immediate future in so far as promoting employment is concerned, and relatively little in the long haul ahead unless some pretty drastic changes are made in the structure of the council.
Mr. Cresiohl:: I think the minister is quite right when he points out that the increased productivity in itself will not be as beneficial to the country as we would like it to be unless, as the minister properly pointed out, we have markets for the increased productivity. That, I think, is a very important matter. Most efficient businesses nowadays have been taught to call in what are known as efficiency experts who time each operation with a stop watch and who clock the staff to see whether one cannot knock off minutes from certain operations. This is the same sort of suggestion. When private business increases its productivity or produces its products more economically, those products are useless to anyone unless the producer has a market for the product. If the productivity
Productivity Council
council is to succeed in its objectives it should also be concerned about markets for the product of this elaborate system or organization of efficiency experts.
Perhaps the minister can point out to us what is in the bill to deal with the outlets, the markets for this increased and more economical productivity. I do not think this should be merely an exercise, an exploratory council which will be set up to make reports. In a measure of this kind I should like to see some indication of where all this increased productivity will go. If it can be sold, fine. Then we shall have employment for our people. If this increased productivity is simply to remain on the shelves and not be sold, then we shall have advanced nothing.
I should have liked to see the question of markets dealt with in this measure. I should like to see this council have authority to inaugurate a campaign calling on our people to buy Canadian-made goods. I should like to see a campaign carried on across the country to make sure that we have an increased home consumers' market. It is well known that any country that is dependent on exports for its existence is always in a very precarious position. Just a few years ago-the figures may be different now-it was shown that the United States was dependent on the export market for the sale of only 6 per cent of its productivity. If I remember the figures correctly, Canada was dependent on export markets for the sale of 24 per cent of its productivity. We required this market in order to keep our people employed. The crux of the situation is this, unless we have markets, unless we can sell our merchandise, no matter how efficient we are in its production, no matter how economical we are, this is only an exercise, an exploratory operation. The minister and the government should certainly address themselves to the question of markets.
I wonder whether the minister is aware of the fact that more people in this country would create and increase home consumers' market. Has any study been made by the government of markets, or will they give authority to this council to study and deal with the question of markets? Will it be done in co-operation or consultation with the Department of Trade and Commerce? I think the minister and his committee might be well advised to co-operate with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to see whether we can increase our home consumers' market so that we are not as dependent on exports as we are now.
The measure could be a useful one, but it is absolutely pointless and useless unless it indicates to us where our increased productivity and our more economical productivity

Productivity Council
will go. If we have the buyers, then I think the measure will serve a useful purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to the point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West and continued by the hon. member for Assiniboia and to express amazement that the hon. member for Assiniboia should have made the suggestion he did, that this bill should provide any power to the council to make recommendations to the government, because we were told by the spokesman of the Prime Minister, the parliamentary secretary, at an earlier stage in the consideration of this measure that the government needed no advice and wanted no advice, and one thing they were making sure of in this bill was that they would not get any advice.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order. It is a most untrue statement to say that the Prime Minister made any such statement. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inferred that, and this is the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe I have the floor. The Minister of Labour-


Michael Starr: Don't blabber-mouth again; speak the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -seems to have a curious view of debate in this house. Whenever an hon. member-


Michael Starr: You are curious all over.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -makes a statement with which the minister disagrees, and which he has a right to disagree with when he has an opportunity to do so-


Michael Starr: I always agree with the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -he promptly rises on what he alleges is a point of order in order to interfere with the speech that is being made. I suggest that the minister, instead of abusing the rules of the house-


Michael Starr: I don't abuse the rules; don't worry about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the way he does-


Michael Starr: I have too much respect for them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -should listen to other hon. members and reply to them after they have finished their speeches in the ordinary way that other members of the house do. If he did that he would make much more progress in getting his legislation through the house.


Michael Starr: I do all right. You do not have to worry about that.
[Mr. Crestohl.l


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point I am making is that the government indicated, the parliamentary secretary indicated and the Prime Minister rather indicated as well that the one thing they wanted to be sure of was that this council did not pester the government in any way.


Michael Starr: That is not right and you know it.


Mr. Speakman:: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If they want to efface the very unfortunate impression they gave I suggest that they follow the advice of the hon. member for Ottawa West and the hon. member for Assiniboia and spell out in the bill that the productivity council will have the power to make recommendations to the government, without which it will have very little value indeed.


Michael Starr: There is no necessity to do that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said earlier that in our view it was necessary to extend the scope of the bill so that the council could make recommendations to the government in the field of productivity and also in the fields of employment and income. This bill is another one of those half measures-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Half-baked.


Hazen Robert Argue: Those half-baked measures-


Michael Starr: It is funny that all of you voted for them.


Hazen Robert Argue: -those halting and ineffective measures introduced by the government.


Michael Starr: We will have to call a vote on third reading again.


Hazen Robert Argue: The government is introducing a number of bits and pieces that add up not to a program to deal with unemployment but rather to failure to deal with it. Apparently the government is really not aware of the tremendous and far-reaching unemployment situation in our country. I have in my hand today's Ottawa Journal which has this heading over an article:
Jobless Jump 61,000; Biggest Number for November in 15 Years.
The article goes on to give the exact number and percentage of unemployed. It points out that unemployment had jumped to 429,000 at mid-November. The sum total of the government's clearing away of the underbrush has been failure and the highest unemployment in Canada for any November in the last 15 years. By this legislation together with its other legislation the government underlines the fact that it does not have a comprehensive program, that it does not intend to deal with the situation, that it is turning its back on economic planning and

on adequate full employment policies. This all adds up to a government that is a complete failure and a government, I suggest, that the Canadian people can no longer afford.


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two in answer to that constitutional wizard from Bonavista-Twil-lingate who last night quoted at length certain passages of my speech at the resolution stage of this measure. As he only quoted half of my remarks pertaining to whether this was an advisory body or whatever else it might be, I think it is only fair that I should put the whole of my remarks pertaining to that particular point on the record now, and I intend to do so.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am afraid that the committee is rehashing second reading of the bill. We are now on clause 1 and are supposed to be considering the details of the clauses of the bill. I must suggest to the hon. member that he abide by the rules.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise on the point of order you have raised in defence of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. We have been discussing all afternoon the powers of the council and this is the point that is before us now. The hon. member feels that he was improperly misrepresented by another hon. member and I think he should be allowed to state his position.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order, the passage I wish to quote simply deals with the powers that the council may have and, viewed in that respect, I respectfully submit that it is pertinent to the present discussion. The hon. wizard-I mean the hon. member-had reached this point in quoting my remarks, and I read from page 720 of Hansard of December 12:
The resolution is of a technical nature. The policy of the government is to promote greater economic activity in all phases of our nation. One of its purposes in particular will be to promote and increase productivity in industry, manufacturing and other pursuits. So we are faced with a technical body. That is why there is no difference and no inconsistency whatsoever between the position then taken and the position now being taken by this government by the introduction of this resolution.
Then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me whether I would permit a question, to which I replied, "Yes, certainly." The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked this question:
Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that since the earlier proposal was for an advisory council, in his opinion the present government needed no advice in formulating policy?
Productivity Council
To which I replied as follows, and this is the point that I hope will sink into the hon. head of the hon. member:
As usual, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate displays an astonishing difficulty in comprehending even the simplest proposition. What I said was that the government does not need a body to indicate to it what policies it should adopt, that under our democratic process policymaking is the special and reserved field of the government. But having adopted a policy, and that policy being greater productivity, it is in the execution of that over-all policy that it now calls upon this house to approve the present resolution. It is as simple as that and no amount of twisting or apparent misapprehension on the part of the hon. member will change the clarity of that particular statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite true.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Viewed in that light I think it should be a complete answer to the point raised by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave-I have been on my feet three times -to put this question. When will the 429,000 jobless, to whom reference was just made, have an answer as to the effect of the bill, which has arisen out of a conference to meet the problem of unemployment, in creating jobs? In particular I would ask the Minister of Labour or the hon. gentleman opposite whether any of the individuals to be appointed have been approached or whether any of the groups concerned, industry, commerce, labour and agriculture, have been approached. Has there been any investigation made by the government as to the individuals who will be named in order that we may have a date when the productivity council will begin to function? This would at least be the first stage from which any benefits to the jobless could conceivably begin to flow.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, of course I do not imagine that the hon. member for Niagara Falls really thought I would say that this bill would solve the problem of unemployment for the whole 429,000 people at once. I am sure that since she has been in this house and has participated in the voting on the various measures this government has introduced, and given her approval of them as measures to combat unemployment, she realizes that this and other measures that will be brought down are part and parcel of a program to take care of the federal share of responsibility in this field and which will create an atmosphere that will give employment to these people.
In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, I may say that just as soon as royal assent is given to this bill steps will

Productivity Council
be taken to communicate with people about the organization of this productivity council without any loss of time.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I take it then from what the Minister of Labour says that this bill is not designed to create jobs or immediately alleviate unemployment for the 429,000 or any part thereof, and that there has been misrepresentation to the public at large about the scope fo this measure and its goal?


Michael Starr: In order that the hon. lady will not be under any misapprehension or be misinformed, may I say this is one of the measures that will bring about a solution of the unemployment problem affecting these 429,000 people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue the questions raised by the hon. lady. In doing so, I should like to refer to the statements made by the Prime Minister yesterday in moving second reading of the bill in order to obtain certain clarifications from the minister as to the meaning of some of the things that the Prime Minister said. It seems to me this is a reasonable thing to ask in committee. Some of these statements are not any clearer than I found the clarity of the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, whose clarity I think still leaves something to be desired.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It takes time to sink in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It sank without a trace. At page 750 of Hansard for yesterday we find the conclusion of the Prime Minister's speech on second reading in which he indicated there were two goals for this measure. This is the third paragraph, and I do not want to read the whole paragraph, but I am quite willing to do so if it is insisted upon. I am going to try to shorten it without, I hope, doing any injustice to the statement. He referred to two objectives, the assurance of the preservation of our standard of living and, at the same time, the maintenance at the lowest possible minimum, the costs of production. Then he said:
The achievement of both can be attained through the advances of technological skill.
This next sentence is the one with which I am particularly concerned.
Concomitant with that we require to have the best opinion available about how to use technological advances not only for the attainment of those objectives-
I direct the minister's attention particularly to the next few words.
-but in order not to deny those who should have work the right and opportunity of having it.
That is the purpose of this legislation.
Let me repeat what the Prime Minister states is the real purpose of this legislation.

The purpose of this legislation is not to deny those who should have work the right and opportunity of having it. Would the minister explain just how this legislation is going to guard against the denial to those who should have work the right and opportunity of having it?


Leon David Crestohl: And when.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And when.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has been busy reading manuscripts on his desk and clippings while certain statements were being made here because on two occasions at least I have outlined the experience in the United Kingdom, for example. As a result of the efficiency brought about in industry there labour was assured of its place. Costs were reduced through the better use of fuel, machinery and material without undermining the jobs available in that industry. The reduction of costs rather created more jobs in industry, and that is what we are after. We want to have all these people working together, industry and labour, to bring about efficiency, a reduction in the cost of our products, the result of which will be a more competitive product for the export market. Then, the more we need to produce, the more jobs will be created. I think even the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would not argue against an objective of that sort.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I did not argue with it. If the minister had been listening to what I said yesterday on second reading he would have found that I agreed precisely with that as a long term objective, and that is the only reason we are voting for this bill at all. We do believe it has a reasonable long term objective. However, I want to remind the minister, who talks about all these jobs that were assured in the United Kingdom, that in the United Kingdom they have had full employment continuously since the war. The only year in which there has been any considerable amount of unemployment has been the year 1960, and this productivity council has been in operation in the United Kingdom since 1948. The plain fact is that the productivity council was never set up to deal with the unemployment problem at all. It was set up to deal with an entirely different problem, namely the problem of making the best possible use of scarce manpower, not the problem of surplus manpower. To fob off this as a measure to deal with unemployment is a farce and a fiction, if I may adopt that word which was made parliamentary by the right hon. gentleman last night.
I want to draw the minister's attention to the very next words of the Prime Minister

because the minister said I was reading various manuscripts. I was not reading manuscripts, I was reading the Prime Minister's speech and trying to find out if any meaning could be found in it what the meaning was. I really defy any person who has any knowledge of the English language to find any meaning in the first speech that was made by the Prime Minister yesterday. The second speech, which had nothing to do with the bill, had plenty of meaning and a good deal of feeling. However, in the first speech in which the Prime Minister pretended to be dealing with the bill, so far as I can find out there was no clear meaning of any kind. I ask the minister to tell us precisely what is meant by the next sentence-I will read two sentences:
That is the purpose of this legislation. It is a segment of the policy we are bringing before the house bill by bill.
These segments, are like one of those jigsaw puzzles with some of the pieces missing and the Prime Minister tells us they are going to be missing until he sees fit to bring them down. The Canadian people, therefore, are not to be told what is the whole plan. It will be let out bit by bit, piece by piece, making a headline this week and another headline next week and another headline the week after, instead of the whole thing being disclosed honestly and in a straightforward manner in an effort to solve the problem instead of creating additional advertising which is the greatest lack of the present government according to its head. I see the chairman is getting restive, so I had better come back to the sentence


Michael Starr: What was your question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want the minister to elucidate the next sentence.
This policy, we believe, will be beneficial not only in the short term but in the longer term as well,-
The minister has told us two or three times about the longer term and as far as I know there is no disagreement in the house about the longer term. But I wish the minister would tell us what this bill is going to accomplish in the short term.


Michael Starr: If the hon. member reads
Hansard tomorrow he will see the answer I gave when I was replying to members who had previously asked a question on this subj ect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister say whether in the short term it is the opinion of the government that the setting up of this council will have any effect at all on the level of employment?


An hon. Member:: More than 21 years.
90205-6-524
Productivity Council


Michael Starr: I feel certain that through cooperation with this productivity council results can be brought about-and, I think, notable results-in the next six months. Is that the long term or the short term?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would regard that as the short term. This being December 14, if we are still here on June 14 and if it is a sitting day I will make a note to ask the minister to give us in detail the short term results that have been achieved by this council in that time.


Michael Starr: You are stupid enough to ask a question like that, aren't you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I am stupid enough to stick to facts and I am not ashamed of that form of stupidity.


Michael Starr: Some facts. They are what you call facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentlemen do not seem to like what is being said about this bill. I would like the minister to explain another sentence of the Prime Minister's remarks, because I must say this one completely baffled me.


Michael Starr: It is no good, eh?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is what the Prime Minister is reported as having said on page 749 of Hansard. This is the Prime Minister speaking about this council, this bill:
I would hope that the basic technique would be to direct the public consciousness not to fear but to faith; not to pointing out the difficulties without suggesting solutions, but to pointing to the strength and vigour of Canada and to bringing about, in a unity of effort, the best consideration that the best minds of Canada can bring to this problem.
Would the minister tell us just precisely how this faith-healing operation is going to be carried on by this council?


An hon. Member:: Why do you not ask the
Prime Minister?


Michael Starr: Does the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate feel that the people who will be appointed to this council, who will be recommended by labour, who will be recommended by industry and others have not the ability to do some of the things that possibly he alone could do to bring about some results?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We would all like to find out what these people are going to do and what to expect of them when they are appointed, because anybody who reads this bill, with its vague language, does not know what this will be.
Of course, the bill has nearly every kind of vagueness in it except a tribute to motherhood, but when it comes to getting down to

Productivity Council
brass tacks and dealing with providing jobs for people who have not jobs, you have to have a more powerful microscope than anyone in the house, including the minister, seems yet to have been able to employ to find any trace of any device that would operate in that regard. Yet we are told it is part of the program to solve unemployment.


Michael Starr: I have probably, and I am sure I am right, a great deal more faith in the ingenuity and ability of Canadians than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In my experience I have found that when representative Canadians are asked to serve on bodies, whether they are set up by the federal government, provincial governments or municipal governments, they usually have pretty good ingenuity in bringing about favourable results. Through this bill we think these people will be able, through their Canadian ingenuity

which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has no faith in, evidently-to do a good job for Canadians, for Canadian industry, for Canadian labour, for Canada generally.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have been endeavouring to get the floor for some little time to state that the minister has alleviated a few of my misgivings about this bill, but unfortunately I did not get up in time. I find that now in at least one respect we are pretty nearly back to where we started.
I understood the minister to admit quite frankly that there really was not too much immediate benefit to be obtained from this bill, but it would be a very beneficial thing in the long term. Certainly my objections on that particular basis have been alleviated. But I now find that the minister has reversed himself slightly and expects some considerable benefit within the next six months.
The second point on which the minister has somewhat alleviated my concern is this. He stated it is his understanding that there will be recommendations from this council. There again there is certainly a new method being adopted here, where the council is going to have permission by omission to make these recommendations.
The third point that I was very glad to hear the minister make was that, contrary to what might have been interpreted from the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, this bill is not solely for the benefit of industry.
However, there is one point that I do not think has yet received enough consideration. That has to do with tax exemptions or, not putting it so kindly perhaps, to tax evasion

that will be favourable to companies which contribute to this council. This is a particular point I would like to make.
If companies are able to write off normal tax assessments in this manner it means that the taxes they are writing off will have to be raised from some other source. The only people in the country who have not some means of writing off income tax are the poor wage earners who have their tax deducted at source. Therefore this means that every time a company finds another method of getting out of paying tax, the taxes have to be raised that much more by these people who have no opportunity of getting out of paying taxes. It takes so many dollars to run the country, regardless of the source from which they are raised.
I am not too happy about the aspect of this bill, which is in fact an inducement, or will be an inducement to companies and other organizations to further evade paying tax. But there is still one further point in this connection. Not only is the wage earner going to have his taxes raised because he will be affected in this manner, but in addition he is going to have to match that tax evasion. This is certainly a brand new principle and I would like to see if the minister would agree that this is completely unfair, or it is possibly pushing things a little too far?


Michael Starr: I do not really know what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about tax evasion. I see nothing in this bill that has anything to do with tax evasion of any kind.


Murdo William Martin: I am referring to clause 16 of the bill, under which any company or organization which contributes to this council will receive the benefits of the Income Tax Act which will permit that as a deduction from income tax. In addition to that I am pointing to the fact that this money will not go in taxes and will have to be raised elsewhere, that the taxpayer is being asked to match this tax exemption.


Michael Starr: This is standard legislation where tax deductions are allowable when donations are made to certain organizations which come under exemption for income tax. Most certainly I think this is a worth-while effort on the part of anyone to which to donate and it should be recognized in the same way in this instance, because if any benefit is going to be derived from these donations because of the function of this productivity council they are certainly entitled to the same consideration. Most certainly, in my opinion, there is no tax evasion when this procedure is followed.


Leon David Crestohl: This is a budgetary item.


Murdo William Martin: The minister has missed the second part of my point, that under the provisions of this bill, in addition to the normal situation where donations of this kind are tax exempt, the taxpayers of Canada are being asked to match these amounts. It is double inducement.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I have one further question that perhaps the Minister of Labour will answer.
Last night, listening to the Prime Minister discuss in a fairly general way the purport of this bill, I heard him say, with some astonishment and great interest, what is referred to on page 749 of Hansard when he was discussing the question of research. This is one part of the scope of the council as set up in this bill. In the third paragraph, about the middle of the page, the right hon. gentleman said:
Indeed, I express the hope that foreign concerns with subsidiaries in Canada will make available in Canada a major portion of the proportionate share that the Canadian industry bears to the total production of the entire industry and that this amount will be devoted to research rather than having the research done in another country, the course followed today.
My particular interest arises from the fact that in my riding all but about two companies are Canadian subsidiaries of foreign concerns, generally from one particular country, and I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the government has any reason to believe that such diversion of expenditure to answer unemployment in their own country will be made to their Canadian subsidiaries, and whether any assurances have been given and, if so, what assurances, by these companies; and, further, if there is anything in the bill which gives this council any authority whatsoever over United States, Swiss, British, German or other head offices outside this country, or whether this is just a pious hope.


Michael Starr: I do not think it is fair to ask me what the Prime Minister meant by this. He probably has had communications, or has some knowledge of it. I do not have knowledge of any company outside the boundaries of Canada which has made any promises. I do not know of any. I think it is only right that the hon. lady should address this question to the Prime Minister when he is here, and not wait until he has left.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did not wait until he left. I protest that had he been here I would still have asked him. I well recognize that it must be somewhat difficult for even so close a colleague as the Minister of Labour to understand what the Prime Minister has in mind on occasions. However, 1 did ask another
Productivity Council
question as to whether there is any provision in this bill by means of which this council would have any control or right to interfere in matters which deal with head offices outside Canada.


Michael Starr: No, there is not.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Establishment of Council.
John Richard Garland: I have a few words to say on one aspect of this bill, which is of tremendous importance to the district of Nipissing, in connection with clause 2, the clause which provides for the establishment of the council and, in particular with its composition as set out in subclauses (a) to (f).
It is my sincere hope that the government will take this opportunity to appoint an outstanding authority from the railroad industry to this council, because it seems to me there are few sections of industry in Canada today which are running more contrary to the stated objectives of this bill than are the railways. This bill talks in clause 10(a) (iii) about the maintenance of good human relations and, in the next sub paragraph, about the use of training programs at all levels of industry. Subparagraph (v) speaks about the use of retraining programs to meet changing manpower requirements.
I know something of this problem, coming as I do from a community which has been an important railroad centre since its very establishment; in fact, its development was brought about, I might say, because of the construction of a railroad. The North Bay area is an important C.P.R. point and there is considerable activity by the Canadian National Railways. It is also the southern terminus of the Ontario Northland railway. Almost every week for the last two years I have had someone in to see me seeking assistance in relocating or re-establishing himself after being laid off from one of these roads.
Here we have people who went directly from school to the railroads. Most of them have worked hard to improve their positions. Through the years they have taken courses, recommended by their companies, that would further equip them to do the job they were doing. Suddenly, like lightning, the situation is all changed. On the fifteenth of a month notice may be received that their employment will terminate perhaps on the thirtieth of that month. Certainly this is scarcely in keeping with the objectives outlined in this bill.
I had five men in to see me recently who had worked for the railroad for approximately 40 years and who were then abruptly dropped from the payroll. These men, who had begun to work for the railroads early in life, have

Productivity Council
many useful years for employment ahead of them despite their long service. A situation of this kind is bad enough, but what about the younger man? He has so much more of his life left. In many cases he has been doing the same job, say for 30 years since he left school. If he left school when he was 17 today he would be 47, still a comparatively young man. In the situation which exists today, finding himself untrained for other work, where can he turn? Without belabouring this point, it seems to me there is no better example than among the railways of action which would seem to be completely contrary to the Prime Minister's interpretation of the objectives of this bill.
Most Canadians are aware that our railways are passing through a difficult period at the present time, but surely, and this is especially true of the Canadian National over which this government must have some influence, in the interest of all concerned the Canadian National should be setting an example in respect to the retraining and relocation of personnel being laid off. Here the Canadian National could take the lead and I am sure it would be followed, at least to some degree, by other railroads.
Coming as I do from a railroad centre I know that the morale of the men employed has been steadily weakened by this apparent lack of interest and the apparent inaction by both management and government with regard to helping men who have been laid off to secure satisfactory alternative employment. I would hope that this government might give the fullest possible consideration to making sure that this important industry, which admittedly is passing through a difficult transition period, is well represented in the membership of this national productivity council.
I do not wish to delay the committee by giving details, but I can assure hon. members that there is a great need for action in this field, action which would improve the human relations aspect of the industry, a field with which this bill purports to deal. Few industries in Canada need more informed and considered attention than the railways in effecting successfully the transition made necessary by automation. For this reason I make this request directly to the minister and the government-that they should appoint a competent railroad authority to this council in order to ensure that the further automation of our railroads may result in the minimum amount of dislocation and technological unemployment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Further to what my hon. friend has said I would refer to a report in the Toronto Telegram which I understand supports hon. gentlemen opposite. It is dated

October 25 and refers to the statement that this body, when set up, will contain representatives of industry, labour, agriculture, the Canadian Legion, the universities, women's organizations and the government.
Certainly I would suggest that these various bodies, and particularly, the women's organizations, would know a great deal about productivity and would be able to assist the government on being appointed to such a board. However, I see when the bill is produced that these groups which have indicated from time to time a tremendous interest in public affairs both of the day and of the future have been cavalierly dropped. I would ask the Minister of Labour for what reason they were not included and whether the government might reconsider the question of having appointed representatives of each of the groups included in the paragraphs of clause 2?


Michael Starr: There is provision under paragraph (d) for the appointment of five members from the general public. I would remind the hon. lady that women are also in industry, commerce and in the professions.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How would the Canadian Legion and universities fit into that category? Specific reference was made to them in the announcement of the Prime Minister at a time when he was prepared to bring a bill before us but these are not reflected in clause 2.	[DOT]


Michael Starr: They will be considered. The appointment of representatives from those groups will be considered when we make the appointment under paragraph (d) of five members of the general public.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the minister in speaking in the house the day before yesterday at an earlier stage in the consideration of this measure made specific reference, as may be found at page 733 of Hansard, to industry, labour and universities being included. I note that the provisions for universities has not been included in this clause although the other groups the minister referred to were obviously based on his reference to this clause because they are included by identical reference. Was any consideration given to the question of the appointment of representatives of the universities as such?


Michael Starr: They will be represented as one of the five members of the general public.


George James McIlraith: I believe I put a more precise question than that. In his speech the minister obviously referred to the categories in clause 2 of the bill with the exception

that he included universities as if it were one of the categories and in the bill before us no such reference is included. The Prime Minister in his newspaper reference did the same thing. Was there any particular reason why universities are not being included when the public, from the press statement of the Prime Minister, and in the house, from the statement of the minister, would have every reason to expect that they were being included?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking on the resolution stage then. There was no bill before us at the time. We could not set out each and every group in particular but we did provide for the appointment of five members from the general public and we feel that the representation referred to by the hon. gentleman could be included.


George James McIlraith: I would have hoped that the minister would have been familiar with a bill when at the resolution stage he was asking the house to bring the measure before it for consideration. I would point out that his statement does lead one to believe that he was dealing at the resolution stage with groups that would be specifically included.


Michael Starr: Did the hon. member really get that impression?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. So there will be no doubt about it the reference is page 733 of Hansard. During the time I was listening to the minister I thought he was improving on the remarks made by his colleague who presented the resolution to the house.
I must point out to the minister that we have already had three ministers of the crown present this measure at different stages. The Minister of Trade and Commerce presented it at one stage so we looked to the hon. gentleman's speech for guidance on the subject. The Prime Minister presented the measure for second reading and in turn we looked to his pronouncement for guidance on the subject. The Minister of Labour is piloting the measure at this time. I am content enough that the hon. gentleman is doing so but I would point out to him that there are these several statements which are confusing to both the public and hon. members of the committee. Certainly the announcement of the Prime Minister at the conclusion of the conference on unemployment was of such a nature that it may have misled a great portion of the public. One of the smaller points on which it is confusing is the hon. gentleman's reference to business, industry, labour, agriculture and education, as reported in one paper, and his reference to universities, as reported in another, and the minister's own
Productivity Council
statement in this chamber in setting out the groups that would comprise the council in which specifically included universities.


Michael Starr: I did not say they would be represented or that any group would be represented. Referring to my remarks as found at page 733 of Hansard of December 12, I said:
I am sure that the collective knowledge, the skills and the experience of commerce, industry, labour, universities, government and of citizens generally is needed at this time.
Most certainly this council is going to confer with universities and everyone else who shows any interest in an effort to bring about the objectives we hope will be brought about through the establishment of this council.


George James McIlraith: Let me put one more question to the minister. If the minister is sure that the collective knowledge of the universities, among other groups, is needed at this time, why does he not provide for the appointment on the council of representatives of the universities as such?


Michael Starr: There is provision for their appointment in the reference to the appointment of five members of the general public.


George James McIlraith: The minister just said that the provision for the five members of the general public would take care of the representatives of women's organizations and the Canadian Legion in answer to my hon. colleague's question, and now he refers to universities.


Michael Starr: This will not take up the whole five.


George James McIlraith: But it does not leave many for what most hon. members would understand by the words "general public".


Mr. Deschaielels:: Mr. Chairman, we have already expressed very serious doubt as to the immediate effectiveness of this measure in terms of promoting employment so my remarks will be brief. Since the government has its own views on the matter the only alternative we have at this stage is to see that this bill is improved as much as possible.
I understand that clause 2 relates to the appointment of the council. I am wondering if it is the intention of the government to see that the ten provinces are represented on this board. If so, would it not be a good thing that mention be made of this intention in clause 2? Since we are dealing here with a national council on a national scale I think the ten provinces should be represented and if they are mention of this should be made in clause 2.

Productivity Council


Michael Starr: There is no provision for the representation of the provinces on the council. I wish to point out, however, that a number of the provincial governments already carry out some work in this field. It is anticipated, and I am sure the anticipation will be realized, that the national productivity council will co-operate fully with these provincial bodies, both governmental and private.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Perhaps the minister misunderstood me, Mr. Chairman. I had in mind that the membership of the council should be drawn from among people residing in all of the ten provinces thus giving full provincial representation in that sense of the word.


Michael Starr: I see what the hon. member means now.


Mr. Carter:: Paragraph (c) of clause 2 states that membership of the council will include five members who will be chosen from the fields of agriculture and other primary industries. My question to the minister is this. Will the fishing industry be recognized as one of the primary industries to be represented?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask a question? Do the words "industry and commerce" in paragraph (a) include finance or exclude it?


Michael Starr: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister how you improve the productivity of finance?


Michael Starr: You slay me.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Appointment of executive director.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure the minister did not draft subclause 5 of clause 3. Perhaps it is not too important, except we are legislating on something that is obviously impossible, or may be impossible. The minister is saying:
A person in order to be eligible to be appointed as a member of the council described in paragraph (a),	(b),	(c) or (e) of section 2 shall have
knowledge of the field he is to represent and of productivity problems related to that field, or shall have knowledge of technical aspects of industrial productivity.
I do not know how the minister is going to settle the question of a man's ability or his degree of knowledge. Probably it is relatively innocuous but certainly it adds nothing to the bill. It could be reduced to an absurdity if one were disposed to do it. For instance, there is the requirement under (c) that a person to be eligible for appointment, assuming he has knowledge of the field of agriculture, and to be chosen must not only have knowledge of agriculture but he must also have knowledge

of other primary industries. I think the thing reduces itself to an absurdity. I do not propose to pursue the argument other than to point out to the minister a subclause that should not be in there in its present form.


Leon David Crestohl: The language of subparagraph (5) also struck me as it did the hon. member for Ottawa West. When in law you say that a person has to be eligible for a certain appointment, this eligibility has to be determined somehow. My question to the minister is, how will eligibility be decided? Will these gentlemen be subjected to an examination to see whether they are eligible or qualified for the appointment? It might have another meaning to say that a man has to be eligible to receive an appointment. Does the minister envisage submitting these gentlemen to an examination to see whether they are really eligible for the appointment?


Michael Starr: No, of course not. I think we can easily pick people with practical experience, those engaged in the business world, in the manufacturing world, in plants, in factories, representing labour, who have practical knowledge of the production of those materials. That is all we will need. That is the qualification that will be needed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Salary of executive director.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I see that an honorarium of $3,000 is to be paid to the chairman but I find it strange that no fixed amount is set for the executive director. This strikes me as a bit of an anomaly. Can the minister explain it?


Mr. Benidickson:: A blank cheque.


Michael Starr: Of course, the executive director will be a full-time employee, and his salary will be set by the governor in council. You do not want to amend the bill every time you wish to give the man an increase in wages, surely.


Leon David Crestohl: How is it done in other measures? There are other appointments made by statute in which the maximum salary is fixed. Why this wide open thing?


Michael Starr: That varies, sir.


George James McIlraith: I think the minister may have made a slip when he was dealing with the executive director. I think he said he would be paid an amount by the governor in council, but it is paid by the productivity council.


Michael Starr: The salary will be fixed by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 10-Objects and powers.
William Arnold Peters: This clause of the bill sets out the objectives and powers of the legislation. We believe that many of the things that the minister says can be accomplished, can be accomplished only if there is a further addition to this clause of the bill. The desire is not only to increase productivity but also to sell the products. In every country where councils have been successful, and in our own country, it has always been necessary to find some method of disposing of the goods that are produced. That is why the productivity councils were so successful in the years after the war and also during the war period when there was a great need and an extended market for goods. It has been necessary to have this not only in fields where there is no need to create employment but where there is unemployment. This has been tried in such countries as West Germany, where the productivity on a national basis was geared to the marketing of the products. I am told that before the products were even produced in West Germany they produced prototypes of the products of their industry and then proceeded to find markets for them. They brought the orders home, and then set their factories in production and in this manner they were able to take care of the employment situation as well as productivity. It seems to me that the marketing of the product is as important as increasing productivity. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of clause 10 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(i) the development of improved production, marketing, and distribution methods,"
It seems to me that if we are to concentrate on the problem of producing products and make this part of the over-all aims and aspirations of the productivity council we should go out and market the products as we get them. If we do this then we shall be doing some good. If we are to develop only further automation for the sake of being able to work for machines, then I am not in favour of it. If we are interested only in increased production, then I say we are not solving some of the problems we have, and we shall not be attaining the objectives which the minister indicates are contained in this bill.
I should like to use several examples. We have increased productivity in the pulp and
Productivity Council
paper industry; we have increased productivity in the steel industry. My colleague has said that we have increased productivity particularly in the farming industry. In each case we have been unable to go out and sell the products of that increased productivity. In many instances this has resulted in a lessening of employment and activity in these particular fields. In only one of them has any decrease in price resulted because of increased productivity and that is in the field of agriculture where it can be ill afforded. In some cases we have decreased the price of a product and have paid a subsidy to the people engaged in that industry. This does not appear to be a satisfactory way of doing it. Unless we are willing to institute a concentrated marketing program, I think this measure will not serve the interests that the minister says it is meant to serve.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 41.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, clause 10 sets forth a number of commendable objects and powers but its main emphasis is on the improvement of technical efficiency. Even if we do achieve our objective as to technical efficiency it does not follow that the benefits accruing from that will be used to serve the national interests in the best way. For example, we may produce a lot of things which do not serve the greatest public need. I have always felt that a body of this kind should be set up to keep a watchful eye over the variations in productivity trends from time to time and also to ensure that we get the best maximum use out of the materials that are used. Other members have also intimated today that the objects and powers of the council should be enlarged. I made similar remarks last night and without repeating the arguments I have already placed on Hansard I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River:
That paragraph (a) of clause 10 be amended by deleting the word "and" at the end of line 24 and adding the following:
(viii) The sponsoring of periodic meetings between representatives of industry, labour and consumers for the purpose of appraising productivity trends and determining what changes, if any, are desirable to best serve the national interest; and, at the same time, ensure the maximum utilization of our resources by all possible means, including the elimination of unnecessary waste of material on features and refinements which have no practical value. To publish reports of all such meetings; and.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Murdo William Martin: Before the vote is taken I should like to commend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. This is one of the best C.C.F. amendments I have seen for a long time and I can assure him of our full support.

Productivity Council


William Moore Benidickson: Surely this second amendment to this clause is not going to be voted down without some expression of opinion from the minister. The amendment seems to have a great deal of merit and not in any way to offend the purposes of the legislation as outlined by the government. Certainly the committee would want to give the minister full time to examine the text as it is somewhat lengthy. In view of the merit and purposes of the amendment I do not think it should be simply ignored and voted down just because one side has a massive majority in the house.


Michael Starr: Certainly that is not the case. The fact is that in clause 10 (b) we provide for that opportunity. I also want to remind the hon. member that we do live in a free economy and there is nothing to prevent labour, management or all other sectors of the community from getting together and working out a solution of their problems.
Amendment (Mr. Carter) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 51.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, we do not seem to be having too much success in our endeavours to improve the bill. However, I am sure the amendment I intend to move now will receive much more support from the other side of the house than has been the case so far. In fact, the minister has already expressed his endorsation of the spirit of this amendment.
It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is one grave weakness in this bill. This measure establishes a productivity council which is going to have at its disposal a vast amount of information. It should have a very thorough knowledge of the subjects with which it will be dealing, and yet there is no provision in this bill for this knowledge that has been gathered coming back to this house or even to the government in the form of recommendations. I feel this is a very serious omission. With that in mind, I should like to move:
That the clause be amended by adding the following as paragraph (c):
"(c) make recommendations which are deemed necessary to give effect to any of the objects described in this section."


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Unfortunately, I have been detained on very urgent business this afternoon but I am glad I have arrived back in time to support this very sensible amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timmins. I thought the reasons he gave for the amendment were quite valid and substantial, in view of the fact that this council will have this mass of information. In a sense, it will have information at its fingertips in the same fashion as a royal commission. I

cannot see why this council, in view of its close association with the facts, should not have the power to make recommendations to the government in much the same way as the royal commission on transportation would do. I, therefore, support this amendment and if the government does not see fit to accept it I should like to hear the minister's explanation because the hon. member for Timmins rather intimated the minister had accepted it in principle.


Michael Starr: The hon. member should not take the word of the hon. member for Timmins.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like the minister to inform the committee why such an amendment is not acceptable, and why a council like this which is obtaining all this information should be denied the opportunity to make recommendations. Why has it not the same right as that given to royal commissions?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am inclined to agree with some of the things the hon. member has said, but I am not able to follow all that he has said. Does he suggest that unless this amendment is passed this means that in some way all the information which the council will have will just have to remain inactive and passive? I am sure the minister will be able to explain that that is not the case.


Lionel Chevrier: In connection with this
amendment which has just been moved I think the committee should recall the statement that was made by the Prime Minister during the course of the debate, and give heed and consideration to it. Yesterday, at page 750 of Hansard, the Prime Minister is reported as saying this:
I shall have more to say after the house has had the benefit of the opinions of hon. members in connection with this matter. I know we shall welcome any ideas or suggestions that may lead to any improvement in the bill, providing those suggestions are not of such a nature as would, in effect, constitute the council as a policy-making body with any control over the government. This, after all, would simply be applied socialism, and we, believing in private enterprise, will not accept suggestions of that type. But if there are views or ideas that will contribute to the strengthening of the objective and powers of the council or which in any way, in the opinion of the government, add to or strengthen the likelihood of attaining the objectives we have in mind, we shall be most happy to have the benefit of those ideas.
I would say, in these circumstances, we have been submitting to the government a number of ideas which are constructive and are in the nature of the words used by the Prime Minister last night. The Prime Minister is now coming into the chamber, and I ask him if this amendment is not of the kind and character that he had in mind last evening. It does not change the nature of

the clause but it does expand it. It certainly could not do any harm. In view of what the Prime Minister has said, I suggest to him and those who sit with him that this amendment be accepted.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has correctly quoted what the Prime Minister said yesterday. However, in looking at this amendment I want to refer again to clause 10. It does not limit the work of the council in respect of any recommendations. This clause says that without limiting the generality of the foregoing the council may in furtherance of its objects, foster and promote, and then there is a list of things.
As I pointed out before, there is nothing in this clause that forbids the council making recommendations to the federal government if it feels the federal government can be of some help. The council can make recommendations to anyone else. We feel that within the provisions of the bill the productivity council can make recommendations and this amendment, therefore, does not make any change at all.


George James McIlraith: Does the minister interpret clause 10 as meaning that the council can make recommendations on policy matters?


Michael Starr: The hon. member is straying away again, and we will have to bring him back into the corral. I shall have to repeat everything I have said. With the co-operation of labour and other interested groups it will be the duty of this council to work out the problems of efficiency and higher productivity, taking into consideration the human element. Most certainly they will make recommendations to industry, to labour and to the government or anyone they feel needs to participate in bringing about its objectives.
Business of the House


George James McIlraith: I think the minister chose a very apt word in describing this clause. It is very much a corral, and that is exactly what he has done to this productivity council. He has a good idea here in setting up the productivity council, but he is rendering it powerless to do the kind of job that it would otherwise be able to do in making industry in this country more efficient by limiting the powers in clause 10 unduly and improperly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You put sheep in a corral.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what we will be doing tomorrow and Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, we will continue to study Bill No. C-52 in the committee stage, followed by supplementary estimates. Depending on the progress made tomorrow I will announce the business for Friday. If this bill is completed and the supplementary estimates are finished, on Friday we will have the continuation of the resolution stage of the measure dealing with veterans' pensions, and then the resolution dealing with the agricultural development program.


Lionel Chevrier: Could we have some indication of what the house will be doing on Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is unfinished of that program on Friday will be carried forward to Monday.


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


		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
:		
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 15, 1960