1960-02-19

[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 19, 1960
[Stage Direction]

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP 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 first day of December, 1959, to the thirtieth day of April, 1960, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $15,000,000.
Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Labour whether he has a list of the projects available, which was asked for the last time the committee met and, if so, whether he could make it available for the debate which is now being initiated.


The Chairman:: Before we continue, there was some discussion-I think it was on Wednesday-as to the possible waiver of the rule concerning the strict relevancy of debate in committee, and there was some indication that the committee might give unanimous consent to permit under this item which we are now considering, that is vote 615, a general debate on unemployment. I should ask the committee whether it agrees unanimously that we so interpret the rules with regard to the present item.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: That, of course, will apply only to the present item. I am not asking the unanimous consent of the committee to change the rules.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister could indicate the answer to my question.


Mr. Starr:: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate last Friday asked for a statement or list of municipalities showing the estimated federal payments and the estimated number of men to be hired on projects approved by the municipalities and accepted by the federal government. I have three copies of this statement as of February 12. This is the latest report we have, and I should like to table this document now.
79951-0-781


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if it could be understood that at the end of the day's proceedings this document which the minister has now tabled should be included in Hansard?


Michael Starr: I have no objection.


Jacques Flynn: I wonder whether permission to do this should be asked when the Speaker is in the chair.


Mr. Caron:: I believe the chairman of the committee has all the powers of the Speaker. Only if this were refused by the committee would it be up to the Speaker to decide.


Jacques Flynn: I should think there would be no objection to asking the approval of the Speaker when he is in the chair. We might leave the matter in abeyance.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The chairman has all the powers of the Speaker except when his decision is challenged or unanimous consent is refused.


Jacques Flynn: The way I understand it is that the Chairman has not the powers of the Speaker when he acts as Chairman, but only when he acts as Deputy Speaker.


Alexis Pierre Caron: In conducting the affairs of the house and for everything that is sent to the committee he has the same powers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be quite prepared to make the request when the Speaker is next in the chair, in order to avoid any further discussion on this point, although I agree with my hon. friend from Hull.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think the committee need fear any difficulty.
[Editor's note: See page 1234]


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: The motion made the other day by the hon. member for Gloucester expressed the great concern of those of us in this party following the release of figures by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning unemployment conditions in Canada as of January 14.
We have been urging the government to take strong measures in the face of unemployment, as it has been revealed from day to day by the Minister of Labour pursuant to questions addressed to him regarding the number of people seeking employment both under the standards prescribed by the bureau of statistics and those of the national employment service. We have pointed out in what we have said about unemployment that

Supply-Labour
this was the foremost domestic problem facing the country. When we took this position at the outset of this session it was argued in reply that we were painting an unnecessarily pessimistic picture and that our general conclusions were not warranted by the facts.
If there could be any doubt, that doubt has been removed by the release of February 17 which points out a number of things which are of the most alarming character. Unemployment in Canada now is basically not less than it was last year. It is comparable with what it was in 1958. We now have a situation which began in the fall of 1957 and which continues today to be of alarming significance.
It is interesting to note that according to this release of February 17, unlike the situation in December last the number of persons with jobs in January was less by 162,000 than it was in December. Moreover, according to the dominion bureau of statistics the total number of persons without jobs and seeking work is estimated to be 504,000 in January as compared with 370,000 on the same date in the month of December, 1959, representing an increase of 134,000 persons in one month. When we consider that these bureau of statistics figures are a sampling figure, not recognized by the bureau in any way as a full record of unemployment in Canada, one can appreciate how serious the situation is.
The figure of 504,000 represents 8.1 per cent of the labour force. When one considers that the number of people unemployed in December, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, represented 5.9 per cent of the labour force, we have further evidence of the seriousness of the situation.
The picture all over the country is the same; so much so that this government can no longer sit in its present position of seeming comfort, ignoring the proposals which have been made and the rising demand which exists all over the country now for some action, action promised by this administration in 1957 and 1958, when it sought the approval of the Canadian people in the two general elections of those years.
The regional unemployment situation is, according to this release, as follows. In the Atlantic region employment declined during January; employment declined in the Quebec region more than usual between the months of December and January. In Ontario the number of persons with jobs likewise declined; there were 23,000 fewer at work on January 14 than in the previous month in the largest province. Likewise employment declined in the prairie region, and employment continued to decline in the Pacific region.

Therefore all over the country there are indications of a decline in the number of men and women gainfully employed in Canada.
At the conclusion of this release are to be found the registrations at the national employment service offices, and these give the figure of 755,387 as of the 14th day of January. We do know from later figures given to us by the Minister of Labour the other day that as of January 28, 786,294 persons were recorded by the national employment service as being without jobs and applicants under the registration formula of that service. We do know-and perhaps this is the most significant figure of all-from the minister's own statement in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Gloucester that as of January 1, 782,542 persons are in pay; that is to say, they are live claimants, receiving unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Hellyer:: What is the figure?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The figure is 782,542. I know these various compilations do have a confusing effect, but it is our duty in this house to explain carefully what these figures mean, even though it might be difficult to give, by their mere enumeration, a full appreciation outside as to what they signify. These are people receiving unemployment insurance under the law administered by my friend the Minister of Labour. No one is entitled to receive unemployment insurance unless he is out of work, unless he is in the work force, unless he is in insurable employment. Therefore the Minister of Labour cannot rely on any lower figure than this as an indication of the level of unemployment in Canada at the present time. If he takes a lower figure, then he is saying that people are receiving unemployment insurance without any legal right so to do.
I say this is the minimum figure; and when you consider, as I pointed out several weeks ago, that in addition there are people who have gone into the working force for the first time, others who have found that their insurable benefits have become exhausted, and others who were not in insurable employment at all, I think it is clear that the more approximate figure is the figure of the national employment service, the larger figure; and that of course, as we know, is the figure on which hon. gentlemen formerly relied when they were sitting in the opposition benches.
But for the purposes of my present argument I am prepared to recognize the lowest figure, not as being authentic, not as being anything more than a sampling of unemployment in our country, but as an indication of how serious unemployment is now in the

country; and I call upon the government to abandon its policy of laissez-faire, to abandon its policy of drift, and to try now seriously to do something about this very grave problem.
The Minister of Labour has given us the national employment service figure as of January 28; he has now given us the number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits as of January 31. I ask him some time today to give us the latest figures he has with regard to the national employment service unplaced applicants for jobs. On the basis of the figure of 782,000 people receiving unemployment insurance I do not think anyone can now contradict the suggestion that the real figure of unplaced applicants must be well over 800,000 people.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to give the latest figure to the hon. member. As of February 4, 1960, the figure is 792,908.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is as of February 4. Today is February 19. It may be that the minister will be having other figures before the end of the day. If not, he could avoid persistent interrogation that has come from this side and volunteer these figures as soon as they come to him, instead of being prodded, instead of being begged, instead of being urged to give those figures.


Michael Starr: For the information of the hon. member, and in view of the statement he made, I want to say that these figures were never released at any time prior to this government coming into office. It was because of the co-operation that I wanted to extend to hon. members in this respect that these figures were divulged in this house, at the request of hon. members opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not object to the minister intervening. Under the rules of the committee this enables me to continue as though I had not spoken at all up to this point, and I welcome this intervention.


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I say my silence should not be interpreted as agreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your silence may not be so interpreted, but there can be no doubt about the point, Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to the Minister of Labour making this correction, and what he has said is true. It has not been the custom. That custom developed last year; but what I am seeking to point out is that except on one occasion the minister has had questions put to him, and it was only as a result of those questions that he made a reply.
Surely the situation is this. Whatever figure we accept, the situation is serious and something has to be done about this problem.
Announcement of Royal Birth It will be no answer for the minister to say that unemployment is not new in this country. The fact is-as I hope to show some time during the course of this debate, if not when I am speaking at this particular time- that unemployment has been more serious in percentages since this government came into office than at any time while the previous administration was in office. During the past two and one half years we have had on an average over 6 per cent of our working force out of work. This percentage is higher than at any time previously except in 1933-35. Something has to be done about this problem, and I propose to deal-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I would ask you to rise and report progress so I may make an announcement.


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreed that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Prime Minister has an announcement to make, and by leave of the house I suggest that the bells might be rung for a minute or two to summon other members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Let the bells be rung for two minutes.



THE ROYAL FAMILY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members will have heard the glad news that a prince has been born to Her Majesty the Queen. This is an hour when her people rejoice and with sincere sentiments of affectionate loyalty pay tribute to Her Majesty for the nobility, devotion and selflessness with which she has discharged her duties under the institution of the monarchy, which Canada has maintained and preserved on this continent.
The family life of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip has been an example of domestic happiness to all the world and has strengthened the bond between the throne and the people-a bond based not on pomp and power but on love and affection.
All hon. members will join me in an expression of the hope that the infant prince will know peace and be supported by a living faith and that strength, always under God's will, to meet whatever responsibilities the years

Announcement of Royal Birth may have in store for him. Sir, I therefore move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson):
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We. Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, respectfully desire to offer the congratulations of this house to Your Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip on the birth of a prince and to assure Your Majesty that this happy event affords the greatest joy and satisfaction to your faithful members of the House of Commons of Canada.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to second the motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister. It was 110 years ago when last a royal prince was born to a ruling sovereign while parliament was sitting in the United Kingdom, and on that occasion a member, speaking for the opposition, seconded a similar motion, speaking in terms, which seem to me very appropriate for the present occasion. He said:
X have great satisfaction in seconding the motion. Every hour that her majesty has reigned, from the first moment of her accession, has added to her name new claims to the affection and gratitude of her people: and every child with which God has been pleased to bless her, has furnished a new motive to all persons to hope for the continuance of that favour which has so long watched over the prosperity and happiness of her people.
That was 110 years ago, Mr. Speaker. During that period our affection and our respect for the monarchy have continued to grow. We respect it as a hallowed institution which means much to Canada, symbolizing and underlining as it does the value to a young country of inherited traditions, of roots which are deep in the past and which can thereby steady and direct our progress into the future. But the monarchy is now also an example of all that is best in family life, that family life which is the truest and most solid foundation for community and national development.
So, Mr. Speaker, we can all share in the rejoicing at an event which so happily signalizes this association of the monarchy as an institution with the monarchy as something very human and very close to us all; the family.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this party joins with other members of the house in extending sincere congratulations to Her Majesty, our Queen, and to Prince Philip. We also give the heartiest support to the motion moved by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
John George Diefenbaker: It would be in order for the house to rise and sing God Save the Queen.
Accordingly, the members rose and sang God Save the Queen.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson):
That the said address be engrossed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John George Diefenbaker: I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson):
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this house has passed an address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen, expressing congratulations on the occasion of the birth of a prince, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this house in the said address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, when we were in committee a question was raised about the addition as an appendix to Hansard of a document which was tabled by the Minister of Labour, and my understanding was that there was unanimous agreement that this should be done. However, the Chair raised the question as to whether or not it had to be done when the house was sitting. I would request the Minister of Labour to ask for permission to have that done.


Michael Starr: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the document in question be printed as an appendix to Hansard of today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For document referred to above, see appendix]

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 first day of December, 1959, to the thirtieth day of April, 1960, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $15,000,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure il there had to be an interruption, as obviously there had to be at this time, few happier events could present themselves to intervene in the course of this debate than the announcement just made by the Prime Minister and the words he has expressed in connection with this joyous event, supported as he was by the Leader of the Opposition.
I had said, just before we interrupted our proceedings, that since hon. gentlemen opposite had come into office the average unemployment in terms of the working force was somewhere around 6.1 per cent, the highest since 1931-35. This is to be contrasted with the unemployment level in terms of the percentage of unemployed to the working force between the years 1946 to 1957, which was 2.9 per cent.
There can be no question but that we are now face to face with a serious problem. I think I could produce no more effective evidence of the determination of the government to do something about this problem than to refer briefly to a sentence the Minister of Labour used in a recent television speech, when he spoke to the nation about unemployment. The picture he gave in that speech certainly did not truly reflect conditions as they then were, and certainly was not at all reflective of the present unemployment picture in Canada. However, the Minister of Labour did say at the middle of page 3 of the text that was given for public release:
And I want to assure that this government will use every resource at its disposal to see to it that every Canadian who is in need of a job will have a job.
I am sure that was a welcome and assuring statement to the Canadian people. I am now going to urge upon the Minister of Labour and the government that they give effect to that assurance that every resource at the disposal of the government will be used to see that every Canadian who is in need of a job will have a job.
I say that on the basis of the minister's own figures, certainly as to those who are in receipt of unemployment insurance, unless we are going to take the position that there must be some permanency in the beneficial right to this important social security measure, the government must recognize at least that number as being among those in need of jobs. I know it is not pleasant for the minister to listen to criticisms day after day about this problem. But he has his responsibilities and we have ours. We of the opposition have the responsibility of bringing home to the government the nature of the problem, outlining its severity; and to remind hon. gentlemen, as they have frequently been
Supply-Labour
reminded, of their promises to do something about this situation. We have a responsibility to give them our opinion as to the extent to which they have put forward the kind of effort which the people of Canada have a right to expect of a government in this matter.
I say the government has not put forward such an effort. The government relies mainly on the winter works program, and it is now clear that this program, while it is satisfactory in so far as it goes, does not go far enough. It is not satisfactory to the municipalities, nor is it satisfactory to some of the provinces. The hon. member for Timmins was right the other day when he complained about the attitude of the municipalities generally with regard to this program.
The Minister of Labour said, if I correctly interpreted what he did say, that no municipality had complained. However, that is not the case. I respectfully point this out to the Minister of Labour and ask him to look at his files. He will see that my own city of Windsor complained about the inadequacies of this program and urged modifications so as to make it possible for more than 143 persons in the community to be employed.
The Minister of Labour finds it irritating to hear us mention, day after day, the fact that this problem of unemployment exists. He cannot take the position, however, that there have been no constructive proposals made for dealing with this serious situation. If the government has not been able to come forward with a program, we of the Liberal opposition have, and we placed that program before this house on the last day of the debate on the speech from the throne.
What reaction to that program have we had from this government? The only comment we have had has been with regard to one of the proposals which was that this house should establish at once a parliamentary committee to assess the short term and long term consequences of unemployment in Canada.
The minister's comment last Friday was that if such a committee were established the hon. member for Essex East would use it for political purposes. That was the only comment made by the minister about our proposals to correct unemployment. I have no doubt that I would be warranted in using that committee for proper political purposes. There is nothing sinister in engaging in political controversy with hon. gentlemen on this subject. I would certainly use that committee for the purpose not only of pointing out what are the facts, but of reminding hon. gentlemen of their responsibility in this matter. But no other comment was made except the reply of the

Supply-Labour
Prime Minister to one other proposal we made, and that was that the government had not given any consideration to the proposals made by the president of the Canadian Congress of Labour that the government should sponsor a conference of industry and labour to try to deal with this problem, among others.
The Prime Minister's reply was that no consideration had been given, although the labour congress had first proposed it in their memorandum of a year ago when they met the cabinet. They renewed it again when they met the cabinet a few weeks ago. That was a proposal which was repeated in a board of trade speech in Toronto by the president of the Canadian Congress of Labour, when he urged the government to call management and labour together to discuss some of the problems which are vital not only to labour and management but to this whole country.
I am going to remind the government again of these proposals to which we in the Liberal party attach considerable significance. First of all, we urge the government to consider that the magnitude of this problem now is of such a character that the primary responsibility should be taken from the Department of Labour and transferred to the government as a whole. I have seen a reference that the minister took this suggestion as a slight on him personnally. It was never so intended nor was it ever so expressed. It ought to be possible to discuss these questions without references to the persons concerned. But this problem now has reached great proportions. The Department of Labour is not equipped on any count to cope fully with this problem. The problem belongs to the government as a whole; to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in whose department, by the way, are trained individuals who have great experience in this very matter; to the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Labour of course, and to the Bank of Canada, whose governor stated some views with regard to this matter recently. It is inconceivable that the government should seek to have this problem resolved simply through the instrumentality of one department and one minister.
Then we proposed, second, that the government should establish a national advisory board on economic development, automation and employment to help deal both with the present problem and with its long term aspects. We propose that such a board should be made up not only of the appropriate representatives of government but of representatives of labour, industry, agriculture and the universities, and that this body

should really examine the economic aspects of the problem and see what effective steps might be taken, effective steps, at least to anticipate this problem in 1961 and 1962.
Then we suggested, third, that this house should establish a special parliamentary committee to assess the facts of unemployment and explore ways and means of dealing with the problem. What is wrong with that proposal? That proposal was made in 1955 by hon. gentlemen opposite, in particular by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, then a private member of this house sitting in opposition. He was supported by the present Prime Minister and Minister of Labour. At that time we had unemployment serious enough in that one year-it had not been on a continuous basis from year to year-and that proposal was made by hon. members opposite in an amendment to the motion to go into supply. I now say to the Minister of Labour, to the leader of the house, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, how can they sit in their seats day after day and refuse to implement something they themselves proposed?
I call upon the government to establish now a parliamentary committee on unemployment. There are many things that such a committee could do. If there is a confusion of figures, although I do not think there is, this committee could examine them and could determine the right standard of measurement if there is any doubt. It could examine whether or not this winter works program really has put 33,000 people to work, or whether it has only put a very small number to work in addition to those who normally would have been engaged on projects which municipalities would have pursued in any event.
Then we also proposed that there should be called at once a conference on unemployment between the two senior levels of government. This is a problem which we were told could only be resolved by co-operative action on the part of both provincial and federal governments. That was a proposal made in 1955 by hon. members opposite. They called upon the prime minister of the day to discuss this matter of unemployment with the provinces. Incidentally that was done, and it was at that conference that the public assistance program was discussed and ultimately adopted and introduced into this house. That proposal was made by hon. gentlemen opposite, including the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, for whom I have the highest regard, as of course I have for all the ministers in their personal capacities.

I urge the government to call a conference with the provinces. That was done before, and I ask this government now to do the same thing again. What possible excuse can they offer for not so doing? Do they not at least owe this house some explanation? The Minister of Labour said that a year and a half ago a conference was called. I am not talking of a year and a half ago. I am talking about now, when we have the most serious unemployment problem since 1930-35. The government cannot sit in Lord Melbourne fashion in their seats and ignore this particular request. It is a proposal that stands before them and that must be answered by them.


Mr. Crouse:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he advocate that enough power be granted to the federal government to effectively influence the rate of economic activity throughout this country? Does he believe we can legislate prosperity?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I will say this to the hon. member. I believe this government could do what the Liberal government did in 1936 when we were faced with heavy unemployment inherited from the previous regime, namely take strong steps to meet it. I will discuss them later.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: Let us not discuss this thing with too much heat. We want to discuss this topic. I am saying there are now close to 800,000 people looking for work; and no matter whatever may have happened before, this government, in the face of the assurances it gave the Canadian people- apart altogether from the responsibility a government has in any event-cannot shirk its responsibility and say, "What others did not do we should not be expected to do." That is not facing the responsibilities of government. This government simply must do some of the things which were done by the previous administration, when the level of unemployment never reached the proportions now confronting the country. It was then 2.9 per cent as compared with an average of 6.1 per cent between 1946 and 1957. That is the situation,


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


Murdo William Martin: I would rather like to get on with my 10-point program.


David Vaughan Pugh: I would appreciate it if he would permit it now. The percentage of unemployment is at the highest level of all time, according to his statement. I should like to know whether the hon. gentleman has taken into account the fact that since 1957 women 79951-0-79
Supply-Labour
have been included in the unemployment figures, and that as of a month ago that total stood at 166,000. Does he know that a similar situation exists with regard to fishermen, whose number stood at 18,000? Are these two figures included in the hon. gentleman's total? They do not appear in the total for 1957 to which he is now referring.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I welcome that information but I would call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that this was not a question. It was an intervention.


An hon. Member:: It was a mighty good one, anyway.


Murdo William Martin: 
Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just finish my point? Having all those things in mind, surely this government cannot fail to call a conference with the provinces. Only yesterday in Ontario one member of the Ontario Conservative party was saying he intended to resign from that party unless something were done to ease unemployment in the Elliot Lake district, where three or four thousand people have suffered loss of work. The provinces are discussing unemployment. Why should not the provinces and this government get together, particularly When hon. gentlemen opposite themselves suggested this action by way of a motion in this house, on which they voted that the government of the day should arrange a conference to try to resolve the problem of unemployment.

Supply-Labour
I give the Minister of Labour an opportunity right away, before I go on discussing these other proposals, to say whether the government will call such a conference; whether the government will establish a parliamentary committee, or whether it proposes, instead, to embark upon the so-called effective debating argument of saying nothing in reply at all. I can only say that if the last-named course is followed we shall keep at this matter in this house until the government does take steps which will satisfy us that at long last it means to do something about unemployment. What answer is there to the proposal we made that the suggestion of the Canadian Congress of Labour should be adopted and the government should call a conference of industry and labour? Is there anything wrong in that?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired. If the committee gives unanimous consent there will be no objection, of course, to his continuing. I have already taken into consideration the time taken up by interruptions. Is it the unanimous wish of the committee to give such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the committee for its consideration, but I do not want to accept it on those terms. I allowed hon. gentlemen to intervene. I gave way, and I say there is a rule that if there is an intervention the time runs from the time that intervention ends.


Michael Starr: It has been agreed that the hon. member should have time, counting the interventions, to carry on with his speech; and at this point, if it is agreeable, I should like to ask him to clarify the reference concerning the suggestion attributed to the Canadian Labour Congress. Where was that suggestion made?


Jacques Flynn: Before the hon. member for Essex East continues his speech, I should like to point out that I cannot accept his interpretation of the rule. The hon. member knows very well that he is not obliged to accept any questions which are put to him and it would be easy, of course, if we were to adopt his interpretation, for an hon. member to arrange or to provoke a question and thus keep the floor indefinitely. I suggest to the hon. member that he should accept the unanimous permission of the committee to continue his remarks.


Mr. Chevrier:: I do not want to press the point unduly, but I think it should be brought to your attention that there is a difference

between a question and an intervention. There is no doubt that there has been one intervention if not two, during the time the hon. member for Essex East was speaking, and that being the case I believe he has the right to go on for another 40 minutes. As I say, I do not wish to press the point unduly because the committee has been good enough to give unanimous consent to my hon. friend proceeding, but I would not like to have you rule that there has not been an intervention and that the hon. member for Essex East must sit down at this time.


Jacques Flynn: I must say that I do not see the difference between a question and an intervention or an interruption. Besides, it is easy to provoke any of them; therefore I cannot accept the interpretation of the rule which the hon. member suggests. As I said before, the hon. member having unanimous consent we might reserve a decision on this point for the time being.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to ask a question which he parried before. I wanted to know if he was going to adjust his percentages by reason of the very substantial additional figures which were pointed out to him and which entirely invalidate, as I understand, the percentages he has been using and on which he has laid such stress.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only tell the hon. gentleman that the figures I have are based upon the statistical survey-the last one I used was that of November-put out by the bureau of statistics. The hon. gentleman will find that the situation is not just as he has indicated, and I will deal with that later in the day. I want now to continue the particular point to which I was addressing myself. I do not want to appear to ignore any question asked by any hon. member, and I am very grateful that in these circumstances the committee in its present generous mood has recognized the desirability of my completing at least this phase of what I have to say.
The Minister of Labour has asked when the president of the congress made this suggestion. It was made first of all when the congress met the government a year ago. It was contained in their brief. It was repeated by the president of the Canadian Congress of Labour about a month ago when he spoke to the board of trade in Toronto. When the congress of labour met the government the other day and made its annual representations it was not specifically spelled out, but in that brief the congress said that it renewed all previous representations made upon which action has not yet been taken.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the hon. member has said I wonder whether at this point he would permit me to make an observation by way of clarification. It is true that in previous years the Canadian Labour Congress in its brief asked governments to convene such a conference. We acted on that suggestion in 1958. However, when the Canadian Labour Congress president addressed the board of trade in Toronto it was on a different matter altogether. He appealed to the government to establish a conference on labour-management relations.
That is the only point I wanted to clarify. I am sure the hon. member would not intentionally wish to leave the impression that a conference on unemployment was what the president of the congress requested at that meeting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour is quite correct in part when he says that in the speech President Jodoin made he referred to labour-management problems along the lines the minister himself mentioned. I do not have the speech before me, but I will send for it. In the first or second paragraph of that address there is a sentence which clearly indicates that the congress would like a general conference. What Mr. Jodoin undoubtedly was thinking about was the proposal made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that in the face of the serious competitive position in which Canada finds herself in the matter of external trade there ought to be some stabilization both in terms of price and in terms of the income received by individual groups. Labour took the position that before acceding to that kind of arrangement it ought to have the opportunity of discussing the matter with the government.
Certainly there is nothing that has a greater causative effect in terms of unemployment than does this particular aspect of the whole problem. In any event, does the minister not think that a conference with the provinces, a conference of labour, industry and management, and the establishment of a parliamentary committee would represent a wise course of action to see if we could not clearly establish in our minds some satisfactory appreciation of the serious unemployment picture that confronts Canada at this time?
Surely the government ought to recognize that it is expected now to take vigorous steps in order to cope with this problem and to satisfy the Canadian people that it is alert to the situation. It can no longer take the position that was taken in 1958, that the situation is temporary and is going to improve. That is not the picture we have seen 79951-0-79J
Supply-Labour
during the past two and a half years. We are now told by the research experts of the government that there is not likely to be an improvement in the situation in 1961 and 1962. We have urged that the government should do what was done in 1936; that it should go out and enlist the services of a leading Canadian figure, one who has a knowledge of production and employment problems-


Mr. Grafftey:: Mr. King called our 1936 plans unconstitutional.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am referring to the Purvis commission which was appointed by Mr. King.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was before the hon. member was born.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government ought to enlist the services of an outstanding Canadian figure with broad experience in production and employment to give leadership and bring about a co-ordination of the efforts of government and industry to see whether by ad hoc measures something could not be done to provide people with work. I do not know if the Minister of Labour has examined the report, or if my young hon. friend who takes the matter so lightly has troubled himself to examine it.


William Heward Grafftey: I just said that Mr. King called our 1936 plans unconstitutional. I do not take the matter lightly at all. I was merely stating the facts. Why does the hon. member always refer to my youth? I point out to him that I was elected to this chamber by the people of my constituency.


Lionel Chevrier: But the hon. member takes things lightly in this house.


William Heward Grafftey: I do not. Why does the hon. member for Laurier also insist on referring to my youth? I have as much right to sit here as does the hon. member, even though I am young.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is not interested in unemployment.


William Heward Grafftey: I am interested. I want the facts.


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I just remind the committee of standing order 12, paragraph 3, which provides that when an hon. member is speaking no other hon. member shall pass between him and the Chair or interrupt him except to raise a point of order. I would ask hon. members who want to make interruptions or put questions to seek permission from the hon. member who has the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: That ought to keep the hon. member quiet for a while.

Supply-Labour


Murdo William Martin: I am going to say to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, for whom I have very great affection even though I cannot fully appreciate his misguided political judgment, that if I used the word "lightly" I would not want any one to form the impression that the hon. member does not regard this problem as a serious one. I think in fairness to the hon. gentleman I should say that. But having said that I hope the hon. member will follow my remarks carefully and see whether he cannot revise what I regret to say are obviously distorted opinions.
I was suggesting that the government should do what the government did in 1936; go out and select an outstanding Canadian citizen with knowledge of the problems of employment and production, and assign him the task that was assigned by the Mackenzie King administration in 1936 to the late Mr. Arthur Purvis and which led to the publication of the report which I hold in my hand. This report served as a basis for some of the corrective action which was taken with regard to the problem of unemployment which existed at that time, a few months after that administration had come into office following a period of Canada's greatest unemployment under a regime that was directed by hon. members who belonged to the party now in power. I suggest that there are individuals in this country in industry who would command the confidence of the nation as a whole, and who could supply much of the dynamism which is obviously needed in trying to correct this problem.
We also proposed that there should be a modification of the winter works program to make it more acceptable. It is not good enough to be able to say that this year we hope to put 40,000 people to work. Employment for 40,000 people in the face of this problem is no real contribution at all. I am sure that if we had a committee and could examine the officials we might easily establish that this program was not responsible for putting even that many to work, and that many of these projects would have been undertaken in any event by the municipal governments.
Then we also proposed that the government should concentrate its attention on the surplus labour areas to assess the economic factors obtaining there and establish methods of providing work in those areas. If any hon. member will examine carefully the tables showing the continuous character of these surplus areas he will see that some of the great cities and towns of our country year after year find themselves in the position of being surplus areas. My own city
[Mr. Chevrier.l
happens to be one of them. The city of Cornwall is another. There are also the cities of Levis, Moncton and Bathurst. I am sure there was nothing in the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada which would preclude the government taking extraordinary measures in those particular localities and others like them in an attempt to relieve unemployment; or are we going to say we cannot tackle the problem?
If we take that position I would remind this committee of the temper of the people of this country at the end of the war, when everyone thought the preservation of our free society depended in large measure upon our capacity not only to give social and economic satisfaction generally but to do something about unemployment. If we do not do something about this problem our system will suffer, and in my judgment it will deserve to suffer in those circumstances. But I believe our system can correct the situation. One field in which this kind of action could be taken is in regard to the surplus labour areas.
We also urged that there should be an intensification of the vocational training program. I pointed out the other day that the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission said that in his experience only one person in ten could qualify for the jobs that were being made available. If that is true, then the government cannot be proud of the extent of the vocational training program it is undertaking.
We made another proposal. Since the highest level of unemployment in Canada is to be found in the Atlantic provinces, steps should be taken to meet that situation. I proposed, as the Conservative party proposed in 1958, that an Atlantic provinces capital assistance fund be established in order to finance large projects essential to sound economic development.
I do not say that one would want to assert infallibility with regard to those proposals. We believe in them; we believe these are the minimum efforts this administration should make with regard to these matters, but in a matter of this sort we are entitled to receive from the government a firm reply on each of these proposals. Either the government recognizes them to be valid or it takes the position that they are impractical. If that is the position, it is a fair position to take. We could then engage on the issue which the government in that event would establish. But the government cannot hope to have this item passed unless it takes the committee into its confidence and gives us an indication of what it proposes to do, what its attitude is with regard to these matters.

No longer can this government go on month after month, in the face of this serious situation, without at least seeking to establish that it is making every effort possible to relieve this country of what on the domestic side is a most serious problem.
Unemployment is serious; it is demoralizing; it is economically wasteful; it will damage our society more than anything else unless we show a capacity to overcome it. It is inexplicable that in Canada, this rich country, there should be such contrast with other countries in the western world. Switzerland is importing labour from Italy; Germany is importing labour from neighbouring countries. The United Kingdom has fewer than 250,000 unemployed in a population of 50 million. Canada has a population of 18 million, and on the basis of the minister's own figures there are on the unplaced applicants' list 782,000 people receiving unemployment insurance. On the basis of the dominion bureau of statistics figures that reflects an increase of 134,000 people unemployed in one month.
In the face of all this I say to the Minister of Labour, for whom personally I have the highest regard, trying to sympathize with his position, recognizing that he is a member of the government, that at long last he should recognize the emergency of this problem. If he is not able to satisfy the government as a whole about its need, will he not indicate what is his general thinking so we can help him to resolve this major problem which is now in the character of a disaster, and which has to be faced by the government of our country, or suffer the consequences.


Mr. Van Horne:: Mr. Chairman, it is my
duty, as I see it, to speak for the people of my riding and of Canada who are without work and who cannot find work. Some of the things I am going to say will not please the Liberals; many of the things I am going to say will not please the Conservatives. However, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is my duty as the representative of the people of Resti-gouche-Madawaska to say them. I am sorry that is the way it has to be, but I am the same person now that I was when I raised these issues on the other side of the house back in 1956 and early 1957.
I never came to this house to enter a popularity contest. I have never sought anything except results for my people. I have always considered politics the art of the possible, and that the measure of a member's value to his constituents is the degree to which he can get results from governments. To those of you who are usually so prone to interject, may I ask one simple question? Did you have a good breakfast? The people on
Supply-Labour
whose behalf I speak have not had a good breakfast, in fact many of them had no breakfast at all, and that includes many children.
Some people do not realize the situation. I had one reporter from Toronto come down to my riding two weeks ago, and he just could not believe that those conditions existed in Canada. Well, I said, "After this when I make those statements in Ottawa about conditions as they exist here, I certainly wish the members of the press gallery would not be so quick to think those conditions do not exist", because if any member wanted to take the trouble to come down and see those conditions as they exist there would be no doubt left in his mind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He should take a look at his own city.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am coming to that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That reporter should look at Toronto.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see; I have no doubt. I have never criticized any government for the sake of criticism. I feel it is the duty of a member of parliament to express his views as he sees them, and to demand from governments those things which are absolutely necessary on behalf of the people he is elected to represent.
On New Year's day I was out over the New Campbellton-Cross Point bridge now under construction. Over 300 men were at work there. They were working before New Year's and after New Year's on a project which this government had started through the efforts of the former minister of public works and with the assistance of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Prime Minister in a very conscientious and serious effort to do what it was possible to do, the things that we had been asking for for 100 years. If you go down to Dalhousie, New Brunswick, you will also see that a new year round port is being built, with icebreaker service. This will probably mean 500 jobs each winter for the people who live in Dalhousie, New Brunswick.
If you go through the riding you will see one public building after another being erected; you will see a new station erected in Edmundston, and you will see that hardly a request made by me to this government for a public works project has not been complied with, and in such a way that it is now under construction. As a matter of fact many of those projects have been completed. Therefore I say as I have said before, that this government has undertaken more, spent

Supply-Labour
more, done more and achieved more in two years than all previous governments together have done since confederation.
But if I were not absolutely convinced as 1 stand here that this government could do and must do much more and much better than it is doing in regard to unemployment, I would not be making the following remarks. I have tried as best I can to encourage the cities, towns and municipalities in my riding to go along with this winter works program. But, you see, they point out that in some cases about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the cost of those projects is taken up in heavy equipment, which does not equal out as jobs for people. Furthermore, these municipalities are hard up. The tax rates in every case are as high as if not higher than, the people can afford. For these reasons it is difficult for the cities and towns in areas such as mine to come to the conclusion that they can spend so much money on a public works program that will result in so few jobs for the people.
It is true, I understand-the minister can correct me if I am not right-that the city of Edmundston in my riding was the first city in all Canada to undertake a winter works project. It did result in a great many jobs and the city council is to be congratulated, but that project is now completed. By and large, Mr. Chairman, the winter works program, at least in my riding, is not achieving the results we must have if we are going to keep our people employed, especially during the winter months.
I will start with the premise that if we as a party had kept our promises made to the Canadian people before the 1957 election there would be no more than 200,000 people unemployed in Canada now instead of the nearly 800,000 unemployed we now have. This number will increase in the next few months, and it does not represent all the people who are out of work. As I said the other day, in my riding many people follow the woods, which is the expression commonly used. Many people work in the bush cutting wood on their own stands. They will go to a pulp company and say, "All right, I will cut you 200 cords of wood". They get no unemployment insurance stamps, and along comes the time when there is no more wood to cut or the snow is too deep to go into the woods. At about this time of the year these people are out of work without any unemployment insurance benefits. What is more important, Mr. Chairman, is that these people do not show in the figures that are before us today.
I listened to the hon. member for Essex East this morning, and I would' say that about

70 per cent of the points he brought out in his proposals were the very same points that we brought out in 1957, before the June election. We sold the Canadian people, in the maritime provinces at least, a bill of goods. We have no right now to forget those promises, let alone decide which ones we are going to keep and which ones we are going to throw aside.
The first and most serious set of promises was contained in the maritime resolutions, the Atlantic provinces manifesto, which were agreed to on many occasions by the party and to which every Progressive Conservative candidate in the maritime provinces subscribed before the election of June 10, 1957. This was a solemn document. It was the blueprint for a new deal for the Atlantic provinces. It dealt with a capital works program and many other things to which the hon. member for Essex East referred a few minutes ago as now being part of his party's program. That was our program in 1957, and that was the new deal which ensured the victory of the Conservative candidates in the Atlantic provinces. It dealt with capital works projects, redress with respect to freight rates, the Chignecto canal, the causeway, cheap power, trade, relief of tariff barriers, the right to do business where business can be found, recognition that the Atlantic provinces represent different economic aspects than those applicable to the rest of Canada. These were the things that we were so sincere in explaining to our people.
I maintain in all humility, sir, that if we had inaugurated 50 per cent of what we promised in 1957 there would be no unemployment in the maritime provinces today. What happened? We came to power on the strength of those promises, and we were no sooner on this side of the house than we let the Liberal experts take over most of the duties of the government.
I am very sorry I have to say these things, but I feel it is my duty to do so. If I did not think it was my duty to make these remarks I would not make them. Not only have we forgotten the Atlantic resolutions, that great document of Atlantic rights, but the Canadian people also seem to have forgotten about them. I hope that is not because they did not take these promises seriously, but that would appear to be the case.
Another thing that would solve our unemployment problem in the Atlantic provinces is a housing act similar to the one that exists in the United States, because it would permit people with low incomes to buy houses. Do not forget, Mr. Chairman, that on the average the people of Canada earn 30 per cent less

than the people of the United States, but the people of the Atlantic provinces earn 40 per cent less than the average wage earner across Canada. Do you realize what position that puts us in? None the less our people are expected to find $4,000 to put down on a new house. We just cannot afford it. We cannot get it, we cannot borrow it and we cannot do anything about it.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that if we would adopt the housing system of the United States, where a down payment of only $400 is required for the purchase of a $12,000 house which comes equipped with built-in kitchen furniture and so on worth $2,000, we would not have the unemployment problem that exists in my riding today, especially if we could have such a program timed so as to provide winter employment. That is not an impossibility; that is a practical solution.
When my people in Madawaska county look across the Saint John river, which stretches for 200 miles along the boundary of the province and in some places is only 200 feet wide, they see their friends across the way buying things at half the price they pay. Cigarettes cost half as much, as do refrigerators and other household appliances, sometimes even less. A package of cigarettes costs 25 cents. A refrigerator that sells for $500 in Canada costs $269 across the line. I had a Sears-Roebuck catalogue the other day and also a Simpson-Sears catalogue. I found, for instance, that a household clock costing $29 at Simpson's store in Montreal costs only $11.95 in Sears-Roebuck stores in the United States.
I am not mentioning these things to cause anyone any embarrassment. I am mentioning them because I feel it is my job as the representative of the people of my constituency, and because I realize the position they are in. They have to pay twice as much for everything. They cannot get a house if they want one. Now they are out of work and cannot make a living. I went into a store in St. Andre the other day. The lady keeping store said, "We don't know what to believe any more. You fellows came along and promised us a lot of things but we never heard tell of them after the election. The Liberals come along and promise us something else and we never hear tell of it again. We are so discouraged that I don't know what to do. My husband cannot find work. People cannot pay their grocery bills. We are going broke."
More people have gone out of business in my riding in the past six months than in any one year since the depression. It is unfortunate that I have to mention these things, but they all come back to one thing; unemployment. Our people cannot get work, and
Supply-Labour
many of those out of work cannot get benefits. You have to equate what I am saying in terms of suffering and hardship on the part of families. Do you know what it means when a child has to go to school without breakfast? On one occasion last winter in Campbellton 69 children in one school alone went to school without breakfast. Do you not think that this is a crime, when we live in a country where every Canadian is potentially the richest person on earth, yet children have to go to school without breakfast? Am I going to support a government that does not do more than it is doing to correct these things?
I was shocked when on February 15 the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) moved the adjournment of the debate on the motion then before us involving some kind of move toward reciprocity rights for the people of ridings such as mine. I was shocked that he should use as an excuse for moving the adjournment of the debate a snowstorm that had taken place ten days before, when in fact the snow had mostly all melted away. Before leaving the house for a meeting on maritime problems on the night of that debate I had been assured that the motion would not be adjourned.
As a result I was not here to answer some of the ridiculous and irresponsible statements made by the hon. member, which confused and hurt the rights of the workingmen in eastern Canada. This hon. member for Halifax would do well to get busy and do more for the unemployed people of his own riding, instead of hindering other members who are trying to get this government to do its duty in alleviating the suffering and hardship of hundreds of families whose breadwinners are without work and who, because of the inertia and dog-dancing in the Department of Labour, are not getting the unemployment benefits to which they are entitled. And I am not referring to the Minister of Labour. I feel that he is one of the finest ministers of labour this country ever had. I refer to the government.
The hon. member for Halifax knew very well that I had spoken to the minister by telephone some 10 days previously, suggesting that I go down to Maine to see what could be done. He, of course, very properly assured me that I could not get any official status from the government to do so. Official status to go down there had been refused as it had been refused in the days when I was in opposition. The hon. member for Halifax knew that without official authority to make an agreement on behalf of the government- which authority, by the way, seems to be given readily enough to some Liberal experts who are still in the Department of Labour- it would be impossible for me to negotiate the

Supply-Labour
necessary agreement. When I said that a phone call from the minister would probably be enough to get agreement, he asked why I did not make one myself. However, he knew, and he knew for certain, that I had indeed made a phone call to the governor of Maine at 3.30 that afternoon, and that I was informed that what was needed was an official delegation with official authority, which I had been refused, to go to Augusta, Maine, to make an agreement which would provide benefits for over 1,000 families in my riding alone.
The offer I made four years ago, and which I make again, was as follows. All I ask is the official status necessary for the purpose of making an agreement, and if I fail I resign. It is as simple as that. If something is not done I will resign anyway. We will all be kicked out at the next election if the government doesn't smarten up, because the people of my riding are not going to put up with this unemployment situation any longer. I therefore repeat that instead of trying to hinder and obscure the efforts of members who come here to work for their constituents the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) ought to look after his own back yard. I am sure he will find enough to do there without messing things up for the people of my riding and other ridings who are in very serious circumstances.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going into all the things the hon. member for Essex East mentioned this morning. I repeat what I have said before. I am convinced, as I stand here now, that much more can be done, simple things that would not cost the government money if they were adopted. We might adopt the United States type of housing program. Do not forget that the United States make millions of dollars from their housing scheme, much more than we make here, and we make a very good profit. I believe we make something like $3 million or $4 million annually, although I have not the latest figures. We could inaugurate a policy, especially in my riding, of obliging these contractors to do the work in the wintertime. This policy would, as of this minute, put something like 2,000 people to work. I know that is a fact.
I do not need to justify my request for housing. People are crying for a place to live. You should see the hovels in which they are forced to live. Would I be fair or could I do less than make the remarks I make now? I know they do not go down well with some people. They are not intended to go down well. They are intended to get people to move; that is what governments are for, to

get something going. I ask the government to give the people of my riding a half decent break, and to do it now.
If something is not done now then within the next month children will again be going to school without breakfast and some of them will be fainting in school because they have had nothing to eat. Yet we boast we live in a country such as this. We should be ashamed to let these things happen in a country like Canada. Every hon. member should be ashamed. This is something that should be taken to heart. We do not come here for the sole purpose of supporting one party against another. Certainly I came with this dedication and I do not suggest other people do not come here dedicated, too.
I say this to the press gallery, that before they take pot shots at me again let them come down to my riding to see how things are. These situations not only exist but they can be corrected. I am not getting up here and saying that the situation is bad but nothing can be done. I am suggesting that by the carrying out of only a few of the promises we made in 1957, 50 per cent of the people in my riding who are now out of work would be working. If we carried out only a few more of our promises there would be no unemployment at all in the maritime provinces.
This is the time for plain talk. Let us not wait until I again see children fainting in the schools. I could tell you more than I am telling you now, but I am not going to do so because I have told you enough. If there is sincerity on the part of the government it will be enough to get them to move.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschaielets:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). His remarks reminded me of the poor lady who had a son in the army. One day, as his regiment was marching past, she turned to the person standing next to her and said: "Look at my son Joe, over there; he has always been a bright boy and he is proving it again today. They're all out of step but Joe."
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska has submitted to the government a suggestion that I hope will be carefully looked into, because if only other Conservative members in whose riding unemployment is as serious as it is in Restigouche-Madawaska took the floor and requested government action, I think the government would sit up and finally do something about unemployment in this country.

This morning also, we heard the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). He reminded the government of the ten suggestions he had submitted during the throne speech debate and that he kept repeating to all the country on television. I therefore ask, on behalf of the unemployed in my riding, that the government take a definite stand on those matters. I hope we shall never again hear that the official opposition can only criticize the government and never offers any helpful suggestions to relieve unemployment.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before I deal with the unemployment works program introduced by the government, I should like to glance over the most recent statistics.
According to the dominion bureau of statistics, in January there were 5,699,000 people employed in the country. This is 162,000 less than in December, 1959. This morning the minister personally gave the last figures issued by the unemployment insurance commission. I take them to mean that 792,980 people have applied for work at our unemployment insurance offices.
Now, as of December 10, 1959, in the Quebec region-which concerns me more particularly-164,095 people were looking for jobs while on January 14, 1960-those are the last figures available-248,364 people were seeking jobs.
In Montreal, as of December 10, 1959, 59,361 people were looking for work, while on January 14, 1960, the figure was 83,165.
I must point out that of all areas covered by U.I.C. statistics, Quebec is the most seriously affected of all provinces in Canada. Therefore, I again urge Conservative members from the province of Quebec to tell their government that the time has come to introduce a definite policy in the matter of unemployment.
Throughout the province of Quebec, unemployment distress is as great today as in Restigouche-Madawaska or Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
I am anxious to see an hon. member from the province of Quebec rise in this debate and tell the federal government to what extent it has failed to deal with unemployment as it had so emphatically promised to do.
In fact, what has the government done against unemployment? Let me refer to two or three items. First of all, what became of the promise made by the present Prime
Supply-Labour
Minister during the last general election- a promise which has been echoed and supported by all Conservative candidates-and which said:
So long as I am Prime Minister, no one will suffer from unemployment, deficit or no deficit.
It was at the time, a high-sounding pledge, one that raised great hopes among Canadians. And so that the pledge would have a more solemn character, it was accompanied by the following advertisement:
(Text):
John Diefenbaker is one of the most truhtful and sincere men in Canada.
He has kept every pledge he has ever made and he will keep the above promise.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for a Conservative member to stand up and tell the house that the Prime Minister of Canada has kept his word with regard to unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Later on, we were amazed to find in the speech from the throne the statement that unemployment, at that particular time, was of seasonal character.
Again, just recently, the Minister of Labour, (Mr. Starr), speaking to all the Canadian people, said with much assurance that we were out of the recession; yet at that very moment there were 800,000 unemployed in Canada. The only concrete step against unemployment, the only remedy put forward by the government to solve unemployment, is the winter works program for which we are asked to vote $15 million. This will perhaps give jobs to 40,000 workers, at most, in all of Canada, but municipalities will have to pay the major part of the cost since the federal government undertakes to pay no more than 50 per cent of the wages of workers so employed.
Mr. Chairman, it is in that light that we should assess the value of the winter works program submitted by the government, and when I compare the seriousness of the present unemployment crisis with the paltry means taken by the government to resolve this crisis, I can only repeat what other hon. members said the other day, that the program is mere peanuts and that this federal government program is nothing but a farce.
We are not blaming the government for the fact that there is unemployment, but we are revolting against the hypocritical attitude with which, so far, it has minimized the seriousness of the problem and its own inability to cope with it.

Supply-Labour
After the criticisms expressed when the item was being considered last week, the Minister of Labour asked several members, who had spoken before me, "Are you in favour or not of the winter works program?"
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that is the type of question that could have been expected from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), but certainly not from the Minister of Labour. Of course we are in favour of any project that would provide work, even to a single unemployed. And this brings me to make a comparison. Suppose that a starving unemployed knocked at the door of the Minister of Labour, and told him: "Sir, I am out of work and hungry; could you give me something to eat?" Suppose the minister handed that poor starving man a little bag of peanuts. I have no doubt that he would take the peanuts and eat them but, of course, he would go away unhappy.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock? (Text):


Jacques Flynn: Order. 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. (Translation):
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, before the mid-day adjournment, I stated that this country is facing an alarming unemployment crisis and that the only solution put forward by the government was a starvation winter works program. I gave my views on the subject. It is a program which barely scratches the surface of the problem. Before concluding, I should like to put on the record a few lines from two editorials published in La Presse. The first, dated August 11, 1959, accurately reflects my views; it bears the following title: "The experience was useless."
Either Mr. Diefenbaker is unable to learn from experience or he does not want to, which is even less excusable. His stand on unemployment is one example.
Last year he waited until fall, on the very eve of his departure for a trip around the world, to announce a program of grants to municipalities wishing to undertake special winter works projects to provide jobs for the unemployed. As was subsequently realized the announcement had come much too late.
[Mr. Deschatelets.j
This year we had expected that, profiting from last year's experience, the government would act much earlier and make its intentions known by early summer. Yet the Prime Minister did not lack for advice. As early as last spring the opposition in parliament made it a point to refresh his memory and from time to time the press reminded him that time was running out. But no program has yet been announced, no decision has been taken.
This was on August 11, 1959. Here now are a few lines from another editorial published in the February 18, 1960 issue of La Presse under the heading:
Is it seasonal unemployment?
Unemployment statistics are becoming increasingly disquieting. Those published yesterday reveal that 8.1 per cent of the labour force available in Canada are unemployed. Even if this figure is slightly less than at this time last year, it is much too high to be considered normal. Yet, the federal government hardly seems concerned about it. Apart from the unrealistic and ridiculous winter work program set up by the Minister of Labour, Ottawa is not coming forward with any appropriate legislation that might remedy those conditions at a time when the situation calls for exceptional means.
What is more alarming, the federal government does not seem to take the matter seriously.
Indeed, nothing is being done to remedy unemployment. Or rather, something is being done: there is some juggling with statistics, which hardly improves the position of the unemployed.
For instance, we were told yesterday that unemployment, this winter, was no higher than the average for the last few years. Isn't this the same as saying that the present situation is considered as seasonal, and therefore normal? When 700,000 people are without jobs, is that seasonal unemployment?
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would sum up my views as follows: the winter works program submitted to us by the Minister of Labour will not settle the serious problem which is now giving us concern. Government policy must be overhauled.	I am
convinced that the unemployment crisis we are now struggling with is the result of the disastrous monetary policy of the government: tight money, high interest rates, increased cost of living, deterioration of our export markets, lower farm income, more and more unemployment.
I say that unless the government immediately introduces drastic and urgent reforms, we shall very soon be in the midst of a depression such as there was under the Bennett regime.
(Text):


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, in considering this problem of unemployment with which we are faced today, there is surely a clear responsibility on every hon. member to consider it in a realistic light. He should not try to minimize the seriousness of it. At the same time, there

is a clear responsibility that nobody should try to exaggerate the situation or use it for political purposes.
The hon. member for Essex East has always been very adept at manoeuvring the various figures released by the unemployment insurance commission, and also the figures which the Minister of Labour has been good enough to make available to us, figures, I might say, which were not made available under previous governments.
I feel that the opposition have got themselves into a very ridiculous position on this question of unemployment. We well recall the other day they felt it was so urgent that we should adjourn our regular business and debate unemployment. It is very good that we should debate it, but I believe there is a clear responsibility on the opposition now to bring forward some suggestions.
I should like to call this fact to your attention, Mr. Chairman. It was the opposition who asked us to adjourn the regular business of this house, to stop and debate unemployment. There was a measure to be debated that very day, a measure to provide $500 million under the housing act. I am not going to go into too great detail as to what it will do in terms of employment, but I have a few figures here, which were given to me in discussions with the personnel of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as to what employment is provided by housing. This is what they have to say:
It is estimated that the building of a house provides, on the average, one man hour of employment on site; one man hour of employment off site in the production and transportation of building materials, and one half man hour of employment in the preparation of housing sites, in the provision of ground services and the like. On this basis, employment on new housebuilding in 1959 probably averaged close to 360,000. This would vary of course according to the season of the year, with well over 400,000 employed in the summer months and perhaps close to 250,000 in the winter months. National Housing Act financed activity accounted for a little less than one half of this employment.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, the money made available by the government under the National Housing Act provided 180,000 jobs last year. That is the program that we have before us to create employment this year and the opposition, not concerned with creating jobs, wanted to postpone that so they could make political capital by complaining about the ones that are out of work.
I am sure that many of the opposition members have had, as I have had, briefs from carpenters throughout the country who are unemployed, but when we have an opportunity to adopt a measure, to go ahead and help to put these people to work they would rather stop and talk and complain about those
Supply-Labour
out of work than take any constructive action to put them to work. Even with all of the talking they have done since that time and during the course of the debate, I will challenge any one of them to bring forward a constructive idea that will put to work a quarter of the number of men who have gone to work under this program. But we will not hear that from them. They would rather have these people out of work so that they can complain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member wish me to deal with that right now?


John Ferguson Browne: If the
member for Essex East wishes to ask a question-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member challenged any member of the opposition to show how any of the proposals we made would put men to work. If the hon. member wants me to meet that challenge, I am prepared to.


Mr. Ricard:: What did you offer?


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, I hope I have stirred the hon. member for Essex East to bring forward some sort of proposal. Nobody will be happier than I will be if he can bring a measure before the house that will put people to work. I can assure him that if it is a responsible measure and within the power of the house I will certainly support it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He never did offer anything.


John Ferguson Browne: We
want to take whatever action we can and I will support whatever action we can take to put people to work.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What did you offer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member, who is intervening contrary to the rules of the house, says that we made no proposals. He has not got the floor and the hon. member who is now speaking is thereby interrupted. I do not want these remarks to go unchallenged because we have made proposals which the government has ignored.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What are they?


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, we all heard the hon. member for Essex East this morning when he had an opportunity to make proposals. He made proposals for committees, he made proposals for studies, but he did not bring one measure forward that would put men to work right now.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He never will.

Supply-Labour


John Ferguson Browne: The
hon. member for Essex East is always very glad to quote the Canadian labour congress when it pleases him. Some of the things we have to take into consideration in dealing with this matter are what the government has done, how far it has gone in meeting its responsibility within the area that is open to the government to be able to act. In doing that I think we should compare, as the Canadian Labour Congress has done and with some satisfaction, the difference between Canada and the United States during the recession. I want to quote some of the figures they give to show how much better Canada fared in this situation under our government than was the case in the United States. These are some of the things they bring to the attention of the Canadian public and the working people of the country. I am going to quote from Labour Research, a publication of the Canadian Labour Congress, which has this to say in part:
So, though the Canadian and American gross national products started down at the same time, theirs went down appreciably farther than ours, and kept on going down after ours had started up again ... Their loss was nearly five times as big as ours.
Then it goes on to say:
So American and Canadian labour income started dropping at the same time, and dropped at about the same rate to the end of 1957. American labour income went on dropping till it reached bottom in April, 1958. Canadian labour income started up again in January, 1958, and kept on rising in February, March, April and May, and again in July, when it reached its new peak. Canadian labour income never dropped as far as American, and came up sooner, faster and farther.
During the course of the debates we have had on the economic situation and labour in this country we have always had it pointed out to us that the United States has a very great influence on Canada, and I think it is remarkable that the actions of the government have made such a better position possible in Canada than is the case in the United States in trying to deal with the very same problem.
So far as these various unemployment insurance commission figures as to unemployment are concerned, the hon. member for Essex East kept on reminding us this morning, as he has done for some time, that there are 700,000 unemployed. He repeated that over and over again. I want to say that I am very thankful that they are able to draw unemployment insurance, and that is no small credit to the present government in view of the time it took to get the amendments to the act through last year and the delay on the part of the opposition that we met at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who brought in the Unemployment Insurance Act?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who caused the obstruction?


Mr. Baskin:: I will admit that you did a few things in the 22 years you were in office.


John Ferguson Browne: As to
what they did in the 22 years they were in office, I have a copy here of the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East made on television a short time ago. I am sure most of us saw him on that program. He is so critical of what the government has been able to do in a few months but on this program he thought that 22 years was a very short time for the Liberal party to do anything.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was a glorious period in Canadian history.


John Ferguson Browne: We
can all remember that in 1919 they said they were going to bring in a national health scheme but it was not until this government came into office that we got a hospital insurance plan. I think that is making pretty good progress compared with what they did.
To get back to the unemployment figures that I was mentioning, the hon. member for Essex East stated on the television program I mentioned that he did not recognize the high figure he now uses, that he used the bureau of statistics figures and that he did not recognize the figures issued by the unemployment insurance commission. The way he is looking at me I hope he is not going to dispute that because I will read it if he wants me to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always like to hear my own words.


John Ferguson Browne: I want to say this, Mr. Chairman. I may not always be right in what I say in the house but when I go somewhere else I will not try to repudiate at a later date what I have said in the house in support of measures put forward by the government. I am stating right now that I think we are doing what we are able to do and I am perfectly willing to support any measure that will help if somebody brings such a measure to my attention. I think the government is doing what it can within its power to take action.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Tory times, hard times.


John Ferguson Browne: We
recall the criticism there has been. It is all very well to sit there and say, "Yes, yes, do something". But the next thing they do is to turn around and criticize the government because there is a deficit. I want to say that

if we did not have a deficit there would be very many more people out of work than there are.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There are more people now than there were in Liberal times. You can deny that if you want to.


John Ferguson Browne: As I
was saying, one of the things the hon. member for Essex East kept saying was that these people were drawing unemployment insurance benefits and I said that while we are faced with a serious problem of unemployment I at least am very thankful that people are helped to the extent that they are able to get unemployment insurance. The amendments that the present government has made to the act have made it much easier in many respects to get unemployment insurance benefits. Indeed, some $60 million of the amount spent on unemployment insurance benefits last year was spent because of the fact the government made changes in the act so that more people would be covered by it and would be able to get benefits.
Now, as to some of the other measures that the government has taken which have helped create employment in the country, I have already mentioned housing and called to your attention what the position of the opposition was in respect of that. I want to go on to some other increases in spending that have taken place in government which have helped with this problem. One of the arguments that has been put forward by the labour congress has been that more money in the hands of the average people of the country helps a great deal to stimulate spending and to create business in that way. The social measures that this government have taken have put money into the hands of the people who are not able to save it. They spend it for day to day living and in that way the money goes directly into the stream of business in this country.
I believe this is one of the few times in the history of this country when we have come out of such a serious recession just by the policies of the government. We know that the Liberal government staggered along until 1939 without making any progress, and then got a war and took all the credit for that. I do not know whether they want to take the blame for the war at the same time. I would think it is just as reasonable to blame them for the war as it is to give them credit for the record level of employment we had during those years. Then, when the war was over they started downhill again until the Korean situation. When we look at this great record of the Liberals, about which we are always told, we find that wars came
Supply-Labour
along and stimulated business and they never brought us out of a recession by their policies alone, and certainly not as serious a one as we have had here.
I turn to the amounts that have been paid out, under what we may call social payments, by the present government. Direct payments to individuals by the dominion government on social account were $1,500 million last year compared with $1 billion in the last year under the Liberals. This was an increase of 50 per cent, and was made up in part as follows: Old age pensions have increased from $379 million in 1956-57 to $578 million, or by 53 per cent; old age assistance increased from $20 million to $32 million, or by 60 per cent; blind pension payments increased from $3 million to $4.5 million or by 50 per cent; disabled pensions from $7 million to $18 million or by 150 per cent; unemployment assistance -I might point out that this is different from unemployment insurance-from $4 million to $24 million or by 500 per cent. As I had previously pointed out, the increased expenditure under unemployment insurance, which was the direct result of what we did to extend seasonal benefits over additional months and cover workers not previously eligible for benefit, amounted to $60 million. Then, of course, because of new families, the family allowance has increased by almost $100 million in the past three years.
As I pointed out previously-


Mr. Tardif:: Would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member has made quite a history of the past 10 years-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Paul Tardif: Then, I want to say that it was-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Paul Tardif: The question is, now that the past history has been given to this house, what does the hon. gentleman propose to do to help the 800,000 unemployed that exist in Canada today?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Where have you been?


John Ferguson Browne: As I
was pointing out, I am saying that I am supporting these measures that the government is taking now. I feel that they are not inconsiderable. I have said if there are any further suggestions the opposition have, they should bring them forward. In other words, if they are sincerely interested in this question of unemployment they should not be continually getting up and complaining without making a suggestion which is going to put somebody to work, and that is exactly what they have been doing.

Supply-Labour
I was going to mention hospital insurance, which had been promised for so long by the previous government and which was brought into effect by the present government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the hon. gentleman does not wish to state something that is not accurate. The hospital insurance program was introduced in this house in 1956 by a Liberal administration, and it became law while a Liberal government was in office. Every bit of social legislation on our statute books was passed by a Liberal government.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: But never put into effect until a Conservative government was in power.


John Ferguson Browne: I am
sure everybody in this country is aware of the fact that under the Liberal government there was not one single, solitary person in Canada covered by the hospital insurance act. Mind you, after 30 years of stalling I am not sure whether or not the Liberal government would ever have done anything. The present government has only claimed they moved it ahead six months. I have never accepted that view because I am not at all certain, under the conditions imposed by the Liberal government, that the scheme would ever have come into effect. In fact, I feel quite certain that it would not have come into effect because nobody was taking up the offer at that time.


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


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Murdo William Martin: I do not believe the hon. member is fully informed. He said there was no citizen in Canada getting hospital benefits at that time. Is he not aware of the fact that a hospital plan was in effect in the province of Saskatchewan since 1946?


John Ferguson Browne: I was
talking about a hospital insurance plan under the federal government. I am not concerned, at this point, with what the provincial governments are doing. I am saying that the actions I have pointed out in this regard will certainly be in the mind of everybody in this country. I believe everybody in this country has to accept his share of the responsibility for how the money that has been made available by this government to the provinces has been used. Has it been used properly? I certainly am not going to go into a debate about what each province is doing with the money, but each province has had a considerable amount of money made available to it-half as much again as

under the previous government-in order to enable the province to combat unemployment.
I want to say that I do not accept the figures given by the hon. member for Essex East. I doubt very much if he accepts them himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows that that is not parliamentary. He knows that the figures I used were not my figures, but they were figures given to us by the Minister of Labour. If there was manipulation, it was done by the Minister of Labour.


John Ferguson Browne: So far
as manipulation is concerned, it is not in the actual figures, but what the figures constitute. He has had pointed out to him this morning that there were a good many married women, over 100,000, included in those figures which he attempted to compare with the previous figures under the Liberal government. The married women were not included in the old figures, so that is not a proper comparison. On the basis of these figures the hon. member wants to say we have a higher percentage than we ever had before, but he never made it plain to the people that the figures included a lot more people who would have had nothing under the policy of the previous administration and who would not have been included in these figures.
In so far as some of the other policies of the Minister of Labour and his department are concerned, I want to say that, while the hon. member for Essex East cannot recognize all that is done in that department, we can recall that the international association of personnel in employment security held a convention at which the minister was awarded the association's highest honour for his contributions to Canada's national employment service. This is not a political organization but some of the comments we heard today were of a political nature. This convention was attended by delegates from Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Peru and the Philippine Islands, as well as Canada and the United States. This organization recognized the value of the program that the Minister of Labour has put forward in this country in trying to make an effective organization out of the national employment service. That is certainly something which was not done under the previous government. I do not think there is any need for me to go into detail because it is well known across the country that the placement division of the national employment service have been

doing a much better job under the direction of the present minister than they have ever done before.
When I said that there were no suggestions from the opposition, I would like to qualify that to this extent. I believe the only suggestion I have heard of in the course of this debate, and it was not the present debate but some time ago, was from the hon. member for Kootenay West. He did bring forward a suggestion which I believe is worth looking into. I do not know how it could be worked out, but the hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned that to a large extent seasonal unemployment is the problem we are faced with, and I think that is indicated by the sharp rise we have in unemployment at this time of the year. It indicates that to a large extent it is caused by seasonal influence. The hon. member suggested that perhaps those firms which carried on their operatons in the wintertime under adverse conditions in attempts to create employment should be given some consideration in the lessening of taxes, in the same way as mining corporations, and so on; concerns which are setting up a new business or industry which will be of help. I believe the government should perhaps take that into consideration.
In closing, I simply want to say, as I said at the beginning, that nobody wants to minimize this situation. I am sure all of us want to do what we can, but I strongly feel that what is needed now is not political debate, a lot of political nonsense, and a lot more committees. There have been lots of conferences. The minister called a national conference a little over a year ago when suggestions were put forward. What we need now are concrete suggestions which can be put to use at once. I appeal to every hon. member of this house, if he has a suggestion which will create some employment and it is within the power of the government, for heaven's sake to make it, and we will see if we can't get on with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Ferguson Browne: Certainly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does he think that the proposal made in 1955 by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, then a member of parliament sitting in the opposition, that we should have a parliamentary committee to examine this whole problem is a valid suggestion or not?


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, as I said, there has been so much discussion on this problem that I strongly
Supply-Labour
feel that what we need is a concrete suggestion. We are in a committee now. If anyone has a suggestion they can make it to this committee; they certainly have the opportunity to make it, and I am sure the government would make use of it a lot quicker than if the suggestion were made in any o<ther way.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks this afternoon will be addressed to the winter works campaign, and they will be brief. As far as my riding of North Renfrew is concerned, the ground has pretty well been covered by the hon. members for Russell and Hull. Both conditions in the valley and these two constituencies, as far as this winter program is concerned, are very similar. The Minister of Labour, at page 904 of Hansard for February 9 last, had this to say:
At the outset I would say that last year's program has been widely accepted by the municipalities across Canada, so much so, that they have again asked us to institute this program for the winter of 1959-1960.
In his wildest flights of fancy, I am sure the minister must have been looking through rosy spectacles when he said that the winter campaign as promulgated this year could apply to the ridings throughout the Ottawa valley. The minister knows the weather conditions persisting in my section of the country and how utterly ridiculous it would be to suggest digging drains, building sewers, building roads, and such activities as that, with 110 inches of snow on the ground and about four feet of frost in the earth. I think as far as our section of the country is concerned, we can wipe out the winter campaign.
As a matter of fact, for the past two years representatives of the council of the town of Pembroke have journeyed to Toronto to see if something could be done to improve the situation as far as obtaining money to make certain developments during the winter months is concerned, and on each occasion they came back empty handed.
The mayor of Sherbrooke had some very pertinent remarks to make regarding this winter works campaign which I would like to mention. He made the statement to the effect that he would not apply for a grant on the winter works program because after calculation it was found that the program was entirely inadequate and did not solve the problems of unemployment in Sherbrooke.
That is exactly the situation in my riding. I think it may be fairly stated, as I said before, that the minister when he made his statement I have read about the campaign, as far as the Ottawa valley was concerned, was indeed looking through rosy spectacles. In

Supply-Labour
my riding, particularly in the town of Pembroke, we have had for the past two years a most unhappy and distressing unemployment situation. When I go home on Saturdays my office is filled with people who have come to see me to beg me to get them a job, which of course is utterly impossible at the present time. I think with the weather we experience in the Ottawa valley this winter campaign of repairing streets is similar to building battleships in Barrie.
Pembroke town council sent a committee to Toronto last year and I explained to the committee the results of their visit. We have found in my constituency that it is cheaper to wait till the warmer weather comes along, and without the assistance of either the provincial or the dominion governments we find this work can be done cheaper. So naturally we wait till the warmer weather comes along. Last year the estimated cost of projects in Toronto was $23 million, but not one cent of government money came into the Ottawa valley, as far as I know.


Mr. Chambers:: Would the hon. member
permit a question? Is it more important for these communities to save money or to create employment?


James Moffat Forgie: It is much more important to create employment. But you cannot lend money to small communities and charge 7 per cent. Surely the hon. member must realize how difficult it is for them to borrow money.


Egan Chambers: We are offering them some.


James Moffat Forgie: I will take the hon. member back with me at the week end and maybe he will bring some with him.
It should be fairly obvious that to make this winter program effective, surely the provinces should be notified well in advance. The municipalities should be notified well in advance also so that, in the event this money is available and they find it possible to use it, they could have their plans and specifications arranged long before than at present, and these specifications could be ready and the work could commence at once. In the case of building houses this work should be commenced before the fall. At Petawawa, where 400 houses are going up for the army, the foundations could have been dug and laid before the frost set in. If that had been the case, we could have had labouring people working on the 400 houses at Petawawa. But that was not the case, with the result that it will be next fall before these houses are completed. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to have

shown its sincerity of purpose on this question of winter money. If they had allowed work to proceed on the houses at Petawawa, we had plenty of labour to provide.
I think there must be a much more realistic approach to this question of unemployment. I think there are too many speculative intellects involved in this question of a winter works program. What we want are minds of men of action and this is not what we have at the present time. There is no manifestation whatever from the government that they are really taking this question seriously and, as previous speakers have said, this is a matter of national emergency.
As I have indicated, no municipality in my riding is sharing in this program. They cannot afford it. This government is too niggardly with its contributions to this winter works program. It should bear a greater share of the total cost of these works so as not to burden the municipalities, especially since they are now called on to borrow money at 7 per cent. Unemployment is a national problem and it has developed into a national crisis. That is one reason, and the main reason, why we are taking part in this debate today. The Prime Minister said:
I promise you this: as long as I am Prime Minister of Canada, everything that can be done, everything, without regard to limit, will be done, to the end that no one will suffer unduly.
That speech has not helped. If I may say so I think the right hon. gentleman's oft-quoted statement stands out like a red vest at a funeral as a masterpiece of political chicanery. They asked for bread, and the government has given them a stone. Remember, however, that chickens come home to roost.
This winter works program is not the solution to this problem of unemployment, nor is it even a palliative. The answer lies in finding some constructive plan that will wipe out the disease. The remedy may well lie in trade and vocational training. However, I see in the estimates that the vote for this aspect of education has been cut by $1 million.
One of the problems facing Canada today is the lack of skilled labour. In the early part of 1940 it was decided to mechanize the Canadian army to the highest degree of efficiency, and to do this it became necessary to organize army trades training schemes. One such scheme was opened immediately in Hamilton where men were trained in the trades which were necessary before a mechanized force could be placed in the field. Other schools were opened to carry on this work.
I agree it would be next to impossible to overcome unemployment completely, because of climatic conditions in this country. There

will be seasonal employment, but I do suggest that this government should come to grips with the problem and bring forward a plan which will cure this distressing condition so prevalent throughout the nation. The Liberal party has enunciated a plan of attack. This was put before the house on February 2 by the hon. member for Essex East and reiterated by him last night in the course of his television address on "The Nation's Business". It is therefore hardly necessary for me to repeat what he said. This afternoon, moreover, he repeated the 10 points on which these proposals are based. Suffice it to say that we recommend this plan to the government, a plan infinitely superior to the hit or miss program known as the winter works program. The hon. member for Trinity stated as reported in Hansard for 1959 at page 3467:
This program of massive rehabilitation could be patterned on the experience gained by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the early post-war years. At that time, as you wil recall, the government made it possible for veterans to undertake academic or vocational training at government expense. More than 60,000 veterans took some university training under that plan.
Some of these, of course, did not finish their course, but there is no doubt that they have been able to contribute much more to the growth and potential of the Canadian economy as a result of the opportunity which was made available to them. The contribution made by those who went through vocational training schemes was worth an additional 100 per cent.
The cost of setting up such a program as this would be much more than $15 million but if, like the veterans rehabilitation scheme, it is successful, as we believe it would be, thousands of unemployed Canadians would again be happy. Moreover, we must remember that many of these unemployed are returned men who did not let their country down when the second world war came. An expenditure of $100 million or more to ease this unemployment situation would be well spent, especially when we remember that there are 745,000 walking the streets of Canada today looking for jobs. This is a national emergency. We have offered certain constructive proposals and we wish now to hear from the government what it plans to do about them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? Referring to university training for veterans, he said that many failed to complete their courses. The hon. member realizes that these formed a very small percentage of the total number.


James Moffat Forgie: There was no inuendo in what I said. What I should, perhaps, have stated was that some of them, or a few of them, did not complete their courses.
Supply-Labour


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I had not intended to speak this afternoon but on hearing all the phony speeches which have been made by hon. members of the opposition I cannot help standing up to say what I think as one representing a riding which is half industrial and half rural. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there are now more people at work than there were ever before during the Liberal time.


An hon. Member:: How many are unemployed?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is something which we should all remember-


An hon. Member:: How many unemployed?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I can tell the hon. member for Dollard that there would be many fewer people unemployed today if at the time the Liberal government was in power it had taken the advice of its own economists. But since we have received from our predecessors the obligations which have fallen upon us because of their short-sightedness, and since we have had to solve the problems which they could not solve, may I say that the people of Canada know that in the space of two or three years we cannot solve all the problems which the Grits could not solve in the 22 years they were in office. Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to your attention that since the Conservative party came to power we have granted unemployment benefits to the fishermen. We have also granted unemployment benefits to married women who, under the Liberal government-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman was in the house the other day when he heard that untrue statement corrected once before. Unemployment insurance for fishermen was established by the previous government.


Jacques Flynn: I must advise the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that that is not a question of privilege. It is only a way of interrupting which is possibly better mannered than that in which other hon. members have interrupted.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I know very well that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knew he was out of order when he rose to speak, but it is fact that benefits were paid under a Conservative government. Whether it was the Liberal government which initiated the scheme or not, they were not long in power in their ivory tower. They thought they would be there for years and years, but came the 10th of July, 1957-


Some hon. Members:: June.

Supply-Labour


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -when they were defeated and when they were thrown into the cold regions of the opposition. They are in a kind of frigidaire or deep freeze and they are going to be there for a long time.
At this point I should like to indicate my appreciation to the hon. member for Laurier who during the previous two election campaigns came into my riding and helped me win by a majority of 2,000 in the first instance and by a majority of 5,000 in the second.
I should like through you, Mr. Chairman, to remind my hon. friends in the Liberal party that under the Conservative government unemployment insurance benefits have been extended to married women and fishermen, and there has been an extension to 52 weeks of the period during which benefits are given to unemployed workers. This is something about which the Grits do not like to be reminded. Of course, when they were in office my Liberal friends had the problems of unemployed workers very much at heart. This pressed them so hard on their hearts that it nearly choked them. The workers are not likely to forget what the Conservatives have accomplished on their behalf. I know it is distasteful to the hon. members for Essex East, Laurier and Bonavista-Twillingate to have me remind them of what was done by the Conservative party but the action it has taken is a reality, something the workers will remember for years to come.
I am a Conservative, a true blue as they say. In the last election I defeated a Grit who was a member of this house for years. He had previously been elected with a majority of 13,000. I succeeded in defeating him. It is a cause of sorrow to hon. members of the Liberal party that this humble servant should have won a place in this chamber. Those who elected me have the satisfaction of knowing that I have come here and am striving to do something on their behalf, and I know I am going to be here for years to come. I know that both the hon. member for Dollard and the hon. member for St. Ann have long faces. They are sorry that I remind them of these things.
I would point out to the committee that there are many factors responsible for what is possibly a temporary increase in unemployment. Today everybody speaks of automation. Apparenty it has never occurred to the Grits that industry today is producing more with less people than was the case in the old days. Perhaps this is because under the Grits no improvement was possible. I worked in the textile industry for years. At one time in that industry we could produce 100,000 pounds of production per week

with 150 employees but today as a result of improvements in machinery and methods of production we can produce 150,000 pounds employing only 75 or 100 persons. Evidently the Grits do not know these things. They have been living in the past. They always want to refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a Canadian for whom I have much respect. They like to dwell on the past and think in terms of the horse and buggy. I invite you to look at them. Are they not riding the horse and buggy? Surely they are. They are saddened by the progress that has taken place under a Conservative administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Progress means they have lost the horse and have only the buggy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And you, my hon. friend, are sitting in the buggy while we advance with the horse. The minute that this government provides work for 5, 10 or 20 workers my hon. friends in the Liberal party are sorry about it because it cuts the ground from under their feet. It completely invalidates their arguments to the effect that this government has done nothing about unemployment. They are sorry to see the Conservative government in office and providing solutions to old problems. They never thought we could do anything but we have done something and we shall continue to take action for the benefit of Canada. We are going to provide jobs now to the people of Canada in the best interests of this nation and to the deep sorrow of the Grits.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, my greatest regret at this moment is that the 800,000 unemployed Canadians were not in this chamber this afternoon to listen to the way their problems were being treated during the last few minutes by some hon. members of this committee.
I should like to thank the minister for supplying the information he gave to the committee this morning. It has helped in a small way to meet what is one of the greatest problems encountered by hon. members as a result of the lack of research facilities in obtaining information to do the sort of job one wants to do in debates as important as the one before us now. I am also glad because the information supplied today substantiates in every detail the information which I supplied when the matter was debated last week.
I have made a study of the various municipalities that have subscribed to the winter works program or are expected to subscribe to it in the vast territory running from the lakehead at the Manitoba border in northern Ontario, to the Quebec border and including the municipalities of North Bay and surrounding areas. Only 10 municipalities in this whole vast area are expected to subscribe to this program. The participation of

those 10 municipalities means employment ranging from an estimated maximum of 120 people to be employed in the city of Sudbury to an estimated maximum of 10 people to be employed in the city of North Bay. The total number of people it is expected will be employed in this program throughout the whole area is 524.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For how many days will they be employed?


Murdo William Martin: I do not have that information. A total of 524, it is expected, will be provided employment of some kind in this area. To point out how inadequate the program is to meet the situation, let us compare it with the announcement we saw in all the newspapers the other day to the effect that between 3,000 and 4,000 men are going to be thrown out of work in the municipality of Elliot Lake alone. That is in addition to the present number of unemployed with which the winter works program is supposed to cope.
It is also significant that in glancing at the list of municipalities which will participate in the program we see not one job being provided in the federal ridings of Timmins, Timiskaming and Cochrane. I knew this to be a fact with respect to Timmins. I checked with the hon. members for Cochrane and Timiskaming and their information verified mine with respect to the communities in their ridings.
To underline how inadequate the program is let us consider the municipality of Port Arthur. According to the figures supplied by the minister today, through this winter works program they hope to employ a total of 60 persons in the city of Port Arthur this winter. As of February 12, the latest figure shows that there are 4,959 people out of work in Port Arthur. Fort William is doing a little better. They hope to put 102 back to work. The figures as of February 11 show that 3,267 people are unemployed in that city. A total of 162 people are to be put to work in those two municipalities out of a combined total of 8,266 unemployed as of February 11 and 12.
Let me turn to the over-all aspect of unemployment, which I was unable to do last week, and deal briefly with the over-all situation which faces us. Again we have the figure of 792,000, or almost 793,000, unemployed, which was given to us by the minister. These people are seeking employment at the present time. There are various figures, and hon. members and newspapers across the country have a great time bandying those figures back and forth, as though the statistics themselves were important. Something that we have overlooked so far
Supply-Labour
is that, based on the average family in Canada today, the 800,000 people mentioned by the minister affect around two million people, because each one of those statistics that we throw around so carelessly represents a member of a family, and each and every member of that family is just as vitally concerned as the statistic that we find in our newspapers and in our dominion bureau of statistics.
Possibly hon. members have seen an editorial and three letters in the Globe and Mail of today dealing with this problem of unemployment. It has been kicked around in the newspapers as well as in the House of Commons. There is one very significant sentence in the editorial. I think it is one that, at least from past performances, we must presume that the government subscribes to. It reads:
Canada does not have any recession or depression today.
Be that as it may, whether we have a recession, a depression or anything else you wish to call it, we still have, in the minister's own words, close to 800,000 people without jobs in this country. What are the causes of the situation we are facing today? Many of the government representatives like to describe it as seasonal unemployment. I should like to point out that some years ago the government took steps to cure the seasonal unemployment that we had in Canada which only happened because of weather conditions and so on, which place people temporarily out of work. It is my understanding that the reason we enacted unemployment insurance in this country was to look after this problem of seasonal unemployment. If we had a cure for this problem some years ago, how is it that now seasonal unemployment is supposed to be responsible for the whole thing?
When speaking a few moments ago an hon. member boasted about the fact that unemployment insurance had been extended to at least 52 weeks. Does that mean the government has realized that this is a problem they cannot solve and they are going to extend the duration of unemployment insurance for 52 weeks? Are we going to bring in a bill next year to extend it to five years and then 20 years? Is that the answer?


John Ferguson Browne: Will
the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member opposed to people staying on unemployment insurance longer when they are out of work?


Murdo William Martin: If the hon. member will contain himself till the conclusion of my remarks he will have no doubt as to what I am opposed to and what I am in favour of.
Another cause of the problem of unemployment with which we are faced in this

Supply-Labour
country today is the fact that we have young people growing up all the time and coming into the labour field. Unfortunately, most of them are ill-equipped to take their places in the ever increasing technical society that we are living in. We have the problem of automation, which hon. members have mentioned, where machines are more and more taking the place of former employees. I would suggest that the only possible answer we have to automation is to embark on a program, as advocated by numerous hon. members, of vocational training. There is no other way that we can hope to cope with this particular problem.
Last, but certainly far from least, is the problem of shut-downs in our society. We have had two clear illustrations of that in this country very recently. I am referring to the shut-down of the Avro plant in Toronto, which threw 13,000 people on the street, and the one we are faced with today in Elliot Lake and Bancroft and the dislocations on Cape Breton island and Vancouver island; in fact, from coast to coast, where employees, through no fault of their own, find that the type of work they are trained for and have done all their lives is no longer available, and they become a glut on the labour market.
Whose responsibility is this, Mr. Chairman? There is a verse in the "Blasted Pine" which I think is very applicable. It deals with employment, and it is taken from "A hymn to the glory of free enterprise". This is the way it goes:
At periods when free enterprise may not provide employment
We dread the thought of hungry men-it lessens our enjoyment;
The government must then step in, with this consideration:
That any public works proposed do not increase taxation.
Depressions, after all, my friends, much as we may deplore them,
Are acts of God; who ever heard of blaming business for them?
The chorus goes like this:
Then hail we now free enterprise,
Extol and give it praise!
Of course, when profits shrink in size,
To lay men off is only wise;
We dearly love free enterprise-
But only when it pays.
Certainly business does not accept any responsibility and in the past governments have not accepted their responsibility. Both business and government in this country have felt it is the responsibility of each and every workman to provide for himself. Now, if businessmen, with the wealth at their command and if government with all the resources at its command, cannot meet the situation, how in heaven's name can they expect the

individual workman, so loaded down with the responsibility of a family, to meet the situation by himself?
We have seen far too many examples in the past, and even today, of the Liberals blaming the Tories for the situation, and the Tories blaming the Liberals for the situation. They both seem to feel the only responsibility they have is to lay the blame on the other one. I do not see how that is going to help any one. I do not think it matters much which one is to blame. As far as I am concerned, they are equally to blame. You cannot blame one without blaming the other. The situation we are faced with today is only a repetition of what we were faced with when the Liberals were in office, and if the Liberals were in power today they would be faced with exactly the same situation; there would not be one bit of difference.
I recall when the former member for Nanaimo, Mr. Colin Cameron, was speaking in the house one day and referred to a situation similar to this. He said it reminded him of two little naughty boys standing in front of a broken window, each one blaming the other for breaking the window when all the time they knew they were both to blame.
I am not one who tries to maintain that he has all the points or that he has all the concern for the unemployed. There are hon. members on both the Liberal and the Conservative side who have just as much concern as I have personally for this situation. I think the Minister of Labour is one of them. I think the Minister of Labour is ready and willing to do everything within the limits of our society today to improve the situation with which he is faced. I may not be quoting his words, but he has indicated to the house that there is nothing more he can do than has been done.
But I think that this debate has shown one thing, that neither the Conservatives of today nor the Liberals of yesterday have the answer to this problem. I think the sole reason neither one has the answer is the society to which they both subscribe so slavishly. Let us put the blame where the blame belongs, not on the present minister and government, not on the former minister and government but on the society to which both subscribe and by which they are both chained.
It is fine to point your finger at faults, Mr. Chairman, but what can we do about the situation? I suggest that the first thing for the government to do is to come forward honestly and admit that this is not seasonal unemployment, that it is not a temporary thing. It is something we have had for a long time and if something new is not done

we are going to have it for a long time to come. I think the government should admit that they no more have the answer than the Liberals did when they were in power and were criticized so justifiably by the Conservatives when they sat on this side of the house.
I think they should admit quite frankly that the winter works program is not the answer. I think they should face up to the fact that the government must accept the responsibility for this problem. I say that it is time the government and parliament declared war on unemployment in Canada. If we had an enemy force of 800,000 knocking at our doors it would not take us long to mobilize the whole country, and I suggest that unemployment involving 800,000 people as we have today constitutes an enemy within our borders. We will certainly not meet the situation by blaming each other. I submit it has been proved in the past that when the government and people of Canada realize a situation they can meet the situation. I say in all sincerity, let us face up to the problem, admit that the situation is as bad as it is, and on that basis maybe we can go ahead and do something about it.


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say in this debate but I feel some responsibility to clarify the record as much as possible with respect to some of the statements that have been made with regard to the maritime provinces and in particular the province of New Brunswick. Upwards of a month ago the hon. member for Gloucester put a question on the order paper and the answer given by the Minister of Labour can be found on page 706 of Hansard. The question concerned the total number of people unemployed in each of the reporting centres for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The answer given by the minister came as somewhat of a shock to me because it showed that Moncton had 9,620 people unemployed as of January 7 out of a total of about 30,000 for the province of New Brunswick.
When I saw that answer I made certain inquiries in order to satisfy my own curiosity as to just what was meant by "Moncton". I have ascertained that this reference to Moncton means the county of Albert, the county of Westmorland, the county of Kent, the city of Moncton, the town of Sackville, the town of Shediac, the town of Dieppe and all of the other incorporated municipalities in these three counties, which represent by far the greatest portion of the east coast section of New Brunswick. But in addition it includes 2,135 people from the Magdalen islands in the province of Quebec.
Supply-Labour
The figure of 9,620 did not necessarily excite the people in Moncton because they know it is not possible for 9,620 people to be unemployed in a city of just in excess of 40,000 people. However, there is some responsibility on me as the member for Westmorland and as a resident of the city of Moncton to state publicly that the figure includes-I want to be accurate-1,963 in the so-called area of greater Moncton which includes the area of Riverview in Albert county, the town of Dieppe just east of the city, the former areas of Parkton and Sun-nybrae and a great part of the parish of Moncton; in other words, an area of approximately 75,000 or 80,000 people.
Most of the unemployment reported out of the city of Moncton office involved people who are normally employed in the so-called unskilled occupations. In the first place, unskilled construction workers account for nearly 2,000 of the 9,620. The Magdalen islands, which are outside the province of New Brunswick entirely, account for more than 2,000 people, and the remaining portions are broken down into less than 500 for the Shediac area and nearly 600 for the area represented by the reporting station in the town of Sackville. Those figures are applicable to early in January. In all probability they have increased since that time.
What we are debating here under vote 615 is an item of $15 million to aid winter work throughout the country. The member for Renfrew North stated that his particular area found it difficult to take advantage of the legislation, and I know he is right. I know that many speakers are correct when they say it is not possible for all municipalities to take advantage of this aid. I know that as of February 5, 60 applications had been received by the Department of Labour from the province of New Brunswick and 58 of them have already been approved.
This vote will not necessarily cure the problem of seasonal unemployment in the east coast region of Canada nor in any other section of Canada. All that the legislation attempts to do, and certainly all that anyone expects it to do, is to ease it, not to erase it. As the member for Restigouche-Madawaska stated, we have had seasonal unemployment in eastern Canada all of our lives. I am not saying that we will never get rid of it but I feel quite confident that this legislation will go a long way toward eliminating long periods of seasonal unemployment for some of our people.
On February 12 the regional director for the Atlantic provinces of the unemployment insurance commission gave his monthly report. I have before me a clipping from the Moncton Transcript of February 12 and

Supply-Labour
the headline reads, "Fewer Applicants Seeking Employment". That is as of February 12 instant. Some of the contents of this report should be brought to the attention of the house because it is wrong for us as elected representatives of the people to sit here and agitate and encourage a feeling of gloom and doom. The headline was:
Fewer Applicants Seeking Employment.
The article says, and I quote part of it:
Conditions in New Brunswick as reflected by the number of applicants registering at the national employment offices are still somewhat better than for the same period last year, R. P. Hartley, Q.C., regional director of the unemployment insurance commission said in making his regular monthly review.
Once again the unskilled construction worker led the list taking up 19 per cent of the total applicants.
Farther on the article says, and this is the point I want to emphasize because it is contrary to what any hon. member from New Brunswick or the maritimes has said in this debate:
All but 5 per cent of the applicants were receiving unemployment insurance benefits-
There is in excess of 30,000 people unemployed in the province of New Brunswick, and that is a very disturbing figure. However, for the first time 95 per cent of the people who are registered for work are now in receipt of benefits. I believe it would be of some benefit to this debate if we gave serious consideration to the types of people who are included in this list of about 790,000 people in Canada.
In the first place, mention has been made of the fact that there are nearly 100,000 married women-in fact, somebody says it is 166,000-on that list. I do not know what the exact figure is. I do know that if it were not for this government, and the legislation introduced in 1957, probably a number of these married women would not show in these statistics today, because they are now reporting for work, as they are obliged to do so if they want to continue receiving benefits. Then, too, a good percentage of the people included in this 790,000 would be retired pensioners who are registered for work in order that they can continue to draw unemployment insurance. I might mention that it is now possible for a man to accept his pension, and then draw unemployment insurance for upwards of one year. When you realize that he is drawing unemployment insurance and is in receipt of a pension, I think it should be obvious that he has some means of support.
Then this group includes that unfortunate type of citizen referred to as unemployable. There are no statistics to indicate the number

of these people in this group, but we must realize that in every country of the world there is a certain percentage of the labour force who have mental or physical deficiencies which make it impossible for them to gain employment, even during the summer months. Consequently, they are continuously registered for work and add to this figure which we are discussing here.
We have a fourth group included in this 790,000, which I call people who are now employed but who are dissatisfied with their working conditions or wish to change their jobs because of frictions where they are now working or to improve their incomes.
If we can discount the hundreds of thousands in these four categories, I think we will find that the figure is not so alarming as some hon. members would like us to believe. Comparisons with the 30's are just as ridiculous. The population in this country has more than doubled since the 30's and there are now more people employed than probably at any time in Canada's history. I feel quite confident that we will have more people working in Canada each year. It is only since June, 1957 that we have heard of a winter works program. It is only since June, 1957 we have heard of the program known as roads to resources. Both of these items have done a great deal to improve winter working conditions in Canada.
However, we must bear in mind what I said at the outset, that winter works programs are simply schemes to ease the hardship caused by the length of the winter. I admit that these programs cannot in any way assist the tradesmen laid off from the Moncton shops. It is impossible for the Canadian National or any private industry to take advantage of this $15 million. The only thing the Canadian National employee can do, after he has been laid off, is to register for work. If he does he must necessarily accept unskilled work at a very, very low rate of pay. Consequently, this vote cannot in any way help the electricians, carpenters, machinists, boilermakers, and so on, and it was not designed to do so. The only way that these men will be able to find work is for this government, particularly the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport, to urge management to make plans for winter works, and to give more guidance to large national concerns that have lay-offs in the wintertime.
This vote is designed for one thing, and that is to make it possible for the unskilled worker who generally works for a department of public works or contractor to get work in the wintertime. One criticism I have, which I think should be brought to the attention of the minister, is a report I have received that

a man who is unemployed in a certain municipality, although it may be only two miles from an adjacent municipality, cannot register for work and be employed on a winter works project in that adjacent municipality. We have across the country a lot of wealthy and progressive cities. These cities can take advantage of this legislation. They are able to go to a bank to raise the money necessary to participate. However, smaller communities or the suburbs of industrial areas, where unfortunately many of the layoffs occur, are unable to participate in the program. We do not get -any lay-offs in Rockcliffe Park, Ottawa. The lay-offs occur in the suburbs where the tradesmen and unskilled labourers reside and own their homes.
If I may get closer to home, I should like to mention the town of Dieppe, which is two miles from Moncton. It has been impossible for that town to bring out a program it could afford. Citizens of the town of Dieppe who have been laid off are not, therefore, eligible to register for work on programs that might be undertaken in the municipalities of Westmorland. I believe that is one thing the minister should correct as soon as possible.
There has been a lot of discussion today about what the federal government might do to eliminate this increasing number of unemployed. The federal government has done a great deal already. We have witnessed in the last three years continual deficits. At no time, before, except in case of war, has the government of Canada ever spent hundreds of millions of dollars on public works. I know that in the maritime provinces pensions have increased, as they have across the country. We have had special assistance in the form of the Atlantic provinces adjustments grant. These are things which have made it possible for the maritimes, and for New Brunswick in particular, to be able to state today that 95 per cent of the people registered for work are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. In the past many people were always unemployed; today the seasonal workman, although unemployed, in most cases, has sufficient stamps at the present time to carry him through.
Another report of some interest to myself is the dominion bureau of statistics bulletin of February 11. The headline is, "Building permits issued in December", and I think it is important that we in the maritimes realize what the article says. I quote: "December values were lower than a year earlier for all provinces except Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba". There is evidence that these three provinces, three provinces which recently elected Conservative governments, are the only three provinces in
Supply-Labour
Canada that can show an increase in building permits for December last. For example, in New Brunswick for the month of December, 1958, $339,000 was spent. In New Brunswick for the month of December 1959, the figure is $1,335,000, an increase of over 400 per cent. National housing is the same way.
The city of Moncton is included in the dominion bureau of statistics statement of February 4, and it shows that in that city between January 1 and December 31 1959 there were 430 new starts. That figure represents nearly one half of the C.M.H.C. new starts in the whole province of New Brunswick. Conversely it represents an increase of over 50 per cent over the preceding year, and as of December 31 last there were 302 houses under construction in Moncton, a 50 per cent increase over the exact date of the preceding year.
Therefore, I think it is wrong for hon. members, especially those from the maritimes, to get up in the House of Commons and say that we still have a terrible living standard. It is only right for me to say that conditions are much better than they have ever been before, and are getting better daily, when one realizes that nearly one half of the housing starts in a period of one year have doubled and that 95 per cent of the people claiming benefits are getting them because they have a stockpile of insurance stamps.
One problem we are faced with is the need to make it possible for the provincial governments to have larger budgets, to make it possible for the municipal governments to have larger budgets, in order that they will then be in the position to take advantage of matching grants. The same thing applies with the trans-Canada highway as it does with roads to resources and the winter works program. It is very difficult, sometimes impossible, for the smaller municipalities and the smaller provinces to say to the government, "We welcome your aid", because it is impossible for them to match the grants.
In conclusion, I want to state that the figure of $15 million is, in my opinion, high enough under the existing formula. It is probably impossible for the municipalities of Canada to take advantage of all of this $15 million, and I understand that last year there was a surplus or credit in the fund. I hope the day will soon come when the Minister of Labour in his wisdom will increase this amount, keep doubling it, and I also hope that at that time the matching grants will be acceptable or the formula will be changed whereby smaller municipalities or smaller provinces will be able to request a better than 50 per cent share, especially in view of the fact that the share is now confined to wages. If it were possible for the federal

Supply-Labour
government to say that they will pay a percentage of the cost of rental of equipment, of the cost of the permanent men, the engineers, architects, or supervisors who are gainfully employed in the first place, then, and then only, will it be possible for thousands of people to work the great part of the winter months. We have as tough winters in the east as they have in the west, and as far as I am able to predict we will always be plagued with some seasonal unemployment in Canada. All we can hope to do, and it is our duty as members of parliament to urge it at all times, is to extend the schemes and trust that the day will come when seasonal unemployment will be not a major problem but a minor thing, always being improved upon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question before he resumes his seat. I was interested in what he said about the formula, and I would like to ask him if he does not think it would be much better to have a flexible formula which bore some relation both to the level of unemployment in the area and the ability of the local authority to pay?


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to attempt to answer this question. I have heard the greater part of the debate on this particular vote, and that suggestion has been mentioned before by several hon. members. It is the only type of suggestion which will ever be acceptable to the more depressed areas of the country. It is impossible for small towns in the maritimes and the Atlantic provinces to say to the Minister of Labour and his experts, "We welcome this legislation", because it is impossible for them, without prejudicing some other scheme, to take advantage of it. But I welcome the suggestion. It is not a new one; it has been mentioned before. All I can say in answer is that the legislation is good. It goes a certain distance. The suggestion contained in the question would certainly improve the legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, in the last few minutes of the discussion on this item the temper of the house, I believe, has subsided considerably. I will do my utmost to keep it at the present level, because I think it is far more conducive to an intelligent discussion of this item, as well as to the discussion of the unemployment problem as a whole, than the discussion which took place somewhat earlier during the day. I refer, of course, to the interventions by the hon. members for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and Vancouver-Kings-way. I shall not follow them in their attempts.
I would like to say at the outset that some complaint has been made against the manner

in which we proceeded yesterday. Yesterday, by virtue of the rules of the house, as we have a perfect right, we moved the adjournment of the debate to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. It has been indicated that this was on Wednesday, and I stand corrected to that extent. That is a right which the opposition or any of its members have at their disposal under the rules, and it is not open, I suggest, for any hon. member to criticize the exercise of that right, particularly if it is one of the rights given to us by parliament.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We never discussed that. We never challenged that.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway did.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You said the hon. member for Bagot.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not. I will come to the hon. member in a moment. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is the one who raised the objection, and I say there is no reason whatsoever to raise such an objection, because we have a perfect right to do what we did. Furthermore, the fact that the Prime Minister rose and suggested that the debate should take place on this estimate was clear evidence that we were acting completely within our rights.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this an example of your pacifism?


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell the hon. member for Greenwood that if I am left alone I shall be as calm as I can in the circumstances, and I am sure he will help me in that respect.
I must say at once that I was far more impressed by the last two speakers, namely the hon. member for Westmorland and the hon. member for Timmins, than by the two hon. members who preceded them. I must say that the hon. member for Timmins impressed me with some of the things he said, though I cannot agree with many of the statements which he made. None the less, I thought he approached this problem in a sincere manner and I think, too, that the committee owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Essex East who brought this question to the fore today. He has been interested in this subject not only since we are sitting in opposition but when we were sitting on the other side of the house. I remember when I was a minister of the crown what interest my hon. friend took in the question now before us. It is not new for him to speak on unemployment in the terms in which he did today. My hon. friend spoke with a full knowledge

of the conditions because he comes from an area which is hard hit by the present unemployment situation.
No matter what we may say in this house, and no matter what hon. members on the other side of the house may say in so far as the government's actions are concerned, there is no doubt that the situation at the moment is not a temporary or a seasonal one. It is a serious unemployment situation and one to which, I regret to say, the government is not facing up. Without going into the details, or repeating what other hon. members have said, more particularly the hon. member for Essex East, I would just point to two items. In the release of February 17 produced by the Department of Labour on the employment situation in January, 1960 it is indicated that there were 504,000 people out of employment, without jobs and seeking work. The last page indicates that there were 755,387 people registered at national employment offices. In addition, the Minister of Labour has very properly brought the figures up to date as of February 1. These now show that 792,908 persons are registered at national employment service offices across the country.
I say that this situation is serious. The only remedy, the only answer, which we have before the committee now is the winter works program and, again, the minister very kindly, in answer to a request by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, tabled a list of projects all over Canada covering municipal winter works, that is, the incentive program so-called for 1959-60. It is with this document that I should like to deal for a moment.
When I say that there are some 500,000 unemployed in Canada today, I might add that I think it is also known from the release which was published by the Department of Labour that at least one third of these are from the province of Quebec and no less than 75,000 from the city of Montreal. Each individual region is covered by this summary. I shall not attempt to deal with that in detail, because I am sure hon. members from both sides of the house will wish to address themselves to those regional areas.
But I do wish to bring to the attention of the committee the position of Quebec as far as this program is concerned. According to the return which the minister has tabled there will be spent in the province of Quebec for the fiscal year 1959-60-that is, up until February 12, 1960-$1,932,000. That is the federal share of the cost of labour involved in these projects. The program in that province will employ 3,866 people. Unfortunately, that program, while it is of some use in Canada and while it is welcome to that extent, is not of much incentive, as will be seen when it is examined closely. If one looks at the 79951-0-79A
Supply-Labour
list which was tabled by the minister, particularly at those items having to do with the smaller municipalities in the province of Quebec, one can see immediately how little use this is to those areas.
If it is not of greater use to the municipalities in Quebec and other provinces; if more municipalities have not been able to take advantage of this scheme, that is due in a large measure to credit restrictions; it is due in a large measure to the the huge interest rates which have prohibited municipalities from taking advantage of the situation. For example, I will take one name which comes to mind, the second on the list here, which happens to be Arvida. Here is one project only costing $13,880 as far as the federal government is concerned, and employing 35 men. If hon. members want to know what is meant in terms of dollars and cents to those 35 men, it is only necessary to multiply by two the federal government's contribution of $13,880 to get the provincial share, and then you divide that amount among the 35 men. It will not come to a great deal, I can assure you.
One can take, further, the example of Cowansville, for instance where there are three projects costing the federal government $16,000 and employing 36 people; at La Tuque one project costing $25,000, employing 40 people. In the city of Montreal, 51 projects costing $449,000, employing 893 people. This in the city of Montreal where there are today some 75,000 unemployed. What effect can such a small number of jobs have on the total unemployment picture?
Someone has asked about St. Hyacinthe. I do not see one project listed here for that area. I could go on but I do not wish to take up the time of the committee unduly.
I started by saying that the situation was serious and that a large number of people are unemployed. I wish now to deal with certain specific industries in the country where the condition is exceedingly grave. I refer, for instance, to Elliot Lake where 4,000 people were put out of work by a decision with which the committee is conversant. I refer to the cancellation of the Avro contract last year at which time 35,000 or 40,000 were put out of work. I refer to the coal producers in the Atlantic provinces where on a temporary basis some 6,600 people have been put out of work. I refer also to the textile workers for whom this government was going to do so much. In this industry alone some 5,000 people have been put out of work. At this time I am not referring to the over-all situation of unemployment but to a group of four different industries with which this government apparently has not seen fit to cope.

Supply-Labour
I wish to pause for a moment at this point and deal in more detail with the textile industry because I believe this is an industry which was promised a great deal of assistance by hon. members opposite although the industry has received little or no assistance from the government. I draw atention to statements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and many other hon. gentlemen during two election campaigns as to what they would do to settle once and for all the injustices and inequalities which they claimed hampered the industry and to rectify everything that had been done by the former administration in so far as this industry is concerned.
If there is any doubt in the minds of hon. members on this question, let them listen to the words of the Prime Minister. He spoke to a group of 2,500 people in the city of Cornwall and, as reported in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder of February 25, 1958, said:
Prime Minister John Diefenbaker told a crowd estimated at over 2,500 here last night that he saw no reason why protection cannot be provided for the textile industry.
Calling the textile industry "one of the great industries of our country," he said he could see no reason whatsoever that following representation to the tariff board why such action as is necessary cannot be taken to insure that no Canadian industry will be subjected to the injustice of dumping.
"I know well what it means to be unemployed," he told the crowd. "And you can be sure that as long as I am Prime Minister no person will suffer because of unemployment.
"We acted to protect the farmers against dumping of agricultural products in this country because we believed it unjust and unfair that the Canadian farmer should be subjected to unfair competition," he said.
The Prime Minister followed by explaining he could see no reason why the textile industry would not be treated the same way.
Listen to these words:
"My heart goes out to those people who are unemployed," he said. "I've kept my promises in the past. That promise that no one will suffer from unemployment as long as I am Prime Minister will be kept to the letter."
I am dealing now with the unemployment situation in the textile industry and not in the rest of Canada Where there are 500,000 people out of employment. This was in 1958. Let us see what followed. Not more than two years afterwards every textile mill in the city of Cornwall had closed down. The Dundas mill, the Canada mill and the Glengarry mill closed their doors. Some 4,000 people were put out of work. Textile mills also closed down in the maritimes, in Hamilton and in the Ottawa valley. In case some hon. members think I am exaggerating
[Mr. Chevrier.l
let me quote from a statement of the president of Canadian Cottons Limited as reported in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder of May 28, 1959:
Substantial reductions in operations, including the closing of some mills, are planned by Canadian Cottons, Limited ...
Total volume of sales was almost exactly the same last year as during the previous year. "However, business has become increasingly competitive, prices have been low and the flow of imports from the United States and low-wage countries have increased in volume."
Operations in Hamilton will be discontinued...
"The yarn mill will be closed and all activity in Hamilton will be discontinued by the end of the year."
The small yarn mill at Saint John, New Brunswick, has been closed, and the Rosamond woollen mill at Almonte, Ontario, has been sold. There will be reductions in certain lines of products now made in Cornwall."
Following this statement by the president of Canadian Cottons Limited the three mills to which I referred-the Canada mill, the Dundas mill and the Glengarry mill-closed their doors in rapid succession. People who had been employed all their lives in the mills and who did not know how to do anything else were left without employment. Some of these workers had been employed in the mills for as long as 47 years. We were told in the eastern townships of the province of Quebec, in eastern Ontario and in this chamber that the government would move to do away with this situation. We were told this was the object of the antidumping regulations which were passed in this house.
The Minister of Finance indicated the other day in a report that despite the anti-dumping regulations Japanese competition had been very serious during 1959. Notwithstanding the fact that the anti-dumping regulations were passed they were not used in certain instances and, as I see it, even if they had been used they would have done little because the situation could not be met by such regulations. It is now up to the government to do something about the situation. I am beginning to wonder if the situation that obtains in the industries I mentioned-the textile industry, the uranium industry, the aviation industry and the coal industry-has not come about as a result of the government having adopted the wrong policies. If it has it should move at once to remedy the situation.
In addition to the statements made by the Prime Minister to which I referred there are other statements to which I should like to draw the attention of the committee. The Prime Minister assured the people of this

country in March, 1958 that in regard to unemployment, and I quote from one of his speeches:
-we have gone over the top and are on the way down.
The Minister of Labour speaking in a byelection in December 1958, said that by the middle of 1959, and I quote from his address:
-we will be well out of the woods.
In Winnipeg on March 5, 1958, the Minister of Labour said, and I quote from the press account of his speech:
It is our duty to see that no Canadian suffers a single loss of a job this year.
I point out that the situation has been getting worse instead of better since the the time the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour made those statements. The position in so far as unemployment is concerned has worsened very materially. It has worsened to the point where the percentage of unemployed to the total labour force is now 8.1 per cent. This is a pretty high percentage and, as the committee knows, it has been estimated that anything that goes beyond 5 per cent is serious and immediate means should be taken to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, I am sorry to say, the government thus far has not faced up to the problem. The first question that comes to mind is this: has the government an over-all plan to deal with unemployment? Has the government a plan to deal with the situation which now faces it? Is the government in favour of full employment? Does the government think the puny winter works program will meet the situation which faces us at the present time?
In answer to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said in a very heated manner when he challenged this side of the house to produce any evidence of proposals to deal with the situation, let me say two things. First of all, the hon. member for Essex East, not only in this house but elsewhere, has put on the record a program, as did the Leader of the Opposition during the two campaigns of 1957 and 1958, to deal with the situation. Again, let me say this: by virtue of our parliamentary institutions, the responsibility for the situation lies over on that side of the house; the responsibility for this problem is that of the government. I have some recollections, too. I remember what was said from this side of the house when a situation entirely unlike this one arose in years gone by. We were charged, and we alone were charged, with the responsibility of dealing with the unemployment If that was the case in those years, certainly it is the case now, and I ask the minister what is the proposal to deal with the position in which he finds himself?
Supply-Labour
The minister and the government must accept responsibility; the minister and the government must do better than they have done up to now in facing up to the situation. They have to live up to the statements made by the Prime Minister and several ministers of the crown. If you want to call them promises, that is all right; but the point is, it has been said in this house so often that you have lived up to our promises. I have put on the record here a number of promises dealing with the textile industry alone, and I say respectfully that the promises in that field have not been lived up to. There were some 80,000 people employed in that industry in the province of Quebec and in certain parts of Ontario up until recently. I know the numbers have decreased substantially.
Then there are a number of proposals which have been put forward by the hon. member for Essex East. I want to deal with but one of those because, in his anxiety to put them all on the record, he perhaps did not give to this one the attention which he otherwise would have given to it had he been dealing with it alone. It is but one of the points which he has brought to the attention of the committee and I bring it to the attention of the minister. It is this: what consideration is being given to the intensification of the vocational training program? I have not the figures before me, but I understand that about one quarter of the people who are unemployed are either unskilled workers or workers whose trades are no longer required in the labour force. Here I have particular reference to a speech which was made by the chief commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission. As far as I can gather from the press he dealt with the subject in a very constructive manner. I am told the speech was delivered in the month of November, 1959. His suggestion was that it would be wise to give consideration to putting unskilled workers into vocational schools so that during the time they were unemployed they could get the benefit of a vocational training program which would assist them at a later date to find employment.


Michael Starr: If the hon. member does not mind my interrupting, may I say that the program he outlined lies entirely within the jurisdiction of the commission itself, in that they approve certain courses during which time a trainee, or a person who is going through those courses and having made sufficient contributions, can draw unemployment insurance benefits in order to help [DOT]him. I have no objection; I am prepared to approve all the courses that the unemployment insurance commission sanctions.

Supply-Labour


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that intervention. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to get for me a copy of the speech made by the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission because I think it is a speech which would be very helpful I am sure, to all of us on all sides of the house.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member can get it from the unemployment insurance commission. If he wishes me to do it, I will get it for him.


Lionel Chevrier: I am asking the minister to get it for me because I must say I was unsuccessful in getting it.
Let me deal with this very program which the minister has explained by way of intervention. If the suggestions made by the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission were given consideration-the minister says they are-it would, I am sure, help tremendously. I ask the minister this question: Is it not a fact that the appropriation for this purpose was cut in the present estimates?


Michael Starr: Not to my knowledge. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, whether he is talking about vocational training or approved courses by the unemployment insurance commission. If he is talking about approved courses by the unemployment insurance commission, that is a somewhat different thing.


Lionel Chevrier: I had both in mind, but I was interested particularly in the vocational training program.


Michael Starr: In that case, the program has been laid out and approved by the government and we have apportioned a sum of money to this program, which extends over a period of five years, amounting to $40 million.


Lionel Chevrier: When the minister speaks I would appreciate-and I am sure those on this side of the house would very much appreciate-an examination of the proposals made by the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission in that respect because I think it is a suggestion which would be worthy of serious consideration.


Michael Starr: I will send the hon. member the speech.


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


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, in rising at this time it is quite evident that there may be repetition. However, I should like to place a few remarks on the record today.

Once again the hon. member for Essex East is trying to set himself up as the champion of labour. Memories have been mentioned here and all I can say is that some memories are very short because when the hon. member for Essex East was a member of the labour relations committee last year he found it absolutely necessary to leave the committee in order to get a prepared list of questions drawn up by the Liberal research department. He was not familiar enough with the labour situation and labour conditions to go into that committee prepared to ad lib his questions and to recognize whether the answers were right or wrong.
Just a few days ago the hon. member for Essex East in answer to a direct question in the house said, as found on page 1021 of Hansard, the first column:
When I was a member of the government, of course my hon. friend knows that as a member of the cabinet I could not rise in my place and take issue with the government of the day.
That is the attitude and the approach of this gentleman who today wants to champion the cause of labour. Last year and again this year the official opposition moved to adjourn the business of the house to discuss the unemployment crisis. I should like to make reference to this matter and I cannot do better than to quote what the Montreal Gazette had to say last year on February 11:
In due course, the Monday when the opposition parties could name their own debating topic arrived. And what did they choose? Did they select the unemployment crisis, which had been of paramount importance only five days earlier, having deteriorated in some unexplained way by alarming particulars since January 30? Was any other choice possible? It was. The Liberals, after due consideration, launched a debate on federal-provincial relations.
The hon. member for Gloucester is also trying to set himself up, particularly in my riding, as the champion of the coal miner. Again this is repetition but I would one again remind the house that he is only a coal critic by circumstances. He has no personal interest whatsoever, no personal knowledge, and he has admitted that it was the first time he ever visited a coal mine in that area.
The figures have been mentioned here- and it is not my intention to go over them again today-but I would once again like to place on Hansard the record of the opposition from 1936 to 1940 when they were in power. In 1936 there was 12.8 per cent of the labour force unemployed; in 1937 the figure was 9.1; in 1938, 11.4; in 1939, 11.4, and in 1940, even after nine months of war, 9.2. I want to emphasize very strongly that


[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
the only thing that got them off the hook Mr. Marlin (Essex East): D.B.S. is not a was the outbreak of world war II.	publication.
Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has presented very interesting statistics. Will my hon. friend tell me where he got the figures and for what month?


Donald MacInnis: These are for the first of June in the years 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940. I gave the reference earlier in the session. They are D.B.S. figures.


Murdo William Martin: What page in the D.B.S. publication?


Mr. Bell (Sainl John-Albert):: Were you a member then?


Donald MacInnis: I must confess that my memory is probably slipping as badly as that of the hon. member for Essex East who could not even recall when he was acting minister of labour, so possibly he will excuse me for not recalling the specific page.


Murdo William Martin: Under the rules of the house no hon. member can quote unless he gives the reference. The hon. member has said that these calculations were made. What is the source, what is the year and what is the page?


Donald MacInnis: If the hon. member will give me time, I have it right here.


Jacques Flynn: I did not get the point of order raised by the hon. gentleman. What is the hon. gentleman suggesting?


Murdo William Martin: I was asking that the rules be applied.


Michael Starr: May I interject at this point? The hon. member is quoting figures projected by D.B.S. for the month of June in all of these years. If the hon. member is interested enough to ascertain whether or not they are correct, the reference is to D.B.S. figures and all he has to do is to look it up on his own.


Murdo William Martin: This only points up how inadequate the Minister of Labour is when he tries to deal with this matter in this manner. It is obvious that he is now telling the committee what the hon. member who has made the statement is now looking up. Either the Minister of Labour has prepared this speech for the hon. member and knows the reference-


Michael Starr: He does not need any help.


Murdo William Martin: -or has told him the reference. We are entitled to know the exact reference from which the hon. member is quoting.


Michael Starr: It is D.B.S., the bureau of statistics.


Michael Starr: It is an acknowledged official publication.


Murdo William Martin: D.B.S. is not a publication; D.B.S. is a division of a department.


Michael Starr: But they officially issue the publication.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could we merely confirm the fact that the hon. member for Essex East was a member of the government at that time and sat in the house when these figures were as high as they were?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the hon. member who has the floor has indicated the source of the reference and I do not know of any rule that says that the hon. member has to give the page. It may not be satisfactory to the hon. member for Essex East but the hon. member can make his own deductions.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I bring to your attention the rule on which this is based. It is citation 159 (3) of Beauchesne, 4th edition, and it reads as follows:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.


Jacques Flynn: I am very sorry, but I do not think that reference has any application to the present case. If the hon. member says that he has taken his information from a certain publication it is not the same thing as if a document has been cited. It is not the same thing at all to me. If we were to given the interpretation that the hon. member for Laurier suggests I think nobody would be able to speak for more than 30 seconds without having to lay on the table of the house all sorts of documents and books.


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that you have misunderstood my suggestion to you and I think it would be a bad rule for the house-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: If you want to raise a point of order it is your privilege but I am dealing with a point of order now. I think it would be a bad rule for the house if, when a document is challenged, it was not necessary to lay it on the table of the house. All the hon. member for Essex East has done is to ask where the quotation comes from and he has not yet received an answer.


An hon. Member:: He did.

Supply-Labour


Lionel Chevrier: He has not yet. The hon. member is looking it up. Your Honour has ruled on the matter before the hon. member has given the source of the information. I think Your Honour should at least wait until the source is given before a ruling is made.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I have just repeated today figures which I gave in the house earlier this session at which time the reference was not asked for. I thought I had mentioned the exact page reference at that time. If hon. members can contain themselves I will be only too happy to provide them with the exact page number later. Again I say that-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to give the hon. member an opportunity to present to the house at the earliest possible moment the source of this information but it must be documented. He must refer to the document and he must give us the page.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Murdo William Martin: This is important.


Michael Starr: You quoted today out of your head.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman is quoting statistics-


Michael Starr: You quoted all your figures out of your head.


Murdo William Martin: The only contribution the Minister of Labour has made so far is to sit in his chair instead of rising and meeting the challenges from all fronts.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, Paul.


Michael Starr: There is no difference.


Murdo William Martin: That is the contribution of the Minister of Labour to unemployment.


Michael Starr: This is the first time you have been speaking since 1935.


Jacques Flynn: I take it it is all very well for the hon. member to ask the member who has the floor the source of his information. In a case like that I would say he has to be satisfied with the information he obtains. This is not the same as the case to which the hon. member for Laurier has referred. If a member quotes from a newspaper or a book, he must be prepared to lay that on the table.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what he is doing.


Jacques Flynn: However, if the hon. member who is speaking gives a figure or enunciates a fact, he is not obliged to give more
IMr. Chevrier.]
than his source of reference. If someone says, from memory, the proportion of unemployment was so much on a certain date or if he says I obtained this information from such a source, I think the hon. member should be satisfied with that statement. If an hon. member says, I am quoting from a book or from a report, the rule is that he has to lay the document on the table, but I would not go farther than with the hon. member for Essex East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this is an important point of order. Are you ruling now that if a member of this house quotes official statistics, a table of official statistics, he only has to identify those statistics by saying they are from this or that department, without any further identification?


Mr. Nowlan:: This is a rather novel suggestion, that an hon. member who stands up and quotes from government statistics is required to produce the page, date and everything else. This shows how afraid our hon. friends opposite are about having a reply made to the misleading statements made in this debate. I would hope that you could rule the hon. member in order and give him a few moments to reply to some of the wrong statements which have been made.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, I do not think the Minister of National Revenue should be allowed-
Mr. Pallet!: You are afraid of the reply.


Lionel Chevrier: -we have not got to take that interruption from the Minister of National Revenue about false statements.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I cannot entertain more than one point of order at the same time. I thought the hon. member was rising on the previous point of order. I cannot entertain more than one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the ruling you have just made, Mr. Chairman, I take it if we on this side use statistics, any kind of statistics, and we are challenged-usually by the Minister of Finance-to identify those statistics, give the page and give the reference, we do not have to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Donald MacInnis: I may tell these hon. gentlemen all they are required to do is to make a phone call to the D.B.S., and they can get the information.


Jacques Flynn: The Leader of the Opposition has referred to a minister of the crown quoting from a document. The reference given by the hon. member for Laurier, of course, would be a guide in this matter. He

referred to citation 159 of Beauchesne, paragraph 2, which says that a minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a newspaper, book or other document unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. This is a rule that would not apply in this present case. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will realize that if we were to accept this interpretation now it would mean that when an hon. member says anything in committee or in the house he would be forced to lay the source of his information on the table.
If an hon. member were quoting from a book, that would be all right. However, if he were to say, I have compiled figures from such a source, then any hon. member has to be satisfied with this information. That is the ruling I make, and I think that is the only sensible ruling I can make.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to clarify the point-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Flynn: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In order to clarify this matter, which is an important one, with great respect to you, Mr. Chairman, what I have stated is that as a result of your ruling-we want to be clear on it-we on this side can use tables, statistics, figures, and all we have to do now in answer to a challenge from the other side is to say that they are from a government source.


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Donald MacInnis: Perhaps I can clear this up now. It is a D.B.S. labour report, No. 23, about which the hon. gentlemen are inquiring. I should like, in the few minutes that are left-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down. Shame.


Jacques Flynn: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Mr. Pallelt:: Killing time.


Jacques Flynn: I should like to know if we have disposed of the first point of order. The Leader of the Opposition did not seem satisfied. Is the ruling not accepted?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I state what I was going to say?


Jacques Flynn: I should like to know if the first point of order is disposed of.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So far as I am concerned, it is disposed of. You have made your ruling, and we are bound by that. We do not have to identify the statistics.
79951-0-80i
Business of the House


Donald MacInnis: In the few minutes left at my disposal, I would bypass this subject and go on to another.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to raise a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: The hon. member has interrupted me on several occasions.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I would just say my ruling applies only to the present case and, it being five o'clock, it is my duty to rise and report progress and request leave to sit again.


Lionel Chevrier: May I make this suggestion, that we would be prepared to let the hon. member for Cape Breton South continue and finish his speech at this time.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry, but the standing orders require that I rise at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: With unanimous consent?


Jacques Flynn: When Mr. Speaker resumes the chair, the suggestion might be made to him.
Progress reported.



Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour took the chair I made a suggestion to the chairman of committees which he stated he could not entertain until Your Honour was in the chair. It was this: That because of a point of order that was raised prior to five o'clock, and which took quite a little time to dispose of-[DOT] I am not so sure it has been disposed of- the hon. member for Cape Breton South has not been able to conclude his remarks. The suggestion I make is, so far as we are concerned, the hon. member for Cape Breton South be allowed to complete his speech. For that matter we would be prepared to go on till six o'clock, but I do not know whether hon. members will agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hour for private bills be waived entirely, or would the house consider dealing with the private bills and then reverting to committee? There is a private bill to be referred to the banking and commerce committee and which requires second reading. It is Bill No. S-7, to incorporate the United Canada Insurance Company. Then there are some divorce bills for second reading. It is possible they might be disposed of in the course of ten or fifteen minutes.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, on this question we will, as we always have done, continue to give consideration to the waiving of the hour set aside for private members' bills. But

Private Bills
we do not think it is necessary in this case, for the simple reason that this debate will go on, and it is agreed it will go on, and therefore we intend to support the hour for private members today.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would like one short word on this matter. Since I am the member in question and since the hon. member who has just spoken is so easily upset by a short jab, I'll save my punch for later. I would not want to take up the time of the house set aside for private members.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


William Heward Grafftey: the second reading of Bill No. S-7, to incorporate United Canada Insurance Company.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Heward Grafftey: The Bill No. S-7 is an act to incorporate the United Canada Insurance Company. The capital stock of the company will be $1 million divided into shares at $100 each. The head office of the company will be in the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a little more detailed explanation of this bill than the statement which the hon. member has made.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member indicate what type of detail he might want?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the hon. member can give us some knowledge of whatever detail he has in mind.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have no other alternative, under the circumstances, but to read into the record a very brief memo which I have in my hand at the present time regarding the United Canada Insurance Company.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Could the hon. member
identify this memorandum?


William Heward Grafftey: I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that this memo which I have in my hand was sent along to me by one of the proposed directors of the said company.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it is a well established rule of the house that hon. members must make

their own speeches and not read speeches which are written for them by somebody outside the house.
Mr. Pallet!: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) with respect to written speeches it of course emanates from his own experience. It is quite obvious the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) is merely referring to extensive notes he has in his hand.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member has just indicated he is reading a memorandum by the director of the insurance company he seeks to incorporate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the hon. member who moved the second reading to say that he proposed to read a memorandum prepared for him by a director of the proposed company. It is quite contrary to the practices of the house to read from previously prepared memoranda, particularly those prepared by others. I know the practice is not always followed, but I always hope that the memorandum is at least prepared by the hon. member.


William Heward Grafftey: I would say, in correcting myself, Mr. Speaker, that I have a memo in front of me with a number of detailed facts on it prepared for me by one of the proposed directors of the said company. I would like at the present time to read into the record some of the pertinent remarks. In answers to the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, while a lot of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point of order has been disposed of, so there is no need to answer the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


William Heward Grafftey: Then I now rise on a question of privilege. I simply want to say it was imputed that I would not be taking the responsibility myself for any remarks I am about to put on the record. While a lot of the details were prepared for me by the director previously mentioned, I will personally take responsibility for all of the remarks I now propose to put on the record.
The United Canada Insurance Company is being sponsored by the royal exchange group of insurance companies, the oldest and most important of which is Royal Exchange Assurance, which was founded in 1720. While there is nothing contained in it which is directly referable to operations in Canada, I have here a statement of the governor, the Right Hon. Lord Kindersley, which was submitted to the annual meeting held on

May 27, 1959, which indicates the strong financial position of the group and the extent and importance of its operations, which are world wide.
In Canada seven members of the group were operating in 1959 and were licensed by the department of insurance at Ottawa, namely the Royal Exchange Assurance, Car and General Insurance Corporation Limited, The Motor Union Insurance Company Limited, the Local Government Guarantee Society Limited, National Provincial Insurance Company Limited, the State Assurance Company Limited and United British Insurance Company Limited.
During the year 1959 the premium income of the royal exchange group from its Canadian operations was in excess of $10 million. The group has on deposit with the department of insurance in Ottawa securities having a value in excess of $12,250,000.
The National Provincial Insurance Company Limited, the Local Government Guarantee Society Limited and the State Assurance Company Limited have now withdrawn from doing business in Canada to make way for the new company.
I would like to underline the last paragraph here, Mr. Speaker. The objection is sometimes raised that there are too many insurance companies doing business in Canada and that accordingly new companies should not be incorporated. This, of course, is not a very sound argument and one with which the superintendent of insurance does not agree, especially in this case. In any event, it is met in the present case by the fact that there are three British insurance companies about to withdraw from business in Canada, if of course parliament approves of this, and they will be replaced by one company which will be a Canadian company doing business in Canada.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, while my remarks have been relatively brief in relation to a complicated subject, that I have supplied hon. members of the house with enough information, under the circumstances.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.



SECOND READING


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of
divorce bills standing for second reading. Is it the wish of the house to have the first group of divorce bills taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. SD-28, for the relief of Barbara Jean Gillies Harris Cooke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-29, for the relief of Evelyn Annie Macleod Vaillancourt.-Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-30, for the relief of Erwin Thomas Steppan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-31, for the relief of Donald Snowdon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-32, for the relief of Mary Nisbet Clements.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-33, for the relief of John Thomas Francis White.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-34, for the relief of Helen Frances Estelle Kearney Freeman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-35, for the relief of Joseph Alphonse Yves Jean Gabriel Lalonde.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-36, for the relief of Omer Therrien.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-37, for the relief of Helen Elisabeth Millar Ramshaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-38, for the relief of Marie Rita Dube Hould.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-39, for the relief of Stella Jean Margaret Newman Lamartine.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-40, for the relief of Larry Orsa.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-41, for the relief of Margaret Estelle Eleanor Evans Lanese.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-42, for the relief of Brenda Mary Pardy Thacker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-43, for the relief of Jean Bras-gold Martz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-44, for the relief of Lily Schucher Cohen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-45, for the relief of Anna Margaret Laurie Cannon Stevenson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-46, for the relief of Glafira Milczyn Sohn, otherwise known as Vera Milczyn Sohn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-47, for the relief of Militza Anich Racette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-48, for the relief of Joan Emily Wills Meehan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-49, for the relief of Roger Vermette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-50, for the relief of Rose Vosko Ribkoff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-51, for the relief of Vivian Phyllis Steine Skolnik.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-52, for the relief of John Gilbert Oakley.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-53, for the relief of Earl Bernard Lapierre.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-54, for the relief of George William Douglas Edmonds.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-55, for the relief of Marie Rose Nicola Lapenna McLaughlin.-Mr. McCleave.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-56, for the relief of Delema Grace Mullin Simon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-57, for the relief of Earle James Andrew Aspell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-58, for the relief of Marie Simone Louisette Bellemare Lafond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-59, for the relief of Elisabeth Lebherz Denig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-60, for the relief of James William Neilan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-61, for the relief of Donna Lois Marchand Silverman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-62, for the relief of Leo Proulx. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-63, for the relief of June Laura Welby Leger.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-64, for the relief of Dorothy May Kenny Mulcair.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-65, for the relief of Margaret Kathleen Graham Lane.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-66, for the relief of Hubert Shirley Quartz.'-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-67, for the relief of Claudine Fernande Yvette Thibaudeau Tarride.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-68, for the relief of Mary Pirie Wood Hunnisett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-69, for the relief of Marine Tony Jakovich.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-70, for the relief of George Henderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-71, for the relief of Jean Ludger Villeneuve.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-72, for the relief of Robert Marcel Castets.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-73, for the relief of Sarah Mary Shirley Collins Stewart.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-74, for the relief of Stella Jean Dunn Breitman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-75, for the relief of Klari Margo Farkas Bodo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-76, for the relief of Vera Eileen Rath Croucher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-77, for the relief of Rena Kan-ofsky Perzow.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-78, for the relief of Pearl Thorne Chipman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-79, for the relief of Joan Ethel Brooks Clarke.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-80, for the relief of Ann Aaron Regenstrief.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-81, for the relief of Eleanor Agnes Overall Cannon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-82, for the relief of Betty Zara-coff Ferstenfeld.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-83, for the relief of Kenneth Alan MacKenzie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-84, for the relief of Honoria Evelyn Day Matthew.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-85, for the relief of Rene Georges Clement.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-86, for the relief of Mary Eva Sheila Redmond Beards.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-87, for the relief of Geraldine Anne Mary McElligott Parsons.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-88, for the relief of William Gordon Jack.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-89, for the relief of Eileen Coates MacPherson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-90, for the relief of Maria Lozinsky Truby.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-91, for the relief of Willie Pomerleau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-92, for the relief of Patricia Frances Turley Raustis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-93, for the relief of Mary Jean Olive De Vouge Tremblay.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-94, for the relief of Dorothy May Vallis Odell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-95, for the relief of Jimmy D'Abate.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-96, for the relief of Mary Semenyshyn Shuch, otherwise known as Mary Semenyshyn Shuck.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-97, for the relief of Monique Bauset Malo.-Mr. McCleave.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-19 to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act.
He said: The Canada Fair Employment Practices Act came into effect on July 1, 1953 and, in short, it provides that no employer shall discriminate in so far as the employment of employees or the terms or conditions of employment are concerned because of race, national origin, colour or religion. The act also prevents an employer from using the facilities of a hiring agency which discriminates on grounds of race, national origin, colour or religion, and it provides, further, that a trade union shall not discriminate against its members or prevent potential members from becoming members of that union, and that it shall not expel them from the union on grounds of race, national origin, colour or religion. The act also prevents a trade union expelling a member because he

Canada Fair Employment Practices Act
lodges a complaint under this particular measure. Procedures are described, and penalties are provided for infringement.
It is generally agreed that this is a commendable piece of legislation to have on our federal statute books and also on the statute books of the provincial governments in so far as the jurisdiction of the provincial governments is concerned. We all know we cannot legislate so as to prevent discrimination entirely, but having such legislation as this on the statute book goes a long way toward promoting the cessation of any discriminatory feelings which people may have because of the factors which I mentioned earlier.
The bill which is before the house at the moment is very short. It merely seeks to make the present Canada Fair Employment Practices Act applicable to Her Majesty, her servants, and agents of Her Majesty, or, in effect, applicable to the civil service and to employees in the government service. This, of course, does not suggest that with regard to the employment of civil servants there exists at the present time any such discrimination because of the factors that I set out earlier. In fact, I think I can say without any contradiction or any qualification that no such discrimination enters into the employment of candidates for the civil service.
It may well be that there are prohibitions against such discrimination in some other statute or regulations, but the main point which I think we should consider is the desirability of making such provisions universally applicable not only to employers coming under the jurisdiction of this parliament but also to the crown itself and to employees of the government. This bill merely asks that those requirements which the parliament of Canada has demanded from private employers and trade unions in the nation and from crown corporations which have been established by this parliament should be applied to the government service itself. It asks that we should legislate for the employees in the public service in the same way as we legislate for private employees and the trade unions themselves.
That is all I should like to say as far as this particular bill is concerned. I do not think it requires a lengthy introduction, though I am aware that under the rules there is a provision which enables an hon. member who introduces a motion to make a final comment at the end of the debate on the matters raised. This, however, is a situation which may not develop because of the number of bills which are on the order paper and the practice which has grown up in the past of leaving them on the order paper at the end of the session.
Yesterday, if I may be allowed to say this, we began a practice with relation to this particular type of bill, which allows for complete freedom of expression regardless of party, looking toward a vote on that particular bill based on the thoughts of individual members. I think we should not allow that practice to die. I think parliament should look forward to a system which would allow public bills especially in the hands of private members to be discussed purely on their merits and not in relation to political considerations; it should look forward, also, to a system which would allow bills of this type to proceed to a vote. If it is necessary to add some extra days on at the end of the session to meet this, I think it would be a commendable thing for this house to consider doing.
If I anticipated Your Honour correctly you were about to draw to my attention the fact that this is apart from the principle of the bill. However, I appreciate having had the opportunity of bringing this to the attention of the house and I hope we will have a full discussion followed fay a vote at some future time.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. Has the hon. member considered whether this bill will tie in with the provisions of the Civil Service Act?


Frank Howard: I do not think there is a more confused set of regulations existing in government service than those with respect to the civil service. They can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It may well be that by practice, regulation or by the Civil Service Act provision is made for such things as it was indirectly before the enactment of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act by instructions or regulations under the unemployment insurance commission which says you cannot do this sort of thing. It may well be that this is so by practice, regulations or otherwise but I do not think it would be inconsistent to have the reference in this act so it is crystal clear that the provisions of this law apply also to employees of the crown as well as private employees and in discussing this question with the commission they told me they did not think it would be inconsistent either.


Mr. Spencer:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member who introduced this bill and ask him if he has also considered the provision of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act contained in section 5 and particularly subsection 8 thereof which gives the Minister of Labour the power to issue an order which, of course, would

Canada Fair Employment Practices Act be to the civil service commission to carry into effect the recommendations made by the commission appointed by the minister under the act and whether he would be in accord with the Minister of Labour in effect controlling the action of the civil service commission?


Frank Howard: I believe what the hon. member refers to is this. Under section 5 of the present act there is provision for the establishment of an industrial inquiry commission to inquire into complaints made under the act. The reference to a commission in this act is not to the civil service commission but to a special industry inquiry commission. The hon. member will find references to an industrial inquiry commission in subsections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the questions just asked by the hon. members for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and Essex West (Mr. Spencer). While not imagining for one moment that my explanations will be entirely satisfactory in reply to their questions, I hope to deal in general with some of the aspects of the questions they raised in my own speech.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in his answers suggested that he had a certain opinion from the civil service comission regarding the application of the act now under consideration. While I have absolutely no doubt as to his sincerity I should like to say that the opinion I obtained from the commission did not jibe with his in general outline. As I see it this lends some strength to my contention that perhaps this whole question could be better solved under a revision of the Civil Service Act when it comes up for amendment or study at some appropriate time.
The hon. member for Skeena in opening this debate very ably outlined the general content of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act which forbids amongst other things in general companies and unions practising discrimination in relation to race, national origin, colour and creed of employees. Whether it could ever be a practice of unions, companies or the civil service, I am sure all hon. members of this house would consider any practice relating to such discrimination most abhorrent.
I believe it may be fairly stated that we in Canada have had a very fortunate experience in regard to such practices and I do not say this in a holier than thou attitude. I am sure that all hon. members in the house this afternoon agree with the end that is sought in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena, namely that
[Mr. Spencer.)
no discrimination should be practiced in the selection of employees by the civil service commission. Although we may differ in what we consider to be the best means of achieving this end, there is certainly no quarrel about the end which we seek.
I do not wish to become too technical on this subject and indeed I do not think I can, but let us consider for a moment what we are dealing with on this occasion. We are a legislative body dealing with practices regarding the administrative wing of government. This is something about which I feel deeply. I have said time and time again in this house and I repeat this afternoon that whether we go back to Montesquieu or the separation of powers theory as developed in the presidential system of government in the United States of America, we are still talking about the separation of powers theory. While I do not think you can completely superimpose the separation of powers theory on this system of government, I think it is correct to state that our system of government works best when we have a healthy balance as between the administrative, judicial and legislative branches of government.
I come back to the point that we are discussing, something that affects the administration of the civil service commission which, after all, does not report through a minister to parliament but which reports directly to parliament. Although the principle is a broad one I think it is best to outline it before we go into details in this debate.
As a result of a great many inquiries I have been assured that the civil service commission in general has most certainly followed a policy of non-discrimination in its employment practices in the past. However, I entirely agree with the hon. member for Skeena that there can be some reasonable doubt. There always can be reasonable doubt. The possible is always the possible. It is possible to always deal in this realm. If there is a modicum of doubt in our minds that discrimination could be possible, -let us in debating this question in this house figure out the best way to stop it.
As I say, I am fully convinced that the civil service commission and the crown in general have up to the present time practised to the extent of 100 per cent and objectively a policy of non-discrimination. I have been informed that they have never knowingly transgressed the principles laid down in the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. If any hon. member has reason to feel that such discrimination has been practised in the past I feel it is incumbent upon him to bring such transgressions to light.

Canada Fair Employment Practices Act
It may be a misconception to attempt to make applicable to the civil service the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which the bill before us seeks to do. It occurs to me that the penalty sections of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act would require amendment as well if Bill No. C-9 were to pass.
Under these circumstances, we must consider the possibility that certain anomalies would ensue. I therefore come back to the point that it is quite possible the end sought by the hon. member for Skeena could be achieved by amendments to the Civil Service Act or by a revision of the act, and I personally feel that this is the best way to ensure the results the hon. member is asking for.
Apropos of the questions that have been asked by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Essex West, we must come to the point and ask ourselves what could be the effect of the proposed bill. It could give the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) authority to deal with complaints concerning discrimination in employment which, in all other respects, is subject to the civil service commission and to the administration of the Civil Service Act. We know the jurisdiction of the industrial inquiries commission appointed by the Minister of Labour. I therefore come back to the point I brought to the attention of the house before, namely that the civil service commission reports directly to parliament, and not through the minister. For this reason, if we proceed as proposed by the hon. member for Skeena we could quite conceivably be setting up a great conflict in jurisdiction. Therefore, I reiterate the point which I have repeated time and time again, namely it is very possible that the desired results could be brought about by a revision of the Civil Service Act.
The hon. member for Skeena made certain remarks in relation to bills being passed or being talked out in this hour. I say this in all sincerity, and free of any cynicism whatever; I have no idea whether or not someone will be talking at six o'clock, or whether this bill will come to a vote before six o'clock, but I am sure of this. Whether it comes to a vote or not I hope the suggestions put forward in periods such as this help to make better laws. I have often wanted to have the chance to express and re-express myself on this idea, which is attributed to this hour, because week after week there are far too many cynical things said about it. Sometimes I suppose it is easy to say that bills are talked out; but, at the same time, can we not take advantage of this hour as 79951-0-81
members of parliament to come to this floor of the house well prepared and briefed on bills that are being talked about and in that way perhaps make better suggestions that will give our nation and people better laws? I think this can be done. I do not think I am talking out the bill right now. I do not know whether it is going to be voted on or not, but I say in all sincerity that I have put forward some suggestion which will go toward making better laws for all Canadians from coast to coast.
I say to the hon. member I know the end result he wants. I agree completely with him. Anything that smacks of discrimination in the Dominion of Canada, be it in relation to unions, companies, the crown or the civil service commission, is entirely repugnant, and I am sure that this bill in many ways receives complete bi-partisan support. Again I say, up to now the civil service commission has practised a policy of non-discrimination, but if there is any reasonable doubt whatsoever let us use the best possible method to make sure that discrimination does not take place.
I often have said this in relation to parliamentary traditions. Sometimes the best laws are unwritten laws. We who have looked into the law a little bit often feel that usage and custom which do not require to be written down in acts sometimes have the greatest sanction. At this time I feel that anything that smacks of discrimination is so abhorrent to members of parliament and so abhorrent to Canadians in general that non-discrimination is written large in our hearts. Let us make sure that it will never came up in relation to government practice or private enterprise practice. At any rate, we agree on that. Why not let us discuss the best means of achieving the end? I have offered my contribution to the House of Commons this afternoon. I am sure other members will do likewise as we debate this most important measure.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I want to assure the house that I am going to be very brief, because in the limited time that is available to discuss this measure I know that there are other hon. members in the house who would like to make some contribution to the discussion and deliberation in respect of this bill.
I would like to make this general observation. I am very happy indeed that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), made it clear at the outset that he had in mind no particular instances of discrimination on the part of the government of Canada in so far as employment is concerned, based upon race, national origin, colour or religion. Having

Canada Fair Employment Practices Act said that, I wondered why the bill was introduced at all. If I may be permitted to say so, and perhaps to digress for just a moment, I believe that everyone in this house agrees that in employment there should be no such discrimination. I am happy to come from a city, namely the city of Windsor, where I believe this act, in so far as the municipal government is concerned, is complied with, in that in our municipal employment we have, I am happy to say, men and women of the coloured race and of all national origins.
The bill before us is short and in effect proposes to extend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act to bind Her Majesty in the right of Canada and servants and agents of Her Majesty in the right of Canada. I presume that the addition of "servants and agents of Her Majesty in the right of Canada" has reference to crown corporations. As I understand it, at the present time crown corporations are within the ambit of this act and I presume, from a rather casual reading of the act, they come within the act by virtue of section 3, paragraph (m), the purport of which is that this act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing.
(m) the employment by any corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada of employees.
That leaves then, of course, the application of the act only to employees of Her Majesty in the right of Canada. As we all know, the employment of men and women to serve the government of Canada is done through the civil service commission. I believe we have recognized that the civil service commission does not exercise any discrimination on the grounds mentioned in this act.
However, I believe that if this bill were enacted it would bring about considerable conflict between the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who is required to administer the provisions of the act, and the civil service commission. It was that concern that prompted me to ask a question of the hon. member for Skeena and I must confess that I was not satisfied with his explanation.
Section 5 of the act deals with enforcement procedure and under subsection 1 any person claiming to be aggrieved because of an alleged violation of any of the provisions of the act may make a complaint in writing to the director and the director may instruct an officer of the Department of Labour or any other person to inquire into the complaint. Under the act "director" is defined as an officer of the Department of Labour

designated by the minister to receive and deal with complaints under the act. An inquiry is made by this officer, but subsection 3 of section 5 provides:
If the officer is unable to effect a settlement of the matters complained of, the minister may upon the recommendation of the director refer the matters involved in the complaint to a commission, consisting of one or more persons, to be appointed by the minister and to be known as an industrial inquiry commission, for investigation with a view to the settlement of the complaint.
Then provision is made for an inquiry to be made and for the making of recommendations. Subsection 8 provides:
The minister may issue whatever order he deems necessary to carry the recommendations of the commission-
The industrial inquiry commission.
-into effect and any order made by the minister under this subsection is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review.
If we carry this to its logical conclusion we would find that if a complaint were made that there was discrimination in the employment of civil servants by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion an inquiry would then have to be made and, after reviewing the matter and the recommendations of the inquiry commission, the minister in due course might well be in the position of deeming it to be his responsibility and duty to issue this order. In other words, the Minister of Labour would then be directing the civil service commission to do something it had not done or undo something it had done which in his opinion and in the opinion of the inquiry commission amounted to discrimination. I believe that would bring about a conflict of duty and responsibility which we should not bring into effect.
I think also that consideration might well be given to amendment of the Civil Service Act and, as indicated in the speech from the throne, I understand that this act will be revised and amendments will be brought before the house. If there is in fact any need to have a legislative provision against discrimination, which admittedly does not exist today, I would think it might be better if such provision were made part of the Civil Service Act and not made indirectly applicable to the civil service commission through the enactment of this particular piece of legislation.
I agree with the general principle of the bill in that it seeks to apply to the government of Canada provisions relating to discrimination which we all believe should exist under our law, and I am one who believes that the government should in general be bound by all laws which it applies to its

citizens. I know that there are some instances as in the case of security or otherwise where it might be unwise to apply all laws generally to the civil service of the country but, as I say, other things being equal I think that normally the crown should be bound by the same laws that are applied to citizens generally. In so far as the bill is concerned, I think that consideration might better be given to amending the Civil Service Act rather than the enactment of this particular legislation.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I must say at the outset that I shall be very brief in the remarks I wish to make. I feel that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was quite sincere in introducing Bill No. C-19 but he failed to convince me why such a bill is necessary at the present time. He even went so far as to say that he felt that discrimination did not exist in federal government employment and I wondered why he was bringing in this bill at this time.
I also believe that the federal government is living up to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act all along the line. I know it is the duty of the unemployment insurance commission not to exercise discrimination on grounds of race, national origin, colour or religion in selecting people for jobs. I also realize that the Department of Public Works has inserted a clause in its contracts that takes care of this matter. The same clause is inserted in all supply contracts that are issued by the government. Therefore I am convinced that the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act is being followed very carefully by the federal government.
The province of Ontario has a similar act and I feel that other provinces, likewise, are doing a good job in promoting these fair employment practices. I am convinced, therefore, that there is equality of opportunity for employment without discrimination because of race, colour or creed in so far as the federal government is concerned in the employment of its people.
Briefly, in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman did not give sufficient reasons as to why he felt this bill should be introduced and, second, because I understand it is the intention of the government to revise the Civil Service Act, in which case this measure could be incorporated into the revision at that time; third, as I have said I am confident that the federal government now is providing equality of opportunity without discrimination of race, creed, colour and national origin; for these three reasons, Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible to vote for this bill.
79951-0-81J
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act


Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I find myself, for the first time, in the position of wishing I had been in the house when the sponsor of this bill made his speech. Unfortunately, I was detained by a previous appointment and was not able to be here. I am sure that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) introduced this bill with sincerity and that he was interested in putting forth his views on this legislation in the interests of all Canadians. Some of the previous speakers, to whom I have listened, have indicated that they did not believe a bill of this kind was necessary in this country. I would not commit myself completely to the statement that it was not necessary, nor would I commit myself completely in favour of this bill.
In the days when I was a student at the University of Manitoba I used to be a porter on the Canadian National Railways during the summer months. I make no bones about that fact. I like, whenever I am travelling on the trains, to keep in shape and to make beds as I used to do during my university career. During the time I spent as an employee of a crown corporation in this country I found that racial discrimination did exist, regardless of whether or not we like to talk about it and regardless of how we like to say it does not exist. Under the Canadian National Railway regulations a person who is hired as a porter can only be a porter, no matter how long he works for that company. A sleeping car conductor comes up through the ranks. He may be a dining car steward and then a sleeping car conductor. A brake-man can rise from the ranks and become a conductor. However, the porter on the train, under the Canadian National system, only has the advantage of seniority. He will never become a sleeping car conductor, a dining car steward or a conductor on the train.
Now there are those who will say that is not racial discrimination, but I say it is. Does the Canadian National Railways hire anyone who is of a dark colour to be anything but a porter? I would not attempt to answer the question, but I think those who say otherwise should answer it for me. This bill hits at racial discrimination, and any of us in this great country of ours who say that racial discrimination does not exist is not being sincere. I think it will always exist as long as you have human beings making up the intelligent population of the world. We have racial discrimination in this country
1276	HOUSE OF
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act so far as those of the Jewish faith are concerned. We have it so far as displaced persons are concerned. We have it so far as new Canadians are concerned. We have it in all aspects and in all areas of this country.
I should like to say once more that I am very sorry I was not able to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena. All we have to do is look at a map of Canada to realize that this nation is a miracle. Everything was against it; economic laws, geographic laws, religion and anything else you want to mention. This nation has survived and has flourished. I look forward to the day when racial discrimination will not exist in this country. I feel that is a challenge which we have to meet. We cannot sit back and say it does not exist because, in my

opinion, it does. I am hoping that all members in this house will strive toward the day when it does not exist.
May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bourgei:: May I ask the house leader if there is any change contemplated in the program for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, as announced by the acting house leader?


Mr. Churchill:: The program for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week will be the same as announced last night, a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday and government business on Wednesday.


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