1960-02-26

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.

[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 report to the house on the situation on the border between the United Arab Republic and Israel which, according to the press, is deteriorating and bids fair to become alarming.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The Leader of the Opposition gave notice of his intention to ask this question. We have noted with some concern the reports of troop concentrations and similar developments along the borders between Israel and the United Arab Republic. Although there have been no actual armed clashes in the last few days, one cannot altogether exclude the possibility of a worsening of the situation. I think, however, the latest events, as so often in the past, are due in large measure to the apprehensions which each side has of the other's intentions.
I know the Leader of the Opposition will join with me in expressing a cautious hope that if reason and cool judgment prevail, the present difficulties can be surmounted. I do not think I can go further than express that hope and trust that the situation will not worsen but will be alleviated.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this morning on the orders of the day with regard to the dangerous situation in the Sinai peninsula. Would the Prime Minister advise this house whether Canada will take particular interest and a definite position with respect to the right of all ships to enter the port of Elath in Israel, which is surrounded by three countries?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is asking a hypothetical question. There has been no foundation laid for the statement that ships are being excluded from that port, as far as I have seen.


Harold Edward Winch: There has been a foundation laid for it both by statements in the press and by the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the concentration of forces in the Sinai peninsula, which is the only entrance to the port of Elath in Israel. This is, therefore, a most important issue not only to us but to Israel.



WEST GERMANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister care to comment on the U.P.I. report from Bonn that the Bonn government announced today that West Germany's Atlantic pact allies were notified of this country's plan to seek supply bases in Spain about a year ago?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be proper or appropriate to make any observations on a press dispatch. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) dealt with this matter and pointed out that the question was now being examined with our allies in NATO. I will go no further nor make further comment than to say that it is receiving that attention.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister make inquiries in order to find out whether Canada was aware that Germany was endeavouring to obtain supply depots in Spain? This question was not answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Frankly, I would say that Canada did not have knowledge of such intention.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External

Inquiries of the Ministry Affairs may I direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the hearings now before congress on measures which may jeopardize the government's joint production sharing program, and in particular the efforts made by Canadair to obtain for its CL-44 a share of the air freight market in the United States, has the government made any representations in Washington in connection with this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously a question of which notice should be given, and I will take the question as notice and have it answered on the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works; I am sorry I have not had the opportunity to give him notice. Has the minister seen a report in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that metropolitan Toronto may request that land held by the dominion-provincial partnership be sold at a profit and the proceeds used to finance projects in other areas? If so, can the minister say whether he has received any request to this effect?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question is no, and the answer is no to the second part.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister taken notice of a report in the newspapers that yesterday the premier of Ontario said he is willing to have Ontario take its share in the construction of the bridge between Ottawa and Hull, but that he believed the government at Ottawa should take the lead and call the governments together to discuss the matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not notice that dispatch, but I would say that conversations have been taking place between the premier of Ontario and myself in this regard. He has stated that the province of Ontario would be prepared to provide a share of the cost. I

have also been in communication with the premier of Quebec, who has taken the same attitude.
So far the discussions have been informal, to arrive at least at a general agreement; and I hope that shortly, with the consent of the provinces and the municipalities particularly affected, a meeting might be held for the purpose of discussing the plans for the project in general. When that course has been followed, the necessary consideration will be given to the assumption of a share of the cost of building such a bridge by each of the levels of government.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister not a supplementary question but one which arises out of his mention of the name of Premier Frost. Has the right hon. gentleman's attention been directed to the indictment made last night by Premier Frost of the government's tight money policy?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, again the answer is no.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister give the house the latest figures of unplaced applicants for jobs?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not that figure available at the moment.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingate):: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Could the minister give us the regional breakdown of the dominion bureau of statistics figures for which the general figure was given in the release of February 17, so it would be available for the debate later this day?



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for failing to give him notice, but it is because

I have only just received this telegram which was handed to me. Has the minister received a telegram from W. L. Huestis, secretary of the Cape Breton district command, Canadian Legion, to the following effect:
Your telegram of February twenty fifth still conflicts with what is actually happening at naval base. Fifty to fifty-five more veterans due for lay-off today, these men have been given no chance to reclassify to permanent numbers as labourers. We still request that they be employed pending an investigation of our claim.
The telegram is signed by the secretary. Would the minister consider delaying the lay-off of these men while an investigation is being considered, and would he also take steps to have the regulations corrected so as to prevent what appears to be a serious injustice to men who fought in defence of democracy and of Canada?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associaie Minister of National Defence):: Since the question of personnel comes under my supervision, I will be very glad to investigate the matter which has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Kootenay West. May I assure him that at no time will there be any slight against veterans, and that this government will always take the greatest care to protect the rights of those who fought for our country during the last two wars.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to thank the minister for his forthright and welcome statement.



REPORTED MOVEMENT OF CANADIAN SCIENTISTS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the alarming drain of Canadian scientists to the United States, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of yesterday? Can the Prime Minister say whether anything is being done to provide more favourable employment opportunities in Canada for these highly trained scientists, who are greatly required for the development of our country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due respect to the hon. member, it seems to me that is a continuing problem and the question might better be put on the order paper. There is no urgency or immediate incident the hon. member cites that changes the character of the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I suggest that this question is in the same position as questions relating to unemployment figures in this country, namely that one can raise these questions only when the figures become available. The figures have
Inquiries of the Ministry just been made public. In my opinion they show an alarming exodus of Canadian scientists to the United States. I believe it is a proper question to direct to the Prime Minister, and that the house is entitled to an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Tho hon. member, in my view, has not indicated that there is a change which takes the question into the category of urgency. It is a broad question and, it seems to me, would be more properly placed on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to say whether these alarming figures are accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would refer to what Beauchesne has said about the practice in asking questions he would discover that this kind of question is not permitted, because it is simply a question to verify a newspaper report.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to table the correspondence with the minister of agriculture of Manitoba regarding hog and egg deficiency payments, about which I asked the other day.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I am not quite sure what correspondence the hon. member is referring to. If it is the correspondence which was tabled in the Manitoba house, I have requested the consent of Manitoba to table it here, and as soon as a favourable reply is received I will do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might explain to the minister that the correspondence for which I asked the other day was all the correspondence exchanged on these two subjects between the minister of agriculture of Manitoba and the Minister of Agriculture in this house. I understand from the newspapers that some correspondence was tabled in the Manitoba legislature, and it is hard, therefore, to see what objection there could be to tabling it immediately here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I indicated yesterday or the day before, when the hon. member made his request, that I had no objection whatever to tabling this correspondence, but I thought I would have to follow the usual form and ask the consent of the Manitoba government, which I have done.

Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister do that by some method other than slow freight?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This matter will have to be pursued in the committee where the documents are to be used. This is taking the form of a debate, and I cannot allow it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege which it seems to me affects every hon. member of this house. The Minister of Agriculture has told us that this correspondence has already been made public in another place. It is correspondence between this government and another government, and it does seem to me that for the convenience of members of this house the minister might show some courtesy to this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have not seen any question of privilege in what the hon. member has said.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Special services-
615. Payments to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1959-60 and 1960-61 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 1st day of December, 1959, to the 30th day of April, 1960, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $15,000,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to address myself to two particular points in what I am going to say this morning. The first of these is in reply to the speech which was made on Wednesday last when the Minister of Labour spoke at the opening of the proceedings of the committee on this item, and in which he attempted, it seemed to me, to minimize the whole problem of unemployment in a way that is not justified by the facts.
I feel I must lay a foundation for the second part of what I want to say, so I shall deal as objectively, briefly and summarily as possible with what the minister had to say in this context through the second part of what I have to say is something to which I attach even more importance. I intend to ask the government, very briefly again, to consider further the admirable and constructive suggestions which were made by my friend the hon. member for Essex East on behalf of the official opposition in this matter, but I intend in addition to make a number of other suggestions which will be directed primarily to the very much more serious regional problem which exists in the four Atlantic provinces, and the serious regional

problem which exists in that part of the province of Quebec east of the island of Montreal, where the problem is very much more serious than it is in other parts of the country.
I believe the public will be very disappointed indeed with what we heard from the minister the other day. What we had from the minister was not one single constructive suggestion for dealing with the existing problem. What we had-


Mr. Grafftey:: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, sir, the proceedings of the committee might be expedited somewhat if the honourable and juvenile member from Brome-Missisquoi could just wait and make his own speech.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, once more the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-and they all do it, one after the other on the front benches opposite-has referred to my youth. Now, I am elected to this House of Commons just as they are. References such as these are perhaps one of the reasons they lost the support of the young people of Canada. On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that if in the future they have remarks to make about what I have to say to them, keep my youth out of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy indeed to withdraw; I withdraw any reference to the hon. gentleman's youth. My observation was obviously made only in envy, in any case.
I was saying, sir, when the hon. member gave us this interesting interlude, that I think the public will be greatly disappointed with the unconstructive attitude of the minister. But what I thought was even more serious, and what I think is deserving of a serious and sober reply which I intend to try to give, is that not only was there in the minister's speech no attempt whatsoever to deal with the present and with the problem which is now with us, but he made a most extraordinary excursion into history, into very distant history and, I may say, into very bad history. He seemed to be trying to prove two contrary theses, the one that unemployment was not serious and the other that it had always been serious. Now, I do not think myself that either of these theses was proved, or that this doctrine was advanced at all by the arguments which the minister presented.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would not want to leave the impression he has left in relation to what I said on Wednesday, when he says I did not treat this as a serious problem. I did, and I now say that unemployment is a serious problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister was allowed to proceed on Wednesday not only without interruptions, but also for a considerable time longer than is usually allowed to hon. members. If the minister has any exception to take to anything I have to say I wonder whether he would be good enough, in order to enable me to make my remarks consecutively, to make a note of his objections and bring them up at the end of my speech when I shall be very happy indeed to deal with them. I am trying to deal with this very serious subject, which I suggest, sir, notwithstanding the seriousness of the matter, that was discussed here yesterday, is even more serious and more important to far more people in this country. I am trying to deal with this subject seriously and consecutively, and it seems to me that it would make for much better debate if I and other members were allowed to do that.


Mr. Lambert:: Some day perhaps you will try to do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have always sought to treat hon. members opposite with courtesy and to obey the rules of this house. I have never gone on interrupting any hon. member who was speaking and who showed any objection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intend to go on in just that way. I should like to remind the committee of what the minister said on Wednesday last. As found at page 1404 of Hansard he said:
There has been a great deal of talk to the effect that unemployment is something that has just happened recently, that it is something that has been brought about since the Conservative government came into office. Let us look at the picture; let us go back and look at what the dominion bureau of statistics figures show.
That, sir, is precisely what I am going to do. I am going to do this because I think if we look at the whole picture, and not just bits and pieces of that picture, we will see that there is something new about the present situation. I do not deny, and nobody in his senses would deny, that there is always some unemployment, that everyone who is able and willing to work is not employed all the time. But what I am going to show, and I think successfully, is that after the war until 1958
Supply-Labour
there was in fact a situation in which there was no continuing problem of unemployment, except a seasonal problem; and I concede that there were a few years in which that seasonal problem was the cause of anxiety.
I am going to say something about that, too, but I do say that from the beginning of 1958 up to and including the present time there have been two new elements in the problem that were not there before. There is the continued high level of unemployment in the summer months, and there is a very much more serious accentuation of unemployment in certain regions of the country. It is just not good enough, as the speech from the throne did, to refer to this as "the recurring problem of seasonal unemployment". If it were only that, even though it might be much more serious than it had been before, it would not be as serious as in fact it is.
Before the minister published the last lot of figures he edified the public by appearing on the television program, "The Nation's Business", on February 4. I might say, sir, that his script was the kind that we are accustomed to from the Prime Minister but which we had never had before from the Minister of Labour; and I do not think it was worthy of the minister, because we are accustomed to feel in the house that the minister does pay some attention to these problems and does take them seriously and make some effort to find out whether what he is saying is accurate before he says it.
This was a document, a propaganda sheet, carefully calculated to give an impression quite different from the impression that all the facts would give. In that speech the minister said, as found on page 2 of the text I have here:
We piloted-
I would draw your attention to this.
We piloted this country through a recession-
Through, mind you, sir.
-which represented a high point in the climbing cycle of unemployment which has been evident since the early postwar period.
I do not know precisely what that high-flown language means, but I do know what the first phrase, "We piloted this country through a recession" means. In other words, and the minister said this specifically elsewhere, he said the recession is over. I have been reminded that, as found at the top of page 2, the minister said, "Today the recession is over". I am coming back to that again, but both in the house the other day and on television the minister went back to 1936 and in the house, as found at pages 1404 and 1405, he gave a lot of figures and said:
Let us look at the situation back in 1936 when the hon. member and his government were in office.

Supply-Labour
He was referring to the hon. member for Essex East.
I am not going to look at any figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics for a time when unemployment is at its peak, which is in February or March. Let us look at the figure in June.
Why did he look at the figure in June? I will tell you, sir. I asked him a question just after that. I asked him if the basis of these figures was the same as it is now, and the minister said that he did not know but he assumed it was. Of course it was not, and any minister of labour who had been minister for three years of unemployment should have known that it was not. This sampling process was only started in 1945, and those figures for the depression period were arrived at by an entirely different process that is described in releases issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, which one would have assumed that any minister of labour would have read.
But notwithstanding that I am quite prepared to admit that a statistical retrospective attempt was made to make these things comparable, and with the permission of the committee I should like to put the figures on Hansard for the whole period. These figures are as at June 1 or the nearest date thereto, and cover the whole period from 1931 to 1959. These are figures taken from the Canadian Statistical Review, and next to each figure is given the percentage of the labour force unemployed in each year. If I could have the permission of the committee and thus save the committee's time by not having to read them I should like, when I have finished using the document, to have it inserted in Hansard at this point.


The Chairman:: The hon. member remembers that the other day-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This, sir, is simply part of my speech. If the Chairman feels that I must read it I will have to read it, but this has been done many times. The minister did similar things.


Jacques Flynn: I should like to point out that the other day I mentioned that permission to print any document in Hansard when requested in committee should be confirmed by the house. I think we can take it that we can ask permission from the Speaker in the report of the committee at the end' of our sitting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We never did that before.


Jacques Flynn: That is the sense of the ruling I made the other day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I never heard of that in 25 years.


Lionel Chevrier: This is a new ruling. You are making new rulings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite prepared to ask for consent in order to avoid any procedural difficulties, because I should like to be able to proceed. I have a good deal more that I want to say.


Jacques Flynn: I will not make a ruling on this point if the committee is unanimous and if the document is not too important; but, as I said the other day, I take it that leave to have a document printed in Hansard should be granted by the house itself and not by the committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, you have confirmed a ruling you made the other day, which is a very important one and which in my view is a new ruling, namely that when permission is sought in committee to have a document printed in Hansard or attached to Hansard as an appendix that can only be done if the request is ratified by the full house with the Speaker in the chair. Perhaps that is a ruling sanctioned by usage and tradition, but so far as I can recollect it is an entirely new ruling and a very important one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite prepared in any case-


Jacques Flynn: I realize that the document which the hon. member is asking permission to have printed in Hansard is not very extensive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no.


Jacques Flynn: In a case like that I do not think I need to make a ruling applying to the present instance, but with respect to what I said the other day I might inform the committee that I discussed the matter with the Speaker and we agreed that when the report of the committee was made to the house, permission would then be requested, if necessary, to have any documents reproduced in Hansard.


Mr. Churchill:: Go ahead and read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that this document shows that from June 1, 1931 through every June 1 until 1936, the percentage of the labour force unemployed never fell below 11.6. On June 1, 1933 it was 19.3. Then in the years after the change of government in 1935 there was a gradual, although very disappointing, diminution. One must remember two things. One is that in the early thirties we went through the greatest depression in the history of the western world. That depression was by no means over in the period after the Liberal government came into office in 1935.
[For table above referred to, see Hansard, March 1, p. 1590.]


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then you were partly responsible for the depression?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I would say we were partly responsible, or at least my predecessors were, because I had no connection whatever with that government. I was not even in Ottawa at that time. I did not come to Ottawa until the figures began markedly to improve. I do not suggest there was any connection between those two events although, as a matter of fact, there was probably as much connection-and in my opinion more-as there is between certain events and the claims made by some hon. gentlemen now sitting on the treasury benches.
What I am saying is this, Mr. Chairman. As hon. members know, apart from Mr. Bennett's famous claim that he would cure unemployment or perish in the attempt, I do not recall in that period-and I recall it fairly well-any responsible public man who claimed or even suggested that it was the responsibility of the government to maintain a policy of full employment. That was not claimed by the Liberals in 1935 at all, as anyone may look up their literature and find out. This conception of a policy of full employment was a conception which developed among college professors in the thirties but was not taken up, as far as I know, by any responsible political party until the late years of the war.
I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that from 1945 on there was only one occasion until the present government came into office when the June figure rose about 3 per cent. That was on June 19, 1954 when it was 3.4 per cent. But in June of 1958 it was 5.2 per cent and in June of 1959 it was 3.7 per cent, and that at a time which this government claims was the period when they had piloted or practically piloted this country out of a recession. I say this demonstrates clearly that there is something new in this situation. There is a marked difference in the summer figures.
It is also interesting that the minister, in his speech the other day, should have shifted suddenly from June to March. When he got to 1946, when there were figures available for March, he then shifted to March and, as reported at pages 1405 and 1406 of Hansard, he said this:
As to 1946, we will come in this instance to the present part of the year. In March, 1946, 4.7 per cent of the labour force was unemployed.
Then he went on to give a number of other figures, including the figure for March 1954, which was 6.1 per cent. That circumstance is rather curious, because in his television performance he said the figure for March, 1954
Supply-Labour
was 7.4 per cent. The other day he said it was 6.1 per cent. As a matter of fact the figure given in the television performance is clearly wrong. It happens to be the figure not for March, 1954 but for March 1955. Maybe it was just a typographical error, but that kind of typographical error should not be allowed to creep into the great political broadcast made by the government on "The Nation's Business".


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was Mr. Grosart's mistake.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might also suggest that the reason the figure of 7.4 was used in that television production is very clear. It was put in there because that was the highest figure for any month since the war up until this government came into office. I refer to that figure of 7.4 per cent for the month of March, 1955. I have gone over the figures month by month; I did so only this morning, and that was the highest figure since the war until this government came into office. That is why it was picked and put on television, in order to try to create an impression that is not in accordance with the facts, namely that things were just as bad at some other time.
What happened in March, 1955? In the winter of 1954-55 the government of which I was then a member was seriously concerned about the level of seasonal unemployment during the winter. A series of meetings with the provincial governments had already been arranged at that time. That was a series of several meetings, not just one and then a number of telegrams after it. At the first of those meetings the question of unemployment assistance for persons who no longer qualified for unemployment insurance was raised, and the government of which my friend the hon. member for Essex East was a distinguished member brought to that conference a proposal that we would pay half the cost of welfare payments under a statute which we undertook to bring before parliament and to ask parliament to enact. That was what was done in 1955, and it was done by the prime minister of that day and by my friend the hon. member for Essex East.
The minister said the other day that we did nothing, that we ignored this problem. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the unemployment assistance measure which was enacted by the St. Laurent government, and which was administered first by my friend the hon. member for Essex East, is providing more than twice as much money for the assistance of the unemployed to deal with this unemployment problem as is this winter works program.


Mr. Benidickson:: That is for relief, not work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is for relief for people who do not get unemployment insurance.


William Moore Benidickson: And no work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And no work. But what is more startling is this. They estimated that they would need only $20.9 million in 195960, but they now estimate they are going to spend $41.8 million before March 31. That is also shown in the blue book at page 352, if anybody wants to look it up.


Mr. Monieith (Perth):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Of course he realizes that all ten provinces are in the unemployment assistance agreement at this time, whereas they were not all in it under the former regime.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and I am very glad they are. I am very glad that at last the government of Quebec has seen fit to provide for the unfortunate people who are unemployed in that province the same kind of assistance which was given to other provinces, and which was voted freely in this house over the objection of many hon. gentlemen from that province who used to sit on the other side of the house. I am very grateful to the Minister of Health and Welfare for reminding me of that point.
But I might say that what is really important is not whether this covers ten provinces or whether it covers nine provinces. What is really important is that we expect next year, after the recession is over, to require $38,500,000 as the federal 50 per cent of the cost of unemployment relief over and above unemployment insurance. If that fact does not underline the continuing nature of this problem, I do not know what does. When my hon. friend from Essex East was minister and administering this same legislation, amounts like that were not required. Why? Because there was not the unemployment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think it is only fair to say-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, perhaps the minister would make his own speech.


Jay Waldo Monteith: -that the act was
changed by this government to permit more to be paid.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can correct me at the end of my speech if he thinks his corrections will add much. There was one small change made.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A very important one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, there was a very important one. There was a certain minimum that the federal government did not share in because it was regarded as social assistance and not unemployment assistance, and that was a very sensible provision. The main beneficiary of this change was the government of Ontario and the treasury of Ontario. It is like everything else this government does. It is just like the winter works program, they provide the most for those who need it the least and the least for those who need it the most. That was exactly the effect of the change, and the amount in money involved was not very great. Nobody asked for it, as far as I have ever been able to discover, and I asked questions about it. Maybe Mr. Frost asked for it secretly, but I have never found out that even one provincial premier asked for it. It was done gratuitously by this government, when they were turning down requests from the poorer provinces which really needed help. I think you could not have a better measure of the real seriousness of this problem than the very large amount that the government is asking for unemployment assistance after the recession is over, according to them.
The minister told us in his television performance the other day that in December, 1959 the dominion bureau of statistics figure for unemployment was 5.9 per cent of the labour force.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Van Horne:: I wish only to say a few words this morning after listening to that bird brained jack in the box from Twillingate. Not content with trying to classify Canadians as first and second class citizens when he was a minister, and not content with opposing $110 a month old age pension for couples, he now wants youth to leave the House of Commons. No wonder the people in the maritime provinces do not take him seriously. He is taken seriously nowhere,

but he is a big asset to the Conservative party, because immediately, wherever he opens his mouth, it is worth thousands of votes to us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why don't you let me speak, then?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The real issue before this house is whether this nation, or any nation so constituted and endowed by the Creator with our lands, our forests, our waters, our mines, can continue to accept as normal the irreplaceable loss of production and the misery and hardship ensuing from the fact that each year one million Canadians are out of work because work is not available for them. That is the issue before the house, not the mumbo-jumbo of figures from that jack in the box which mean nothing. We have people out of work, and the important thing is to see that next winter these people have work and that remedial action is taken now to alleviate the suffering which these people are enduring.
I have never listened to such poppy cock as from that Bonavista-Twillingate fellow. He should remember the people of his own riding and be more sensible when he comes into this house, instead of trying to accuse people of all sorts of things.
My remarks are going to be very brief. I merely want to bring up one or two important points. This amount for training is an exceptionally good measure. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talked of all sorts of things and never mentioned one positive idea of his own that this government should do to alleviate unemployment. Regardless of what the situation is today, there is no disputing the fact that this government has done more to relieve unemployment than any government in the history of Canada. He is amazed that hon. members like myself can get up and ask the government to do things. This is not the old trained seal Liberal government, where members were told what to do. The Conservative government is a democratic government and we are a democratic party. One of the things we do in this party and chamber is work, and when we have ideas we bring them forward.
I remember in the old days when I was in the opposition. Some Liberal member would get up to speak, and right off the bat a minister would turn round and tell him to sit down and he would sit down. I can also remember a few years ago when those people were over here, when some minister would turn round and everybody would do as he signaled. I well remember all those things. I can tell you one thing more, that this problem would not exist to the extent it
Supply-Labour
exists today had the Liberal party performed its duty when it was in power during the last 22 years, up to 1957.
As I say, I would like to make only one or two very brief comments which have to do with one or two suggestions for relieving unemployment, especially in Restigouche-Mada-waska where lumbering is the main industry, and where people depend for a living on the woods. In my opinion tight money is one of the main causes of unemployment in the country today. I can recall when the Liberals introduced tight money in 1956. I can recall the premier of my province, Hon. Hugh John Flemming, and how he reacted when he took to the stump and did what we all did then. We criticized tight money as a vise which was squeezing and crippling the economy of the maritime provinces. I can recall that it was the premier of New Brunswick who developed the expression that if you have ten children and only two who are constipated-for example, if Ontario and Quebec have inflationary tendencies and need corrective measures-why give the same dose of castor oil to each of the ten children? That problem has not changed, sir.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Wait till I am through, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am thinking of something I should say but won't. I submit this in all seriousness. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate thinks no one is taking this seriously in the maritime provinces, all he as to do is go to Restigouche-Madawaska and see that this government has done more for my riding in two years than all the other governments since confederation. I can recall that the hon. member for Essex East and the ex-member for Launier would come to my riding and visit the wharves and look up and say, "You need a new wharf". They would promise a new wharf, and that was done for 40 years, but we never got the wharf.
We made a set of commitments in 1956, and if hon. members come down to my riding now they will see how serious this government is about carrying out those public works which were promised by the Liberal government and forgotten as soon as the election was over.
We need tight money in the maritime provinces about as much as we need a hole in the head. In past six months the people of my riding-little businesses, not big businesses-automobile dealers and small lumber

Supply-Labour
it might be best to buy the people there one way tickets that would take them out of the provinces because there was no opportunity for them there. Of course I got up and said that a Liberal vote in the ensuing election meant a one way ticket out of the maritime provinces.
I am convinced today that unless we do more in terms of creating employment opportunities in the maritimes the recommendation of the Gordon commission will have to receive more serious consideration. There are people in my riding and throughout the maritimes generally who simply cannot eke a living out of the marginal land and who are unable to find jobs because of the lack of opportunities existing there. To bring into effect a plan under which we would buy tickets for those people to move them away from their homes would be the end, as far as I am concerned, but that will be the only possible solution unless we take more concrete steps to put our people to work. This can be done and will be done, but it will not be accomplished by our sitting around here listening to hon. members spout figures as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did a few minutes ago, when he got all mixed up in the figures he presented.
The other day I heard the Minister of Labour speak of his encounter with an employee in Ontario who said he was not looking for work because he was receiving unemployment insurance. I know, as I am sure all hon. members do, that there are bound to be abuses in the unemployment insurance system, just as there are bound to be abuses in any system. But are we going to abolish credit simply because the odd person does not pay his bills quickly enough? If we start abolishing and curtailing all good things because of the occasional abuse we will undermine our entire system.
Another thing that has to be remembered is this. There is only one way in which the vast majority of people in constituencies like mine can eke out an existence in the winter time, and that is to go to the woods. There are bound to be abuses, but those abuses must be corrected and the blame for abuses can often be placed on the employer, just as much if not more than on the employee, and in some cases the blame can be placed on the unemployment insurance commission itself.
The problem in the maritimes is rendered more difficult because of the fact that not everyone is young or strong enough to work in the woods in the winter. I was visiting a camp there three weeks ago. It was interesting to watch the men return to the camp at supper time, about six o'clock,

carrying their axes and chain saws. Those chain saws weigh 40 pounds, and it is not an easy job to handle them for 10 hours a day. You must realize that these men receive only $4 a cord, and at the end of a day they have only earned $10 or $12 in some cases. Out of their wages they must feed a horse, pay board and buy gas and oil for the chain saw. There is a tendency now to establish cabins at the camp site and many men have their families with them, and this is an added cost.
While I was in the woods I went to one jobber and asked him if there were abuses in the unemployment insurance system. He said that it depended on how you looked at it, that the odd fellow would come to you and point out that because the cut of wood would be finished in about a month's time he would prefer to be laid off then in order that he could go out and line up another job. This means that the man who has the contract will get wood cut, in any event. There is no question but that the work will be completed. Sometimes the odd little abuse is bound to creep in, but we cannot for one moment curtail or deny benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act because there happens to be the odd abuse. These benefits provide food for the families of unemployed workers. I often complained when I sat in the opposition-and I have increased my complaints since I have been on this side of the house-that unemployment insurance payments should cover all people who are out of work for as long as work is unavailable, because a family keeps on eating whether or not a worker has unemployment insurance stamps in his book.
One matter that bothers me greatly is that one man will have only 14 stamps and will be denied unemployment insurance benefits, but another who has 15 or more stamps will receive payments. Often a man will have only 14 stamps because there were no jobs available to him in connection with which he would receive these stamps. He may have been busy picking potatoes, and no stamps are given for that. He may have been cutting lumber on his own lot to sell to the pulp mills, and no stamps are given for that. He may have been engaged in other work for which no stamps were given. And when winter comes with deep snow he is faced with a situation in which he must watch his children walk to school without breakfast.
One feature of the present item in the estimates which I greatly appreciate is the fact that we are now training many more

people lor specialized jobs. That may be a key to the solution of many of the problems that exist in ridings such as mine. We also must recognize the fact that not everyone can go out in the woods and work. A man over 50 years of age cannot handle a chain saw all day. Indeed, I doubt very much if I could. In the days when I worked in the woods I used a broad axe, and it was a good man who could cut a cord of wood a day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You could handle a buzz saw.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, I could handle a saw. The hon. member who interrupts is another who is trying to be funny at the expense of people who are suffering of the lack of unemployment insurance benefits and job opportunities. It is a disgrace to this house the way some hon. members in the opposition try to make political hay out of the misery and suffering of the people of the maritime provinces, and particularly those in ridings like mine and the unemployed in all parts of Canada.
I can recall saying at the NATO conference in Paris a few years ago that as long as the lack of money prevents young people from developing the talents that God gave them and from pursuing the vocations for which they have an aptitude, we as parliamentarians have failed the people we have been elected to serve. When you consider that these young people are growing up in places where their fathers cannot even get unemployment insurance, let alone jobs, how do you expect them to be able to go to college? The New Brunswick government gives the colleges in my riding $12,500 a year; that is the grant they get. If they were three miles across the border in Quebec these colleges would receive hundreds of thousands of dollars to help out.


Mr. Keays:: That is the place.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is the place, don't kid yourself about that. Education-and this is what we are dealing with this morning- is the key; vocational training is the key. We must make training available to these young people coming out of school so that in five years from now or three years from now or one year from now, we will not be confronted with another million people out of work in this country. This nation cannot endure, this nation cannot afford, this loss of production, not to speak of the suffering and misery represented in crippled homes strewn across Canada, and especially in ridings such as mine where every unfavourable wind, such as the tight money that I have been just talking about, cripples us even more. This problem 79951-0-94J
Supply-Labour
is very serious in Canada today, and I ask this government to take the steps I have outlined the other day and today. Let us get ahead with our program; let us do the things we set out to do; let us get down to brass tacks and tackle this problem and lick it so that next year we will have to do as West Germany is doing, namely import 100,000 people to fill jobs in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question before he takes his seat? He told us what the premier of New Brunswick said about tight money in 1956 and in 1957. Can he tell us what the premier of New Brunswick is saying about tight money now that it is a great deal tighter?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is saying the same thing I said this morning; it is causing unemployment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is he saying it to this government?


Harold Edward Winch: I am not able, nor do I intend to try, to compete with the previous speaker either in voice or emotion. I am very grateful that the opportunity has been granted to me to speak on the issue which is now before us, primarily the winter works program but which by unanimous consent of the house has been enlarged to a discussion of the problem of unemployment.
It is a strange but extraordinary fact, Mr. Chairman, that before men and women are nominated, or after they are nominated, they are the most wonderful people in the world, but once they are elected they are damned if they do and they are damned if they do not. For some reason or other, for a long time there has been developing the psychology of running down the status of parliament and of the members of parliament. I was therefore most happy to read the reaction of editorial writers and columnists to a recent and continuing debate in this house on the issue of capital punishment. The discussion and reaction, in my estimation, have done more than anything else in many years to bring the position of parliament and of members of parliament back to where it rightfully belongs.
This is my introduction to the question now before us. I think it would have been, and it would be now, a great thing if we had been able to discuss the problem of unemployment on the same basis and with the same result as we discussed the other matter because, important as the other matter is, this one is even more important.
I have no intention whatsoever, Mr. Chairman, of saying anything on charges and countercharges as between the government

Supply-Labour
and the official opposition on the responsibility for the problem. I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of saying anything whatsoever on recriminations between the government and the official opposition on this matter, nor of saying one word about the private feud between two Conservative members in this House of Commons. I want to deal with this question of unemployment.
I fully understand the approach of the Minister of Labour in the speech he made the last time this matter was under discussion. Naturally I understand that he, in his position on behalf of the government, puts up the best face possible. We also understand- I do, anyway-the pride he takes in the fact that when one compares the statistics of today with those of a year ago he finds there are more employed today than there were a year ago. But, Mr. Chairman, we have to take into consideration the normal increase in our population in Canada and the immigration into Canada. As prideful as the minister can be, and should be, over the increased employment, this increase as shown in statistics cannot help, nor mean anything to, the hundreds of thousands of unemployed today.
Sir, I am not going to bicker, as some of my friends in the official opposition do so much of, over numbers. I am concerned with the unemployed, irrespective of their numbers, and their numbers admittedly are very large. May I draw the attention of hon. members to something which has been ignored or evaded; namely the basic principle. The government supports free enterprise; the official opposition supports free enterprise. I think this is a moot and an honest question to put. Have they ever tried to answer to their own conscience as to why it is that under the system which they support Canada throughout its entire history has had full employment only when men and women were in uniform dying for Canada, when goods were produced in Canada for destruction; but when men and women want to live in Canada and have goods produced for use, we have unemployment?
There, sir, we have the greatest indictment of the economic system itself and of the individuals and parties that support the system. The record is conclusive, as I am certain the Minister of Labour will admit on reflection. It is a record of prosperity and full employment in war and insecurity for many in peace. No matter what the actual figure is, I will accept the Minister of Labour's own figure. The fact is that we are facing a serious unemployment situation today. Will the minister explain to the house and the people of Canada why we can mobilize completely to oppose an enemy off our shores,

but cannot mobilize completely to deal with the enemy of unemployment within our country?
I believe the hon. member for Essex East put it in slightly different words not too long ago. I say, that if there were an enemy force of 800,000 off our shores we would immediately mobilize completely to counteract that force and defeat the enemy. At a time of need in our own country why cannot the government, having the same authority and responsibility, mobilize all resources to defeat the enemy within our country?
In my estimation the problem of unemployment must be approached from two angles. We have first the short range or immediate situation, and then long range planning so as to ultimately win a victory over unemployment. Without question the short range situation is serious. I do not have the latest figures, but in the Globe and Mail of February 12 I read that jobless fund payments were up 86 per cent at the year end, and that payments from November through December increased from $17J million to $32J million. The situation is worse today.
It is indeed unfortunate-why, I do not know-that in this critical period of unemployment, seasonal if you want to call it that, the situation should have been made tougher for some of those who are now unemployed by the regulations. I have reference, of course, to the two matters that have now been referred by the Minister of Labour to the unemployment insurance advisory committee. But by way of illustration let me add another example involving our Canadian seamen, who sometimes have to work seven days a week and are entitled to overtime pay. They are not paid their overtime pay on board ship, but get it when the ship docks. They also get their holiday pay when the ship docks. I was absolutely amazed when I discovered that in British Columbia, seamen from ships laid up for the winter season cannot get unemployment insurance benefits because the holiday and overtime pay they earned on board ship are being regarded as payments at the termination of employment. I know of no situation involving any other category of workers where that sort of thing has taken place. That is adding to the number of difficulties. We will have more to say about that when the main estimates are being considered.	.
But I want to emphasize this fact. The Minister of Labour admits that there is a serious situation. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed, many of whom are not entitled to benefits. I believe that the immediate responsibility of the government,

either of its own volition or in co-operation with the provinces, is to make sure that nobody in this country goes hungry at this time, and that they do not lose their homes and personal effects. Never since the hungry thirties have I had so many visits from unemployed in Vancouver and in Ottawa, so many telephone calls in Vancouver and so many letters since I arrived here. Never since the hungry thirties have there been so many who have not been employed for months and who are having to sell their personal effects in order to eat, who are having to sell their homes in order to take care of their families. I say that since the hungry thirties I have not had so many calls and letters as I have been receiving in the last two months and am still receiving.
I say to the Minister of Labour and the government that they must be aware of the situation. All we are asking them to do is to utilize their power immediately, as they would against a foreign enemy, to deal with this vicious situation which is prevalent in Canada today and protect these people until long range plans can be put into effect. The government should protect the personal property and homes of these people so they will have sufficient at least to get by.
I ask the Minister of Labour whether that is not a reasonable request. I ask the Minister of Labour if that is not something he should be doing now, because people are suffering and are losing what it has taken them years to acquire. They cannot retain their homes and personal property because the mortgage and credit companies are taking possession. That is all I want to say about immediate planning requirements, because I do not know now I can add anything else.
But, Mr. Chairman, the main thing is long range planning to attack the continuing problem of unemployment. Let us not call it seasonal or unseasonal. We have always had the unemployed with us under the present and previous governments. From November through March we have always had this problem. Long range planning is required. I am very sorry to have to say this, but I think it is the absolute truth and has got to be said. The Conservatives now are no different from the Liberals before or the Conservatives before that. Their attitude to unemployment is still wishful thinking. What the Conservative government is doing today is the same that was done in the hungry thirties. In their view things will pick up in the spring; prosperity is around the corner.
Surely from 1929 until today they have learned that this is not the case. In the hungry thirties a Conservative leader said he
Supply-Labour
was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. All he did was to continue unemployment and blast his way into an earldom in the United Kingdom. We have seen with the Liberals and Conservatives over the years-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Relief camps.


Harold Edward Winch: -camps for single men, welfare and unemployment insurance. All that is good. But is it not time, from all that experience, for different action? We know that the only saviour of the Liberals and the Conservatives is war.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, that is not right.


Harold Edward Winch: Just look at the record. You were sunk in 1914 except for a war which saved you. You were sunk in 1939 and a war saved you. You were sunk again and Korea saved you. Except in those periods of war you have never in the history of Canada had full employment and full security. You have never had full employment and full security except when men died for Canada and goods were blown up. You never yet had it when men and women want to live for Canada and goods are to be used and consumed, not destroyed.
I ask the government to face the record and face the facts. Unemployment, unfortunately, has always been with us. We are just asking this question; can we not take care of the unemployment situation by immediate emergency action wherever and however it is required?	Then-and most importantcan we not fight this battle of unemployment by long term planning? That approach was tried in England about 11 years ago, and I think it worked. They had a system of industrial estates. They had a system of decentralization out of the major centres, and industrial workers and government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: An industrial council.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes; an industrial council. I was back in the United Kingdom only this last fall and was in the town where I was born. Ten years ago, in 1949, it was a small place called Harlow. Last fall old Harlow was still there, but there was new Harlow, ten times as large, as a result of planning by government, industry and labour.
Can we not give some thought to that type of planning? Why should Fernie, where the government knew for a year every coal mine was going to close, be left on its own? Why should Tsable river, where we know the last coal mine is going to close-and Tsable river is only a few miles from the city of Cumberland-be left on its own? Why is

Supply-Labour
it that these situations arise? They arise because there has been no planning, but just waiting and hoping for the best, and that things will work out.
In our highly industrialized and competitive economy we cannot resort to wishful thinking. We cannot just hope that things will work out for the best. We are now living in a scientific and a planning world. We ask whether this fact will not be accepted by the government. Changes have been made with regard to unemployment insurance, and that is an excellent thing. The winter works program is excellent in making some provision for 40,000 or 80,000 men. But we are not touching the continuing problem of unemployment.
Is it not time, Mr. Chairman, if we call ourselves responsible members of parliament, irrespective of party, that a different course be followed? If the Conservatives say they are a responsible government, is it not time that this question no longer be left to wishful thinking and haphazard legislation, action or contribution? The government supports agriculture in certain fields if it is in difficulties. The government supports the coal mines in the maritimes under certain circumstances when they are in difficulties. Year after year the government supports the gold mining industry if it is in difficulties. If that principle is correct, why should there not be a plan to keep industry operating in other fields of endeavour in order to keep men and women employed? If that plan was worked out on a national basis, under national planning, I personally feel that it would not cost too much money because of what could be saved from the unemployment insurance fund and what could be gained under the various taxes, direct and indirect. I feel that what is good for one area of the economy is good for the others, if it is done on a planned basis.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there are two things that must be done today. There must be emergency action in the field of unemployment and there must be planning on a long term basis. I am going to ask the Minister of Labour and the government if they will not face up to realities. I could say "face up to the failures of the past" but I am one who prefers to look to the future. The past is now behind us but the future is ahead. Can we not now face up to the realities, learn from the lessons of the past and really plan for the future in order to conquer this enemy, unemployment?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this to the government with its majority, its promises and what it says is its idealism. You will stand indicted-and up to now you

do stand indicted-in that you are prepared to mobilize Canada with its natural and human resources for war, but you will not do so for the people who want to live and work for Canada. We can say these things, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately we have not the power to do anything. All we can do is tell the government that we feel they should do these things. If they will at least try, as far as I am concerned they are going to have wholehearted, 100 per cent support and cooperation.
We as members of parliament, no matter where we sit, stand indicted when we have this unemployment situation as it is today and are not taking care of it. Let us face up to this issue so this can be said. I am just going to use the words I used when I concluded my speech in the external affairs debate. Let us by our thinking and by our action, as 265 men and women in parliament who by our thinking and our voting control the laws and the policies of Canada, face up to this issue so it can be said "we pass on to those who come after us a heritage that is greater and fuller because it passed through our hands".


Mr. Slogan:: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to participate in this debate on the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour. In my opinion the debate has already been far too extended, and much of the discussion which has taken place on this item could well have taken place when the regular estimates were presented to the house. My reason for rising is that there have been speakers in this debate who have brought in the potential unemployment at Elliot Lake, and at the same time they have brought in the question of the new nuclear research establishment at Whiteshell, which is in my constituency. Some have suggested that it would be in the interests of employment at Elliot Lake that this project be transferred to that place.
It is not my intention at this time to go into a debate upon the situation in the uranium industry and atomic research field in Canada. In the few remarks I have to make I am going to refer to the unemployment situation as it exists in Elliot Lake, and I would like to show this house that the relocation of this project could not in any way relieve that situation. During the past few days I have contained myself when I have listened to speakers in this house, when I have read about the speeches made in the Ontario legislature, when I have read the many press reports, when I have seen the splashes on television, and when I have listened to the misconceptions regarding this nuclear research centre.

First of all, before proceeding to that topic I might say that this government admits the seriousness of the unemployment situation, and we admit our concern about it. However, I notice that the dominion bureau of statistics weekly bulletin of February 19 states that there were 161,000 more people employed at mid-January this year than at the same time last year. It also states that the number of people seeking employment is 34,000 less this year than at the same period last year. Surely then, Mr. Chairman, the situation is not quite as black as has been presented in this house by some speakers in the opposition.
More particularly this item has to do with the winter works program, and may I say that in my constituency many of the municipalities have not taken advantage of some of the provisions of this item. However, we have had one or two instances where it has added to employment in my area, and I feel that as long as this measure is going to do something to alleviate the seasonal unemployment situation during the winter months, then it should have the unqualified support of all hon. members of this house.
On October 1, 1959 the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced at a press conference in Winnipeg that because the research facilities at Chalk River had expanded to the point where no further expansion was warranted at that establishment, it was desirable to establish a second research centre for Canada. He announced at that time that because of the fact that Manitoba lacked any major federal research project, that nuclear research establishment would be located in Manitoba. Atomic Energy of Canada officials investigated various sites in Manitoba, and on January 19 it was announced by Atomic Energy of Canada that the new nuclear research centre would be located at Whiteshell, 60 miles north east of Winnipeg on the Winnipeg river near the town of Lac du Bonnet.
The reasons for the choice of this site were purely technical. First of all, the site had to be located on a river with ample water flow. Second, it had to have a firm bedrock to bear the heavy weight of the facilities which were to be put in. Third, it had to be close to a university. The decision that was made by Atomic Energy of Canada was an impartial decision, and it bore no political implications. I read in the Winnipeg Tribune of February 23 the following:
John Fullerton, member of the Ontario legislature for the riding containing Elliot Lake, has said he will resign his seat if it is found that the Diefenbaker government's decision to establish the nuclear plant in Manitoba was based on a "petty political consideration".
Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, I think the facts show that there were no petty political considerations in the choice of this area, and that indeed the hon. member who represents Elliot Lake in the Ontario legislature need not resign. In fact, if this government were to give in to the organized pressure that has been brought to bear on it to change the location of the site it would indeed then be considered petty politics, and in that case perhaps the hon. member for Springfield would have more reason than the hon. member for Elliot Lake for resigning.
Before proceeding to the unemployment situation at Elliot Lake I would like to say something about the projected employment that this nuclear research establishment will provide for Manitoba. First of all it has been stated that no work or construction will take place on the actual plant until after the spring of 1961. Atomic Energy of Canada officials have predicted that the first reactor should go into operation late in 1963 and more likely in 1964, and that at that time a staff of 200 people would be employed at the research establishment.
May I call it one o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Joseph Slogan: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock
I had just established why the nuclear research establishment was placed in Manitoba, and I was going on to give a projection of the amount of employment it would create in the foreseeable future.
Officials of Atomic Energy of Canada have stated that no construction will begin on the plant site until after the spring of 1961, the reason being that first of all access roads have to be put in and a bridge has to be built across the Winnipeg river. I am hoping that the federal government in co-operation with the provincial government may see fit to provide some winter employment on the clearance of these roadways and of the plant site itself. In late 1963 or 1964 it is expected that the first reactor will go into operation in Manitoba, and at that time it is expected that a staff of 200 will be required to man this reactor. Let us remember that the people who will be staffing this reactor will be for the most part technicians, and certainly the opening of this reactor will not

Supply-Labour
provide too many jobs for the type of people who are unemployed at Elliot Lake. A further projection is that by 1970 perhaps 1,000 people will be employed at Whiteshell.
I want hon. members to remember these figures because I will return to them when we consider the situation at Elliot Lake. The question I want to bring up at present is where would more employment be created as a result of this nuclear project-in Manitoba or at Elliot Lake? First of all we must remember that there is no town site at Whiteshell and therefore a good many more jobs would be created because of the need to construct homes for the employees. At Elliot Lake there is an established town site, and far less employment would therefore be created in this respect. In my area and on the prairies as a whole we know that there is a shrinking population in relation to the rest of Canada and part of that shrinkage has been due to the fact that there has been no opportunity for the young people of the west to remain at home. I know that as I go through my own constituency I see very few young people, because as soon as they are out of school they are sent abroad to find opportunity elsewhere. There has no doubt been a great export of brains and intelligence from the prairies. In fact, we can look around this house and see evidence of it right here. I am thinking in particular of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am sure that the people of the maritimes would have been very happy if this new nuclear research project had been created many years ago so that the hon. member could have stayed in his native province.
This year has been a very bad one for the people of Manitoba and of my area in particular, because their crops were almost wiped out. We must remember that the people who settled the prairies after the Canadian Pacific railway was built were hard-working people who were settled on marginal land and who, with nothing but their fortitude and their faith in the future, have carved out their fortunes in the granite on the edge of the preCambrian shield. These people certainly deserve consideration.
I should like to turn for a moment to consider the situation at Elliot Lake. Here is a community of 25,000 people, and it is estimated that some 9,000 are employed in the mines. According to the Financial Post of February 20 it is expected that in 1961 some 3,500 will have lost their jobs and that by 1963 the number of unemployed will have risen to 5,000, and by 1966 to 7,500. I am not as pessimistic as these figures. I fail to see, however, that if this Whiteshell nuclear project is transferred to Elliot Lake it would be

of any immediate help, because it would be 1965 before the project came into operation and at that time only 200 would be employed on the staff. Also, as I said, those 200 would be technicians.
Let us consider the structure of the town of Elliot Lake. There are 2,337 permanent homes and 463 multiple dwellings in the area. The planners designed Elliot Lake for a population of 12,000 and an optimum employment force of 5,000. That is what they anticipated, but this boom town which is bursting at the seams now has a population of 25,000 people. I do not think the cut-back in employment is going to do a great deal of harm to homeowners because there are 5,000 families at Elliot Lake who are living in trailers. It is no great hardship for those people in trailer homes to hitch their homes behind their cars and go to places where there is more opportunity. Besides, there are 210 families living in basement apartments, and that is not suitable accommodation. I understand, also, that many people with homes are renting rooms to people who cannot find accommodation.
I do not believe that Elliot Lake will become a ghost town. It will probably remain as its planners had originally designed it, with a population of about 12,000 and a working force of about 5,000. Why is it that the opposition have suddenly pounced on this nuclear research centre going to Manitoba to cure all their ills in Ontario? I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on February 19, 1960:
Speaking in the throne speech debate. Mr. Wardrope-
The minister of reforms in Ontario. I continue:
-said the government is negotiating with industries that will eventually employ 15,000 men.
Further along in the same article Mr. Wardrope is reported as saying:
-the new industries will use natural gas and iron ore. Mining developments in the "foreseeable future" will mean 100,000 new citizens for the north, he added.
And again, further along in the same article:
The two plants near Nakina might create a town of 10,000 residents in three or four years, he said. It was hoped they would hire 1,500 next year.
Surely actions such as these are more conducive to alleviating the unemployment situation in Elliot Lake. In view of the action the provincial government is taking I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail on February 25, 1960:
The problems of Elliot Lake are not going to be solved by performances like that of the opposition in the Ontario legislature on Tuesday. The

resolution which Liberal leader Wintermeyer tried to bring in was, by his own frank admission, out of order. It proposed that the legislature petition the dominion government to give Elliot Lake the nuclear research station planned for Manitoba.
Mr. Wintermeyer's action in bringing it in, and the conduct of the Liberal and C.C.F. members during the disorderly debate which followed, suggested that they were not interested primarily in helping Elliot Lake, but in making a political football out of it.
Further along the editorial states:
Asked in Tuesday's debate for a statement of his own government's position on Elliot Lake, Premier Frost answered, "We are pressing in an orderly way for a solution of the problem". This is the right approach. It would best be implemented by one or more non-political conferences attended by men of practical experience in the social-industrial-economic problem Elliot Lake presents. Queen's Park should be working to bring such discussions about.
I feel that is the right attitude to take toward the problem in Elliot Lake. Yet, when the provincial Liberal leader's resolution was ruled out of order his own comment, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of February 25, was:
The federal government is either playing "elementary politics" or does not know what is happening at Elliot Lake, Mr. Wintermeyer said.
I would suggest that the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario is the one who does not know what is going on at Elliot Lake and at Whiteshell.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the provincial member, Mr. Fullerton?


Joseph Slogan: If the hon. member for Essex East had been in the committee before one o'clock he would know that I had already dealt with that. There has been a lot of talk on television and in the newspapers and much plain exaggeration. I heard one report to the effect that 1,000 telegrams had been sent to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I personally investigated and learned that only 40 odd telegrams had been sent to the minister. There was a strange thing about those telegrams in that they all asked that the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment be moved to Elliot Lake. Surely that smacks of organized hypocrisy. But the people of Elliot Lake are not the only ones who sent telegrams. I have also received a few.
I wish to illustrate the difference in attitude between the people of Ontario and the people of Manitoba. I should like to place on record a resolution passed by the rural municipality of Springfield in February of this year. I understand that a copy of this resolution was forwarded to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the form of a telegram. The resolution reads as follows:
Supply-Labour
Resolution was passed by the council of the rural municipality of Springfield in Manitoba in which they expressed sympathy with the conditions which are coming into existence in Elliot Lake, Ontario, with the slowdown in uranium production. However, it is felt that the need in Manitoba for a project of the magnitude of the new nuclear research station in the Whiteshell area is a long-standing need. It is urged that the government do everything in its power to keep the project from being taken from Manitoba.
The people of Manitoba are not trying to take anything away from anybody but sympathize with the position in Elliot Lake. I have already demonstrated that taking this nuclear research establishment away from Manitoba certainly would not solve the unemployment situation at Elliot Lake. I am proud of the people of Springfield and of Manitoba in general who sent me telegrams couched in language that reflects an attitude different from that of the people of Ontario who wired the minister to the effect that this was petty politics and that the research establishment should be taken from Manitoba and placed at Elliot Lake.
Let us look at the record in Ontario. Ontario is one of the privileged provinces. The government has centred nearly all its nuclear research centres in that province. During the last 16 years the federal government has spent $120 million in this field in Ontario. Ontario has the four major reactor projects the two at Chalk River and the new one under construction. There is also CANDU, a $60 million project. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has ceased asking that this project be transferred to Blind River or Elliot Lake. On July 9, 1959, as reported at page 5704 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition directed the following question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
A supplementary question. Does the minister not realize that the perfect site for this power reactor would be the Blind River area, where there is lots of water, lots of rock and lots of uranium?
I believe the Leader of the Opposition asked the same question on January 21, 1960 as reported at page 166 of Hansard for this session. But why the sudden silence? Why not put on more pressure with respect to the project that is slated for Ontario requesting that it be relocated at Elliot Lake if it is really thought that this will solve the situation at Elliot Lake? Certainly that would be much more fair to the people of the country as a whole if one project in Ontario were transferred to another site. I am not suggesting that this be done but I do ask the question, why pick on Manitoba? Is it because the Liberal party has been wiped out in

Supply-Labour
Manitoba? Certainly action such as this will ensure that the Liberal party will remain in oblivion in that province.
I direct a plea to the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the provincial Liberals in Manitoba. They are most embarrassed by the attitude their party has taken in this house. To ensure that they are not wiped out provincially, I urge the Leader of the Opposition to change his attitude. I would also suggest that the hon. gentleman apologize to the people of Manitoba for the attitude he has taken. Certainly I hope he will have the courage to come to Manitoba and defend the stand he has taken in this house. I know he will be welcomed in Springfield.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph Slogan: At the conclusion of my remarks.
I have dealt with the factors that reveal that Ontario has enjoyed a privileged position in this field. As I explained before one o'clock, the reasons for placing this research establishment in Mantitoba were sound and logical. No politics or petty considerations were involved and certainly none should be involved in matters such as these.
I read in the newspaper yesterday that 500 women are coming to Ottawa to protest this matter. I then listened to a program on television and heard it stated that 150 women were coming. That statement was made on "Tabloid". Certainly there is an aura of exaggeration about all these things. It was stated that 1,000 telegrams were sent to the minister but I inquired and learned that only 40 were sent. It was stated that 500 women were coming to Ottawa but another report stated that only 150 were coming. I will certainly be on the steps of this building on that occasion to see how many arrive and I believe there will not be even 150.
I heard another interesting statement on "Tabloid" last night. A union leader said that these uranium companies had made a profit of $150 to $160 million. I do not know if that is true but if it is I believe there is an onus on these companies to spend some of their exorbitant profits which they received because of the backing they obtained from this government. They should spend some of this money to assist the people in those areas in this period of potential critical unemployment. Are these companies going to take the attitude that they have no obligation whatever in this respect? It seems to me they should take a different attitude.
I was surprised when Mr. Wintermeyer suggested that the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment should be placed at Elliot Lake.

I was surprised that Mr. Winters should have stated that the placing of the nuclear research establishment at Elliot Lake would create 2,400 jobs. It is apparent from the facts I have stated that this is not the case at all. The fact is that after 15 years the plant at Chalk River employs only 2,400 employees and certainly it will take a much longer time for the same number to be employed at the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment.
I am not quite as pessimistic about the outlook of the uranium industry as some of the members in this committee, Mr. Chairman. I have reason to believe that in future years-in 10 years, or so-the demand for uranium and the supply of uranium will probably come into closer balance. Therefore, there is nothing to indicate that all those uranium towns, not just Elliot Lake but Bancroft and Uranium City, and so on, are going to become ghost towns overnight. I feel that with a sensible program we can do something to alleviate unemployment in those areas and at the same time ensure that there is some continuation of those resources that no doubt will be necessary as time goes on.
It was not my intention to participate in this debate, Mr. Chairman, because I felt it had already taken up too much of the time of the committee. However, I have been so upset over all these allegations, coming as they do from responsible people who should know better, that I could not help but stand up and point out the facts to some hon. members. I am sure that as time goes on the decision of the government will prove to be correct. There is no doubt in my mind that the nuclear research establishment at White-shell will continue and I hope it will do a great deal to expand the economy of that part of the country and provide opportunity for our bright young people at universities, raise the standards of our scientific faculties at those universities and do something to decentralize the concentration of industry and of research and place it in other parts of the country which need it much more badly than Ontario.


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member now answer my question? He mentioned that the Liberal supporters from the province of Manitoba were embarrassed; would he not agree that the Conservative supporters in Elliot Lake are pretty embarrassed, too?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Don't answer it.


Joseph Slogan: I answered this question before one o'clock, but I shall answer it again. If I quote the Hon. Mr. Fullerton correctly, he said if there were petty politics involved in locating this establishment in Manitoba

then he would resign. I have nothing against that, but I have shown by the facts that there were technical and not political reasons why this establishment was located at White-shell, and the Hon. Mr. Fullerton does not have any reason to resign. If anybody would have reason to resign it would be I if this nuclear research project were taken away from Manitoba, because then it would be pure politics.
(Translation) :


Mr. Bourgei:: Mr. Chairman, listening to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), Tuesday, February 9, when he gave us certain explanations concerning this item, we did not have to be great psychologists to see that he was quite uncomfortable; he must realize, as we do, that the winter works program offered by the government to provinces and municipalities is altogether inadequate.
Then again this week-it was Wednesday afternoon-speaking in this house he proved clearly, I thought-and the minister might perhaps reread his speech-that not only is this government altogether unable to solve the unemployment problem but does not seem particularly concerned over the ever growing number of unemployed.
To hear the Minister of Labour talk, the government finds quite normal, it seems, that there were more than 800,000 unemployed in December and in January.
The government feels there is no reason to make a fuss about this because, as I said, this is considered normal.
The government seems to think that, by providing a winter works program, it has done its duty and kept all its pledges in this respect. Furthermore, the government seems to suggest that it is up to the municipalities to solve this problem, because indeed it is the municipalities that have to pay more than 90 per cent of those works. I say more than 90 per cent, Mr. Chairman, because this fact can be supported by figures. Last winter, for instance, according to figures provided by the Minister of Labour himself, $6.5 million were paid over to municipalities for such works, out of a total of $50 million spent this way. Actually this would put the federal government's share at 13 per cent. But, on the other hand, we must not overlook that, out of the 87 per cent that remains to be paid on that winter works program, municipalities have to borrow money at 7, 7J, 7J and even sometimes 7.89 per cent. Furthermore, when municipalities have to get their plans prepared by engineers, again they have to pay a further 7 per cent of the costs of 79951-0-95i
Supply-Labour
such works. But the government pays no part of that interest that the municipalities have to pay, nor of the additional 7 per cent that they have to pay to the engineers who draw up the plans for those projects.
Under the circumstances, it can therefore fairly be said that municipalities today have to pay over 90 per cent of the costs of those projects. Yet, it will be remembered that, at the time our hon. friends were sitting on this side of the house, and during the 1957 and 1958 elections they claimed they could handle that problem. I don't think a single member of the Conservative party sitting in this house can deny that, during the elections, he stated, as did his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), that nobody, not a single Canadian, would suffer from unemployment while the Conservative government was in office.
Well, Mr. Chairman, what is the position today? And it has been the same since 1957. The situation has not changed: there are 750,000 to 800,000 unemployed in Canada. I wonder what the government has done to solve this problem.
No wonder, as stated the other day by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), that only about 60 municipalities out of a total of 1,600 in the province of Quebec, took advantage of this winter works program. Yet the Minister of Labour and his colleagues from the province of Quebec know that this province is still the one most severely affected by unemployment, because more than a third of all the unemployed are Quebec people.
I hope the minister will not pretend to believe that in Quebec city, for instance, where there are now 17,000 people out of jobs, the problem can be solved simply by half a million dollars worth of winter works. You know that last year, municipal authorities there undertook works for a similar amount and, according to a Quebec city alderman, that amount of $400,000 or $450,000 could provide jobs for no more than about 100 unemployed for two weeks each.
Besides, it is the same thing in Montreal. The other day the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) informed the house that this year, according to figures supplied by the Minister of Labour himself, this winter works program in Canada's metropolis, where there are now 83,000 unemployed, will provide jobs for only 863 people. Imagine the tremendous number of unemployed this will help: only 863 out of 83,000. Besides, the picture is the same in other large cities throughout the province.

Supply-Labour
It seems to me that, after the various representations and suggestions made, and more particularly after two years of experience with that program, when the minister spoke in this house last Wednesday, he could have told us that he was thinking of improving his program. But no; he made a speech that was defeatist and demoralizing not only for hon. members but specially for the 800,000 unemployed we now have in this country.
I am not questioning the minister's sincerity and personally I am convinced that he would like to do more but that he is being prevented from doing so. He realizes that this winter works program is picayune, and inadequate. Of this I have no doubt at all. Indeed, if the minister has read the brief submitted by the Canadian federation of mayors and reeves, he could not help noticing that the submission had mighty little good to say about his winter works program, contrary to what he gave us to understand the other day when the hon. member for St. Denis was dealing with unemployment. I have this brief before me and I may assure you that the program is far from being commended. For the minister's information, I shall quote some excerpts with regard to the winter works program. This is part of the chapter "Municipal winter works program", and I quote:
(Text):
Municipal Winter Works
The municipal governments are strongly of the view and urge that the range and nature of eligible projects under the federal-sponsored municipal winter works program be broadened and extended to include building construction as well as outdoor construction projects, particularly in northern communities where outdoor construction is not economically feasible and in those municipalities where there is a high incidence of workers normally engaged in the construction trade.
Moreover, and inasmuch as some municipalities have been experiencing difficulty in obtaining temporary bank loans in order to finance their share of the costs of a winter works program, the municipalities urge that the federal government request Canadian banks to facilitate, wherever possible, any loan requirements of municipal governments for such projects.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I don't see anywhere in the passage I have just read any good word for the government's winter works program.
(Text):


Michael Starr: Read the first part of that.


Maurice Bourget: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I could read the first part and I could read all of it.

Perhaps the minister would like to refer to some of the pages, but I will not take the time of the house to read them.


Michael Starr: Read the first part of it.


Maurice Bourget: The minister will see that the brief speaks of the difficulties experienced by municipalities in capital borrowing. These difficulties were experienced not only by municipalities, but by everybody. He will see, in that brief, the difficulties encountered by the municipalities in borrowing money. The minister knows it, and he cannot deny it.


Michael Starr: Surely you can read, can't you?


Maurice Bourget: I have read-


Michael Starr: Read the first part of it.


Maurice Bourget: It would take me a couple of days, or at least a day. I leave it to the minister to read it, and to inspire himself by reading that part to which I have just referred regarding the winter works program.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Why do you evade the question?


Maurice Bourget: I am not evading the question, and I will ask the parliamentary secretary to read it.


Michael Starr: Pass it over, and I will read it right now.


Maurice Bourget: Sure; I will give the minister time to read it, and then if he has any questions to ask at the end of my speech, he may ask them.


Michael Starr: The hon. member asked me to read it.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Supply-Labour
Those were fine words. But what are the facts? I think the Minister of Labour forgot to check his figures before talking, because I can quote figures that will prove him wrong.
If, for instance, you analyse the estimates since 1957, with regard to projects undertaken by various government departments, you will find-as the minister himself may ascertain

under item 13 entitled "construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment" that in 1957 and 1958, the main estimates reached a total of $358,662,833, whereas the amount actually spent was only $320,122,457, which leaves an amount of $38,540,376 unspent.
In 1958-59, the main estimates voted by parliament amounted to $380,299,293. The amount spent was $330,363,664, which still leaves for this year $49,935,629 in unexpended votes.
Now, let us go into this a little further and look at the main estimates for the fiscal years 1959-60 and 1960-61.
In 1959-60, we voted $430,759,000 and, in 1960-61, we are voting $357,409,000. That is a reduction in these estimates for this year, at a time when there are 800,000 unemployed. Thus, it is a reduction of about $73 million in the votes for public works.
On the one hand, $15 million are offered to promote the winter works program, but on the other hand, the budget is cut down by $73 million.


Mr. Denis:: Shame.


Maurice Bourget: Those figures show clearly that, contrary to the minister's statement, instead of increasing, public works were gradually reduced since 1957.
He will agree that it is an anomaly, especially at this time when unemployment has reached such a high level.
The minister has boasted of the activities of the government as far as housing construction is concerned; unfortunately, this year we can expect a significant reduction in this field, because the Minister of Public Works himself has announced, in the speech he made on February 17, that present circumstances warrant a considerable reduction in 1960 of C.M.H.C. loans.
Well, Mr. Chairman, all that shows that the government has badly failed in its task and that we are a long way from the fine promises which the Prime Minister and his friends made during the last election. In conclusion, I have only one wish to express,

it is that the present discussions should, at least, have the effect of making the government shake off its apathy-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Bourget: -with regard to such serious conditions and that it will profit from the constructive suggestions made by the opposition to help our 800,000 unemployed Canadians.
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, in my very brief intervention this afternoon, before getting down to the particular substance of the winter works program, I should like to make one general observation as to one thing I have noted during the debate. Ofttimes the hon. member for Essex East rises in his place-I admit that I do not know the details of this suggestion but I am a little bit suspicious about it-and says that we must have a committee to study the problems of unemployment, which problems concern every Canadian and every member of the House of Commons, no matter on what side he sits.
I ask this one question as a newcomer to this house. What are we in now? We are in committee. So the hon. member for Essex East gets up and in very general flowing terms with all those cliches says we must have a committee to study this serious problem. We are all concerned with it, and I suggest right now we are in a committee. What better place can we have than this committee right here to discuss the problems which we are all so very much aware of and concerned with. I would like to ask the hon. member for Essex East to tell me, perhaps later, what another kind of committee might do.
I well remember sitting on another committee with him last year, the committee of this house on industrial relations problems, and I can only hope that if he has the committee he asks for it will not turn into the sort of committee that that was.


An hon. Member:: A circus.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, that is what it was, a circus.


Mr. Howard:: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Do I understand from his remarks that he would like to see the dis-bandonment of all the committees of this house dealing with-


William Heward Grafftey: I am not saying that. The hon. member has tried to put words into my mouth.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Somebody said that.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member would like to think I said it, but that is not what I said.
Let us go now from the general to the particular. We have heard a lot of dramatic cliches about this winter works program, dramatic cliches with no sense in them. We have heard the program described as only half a loaf, as mere crumbs, and even as peanuts. I do not want to repeat more than that which has already been put on the record in this House of Commons during the present debate.
Hon. members opposite would like to leave the impression-I do not think they are but they would like to-that this is the only thing the government is doing in order to stop the unemployment in this nation today. Everyone including the Canadian people know very well that this is a program to put men to work. It is not the only program that this government has in order to face unemployment, so let us be realistic. Time and time again speaker after speaker has tried to put the impression afoot from coast to coast of this country that this is the only thing the government is doing in order to face up to the problem of unemployment. Now let us be realistic and sincere and honest with ourselves. Such is not the case and the records should be put straight right now. This is a program to put men to work. The Minister of Labour has already listed the many other things this government is doing to face the problem, and I think in all objective fairness we should look at the problem as such.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in dealing with this problem bemoaned the fact that so many municipalities were having a hard time in making use of the program. Let us be very analytical here. The hon. member cited so many things that the municipalities would like to do but could not do under the program. He cited types of work which required mechanical equipment, which required materials, which required-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman quote his source?


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member deny that this was not the impression he tried to give in the first interruption which was made?
Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly was not.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member went on to mention the fact that many municipalities could not partake of this program because of the type of work which required mechanical equipment and high priced materials. The fact is that this is a program to put men to work, and the minister has material and literature which lists those various types of work which will put men to work. I think this should be brought to light.
The hon. member for St. Denis mentioned the town of Cowansville in my riding. How he ever arrived at his figures I do not know, but he said that the average amount of money in a labourer's pocket would be $270 per month over a five-month period. Then on further questioning we found that was only the federal contribution. As a matter of fact, on further questioning I personally did not really know what type of statistical basis the hon. member used to found his argument.
At any rate, I will end my remarks by issuing a challenge on the floor of this house. We all know as hon. members exactly what this program is. It is a fairly detailed program. The Minister of Labour's department has the information on it. It is a program to put men to work during the winter months. It is a program basically designed to tide men over seasonal winter unemployment through this interim period. I ask the hon. members who have upbraided and criticized this matter in the house, how many of you who have stood up and tried to destroy the program by giving it bad public relations have gone to the mayors of the municipalities and tried to explain the matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the honourable senior and elder gentleman asking me? I have gone to the mayors in my riding, all of them, and the result was pretty unsatisfactory because of the inadequacy of this program.


William Heward Grafftey: What I am saying is this. I will admit there are a lot of mayors in my riding who have phoned me up and said, "Mr. Grafftey, what about this winter works program?", and I in turn went to the hon. minister's office and got all the literature I could on the program and then went throughout my riding meeting the town councils and explaining it to them. I went and explained-


An hon. Member:: A good civil servant.


William Heward Grafftey: I am not a civil servant; I felt I was doing my duty as a member of parliament by helping expedite this winter

Supply-Labour
works program. I believe that I helped in my own small way to explain the program to the various municipalities. Did I go to them and say, "Oh, I know it is no good. I know it will cost you too much money. You really don't want to participate in it", and convince them they should refuse it, and then come into the House of Commons and say that I did not go into these municipalities because, because, because? I say it is the duty of members of parliament to act as good public relations officers, for this program is above politics. Did you go into your constituencies and suggest this program to the various mayors, or did you say it was no good because it would cost them too much money? Did you go into your constituencies and show them the literature, or did you try to sabotage this program on the floor of this House of Commons? I say that every member of parliament who is really sincere about putting men to work should have done so. If they had gone to the various municipalities and helped explain the program it would have helped the unemployment situation. I will admit that at first it needed explaining to me and also to lots of mayors and councillors; but is this not the rightful duty of a member of parliament?
The hon. member for St. Denis asked me about this. I say, ask the councils in Bedford, Cowansville and all the municipalities in Brome-Missisquoi whether I did not spend many hours going round my district explaining the program and trying to put it over. There are many worthwhile programs going on, and I suggest to hon. members opposite that there could be a lot of similar worthwhile programs going on in their districts if they would try to stop sabotaging the program, because this question is above politics. It is a program to put men to work and is one of many things this government is doing to face the unemployment problem which faces us at this seasonal period.


Murdo William Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: If I arranged a meeting with my council, would the hon. member be kind enough to come up and explain it to the council in Timmins?


Some hon. Members:: That is your job.


William Heward Grafftey: I would not pretend to be able to answer that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted earlier today I was pointing out that the minister had taken great satisfaction out of the fact that the recession was
[Mr. Grafftey.l
over. He had stated in his television broadcast, to which I referred before, that the December figure of 5.9-that is December 1959-allowing for seasonal factors, therefore represents a high level of employment in a period when Canada's economy has been expanding at a rate more rapid than at any time in our history. It is a very odd coincidence that 5.9 per cent, which the minister described as a high level of employment, happens to be the lowest point in the whole year 1957 when, according to the Conservatives, Mr. Harris was concealing a depression from this country. When the Liberals were in office the lowest point reached in their last year is now described by the minister as a high level of employment-5.9 per cent.
The minister made that statement on February 4, and it is impossible not to believe that he could not have been aware, if indeed he was not, of what the figures were for January, or at least the approximate figures. Not long after that the January figures were produced and we found that the January figures showed that unemployment according to the dominion bureau of statistics-according to the low figure-amounted to 8 per cent of the labour force, far higher than it was at any time when we were in office since the end of the war. This was at the time the minister was telling us the recession was over. It was within two weeks of the date he was saying that. This is an incontrovertible fact as given to us by the minister himself.
I do not think the history of these figures is nearly as important as the fact behind them all, and the fact behind them all is that we have a very grave problem of unemployment which is more than seasonal. I admit, and I am glad of that fact that we are over the business recession. As a matter of fact we are in a period when business is improving. The worrying thing about this situation -and it is something about which any hon. member who cares about the human and social waste involved should be worried-is the fact that this recovery in business has come and that it has not brought any recovery in employment with it. That is a serious thing. The economic recovery has been quite remarkable, but there has not been the recovery in employment which there was in 1955 and 1956 and which there was in the earlier period in 1950 and 1951. Then there was a definitely seasonal problem. It was a serious one in 1954 and 1955, but it was still only a seasonal problem. Now we have this continuing drag during the summer and we are going to have it in the summer of 1960 also. I do not think in the light of the present trend that this will be escapable.

Even that is not really the true measure of this problem. By the law of this country which the minister has the responsibility of administering as trustee under the Unemployment Insurance Act, there are 782,000 people receiving unemployment insurance benefits. That was the figure in January. By law, every person receiving unemployment insurance is unemployed, and if the minister is allowing unemployment insurance to be paid to persons who are not unemployed then he is breaking the law for whose administration he is responsible to this parliament. There is no escaping these figures. Persons who are receiving unemployment insurance are by law unemployed.


An hon. Member:: You said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Supply-Labour
and their municipalities may participate. I say that if the equalization formula which this Tory government has reluctantly accepted is a fair formula for tax-sharing it ought to be a fair formula for this program too. If the proportion paid by the federal government in the various provinces was in proportion to their share of equalization this program would be a lot more useful than it is, and it would be more useful in those areas where it is most needed.
The minister wants some suggestions. I am not going to repeat-with one exception- the suggestions already made by my friend the hon. member for Essex East. I endorse them all and I thought the minister's reply to them was pitiful. Particularly pitiful was the suggestion that this committee of the whole was a committee in the sense that others were. Not only was that pitiful but it was a direct repudiation of what the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra have been so fond of telling us ever since this parliament began, that they were going to restore the rights of parliament by giving the committees something to do.
As long as it will serve to distract the public's mind the Prime Minister is eager to give them something to do. But when there is a real problem affecting the lives of the ordinary people what happens is what happened in the industrial affairs committee yesterday. When the opposition wants to investigate a real problem every Tory present gets up and refuses to have anything to do with the investigation. It is all very well to investigate a matter like the construction of the printing bureau that was undertaken five or six years ago-oh, that is very important

but to investigate the problem of unemployment that obtains in 1960 is not considered desirable and we are denied the right to do that. That is the attitude of this government.
I am not going on to deal with this kind of thing because I intend to make the suggestions to which I referred. My first suggestion is this. The Minister of Public Works is going to bring in legislation to extend the period for the building of the trans-Canada highway. I suggest that when he brings it in he make a fair division of the costs and that he do what we have advocated, and what we started to do when we were in office, and what we advocate should now be applied to the whole of the Atlantic provinces, and that is that the federal government pay 90 per cent of the cost because, unless something like that is done, it is going to be beyond the financial capacity not merely of Newfoundland but also

of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to get that road completed in anything like a reasonable time.
To change that formula, would make it equitable as between the provinces and give compensation to those provinces where railway building cannot be done although it has been done in almost every other part of this country in recent years. That is one suggestion.
I also suggest that the recommendations of the fisheries council of Canada with respect to fishing vessels be accepted by the government this year as they were not accepted last year. Here in this country we do allow the free entry of farm implements but the most essential of all the implements of the fisherman is hedged about with all kinds of restrictions which ought to be removed.
I suggest, too, that if we are going to make adequate use of one of the greatest resources in the world that every other fishing country is using and that we are not using to the extent we should, we should have a rational policy of subventions for fishing vessels built in this country. We do not have this at the present time.
I also suggest that the subvention on coal .-the rate of subvention paid to Montreal so that Canadian coal can compete with United States coal in that market-should be extended at the same rate for a period of years on coal used for industrial purposes in the Atlantic provinces. This might not accomplish anything but if it did not it would cost the treasury nothing, and if it did it would mean that in that area and particularly in Cape Breton and Pictou county, adjacent to the coal mines, there might be a prospect of some new industries being established.
I suggest, furthermore, as has been suggested by one of the supporters of the government, that now after three years some attention be paid by the government to the Atlantic resolutions which were used with a great deal of effect to get votes in the 1957 election. These resolutions represent a solemn promise by the government and they should be implemented. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, now the Minister of National Revenue, was the chairman of the committee which drew them up. Every Conservative candidate in the Atlantic provinces was there including the present Minister of Veterans Affairs, the present Minister of Fisheries and the hon. member for St. John's West, the minister from Newfoundland who is not allowed to have a portfolio.


Mr. McDonald (Hamillon South):: That is shameful.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it is shameful. It is a shameful insult to Newfoundland.


Mr. Cardiff:: Why not go down to your riding and live there some time and find out what it is like in Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman who interrupts would like to come down and contest the riding with me I would not be much worried about the opposition.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Come down to my riding and contest it with me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am merely suggesting that the government ought to carry out those solemn promises on the basis on which it received so much support not so long ago. I am going to recall the Atlantic resolutions to the memories of hon. gentlemen opposite. The first is entitled, "National Resources Development Program" and reads:
We emphatically endorse John Diefenbaker's policy calling for a national development program; we will urge that such a comprehensive program permit federal assistance to the Atlantic provinces for the purpose of developing our resources for the maximum benefit of the Atlantic economy and give, as well, proper recognition to the differing needs of the provinces and to their varying financial capabilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. members can applaud when they see what they have done about these things. The next resolution is entitled, "Decentralization of Industry" and reads:
By united and resolute representation from the members of parliament from the Atlantic provinces we believe that all Canadians will support a federal program of industrial decentralization.
We will urge that:
1.	The Atlantic provinces receive a more equitable share of defence contract expenditures.
Where are they? I continue:
2.	That crown corporations be established in the area.
No crown company whatever has been established in the area. I continue:
3.	That special fiscal consideration be given to private enterprises which will encourage the location of industry in the Atlantic area and, further, encourage the processing of our natural resources here.
There is no fiscal difference between that area and any other area that I am aware of or that I think any other hon. member of this committee is aware of, in fact.
Then they went on to talk about the Atlantic provinces power development which of course had already been provided for before the election and in which one change and only one was made, a change which Mr. St. Laurent pointed out on October 16, 1957
Supply-Labour
in this chamber, made it less likely that that program would advance as rapidly as it otherwise would have, and that in fact has been the case.
The next resolution deals with transportation and reads:
We are committed to the original pledge given to our people at the time of confederation that freight rates would be adjusted and transportation facilities would be provided so that our geographic position would not prejudice our producers in having reasonable access to the markets of Canada.
What has been done about transportation? Freight rates increased by 17 per cent and then a reduction of 7 per cent was made so the net increase was 10 per cent. That is not exactly what the people who were given those promises were led to expect. But what I think people pinned more hope on than anything else was the next of those proposals, namely the capital projects program, which reads as follows:
We favour the immediate institution of an Atlantic capital projects program which will provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
That, I suggest, is a desperate need in this area; it is a need that is at least three times as great as it was when this promise was made three years ago. What have we seen in those Atlantic provinces? We have seen a steady decline in the production of coal which hon. gentlemen opposite promised to increase, and which Mr. St. Laurent honestly said he would not promise to increase, but he also promised that he would not let the coal towns be ghost towns.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: Leave it in the ground,


John Whitney Pickersgill: What Mr. St. Laurent said has been put on the record a good many times, and it was characteristic of him; he told the truth. What hon. gentlemen opposite promised to do was to increase coal production and it has fallen every year since. The plain fact is that if this promise had been carried out, if something had beeen done about this, something should and would have been established in Cape Breton long before this and in Pictou long before this. We have had a drastic decline as well in the employment in the mines on Bell island, Newfoundland. One thing after another has declined and the only area in the Atlantic provinces where there has not been a decline is the area around Fredericton and Saint John, particularly Fredericton. Why? I will tell you why. It is because Mr. Milton Gregg,

Supply

Labour
Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Claxton saw to it that Gagetown went there, and it is no credit to this government.
I say that if the government would carry out those promises, those solemn promises, on which they got their votes and which every minister from the Atlantic provinces in this government pledged himself to support, the outlook in the whole Atlantic region would be very different and the prospects of employment in that region would be very different; but what did we in fact get? What did we in fact get from the Minister of Labour in his television broadcast? I will tell you what we got. Here it is. First of all, I read from page one:
As long as there are Canadians looking for work and unable to find work, the full energy of the government will be directed to that situation.
And this is the full energy of the government, this winter works program. I continue:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, this government proposes to finish the job-deficit or no deficit.
And I want to assure you that this government will use every resource at its disposal-
It was only three weeks ago he said this.
-to see to it that every Canadian who is in need of a job will have a job.
Where is every resource; where are they? Then, of course, we have this assurance which I am sure must have been of the greatest possible comfort to the three quarters of a million people who are receiving unemployment insurance and who are, therefore, by definition, by law, unemployed:
With the help and co-operation of the Canadian people, we will overcome the problems in the same way that the recession has been overcome.
I said before-and I want to be completely fair about this-that so far as business is concerned, I admit the recession has been overcome and I am very glad of that, but one cannot help but regret that the end of the business recession has not been accompanied by an end to the recession in employment, and there is no sign of that. This is a new problem; it needs a lot of new thought; it is a problem that has not arisen before since the war and it needs thought and application of a kind we are not getting at all from the present government. Instead, we are getting this. This is from the remarks of the Minister of Labour on television in the program "The Nation's Business":
In this regard, I am sure that all Canadians are aware of the sympathy and understanding of the Prime Minister for all of those who have been adversely affected by economic conditions.

No one in Canada is more deeply concerned or more determined to make sure that everything that can be done will be done.
To his colleagues in the cabinet, he has given inspired leadership in the great task of extending to all Canadians the benefits of the progress of Canada, regardless of their age, where they live or their station in life.
In this problem we are getting no leadership whatsoever. In conclusion, I want to repeat one suggestion that I made the other day and I want to elaborate slightly on it. It is this. It is more and more apparent that with the growth of population and with the growth of labour-saving devices of one kind and another, each time there is a recession, when the recovery comes many of those who were previously employed cannot get their old jobs back because those jobs have ceased to exist. This is the real problem, a problem in its present form, that is new; it is not new in the history of the economy over a long period, but it is part of a new technological revolution that calls for serious consideration.
Those who do not get back their jobs are precisely those who are least capable of getting other jobs, in too many cases the unskilled, or those with skills that are no longer needed, or those who are slightly older than average. I believe that a vast increase in vocational training is needed, and there should not be any buck-passing to the provinces, either. It is true that the provinces supply the schools, but I think this problem should be tackled the way we tackled the problem of veterans' education after the war; that when these people become unemployed and there is little or no prospect of their getting employment again in the line they were in before, if they are willing to do it the federal government should provide them with facilities and with the necessary allowances to enable them to undertake this vocational training so that they will be trained and available for the new kinds of jobs which are being made available. This is frightfully important. Instead of having this human waste and this social waste that unemployment represents and is going to go on to represent until this problem is tackled radically, we should attack it in this radical fashion and do it at once.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Chairman, I rise for a few moments to discuss the economic situation in the maritime provinces, in particular with regard to the seasonal unemployment that we have this year, because I feel some of the speeches made in this house, like the one immediately preceding me, and some made

at other times by other members, do in effect a disservice to the maritime provinces. Across the years the maritimes, my own province, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and now Newfoundland, have had quite an obstacle in the fact that we are more or less on the tail end of the nation; we are cut off from the basic economic centre of Canada. To a certain extent across the years we have seen a substantial decline since confederation in our capacity to produce per capita and generally in our economic potential.
But I would not have hon. members think that the situation in the maritimes is as bad as has been pointed out, or as has been suggested by some members here. Perhaps, part of the reason, part of the difficulty we have had in building up the maritime provinces is to be found in the pessimism and in the bad reputation we are given by some members who stand up in this house, and in other forums, to run down our provinces in the east and to suggest that we are incapable of building up or that our situation is hopeless.
As a matter of fact quite the contrary is true. Across the years we have had our problems. But I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all the members in this committee, that never before in the history of the maritime provinces have we had the opportunity for advancement that we have today; never before have we had the potential to build that we have now. It certainly does not help our chances or our opportunities to be exaggerating the unemployment figures, to be misinterpreting them, or to be suggesting to the nation that the maritimes is an inappropriate place for investment at this time. This is in effect just what is being done by members who paint too bleak a picture of the maritime provinces.
What are the facts? The facts are that in the last three years there has been a considerable boom in the maritime provinces. In the last three years the problem of industrialization has, at last, been tackled by the governments there and we are seeing now a light in the darkness. The Liberal governments in power in Nova Scotia and at Ottawa during the 23 years before 1956 and 1957 tried with a conspicuous lack of success to do something about the problem of the maritime region. They talked from time to time about trying to assist us to industrialize. In fact, they did nothing. Year after year, in relation to the rest of Canada, our economy declined. Now at last it is beginning to pick up. It certainly does not help us a bit to have people indicating that the provinces in the east do not offer as good opportunities as they did before 1957.
Supply-Labour
After the election of the Stanfield government in Nova Scotia in 1957, for example, there was set up Industrial Estates Limited, which was to assist in providing capital for the attraction of industry and to provide buildings that would be rented at reasonable rentals to industries which would locate there. This is an indication of the action of the government, in general, toward coaxing industry into the province, and to date it has been an outstanding success.
As evidence of this outstanding success during the last three years, I would cite the fact that 14 new industries have been established or revivified in the province of Nova Scotia. That is progress. During all the years the Liberal party was in power my province had only two major manufacturing industries. We had the pulp and paper plant at Liverpool and the steel plant at Sydney both successful. The coal mines were always in trouble since the first world war, except during wartime.
Since 1957 we have had new manufacturing industries in Nova Scotia. I refer, for example, to the establishment of the $40 million pulp mill in my riding, at Point Tupper. This will be the third major manufacturing industry in Nova Scotia and it will give employment to a large number of people, both in the mill and in forest operations. We are looking forward to substantial advancement in Nova Scotia, and the situation is not at all as it has been represented by some speakers here today. I do not suggest we have, as yet, made the progress we would like to make. I do not suggest everything is rosy in the maritime provinces. Of course, these figures on unemployment are serious. But I do say that, for the first time within the memory of people living in my province an attempt is being made to remedy the situation and to find more employment for our people. Certainly this was not the case during the long years the Liberal party was in power in this country.
I spoke of industrialization. We have made an important start on this problem. At the same time we are building a network of highways as good as any in Canada. We are building them at a high rate. In the last three years there have been 800 miles of new paved highway laid in Nova Scotia. This certainly is progress. The very substantial increase we have had, amounting to 200 per cent, in conditional grants from this government has made it possible to substantially improve educational facilities, highway facilities, and so on; all of which will help to build

Supply-Labour
up an economic climate which will provide a remedy for the ills of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces.
I spoke of education. For example, in 1959 we had 50 per cent more teachers in training in the normal schools; we had 100 per cent more teachers in training in our colleges. We have new schools being built at a tremendous rate everywhere in Nova Scotia. The other day I heard a prominent journalist from the maritimes comment on the situation. He said the city of Saint John was looking forward to the greatest boom in its history. I believe the same thing is true of Newfoundland. Newfoundland was a very backward province when it came into union. It is being developed very swiftly today. The federal government is co-operating in discovering and marketing the resources of this great province. When Newfoundland's resources and promise are marshalled, it will provide a further great boon to the Atlantic provinces.
Some special mention was made of the unemployment figures for the maritime provinces. It is true, as I have said, that this is a serious situation. I would not have hon. members believe that the situation was such, however, that Nova Scotia would not go ahead and was not a safe place for investment. Actually the unemployment figures are accentuated by three things. First of all, as all hon. members know, seasonal unemployment has always been the bugbear of the eastern provinces. A large part of our resource industries, agriculture, farming and fishing, do not provide employment during the wintertime as they do in the summer. At the same time we have had a very prosperous year in 1959 and a large percentage of the unemployed are drawing unemployment insurance benefits. I think it is well known that in former years, during 1956 and before, there were a good many years when we maritimers faced the problem of seasonal unemployment without unemployment insurance to provide for our people during the winter. That is not so today.
There is another point, unemployment figures might be different, in a way, because of the effect of the new optimism and the new opportunity in the maritime provinces. We have had a change in our labour force. Up until 1957 the Atlantic area lived constantly with the tragedy of our young people leaving to go to the United States, Ontario or Quebec or elsewhere to seek work and a decent living. Now a great many of these young people are staying at home because they know there is new hope in my province and in the other Atlantic provinces. These people swell the labour force.


Mr. Crouse:: Eleven of them came up here in 1957.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Yes, a good employment opportunity for Nova Scotians.
There has been some talk about the Atlantic resolutions to which maritime members subscribed in 1957. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate suggested to you, sir, and to this committee that there has been a complete default on those resolutions; that, in fact, nothing has been done to help the maritime provinces. Nothing could be further from the truth. The spirit and tenor of the Atlantic resolutions has been recognized and accepted and in many respects there has been great fulfilment of these resolutions by this government.
The hon. member spoke of national resources development. I can tell him, for example, of the development of Cape Breton Highlands national park in my constituency. It has been built up tremendously in the last three years, providing much employment while the work was progressing. There has been a resultant increase in the tourist industry in Cape Breton Island. It increased by 39 per cent in 1958, and 17 per cent in 1959. This progress is important. Our tourist industry is building up fast. It is one of our important national resources, and it has been with the assistance and sympathy of this government that our tourist industry has boomed as it has.
The roads to resources program will help to open up new areas, apart altogether from the extra money made available by this government to Nova Scotia to stimulate the tremendous highway program we have had. In so far as national resources are concerned, I might mention the tremendous capital funds that have been provided for the building of wharves, breakwaters and other harbour facilities in the maritime provinces. This has been a tremendous help in improving our most important fishing industry. I daresay the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, if he were honest, would admit that more has been done in his constituency in the last three years toward providing harbour facilities than ever before.
As far as I am concerned my constituents never before saw such expenditures as this government has provided to build up the harbours throughout my constituency. The fishing industry is being stimulated and proving the value of that investment in my riding. The same is true across the rest of the maritime provinces.

As far as decentralization of industry is concerned, we from the maritimes recognize that that is not an easy proposition. We see what happens when attempts are made to decentralize industry across this nation. Current in the news is the question of whether or not the atomic power research centre should go to Manitoba rather than be settled in Ontario. There are always two sides to these questions. Certainly I have yet to see a member from the Liberal party rise in his place and say that research centres and so on should be taken out of the central provinces in order to be established in the maritime provinces or in the western provinces. Usually they take the reverse position.
Speaking of defence contracts, may I say that a large part of the economy of Nova Scotia is dependent on defence contracts. The city of Halifax derives much of its income from the large naval establishment and shipyard there. The new establishment in the valley has been a substantial fulfilment of the promise to locate more defence organizations in the maritimes. Certainly the naval base at Point Edward close to Sydney, which employs 600 men, has been a tremendous boon to the economy of Cape Breton island.
As to power development, may I say this. The power development project which is going ahead rapidly and is providing a good deal of employment will give us cheaper power which will mean a great deal to the development of the maritime provinces. This power development program is being pushed ahead by this government in order to try to assist us in the province of Nova Scotia and in the other provinces.
While I am speaking of this matter I should like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the power development program, as first conceived by the Liberal party, would have been of no value whatever to Nova Scotia without assistance in the way of subventions to bring coal to the power plants. We all remember that only a short time ago the Liberal party in this house, through the then minister of northern affairs and national resources, refused to accept the suggestion of subventions on coal to power plants within Nova Scotia but suggested instead that the high prices of oil which obtained during the Suez crisis showed that coal would be able to compete with oil in those power plants, even though he must have known that coal could never compete with residual oil from abroad without subventions. Those subventions on coal made the power program a reality in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick and will mean, I hope, that we will have
Supply-Labour
cheaper power. The power program would never have meant cheaper power under the program suggested by the Liberal party in 1956 and 1957.
As to transportation may I say this? One of our greatest problems is transportation, as it has been since 1900. But at the moment the whole problem of transportation is being gone into by this government and we are hopeful that as a result of the inquiry by the royal commission, the inequality under which we suffer will be remedied. We expect that this government, after gathering all the facts, will take measures to improve the transportation cost as it effects the Atlantic provinces. But I say this to you, Mr. Chairman. In all the years that the Liberals were in power they refused even to consider this question. If they criticize us for appointing a royal commission, may I say that at least the government is trying to do what it can to gather the facts fairly, to have all opinions put forward and to come up with a solution to the problem.
Mention has been made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, in his attempt to paint as bleak a picture as possible, of the Atlantic provinces of the coal industry. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have grave troubles in the coal industry. We have had them for a long time and they are accentuated today by the new competition of oil that comes in through the pipe line and by the natural gas finding its way into our markets in Montreal and along the St. Lawrence river. This is quite a problem. The government has faced up to it squarely and has listened very patiently to all of our proposals in this regard and I know is seeking everywhere for a solution.
The Rand commission we expect will go into this matter very thoroughly and will come up with a long term solution to the coal problem. There is no way of solving it by waving a magic wand. As a matter of fact, this government, in the tremendous subvention assistance it has provided for has made the position of the coal mines very much better than it would have been if the policies of its predecessors in office had been continued. When you consider the fact that last year $13 million in federal subventions went to the province of Nova Scotia-mostly into Pictou county and Cape Breton county-to assist in meeting the problem of the mines, we can all appreciate that this government is doing everything it can to help; and the people at home know it, even though they also realize that the situation is a serious and vexing one.

Supply-Labour
Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest, as I have suggested before, that the solution to the basic problem of the maritime region or the Atlantic region is not to be found in political headlines and is not to be found in ad hoc programs to partially meet one crisis after another as they come up, as was done through the years under a Liberal administration. We all recognize that the Atlantic region constitutes a special economic problem.
We must have industrialization and it will come only if our industries in the Atlantic provinces are able to compete, to produce goods as cheaply and to sell them as cheaply as do industries located in other areas. It is obvious to anyone that if a man has his choice between locating an industry in the Atlantic provinces or of locating in Ontario or Quebec, he is going to choose the province in which he thinks he can show the greatest profit. I think that what we must do is to equalize opportunity by showing the manufacturer in the Atlantic provinces the same profit as he can realize in the central provinces. How we can do that will have to be studied very carefully. Personally, I believe that the best way in which the problem can be properly solved is by tax concessions which would allow a manufacturer as great an after-tax profit as he would have if he were manufacturing here in Ontario or in the great province of Quebec.
Some mention was made by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska of the question of tight money as it affects our provinces in the east. I do not think the hon. member was suggesting that the tight money situation as we find it was the result of deliberate policy of this government. However, he pointed out that tight money means one thing in Ontario and Quebec and means an entirely different thing in the Atlantic provinces, To us it means that where money was tight previously, it is now almost impossible to get. I think all must recognize that in the Atlantic region there should not be put into effect policies to check inflation either by the government or other agencies in the country. A definite attempt was made, I think by the chartered banks of Canada, in the interests of controlling inflation, to tighten up money in many areas. I believe it should be pointed out to the men who lend money in this nation that there is no justification for cutting back on loans in the Atlantic provinces in order to control inflation. There is no inflation problem there, although it may exist in other parts of Canada. I would hope that this government
[Mr. MacLeUan.l
would bring to the attention of bankers and agencies throughout that nation the fact that there has never been any reason nor is there at the moment any reason to cut back the money supply in the Atlantic provinces because of the problem of inflation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a question of privilege and I will be very brief. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, but he did say that if I were honest-and I do not take any especial exception to his saying that because I do not think he really meant it-I would admit that there had been just as much done in the way of public works in my riding since the present government came into office or that there had been more done than was done previously. That, in fact, does not happen to be so, not that I am complaining because the riding, up until this year, has not been treated badly.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am seeking to make a correction which, under the rules, I am perfectly entitled to make and I am doing it at the right time.


Frank Charles McGee: Please, the chairman is on his feet. As I understand the rules, the hon. member has not established to date a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman wants me to make an issue of it, it is certainly not competent for one hon. member to question the honesty of another hon. member. I was not seeking to be controversial; I was simply seeking to answer the hon. gentleman's point. He said that if I were honest I would admit that this government had done more public works in my riding than the previous government. It does not happen to be true, that is all.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: I wonder if the hon. member would clarify that a bit. It may be true that in two and a half years this government has not accomplished as much in his riding as was accomplished in the many years of office of the previous administration, but would he tell us whether the amount of money spent on public works in his constituency in 1958 was not greater than any previous year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I am saying-


Frank Charles McGee: Order. I do not want to offend either hon. member, but it seems to me that this matter is developing into a small debate between the two

hon. members which I do not feel has any place in this discussion. I now recognize the hon. member for St. Ann.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Inverness would not want, I am sure, to attribute any characterization to an hon. member which is contrary to the rules of this house. During the course of his speech he did say that if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate were honest he would say thus and thus. That is a reflection which I am sure the hon. gentleman did not want to leave, and he ought to be asked to withdraw that remark.


Frank Charles McGee: understood the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate when he first rose, he said that he did not propose to take issue with that. That being correct-


Paul Joseph James Martin: But another hon. member has.


Frank Charles McGee: I understood the hon. member for Bona vista-Twil-lingate to say he did not take issue with this statement and he made no attempt to ask the hon. member to withdraw it. I would think that if the question does still exist it would be incumbent upon the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to draw it to the attention of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, you are laying down new rules. Any hon. member of this house has the right to ask an hon. member to withdraw a remark which reflects on another hon. member, and that is exactly what I am doing.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, when I used the expression, "If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate were honest", I used it merely as an expression. I know he does not think that I would for a moment suggest that he is dishonest, and I certainly correct that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank you.
(Translation):


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, the discussion has been going on for four days with regard to the $15 million earmarked for winter work, and the government has suggested no additional action, no change in policy in respect of the unemployment problem. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), as well as all other members of this government, are entrenched behind their winter program and do not want to see conditions as they are. The sight of
800,000	unemployed is not enough to pierce
Supply-Labour
the fog which hides the earth to all Conservative members who are still in a state of ecstasy after their coming into power in the 1958 election.
In the speech I made on the address in reply, Mr. Chairman, I said that the winter works program was a monumental hoax, and I am if anything more convinced of it today.
In Montreal, the winter works program is practically, if not completely inexistant. Why?
First of all, because the government always decides too late to tell the municipalities whether they will be able to avail themselves of a federal grant with regard to special projects during the winter. Second, the government is putting too many limitations on the work which those municipalities may carry out.
What are the municipal authorities to do, when, during the summer months, they wonder what the government's intentions are with regard to the various winter projects they might undertake?
The government announced last October that the municipalities would be able to benefit from a winter works program. This government should, first of all, understand that, in a city like Montreal, before any reasonable study of such program can be undertaken, plans be established, tenders called for and contracts let, before all this has gone through the usual administrative channels months of work are required. A notice of a few weeks by the federal government will therefore hardly give enough efficiency to the winter works program in Montreal, from the point of view both of the unemployed and of the city.
I said a few moments ago, that the government is putting on too many limitations with regard to the work the municipalities may undertake, and I shall quote a few instances, in order to bolster my argument: Under the winter works program a municipality is not entitled to have any work done by the hydroelectric commission with regard to the lighting of streets, to traffic signals, the various water mains and transformers. Moreover, the city may not do any construction work in its yards, nor erect any buildings. These are just a few facts I have been able to gather, as I had no time to study the consequences of such limitations more thoroughly.
Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, what the difference would be if the government decided to put no restriction on the types of works the municipalities could undertake?

Supply-Labour
The unemployed would be the first to benefit; municipalities would avail themselves of the opportunity to have certain necessary improvements made, and manufacturers providing the necessary material for those various works would have to keep their staff twelve months a year instead of seven or eight months, as is the case in many factories today.
The government, which keeps asking the opposition what they would do or what they have to suggest to settle this or that problem, will allow me, at this time, to make two very simple suggestions in order that this winter works program may become, if not a success at least a means of providing work, not only to a mere 40,000 persons but perhaps to
150,000	or more during the hard winter months.
This would help decrease the number of jobless people and would undoubtedly spare the Minister of Labour many a headache. It would at the same time allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to fulfil the election promises he made when he said that, so long as he would be Prime Minister, no one would suffer from unemployment. It is not merely one or a few unemployed, that we now have in Canada, but 800,000 of them.
Let the government announce right now, or at least as soon as possible: 1-That municipalities will get grants for winter works next year; 2-That no restrictions will be put on the types of works in which Canadian labour might be employed.
I have here a communique sent to me by the Minister of Labour: it is dated November 20, 1958, and it explains the winter works program. Here is what article 3 says:
Classes of admissible works, subject to each winter works undertaking being accepted, are as follows:
(a) Construction and major reconstruction of streets, sidewalks and highways, except main highways.
In the province of Quebec, Mr. Chairman, it is not possible-and I can say so, even though I am not an engineer-to build streets or sidewalks of the types mentioned in those winter works.
Here is now what the Minister of Labour specified in article (b):
Construction and major reconstruction of water work, sewer and waste-water services.
This is about the only type of work that municipalities like Montreal can undertake during the winter.
Here is what the item says:
Construction and development of municipal parks.

That is the winter works program, those are the only projects that municipalities can undertake throughout Canada to assist 800,000 unemployed registered at present.
This is very limited, and the Minister of Labour, instead of pretending that unemployment is not as serious as it is, that unemployment is not on the increase, should-I conclude here, because I have in my hand a press release from the Department of Labour showing the employment situation in January 1960:
In January, the total of persons employed was estimated at 5,699,000, a decrease of 162,000 compared to January and December.
Within a month, 162,000 more persons had to apply for unemployment insurance, and the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister and all Conservative members keep on pretending that unemployment is not a problem.
I said it before and I say it again: unemployment is the cause of all the trouble we now have in Canada.
Here is one of the reasons for the figure of
162,000	unemployed. A third of this number were people working on construction, while half of them were employed in trades, in industry, in factories and in agriculture.
Week after week the Minister of Labour gives us the number of unemployed, and we find that it is always on the increase. And day after day the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister keep repeating on television and elsewhere that the unemployment situation is not serious, that it is not as alarming as members of the opposition would have us believe.
The February 10, 1960 issue of La Presse published an article by Mr. Paul Martel under the heading:
Winter unemployment threatens our national economy.
Allow me to quote only a few sentences:
Winter unemployment is one of the serious problems gnawing at the national economy, Mr. Paul Martel stated this week . ..
Every winter, Mr. Martel added, thousands of workers are laid off and have to go on the dole. This results in a drop in production and a loss of purchasing power estimated in millions of dollars.
This shows, Mr. Chairman, that employment in Canada is related to the whole economic system.
I think I have made a few valid suggestions, and I feel the Minister of Labour should include them in his general winter works program.
It would also be of benefit to every unemployed person in Canada if the Minister of Labour took the time to review his winter

works program with a view to making any amendments required to enable the municipalities to share in it.
In Montreal, for instance, and as a means of providing winter employment, the winter works program might include a subsidy for snow removal, which would allow the municipality to employ manual workers to clear garage entrances, skating rinks and public parks after heavy snowfalls, instead of using blowers. Furthermore, and again as a means of providing employment, manual workers might be employed to clean out the street sand from sewers.
Again as a means of reducing the number of unemployed, an effort might be made to use more manual workers instead of equipment in larger cities, and so on.
Mr. Chairman, I think if the Minister of Labour were sincere and really wanted to correct the present situation, he would put forward new suggestions, so that municipalities might take better advantage of the winter works program.
A few moments ago, I heard the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) tell the house that the mayors of municipalities in his constituency called him up to inquire as to what they might do to benefit from the winter works program. Apparently, he does not wield too much influence in his constituency.
I see on a list I have here that the town of Farnham will get $2,450 from this winter works program. This aid will give work to 15 people for five months. It means that each person will get $163, or $32.60 for one month and $8.15 for a week. I think those people had better apply for relief to the St. Vincent de Paul society in their parish; I am sure they would get much more money.
As far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned-and this is even more amusing

there is a project for which the contribution of the federal government will be $250. We must admit that it is quite an amount. This project which will be executed under the winter works program will provide work for 10 people. For a whole province, it is mighty big. It means that each person will get $25 for five months of work. For one month each will receive $5 and for one week each of those ten people of the province of Prince Edward Island will receive $1.25. If it could help the government, I would be quite willing to take one or two of those people and to help them live through the winter with what the government offers them. Frankly, they need much sympathy.
Supply-Labour
So, here is the aid that the government and the Minister of Labour are offering to our 800,000 unemployed. They do nothing. And this program is nothing but a screen behind which they hide while pretending they are doing the utmost to alleviate unemployment. As I said at the beginning, this government and the Minister of Labour are doing nothing to alleviate the misery of our 800,000 unemployed all across Canada.
I conclude these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, by saying it is useless to make suggestions. In fact, this debate is in its fourth day and the government has not yet mentioned that it intends to modify its winter works program. If the government intends to improve it, it keeps perfectly silent about the matter.
In this regard, may I recall the message delivered on New Year's day by the Minister of Labour, which was published in the National Labour Journal. I will not read it all, but only the last two paragraphs. Here is what he said:
As Minister of Labour, I can assure you that I shall do all I can at the federal level to find solutions for our labour problems.
According to the prospects at the beginning of this year, there is every reason to be confident and, through the co-operation of workers, employers and governments, 1960 should be a year of happiness and prosperity for all Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, if things remain the same during 1960, the number of unemployed will continue to grow and this year will not be as happy as forecast by the Minister of Labour in his New Year message. However it is desirable that, around Easter time, after a careful self-examination, and in view of the plight of the 800,000 unemployed across Canada, the Minister of Labour should draft a new message and announce major changes in his winter works program.
Furthermore, let us hope that the Minister of Labour will announce right now whether municipalities may take advantage of this offer next winter and whether the restrictions will be changed, so that in the winter of 1960-61 our unemployed will be better off and their families happier.
(Text):


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gérard Loiselle: Surely.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle) thinks of the statement the

Supply-Labour
Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent made in this house on February 20, 1950 about winter works when he said:
We thought that with this co-operation, it could be possible to determine the appropriate amount for carrying out projects not only of national scope-
(Text):


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I am just going to ask the hon. gentleman if he would care to comment on this quotation.


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. member resume his seat? As I understood the direction of his remarks the hon. member was placing a statement on the record rather than asking the hon. gentleman what I deem to be a legitimate question at this juncture. I recognize the hon. member for Timmins.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is the third occasion on which I have participated in this debate and although some may feel that three times is too often for one member to speak during the course of a debate I make no apologies whatever for rising at this time to speak about what I consider to be one of the most important problems if indeed not the most important problem to come before us this session.
I should like to confine my remarks today to something that has arisen since the last time I spoke in this debate. I refer to the problem that has recently arisen in the city of Elliot Lake. This was discussed at some length the other night by the Leader of the Opposition. With all due respect to that hon. gentleman for whom I have considerable personal admiration I believe I can safely say that he befogged this problem more than I thought it was possible to do.
The hon. member for Springfield spoke on this subject this afternoon and, I may say, very eloquently, but I am afraid I have to take issue with some of his remarks. The hon. member went on to list some of the reasons why this research centre should be built in Manitoba rather than located at Elliot Lake. If I heard him correctly he gave as one of the reasons the fact that there is bedrock available at Whiteshell such as is needed to support a building of this size. I do not know what type of rock they have in Manitoba but if the hon. member can find more bedrock anywhere in the country outside of the Rocky mountains than he will find around the city of Elliot Lake, I should like to know where it is.
The city of Elliot Lake was practically blasted out of rock. That is one of the big blunders that was made when this community

was built. Within a distance of 5 miles of the present site there is a perfectly level strip of ground that would have served as a wonderful location for this city but the grandiose plans called for the city being located where it is and as a result the taxpayers of Canada will be called upon to pay almost twice the amount they should pay for the construction of buildings in that city.
Another reason given by the hon. member for the location of this research centre at Whiteshell is that it would be near the University of Manitoba. I acknowledge the truth of that statement but I also know that at the present time extensive plans are being made and funds are being raised across northern Ontario for the establishment of a university in that area. The present houses that will stand empty in the city of Elliot Lake would be a wonderful place to start a university. Think of the cost that could be saved if this and projects of a similar nature were moved into the available houses in that city.
I do not know how many hon. members have visited Elliot Lake in the last year or so. For those who have not visited it recently I should like to state that it is probably the most modern up to date city on this continent. There is not a single shack, dead end street or unpaved road or sidewalk in the city. It is likely that the city will become the most modern and up to date ghost town on the North American continent as it was described in a recent newspaper article.
The hon. member for Springfield mentioned the embarrassment of the Liberals in the province of Manitoba. I should like to place on the record a letter I received from a faithful follower of the present government who lives in Elliot Lake which should be a source of embarrassment to the present government. It was written by a business man in that community whom I knew very well in the town of Timmins, having served with him through two terms on the school board of that municipality. This man invested something like $80,000 in a business in Elliot Lake and unless something is done quickly he will lose his investment. This is what he wrote:
I am writing this letter to seek your active support on a matter that is of the utmost importance to all of us in this community. I feel that it is almost equally important to the Canadian taxpayer wherever he may live. That matter is namely the relocation of the proposed atomic research centre at Whiteshell, Manitoba, to the Elliot Lake district. I would like to enumerate only a few of the more important reasons why this is the only sensible thing to do.
1.	This area is a fully developed community with first class facilities of all kinds fully developed to handle the situation with no further expenditure required as against opening a new community in the bush miles from nowhere to cost the taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars.

2.	This community in which both governments have spent millions of dollars faces almost certain complete collapse in 1966 with a loss to the federal government of some $40 million in N.H.A. loans alone. (Wouldn't it be ridiculous to do the same thing all over again in another section of the wilderness?)
3.	This is where the uranium is for any such project. No more need be said about that.
4.	Even with the relocation of the project here it is certain that many of the mines will be closing which would leave beautiful, permanently constructed buildings available for space required by such a project. Without mentioning names I am thinking of one mine in particular that is due to close soon. The buildings there are excellent and there is water over 300 feet deep at their front door.
5.	The energy resources of Ontario are almost fully developed and new sources must be found whereas Manitoba has only scratched the surface. Now. I realize this has little connection with a research centre, but would fall in line with the allied subject of power developed from uranium.
6.	With the people of Manitoba this is a nice thing. An extra to be gained from the government. With us it is a life and death struggle for many who have placed their life savings in the development and future of this community; after all, the money wasted here came partly from the Manitoba taxpayers too.
Nobody in his right mind would object to federal aid to increase property and industry in our good prairie provinces, but this is such a terrible duplication of services and such a waste of millions. The fact that the Whiteshell proposal in the first place could have been a political reward for certain people doesn't enter into this discussion as I am not qualified to remark on it.
You may wonder why a lifelong Conservative would write such a letter to an up and coming C.C.F.'er. Well, I'll tell you. In our past association we usually seemed to be of a mind on most matters; furthermore, I sincerely feel that this whole situation is above party politics. I may remain a Conservative all my life so that you can understand how it pains me to tell you notwithstanding my own affiliation, that I have lost all confidence in this present administration, this matter being only one of the many causes for such feeling on my part.
Murdo, please give this your unreserved consideration and see what you can do in the house.
I think that letter speaks very well for itself, Mr. Chairman.
The hon. member mentioned something he had seen in the newspapers recently about a cabinet minister from Port Arthur in the provincial government, a Mr. Wardrope, who had made a sweeping generalization about how great developments in northern Ontario are going to absorb the people from Elliot Lake. The hon. member for Springfield also pointed out that many of the miners in Elliot Lake would not be qualified to work in this research centre. I would suggest that the same remarks would apply to the development mentioned by Mr. Wardrope, if and when it ever comes about.
But I think this problem points up something that has been overlooked far too much in this debate so far. I certainly realize the
Supply-Labour
importance of the problem so far as the miners who are affected in Elliot Lake are concerned, because I know many of them personally. So far we have completely ignored the businessmen in that town, the men who have gone in there and who have sunk every bit of money they had and every cent they could raise to establish themselves in business. I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night and the hon. member for Springfield today mentioned the fact that possibly in 10 years' time Elliot Lake might be booming again. That is a long time between meals, as far as the people there are concerned. While the hon. member made a very good point that if the research centre was moved to Elliot Lake it would not provide immediate employment, yet it is a fact that if the businessmen in Elliot Lake knew that this research centre was to be established in that community they at least would have some hope in the future. I see no hope at present and neither do they.
I see my time is getting short, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to switch to another matter which has risen just this week and which is affected by but not necessarily contained in the same problem. Many hon. members may have seen a report in the Toronto Star that miners laid off in Elliot Lake were returning to Timmins where they were facing a situation where immigrants are being brought in and given preference in work in the gold mines of Ontario. I have checked my local papers and I see that this allegation is denied by the local mines and, at the same time, people who know the situation say that they have proof of this. At this stage I dc not know whether they are right or wrong. I think the government should look very closely into this situation because if it is true it means that three cabinet ministers are going to be very much embarrassed by this action on the part of the mine operators. First of all, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be embarrassed because it is through her good offices that these people must come here. I have nothing whatever against immigration provided provision is made to give the immigrants some opportunities when they get here. But I ask hon. members what kind of reception are we giving immigrants coming into this country when they find themselves in situations such as we have at Timmins at the present time? They would be cursed and reviled the moment they set foot in Canada because they would be taking jobs away from trained miners in the Timmins area. What kind of reception is that? What kind of immigration policy is that?
This action would be embarrassing to the Minister of Labour in his efforts to find a solution to this unemployment problem. It

Supply-Labour
is fine to bring people in, but it you cannot feed your own family you do not invite in your neighbours. And last, but far from least, it will embarrass the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who has a bill on the order paper to extend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for another three years. Of the two mines involved, one is reported to be recruiting 400 immigrants and the other is planning on bringing in 10 families per month. In the 10 years in which the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act has been in force these two mines have received $14,976,270.32 from the Canadian taxpayer.
It has just been drawn to my attention that at the present time there is not one single member of the cabinet in the house to listen to this debate.


Mr. Hodgson:: What did you say?


Hazen Robert Argue: A minister just walked in from behind the curtain.


Murdo William Martin: One final point; I see I have only a minute or two left. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi lectured hon. members in the house this afternoon and suggested that we have been remiss in our duty and have fallen down on our responsibility in that we have not gone around to the communities in our ridings and sold this winter works program. I say I would willingly pay all the expenses of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi if he would visit the municipalities in my area and I dearly hope he will be able to sell them this winter works program, because I think he would have a big job on his hands. I would willingly pay all his expenses and arrange a meeting. I earnestly hope that he will be able to sell this plan to them so that it will be of some assistance to the unemployed in my area.


Mr. Hobichaud:: Mr. Chairman, I have only two minutes before five o'clock. Before proceeding with my remarks I should like to say a few words in reply to the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. He tried, in the course of his remarks, to paint a rather rosy picture of the situation in the Atlantic provinces. Like most of the members from those provinces on the government side of the house he tried to blame us of the opposition for complaining about the lack of action of the present government to take care of a most unfortunate situation affecting 125,000 to
150,000	unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Frank Charles McGee: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant
(Mr. Martin (Timmins).]
to standing order 15 (3) to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day, or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-9, respecting the Canadian Public Health Association.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to bring up to date an act respecting the Canadian Public Health Association which was passed in 1912. The Canadian Public Health Association today is a mature, well-balanced association representing the many professions concerned with public health in Canada. Its activities have kept pace with the changing pattern of public health and covers a broad and varied field. The association today might be described as follows.
The association is a national organization with eight provincial branches located across the country. All the provincial branches have the same objectives as the main body. The fact that there are eight provincial or regional chapters does not mean that there is a gap in the country-wide coverage. There are separate chapters for seven of our provinces and New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are joined together in one regional association.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Which ones?


John William Kucherepa: New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Newfoundland is not at present connected to any particular provincial or regional arrangement but the public health workers in that province have been active in association affairs.
Public health today covers a broad and ever-expanding field. The membership of this association reflects this pattern by including physicians, dentists, veterinarians, nurses, sanitarians, laboratory personnel, health educators and others, who are making a real contribution to the affairs of the association.
The work of the association is carried out by its members through study groups, continuing and ad hoc committees, and by presentations at the annual meeting of the association. As I mentioned earlier, the association brings together many professions, and each of these, in turn, has its own professional

body. The team concept must be fostered and the committee on needs has recommended that the association establish a much closer link with other professional organizations. At the same time, the association must continue to demonstrate the value that individual members receive from belonging to an organization made up of people in fields of mutual interest. Therefore, a trend in the future is likely to be a closer working relationship with other professional health bodies and a more prominent role for the Canadian Public Health Association within this group.
An important need in Canada, as in most other countries, is a better co-ordination of professional and voluntary health effort. In recent years we have seen a remarkable increase in the number of health agencies. While such increase is evidence both of unmet needs and of an active public concern in meeting these needs, it has resulted in a very complex pattern so that the necessity for co-operation and co-ordination of effort is becoming clearly evident.
As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of this bill is to bring up to date an act respecting the Canadian Public Health Association. For example, this bill will permit flexibility in fixing the place of the head office. The present act fixes the place of the head office as Ottawa. For many years the actual administrative headquarters has been Toronto, and it was thought desirable at this time to make provision to change the head office from Ottawa to Toronto, with power to relocate at some future date if this should appear necessary.
This bill will bring the act up to date by inserting words of modern usage which have developed in the intervening years. The original bill used the word "sanitation" which apparently at that time was considered descriptive of what is now referred to as public health. It was thought appropriate to amend this archaic phraseology and to substitute the more modern expression "public health and preventive medicine". This bill will also clarify and extend the matters which may be dealt with by by-law, such as providing for the establishment of new classes of members which is considered desirable if the association is to keep abreast of developments. It also provides the technical provisions for the calling of meetings; the method to be used in enacting, repealing or amending by-laws; the powers and duties of the officers and other matters which are part of the operation of other associations with not very different aims.
Originally part of the act dealt with the first general meeting of the association. This is being dropped. Another section made
Private Bills
reference to the original incorporation and specified by name the members of the first executive committee. This is also being dropped. The new bill is intended to make provision for an executive council and an executive committee and for representation thereon.
The original act placed a limitation on the quantity or value of real property which the association may hold. This is no longer regarded as necessary or desirable in organizations of this kind, and it was thought desirable that this should be repealed. There would be substituted a new section which would authorize the association to acquire property, real or personal, to borrow money and do other things as are necessary in accordance with modern usage and practice in such activities. The clause in question is one that is in general use. For example, I think it is contained in almost identical language in the act incorporating the Canadian women's press club. I know that all members of the house will agree with me that over the past 48 years this association has made a real contribution to the welfare of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to say a brief word about this bill which I am sure will be supported by all members in this house. The Canadian Public Health Association has rendered, through its officers and members, such distinguished service in the interests of the health of this nation that the opportunity should not be allowed to pass without acknowledging the great debt everyone in this country owes to the Canadian Public Health Association. This association has developed and spread throughout our country a knowledge of public health and preventive medecine, as well as other matters pertaining to the highest standards of health care which all of our health workers seek and have so successfully effected.
I should like to say to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that this also affords me an opportunity to say to him what I am sure every hon. member in this house would also say, and that is how grateful we are to him for what he has done in the administration of the Salk vaccine to members of parliament and to public servants quartered in the houses of parliament.
The Canadian Public Health Association has had some distinguished officers administering the organization. As one who had the responsibility of recommending health policy on federal account to my colleagues in government, my own association with this

Private Bills
body was very intimate, just as I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare at the moment has a close association.
There are many names that stand out in my mind as I think of this body, but I would want to single out particularly the man who was president of the association when I first became minister of national health and welfare. I should like to use this occasion to acknowledge, on behalf of the Canadian people, the great debt Canada owes Dr. R. D. Defries, the director for such a long period of the Connaught Laboratories and the man who was, perhaps more than any other apart from the research scientists who discovered the Salk vaccine, responsible for making our program in Canada such a great success. Dr. Defries is also remembered, along with the late Dr. Banting and Dr. Best who had so much to do with insulin. The production of insulin at the Connaught Laboratories is linked to Dr. Defries who is as well a great figure in the Canadian Public Health Association. I am sure the house generally will recognize that anything that renders more efficient the operation of a body like this deserves the approval of the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In
rising to express the wholehearted support of this party for this bill and the purposes of this very worthy organization I feel like somewhat of an initiate in this field in following two gentlemen who have rendered distinguished service in the health and welfare field. I refer to the hon. member who introduced this bill and to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I am glad on this occasion for once to have a kind word to say for him. He was our former minister of national health and welfare and, as everyone knows, he took a great interest in this problem.
I was interested in the hon. member's explanation of the purpose of the bill and the purpose of this organization which, I understand, was commenced about 1912 and whose principal function was to promote a knowledge of public welfare and to promote ideas that would give effect to various services that were required in the areas in which the organization serves. I think that our changing concepts with respect to public health are clearly indicated in the change in wording in this measure. Whereas in the old act the objectives of the association are stated to be:
-the development and diffusion throughout Canada of the knowledge of sanitation in all its branches, and all other matters and things appertaining thereto, or connected therewith.

In this bill those words are changed to the following:
3. The objects of the association shall be the development and diffusion throughout Canada of the knowledge of public health and preventive medicine and all other matters and things appertaining thereto or connected therewith.
Just changing those words clearly indicates, in my opinion, the change in ideas with respect to what public health means today as compared with what it meant in 1912. I know that when I was a small boy public health as far as I was concerned meant cleanliness and washing my neck every morning before going to school. It was largely centred around this idea and was not considered on as broad a scale as it is today. This change in language indicates the broadening scope of this society.
I was interested in the hon. member's description of the work of the society, of its being national in scope, of its having provincial or regional organizations, and of its membership. I was interested to hear him mention that it aimed to promote teamwork amongst the professional persons he mentioned and also teamwork with other health bodies. I was pleased to note that fact because I am under the impression-and I find it in other spheres of human activity-that there is sometimes a tendency for there to be a wasting of effort in overlapping, in duplication and things of that sort. I find that tendency in a good many public activities throughout the country. I am glad to note that he mentioned that there was a particular desire to promote co-ordination and co-operation between voluntary health agencies through the Canadian Public Health Association.
Having made those few brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I now resume my seat, wishing this organization continued success in the future in the good work it is undertaking for all Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. O. W. Weichel (for Mr. Websier) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-ll, respecting Montreal Life Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Webster), the sponsor of this bill, may I as seconder present it on his behalf.
This bill asks for authorization to change the English name of the company into its corresponding French version, and to use both names, all for the purpose of doing a more extensive business, as this company

expects to do. The bill is a sign of the times and indicates the growing understanding between the two peoples of Canada through the diffusion of the two languages.
Montreal Life Insurance Company arose from the Travellers Life Insurance Company, which was formed by the acts of incorporation and amending acts, June 16, 1908. I understand that business actually began on May 26, 1910, and the name was changed May 27, 1924 to Montreal Insurance Company.
The company issues a complete range of life insurance and annuity policies, both participating and non-participating. It was the first Canadian life insurance company to include disability benefits in its policies and is one of the companies still prepared to grant the monthly income disability benefit.
The past 50 years have been a record of continuous and healthy growth with noteworthy progress in every sphere of operations. The company has enjoyed economical and capable management and its earned rate of interest on investments has for many years been one of the best among life insurance companies operating in Canada.
Montreal Life Insurance Company occupies its own head office building in the city of Montreal and has 25 branch offices throughout Canada, ten of which are in the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. Speaker:: There are on the order paper a number of divorce bills standing for second reading. Is it the pleasure of the house that they all be taken in the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-98, for the relief of Rivka Fridman Nimrod, otherwise known as Rivka Fridman Nimrod-Lothan, otherwise known as Rivka Fridman Hebei.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-99, for the relief of John Frederick Alfred Webster.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-100, for the relief of Mary Prukker Wigmore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-101, for the relief of Elizabeth Rudolph Beauchemin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-102, for the relief of Georges Delrue.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-103, for the relief of Marie Claire Georgette Cronier Brault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-104, for the relief of Marie Therese Louise Forest Morin.-Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-105, for the relief of Donat Savoie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-106, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Andre Sicotte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-107, for the relief of Stanley Wellington Burton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-108, for the relief of Hannah Bitensky Bidner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-109, for the relief of Katharine Elizabeth Moore Shaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-110, for the relief of Mary Margaret Young Doulton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-111, for the relief of Iris Margaret Leslie Sankey Joliffe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-112, for the relief of Mary Glen Keirstead Routliffe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-113, for the relief of Helen Balacan Berinbaum, otherwise known as Helen Balacan Berne.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-114, for the relief of Morris Arthur Bergeron.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-115, for the relief of Erica Theresa Schockner Giwertzman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-116, for the relief of Boris Moses Ovrutzky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-117, for the relief of Mac Ravitsky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-118, for the relief of Timothy David Rudston Thomason.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-119, for the relief of Anne Smilovitch Portnoff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-120, for the relief of Violet Sandra Miller MacKenzie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-121, for the relief of Reva (Rita) Hutkin Agoston.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-122, for the relief of Jean Ann Brown Craig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-123, for the relief of Frances Malofy Marzitelli.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-124, for the relief of Louise Dupuis Papineau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-125, for the relief of Georgette Malick David.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-126, for the relief of John Priestley.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-127, for the relief of Caroline May Alexander Clements.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-128, for the relief of Ellen Schwarz Blok.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-129, for the relief of Nijs de Vos.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-130, for the relief of Lucien Girard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-131, for the relief of Emilia Ar-coragi Fisher.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-132, for the relief of Michael Kaluta.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-133, for the relief of Andre Marsolais.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-134, for the relief of Jozefa Lukasiewicz Bielicz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-135, for the relief of Beverley June Russell Ehrhardt-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-136, for the relief of Edith Hirsch Distelman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-137, for the relief of Lise Johanne Carreau Wolczecki.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-138, for the relief of Charlotte Stilman Shulman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-139, for the relief of Gail Rabinovitch Golden.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-140, for the relief of Marie Rose Lucette Durocher Di Iorio.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-141, for the relief of Nelson Cyr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-142, for the relief of Ivy Baldwin Collier Wright.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-143, for the relief of Joseph Alain Jean Guy Berube.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-144, for the relief of Shirley Loraine Knodell Burke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-145, for the relief of Rene Lassonde.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-146, for the relief of John Pastor.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-147, for the relief of Margaret Dunn Hepburn Sanderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-148, for the relief of Maurice Sykes Ward.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-149, for the relief of Clark Alvin Graham.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-150, for the relief of Noeleen Natalie Adams Lamond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-151, for the relief of Harry Gillman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-152, for the relief of John Philip Bowers.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-153, for the relief of Carl August Christensen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-154, for the relief of Barbara Joan Marsh Wolfe.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-155, for the relief of Barbara Ann Tuppen McIntosh.-Mr. McCleave.

Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: the second reading of Bill No. S-12, respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the prime purpose of this bill is to amend the incorporating act

so as to permit the company to operate with greater efficiency. As you will recall, in 1958 the company came to this house with a bill to reorganize and to change its financial structure. As a result of the operations under that act the company now has been able to clear off a trust agreement and for the first time has been able to operate under the direction of its own shareholders.
In their operation they have found that while operating under the Railway Act they are somewhat hampered in administrative detail. For that reason the first committee meeting of the shareholders, after the termination of the trust agreement on March 10, 1959, which was held on April 2, 1959, at which they decided to ask permission of this house to make the amendments set out in this act.
The affect of the amendments will be to provide that the general meetings of the company will be anywhere in Canada instead of being restricted to Sault Ste. Marie. They will be able to increase the number on the board of directors to a maximum of 15, and also to amend the quorum to be not less than four directors; also they will be able to provide for an executive committee. That was done for the Canadian Pacific Railways some years ago. They will also be able to put into effect the principle of alternative directors. They also wish to make it possible to apply to this house, if necessary, for authority to add to their financial structure in a more efficient way than in the past by requiring a vote of 10 per cent of their shareholders instead, as formerly, of two thirds.
That, Mr. Speaker, is roughly the purpose of this bill. The parliamentary agent and the officials of the company will be available when this bill is referred to committee if passed by this house, and I am sure they will give any detailed information which would assist any hon. member concerning the problems of the company.
I might just add a word in case some hon. members are wondering about the object of the alternative directors. Under our own dominion act that is not permissible, but it has been a practice which has grown up in England and adopted by some of the provinces of Canada, such as the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick, and I have the authorities here if any hon. member should require that information. It would mean that because the directors are spread right across not only Canada but sometimes outside Canada, an alternative director would be named to act on their behalf at a directors meeting.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Might I ask a question. The hon. gentleman has mentioned about the alternative directors, and I was wondering

about that in my own mind. If there is an executive of four directors out of twelve, how will this operate? How are the alternatives named? Are there alternatives for every director? Perhaps the hon. member would say a word or two more on that, although I realize of course, that the bill will go to a committee where it will be finally determined.


Mr. Morton:: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the exact operation this company has in mind, but it was explained to me that there are occasions where a director will be unable to come. In that case an alternative director who, I understand, has been formally approved by the other directors can come and take the place of the director and act during the meeting as if he were a director. But his authority only lasts so long as the director is away.
As to further details I prefer to let the officials of the company explain this so that there will be no misunderstanding as to their operation.


William Moore Benidickson: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Is this a subsidiary controlled by the Algoma Steel Company?


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker, this company was created by statute in 1899, and is primarily owned by shareholders in England, France, Canada and some in the United States. It has been in operation for many years, although as a result of a default in its payments during the first world war, I believe, the shares were assigned under a trust agreement. It had been operated until March 10, 1959 by nominees under this trust agreement, and as far as I know it is not a subsidiary of the company named by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Hazen Robert Argue: the second reading of Bill No. C-12, to amend the Small Loans Act (Advertising).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have moved a bill similar to this one. It is a very simple bill and I do not intend to take up all the time between now and six o'clock discussing the bill because I think it is very much in order that other hon. members, even within this short period, should have the opportunity to state their views.
This bill is not completely original as far as I am concerned. I have placed bills on the order paper in the past which would 79951-0-96J
Small Loans Act
have limited the interest rates which could be charged by small loans companies and other lending institutions to a maximum of 12 per cent per year. It has been pointed out, however, in this house on previous occasions, and it has been pointed out to me in private conversations I have had with hon. members of the house and members of the press, that there is a good deal of interest, and it is felt by many a good deal of support, for the idea that small loans companies in advertising their lending facilities should be required to set forth the interest rates that are charged for the loans they make, particularly when they set forth the payment plans.
The first clause of the bill reads as follows:
Section three of the Small Loans Act Is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(5) Whenever a money-lender advertises himself as carrying on the business of money-lending and in such advertising indicates the monthly or other periodic payments required for the payment of any loan, he shall also indicate in such advertising what the total cost of any such loan amounts to in terms of percentum per annum."
There have been a number of similar bills moved by private members in the past which have recommended themselves to hon. members of the house. Even in the field of small loans, by presenting bills asking for a reduction in interest rates and by obtaining for those bills a great deal of public support, private members influenced the government of the day to act in a very commendable way by introducing its own legislation subsequently referred to the banking and commerce committee, reported to the house and passed into law. As a result of that legislation many millions of dollars in interest payments have been saved, in my opinion, to the borrowing public.
Small loans companies are providing larger and larger total amounts of consumer credit in Canada. They are a growing business a business growing in importance. In 1951 small loans companies made loans totalling $114 million; by 1959 the total had increased to some $431 million, an increase in that period of time of more than 200 per cent. Oviously, this is a growing field, a field of growing importance, and in my opinion it is a field in which greater control should be exercised by the parliament of Canada and by the superintendent of insurance.
I can see no disadvantage which would accrue from requiring small loans companies in their advertising and in setting forth their carrying charges to name the interest rates that are charged. I think it is very much in the public interest that this information should be made public and that the borrower

Small Loans Act
who has to go to a small loans company for a loan shoujd walk in with his eyes open as far as interest rates are concerned.
I have in my hand a piece of literature put out by the Household Finance Corporation. It lists the various amounts that may be obtained as loans. It lists the repayment cost per month with regard to these loans, but in no case does the interest rate appear. Perhaps some people who do not take into account the fact that the loans are repaid on a monthly basis may calculate that on a loan of $500, for example, repaid in 12 months with a carrying charge of $56.06 there would be an interest rate of 11 per cent. Of course, that is not the case. The interest rate is roughly twice that amount, since the money is repaid in 12 annual instalments and therefore the person borrowing the money does not have the $500 for the full 12 month period. In this chamber in other years the former member for Saskatoon, Mr. R. R. Knight, took a very great interest in this question and on a number of occasions moved a similar bill.


William Moore Benidickson: Was it more than once?


Hazen Robert Argue: No. I believe it was just once. But he raised the matter for a number of years and having done that I believe in 1956 he presented a bill asking for control.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: wonder if the hon. member could tell us what he means by "advertising"?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would think that any piece of literature which was put out by the company, or any advertising in newspapers which set forth repayment schedules would, according to this bill, have to have included in it the interest rates that are charged.
I think there is evidence that small loans companies in their enthusiasm to make loans and their enthusiasm to make profits do put forward literature which paints an exceedingly rosy picture as far as the borrower is concerned, and I think it should have coupled with it a statement setting forth what are the interest rates. I have in my hand a brochure passed out to prospective borrowers by the Beneficial Finance Company which says, inside the cover, the following:
Dear Customer:
We are happy to offer you the full services of the Beneficial Finance System.
Your Beneficial manager and his staff are carefully trained and thoroughly experienced to give friendly, intelligent service in all matters of personal finance, budgets, and loans. Feel free to call on them at any time.
No doubt hon. members will have heard advertisements over the radio. Some of them go something like this: come in some morning.

Frank is a fine fellow, used to dealing with the public. You won't have to have any embarrassing co-signatures, and you can get your loan in a matter of minutes. However, the experience of many people with regard to small loans companies suggests that their interest rates are so high that there should be in their advertising the interest rates that are being charged. This pamphlet goes on to say-incidentally, there is a big heading:
"You're the boss" at Beneficial.
I do not imagine that is really correct, by the way, even when you are borrowing money. I am certain it is not correct if you are in default and unable to make your payments on time. It goes on to say:
Extra Cash
Even though you already have a loan with us, you can get more cash at any time by "adding it on" to your present account... Just phone and tell the manager how much cash you want. He'll save you time ... he'll have the paper-work done before you come in to pick up your loan.
You will not even have to take the time to read it. He will have it all ready for you. And again:
Bill Clean-up Service
Pay off left-over bills with a bill clean-up loan. Then, make only one monthly payment instead of several.. . have more cash left over at the end of the month.
It goes on:
Consideration
Naturally, we like prompt repayments. However, in an emergency, if you can't make a payment, let us know and we'll do everything possible to help straighten things out.
That is the Beneficial Finance Company. They say that if a customer cannot make payments on time, let them know and they will do everything possible to straighten things out.
I have in my hand a copy of the chattel mortgage which is signed when a customer enters into an agreement with the Beneficial Finance Company, and I should like to read a paragraph from that chattel mortgage:
And it is agreed that in case default shall be made in the payment of the sum of money in the said proviso mentioned or of the cost of loans and interest after default or any part thereof as hereinbefore provided or in case the mortgagee feels unsafe or insecure or deems such goods and chattels in danger of being sold or removed-
That is, if the Beneficial Finance Company should feel unsafe or insecure
__then the whole of the money secured hereby
shall at the option of the mortgagee immediately become due and payable-
Notice, that if the company feels insecure the mortgage is due and payable.
-and it shall be lawful for the mortgagee, its servant or servants, with such assistance as he or they may require at any time during the day or

night to enter in or upon any lands, tenements, houses and premises wheresoever and whatsoever where the said goods and chattels or any part thereof may be and for such persons to break and force open doors, locks, bolts, fastenings, hinges, gates, fences, houses, buildings, enclosures and places for the purpose of taking possession of and removing said goods and chattels.
Those words are contained in a chattel mortgage that has been signed. It states that the company has the right to hire what I call a gang of thugs-


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. Has the hon. gentleman verified that these conditions apply throughout the country? Has he ascertained in what provincial jurisdictions such conditions would apply? I can tell him they certainly would not apply in the province of Alberta.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is an actual contract with signatures attached. I cannot tell at a quick glance whether it was drawn in the province of Ontario or Quebec but it is a bona fide chattel mortgage that has been signed in this part of the country.


Norman Platt Lambert: A very limited application.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would be happy to have a copy of chattel mortgages used by this company in other provinces so we could get a fair comparison across the country. This is Canada and this is where this chattel mortgage applies. As I said, according to my reading of this mortgage the company has the right to hire a group of thugs, strongarm people, to seize the chattels that are mortgaged if the company feels that repayment is insecure. This is outrageous in this day and age.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question. Is he suggesting that this house has jurisdiction over chattel mortgages?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, but I am suggesting the house has jurisdiction over interest rates. In this bill I am suggesting that this house has jurisdiction over advertising. I am not a lawyer but I would think this house because of its jurisdiction over small loans companies could exercise at least a measure of persuasion when it comes to advertising to see to it that the advertising is not as misleading as I contend this is when, in reference to failure to make prompt payments, the Beneficial Finance Company states in its brochure:
Consideration-Naturally, we like prompt repayments. However, in an emergency, if you can't make a payment, let us know and we'll do everything possible to help straighten things out.
I should think you would be better off if you did not let them know because it might give them this feeling of insecurity and might
Small Loans Act
lead to the adoption by them of these strong-arm methods to break into your house by day or by night, singly or in groups, to seize the chattels in question.
I believe hon. members of the house are sympathetic to the idea that in advertising there should be the utmost measure of modesty and that with respect to advertising dealing with repayments and charges thereon a company should set forth the interest rates they are charging so the public will have access to all the facts.
In recent years the period the house devotes to the discussion of public bills has not been used to the greatest advantage. There has been too great a tendency to talk out many public bills that are placed on the order paper, if indeed not all of them. I would hope that before this session concludes this bill will come to a vote. I should like to see it referred to the banking and commerce committee and the superintendent of insurance for whom I have respect and who has my confidence called as a witness before that committee so that hon. members could judge whether it is in the public interest to take this small but important step of requiring small loans companies to state in their literature and advertising the actual percentage of interest they charge on repayments.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the hon. member permit a question. I believe the hon. gentleman knows that when a bill similar to this was last before the house in 1956 I showed sympathy toward the objective. Is the hon. gentleman not aware that we did see to it that the bill was discussed in the banking and commerce committee. This bill seems to be identical to the one introduced on that occasion by Mr. Knight. The deputy minister of justice in 1956 said that he felt clause 1 was not within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament but that clause 2 was. In view of that I am wondering why the hon. member included c'ause 1 again in this bill in identical form?


Hazen Robert Argue: What the hon. member said is true. I discussed this with the law officers of the House of Commons. It was felt that for the purpose of discussion the bill was framed in adequate form. It has not been the custom of the house to pass bills in the precise form as placed on the order paper in the names of private members. The ordinary custom is for the government to introduce a similar bill at a later date. It was felt that the bill as drafted was in adequate form so that if it passed second reading and was referred to the banking and commerce committee, appropriate amendments could be introduced at that stage.
i 526

Small Loans Act


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the bill as presented to this house.
First, I would agree with the hon. member that it is advisable that the matter should be discussed in this house but I would be quick to point out that the legislation in its present form does not really hit at those who are abusing the privilege of advertising. It is, in effect, restrictive, and somewhat prejudices those companies that are now under control, namely companies that lend under $1,500. In my opinion the greatest abuse of this practice comes about through individuals and companies who are not even within the control of any statute. For that reason I feel that the hon. member is putting companies which are now under control at an unfair advantage. I believe, too, he is placing over those companies control of a kind that is not even put over the lending operations of the banks, such as the personal loans branch of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. That, of course, may not be an effective argument in reply to the hon. member.


William Moore Benidickson: There are several banks that follow that plan now in addition to the Canadian Bank of Commerce.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Yes, that is true. The banks that have followed that plan would not be under the jurisdiction of this legislation.
In 1957 the hire and purchase act was passed in Great Britain which indirectly attempted to deal with this problem. It dealt with the buying of goods and chattels on time. That measure required that the exact terms of such purchases be set out in the advertisements. Of course, as we know, these agreements are usually assigned to finance companies at a discount and thus would apply indirectly to the principle set out in the bill before us.
We are somewhat handicapped in this country in bringing these matters directly under control because we fall between the jurisdiction of this parliament over interest and the jurisdiction of the provinces over matters of contract, over mortgages, chattel mortgages, and so forth. I question whether the matter of costs, as dealt with here, could be dealt with by this house because it may be a matter of contract between the person who is negotiating the loan and the company. I think when the Small Loans Act was brought before the house before and which dealt with the cost of interest it was only done so with the consent of the provinces concerned to give it effect, and that would have to be obtained in this case. However, Mr. Speaker, I think that in bringing this before the house

the hon. member has given us perhaps an opportunity of discussing the merits or otherwise of advertising by finance companies.
Of course, in a competitive society we must use some discretion in our control of advertising. As was discussed in a measure earlier, we must, I think, examine the advertising and ask whether it is misleading the public. If it is misleading the public, then perhaps it could be dealt with either by the Criminal Code or by some specific legislation; but I think the whole matter points out the fact that there is a field in financing over $1,500 that comes somewhat between the jurisdiction of this parliament and of the provincial governments in the control of second mortgages, and so on, on which there have been large profits and which perhaps have been draining off money from the main channel of finance, and if it were brought back in under more reasonable rates it would add to the flow of money in legitimate commercial fields and perhaps help to keep down the interest rate.
Recently in Toronto Pierre Berton made an expose of an advertising scheme of a company which operated under four different names and had various forms of advertising in the local papers setting out how easy it was to obtain money, that there were no hidden costs and various things such as the regular come-ons similar to the advertising read out by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).
In his column in the Toronto Star of October 8, 1959, Pierre Berton showed how this worked. I do not feel that I should disclose names in this forum at this time because I have not been able to verify that this story is correct, but unofficially I know it has been checked. I have seen documentation of it. I will relate the story as follows. This lady was in difficulties financially; a third mortgage was due. She required money to pay it off and other financing, and she read the advertisement:
I'll lend you $1,525 to $5,000 within three hours.
The advertisement carried a photograph of a businessman, as these advertisements often do. They keep changing the names and this man, as I understand it, had really nothing to do with this business. They were sort of fronts to give some suggestion of being reputable. She made an application and they asked her if she would bring in her papers so that they would check over her documents to see whether she owned the property or not. Their initial statement was, if you receive $1,525 you will repay $30.84 monthly, the time being for 60 months. If you calculate that you will see she was paying interest at about a rate of 7.8 per cent per annum, and that did not seem unreasonable, in view of

the other financial costs of obtaining mortgages, and particularly third mortgages, in the city of Toronto.
But what happened? When she went back she was told that if she signed a document acknowledging that she had received the loan but there would be no hold on her property. She asked if she needed legal advice and she was told, "No, you do not need legal advice; we provide that for you gratis as part of the service." When she went to leave they gave her a cheque for $574.20. She was told that was the difference between the money she had borrowed and the amount they had used to pay off her mortgage. When she got home and worked it out she found she had been short-changed about $109. She complained about that and she was given the $109 after an apology. There were various charges on it, and she received a total of $1,516.50. When she got the document back that she had signed she found she had signed for $2,225 at 12 per cent interest. This was not in the contract. This was one of those things that was not supposed to be a hidden charge. This is what the poor lady had to sign and her monthly payment was $35. The interest was calculated half yearly.
The agreement was to fall due in four years. In four years anyone who has any knowledge of figures, of course, would figure out that she would have owed the company about $1,580, which was $65 more than she owed when she started, and all during this period of years she would have paid off about $1,680. Now, this is not only unfair but it is deceptive advertising. True she was 21, and she went in there on her own will. She should have had advice. She was misled; but it seems to me this is the type of advertising that the hon. member is referring to, and yet it is not controlled by this act, and this is the field in which most of the abuse is being carried out.
After this expose the company promised to change its tactics. It did change its name, and I believe it is still operating. How many people are going to be fooled by this type of
Business of the House
advertising until some sort of protection can be given? I do not believe we can be too restrictive on the type of advertising that is used. We must give some free play in free enterprise for advertising goods, but I believe there are occasions, such as I have indicated here, where there has been, I was going to say, deceit and misleading of people who are in difficulty, who are burdened with debt and as such perhaps cannot afford to get the advice that they feel they should get. For that reason I feel, although the principle of the bill is good, it is not adequate to meet the problem at hand.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I should like to inquire what the business is for as much of next week as the house leader can give?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, last night I outlined the situation for next week. Monday, of course, is private members' day. I gave a list of the things that we would like to go ahead with on Tuesday and Wednesday. I cannot go beyond Tuesday and Wednesday because I am uncertain as to when we are going to conclude the supplementary estimates and there does not seem to be much purpose in listing more subjects than I have already listed until we clear that item.


Lionel Chevrier: May I suggest that on Tuesday, should we complete the supplementary estimates, we might take up housing as the first item instead of the Prime Minister's resolution. If that were amended, there might be a possibility of dealing with it perhaps with a little more speed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member's suggestion has merit, but there are certain other considerations, and we would like to move ahead with the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister, which will be supported by the Minister of Justice, and get it to the other place for consideration.


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

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

Mr. Roberge: What quantity of hogs (bellies) were sold to
West Germany by the government of Canada or any of its agencies during the present fiscal year and at what price?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
6,821,290 pounds. Price 12 cents per pound for 97,589 pounds and 10 cents per pound for the remainder, basis f.a.s. Canadian seaboard.

Monday, February 29, 1960