1960-02-12

CANADA-AUSTRALIA    ANNOUNCEMENT OF SIGNING OF AGREEMENT

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that today in Canberra representatives of the governments of Canada and Australia signed a new trade agreement between the two countries. It is the Canadian government's intention to seek parliamentary approval of the new agreement at the present session of parliament and a bill to this effect is now being prepared.
In the meantime I am tabling the agreement so that hon. members will be aware of its terms. Additional copies are available for members upon request. The agreement will come into force when ratified by both governments.



WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY  INTERIM PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
on 1958-59 crop
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make with regard to the 1958-59 wheat, oats and barley pools. The Canadian wheat board has substituted a report dealing with the financial position of this account-that is, the 1958-59 wheat account-and indicates it to be in a surplus position. The board has advised that it is possible to make an interim payment to producers of 10 cents per bushel on all grades of wheat delivered to the 1958-59 pool, and the government has approved this interim payment.
Producers delivered a total of 366,989,780 bushels to the 1958-59 wheat pool. The interim payment will involve tb* distribution of $36,698,978. The board will be in a position to start issuing interim payment cheques in about three weeks time.
The wheat board has submitted a statement in regard to the financial position of the oats and barley pool accounts. The board reports that selling operations are well advanced and that the two pools can be closed in the near future. Therefore when the interim wheat payment has been completed there will be a distribution of the final surpluses in the 1958-59 oats and barley pools.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this statement contains no surprises. The 10 cents per bushel interim payment is the same payment that has been made for a number of years now. Recently the oats and barley accounts have been such that interim payments have not been possible. I had already expressed the hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might take this opportunity to announce government action to supplement the interim payment by providing a deficiency payment. I had hoped that his delay of the other announcement meant that it-


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Hazen Robert Argue: -would also be made at this time. What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a routine announcement which contains no surprise and because of other inaction will not assist western producers to the extent that is necessary at this time.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinfon):: Are you opposed to the payment?
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) was replying to a supplementary question put to him by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), I thought he had been mistaken and was answering a question put by the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger). After looking into the matter, I find that the supplementary question of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet was quite unlike that of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. I therefore wish to apologize to the Minister of Transport and to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet for my interruption.
(Text):



CANADA-NETHERLANDS INCOME TAX AGREEMENT ACT AMENDMENT TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION

Donald Methuen Fleming: the first reading of Bill No.
998	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry S-2 (from the Senate) to amend the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Agreement Act, 1957.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that 100 men have been laid off at the Moncton shops of the C.N.R. in the last few weeeks, and 80 men have been given their notice at the London car shops over the past two months? Can the minister state what measures the government will adopt to find other employment for these men?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that situation. In fact I was talking to representatives of railway employees about this matter about two days ago, and a strange occurrence happened during that discussion in that the officials pointed out to me that in 1954 the most serious lay-offs that had ever taken place on the C.N.R. occurred, at a time when the hon. member for Laurier was the minister. I should like to ask him what he did about the lay-offs at that time.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Does he recall his statement in Moncton, when he said that lay-offs by the C.N.R. were totally unnecessary?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of ever making such a statement, and I still ask the hon. member for Laurier what he did in 1954.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This exchange is
rapidly taking the form of a debate. I tried to prevent the minister from responding, but if his remarks are on record and the hon. member has a further supplementary question I will hear him, of course.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to ask the minister what the government intends to do with reference to these men, 100 of whom have found no employment, and to whom no indication has been given by the Canadian National Railways as to future employment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, having been minister of transport for some period of time, the management of Canadian National Railways, as I have stated in the house on a number of

occasions, regret that lay-offs of any kind are necessary at any time, and when such lay-offs do become necessary, unfortunate as that is, they have assured me that they take every possible step to re-employ these men at the earliest possible opportunity. The hon. member knows that very well indeed.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a further question. The information I have before me is that no attempt has been made to find other employment for these men. Will the minister comment on that point?


George Harris Hees: May I ask the hon. member where his information comes from, and just what is the source?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The information comes from the federated shop crafts council at London, and from another source at Moncton.


George Harris Hees: All I can assure the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is that the management in every case regret as much as he and I and every member of this house does that unfortunately from time to time, because of work conditions, it is necessary to lay people off. Whenever it is possible these men are re-employed as quickly as that can be done, and I am sure that statement holds good in this particular case.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I have a supplementary question. Has the minister forgotten that he made a categorical promise in the maritimes that when he got into office all this would be changed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the minister not to respond to that question, which is an argumentative one and not supplementary to the previous question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have informed the minister that I wished to ask a question along those lines, of which I have sent him notice. I should like to ask him whether or not he has had any assurance that the 200 men referred to in the press report in last night's Journal will be reemployed. I would also ask him whether he is aware, or whether it is correct, that the C.N.R. has ordered a 5 per cent reduction in its budget, and that this is the reason these men have been laid off.


George Harris Hees: No, I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker; and I give to the hon. member for Assiniboia the same answer I gave the hon. member for Laurier, namely that these men will be re-employed as soon as it is possible to re-employ them.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to ask information from the management on that statement.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I ask
the Minister of Labour if in view of the large number of unemployed in the country, he will take steps to persuade the Minister of Transport to exercise some greater measure of control over the railway in order to provide employment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that Liberal policy now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In answer to the Minister of Finance I would say this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have a question addressed to the Minister of Labour.


An hon. Member:: It is not a question.


George Harris Hees: If I may answer that question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Essex East that the railway-men who have talked to me told me that the government in 1954 did absolutely nothing to get men back on their jobs.


Mr. Hellyer:: At that time there were some alternative jobs to which to go.


George Harris Hees: The government at that time did not do anything when there were lay-offs on the C.N.R., in 1954.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked a question of the Minister of Labour.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: When I sit down the hon. member may rise on his question of privilege. This exchange is certainly not in accordance with the practice of this house. The hon. member for Essex East has asked the Minister of Labour a question which strikes me as being somewhat a question of policy, and the minister may or may not want to deal with it on that account, but at least he should have the opportunity to reply. But before he does so I will hear the hon. member for Laurier on his question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: I was rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in order to point out that if the Minister of Transport is going to make statements such as he has made, I intend to make some too.


Mr. Graffley:: Who started it?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: The best thing you can do is sit down. You are getting yourself into trouble.


William Heward Grafftey: You had better have a caucus on the rules. You stuck out your chin.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would remind the house that the next order of business is the estimates, and that the estimates of the Department of Labour are the next to be considered, so it is not necessary, even if it were in accordance with the rules, to debate these matters now. The Minister of Transport, as I understood it, was answering for the Minister of Labour, but it turned out he was going a little beyond the ordinary limits.


Lionel Chevrier: He was making a speech, and I would like to do likewise.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have his opportunity to make a speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be quite willing to yield to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has taken his seat. If the hon. member has a question of privilege of course it supersedes other matters and I will hear it, but I trust it is a bona fide one.


Lionel Chevrier: My question of privilege, sir-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my question of personal privilege was that Your Honour ruled out of order a question I asked the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Transport was not ruled out of order in making a political harangue. It seems to me that in view of the limits to which this matter has gone I should be permitted to have an answer to the question I asked the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not allowed the Minister of Transport to make a statement. Will the Minister of Labour please respond to the question.


Hon. Michael Sfarr (Minister of Labour):: In answer to the hon. member for Essex East I want to assure you, sir, and the hon. members of this house that my information is that the Minister of Transport is being kept right up to date on all these matters. This is the information I have, that the attention paid to the problems of this company has never been better, and they have never been so well looked after as they are at the present time.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS ON PURCHASES BY LOCKER PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: would like to direct the following question to the Minister of Agriculture. Due to the interest of licensed operators, particularly those in Saskatchewan, with regard to the deficiency payment formula on hogs as it affects the purchase and grading of those animals, could the minister state whether his department has any further statement to make in connection with the alleviation of this problem?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the house on two or three previous occasions, we have extended grading service to a considerable number of small slaughtering plants. We have also been carrying on an inquiry to find out the number of small slaughtering plants in the different parts of Canada and the volume of their slaughtering, with a view to devising the best method possible to assure that grading is extended as far as it is possible to do so.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received representations from various church groups in Pictou county urging immediate government action to relieve the critical unemployment situation existing at Trenton and in other sections of Pictou county? If so, what action is contemplated to provide immediate employment in the area and offer some relief to this most unfortunate situation?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am not in receipt of any representations of that nature.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister comment upon the statement made by the Quebec minister of health that between now and September next the province of Quebec will operate a hospital insurance plan which will not be directed by Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The statement the hon. member refers to seems to me to relate entirely to provincial policy, which is not under the administrative responsibility of the federal minister. Unless the hon. member can relate his question to the responsibility of the federal minister, I rule it out of order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Perhaps I could rephrase my question in the following way. Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare heard recently from the authorities of the province of Quebec in respect to a hospital insurance plan?


Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Has the minister communicated with the authorities in the province of Quebec lately, either by letter, telephone or telegram?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not know just what the hon. member means by "lately", but conversations and discussions have taken place in the past.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him whether he has had any conversations on the subject of hospital insurance with the present minister of health of the province of Quebec since the accession to office of Premier Barrette.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not think, in view of the declaration made yesterday on this subject in the legislature by the minister of health of the province of Quebec that in the interests of the hospital insurance plan he ought to have such a conference at the earliest possible date?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to inform the hon. member for Essex East that this government does not take a dictatorial attitude toward any province. This scheme is available upon request to any of the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Does he think there is any proposal involved in the hospital insurance plan that is a violation of provincial rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member who is asking this question is asking for an interpretation of what is a constitutional question.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) asked me a question on February 10, the operative portion being as follows:
-can the Prime Minister say whether any recent engineering or economic studies have been made by the government to establish the feasibility of this over-all project?
The question had to do with the development of a seaway from the island of Montreal to Georgian bay. The answer is that no recent engineering or economic studies have been made by the government regarding the feasibility of the project as a whole.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, notice of which was sent to him. This question arises out of a communication I received this morning. Persistent rumour has it that the customs office in Fort William is going to be closed, and that the building will be used entirely by the income tax department. Can the minister inform the house whether it is the intention of his department to effect these changes?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of the answer he gave to my question. Will the changes result in lay-offs at the customs office in Fort William?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what changes the hon. member refers to. He asked if the office at Fort William were going to be closed and I said no. I know of no changes that are contemplated which will involve lay-offs.



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry In a news item last night it was reported that the legislative assembly of Quebec had forwarded a statement to Ottawa urging federal authorities not to encroach upon provincial rights in their draft bill. Has the Prime Minister received such a memorandum and has he any observations to make on it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of such a memorandum, but I repeat what I have said on many occasions; that the bill of rights to be presented to parliament will in no degree encroach upon provincial rights, and will be entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.



MAGNESIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Baskin (Renfrew South):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the existing unfavourable United States tariff on Canadian magnesium, will the minister make representations to the United States government for reclassification of Canadian magnesium to see that its entry into United States markets will be feasible, and thereby enable Canadian magnesium producers to share effectively in the defence production sharing program?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Renfrew South has discussed this matter with me on several occasions. The problem he raises is of considerable importance, and we will do everything possible in discussions with authorities in the United States to enlarge the market there for magnesium.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I gave him notice yesterday. Can the minister inform the house what steps are being taken to institute a coastguard service along the west coast?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Most of the functions which are being performed in the United States by the coastguard are already being performed by the marine services of the Department of Transport. The Royal Canadian Air Force is responsible for the coordination of search and rescue activities,

Inquiries of the Ministry both air and marine. This system works very well, but I believe it can be improved on the marine side.
To this end we are now in the process of appointing marine co-ordinators, who will work with the rescue co-ordination centres of the air force, private shipping owners and government departments with a view to recommending and instituting measures for the more effective use of all the ships and other resources that are available for this purpose, and particularly those ships and ships' crews of the various civil departments of the federal government.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question, as to when the minister might reasonably expect these plans to be completed.


George Harris Hees: Just as soon as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a further supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister if this is the coastguard service which he promised he would institute when he got into office?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we expect
that when this co-ordination has become complete we will have a very effective equivalent of the United States coastguard.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.  STATUS OF AGREEMENT RESPECTING THERMAL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister inform the house whether the negotiations initiated almost two years ago between the federal government and the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission in connection with the East Saint John thermal plant are still under way, or did such negotiations break down due to disagreement between the two governments on the terms of the loan involved?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had a motion before the house the other day asking for the production of papers. This was accepted by the government. I think the hon. member will also remember that I explained to him in the house last year that the government of New Brunswick had set up a royal commission to look into the problem of the type of fuel to be used in New Brunswick. That would include the Saint John plant. Until


that royal commission reports there is no point in continuing the negotiations or discussions.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister explain why the amount is not included in the estimates this year, as it was for the last two years? This year it is withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member might very well bring up that matter when the estimates are before us. It is strictly a matter relating to the estimates.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has his department negotiated or entered into a new agreement with lake and river pilots which will increase their take home pay and reduce their working hours for the 1960 season, and does it take cognizance of the possibility of the season opening before April 1?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will get in touch with the people he is in touch with-I assume quite frequently-in the great lakes pilots association he will learn that quite recently we concluded a very satisfactory agreement with the great lakes pilots, and they are very pleased indeed with the arrangements that have been made.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister did not answer that part of my question dealing with the shipping season. It looks as though it may open before April 1. Are provisions made in so far as pilots are concerned to take care of this?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that my department looks after all types of contingencies of that nature.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he or the Minister of Justice has yet secured permission from the provinces to enable the correspondence regarding the proposed amendment to the British North America Act to be tabled.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that all the provinces did not consent. However, I shall look into the matter and be in a position to answer in due course.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Because of the great importance of the tourist industry to British Columbia, and because the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is sending a senior official of the government travel bureau to California to be present during the winter Olympics in that state, could the minister encourage his officer to report while in California on the advisability and probable cost of opening a Canadian government tourist office in San Francisco?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be very pleased to get any information possible from his tourist official on such eventuality.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a question to the hon. lady who heads the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and ask the hon. lady whether she has received any news of her friend Mr. Christian George Hanna.
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that in this matter the hon. gentleman shares the friendship of many people in this house.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the general public interest in the important and controversial question of natural gas exports and the findings of the report of the national energy board. Will the report of the board on this question be made public?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a report from the board. When that occurs an announcement will be made.
79951-0-644
Supply-Labour


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it from the minister's statement that when the report is received an announcement will be made as to whether or not it will be made public?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The report of the energy board is made directly to the government. It will be time to determine what will be done when that report is received by the government.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. V/. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet had any news from the minister of agriculture of Manitoba about the correspondence that some of us in the house are very anxious to have a chance to see?
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the answer is still no.

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



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
615. Payments to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1959-60 and 1960-61 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 1st day of December, 1959, to the 30th day of April, 1960, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $15,000,000.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I shall resume my remarks at this time, and I am prompted to do so primarily because of the childish display we witnessed earlier today on the orders of the day. I think this was a disgraceful way for certain hon. members of this committee to attempt to deal with unemployment, through mutual accusations, attempting to make political gains at the expense of three quarters of a million people.
It is unfortunate that we do not concern ourselves-at least that some members of this house do not concern themselves as much as they should-with the effect that unemployment has on the people who are unemployed and their families. They pay less attention to them than to whether they can make some political gain at the expense of these particularly unfortunate people. If the three quarters of a million people who are unemployed at the present time, Mr. Chairman, had the opportunity to be in the house today

Supply-Labour
particularly, or on other occasions when this type of exchange takes place between government members and members of the opposition they would not wait until an election day; they would boot them out on their ear right smartly. That is probably what should occur.


Mr. Montgomery:: What are you doing now?


Frank Howard: I only wish to express how upset we all should be. My hon. friend who made the comment probably did not catch what I said. I used the word "we", and in that I included myself and him as well. I only wish to express how upset we all should be and how much we should regret the activities in this House of Commons in dealing with the question of unemployment in the manner in which we have been dealing with it. I hope from now on we shall have the sense, the decency and the courtesy to deal with unemployment itself and the effect it has upon the people who are unemployed, and not on the basis of whether we can accuse a certain minister of making, or trap a certain minister into making, a certain statement, with the minister replying in the manner in which he has replied in the past.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before this resolution
carries will the minister give some indication to the committee as to what particular projects have been approved for the province of New Brunswick, and particularly in the municipality of Gloucester?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have not that information here. I did not expect that individual projects would be asked for at this time, but I shall certainly be very happy to get the information for the hon. member and send it to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think the minister's reply is good enough at all.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether it is good
enough for the hon. member for Gloucester. It may not be good enough for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but he did not ask that question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was about to point out to the minister when he broke the rules by interrupting me that I had given the minister warning the last time his estimates were before the house that this precise question would be asked today. I said we would want to know where those projects were and what they were, and I gave my reason for saying that. I want to repeat my reason now, and it is that in my opinion it will be found, as it was in the last two years, that most of those projects are in those parts of Canada where the level of unemployment is the lowest, while the fewest projects are in those areas, 
particularly in the Atlantic provinces, where unemployment is highest. The reason is that municipalities in those areas are not in a financial position to carry on their half of the projects, in a great many cases, to the extent that municipalities are in the provinces which have a larger tax base and a lower level of unemployment.
Sir, it does seem to me that this is the principal program the government are offering to halt what they had His Excellency say was a recurrent problem of seasonal unemployment. We are asked to vote $15 million of the taxpayers' money for this purpose, and the minister tells us that he did not expect us to ask for the details. I say, sir, this is an absolutely shocking way to treat the voting of money in this house. It is completely on a par with the performance we had from the Minister of Agriculture the other day. I had hoped that after that experience there would be no further trouble in getting details of these expenditures.
I request the Minister of Labour now to give us a list of all the projects that have been approved, with the total estimated cost and the total estimated employment in each of those cases, because it seems to me we cannot make any intelligent appreciation of whether this is a national approach to a national problem until we have that information.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do recollect and I have very much in mind what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said on a previous occasion in a discussion of these estimates. If my recollection is correct he said at that time that they would like to have more detailed information as to which parts of Canada are participating in the program. However, he did not elaborate upon individual projects in individual municipalities.
I have that information in respect of various provinces, and it entails 1,850 applications across this country, if that is what he wants me to produce. If he wants me to produce each and every application and file it here, I can do that; but because of the fact that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was not specific in that respect when he mentioned it the other day, I was under the impression that all that would be necessary would be to supply the number of projects in the various provinces, which would give hon. members a fairly accurate idea as to how this program is being distributed across the country.


Lionel Chevrier: Just before the minister tables the statement, would he be good enough also to give certain information which I inquired about during the consideration of

the speech from the throne? It is information that has to do with the province of Quebec. I then made certain statements in connection with the winter works program of 1958 and how, because of its lateness, not as many municipalities were able to take advantage of it as otherwise might. What I should like to know now is how many of those projects were authorized1 in 1959 and actually begun and put into effect in the province of Quebec. I mean not only the number but also the cost of the projects; and perhaps the minister would give the number of employees. I was told, and I used the figure, that it was
5,000.	I am now informed that it is much less than that; that about 2,000 were employed in the province of Quebec by reason of the winter works program.


Michael Starr: The hon. member is referring to the program of last winter, not this winter?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; 1959. I am dealing with 1959, and I introduced 1958 by way of comparison. The hon. member for Essex East tells me now that it is about 2,000; but if the minister could give the total amount of money paid by the federal government toward the execution of the projects, as well as the projects, together with the information which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked for, it would be helpful.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister could provide at least some copies of the information so they would be available to hon. members for the purpose of discussing this intelligently.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Maybe I can help the minister. If he cannot answer the question asked him by the hon. member for Laurier I can tell him that the total expenditure in Quebec was less than $1,400,000. I give that figure for the information of the minister.


Michael Starr: The hon. member got that information from the minister.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I hope also the minister will be able to give us the estimated amount, the portion of this $15 million, which will be spent in each of the Atlantic provinces.


Michael Starr: It is very difficult to apportion the $15 million among the provinces. It depends upon the projects that come forward from the municipalities within the provinces. The $15 million is not allotted in a particular way to the provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think the minister should be in a position-
Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a question of privilege. I should like to repeat what I said, since the minister questioned it. What I did say the other night, as found at page 910 of Hansard, was:
I know that one of my colleagues is going to ask the minister before this item passes to put on the record the details of where these projects are. I know, too-
Well, the rest is argument, but I made that very clear.


Michael Starr: That is exactly what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I expected that to be available today.


Michael Starr: It is available. I can give the totals for the projects in the various provinces, but the hon. member did not ask for the municipalities. He did not specify that he wanted the projects in each municipality. If the hon. member had done so I would have been glad to have that information for him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It should have been available without having to ask for it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister stated that he could not give the estimated amounts that will be spent in each province, but he must at least have available the total approved to date in each province.


Michael Starr: That is right. As of the week ended February 5 there had been 1,796 applications accepted across Canada. Does the hon. member wish me to give the number of applications for each province?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.


Michael Starr: British Columbia, 303; Alberta, 267; Saskatchewan, 274; Manitoba, 70; Ontario, 558; Quebec, 171; New Brunswick, 58; Nova Scotia, 63; Prince Edward Island, 1; Newfoundland, 31. The total estimated cost of these projects is $83,906,000, divided by provinces as follows: British Columbia, $12,093,000; Alberta, $11,873,000; Saskatchewan, $4,008,000; Manitoba, $3,464,000; Ontario, $23,223,000; Quebec, $27,225,000; New Brunswick, $649,000; Nova Scotia, $920,000; Prince Edward Island, $500; Newfoundland, $446,000.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister give us the amount of the federal government's share of the $649,000 in New Brunswick, and also the federal government's share in Nova Scotia?


Michael Starr: The estimated federal share of
direct payroll costs in New Brunswick is $213,000 and in Nova Scotia $301,000.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I should like'
to ask the minister what action, if any, is likely to be taken under this program with

Supply-Labour
respect to employment in Moncton? A question was raised this morning about C.N.R. lay-offs in that city, and I think the answer we were given was most unsatisfactory. It would appear that these people are being laid off by the C.N.R. without any regard to ;he employment or unemployment situation n the area.


The Chairman:: Order. I would not entertain any discussion at this point of the situation in Moncton. If the hon. member wants to put a question about Moncton concerning the item under discussion I have no objection, but otherwise I do not think I can let him go on. He can discuss the unemployment situation in Moncton only in relation to the winter works program which we are now discussing.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order you
have raised, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that winter unemployment in the city of Moncton is very germane indeed to the item under discussion, and I had asked the minister whether there were any municipal projects under this item that might help the situation in Moncton. I was going on from there to make some remarks about the situation that exists according to the information I have. I submit that a discussion of the unemployment situation, aggravated as it is by the action of the C.N.R., is very much in order, or why discuss this matter at all?


Lionel Chevrier: May I be heard on the point of order?	The information I have
corresponds with that which the hon. member for Assiniboia has, namely that men have been laid off within the last two weeks at Moncton and also at London, Ontario. We are now discussing the winter works program of the administration, and surely it ought to be possible for those of us on this side of the house who have information that men are being laid off during the winter to discuss these winter lay-offs in the larger scope of the winter works program. If the debate is going to be limited in the manner in which you wish to limit it, then I respectfully submit that its scope is going to be entirely too restricted.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Laurier knows that in committee the rule is that discussion must be strictly relevant. What I say is that there is no objection to any hon. member asking a question about the application of the winter works program in a particular area, but what I consider out of order is a discussion of the situation in a particular area which has no direct relation to the program we are now considering. For instance, I would say that I do not think one can discuss under this item the lay-offs by

the C.N.R. at Moncton or at London with respect to any other situation there. That is my ruling, and that is the way I think the rule should be applied.


Lionel Chevrier: May I draw one thing to your attention; and may I submit with respect that Your Honour may be in error? When Your Honour states that the discussion must be strictly to the point. That is so when we are discussing a bill, but when we are discussing estimates I think it has been the practice of the chairman to allow a much greater latitude.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: We are now on supplementary estimates and considering an estimate dealing with a matter that we have not had an opportunity to discuss since the estimates were tabled at the last session of parliament. In the many years I have been here it has always been the practice to allow a much greater latitude on estimates than on bills, and I submit to Your Honour respectfully that we should be allowed to discuss these very matters which are before us for consideration now.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On the point of order, during the question period earlier this day when questions were being directed to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour about this problem, the Speaker made the observation that in a few minutes the house would be in committee to discuss the estimates of the Department of Labour, and at that time the unemployment situation could be discussed.
Tha Chairman: That is true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to add something, but I thought my colleague in other matters, the Minister of Finance, wanted to say something on this point. Before you make a ruling, sir, I must join v/ith the hon. member for Laurier and others in asking you to give very careful consideration to a ruling which, if pursued in the vein suggested, would in my opinion violate one of the most important privileges of members of the house. There is no limitation on the discussion of the problem of unemployment on an item in the estimates; otherwise we might as well close this place up.
Let me give you an example of the consequences of what Your Honour is suggesting. On the orders of the day today the hon. member for Laurier initiated some questions to the Minister of Transport with regard to lay-offs on the Canadian National Railways. After several supplementaries had been put, Mr. Speaker suggested that these questions ought to be postponed in view of the fact we

were shortly to discuss this estimate. The Speaker therefore, having urged hon. gentlemen including the hon. member for Assiniboia, who was discussing the railway situation in Moncton, to discuss such questions on this item, Your Honour, if I understood you correctly, was about to take the position that there was a limitation on the very right which the Speaker had suggested was available to the opposition in this matter.
I would, however, put my argument on a much broader base than that. We are discussing, it is true, the winter works program. How could we discuss the adequacy of that program unless we could relate it to the fact that some 774,000 people in this country, on the authority of the minister, are looking for work? I suggest to you that we cannot discuss this winter works program unless we can determine its adequacy or inadequacy in the light of the problem that exists.
For instance, last week we had from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a constructive proposal in which he suggested to the Minister of Labour that in addition to this program, as a means of putting people to work, the government should accelerate its vocational training program. Your Honour did not interfere with that discussion, and it was a constructive proposal which indicated that in addition to this program, in order to meet this problem, here was another way by which men and women could be given the opportunity of training for gainful employment.
I suggest to you therefore, Mr. Chairman, with much respect that having in mind what the Speaker said on the orders of the day today, having in mind what has always been the practice of this house, in a matter of this importance the rules should be interpreted as they have always been interpreted, to allow the fullest discussion on unemployment or employment in relation to this particular program. I suggest to you that any other interpretation would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of proper debate in this house.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have heard from hon. members with regard to a free-swinging debate on the supplementary estimates. The hon. member who just resumed his seat has had a far greater experience in this house than I have had. He suggested that the debate should be conducted in the way it has been conducted in the past, but regardless of that fact I would submit we are governed by the standing orders of the house. A ruling should be made in the light of the standing order as it is, and I would direct your attention to standing order 59, subsection 2, which states:
Supply-Labour
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
If the word used was just "relevant" perhaps there would be some leeway but it is said quite plainly that discussion must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. I suggested that the ruling you made previously should stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to comment very briefly on the point of order, because the hon. member for Laurier put forward a proposition for which I think there is no justification. He was arguing, as I followed him, that the rule in regard to relevancy which has just been quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, standing order 59, subsection 2, is applied differently in the case of an item of estimates from the case of a bill.


Lionel Chevrier: No. May I repeat what I said? I did not say it was different; I said that in the case of estimates it had been interpreted by the chairman of committees or by the person occupying the chair to permit a great deal more latitude than in other debates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the point with which, respectfully, I must disagree. The rule, which has just been quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, makes it quite clear that strict relevancy in committee applies to any item or clause. The word "item" obviously refers to items in the estimates and the word "clause" refers to clauses in a bill. There is no difference, Mr. Chairman. I submit that the point raised by the hon. member for Laurier is, therefore, not well taken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to defend the hon. member for Laurier, who needs no defence. I am going to deal directly with what the Minister of Finance has said. Even taking the rule as it is written, without any of the practice of the house, surely the Minister of Finance would be the last person to argue, since we are trying to help him against nis colleagues in this house, that it is not relevant to say that an item for the expenditure of public money cannot be discussed under these heads: (1) Is it adequate; (2) is it wasteful; (3) is it going to serve the purpose for which it is recommended?
Now, in this case this item is to deal with the present unemployment situation, and it is the only item in the government's program to deal with that matter. It is surely relevant for us to argue that this is or is not adequate to deal with that problem. We cannot argue whether or not it is adequate to deal with that problem unless we also discuss what the

Supply-Labour
problem is that it purports to deal with. My submission is, therefore, that on the most strict rule of relevancy what the hon. member for Assiniboia was trying to do was relevant.


Jacques Flynn: I think the last time we discussed this item I gave a ruling and I mentioned that this item would not in my opinion permit the initiation of a general debate on unemployment. At that time I referred to page 738 in May's Parliamentary Practice, and I do not think I need repeat what I quoted then. Of course the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred to the rule in this connection, standing order 59, subsection 2, which states that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. I think I indicated clearly that it was in order to put a question as to the application of this winter program in a certain area, but that to take advantage of this discussion to enter into a debate on a particular situation, such as the lay-offs at Moncton, is not strictly relevant. This could lead to the endless discussion of a series of special circumstances.
The hon. member for Essex East mentioned that if we were to apply the rule as I indicated I felt it would be applied we might as well close the place. I would mention to the hon. member for Essex East that if we applied the rule as he suggested we might as well close the place, because we would never have enough time in 12 months to deal with all the questions.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page the Prime Minister about closure.


Jacques Flynn: I should like the hon. member who said "closure" to explain what he means.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I interjected that we should page the Prime Minister about closure. What I said was what I meant.


Jacques Flynn: I am glad the hon. member has explained his interjection. I think it clarifies the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will Your Honour allow me to interrupt in order to ask a question before you proceed?


Jacques Flynn: Very well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can understand that Your Honour is trying to deal with this matter in an orderly way, but just so as to indicate how difficult the problem would be if we were to pursue the same attitude Your Honour has taken, may I say this. Suppose it were pointed out by the hon. member for

Assiniboia that in the city of Moncton, the area complained of with regard to unemployment in the railways, there were only three projects under this winter works program, and that if the government had had a more generous program in that particular community more people could have been put to work. Surely Your Honour can see that if that kind of argument were offered, and it were to be denied, there would be a denial of this particular program of winter work to the city of Moncton, the very area complained of by my hon. friend. I think Your Honour, who nods his head, will see the merit of this observation. I suggest that one could introduce others which would show that the position here taken is not an unreasonable one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If Your Honour would permit me to do so I should like to apologize to the Chair for any appearance of a reflection there might have been in my remark. It was certainly not intended in that way. It had reference to Your Honour's observation that there would not be enough time during the whole year to complete the business of the house. Certainly if I gave any impression whatever that I was reflecting on what Your Honour was saying I should like to withdraw it at once, because I had no such thought in my mind at all.


Jacques Flynn: I thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for his explanation. To continue, I was saying that on other occasions during this session there will be ample opportunity to discuss the general situation of unemployment. As to the last remarks of the hon. member for Essex East, I would say that if the hon. member for Assiniboia had said exactly what the hon. member for Essex East has said it would have been in order. However, I pointed out that the hon. member for Assiniboia was examining a particular situation in Moncton where supposedly many people were laid off. If this matter is discussed without relating it to the item before the committee, I think it is not in order to do so. That is the point I made.
What I mean is this. If any hon. member were to discuss a situation and say, "This program does not cure this situation", I think it is in order. But if an hon. member starts explaining and describing a situation, in my opinion this discussion is not strictly relevant.
I think my interpretation is reasonable and permits ample discussion. It may not permit discussion of all the points any hon. member has in mind, but the application of the rules would always bring this result. I think it is fair that in the discussion of all these items we should apply the rules as they are found

in the book. It may have been the practice or there may have been instances where more leeway has been shown by the Chair, and it may be that circumstances will occur when the present chairman will show more leeway, but as the hon. member for Essex East has pointed out, it is not easy to apply this rule of strict relevancy. However, I think it is the duty of all hon. members to co-operate with the Chair in attempting to apply it.


Hazen Robert Argue: When the point of order was raised, Mr. Chairman, I had been speaking about the unemployment situation at Moncton and was endeavouring to find out whether or not, under this particular estimate, action in that area was being contemplated. In view of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I shall not endeavour to read all of a telegram that I have in my hand from L. K. Abbott, general chairman, brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers in Moncton. However, I believe the first part of the telegram is in order under the rules as you have interpreted them. It is addressed to me and reads as follows:
The do it now campaign originated Moncton with C-N.R. one of main participants. But immediately afterwards C.N.R. orders mass lay-off workers-


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order. It is not my intention to do so unless I think I am justified, and that is my opinion in this instance. I submit that the do it now campaign has nothing whatever to do with the estimate before the committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: The do it now campaign has to do with works projects in the wintertime.


Michael Starr: The do it now campaign is an advertising campaign sponsored by the Department of Labour and carried out by committees in various municipalities across the country in an endeavour to urge people to perform or to have done in the wintertime work which they otherwise would not have done until spring.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly what I had in mind. It is a campaign to try to get winter works projects under way.


Michael Starr: It has nothing to do with this item.


Jacques Flynn: I think the point of order raised by the minister is well taken. We are discussing here payments to Indian bands and to municipalities, but we are not discussing other aspects of the program or the importance of them to labour during the wintertime. As I said on this point, hon. members will have an opportunity to discuss this "do it now" program, but we are now
Supply-Labour
concerned only with the contribution of the 50 per cent of the payroll costs of certain projects by the municipalities.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed to raise just one point which I think perhaps has escaped the attention of the committee?


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it a point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is a point of order. As I say, it is a point which I think has escaped the attention of the committeee. The hon. member is attempting to refer to and discuss the "do it now program" as it is applied. What I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, is this. The vote now under consideration and discussion is an incentive program. The item reads in part as follows:
Payments to provinces in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1959-60 and 1960-61 fiscal years-
It would strike me that anything that indicates an incentive to works during the winter surely could not be inadmissible in such a discussion, and that is all the hon. member is trying to do.


Michael Starr: It is not my intention, in raising a point of order, to curb discussion or try to direct Your Honour in what you are trying to do by way of interpreting the rules. However, I wish to point out, in response to what the hon. member for Laurier has said, that in the regular estimates of the Department of Labour there is an item which has to do with the do it now winter works program. It is a separate item.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I be heard on the point of order?


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. member for Assiniboia would be satisfied to read his telegram and then make his argument I think we might as well let him finish the reading of his telegram. If he will be satisfied to read it and then come back to the discussion I would hold that he can finish the reading of the telegram.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, you have now been much more lenient with me than required by any request I had in mind. I felt that the first sentence of this telegram which I have already read was in order on the basis of your prior ruling. In keeping with the importance of this situation I think I would not be doing my duty if I did not read the whole telegram. Since you have invited me to read the whole of the telegram I shall do that.


Jacques Flynn: I am sure the hon. member on reading this telegram will produce an argument which is relevant. I hope he will not disappoint me.

Supply-Labour


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, you have invited me to read the telegram and I accept your invitation. I hope I will have an opportunity of concluding the telegram before a point of order is raised on it.


Some hon. Members:: Read the telegram.


Hazen Robert Argue: The telegram is from L. K. Abbott, general chairman of the Atlantic region, brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers. It is addressed to me at the House of Commons and is as follows:
The do it now campaign originated Moncton with C.N.R. one of main participants but immediately afterwards C.N.R. orders mass lay-off of workers many of whom being members of Canadian brotherhood of railway transport and general workers. Also C.N.R. press release by Moncton vice president glorifyingly advocates optimistic outlook for 1960 in maritimes. Laid off men will find it impossible obtain other work. Our organization strongly protests action C.N.R. and enlists your immediate support to cancel C.N.R. top level instructions reduce forces and direct return to work our laid off members.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any doubt that detailed reference to the management of the C.N.R. is not in order under discussion of this item, but it was my opinion, and I think it is correct in the light of your ruling, that it was in order to point out the general situation in Moncton, particularly in the light of a meeting which had been held in that city in order to get winter works projects under way, in order to get do it now winter works projects under way, to deal with this very difficult situation. As has been already pointed out in the discussion of the government's answer to the unemployment situation at this time, there is the huge total of 774,000 Canadians who are applying for work. This is a very serious unemployment situation in my opinion, and no matter which set of figures may be taken I feel that the government's response to this unemployment situation is most inadequate.
During the discussion the minister has given us the information that during last year 32,000 people obtained work on site as a result of this program. The program is being increased this year, but it is certainly not going to result in anything like a full employment program. What bothers me is the apparent feeling in the government that it has provided, and is providing, a solution to the very difficult unemployment problem across this country.
I say to the minister with great respect that the action which is proposed, the $15 million estimate which is under discussion, is no answer whatsoever to what is in fact a very serious, grave and growing unemployment problem. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister himself is not fulfilling the duty of a responsible minister in the government
[The Chairman.]
of Canada in the attitude he himself is taking at this time with regard to unemployment. The attitude of the minister is this, that this is not a bad situation and things are reasonably good.


Mr. Speakman:: How can you tell?


Hazen Robert Argue: By his own statement and the answer of the government now, by bringing in what is a very moderate estimate, compared with a total estimate of $6,000 million, of $15 million to pay half the labour cost in a very restricted policy to deal with unemployment. At page 511 of Hansard of this session the minister said there was evidence that the recession has been overcome, and that the measures taken by this government have been effective.


Michael Starr: I was quoting the Canadian Labour Congress.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no.


Michael Starr: Further on.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no; the minister is very much in error. If he looks at page 511 he will see that they were the statements of the minister himself.


Michael Starr: I was paraphrasing the Canadian Labour Congress.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all. The minister referred to the hon. member for Essex East. Let me read the full sentence:
If the hon. member has shown perhaps a lessened tendency towards doom and despair this session I think his change of heart is understandable in view of the evidence that the recession has been overcome and that the measures taken by this government have been effective.


Michael Starr: For the information of the hon. member may I just refer him to what the Canadian Labour Congress say on page 14 of their brief; that the government took certain measures which helped to lift us out of the recession. That is the statement of the Canadian Labour Congress. Does the hon. member deny that is true?


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister was fair he would read their statement with regard to unemployment in full. They have viewed this as a very serious situation.


Michael Starr: That is a complete sentence quoted from the Canadian Labour Congress.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think we are
straying again from the item under discussion, and a general debate on unemployment is developing. I would ask the hon. member for Assiniboia, as well as the minister who is replying, to stick to the item under discussion.



I960

Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, all I was saying when the minister interrupted was that the minister feels that the recession is over and that this item in the estimates is adequate to deal with the unemployment which is prevalent today in this country.


Michael Starr: I suppose the hon. member
disagrees with the Canadian Labour Congress?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not disagreeing with
the statement they made that certain measures helped-helped-lift us out of the recession. But we are still in a recession.


Michael Starr: No one is denying that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Ask the three quarters of a
million Canadians who are applying for jobs whether we are in a recession, and I think the answer will be that we are in a recession. I take issue with the statement the minister made, which is not the statement of the Canadian Labour Congress; because he quoted a paragraph from the Canadian Labour Congress after he made his own statement. I dispute and disagree with the statement the minister has made that the recession has been overcome. The recession is not overcome. We are in a recession that has demanded at least this much, namely a very adequate winter works program that will be of some benefit to the people of this country.
I think unemployment in Canada is serious, and exceedingly serious for the three quarters of a million Canadians who have applied for jobs. I think it is serious if you ask the families of unemployed workers how they can live on payments of around $33 a week.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sure the
hon. member does not wish to disagree with the Chair. I have said before that references may be made to unemployment but it is not the subject of the item under discussion. If the hon. member wishes to discuss the program, or to say it is not sufficient, that it should be otherwise or that it does not cure unemployment, very well; but to discuss unemployment generally as he has for the last few minutes is completely out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, with great
respect, the other evening you allowed the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to make some general remarks of some 30 minutes' duration on the question of the the government's policy toward unemployment.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I raised a point
of order when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was speaking. I said that if some remarks relating to unemployment
Supply-Labour
were introductory I would not object. I suggest that the hon. member for Assiniboia should read Hansard and he will find that afterwards the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate discussed the program primarily in relation to Newfoundland.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought the hon. gentleman
spent most of his time quoting past statements of the government, but the record will show whether or not the hon. gentleman was strictly in order in line with the interpretation Your Honour is now making as to the rules.
I suggest that the minister does not think the unemployment situation is serious when he has brought in an estimate which may result in the placing of 45,000 people or so in employment at a time when approximately 754,000 have applied for jobs. This program that is now before us is not an answer to the unemployment situation. It means there will be further suffering among the unemployed in Canada. It means that the government is prepared to allow an unemployment rate of between 5 per cent and 12 per cent, when some years ago economists were telling us that full employment meant not more than 2 per cent out of work.
The government could do much more than it has done. It held a conference in the summer of 1958 at which the winter work program was discussed. As a result of that conference and the action taken we had the program of a year ago. The minister did not take the position that there was any necessity for a program for the next year. He considered it a temporary measure. He said that in his opinion the program that was in effect met the situation, and he was not sure that they would need another. The government has now brought in the same program, and in my opinion it is most inadequate to meet the present situation.
I have a number of suggestions I should like to make to the minister. The first is that the percentage contribution by the federal government should be increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. That would be a good thing to stimulate employment. This is borne out by the fact that some provinces have themselves added 25 per cent to the payments made under this program. This proposal would result in greater employment and greater use of the winter work program. In his introductory statement the minister pointed out that the payment by the federal government covers only some 12 per cent or 13 per cent of the cost of the works projects undertaken through this scheme. I invite the minister to consider the interest rate municipalities have to pay to obtain money to qualify for participation in the program.

Supply-Labour
As a second proposal I suggest that the government should activate the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, which was passed in 1938. It has been of limited use, but has not been used at all for years. It is a good act, and the unemployment situation prevalent in Canada today in my opinion requires that the act be used. This is the type of act that could be used to cover the projects contemplated by this resolution. One of the difficulties municipalities have in co-operating with the government under this program is, of course, the need to find revenues to pay their share of the wage cost, as well as the greater part of the cost which arises apart from the wages that are involved.
Section 4 of the act to which I referred provides for money to be supplied on a loan basis to municipalities at a rate of 2 per cent per annum. The unemployment situation is of such an emergency character that the government should proceed with the reactivation of this legislation. It is already on the statute books, and the only thing required to make it operative is an item in the estimates.
As a third proposal I urge the minister and his department to be more active in arranging with the municipalities a shelf of works projects that would be readily available in times of unemployment. If such a shelf were available then works projects could be undertaken when emergencies arise. Unemployment insurance is an excellent thing, but it is no substitute for jobs. The old' concept of some 20 years ago, that there should always be available a shelf of public works which would provide full employment oportunities, is a concept that should commend itself to the government.
There are several suggestions I should like to make that are more in the field of the general economic policies of the government. The government should take steps to increase the consumption of goods. Steps should ibe undertaken to increase the incomes of the low income groups. Steps should be taken of an international nature to stimulate Canadian production and exports.
I wish to underline once again the relief of members of this party that this country faces a grave unemployment emergency at this time. The measure now before us, although welcome and helpful, is inadequate by itself to deal with this situation. Specific steps should be taken to improve the operation of a program like this by increasing the federal government's contribution from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. The government should bring into operation the long-neglected Municipal Improvements Assistance Act.

If the government would follow these suggestions and institute other economic measures, I am certain that at some future date the minister's statement that Canada is out of the recession would be accurate.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member sits down I wonder if he would permit a question. I listened very carefully to his remarks. The hon. member admitted in his own words that we are out of the recession because of certain actions taken by this government. In the same breath he said we are still in the recession. How can the hon. member stay on both sides of the fence? I wonder if he would care to reconcile those two statements?


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not use those words. I was quoting.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But the hon. member agreed with those words.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should very much like to have the opportunity of replying to the hon. gentleman's well considered and highly important question, as to whether or not in one breath I said we were out of the recession and in the next said we were still in the recession. The Minister of Labour had quoted the one sentence from the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress. I requoted that. To answer my hon. friend's question very definitely, I tell him that in my opinion we are still in a recession.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do you agree with the Canadian Labour Congress?


Mr. Beech:: Would the minister care to comment on the request by certain boards of education that some work being done by those boards be allowed under the winter works program? The claim is that some jobs can be done in the wintertime that would provide work for people who are unemployed and are not able to perform the work now permissible under the plan.


Michael Starr: This matter has been brought up and considered on previous occasions in regard to last winter's works program and also this one. At the moment the decision is that boards of education could not be included in this program, since we include only works undertaken by municipalities.


Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena made the remark some time ago that he thought the discussion here was deplorable, and that in his opinion the government and the official opposition were playing politics with this very important question. Actually it is too bad that he is not in his seat just now, because he would find that

many constructive suggestions are being made to the government to improve this inadequate measure.
I will try to confine myself to the question under discussion, but I find it very difficult to deal with such an important question without at some time or other referring to unemployment and even giving examples which may not be general in Canada. I deplore the fact that the minister has severed his civic connections. If he were still mayor of the important municipality he represents I am sure he would have submitted to this government a winter works program and a policy which would be much better than the one that has been presented to us.


Michael Starr: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but would he not agree with this? First of all, I thank the hon. member for his kind words, but would he not agree that a step in the right direction has been taken in the submission of a plan, even though he may not agree with me that it is as full in scope as it could be?


Paul Tardif: Any definite step taken to improve working conditions in Canada by a winter works program certainly is a step in the right direction. The only thing is that the minister took too short a step.


Michael Starr: It is better than no step.


Paul Tardif: The program as submitted by the Minister of Labour is entirely inadequate. Further, a program of winter works should be a program covering a period of two years. It is my opinion, and it is the opinion of most of the administrators of Canadian municipalities, that the program of this government does not cover the needs of the municipalities sufficiently to make it a workable and good program. While it covers 50 per cent of the labour cost, it does not do anything to cover a part of the material cost or a part of the machine rental and maintenance cost which it should include if it is going to be profitable to municipalities.
Another thing I find is that the Department of Labour, through the minister, presented the program to this house for a period of time that is too limited. The program now starts on December 1 and runs to May 1. I am sure the Minister of Labour did not take into consideration the time it takes to calculate and design the projects which are to be done by the municipalities. If the municipalities were advised in December-


Michael Starr: It runs to April 30.


Paul Tardif: I did not give the date; I said it was from December to April. I agree with the minister that April 30 should be included in my remarks. Actually, Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for municipalities to gamble in
Supply-Labour
preparing the necessary engineering designs and calculations for winter works they are going to undertake unless they are advised in plenty of time. Unfortunately the minister did not advise the municipalities until September, 1959 that it was his intention again to submit to this house a winter works program or an appropriation to cover it.


Michael Starr: There are no complaints about that.


Paul Tardif: There may not be any complaints on the part of the minister but I am speaking-


Michael Starr: From the municipalities.


Paul Tardif: -of the people who disagree with the minister.


Michael Starr: The hon. member is the only one who has disagreed about this so far.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh? Nobody is satisfied.


Paul Tardif: Before I became a member of this house the government constantly accused the Liberal party of not having its ear to the ground. I hope the present minister is not guilty of the same thing of which he accused the Liberals.
I am now speaking for the people whom I meet every day:	I am speaking for the
municipalities with whom I have something to do every day. They realize-and I am sure the minister himself must have heard it at some time or other-that it is impossible, in an economical manner, to prepare winter works programs when they are advised by the minister's office on September 3. It is too far away. When the advice comes on September 3 it puts the municipalities in the position of gambling. If they commenced to work on this program before they were advised that the government was going to proceed with it this year they would be gambling in preparing the engineering works necessary for the program without knowing whether or not the government would decide to legislate so the winter works program could be carried out.
Because the minister comes from the western part of the province I am sure he does not realize that in most places in Canada-


Michael Starr: The central part.


Paul Tardif: The central part; I stand corrected. Because the minister comes from the central part of Ontario I am sure he does not realize, or did not think of it because of his numerous duties in dealing with the great number of unemployed in Canada, that there is a very deep frost penetration in most sections of Canada, and that many of the works programs which are listed in the government's policy are impossible to carry out

Supply-Labour
in the wintertime. For instance, if you are going to lay water mains in the winter you find that the cost increases by about 30 per cent. The government's contribution is 50 per cent of the labour cost. I will prove a little later on that it becomes absolutely uneconomical for municipalities to do anything about laying water mains in the winter.
There is another problem when you do that kind of work in the winter. The work done in the winter causes the roads to deteriorate to a much greater extent in the spring than they would if the work was done in the summer. The problem of re-establishing the roads to their original condition increases the cost considerably. The conditions as proposed by the government in the winter works program, so far as the municipalities are concerned, are entirely unrealistic.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, while the program might make some kind of contribution, it should be submitted to the municipalities in March or April so the necessary preparation could be made and the economies effected at the time they should be. Actually there is no reason why the government did not submit the program much earlier in the year, because it was evident at that time that during the winter there would be a great deal of unemployment. I say this even though the minister did state in the third paragraph of a letter to the premier dated September 3, 1959-which his office supplied to me, incidentally-
We expect the unemployment situation generally to be improved compared with last winter.
If the minister will check on the number of unemployed we had at this time last winter and the number we have now he will find that not only has the condition not improved but that it has deteriorated.


Mr. Lamberi:: As a matter of information, is the hon. member saying that is a national condition, or is he referring to a particular local area?


Paul Tardif: From the figures submitted to the house by the minister I would say that this is a national condition.


Norman Platt Lambert: I suggest that the hon. member do a little travelling and find out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is unemployment right in Edmonton, in your own constituency.


Michael Starr: You were in office from 1935, and you did not do anything at all.


Paul Tardif: I will accept the hon. member's suggestion that I probably should do a little more research, but the conditions right now are so evident that not a great deal of research is necessary. Actually the provinces

were only advised on September 9 that the Minister of Labour had decided that this winter there would be some contribution by the federal government toward a winter works program. The provinces took at least the same length of time or maybe longer to advise the municipalities that there was going to be a winter works program. If the minister had waited a couple of weeks more to advise the provinces, and if the provinces had taken a little longer to advise the municipalities, it would have been spring; because spring always comes after winter.
In my opinion the present winter works program submitted by the minister is inadequate and is far too narrow in scope. There is no question but that this can be proven easily; and in that regard I am going to refer to some of the conditions that affect the people of Canada most, but I am not going to read all of them. One condition is that the money will be applied to the construction and major improvement of municipal roads, streets, sidewalks, bridges and underpasses. You do not need to be an expert, Mr. Chairman, to know that when there is 70 to 72 inches of snow on the ground and frost penetration of from five to six feet, the construction and major improvement of municipal roads, streets and sidewalks is impossible. I guess that condition was put in the agreement so it would look important, and so there would be enough conditions to make up a four or five page letter. Otherwise I see no use for it.
Another condition covers the construction and major improvement of municipal water, sewage and storm sewer facilities, not including buildings. If you are constructing a sewer and it is necessary to build a pumping station for the sewer system, the pumping station will not come under the grant from the federal government although it may constitute a very big part of the cost of constructing the sewer project.
Then there is the construction and development of municipal parks and playgrounds, but not including playgrounds that may be attached to schools. I understand that, because playgrounds attached to schools should be and are the responsibility of the department of education. But I am wondering what the minister had in mind in including this provision for the spending of money and time in the winter on the construction or improvement of municipal parks and playgrounds. I am sure the minister did not have in mind that he wanted to provide for more seats in more parks so the increasing number of unemployed would at least be able to sit in comfort. I am sure he did not have that in mind, but as in the case of the construction of

sewers it is not very easy to carry on work when there is frost penetration and a great deal of snow.
I am trying to prove that in the end this program will have cost the dominion government very little, the municipalities will not have benefited from it, and the unemployed will have benefited the least. The bulk of the people required for these projects are secured through the unemployment insurance offices. Actually, as the minister knows, most of the work is done by machinery, but this program covers labour costs only. There is a provision that if skilled men are used, men of the type who are used in that kind of construction, then there must also be a labourer hired for each one of them. To me that sounds like the Petrillo system of having stand-ins for musicians. If you require a man trained to operate a steam shovel and you cannot find in the regular labour force a man who can operate a steam shovel, then you must have a stand-in for him because in order to obtain the grant there must be one employee secured through the unemployment insurance offices for each such man.
Mind you, I do not disagree with that, but there is also a condition that the project must be submitted to the provincial government as well as to the federal government before the job can be started, and in my opinion that is one of the reasons why advising the municipalities at a very late date makes it practically impossible for them to do things in an economic manner.
You realize, Mr. Chairman, that most of these jobs are carried out by municipalities through the issue of debentures, and while this may not have anything to do with the present winter works program or with the unemployed as such, it creates a complication for the municipalities in preparing their programs. It is also stated in the agreement that the municipalities are not to start work before they get the approval of both the provincial and federal governments.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Paul Tardif: Mr. Chairman, we were talking about the winter works program and so that hon. members will be able to follow the trend of the discussion on this subject this morning may I be permitted to read an editorial which appeared in the Citizen of December 10, 1958. I shall only read part of it in order to save the time of the committee, but if some members feel something has been eliminated that is important I shall be glad to read the whole editorial.
Supply-Labour
The municipalities, which are contributing 25 per cent of the labour cost of the winter work program, are being asked to undertake projects for which there may be no urgency. At the same time, routine municipal works which have to get under way soon will evidently not be given extra help under the federal winter works program. In these circumstances, the likelihood is that municipalities will draw up a minimum program-
A little lower down in the editorial I read that the acting mayor of an important municipality is reported to have said certain things, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, he did say them. This acting mayor, it is reported: -noted the other day, it looks as if the federal winter works program is "a lot of political talk." If it is a bluff, it is one of the most callous ever perpetrated on the Canadian people.
At this time there were between 3,000 and 4,000 people unemployed in the municipality, and this program would be far from adequate to cover the requirements.
From calculations made and the admission of the minister it would appear that out of
800,000	unemployed, only about 34,000 can benefit from the winter works program. Some time ago I had cause to have calculations made on the 1958-1959 winter works program and the situation I found in this municipality was as follows. The municipality to which I am referring had 50 individual projects at an estimated cost of $2,238,803; the estimated subsidy on this was calculated at $164,316. Construction actually took place on 44 of the above mentioned projects with the final cost estimated to be $1,881,629. The subsidy claimed on this program was $156,325, and the subsidy actually received was $141,273.90, and that included the provincial part of the subsidy. This $141,273.90 is actually 7.5 per cent of the estimated total cost of the projects that were completed in that particular season.
If you realize that the provincial government pays a 25 per cent subsidy, then the approximate cost to the federal government was 5.2 per cent of the total construction cost. If you add to this the extra of the high rate of interest on debentures-several years ago it was 4 per cent and it is now 7 per cent- you will realize the cost to the municipality. The last $20 million that the city of Montreal borrowed in the way of debentures cost the city of Montreal 7.58 per cent in interest. If you calculate that the total benefit received by the municipalities from the winter works program is 7.5 per cent, and if you add the cost of high money, namely 7 per cent or more, you will find that the dominion government is actually making no contribution whatever to the municipalities.


James Stanley Speakman: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Paul Tardif: Certainly.

Supply-Labour


James Stanley Speakman: Would the hon. gentleman suggest that this program, which it is estimated will enable approximately 40,000 Canadians this year to gain employment, should be dropped because of the high rate of interest to the municipalities?


Paul Tardif: I think the hon. member should get together with the Minister of Labour because the Minister of Labour said a few days ago in this house that the program would employ between 33,000 and
34,000.	The hon. member has now raised the figure to 40,000, and unless he has had a conference with the minister of which we are not aware, then the figure should remain at 33,000 to 34,000.


James Stanley Speakman: Answer my question.


Paul Tardif: If the hon. member had listened tb me this morning he would have found out that while I am not against the action of the government with regard to the winter works program; I have said it is not complete enough; it does not cover enough and it is not beneficial enough because too many conditions which should be included are left out. Actually, if you figure the cost of the winter works program to a given municipality, the cost of winter work is increased by 12 per cent to 15 per cent. This, as the hon. member will know, has been calculated and it is for that reason most of the municipalities, or a lot of these municipalities, will not apply for the subsidy on the winter works program.
I would have no objection whatever, and I know most municipalities in Canada would not object, if the minister would make his program more inclusive, even if it cost the municipalities a little more. All the municipalities in Canada are anxious, just as the government is and as the opposition is, to eliminate unemployment as it is today. I am sure most municipalities would feel the added expenditure would be warranted if more people benefited from it. As I suggested this morning, I think all municipalities would gratefully receive a program that would include not only a percentage of labour but a percentage of the cost of operation of machines and a percentage of material used.
I read in the newspaper some few days ago that the mayor of Sherbrooke stated that he would not apply for a grant on a winter works program because after a calculation it was found that the program was entirely inadequate and that it did not solve the problem of unemployment in the city of Sherbrooke.
The winter works program as it now stands is a social service cost to the municipalities

even if it does not appear to be so. If it was not for the winter works program, some of the few people that are employed by the municipalities would be drawing their unemployment insurance benefits. It appears to me that this is a method the government is using in order to discharge itself of its obligation of paying unemployment insurance benefits while charging them to the municipalities which benefit very little by it.
In my opinion the program is inadequate because we have, as the Minister of Labour admitted, a great number of unemployed at the present time; and as he has also admitted in this committee, only about 33,000 or 34,000 people benefit by it. With financing at the present high cost of interest, I am afraid that many municipalities will be discouraged in applying for it and what the Minister of Labour intends to accomplish I am afraid will be wasted time and will be of no benefit to anyone. The municipalities are looking to the Department of Labour to review this policy and to make their contribution to the winter works program adequate so that it will be beneficial.
May I request through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour review the program and accomplish the points that I have raised today. If this was done I am sure every member of this committee would support it unanimously. If this is considered and accomplished, then and only then will the unemployed it is supposed to help to cover benefit from same.
I should like to suggest to the Minister of Labour that some additions are necessary to the present winter works program if it is going to be beneficial. One is that the municipalities should be advised much sooner of the government's intention. Second, it should increase its contribution to include part of the material and machine costs. It should include all cost of a job including the buildings that pertain' to the project that is accepted. It should make the period eligible for grants from November 1 to April 30 instead of the present date. It should also make an announcement early in the spring that this policy will be in effect for a period of two years. If this was done, I feel that what the Minister of Labour intends to do would be accomplished. May I suggest that if the Minister of Labour feels that these conditions are too severe, he inquire among the municipalities in Canada, most of which have exactly the same feeling as I have at the present time.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Last year, Mr. Chairman, although I do not recall the exact date, we in this house received a supplementary estimate, the second supplementary estimate

that was presented to this house; and on page 3 of the supplementary estimates we saw an item pertaining to the winter works program in the amount of $15 million. Today we again have before us a similar supplementary estimate with an identical figure, namely $15 million. This fact would lead one to believe that as far as the minister and the government are concerned, this program which was presented last year and is being presented again this year is an adequate one to meet the situation of unemployment as we have it today in this country.
I listened carefully to the minister the other day. He told us that out of this estimate of $15 million that was passed last year, only about $6| million was used; that is $6J million out of approximately a $50 million program a fact which, by the process of simple arithmetic, shows us that the federal government contributed about 13 per cent to the winter works program of last year. We have this situation in the face of the impression that was created across this country with screaming headlines that here was a federal government prepared to step in on a 50-50 basis to assist the municipalities in meeting the problem of unemployment.


James Stanley Speakman: They never said that.


Murdo William Martin: I know it is quite true that they never did say they would pay 50 per cent but they definitely and carefully created that impression throughout the country.


James Stanley Speakman: They never did.


Murdo William Martin: Furthermore, again from the minister's report of the other day we find that so far this year the estimate is that the federal government will spend something slightly in excess of $10 million on a program of $84 million, a fact which again by the process of simple arithmetic shows that the federal contribution has dropped from the 13 per cent it was last year down to about 11 per cent this year. Hence in other words they are not even going to do as much this year as they did last year. The minister also mentioned that this was one of the things the government had done and that there were others although he did not elaborate. I should like to mention one or two. When I spoke at some length on this subject last year, as reported at page 1116 of Hansard of February 17, 1959, I said:
This, we find, is the first and only project that this government has put forth designed specifically for the relief of unemployment. They have done other things, such as housing, which has helped but was not designed basically to relieve unemployment.
An hon. member butted in at that point: and he said, "Yes, they were", or in other
Supply-Labour
words that housing was designed basically for the relief of unemployment. But if it was, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why it was abandoned this year. I recall some hon. members who, speaking in the debate last year, painted the rosy picture that the housing program had employed or provided about
400.000	jobs for the people of Canada-I think that was the figure they used-but still we had the anouncement last fall: sorry we are going to have to close up shop because money has run short and we cannot carry on with this program any longer. Possibly that is one of the reasons why we are faced today with the situation in which we have close to 800,000 people looking for work.
Last year, again according to the words of the minister in his report the other day, this winter works program provided about
35.000	jobs. I do not know the duration of those jobs or how long they lasted. Maybe some were for a week, maybe some were a few months. It would probably be difficult to ascertain for just what length of time these jobs were provided. However, we must remember that was only 35,000 out of what we had last year, approximately
600.000	unemployed. 'Based on the same proportion this year, we find that the proposal so far would guarantee approximately 51,000 jobs out of a total of 774,000 unemployed.
I wonder whether the minister and the government really think this program is an answer to this problem. By their own admission-in fact they were quite proud of the thing last year-this was the first time that the federal government had ever taken a step in this field in order actually to try to meet the problem of unemployment. They were quite proud that they were breaking new ground. I do not think they are breaking it very deeply or cultivating it very thoroughly. I remember the situation back in the early thirties. I think it was only in the year 1938 that the unemployment in this country ever exceeded what it is at the present time. I do not think there is any hon. member who would deny that was considered to be the depth of a depression. But today it is no longer a depression; it is not even a recession. The government has told us-we have their word for it-that the recession is over. Now we have seasonal unemployment of 800,000 workers.
We have seen recently a great to-do in our newspapers, on radio and television about the big and much heralded move behind the iron curtain, where the U.S.S.R. is supposed to be sending back something like one and a quarter million troops to civilian life. There is one thing which all these news reports are

Supply-Labour
agreed about and that is that the major reason for this demobilization in Russia is the need of these people in the Russian economy today. They have a shortage of workers, and that is the reason for this move. Now surely, that is something which we should take very carefully into consideration when we think about putting out programs to meet unemployment. How can we afford to have three quarters of a million workers unemployed in this country when countries the size of Russia have to demobilize their forces to fill the jobs which are vacant? How long can we afford the luxury of three quarters of a million unemployed and meet the competition which we have to face from this country? I know-I think we all realize-that there are a lot of employers in this country who believe unemployment is a good thing; that it is a good thing to have a group of men


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the hon. member is not following the ruling which I gave this morning. I repeat, there is no objection to discussing unemployment to a certain degree, but I would ask the hon. member to discuss the winter works program as described in the item under discussion. That is the ruling I gave this morning, and I would ask the co-operation of all members on this matter.


Murdo William Martin: I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman; I thought I was relating my remarks very closely to this item.
The other day the minister mentioned in his introductory remarks that this winter works program grew out of a meeting held back in 1958, and was in fact in answer to a request made by the municipalities at the time. He went on to say that the municipalities since that time, through their elected officials and representatives, have made known to the government that they commend very highly this move on the part of the government, and he also went on to say they still do.
I do not know which officials he was talking to, but I will guarantee one thing, and that is that he was not talking to the municipal officials in the area I come from. I recall last year I spoke at some length on this subject and criticized this program quite severely. I found at that time that many of the municipal officials in my area thought I had gone pretty far astray. They said, "After all, it is a little unfair; this is the first time the federal government has made a move in this direction, so what is our member criticizing them for?" But we had a meeting just shortly before this house opened this session at which the municipal council in my town asked me to be present, and the subject of that meeting was the winter works program. They

agreed with every single, solitary thing I had said in the house last year. In fact, they agreed with my remarks to the extent that if the minister checks his files he will find the town of Timmins has this year been unable to implement one single item of the winter works program. It is impossible for them to take advantage of the program.
The hon. member for Russell listed some of the reasons why this was so. He mentioned the climate, the depth of frost, and if the house will pardon the pun, I would say we have far too much "frost" in the province of Ontario. However, he also mentioned the fact that we have sixty to seventy inches of snow. For the information of the house, I think the last count I had of the snowfall in Timmins this year it was something like one hundred and fourteen inches, and the snow is still there because as yet they have not had a single thaw. As I say, there is far too much frost.
How is it possible to do any of the projects within the narrow field of this plan? How is it possible to carry them out under such conditions? As has been pointed out, the federal contribution to the works which were carried out last year amounted to about 13 per cent. I do not know what the provincial contribution was, but I think it is reasonably safe to say that the municipalities had to meet anywhere up to, and in some cases possibly more than, 80 per cent of the cost of these projects. The federal and provincial governments today meet 80 per cent of the cost of relief in the municipalities. They reimburse the municipalities to the tune of 80 per cent of the cost of their relief. In many cases where the municipalities have great difficulty in keeping within their budgets they will look very carefully at the fact that it is much easier to pay 80 per cent of the relief than about 80 per cent of the cost of these projects. I do not think that is the objective that the federal government is aiming at in this program.
There is another point which was touched upon by one or two hon. members, and that is the fact that this program is so designed that the wealthier municipalities can take advantage of it but the poorer municipalities cannot. In addition this year this program has been made available to Indian bands, and the same applies again to them-the wealthier bands can take advantage of it, but the poorer bands cannot.
The right hon. Prime Minister is very good at quoting from the Bible. I would suggest it is very easy to believe that this whole plan has been based upon a quotation from the Bible, whether it came from the Prime Minister or not. I refer to the quotation which

goes something like this: "To them that hath shall be given; but to them that hath not, even that which they hath shall be taken away". I would say that that is certainly the basis of this program under its present terms.
I would like to repeat that this plan is completely worthless, as far as the northern municipalities are concerned, as proved by the fact that the northern municipalities are not taking advantage of it, and cannot. Before it can be implemented by them there are two things which have to be done, even in the present plan, inadequate as it is. First, the length of time has to be stretched out so that it can be used in the months of October and November and in March and April, when the severe weather conditions are not prevailing. Second, the projects themselves have to be broadened out, because in their present form they cannot be used.
Mr. Chairman, as I said at the start, apparently this is the government's only program for the relief of unemployment during the winter months. I would like to point out that according to the figures supplied by the minister himself it will take 22 of these programs to look after the present situation. Surely, Mr. Chairman, this government with all the vision it is supposed to have can come up with a better answer than it has.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations on this item. Before doing so, however, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Russell, one who has had a considerable amount of municipal experience, on the contribution he has made here today. I think the Minister of Labour himself who has had considerable experience as the first magistrate in his own city will recognize the value of what was proposed by the hon. member for Russell.
Those of us who have been criticizing this program have done so from a point of view slightly different from that of the hon. member for Russell but I believe what that hon. gentleman has had to say about this program reflects the attitude which, if we can judge from declarations made in the press by municipal leaders, is the opinion which such bodies generally in the country share as to the inadequacy of this program.
No one can claim that a program which puts men to work is on that account not to be supported. Of course, we support this program. Our quarrel is not with the program as such but with its inadequacy in terms of achievement in the year 1958-59 and with what it is calculated to do in 1959-60 on the statements given to the committee by the Minister of Labour the other day and partially again this morning.
Supply-Labour
There can be no doubt about the inadequacy of this program in the face of the serious unemployment problem that now exists in our country. I hope the Minister of Labour will not think that those of us who labour this subject are doing so because of any personal animosity toward him. I believe we ought to try and recognize in these discussions that we have cause to be concerned about a situation that is reflected in the figures which the minister himself has produced. I should be very interested in knowing what the latest situation in terms of the figures which are made available to the minister portends. The last figure he gave us was for January 21. That figure showed that 774,000 persons were seeking work. What the figure was for January 28, I do not know. What the figure for this Friday is, I do not know. It would, I think, be more conducive to the achievement of the business of this committee if the minister would give these figures without being prodded to do so day after day by hon. members of the opposition.
Speaking for myself I should be very happy to relieve the committee of the monotony-if that is what hon. gentlemen wish to call it-of some of the interrogations which are being pursued on this subject day by day. That could be obviated if the minister himself would take the initiative and willingly, without seemingly being compelled, give these figures to the committee. The minister told us that he received them every week. It is true that he altered this statement a few days ago by indicating that he did not receive them every week but his earlier statement confirmed the position he took in that regard last year. In any event, despite what the latest figures are, the fact is that unemployment continues to be serious. We have the right in the face of that situation to test the adequacy of the program which the government put forward.
I asked the Minister of Labour some questions in written form the other day and he gave answers to me on February 3. Those answers may be found at pages 707 and 708 of Hansard. When one looks at those figures surely the minister himself must find it exceedingly difficult to be convinced that this program represents a real achievement by itself. Certainly it is a most unimportant achievement in relation to the problem of unemployment and in relation to the assurances that hon. gentlemen opposite gave to the country as to how they were going to deal with unemployment.
The federal expenditure in 1958-59 is given as $6,452,937.78. Can anyone say that that figure, in the face of the unemployment which existed in this country last year- which totalled 600,000 as of the end of March

Supply-Labour
-represents a real effort to meet unemployment? The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate this morning told us that his province reflected the highest level of unemployment in Canada on a per capita basis.


An hon. Member:: A Liberal province.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What is Joey doing about it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said, "What is Joey doing about it?"


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a national problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That remark coming from the hon. gentleman I think indicates that either he does not appreciate or is unsympathetic to the plight of unemployed people in this country. I do not really believe that that is the attitude of the hon. gentleman.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, it certainly is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But just so he will not be misunderstood, I suggest to the hon. member that as these words of his become immortalized once they are uttered in this chamber, if he wishes me to give them the generous interpretation he does, then he should be very careful about his interventions.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely, Mr. Chairman.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I again ask the hon. member what is the premier of Newfoundland doing about it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the premier of Newfoundland shares-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I asked that question in all seriousness, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right. I am sure the premier of Newfoundland shares the view held by most people in this country and by those who sit on this side of the chamber that the federal government is not living up to its responsibilities in this matter.
I shall go one step further. My hon. friend asked me a question and I will give him the further answer which he deserves because I appreciate that he is sincerely interested in this problem. The premier of Newfoundland, I am sure, would welcome an opportunity of sitting down at a conference with the federal government on this problem. That was one of the suggestions the Minister of Labour himself made when he was sitting in opposition as a means by which this problem could be resolved.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member like to ask another question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, an unidentified hon. member suggested that I ask another question so it seems quite in order that I do so. Has the premier of Newfoundland made any concrete suggestions as to what could be done to relieve the unemployment problem in the province of N ewf oundland?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to indicate some of those suggestions if my hon. friend will just have patience. What I am speaking about now is a proposal that represents one way of dealing with the problem through the calling of a conference of senior levels of government to confer on the matter. That is one of the proposals I made the other day.


Michael Starr: We had a conference in July of 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour never replied to that question but I am asking him now why in 1960 when we have all these people out of work the government does not call a conference with the provinces to try and relieve this problem as hon. members of the government proposed in 1955 should be done.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Essex East has asked a direct question of me perhaps I may be permitted to bring to his attention the fact that it is quite evident that he has not been too interested in unemployment in Canada or he would have known that such a conference on a much wider basis was called in July of 1958.


Mr. Benidickson:: How many of the recommendations were implemented?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, my hon. friend always comes back to the argument ad hominen. He always says the member for Essex East is obviously not interested in unemployment. I am not going to argue with my hon. friend. My record in public life, in social matters and on these questions, speaks for itself, and I am not dealing with the situation in 1955.


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member permit a question? I should like the hon. member for Essex East, in view of what he has just said, to tell the committee how interested he has been in the question of unemployment, particularly in his own constituency, where unemployment has been considerable in the years gone by. During all the time that he sat on the treasury benches since 1935 when, according to the records of this house, did

he ever bring up the situation in Windsor? And what were the suggestions he made to alleviate the situation in his own riding?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad my hon. friend asked that question. He has made the assertion on several occasions when I was not in the house that I had completely disregarded the plight of the unemployed. In the first place-


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a minute, now; I am going to answer the minister and I am glad he is here so that I can deal with the question directly. I will not make charges about the hon. gentleman when he is out of the house.
My hon. friend talks about the problems of his constituency. I have a firm belief that representations made by one's constituents are important. The minister does not think that, because I have before me the Oshawa Times of January 5 of this year in which the minister is quoted as follows:
Mr. Starr questioned the worth of letters, "I do not think it makes much difference whether they write letters. We realize their position. It is not necessary to further emphasize it by writing letters", he said. He also indicated that letters in general would not help him much in any issue brought up by his constituents.
That is the view of the minister; it is not my view. It is quite apparent that if the minister did pay attention to representations from his constituents he would not be trying to minimize the severity of this problem, or introduce these irrelevant issues.
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.


Michael Starr: You had ample opportunity, though.
Mr. " Martin (Essex East): I will let my hon. friend know that I did not hesitate, by the things that I was able to introduce in this house, to show my interest in unemployment.


Michael Starr: What were they?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I brought in five different amendments to the old age pensions act; I introduced the disability pensions act.


Michael Starr: What about unemployment?


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is asking some questions, sir.
Supply-Labour


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: You have not answered them.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think the exchange between the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Essex East has helped the discussion to remain strictly relevant. I ask both hon. gentlemen to realize that we are straying away from the item under discussion.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to argue, Mr. Chairman, whether or not your objection to this matter is valid; but I point out to you that the Minister of Labour asked me a question. He made a statement and I believe this matter is close enough to relevancy to permit my giving a reply. I will say this to the minister, furthermore. There was no time during the period that I happened to be in the government of Canada when there was the same concern with regard to unemployment as there is now. The record is this:-


Michael Starr: You cannot answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -during the time-


Michael Starr: Seven per cent unemployed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend thinks he is going to facilitate the passage of these estimates by these boyish, prankish interventions, he is mistaken. I ask him to contain himself.


Michael Starr: I thought the Liberal government passed the old age pension act and not the hon. member for Essex East, as he claims.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask the minister to address himself to the severity of this problem instead of trying to extricate himself from the difficulty which the extravagant promises of the administration have put him into at the present time.


Michael Starr: You must have been a one-man government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is my hon. friend again. If he wants to have a debate I will be glad to have a debate with him on this. I will be glad to invite my hon. friend to come to Oshawa, where I am going to speak on March 5, and we will debate this question. I will be glad to invite my hon. friend to come to my own constituency, where we will have a debate and perhaps we can collect enough money to help some of the unemployed.

Supply-Labour


Jacques Flynn: May I ask the hon. member for Essex East and the Minister of Labour to come back to the item under discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order; we on this side of the house listened respectfully to a question that was put by the Minister of Labour, and we did not interrupt the minister, not one of us, while he put the question to the hon. member for Essex East. Surely, in all fairness, we are entitled to hear the answer from the hon. member for Essex East without interruptions.


Michael Starr: He has no answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all we ask, and I would not ask anything beyond that.


Jacques Flynn: I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will realize that I have given the hon. member for Essex East the chance to reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not without interruption.


Jacques Flynn: What I have said applies equally to the Minister of Labour. If the reply of the hon. member for Essex East has to be so lengthy that we have to continue to be out of order for the rest of the afternoon, I do not think we shall make progress. The question was out of order; the hon. member has had occasion to reply and I think the hon. member should realize that the ruling applies to all hon. members.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we all appreciate your desire to keep order, and I am sure the Minister of Labour and I will do our best to help you in the matter if others in the committee will likewise take a similar course.
I simply want to point out to the Minister of Labour, who is touchy on this matter, that in the 11 years I had the honour and responsibility of serving the government of our country, in seven of those the percentage of unemployment in Canada was under 3 per cent; in two of the four years it was close to 3 per cent; and in the other two years it was close to 4 per cent. Compare those figures with the alarming situation which now confronts our country and one will see the emptiness of the kind of defence to which the minister has resorted.
Let us analyse the expenditure of $6,500,000.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jacques Flynn: Order. If the hon. member who has risen wants to put a question about the figures to which the hon. member for Essex East has just referred I would say the question would be out of order because I consider the remarks of the hon. member for

Essex East are out of order in accordance with the ruling I gave this morning. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East would wish to come back to the item under discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot agree with your interpretation of the rules, but because of my argument at the moment, I am prepared to go ahead, since I am dealing directly with the project. However, I would not under any circumstances agree with you, sir, that it was correct to interpret the rules in such a way as to preclude a discussion of the adequacy of this project, this program, in relation to unemployment.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingata -I was about to say this 10 minutes before these excursions were entered into-pointed out that his province was the province that had the highest ratio of unemployment of any province in Canada. Yet in 1958-59, $24,770 was spent by the federal government as its share in this winter works program. Does anyone seriously contend, the Minister of Labour included, that this was really grappling with the problem in that province?
In Ontario, where we had a high number of unemployed in relation to the working force, the total expenditure was $1,999,000. I would put the same question to the Minister of Labour or to any other hon. gentleman. Does anyone suggest that that was vigorously coping with the problem of unemployment?
The minister referred to my own city of Windsor as one of those areas of surplus unemployment which has persisted in that state for a period of over two and a half years. Just look at what has happened with regard to the application of this program in the city of Windsor where there are now some 10,000 applicants for jobs according to the national employment service figures. In 195859 there were five projects in Windsor, and when there were some 10,000 to 12,000 people out of work this program about which the minister boasts so much put 143 people to work for a limited period. Can there be any doubt about the inadequacy of the program in a city of 150,000 people with 10,000 to 12,000 out of work and only 143 being put to work? Can anyone seriously contend that the government responsible for that program has discharged its responsibility, particularly when it told the people of Canada, "No man or woman will ever be allowed to suffer, deficit or no deficit"? That is the situation. That was a solemn promise made to the people of Canada and we in his house cannot fail to remember that one man out of work means misery for a number of people in that family.
Difficult as this problem is for our society, we are not going to be able to escape our

responsibility in meeting what is a hard core problem of human misery in the case of those who have no work. Anyone who lives in a community like mine and knows something about this problem will realize why I feel so strongly when I discuss the problem, particularly in relation to a government that challenged the previous administration and said, "What they cannot do we will do".
I ask the Minister of Labour now to live up to that promise. Why will the minister not associate with this program the very suggestion, which he supported, made by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs when he suggested that we ought to have a parliamentary committee? May I ask the minister to listen to my question? Will the Minister of Labour direct his ears now to what I am saying? I am asking him a question.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He does not seem to be interested at all.


Lionel Chevrier: He was all ears a while ago.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have asked three times now that the Minister of Labour listen to this question. [DOT]


Michael Starr: I tried to ask the hon. member a question a while ago and he would not allow me to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Minister of Labour tell the house now why the administration of which he is a member will not take steps to establish a parliamentary committee so that we can examine the problem of unemployment?


Michael Starr: The answer to that is that the hon. member for Essex East would use that committee for political propaganda.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Shame!


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to answer that but I am going to put on Hansard what my hon. friend's colleague said on this very question in a debate in which he took part. The words are to be found at page 2083 of Hansard of 1953-54.
There is only one way in which parliament can get at the problem, and that is by setting up a special committee-and setting it up at once. We believe there should be such a committee, and that its first job should be to examine the unemployment situation and find out just exactly what the figures are. Either side may be wrong; perhaps the labour leaders are too high; the cabinet is probably much too low. But let members of the House of Commons find out for themselves what the actual unemployment situation in Canada today is. And, having done this, let them recommend to the house and the government the steps which could be taken to meet the situation, both the shortterm and the long-term problem. Let such a committee bring in worth-while recommendations which, I believe, would be of great help to the nation.
Supply-Labour
That was a statement made by the member who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs. He moved an amendment seconded by the Prime Minister, then the hon. member for Prince Albert, and the Minister of Labour spoke in that debate and supported the amendment which was an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply. In view of the attitude taken by the minister and even if his last allegation was true, which of course it is not, how can he justify sitting in his seat day after day and ignoring suggestions that the recommendations which the hon. gentlemen have made should at least be attempted to be carried out by themselves now that they have the responsibility?
If my hon. friend does not accede to this suggestion, if he fails to adopt the other proposals which he has made, it is quite clear that he simply does not mean to try to tackle the problem of unemployment seriously. My hon. friend wants an example of the seriousness of the problem. I told him that last year 143 people were put to work in Windsor under this program. Compare that with this situation. The other day the civil service commission conducted a competition in that community for two customs and excise officers at a salary of $262.50 a month. The competition was held on January 23. Does my hon. friend realize that there were more people who applied for those positions than were put to work under my hon. friend's program to cure unemployment? Five hundred people sought the right to apply for these jobs, more than the number which my hon. friend's program put to work last year. But the story is not complete.


Norman Platt Lambert: Ask the city council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always welcome the interjections of the hon. member for Edmonton West. My hon. friend says, "Ask the city council". That is what this government is now doing. It said, "Elect us and we will take care of the problem", but now that it has been elected it says, through one of its distinguished parliamentary secretaries, "Ask the city council". The people of Canada are asking this government.
The other day the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate made what I thought was a very constructive speech in which he suggested to the Minister of Labour that one way of taking care of this problem, by way of action supplementary to this particular program, would be to do more in the way of vocational training, and the minister, sitting in his seat and in his usual parliamentary manner, cried out, "That is what we are doing". I have no doubt that something is being done in the matter of vocational training but what is being done is as a result of

Supply-Labour
a program that was inaugurated long before the minister had the slightest expectancy of having a seat on the ministerial benches. It was brought in by the previous administration under the late Mr. Humphrey Mitchell and extended by Mr. Milton Gregg.
The minister has undoubtedly seen the report of the vocational training advisory council of his own department, a report that was referred to in a release made by the Department of Labour on December 8 and in which the chairman of the committee, Dr. McNally, pointed out that the study had indicated the rapidly increasing problem of unskilled workers in the labour force and the need for more vocational training. But then the minister still says that enough is being done. If he wants further convincing, I will ask him to read what the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission, now serving under the minister, had to say about this problem. He is reported in the Montreal Gazette of October 2 as saying that 8, 9 or 10 applicants had to be interviewed before a qualified worker could be found.
Does that indicate that the minister has taken steps to accelerate the training program so as to give men, for instance in Sydney and in other places, who have engaged in one form of occupation, an opportunity of developing skills which might assist them in solving the unemployment problem that confronts them. Mr. Bisson is reported as having said he studied this problem closely, and he went on to say he wondered whether it would not be better to train the unemployed at the very time when unemployment gives them the leisure to take advantage of the training. This was not a statement made two years ago, it was made last fall. And yet the minister said, by way of interjection to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, all that could or should be done was being done.
I say to the minister that the reluctance of the government to give any answers to the suggestions that have been made from this side of the house with regard to this problem, reveals either that the government is unaware of the severity of the problem or it does not feel capable of coping with it. This last situation would be an understandable one, but surely the Minister of Labour ought to tell this country whether or not he now feels, in the light of his experience, that it is possible for governments, individually at the federal level or the federal government and the provinces together, to do something about this problem. However, when the minister, the Prime Minister and all the others sit there and do not reply to questions put or to suggestions made that might be carried forward, then that constitutes an affront to

parliament and establishes clearly that this government is really not interested in doing something about this problem.
Are we going on next year and the year after with this problem in its present dimensions? The government's own economic advisers say that is the case. Are we only to have then from the Minister of Labour a continuation of this little program which last year put 33,000 to work and this year may put 40,000 to work or are we to have a real effort on the part of the administration to employ all of its power and its capacity to give work to men and women


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt, but I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, this debate is somewhat limited by the terms of the estimate. I shall try to keep in order with my few remarks, but the question of unemployment is related to fiscal and trade policies, investment policy and general economic policy of the government. Of course, the terms of the estimate do not give us the opportunity to range into those fields very far.
However, before proceeding, I do think in all fairness we should express our appreciation of the thousands of Canadians who have done their best to co-operate with the do it now program. I know in the communities in my own district there are persons of modest means who have done what they could to co-operate with that program by providing work during the winter months in the way of repairs and minor construction jobs. I know of men of quite modest means who are providing a day's work a week for a man who is on unemployment insurance. I know individual persons who are having men cut their cordwood on the basis of a day's work a week. I think we should recognize that sense of responsibility on the part of those Canadians who have tried to do, in their small way, something to relieve the present situation.
I should like also to express my appreciation of those employers who have accepted some responsibility for the planning of their operations so that employment is provided, so far as possible, within the limits of this system and their own organization of work during the winter months. I am not one of those who is in the habit of looking upon all employers as questionable people because I have had the opportunity of sitting in with a number of employers, particularly in the lumber industry, who leave you to considerable expense to plan certain operations in the winter, and in many cases I am told they conducted these operations in the winter without a cent of profit. I mention that

because I think it is only fair to recognize that there are many employers and companies with a sense of responsibility to their fellow Canadians.
We in this group, as have other hon. members of the opposition, have criticized what we call this small piece of cake so far as the winter works program is concerned. We have criticized it because we considered it completely inadequate to meet the present situation. We think the government has failed to mobilize all those governments, agencies and persons in Canada who, with a sense of responsibility and good will, would be willing to co-operate with this government in a very much larger and much more effective plan.
There are several types of unemployment and several reasons for unemployment, even within that group of persons whom this winter works program is intended to serve. There are persons suffering unemployment for one of several reasons. We have cyclical unemployment, which is the worst form, caused by general trade and economic conditions. There are some who are suffering unemployment at the present time because of that condition. We have a certain amount of unemployment for personal reasons. These are all totalled up in the figures with respect to unemployment. The employer has disagreed with the employee or for family reasons, or for some other reason a man is out of work. I have known of a man to lay off work because his wife was going to have a child, and of course that is a personal reason. Then, there are others who want to change their occupation, and so on. We have regional unemployment caused by regional conditions and the disinclination or inability of those who are unemployed to go to another area. This may be the result of lack of funds to do so.
Then we have technological unemployment, which is increasingly serious in this country. I would say that is the nightmare of competition in the capitalist society. Then we have structural unemployment caused by the loss of markets or changes in consumer demand in certain industries where the industry itself is going out of existence. We have seasonal unemployment, too, which is largely occasioned by the weather. Many people are of the opinion that the winter works program is required because of seasonal unemployment, just to meet a certain amount of seasonal unemployment.
As I said before, we have persons unemployed in Canada because of one of the several reasons that I have mentioned. Without a doubt the present unemployment is caused by a combination of all of these factors and cannot be considered as purely a winter phenomenon. At the same time, 79951-0-65
Supply-Labour
we have to face the fact it is one of the elements in our changing capitalist society, one of the fruits of the system under which we live. It is for this reason we say that this program, whatever merit it has, is inadequate and does not take sufficient consideration of the long range point of view in the circumstances we face at the present.
I have given considerable thought to this and I am not one who blows off steam on a problem without giving some thought to it. In fact, I am one of those who thinks it is better to light a candle to lead even a Conservative government into the light, than to curse the darkness. I have discussed this matter with municipal officials and with employers; on occasion I have sat around the table with employers who accepted some sense of responsibility for unemployment. I have discussed it with employees, trade union officials, farmers and other people. I like to get people's ideas as to what can be done effectively to meet this type of situation. This is not a question that should be treated on a partisan or political basis. We are here as members of the parliament of Canada, as I see it, to try to express our views, to give our opinions and to advance suggestions in the hope that in the end our collective wisdom and our collective contributions will bear fruit in a program that will be effective and will meet the situation throughout the coming years.
I think there must be a general admission of the fact of the continuing nature of this malady by governments, by industry and by the public in general. In my opinion, there must be the will to plan with purpose to correct the unnecessary hardship caused by unemployment and to eliminate the unnecessary waste that is consequent upon that unemployment. I believe it is essential for the closest co-operation to be sought between federal, provincial and municipal governments, having in mind the thought that, regardless of our various points of view, we are going to work together to do something effective to meet this situation. That cooperation, as I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia implied or mentioned during his remarks, must be crystallized in the form of legislation. I believe we on this problem must get away from the bible of previous legislation. I am of the opinion that we must have some entirely new legislation to meet the changing circumstances of unemployment at the present time. But as I say, what is done must be based on legislation to meet the need.
Then I believe there must be a co-operative assessment of the problem and that provision must be made for providing reasonably adequate estimates of the number of unemployed

Supply-Labour
involved during certain periods. Then I think there should be a cataloguing of projects. Somebody mentioned a shelf of projects. In my opinion there should be a cataloguing of projects, such as house building, highway construction, road construction, the erection of public buildings and so on.
Another important factor is the timing of summer and winter projects in order to absorb the greatest number during the period of greatest need. For instance, during last summer we found a shortage of miners in certain areas-I refer to skilled rock men- and the mines were competing with one another for skilled miners while at the same time the government of the province was undertaking quite a heavy expenditure on high rock work where millions of dollars were being spent.
If there was a general spirit of co-operation between federal, provincial and municipal governments, having in mind the spending of public money to the best advantage, I think a committee or conference could arrange these matters so that they could say: we are not going to compete for labour when the miners are fully employed during the summer months; if we are going to have a total number of unemployed miners in British Columbia of, say 1,000 or 2,000, for instance, in the southern interior we are going to delay our work by agreement on these big rock bluffs until winter when the work can be done to better advantage than in the summer, and employ these men when they are unemployed in the winter. That is what I call a rational approach to the situation.
Then I think there must be co-operation between all concerned in the sharing of the cost. That will be done partly, no doubt, on the basis of contributions from taxation through the federal, provincial and municipal governments. But in addition to that, it may require some close co-operation with respect to providing particular municipalities with loans at a fairly low rate of interest, having in mind that the contribution made by the federal government will be repaid in effect by taking people off the unemployment insurance list, by preventing unnecessary social waste, by the income tax contributions that will be paid by those who are employed in this way or in other words by all those benefits that productive labour provides for the state.
Then I think we must give some serious consideration to modification of the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to stimulate initiative on the part of the employer and to reward initiative on the part of the employee. I might say at this point that I want to express my appreciation of men whom I have known-employees who were unemployed-who put themselves out to a

considerable extent, who were determined to find some employment if it was at all possible; and fortunately the majority of Canadians prefer to seek work rather than unemployment insurance.
Then I think some consideration must be given-and these things, in my opinion could all be considered by a joint committee-to modifications or changes in the Income Tax Act that will promote co-operation from the employers-the various companies and individual employers concerned-with a national policy or programs along the lines I have suggested in order to meet the continuing unemployment caused by the various reasons I have suggested.
Finally I think it is necessary for both federal and provincial governments to undertake a good public relations program in order to develop an understanding of the need, the policies and the required cooperation from all persons concerned in order to make it a success. In a democracy governments can organize from the top. They can spend money to meet a certain situation. But no program is thoroughly effective unless it has the co-operation of the people right across the country. That co-operation results from an understanding of what governments are trying to do. Every one of us has a personal responsibility to provide that understanding and to do what we can for the welfare of our fellow Canadians.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that is all I am going to say at this time. I urge the government to mobilize the good will and the sense of responsibility of Canadians all across this country behind an effective program that will spring from federal, provincial and municipal co-operation in an effort to meet this problem of modern society in an effective and desirable manner.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I know that, in 1958, many people were simple enough to believe that a saviour had arrived who would succeed in eradicating completely and finally the scourge of unemployment. I shall remind you of the statement made in Prince Albert, on February 14, 1958, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he said:
(Text):
As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman is going to suffer from unemployment so long as public works will provide them the assistance they require.
(Translation):
Yet, since that statement, we noticed that, far from improving, conditions are constantly deteriorating.
Some time ago, I was told that in the district of Ottawa-Hull alone-and I cannot quote

only the figures for Hull because they are integrated-there was in January an increase of 13,638 unemployed in the two municipalities. Now, as we know that the population of the city of Ottawa consists mainly of civil servants whose security at least with regard to employment, is assured, it can be inferred that the greater part of the unemployed are to be found in the industrial district, which is on the Quebec side.
Every day I meet people who come to me in order to complain and ask for help, after trying out public welfare organizations, or approaching the town hall and the St. Vincent society. In a word, they have come down to a state of virtual mendicity because the government did not find anything better than providing $15 million for winter works that are practically impossible to carry out.
The minister mentioned, a few moments ago, as he did the other day too, that there were nearly 800,000 unemployed in Canada, and that conditions are getting continually worse. Yet, we, on this side of the house, have been saying to the government since 1957: "Get ready, find the means, work out the plans, because unemployment is not going to decrease just now." And all we got as an answer was that there were more people working than ever before. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister, when answering some questions himself, stated that it was quite possible that there should be at the same time more employment and more unemployment than in 1955, as a result of our increasing population, and prevailing conditions.
There may be more people employed than in 1955; but there is also an increased number of unemployed and that is the reason why we are asking this government to do something about it.
The government does not seem to do anything at all. They found a way this year, as they did last year, to make us vote an amount of $15 million to help the municipalities carry out winter projects and thus alleviate all the hardships resulting from unemployment.
What are we asked to do according to that scheme? We are asked to do this: to build and repair streets, sidewalks and roads, except highways.
We know that the only winter projects which can possibly be carried out are the extensive road work launched by governments when they decide to fill in pot-holes with rock in order to prepare the work to be done during the summer. But, in our municipalities, it is impossible to carry out 79951-0-65J
Supply-Labour
winter work in this way because, as the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) said, the ground is so deeply frozen that this kind of work will be very costly.
How could we, in Canada, build sidewalks in the winter months when we already have some difficulty in finishing such work in October and November? Indeed, the cement has to be covered up to stop it from freezing and breaking up afterwards. But all we are permitted to do is to build roads and sidewalks.
The laying of water mains is authorized; but we know that the installation of water mains during winter, though perhaps not impossible, is certainly extremely difficult because the frozen ground must be dug up before pipes are laid down on frozen soil, and there is great danger of the frost getting into the pipes and causing permanent damage.
The suggestion is made that we construct and develop parks in a country like Canada, where winter lasts from seven to eight months.
I consider that, considering the way winter works are prepared, it is nearly impossible for our municipalities to take advantage of them; and yet there is insistence that it be the sole program offered by the government to help the unemployed.
First of all, the amount is inadequate. The amount should be much larger, and the program itself should be prepared a long time in advance. In fact, at the present time, that is, in January, February and March, the government should give some indication of its intention about its unemployment program for next winter, so that municipalities might start planning their works and be ready to carry them out when the time comes.
Furthermore as the hon. member for Russell indicated, the assistance should not be limited to works of that type-which are impossible-but should extend over a much longer period, in order that municipalities might complete in the course of summer projects that were started in the wintertime. Municipalities would thus be induced to take an active part in this program.
Second, the type of works is limited. There are winter works that could be carried out in our municipalities and are not included there.
Apart from that, the government should consider the fact that the assistance provided under this program is limited.

Supply-Labour
$15 million which we are asked to vote as assistance to municipalities where there are unemployed people is insufficient, inadequate and ineffective.
That is why I submit that the burden of unemployment and of its hardships falls on the municipalities and the provinces. In fact, the municipalities are obliged to increase the cost of their welfare program considerably because this federal government which contended when it was in the opposition, that the unemployment problem was the responsibility of the federal government, does nothing to alleviate the burden of the municipalities.
Mr. Chairman, several members of this house claimed that the situation is worse now than when the Liberals were in power. Well, the figures given to us are either accurate or not so. If they are accurate, then the situation was better at that time; if they are inaccurate, this government should give us accurate figures. Here is what the Financial Post of November 1958 had to say:
(Text):
Bigger Load on Municipal Aid As Jobless Insurance Runs Out
(Translation):
This is what the Financial Post said. At the end of the item in question, we find the amounts paid by each province for public assistance purposes. I shall not quote the figures for all the provinces but only for those with the highest population.
In 1955-1956, the province of Quebec paid an amount of $3,103,000 to assist the unemployed; in 1958-1959, this amount reached $6,000,000, mind you, under a Conservative federal government. This means that public assistance costs have doubled in the province of Quebec; and still the present federal government takes no action and tells us that the recession has disappeared.
As for the province of Ontario, in 19551956, the provincial government had to pay $5,940,000 to help people out of jobs. In 1958-1959, the amount was doubled and reached $10,000,000. Now I understand why the Frost government is asking the present government for an additional amount of $100,000,000 to relieve the misery caused by the Conservative federal government.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on like this indefinitely and give examples that the government is not taking measures it was advocating at that time. I can hear members making ironical remarks. Those newcomers do not know what their present colleagues were

calling for when they were sitting on this side of the house, nor about the excessive language they used without being able to prove anything. Now that they are in power, they forget their past promises, they forget what they kept requiring of the former government. They merely let things slide, and do next to nothing to solve the hopeless financial situation they themselves brought about.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that there are people who are unemployed in winter. I believe that the government should increase the vocational training courses and, if necessary, compel the unemployed under thirty years of age who receive unemployment insurance benefit to attend classes two or three times a week to receive a training that would allow them to get a specialized trade and certain jobs which are offered at this time.
In fact, according to an item that has appeared in the Belfast Evening Telegraph, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration published a list of jobs available in Canada. We even offered to pay the transportation of those who would come to Canada. This advertisement appeared quite recently and those people were being asked to come to Canada because we need skilled workers. Here is the list of skilled workers we were inviting to Canada:
(Text):
Accountants, aerodynamacist, architects, bakers and pastry-cooks; beauticians, bookkeepers, cashiers, bricklayers; butchers and meat cutters; cabinet makers; carpenters and joiners; cooks; dentists; dieticians; domestics; dry-cleaning and pressers; engineers; electrical; electronics; marine; farmers, general, dairy, livestock; farm workers; fitter, machinists; furniture upholsterers, hairdressers, ladies', gent's; hospital lab. technicians; housekeepers; librarians; machine tool setters; motor mechanic repairmen; nursemaids; nurses, professional and practical; occupational therapists, female; office machine operators; painters; physicians and surgeons; physiotherapists; plasterers; radio and t.v. mechanic repairmen; salesmen and shop assistants; sewing machine operators.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I could perhaps give twenty-five other examples of jobs listed in that advertisement. And yet, citizens of Ireland are invited to come to Canada when we have close to 800,000 unemployed Canadians who could be trained to fill those various positions. The federal government could contribute to that program through grants to the provinces, which would enable them to use their technical schools to train the unemployed to fill special positions.

I submit that this government and the Minister of Labour-
(Text):


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member permit a question? I was interested in his reading of a list of positions that are vacant. I especially noticed a requirement for domestics. Does the hon. member know that just recently -the figure may be somewhat different now, probably higher-in the Ottawa office of the employment insurance commission there were applications by employers for 300 domestics, and no one wanted to take those jobs? That was just in the city of Ottawa alone.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, if all the figures, and everything else were placed in front of the house by the minister we might find out more about what is going on. This may be the case, but if in this one instance they could not find anybody they should certainly be prepared to intensify their training so that they could look after these positions. There may be many who would like to have these jobs but they would require a salary sufficiently high to live on. If it is no higher than the salaries offered by the civil service commission I do not blame them at all because it is a salary for starvation.


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will the hon. member not admit that the salaries now paid to civil servants were set by the Liberal government?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I admit, Mr. Chairman, that the salaries were always fixed by the government, whatever government it was that was in power, but since we left office in 1957 the cost of living has risen. In 1957 the cost of living stood at 121.6; it has risen in two years to 126.9. This makes a big difference. The ones responsible for that increase are the members of the government, and if they do not increase the salary they should do something to reduce the cost of living. (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much of the house's time, though I could probably go on mentioning cases indefinitely. However, I say the present government is shirking its duty and is not doing what it should do to cure the evil that now exists.
I should like to close my remarks with this quotation from Henry Ford:
(Text):
Economy is not the amount of money spent, but the wisdom of spending it.
(Translation):
That, Mr. Chairman, is the present situation-
(Text):


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


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, at this time I should like to make a few brief remarks
Supply-Labour
on the item under discussion before the house. We are asked to approve an item of $15 million to provide payment to provinces in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program. It was stated this morning in the course of the debate that this was a step in the right direction on the part of the government. I agree that it is a step in the right direction but I must also add it is a most insignificant and inadequate step. It is so short a step that the government, even by its implementation, fails to reach the objective.
This morning the Minister of Labour released some figures showing the estimated expenditures by the provinces under this program. The total expenditure amounted to $83,900,000, of which the federal government will be called upon to pay a certain share. We were even told that the amount of $15 million may not be reached. When we look at the figures released this morning in connection with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-


Michael Starr: I think I can clarify the situation. We have provided $15 million. We hope it is all claimed and we hope more is claimed. We are prepared to provide more if it is requested by the provinces and municipalities.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I certainly share the hope of the minister, but after what we have heard about the winter works program and the conditions which are imposed it is rather difficult to visualize that this figure will be exceeded. If, for example, we take the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where projects have been approved totalling $1J million and where the federal government's share will be approximately $50,000, we can realize how limited the assistance will be. In fact, out of total expenditures of $83 million on such projects less than 3 per cent will apply to these provinces and the federal contribution to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is less than three-quarters of one per cent of the cost of all projects.
How far will such a measure go in providing relief for the 33,000 unemployed registered at the unemployment insurance offices in Nova Scotia as at January 7 this year and the over 33,000 registered on the same date at the different offices in New Brunswick? For example, the minister gave me the information that in my own constituency of Gloucester two projects had been approved. The total cost of the first project is $19,000 and of the second $20,000. How far will these projects go in providing even partial assistance-


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. member that we are prepared to

Supply-Labour
take all the projects that the Gloucester area is prepared to submit to us under the plan.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is exactly the point I want to get at. So tar only two small projects have been approved for Gloucester county-


Michael Starr: Have been submitted.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -and they will provide practically no or very little assistance to the 6,000 unemployed in Gloucester county. They will not even provide assistance for the hundreds of people in Gloucester county who could not achieve enough unemployment insurance contributions to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. A similar situation exists in some other sections of the Atlantic provinces.
This morning I ask the minister if he had received any representations from church groups in Pictou county asking for federal assistance to provide relief for the critical unemployment situation in that area. At the time the minister informed the house that no representations had been received. I accepted and still accept his statement but I have here an article from the Chronicle-Herald of February 9, 1960 which has to do precisely with the measure we have before us now. I will just read a short section of the resolution passed at the meeting mentioned:
The Pictou county ministerial in special session with representatives of the Roman Catholic clergy, meeting in Westville on February 8, 1960, put forth the folowing resolution:
"That we deplore the present extremely serious unemployment situation existing in the county of Pictou and that we urge our governments to do everything possible to relieve this critical condition by taking immediate action in having a car order placed with the Eastern Car Company at Trenton, proceeding with public projects such as the federal building at New Glasgow, the trans-Canada highway, and such other projects for the benefit of our province and our dominion and for the employment of our people in Pictou county."
Further on in the article there is the following:
Father Chisholm said that men were willing to work but there was no work to be had.
The situation in Pictou county is just about similar to that existing in many other areas of the Atlantic provinces. I should like to know how many projects, for example, have been approved for the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, where, according to the figures released by the minister on February 3, 2,694 people seeking employment were registered at the unemployment insurance office, this notwithstanding the remarks made in the house last week by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert that unemployment was

no problem in his constituency. He is not concerned about almost 3,000 registered unemployed. The same thing applies to the 6,000 in Halifax, the 4,900 at New Glasgow, the 5,400 at Sydney and the 9,620 at Moncton and, as I have said, over 6,000 in my own constituency.
The Atlantic provinces, Mr. Chairman, need something worth while. As I have said before in the house, they need something going beyond the ordinary type of federal assistance to restore conditions to normal and to provide at least part-time employment to the substantial number of unemployed in these provinces. What we need now is a diversion from the northern vision of the government, a diversion directed toward the Atlantic provinces. Conditions in these areas will not be improved when we realize that for the present fiscal year public works projects will be reduced by almost $30 million.
What we need is a wider field of application of this program. We all agree that one of the main problems of the Atlantic provinces is transportation. The federal government should widen the field of application of this measure and extend special measures of assistance to the Atlantic provinces to build roads. Even if roads cannot be built properly during the winter months such measures could give employment at an early period in the fall so that those who cannot secure enough unemployment contributions to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits would at least have some measure of assistance during the winter months.
I know that many of these projects cannot be undertaken by the provinces alone. The minister mentioned a while ago that the federal government would be prepared to take into consideration further projects advanced by the municipality of Gloucester. I would bring to the attention of the minister the situation of the residents of Miscou island who need transportation to the island, who need a bridge. The bridge could be constructed either under the winter works program or under the roads to resources program in cooperation with the province of New Brunswick. This project could be carried on during the winter months and would provide employment to hundreds of residents of Gloucester county who, as I have said before, are deprived not only of unemployment insurance benefits but also of any assistance whatsoever from the province or the municipalities.
Therefore I feel it is the duty of the present government to extend the winter works program to make it applicable in such a way that it would be practical and would reach the objective for which it was introduced.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but after listening to the hon. member for Gloucester I feel that I should say a few words. I may say that I have been quite surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Gloucester, not only during this session but in the previous two or three sessions. I have been a member of this house for a good many years. I have been a member ever since the hon. member for Gloucester took his seat. I seldom heard the hon. member for Gloucester stand up in this house when his own party was in power and ask for any consideration for his particular constituency.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I would challenge that statement, and the record is there to show it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say also, Mr. Chairman, that since the present government-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We on this side of the house have been restricted very narrowly by the chair to a consideration of what is before the committee. We have indulged in no personal attacks on other members or any considerations of this character, and it seems to me that the rules should be applied equally to all hon. members.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This is no personal attack, this is simply a statement of fact. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman; so far as the situation in New Brunswick today is concerned, there is less unemployment in New Brunswick than there was in the years past, and I can prove it. Just a moment ago my hon. friend mentioned the city of Saint John. I have here the Telegraph-Journal for Thursday, February 9, from the city of Saint John, and I should like to read some of the headlines: "Oil refinery near completion. Board of trade fostering area's vigorous progress; Saint John, city with a future. Mighty industrial giant continues to grow. Big shopping centre rising in north end. Ice rink peer's gift to youth". These are all undertakings carried on within the city of Saint John. "Saint John harbour kept at top pitch"; and that is something we did not see in the city of Saint John in the days gone by. "Saint John, boom town with a history. Irving pulp mill leader in area's industrial growth". There was never any time in the history of the city of Saint John when there was so much industry and so much employment as there is at the present time.
I want to tell my hon. friend that the people in the city of Saint John and the province of New Brunswick will not appreciate this cry of woe of his which has no 79951-0-66
Supply-Labour
substance in fact. I could go on, Mr. Chairman. I should like to point out that this morning there was a lot of criticism of Canadian National Railways in the city of Moncton. What are the facts? In the city of Moncton, Mr. Chairman, according to this newspaper, and I know it to be a fact and I quote from Saint John Telegraph-Journal. When the $15 million electronic Moncton hump yard goes into operation later this year and centralized traffic control which operates signals and switches by remote control is extended throughout the maritimes, Canadian National expects to reduce the schedule further, thus offering a greatly improved service to shippers. There is $15 million being expended by the Canadian National Railways in the city of Moncton. There have been many hundreds of thousands of dollars expended in that city during the last few years.
Last summer there was a considerable amount of work being done in that city. In so far as unemployment is concerned, I regret far more, I think, than does the hon. member opposite, any unemployment which has come about as a result of Canadian National laying off men in the city of Moncton. However, this sort of thing has been going on for years. In the city of Saint John, there is also the great extension of employment from the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways. My hon. friend speaks about the work that has been laid out by the province of New Brunswick. I believe the Minister of Labour will confirm the fact that the minister of labour in New Brunswick, in co-operation with the municipalities, last year organized the work for the unemployed better than any other province in Canada. The same is true this year. If the hon. member will take a look at his own county's position, he will find that unemployment there is lower and the unemployed are better off than they were in other years.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Six thousand.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Six thousand, and I should like to ask my hon. friend how many are fishermen who for years and years in the past, not only were unemployed but did not get one dollar of assistance from the government.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There are 1,200.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This year the unemployed fishermen, these men who have always been unemployed all along our coast to the United States border, are being provided with unemployment insurance. My hon. friend knows that as well as I do. These are the facts and I am surprised at what the hon. member has said. As I say, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate this afternoon. However, when I know what the situation is in my own province I could not sit

Supply-Labour
idly in my seat and hear my hon. friend, for what purpose I do not know although I have a very good idea, stand up and place his own province in a position in which it should not be placed.
There has always been seasonal unemployment in our province. Let us take the example of the lumbermen in the woods, and we have many hundreds of them. During the winter months when there is snow on the ground these men work in the woods. As soon as the soft weather comes in the spring of the year, they have to come out from the woods and they become unemployed. There are no factories particularly in rural areas in which to put these men to work and they become unemployed. However, they receive unemployment insurance. My hon. friend knows about these situations, and they account for the names on the unemployed rolls.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I could go through this Saint John Telegraph-Journal of February 9 again and show that there are many other undertakings which are going forward in the city of Saint John and in the province of New Brunswick. We are having and have had the greatest boom in the history of their city and in the history of our province and that only came about in the last two or three years since this Conservative government came into power and through the co-operation of the Conservative government under Hugh John Flemming in the province of New Brunswick.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a question of privilege. I have been accused by the minister, early in his remarks, of never getting up and speaking for my constituency when I was on the government side. I challenge the minister on that statement, and I challenge him to look at the record. If he does he will find that at least three or four times during every session when I was on the government side I spoke for the benefit of my constituency, which is more than any other government member from New Brunswick has done, including the minister himself, during the two years they have been in power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not intended to intervene at this particular moment in this debate until we heard this regrettable speech by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I would draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the minister was allowed to proceed along lines which members on this side were not allowed to follow. He talked about the general economic condition of New Brunswick; he talked about the development of Saint John and the development of Moncton.

I do hope that a similar latitude will be given, not just to me but to other hon. members on this side. I hope also that the Minister of Labour will find it possible to listen to what is being said in this committee instead of keeping up a constant babble of childish interruptions when other hon. members are speaking, which has characterized his conduct throughout this whole debate. This is not the way the minister is treated when he gets up to speak by the people on this side of the house.
It is about time these members on the other side of the chamber, who when they were over here talked so much about the rights of parliament, showed some little respect for them now that they are in positions of authority. I may say that goes particularly for the hon. member for Royal who is one of the senior members of the House of Commons. I will tell the hon. member for Royal that my friend the hon. member for Gloucester, who needs no defence of his conduct from any quarter in this chamber, is one of the best debaters in the House of Commons and is constantly talking about things that are before us and not about irrelevancies.
I want to tell the Minister of Veterans Affairs why the hon. member for Gloucester and everyone over here from the Atlantic provinces is concerned about the situation in the Atlantic provinces. The Minister of Labour said the other day on television that the recession was over. I am not going to argue-because it would be out of order- whether or not the recession is over. However, I am going to say this. In January of 1958-on January 20, as a matter of fact- the Prime Minister rose in his place in this chamber and told us that the government had at last discovered that there was a recession and they had discovered it from a dusty report. They had not realized it from the facts themselves. At the time the Prime Minister spoke in January 1958 there were 110,000 people on the rolls in the Atlantic provinces including fishermen. In January of 1960, when the Minister of Labour says the recession is over, there were in the same week- January 14, 1960-over 100,000 not including fishermen and the lowest figure for fishermen is 15,000.
When those two figures are added together, it means that there are at least 5,000 more people seeking work in the four Atlantic provinces today than there were two years ago at what the government called the depth of the recession. That is why we on this side of the chamber, notwithstanding the boom that has been produced in the Atlantic provinces by the speech of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, are concerned about an economic

condition in the Atlantic provinces which is worse than it has been at any time since the late war.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You do not know what you are talking about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman perhaps knows a great deal more about it than do the people there. But I can assure him that the 115,000 people, even including the fishermen who are unemployed and who would, in most cases, be very happy to have work to supplement their incomes in the winter months, as I know very well from the correspondence I get from the fishermen.
Then, of course, the rather shoddy effort of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to take credit to this government for unemployment insurance for fishermen was characteristic of the performance that we have had from this government on every question of this kind. When their deficiencies are pointed out they always say, "Well, the Liberals did no better" as if they had not promised to do things we did not do. But they were just promises. When anything good is referred to, they talk as though they had done it themselves, although invariably it was put on the statute books before they came into office, as was the case with unemployment insurance.
As I said the other evening, and that is why I wanted these figures and that is why I said the other evening we were entitled to have all these figures-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it not true that our government put into effect in 1958 the Unemployment Insurance Act amendment extending further advantage in favour of the fishermen?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not happen to be true at all. The amendment to the act was made in the year 1957 and it became effective on April 1, 1957. The benefits were paid for the first time on December 1, 1957. The legislation was given royal assent when we were in office and the collection of the premiums began while we were in office. But it is true that, because of the date at which the act came into force, no benefits were paid or payable until after the present government came into office.
That is, of course, just exactly on a par with what the Prime Minister did in that broadcast on television when he talked about the previous government's neglect of social services generally and asserted or appeared to assert that this government was responsible for all those changes in the legislation 79951-0-66i
Supply-Labour
that Mr. Harris had made in his budget of 1957 which amounted to a more substantial sum than that which has been made available by the present government. This is characteristic, I say, of the kind of argument we have about this kind of thing.
But to return to the item before us, here are the figures the minister himself gave to the hon. member for Essex East. They appear at pages 707 and 708 of Hansard for February 3. These are figures showing the expenditures on this program in the year 1958-59: Newfoundland, $24,000; Prince Edward Island, $1,000; Nova Scotia, $337,000; New Brunswick, $234,000. If you add those figures together, you get about $600,000 out of the $6-J million or 10 per cent; that is to say, 10 per cent of the total federal expenditures on this program a year ago was expended in the Atlantic provinces.
In the Atlantic provinces, both a year ago and this year, I regret to say that one seventh of the unemployment in the whole country exists. It will therefore be seen very clearly that the point I made the other evening is perfectly correct, namely that that area which has the heaviest unemployment gets the least benefit from this program. That was the point the hon. member for Gloucester was making. He was making precisely that point. Why does the county of Gloucester not recommend more projects? The reason is that the county of Gloucester cannot afford to pay for them. That is the reason why. It is easy enough for the city of Toronto and perhaps for the newly rich city of Saint John, in the vision of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to pay for them but we would be interested in knowing how many projects there are in Saint John.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There are 3,000 unemployed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly; there are 3,000 unemployed, as my hon. friend reminds me. In the village of Rockcliffe where I happen to live it would be very easy to employ all the unemployed on a very small project. We have not any projects because we have no unemployed. But in those areas where the unemployment is heavy and where the tax base is low and where the need is greater and where any government which took seriously what the Prime Minister promised would be done, would give the main application of this winter work program we get the least of it. The figures are even worse for this year.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask
the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.

Supply-Labour


William Joseph Browne: Will he look at the number of people who were employed on jobs as given at the end of that answer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: Will the hon. member just cite them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. I shall be very happy to look at the number of people who are employed on jobs, that is last year. The number of people who were employed on jobs, the total number for the whole country was 23,443, of which the share for the three Atlantic provinces was-


Mr.   Browns@St. John's West: That is this year. I am referring to last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the hon. member's pardon.


William Joseph Browne: I refer to the previous answer, namely No. 3.


John Whitney Pickersgill: According to No. 3, the estimated number of persons who will have work is, or looks to be, from making a very quick addition, about 10,000 out of 35,000. Those are estimates, of course. But when I look at the figures-


William Joseph Browne: Excuse me-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to finish.


William Joseph Browne: I just want to make a correction in the hon. member's statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right.


William Joseph Browne: According to Hansard-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman rarely gets a chance to speak, so I will not object.


William Joseph Browne: According to Hansard, page 708, the number of jobs provided in 1958-59 was 35,500 and 10,000 of those jobs were in the maritime provinces. That is over 30 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for the correction. Inadvertently I made an error and I thank him for making the correction. But I look at the figures for the amount spent on these 10,000 jobs, namely $600,000 and for the other 25,000 jobs, $6 million.


William Joseph Browne: Yes; but that is the fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And when I do so there are two things that suggest themselves to me. A little bit of simple arithmetic can be done. One is that the jobs did not last very long in the Atlantic provinces and the other

is that the pay was exceedingly low. The total expenditures are certainly a better index than the number of jobs.
This after all may be a job for one day or one hundred days. What we really ought to have here if we are to have a useful basis of comparison, as I know the Minister of Labour will admit at once, is the number of man days of employment. I think it will be very evident at once either that the pay was excessively low in the Atlantic provinces or the number of man days of work was very low. But I thank the minister from Newfoundland for correcting an error which I made inadvertently. I have no desire at all to distort these figures in any way.
Mr. Chairman, I was saying when this error was drawn to my attention by the hon. member that what we were told in this country two years ago this month, February, which we well remember, and I have no doubt hon. members opposite also remember it, was this. The Prime Minister said:
I promise you this. As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman will ever be allowed to suffer, deficit or no deficit, and as long as I am Prime Minister the welfare of the average Canadian will never be forgotten.
There you have it. Those are the words of John Diefenbaker (speaking at Sydney, February 28 th).
He is in effect telling you-
This is a Conservative advertisement.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What does it say about
him?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will read it through, if the hon. member will let me go on.
He is in effect telling you that as long as there is a dollar left in the Canadian treasury you will not want-
Russell MacEwan agrees with him 100 per cent.
John Diefenbaker is one of the most truthful and sincere men in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What modesty has this party.
He has kept every pledge he has ever made and he will keep the above promise.
We owe it to ourselves to keep him in Ottawa.
Vote MacEwan and give Diefenbaker a real majority.
I do not know whether he has a real majority, but I have not heard much contribution from the hon. member for Pictou in this debate.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, may I-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This advertisement concludes:
This ad inserted by the Pictou County Progressive
Conservative Association.


Howard Russell MacEwan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said he had not heard much contribution from me. The

point of order is that I have spoken in past sessions of parliament here, although I have not spoken in this session yet. If he cares to read other speeches than his own he will find out.


Charles Edward Rea: That is not a question of privilege; it is a matter of opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have no personal feeling about the hon. member for Pictou except the greatest possible sympathy, because it must hurt him, as it hurts any other person who has any humane feelings, to know what is going on in Pictou county right at the present moment, and it must have been pretty unpleasant for him to read that editorial the other day in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which the hon. member for Gloucester read.


Howard Russell MacEwan: On a point of order, it was not an editorial but a subject reported in the paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have it here, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for February 6. It is entitled "A major emergency", and goes on:
The economic situation in Pictou county has assumed a proportion that no longer can be denied the special attention of provincial and federal authorities. The income of a large percentage of the people of that area has been cut off entirely or reduced to insurance benefits or municipal relief. A state of real emergency exists.
This is the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, an independent newspaper.
Latest census figures reveal a population of 21,000 in the five industrial towns of the county. Ten thousand of these either are unemployed or are dependent upon breadwinners who are out of work.
Ten thousand out of a population of 21,000; that is more people than were employed in the whole of the Atlantic provinces last winter in this winter works program.
The unemployment insurance commission has 2,800 from these communities registered as looking for work. To this may be added a couple of hundred more who have not sought this agency's help because it appears to be useless to do so. And there also are the several hundred others among the jobless who live outside the towns' limits.
I am not going to take up the time of the committee and read the whole of this.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Would the hon. member read a few lines of the clipping which the hon. member for Gloucester had from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has interrupted my speech three times. If he wants to read it he can read it himself in his own time, because I have some other things I wish to say in the time I am entitled to as a member of the minority in this house.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, when I have finished.


Donald MacInnis: It is a very short question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a very short remark to make too.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to repeat this advertisement by the Pictou county Progressive Conservative association for the benefit of the hon. member for Pictou and his constituents:
As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman will ever be allowed to suffer, deficit or no deficit, and as long as I am Prime Minister the welfare of the average Canadian will never be forgotten.
There you have it.


Mr. Cardiff:: You read that before.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I know, but it takes a good deal of repetition to penetrate some skulls. It goes on:
Those are the words of John Diefenbaker..
He is in effect telling you that as long as there is a dollar left in the Canadian Treasury you will not want...
Russell MacEwan agrees with him 100 per cent.
I do not know whether Russell MacEwan now says that there is not a dollar left in the federal treasury, but certainly there are 2800 people in Pictou county looking for work, and of those 2800 people, a good many of them are suffering today.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South wanted to ask a question, and I undertook to answer it.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member has agreed to answer a question from the hon. member for Cape Breton South?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member consider reading an editorial in the Fredericton Gleaner in which he was asked to apologize in the interests of Canadian journalism?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir, I would be glad to read that editorial when we get to the coal item. It would then be in order. It would not be in order in this debate.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to rise and report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair, I wonder if the minister could put on Hansard the table of the various projects so that we would have it when the item comes up?

Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: I would be glad to do that, but the only table we have is the table issued on February 5 showing the completion of work in each province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, would you permit me to make another suggestion, and that is that on Monday the minister just file it so that we could have on Hansard a total showing all the municipalities. That could easily be prepared over the weekend and then we would have it next time.


Michael Starr: I checked with the officials in charge. We did not increase our staff; it is handled by two people on our staff. They told me that with the large number of projects and the various dates these projects are submitted by various municipalities, it would be a very large job to try to sort this out. But I have this table, and I would be glad to give that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister will put it on Hansard. I thought this was a project to provide employment, however.


Michael Starr: Is the hon. member against this project?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course not.


Charles Edward Rea: Do I understand that the Minister of Labour wishes consent to put this table on Hansard?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to put this on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: The table above referred to
follows:)
MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM 1959-60 Department of Labour Cumulative report week ending Feb. 5, 1960
-	Canada	B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Que.	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Nfld.	N.W.T.Applications received	1,850	310	269	283	70	565	188	60	71	1	33	-Applications accepted	1,796	303	267	274	70	558	171	58	63	1	31	-Applications rejected or pending	54 R20, P34	7	2	9	-	7	17	2	8	-	2	-Estimated total cost of projects	83,902	12,093	11,873	4,008	3,464	23,223	27,225	649	920	0.5	446	-Estimated total direct payroll cost of projects	27,629	4,810	3,954	1,865	1,314	7,433	6,952	452	611	0.5	237	-Estimated cost of work undertaken under , projects-Dec. 1/59-Apr. 30/60	57,449	7,480	8,885	3,981	3,120	18,484	13,853	606	896	0.5	143	-Estimated direct payroll cost of work undertaken under projects	
Dec. 1/59-Apr. 30/60	20,304	3,098	3,031	1,859	1,133	6,248	3,807	433	602	0.5	92	-Estimated federal government share of direct payroll costs	10,065	1,470	1,516	929	567	3,121	1,902	213	301	0.25	46	-Estimated number of men to be hired	
Dec. 1/59-Apr. 30/60	36,909	3,274	5,389	7,162	1,256	8,046	3,808	1,873	5,577	10	514	-Estimated man days work to be provided Dee. 1/59-Apr. 30/60	1,561,887	192,259	239,968	178,011	89,024	469,861	254,942	52,246	73,596	100	11,880	
N.B.-Cost figures shown in thousands of dollars. Percentage of payroll cost to total cost of projects undertaken during period of program 35.34 per cent.



*&quot;1 M W W C

[Stage Direction]
>
a
o
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Labour
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Progress reported.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, since there are a number of bills could they be called together?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to have the bills taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. SD-14, for the relief of Enid Grace Pascoe Dawson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-15, for the relief of George Barrington Redfearn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-16, for the relief of Shirley Veronica Hannah Groves.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-17, for the relief of Leonia Szafarz Falk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-18, for the relief of Audrey Louise Bryan Sevigny.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-19, for the relief of Janet McMillan Sim Sinclair Kerr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-20, for the relief of Jacqueline Joly Mazurette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-21, for the relief of Shirley Evelyn Ellis Bertram.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-22, for the relief of Sally Emden Rohr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-23, for the relief of Barbara Steinberg Shapiro.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-24, for the relief of Olga May Hospadaruk Edwards.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-25, for the relief of Georgette Rosenberg Korman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-26, for the relief of Julianna Catharina Mehilercsik Jutras.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-27, for the relief of Helen Kurtzman Bernard.-Mr. McCleave.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent Mr. McCleave moves that Bills Nos. SD-14 to SD-27, being items Nos. 59 to 72 respectively on today's order paper be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 105 the said bills stand referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


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


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-16, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the third presentation of this bill for discussion in this parliament it seems out of place to repeat all the arguments and data that were presented before, especially the first time the bill was presented in the house and discussed on June 12, 1958.
At that time I presented a bibliography on this problem and also circularized to all hon. members of the house statistics on the sizes of constituencies and their populations. There has as yet been no indication that the problem of redistribution has come much to the fore in the thinking of the government despite the fact that when the leading figures of this government were in opposition they had strong views on this subject which closely paralleled the objectives of this bill.
The purpose of this bill is to allow the setting up of some kind of commission independent of parliament to look after the redistribution following each census. As most hon. members are aware, at the end of every ten-year period when we have a census it is required under the British North America Act that there be a redistribution of the seats in this house in order that we can take care of the shifts and changes in population.
Shifts and changes in population are still going on and I know that each hon. member will be conscious of this to a greater or lesser degree. Personally I have been flabbergasted at the tremendous changes in my constituency just within the last three years. There has been an increase and that is not abnormal but the shift of population from one end of the constituency to another has been tremendous. I know this cannot be seen in constituency terms only in my area. It is going on in almost every part of Canada where there are fairly large metropolitan populations which magnetizes this shifting and magnifies the problem.
The other aspect of the question of redistribution that I wanted to highlight here is its relationship to the calling of an election. We are now in mid-term of this parliament and there are speculations about when the next election will take place. Redistribution greatly affects any decision in this regard. One of the distinguishing features

of our parliamentary set-up according to political scientists is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) or the government-we know in Canada it is the Prime Minister who will make the fateful decision-has authority at any time to ask the governor general to dissolve parliament and go to the people.
It has become a tradition to hold elections in Canada every four years or tending a little to the fifth year when the government has a large majority. Within a five-year period the Prime Minister has complete freedom of choice in this regard. As we all know, redistribution has to come constitutionally in 1962. The census figures will be available some time in March or early April of 1962 relating to the census of next year. Then there is a channel set up whereby the redistribution has to take place.
The present Prime Minister faces several difficult choices in this respect. If he goes to the people before redistribution is carried out he will be faced with the problem of having another parliament constituted for a four or five-year period on a basis of representation that is not fair and that will be 15 years out of date. Some of us may argue whether he should go to the people well before the end of his term when he has such a large majority, but that is neither here nor there. That is his prerogative, and he can go to the people. However, he and all those hon. members who support him will have to consider the factor I mentioned, whether they want another parliament to be constituted on the basis of this unfair, out of date representation.
I think that the Prime Minister with his respect for parliamentary institutions will have this problem to the forefront of his mind and it may be an important factor in determining when he calls an election. The year 1961 will bring the end of three full years of this government. I have heard speculation that there is likely to be an election next June. I discount this on the ground that I suspect the government would like to go to the electors after having introduced a much more radical legislative program than the one we have before us this session and in order to introduce a program of that kind it would require a considerable number of months next year. It occurs to me, therefore, we can only count on an election in the fall of 1961 at the earliest.
It seems to me that if the Prime Minister waits that long he is almost honour-bound to wait until we get the redistribution in 1962, and we cannot have a redistribution in 1962 and have an election before late August or September at the earliest. I make these remarks, Mr. Speaker, which some people may feel are beyond the point, to highlight the
British North America Act fact that this parliament right now should be considering-I will not be so presumptuous as to say this bill-this particular problem.
The more important hon. member for Halifax raised this in the debate on the speech from the throne; that is, he raised the issue in so far as-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize. I see some people are remarking at my singling out one member from Halifax as being more important than the other. I mean this in relation not to stature but just the fact that he is now the No. 2 man in Nova Scotia in so far as the government is concerned since he has been elevated to the important position of being the parliamentary secretary to the Postmaster General. He raised the issue here, Mr. Speaker, that the maritimes just did not want to face losing any seats. He did not seem to care particularly about Saskatchewan facing the loss of four, although perhaps he has some sympathetic feelings about it. But the point was that Nova Scotia did not want to loose another seat. If we do not do something very quickly, such as this bill tries to outline, or if we do not get into this whole question of redistribution soon, Nova Scotia may not lose a seat in the next redistribution, Saskatchewan may not lose four, Quebec may not lose one, Manitoba may not lose one, but we are going to have a parliament which follows a principle which does not really represent the population situation in Canada.
I feel that the Saskatchewan situation is close to the heart of the Prime Minister. After all, it is his home province. He would like to see those four seats saved. I know the picture which comes to our minds when we think of the kind of gerrymander which might take place, with every member from Saskatchewan being in the government party except the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue): I know the Prime Minister and the members from Saskatchewan-I can see a couple of benevolent one in the house here- would feel very badly about any inference that they would ever gang up on the hon. member for Assiniboia in redrawing constituency lines, or even gang up on themselves, because at least three of them would be disappearing from this house. I know they might want to concentrate upon the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) but I do not think we should raise this kind of possibility.
It seems to me this matter gives us a couple of alternatives. Should we increase the number of seats in this house so that there would be no more losses of this kind. Should

British North America Act we accept the principle from now on that no province will lose any more seats? I think this is worth very serious consideration. This would mean that we would have a constantly growing house as our population increases.
You all know some of the more ridiculous anomalies there are. Prince Edward Island has a population much below Scarborough but it has four members and Scarborough has only one. You can get the ridiculous comparison between Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Scarborough, or between some of the Montreal constituencies. One of the things that led me to introduce this bill is this. I looked at my friend from Timmins. He has a lovely little pocket borough, 35 miles by 35 miles. He can drive around it in an afternoon. He has a population half that of my constituency.
I was talking to a member from a constituency north of Toronto the other day. He was speaking about going home over the weekend and said that he had to drive 75 miles or 80 miles to interview some of his people. My situation, and the situation of people like the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger) or the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. LaRue) or the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Hardie) is fantastic in comparison. The second largest group of polls in my constituency is 385 miles from where I live, and this is the kind of anomaly that we need to take into consideration.
This leads me to one of the principles that we need to introduce in our possible redistribution. First of all, we need to consider the principle that no province shall lose any more seats; second, we need to consider the fact that the old idea of there being two kinds of constituencies in Canada, rural and urban, is no longer valid. I think we have at least four different kinds; we have the metropolitan constituencies in highly urbanized areas such as Trinity. Then, we have the suburban type of constituency such as York West or Scarborough. Then, we have what I may call the proper rural constituency, or the real rural constituency, such as you have in most of the prairies or in rural Ontario, represented by people like the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe).
Then, you have what to me is the most difficult of all constituencies, and this is what I think of as the frontier constituency. There are quite a host of them. If hon. members care to look at the areas of constituencies in square miles they will find that there are over 30 of them that have more than 11,000 square miles. Some of them are fantastically large. You could tuck all the maritime provinces into my constituency, and you can do the same in Churchill and in a few of the others.


I would suggest that one of the things we need to do in this parliament-and do fairly soon, perhaps in the committee on elections- is to work out some principles that we can apply to redistribution, to face up to the complaints that are coming from the mari-times and Saskatchewan about losing seats. It seems to me the only way we can do this is by appointing something like an independent commission, after we give them the principles under which they work.
I have already mentioned in this house that I dislike seeing the prerogatives of this house diminished by the creation of boards and commissions; but I think our past history in this particular regard points out the need for a commission and I hope that hon. members know that I am painting this lily as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Prime Minister did when they were talking on this subject in past parliaments.
I think we need an independent commission because of the very complexities of drawing boundaries. I suggest that on the commission we need a geographer, a demographer, a jurist, and then someone who has some experience in political life. I know it is going to cost a certain amount, but it seems to me it is necessary to guarantee to people what we really want basically from our electoral system, namely that each Canadian's vote is roughly, within some degree of tolerance, equal in value.
I can even get an argument boiling up in Fort William and Port Arthur. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) is elected with quite a few fewer votes than I am, 'and when I point out to my constituents that their votes are not worth as much as that of the voters in Fort William they can readily see it in terms of this question and get quite wrathy about it. Actually there are much greater paradoxes than that particular difference. I think all hon. members would like to see this worked out.
There is one special problem in connection with redistribution that has to do with this question of provinces losing seats that we must consider, namely the attitude of the French Canadians, and the attitude within that general attitude of Quebec province herself. I would suggest that those of you who are interested in this should read the Tremblay report and those sections of it which deal with this question. There is a very strong attitude in Quebec, as outlined in a letter I received today, that in so far as their representation in this house is concerned they feel it should be a matter decided on a provincial basis.
I myself find this repugnant. I think it is contrary to the whole concept of Canada, but

this is another attitude we have to consider. This was expressed very forcibly in this house two years ago by a couple of the members from Quebec, namely the attitude that representation within this house is in many ways a provincial matter and that no changes should be made in it; that no developments should go along this path unless the provinces are consulted. This is a difficulty in the way of working out a solution but I think it should still be approached.
One viewpoint I must comment on, because it was expressed by a prominent Canadian, was that put forward by Premier Frost in relation to the malapportionment of constituencies in Ontario. He said that he felt very strongly that the rural constituencies should be much smaller in population than urban constituencies. He did not make this point on the basis of the old argument that used to be popular that there were certain sturdy yeoman characteristics amongst rural folk that made them more perceptive and more able to appreciate political problems. Rather, he made it on the basis that the city people did not have to worry particularly about their protection from government through having representation. They had the newspapers to represent them and take up matters for them.
This is a most interesting idea to have injected into this particular kind of discussion and I do not think it can be taken too seriously. Yet perhaps it is a factor that any committee of the house or any group should investigate.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Certainly.


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the theoretical differences the hon. member has just brought out, does the hon. member feel that we should strive to have as much as possible the same number of eligible voters in all constituencies?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think that has to be the ideal. Of course it is an ideal you are never going to attain because population shifts are always taking place. But the median in the next redistribution is going to be somewhere between 64,000 and 66,000 people. Every member knows how many people he has in his constituency and he knows how far he is from the median. But I do not think it is defensible. Many of my relatives, for example, live in the constituency of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and I know that their votes are not worth five times the votes of the people in my constituency. It just is not so. We have got to try to move toward the median and the norm, and in a country like Canada this means change all the time.
1043 |
British North America Act
We have had no indication at all from the government on how they are going to handle this problem. It seems to me that the hidden persuader in the whole deal is the Saskatchewan loss of four seats. I hope this hidden persuader is functioning right at the present time to induce the government to consider a rational approach to the redistribution problem. I make no claims for the bill I have introduced as being the final solution but I think what it does attempt to do is to make us see the problem in terms of a set of principles to give an independent commission which is the only way we will get out of what can be a great jackpot in 1962.
I have heard some fearsome stories from members of all parties and from some who are no longer here about what takes place when there is a redistribution. Evidently you break up into provincial committees and within the provincial committee you try to strike your bargain. You push some voters here and you pull some there. One of the points that is most obvious if we go along with this kind of system is that it will be mostly a case of Conservatives pushing Conservatives. This will be very true on the prairies, to a certain extent in British Columbia and completely in Nova Scotia. Where the real battles will be joined will be in Quebec and I imagine that particular provincial committee will be very late in reporting unless we do something beforehand.


An hon. Member:: A lottery system.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One hon. member suggests that we use a lottery system. I think that perhaps would occasionally bring about a better distribution than we have at the present time. But the situation is not one for levity. I do not see how we can approach this matter except by a means such as this because if we leave the situation as it is-I think the government is aware of this-no one is going to suffer more than the present government will in terms of recriminations. You will have internal dissensions between 11 members from Nova Scotia and the one whose constituency is going to go. You will have recriminations from the other parties about gerrymandering.
If there is no action there will be the recrimination that I think is most justified, namely that the Prime Minister would let the people vote in another election upon a basis that constitutionally and simply as a matter of fairness is 15 years out of date. For that reason I should like to see the bill passed or sent to a committee. I would much prefer that than to have it talked out with either amiable or irritable irrelevancies.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time this bill has been before the house and in making his third

British North America Act presentation the hon. member has done very-well to take up half the time allotted for a full discussion of the bill. Before I go into some of the points raised by the hon. member I should like to say that I do not think I have ever seen a finer job done by a private member in placing information in the hands of members than has been done by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) with regard to the bill he has introduced. He has done a fantastic amount of work on it and I think he is to be highly commended. That is one nice thing I can say, and I have a few on the other side.
I notice that the hon. member in this particular presentation as in previous presentations has made the point that no province should lose any seats. He also said some time ago, as found on page 1092 of Hansard for June 12, 1958:
You begin to get development of the idea that the rural voter is worth more than the urban voter.
His whole point, of course, is representation by population and that every voter shall have an equal vote in terms of value from the standpoint of the election of members. If we were to take this proposition and apply it to Prince Edward Island with a population of roughly 110,000, the House of Commons after the next election would have around 600 members, and just the very thought of 600 members-


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is not my thought.


Ernest James Broome: That is exactly what the hon. member has suggested and it is the only way it could possibly work if we were to follow what he said. He has pointed out the complexity of urban ridings and, presumably, the simplicity of rural ridings. I come from an urban riding but I consider that each of my electors has not got just one member but that the city of Vancouver has six members. In the hon. member's group there is the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), and I think it will be noticed that if the interests of the city of Vancouver are scratched then no one member but all members from that city are scratched, and that applies a great deal to the province as well.
But that is not true of the rural ridings. I am indebted to the hon. member for the bibliography that was included in his speech on June 12 last which gives a list of references. I should like to refer to one reference in that list, the "Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science", volume 15, 1949. I do not wish to quote very much from this publication but I think this passage on page 489 is pertinent to our discussion:
When the delegation, of Canadian statesmen who negotiated the final drafts of the British North


America Act reached London in 1866, their first outline of the confederation bill contained the following note about constituencies: "The readjustment to be made by an independent authority, as some of the judges, to be specified in the Imperial Act."
Later, on the same page, it goes on to tell about the great gerrymandering of the later years, in 1872 and 1882, and how that was conducted as well as how the present system evolved. The present system, as all hon. members know, is a committee of parliament. However, as this work goes on to say, it is not just a committee of parliament but it is rather a conference of the parties. In order that every province and every party may have a voice in its proceedings, the committee has grown so large that the last few redistributions have been effected by subcommittees, one of which is set up for each region or province. Neither the committee nor the subcommittees meet in public, nor is any record kept of deliberations; but there can be little doubt that proceedings are sometimes rather boisterous, for members have referred in the House of Commons to such committee activities as maps torn up, threats and invitations to mortal combat. This book goes on to talk about one member who complained because there were three members from his province, one from each of the three parties, and it was a question as to which two parties could gang up on the other one.
The philosophy behind this bill is one which I think would appeal to everybody. I do not think gerrymandering is anything to be concerned about today. I do not think it could be of value, and I think it could react against the party that was trying to do it. An example of this was cited in the case of	the	present Prime	Minister	(Mr. Diefenbaker) when his riding of Lake Centre was eliminated, and it did not seem to stop the Prime Minister from winning elections. I was very interested in what the hon. member had to say about that. On page 1094 of Hansard	the	hon. member	said that	the
Prime Minister had his riding not only gerrymandered but eliminated. However, this circumstance only made the Prime Minister determined to seek and win another seat. I think that is another one of the remarks of the hon. member with which I can agree.
The hon. member has made some point out of the fact that this is midterm, so to speak, and that the election perhaps would normally take place in	1962. By law	the redistribution can	only	take place after a census	and
there would not be time to go through the necessary procedures in order to get redistribution effected unless the election were late in 1962. I wonder how this particular authority would do any better? They cannot start working on this problem until after

the figures are in from the census people. This body would necessarily be limited in size and they would have the problem of studying every riding in every province throughout Canada in order to come to some sort of a fair arrangement. Even then, no matter how well they do their job or how long they spend on it, we will not reach that stage of perfection that the hon. member would like to see, that is each vote having an equal weight. I believe that is something that is simply impossible to achieve.
I am quite convinced that the job done by the committees in the past, with the odd exception and there are odd exceptions, has not been too bad. Perhaps a judicial committee-perhaps it might not be a judicial committee because the hon. member has outlined how it would be constituted

might do a better job in some ways, but it might do a worse job in others. I noticed that in presenting the bill in the session to which I was referring the hon. member said that he hoped everyone would take a non-partisan stand because that is the essence of redistribution. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) was the final speaker in that debate and he mentioned that he thought this was the way this committee was working. He felt the government would be bringing in changes which would help take care of some of the problems the hon. member raised.
I am quoting the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George as reported at page 1104 of Hansard for June 12, 1958:
-he will find in evidence the mood that has been expressed in the speeches we have heard tonight- one of give and take and fair play for all concerned-and it is possible that a commission, better defined than that proposed in this bill, will be established.
Then, the hon. member for Port Arthur said, "How naive can you be?" When the hon. member says we should enter this debate in a non-partisan spirit, he should not tell us we are not capable of entering such a discussion in a non-partisan way. Frankly, so far as my own riding is concerned, I would be willing to leave it to any committee or any body to make any changes they wished in that riding because I am quite convinced you cannot manufacture an advantage through changing the boundaries of your riding, particularly a city riding. Perhaps in some rural areas it may be so, I do not know.
I believe, therefore, that the philosophy behind the bill is something for which we should work and I could support the spirit in this bill. I cannot support some of the reasons the hon. member has given for this bill or some of the ways he thinks it should
British North America Act be applied. He was talking about population. He mentioned the population in his riding. We do take a kind of proprietary air about our ridings. He referred to Timmins being half the size of Port Arthur. I was checking on a few things myself, but my calculations were based on electors not on population. After all, you are really trying to equalize the value of the votes, so you are trying to equalize the electors. I find that Timmins has 23,286 and Port Arthur has 39,789 electors, so Port Arthur is not twice as large. His colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has 34,152 electors and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McPhillips) represents 52,281. In New Westminster there are 66,614, whereas the hon. member for-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the hon. member permit a question? Can he admit it is possible to bring up these figures, not from the point of view of an election but from the point of view of representing a constituency. In those terms, I was only using the population figures relative to the area. In other words, Timmins in relation to Port Arthur has a smaller population and it is also concentrated into a fantastically small area, so it is easier to represent.


Ernest James Broome: That is quite true; the hon. member did state that the second largest group of polls was some 380 miles away from where he lives, whereas to cross Timmins was only about 30 miles. I do not know if the figures are right, but it is in that area. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) represents 32,474 electors and the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) represents 17,704 but the Meadow Lake constituency is as large as the maritime provinces put together. A great deal of that is just an area on the map, and there is nobody there, but at the same time there are problems within that riding which are such that that area must have representation.
You do not, therefore, come down to any clear-cut, easily found solution to a problem like this. There are many different variances, and there may be some voters in some areas of Canada whose votes will have a higher value than those of other areas. What about the electors in Mackenzie River or in Yukon? There are 6,071 in Yukon and 6,716 in Mackenzie River. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) told us that all the residents in the Northwest Territories do not have a vote. This bill does not even cover all of the Northwest Territories. Hence I think that the hon. member has fallen into the pitfall that seems to be inherent in so many bills which are brought in by members of his party. On the face of them the bills make sense
1048	HOUSE OF
British North America Act and they are worthy of support but they over-simplify the problems which face us not only in areas of economics, social justice and the rest but in this particular area, the area of politics.
I do not think the present system should be condemned to the extent the hon. member has intimated that it could be condemned. At the same time, as I said when I started out, I do not like the principle behind this bill with regard to an independent body. I do not like the phrase "independent of the parliament of Canada." The hon. member has qualified that in that we should set up the principles which should govern that body. The very fact that it is an independent body and yet be permitted to say-this commission or whatever we may call it-how the people shall elect the members to this house is something on which I would require to have much more information before I could agree to it.
The only thing I do say is this. It is like divorce bills. If we could get rid of them, everybody would be happy. If we could get rid of this responsibility and could have as good a job done as has been done-except for the odd exception which has taken place in the last little while and which were common in the late 1800's and the early 1900's- then I would be prepared to go along with this bill. But at the present time I feel that our system is not too bad.
As I said before, it is not really a committee of the house; it is a conference of parties. I doubt whether any member of the C.C.F. party or of the Liberal party would allow any member of the Conservative party to get away with one thing with regard to changing boundaries which would mitigate against his chances of being elected. I think it is in that free interplay between the parties that honesty and perhaps the fairest type of redistribution is achieved.
(Translation):


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker,
I would just like to add a few remarks to those of the hon. members who spoke before me on the bill under review.
I want to start by summing up what I said last year on the matter.
I think it was mentioned a few moments ago that it would be well to proceed with the redistribution of ridings across Canada by having a more adequate urban representation or even by giving consideration to the areas where the urban population is more numerous.

I also believe, as I said last year, that the territories with huge natural wealth should be adequately represented in this house. As the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) said recently, it is true that those areas are sparsely populated or for the most part not settled at all, or even as they have often been called, just some area on a map.
It is also true that the greater part of those areas contain huge wealth and undeveloped natural resources and that they have as much right to be represented in this house as the more densely populated cities.
When the matter was discussed last year, I mentioned that since confederation, that is, since 1867, and up to 1952 there had been modifications in various constituencies according to an increase or decrease in population here and there across the country, and that there were barely 37 ridings that had not been affected by such changes.
This proves, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the committee, which sat on various occasions in order to study redistribution, did the job assigned to it as the necessity arose.
And apart from a few triflng exceptions, referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Vancouver South, particularly the suppression of the constituency of Lake Centre -as we all know-apart, as I say, from a few trifling exceptions, redistribution was carried out generally to the best knowledge of committee members and with the greatest possible consideration for the Canadian people as a whole.
Now, I should like to refer to some remarks made a moment ago by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), when his bill was introduced. He referred, among other things, to the view expressed by members from the province of Quebec, who were aware of the Tremblay commission report, that is, the provincial commission appointed to consider constitutional matters concerning the province of Quebec in particular.
I would like to point out some of those remarks which seem to come much nearer the view expressed, last year, by that same member in this house. This quotation concerns the hon. members for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm and for Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Delanaudiere (Messrs. Pigeon and Paul).
Here is what Mr. Fisher said, as recorded on page 3729 of Hansard:
I seem to have forgotten the hon. member for Joliette-L/Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who, along with the hon. member for Berthier-Maski-

nonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), concentrated on an argument which is very familiar to anyone who has watched the Quebec scene. In my opinion, the source of their argument can be found in the Tremblay report, in which the line of argument is strongly adopted that redistribution concerns one part of the British North America Act that requires provincial consultation. As a matter of fact, I think the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm adopted exactly the idea that is in the Tremblay report, that once the bases have been determined for general provincial representation, the whole problem should be handled by the province itself rather than the House of Commons. In my view this is an indefensible position, in that the House of Commons must continue to hold the right to set up, for example, this independent commission, and if the independent commission does not work, to make any other amendment or change that is necessary.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere was generally in favour of the idea of putting redistribution under a commission, but he did want this exception, that the commission should be determined on a provincial basis and the provincial authorities should enter into it.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told us a moment ago that the problem would have to be faced, despite the problems raised by hon. members from the province of Quebec. I would point out to him that under the constitution, if there is to be no increase in the number of seats, it would seem, in my humble view, that the house could have a committee look into the matter of redistributing the constituencies, as has been done in the past. I think we might let each province keep the same number of members. At that time, I think we would have to seek the consent of the provinces. I am no expert in this field, but I sincerely believe that under the constitution, the provinces have the same rights as the federal government when a major amendment is proposed; in any case, such proposals are almost invariably referred to the provinces, as in the case of the resolution put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) with regard to the term of office of judges, a resolution which is now on the order paper and should be passed shortly. I also understand that this amendment has been referred to provincial governments.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), raised another point when he mentioned in his bill that the matter could only be decided by an independent commission. I am inclined to share the view of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers), which was placed before the house last year by the hon. member for Port Arthur, on page 3730 of Hansard:
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George brought up a legal point as to whether or not the words ''independent commission" were really valid
British North America Act
because of the fact that parliament would always have the right to change a decision made some years ago about this section, and to change it or alter it at any time. In other words, you may set up an independent commission but it would not be there in perpetuity, so therefore it would not be an independent commission.
In other words, the question of the definition of the word "independent" is purely academic. Parliament always has control over a commission appointed by it. I feel that no commission should be completely independent since it is appointed by the people's representatives, and if those representatives do anything wrong they will be blamed for it and will be answerable for it to their constituents.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to make a suggestion in line perhaps with the proposals on the whole of the hon. member for Port Arthur, or which would meet with his approval.
I believe that the house already has the authority to create a parliamentary committee which, in the past, has studied this question of the representation, after each census. As the next census will be taken in 1961, the hon. member for Port Arthur seems to believe that it will be completed in time for the next general election, that is by the month of March. Should the next census be completed by the month of March, he thinks that the next election would take place before 1962. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South. However, on that matter, may I make other suggestions to the hon. member for Port Arthur. Since the creation of a commission or a committee is generally accepted, it seems to me that we should rather form a special commission which would be asked to study this question in the light of the result of the 1961 census. Besides that committee or special commission could be formed by the federal government in cooperation with the governments of the ten provinces. In any case, the ten provinces will have to agree unanimously to any amendment which would tend to change the present provisions of the British North America Act.
The commission could even do more than a simple redistribution, according to the movement of the population. It could be authorized to study the advisability of increasing the number of seats in the Canadian parliament, because of the increase of the population of Canada in general, especially since the last world war.
1048	HOUSE OF
British North America Act
Mr. Speaker, an increased number of seats in the House of Commons would also allow more adequate representation for certain of the larger cities and especially for important parts of our country where major developments will be taking place in the future, even if the population of those areas is not as large, being scattered over a vast territory, as in the case of my own constituency and of several other large ridings in Canada where the population is also scattered.
Because of the promising future of Canada and of its ever increasing population, it seems to me that the time has come to increase the number of members.
This committee could look over the situation in order to submit a report before the next general election, so that each province may at least keep the same number of members as at present.
Mr. Speaker, this brings my remarks to an end.
(Text):


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here hoping that the hon. member who has just spoken would continue until six o'clock. However, since this is the third time that this question has been before the house and at no time in the past have I taken any part in the debate, I intend to say a few words and I will continue until six o'clock.
I notice that the approach this session to this bill is somewhat different from the approach of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) a year ago. I must say that I agree with other hon. members when they compliment him on the amount of work he has put into this. I think there is considerable merit in this bill to be considered by the house.
I believe it is a question on which there are diversified opinions, and it is something which should be given a lot of consideration. Since hon. members may say that I am not very well qualified to speak on this as I come from one of the small provinces, and we are now at the minimum of our representation. At the same time, the suggestion put forward that no province should lose any more of their representation and that our representation should be carried out on a pro rata basis, I cannot agree with. In the first place, I think that a member who represents a rural constituency has far more work to do than a member who represents an urban 

constituency. There may be, and should be, possibly some consideration given as to where the ceiling should be on city or urban constituencies; but I do not think that the same percentage of representation for a member in the city as compared with a rural or country area should be anything like the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member so soon but it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business is for Monday and for as much of next week as he can indicate?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I think the business for the house was given last night. Monday will be private member's day. On Tuesday it was agreed that the external affairs debate would be continued. On Wednesday we will take government business, and the order will be announced on Monday night. On Thursday there is again a private member's day, and it is the intention to discuss the bill on capital punishment.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must protest against what happened last night in my absence with regard to the order of business. I say this with all deference to the hon. house leader with whom I have been getting along very well up till now.
I want to say that there was a clear-out agreement that on Monday we would have a supply motion, and I so indicated to our followers on this side of the house. So much so was that the case that when on Wednesday evening I asked the Prime Minister, in the house leader's absence, the business of the house, the Prime Minister indicated it would be announced next day. I went to him and in the presence of several of his colleagues said there was an agreement we should move to go into supply on Monday and that we were quite satisfied. That has been changed, as the government has a perfect right to do, but I must say that we have been inconvenienced by it.
I was also quite surprised to learn that the house leader made this statement- again in my absence last night, in dealing with the business for Thursday-as reported at page 994 of yesterday's Hansard:
The matter was left open as to what the opposition desired to do. The impression I gathered from him-
Meaning myself. I continue.
-was that he was not sure what their plan was.
It was not up to us to submit a plan. The position was simply this. I was asked to indicate whether we wanted a two-day debate.

My reply to the house leader was that I could not answer that question until the government made up its mind as to whether it wanted a vote. That is the way it stood. I am somewhat surprised that the house leader should have made the statement he did in my absence. If I had been here I certainly would have risen to correct him.
Business of the House Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate that the house leader is absent tonight and that the hon. member for Laurier was absent last night. These matters are arrangements over which I have no jurisdiction.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the Department of Transport control a pilotage service at Kingston?
2.	If so, how many men were on the payroll there?
3.	What was the total cost for (a) employees; (b) the entire service in 1959?
4.	In what ways did the service at Kingston differ from that at Sarnia and Port Weller, in so far as administration and qualification of employees?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	4.
3.	(a) $15,916.44. (b) $19,827.78 including the amount mentioned in (a) plus an undeterminable portion of the expenses of the superintendent's office at Montreal, which administers both the Kingston and Montreal pilotage districts.
4.	The employees at Kingston are dispatchers employed under the Civil Service Act. The employees at Port Weller are pilots employed under the prevailing rate regulations.


PILOTAGE SERVICE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Department of Transport have In Its pilotage or associated service in 1959 a Captain Crawford and a Mrs. Crawford?
2.	If so, what remuneration did they each receive?
3.	Did the department pay for any pilot office owned or controlled by Captain Crawford, in 1959? If so, what amount?
4.	Under what arrangement did the department use such pilot office?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Captain Crawford only.
2.	Captain Crawford was engaged as a pilot and received the same remuneration as the other pilots in Port Weller-Sarnia area, namely $950 per month.
3 and 4. No. Captain Crawford undertook to operate a dispatching office at his home pending the setting up of a departmental dispatching office. The question of compensation for this service has not yet been settled.


PILOT SERVICE, SARNIA AND PORT WELLER
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Department of Transport institute employment in 1959 on a pilot's boat at Sarnia and at Port Weller and for any other jobs connected with pilotage at these places?
2.	If so, were these ports advertised previous to hirings and, when and where?
3. How many applications were received for the posts relating to the superintendent's job at Port Weller?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


PILOTAGE SERVICE, GREAT LAKES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Department of Transport institute a pilotage service on the great lakes during the 1959 shipping season?
2.	If so, what was the cost of this service in terms of payment to pilots, administrative expenses including cost of pilot boats, transportation costs of pilots?
3.	What was the cost to the government of the pilot boats at Sarnia and at Port Weller in 1958 and in 1959?
4.	How many pilots were hired in 1959; what were their names; where were they stationed; how much did they earn?
5.	What fees did the government collect from its pilotage service in the great lakes?
6.	What was the difference between the income and expense of this service?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transpori):
1.	Yes,
2.	$348,428.00, plus an undeterminable amount for travelling expenses of headquarters officers and administration costs absorbed in the headquarters vote.
3.	Nil.
4.
Port Weller-Sarnia Pilotage Area (1959 Navigation Season)
Regular pilots	Total
Employed	Earnings
McCutcheon, S. L		.$5,782.42
Corson, J. K		7,272.50
Somers, N. L		7,272.50
Cole, C. H		7,272.50
McAvoy, F. W		7,272.50
Bowie, J. W		7,272.50
Stepehens, G. E		7,272.50
Ramsay, A		7,272.50
Simpson, R. F		7,272.50
McGowan, J. L		7,272.50
Anderson, J. R		6,940.73
Tully, C. E		7,272.50
Kake, V. W		7,272.50
Malette, E		7,272.50
Welland, R. O		7,272.50
McLean, A. G		6,691.46
Wilson, T		7,272.50
Andrews, J. M		7,096.57
Crawford, L. H		7,272.50
Perry, J. B		6,930.93
Hawthorne, G. E		7,126.35
Brown, E. M		7,126.39
Beatty, G. E		6,915.04
Simpson, W. G		7,126.35

Regular pilots	Total
Employed	Earnings
Reid, R. A		...$7,053.31
Tetrault, P. A		... 7,089.88
Parker, W. J		. .. 7,037.03
Leaney, J. B		... 7,089.81
Green, E. L		... 7,053.25
Pilots employed	
on a casual basis	
McCurdy, R. M		, . . .$6,943.69
McGillis, A		, ... 2,778.50
Paiement, S		.... 1,115.40
Dishaw, F. J			. . .. 6,859.69
Cote, C. E			 6,999.05
McCutcheon, L. A		. ... 7,016.77
Gignac, J			.... 986.58
Sisty, S			.... 6,926.10
McCutcheon, E			 6,926.10
Welland, A. E			 6,816.48
Weegar, C. J				 6,779.91
Lindsay, John 		. .. . 4,492.89
Lowe, J. H			 6,671.32
Stevenson, R. A			 6,560.70
Girard, G			 6,145.02
Lindsay, J. R			 621.16
Hughes, B			 822.06
Macintosh, J. E			 1,826.82
Robinson, F. A			 5,379.26
Graham, C. A			 5,088.94
Vail, R. E			 4,222.19
Somes, C			4,187.03
5. $467,875.00.	
6. $119,447.00 less an	undeterminable
amount, as mentioned in part 2.



GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of Transport received any representations, orally or written, on great lakes pilotage from the Shipping Federation of Canada since January 1, 1959?
2.	If so, on what dates, in what form, and to what effect?
3.	Has the department ever given the shipping federation any authority or approval for it to present the views of the government of Canada on pilotage to any United States congressional committee?
4.	If not, has the government made any representations of any kind to the Shipping Federation of Canada regarding the statements made by Shipping Federation of Canada spokesman before the United States congressional subcommittee on coast guard, coast and geodetic survey and navigation, on May 19 and 20th of 1959 in Washington, D.C.?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	(1) Letter January 14, 1959-Urging the department to reveal its intention with regard to the possible action in the formation of a pilotage service between Port Weller and Sarnia.
(2) Letter August 2, 1959-Expressing dissatisfaction with the latest version of U.S. bill HR. 57.
Questions
(3) Letters December 15, 1959 and December 28, 1959, and telegram of December 30, 1959, which were supplemented by discussions with members of the pilotage committee of the Shipping Federation of Canada, covered the following main points:
(a)	that the objective of legislation in respect of pilotage on the great lakes should be: (i) to ensure the safety of navigation of all ships plying the lakes, and (ii) to provide efficient, economical and workable pilotage services for the ocean vessels that are required to use such services.
(b)	that the latest U.S. draft bill is unsatisfactory in the following main respects: (i) it fails to designate the restricted waters of the great lakes which should be limited to five specified areas, (ii) that it should provide for the licensing or certification of the ship itself rather than the licensing or certification of persons to permit navigation in the open waters of the lakes, and (iii) that it does not satisfy the federation's requirement that if they have to use pilots in the open waters, they should be assured that those pilots are adequately qualified.
The foregoing communications also raised certain questions of detail which do not change the main issues.
3.	No.
4.	Yes. On May 29, 1959 in a meeting with the pilotage committee of the Shipping Federation of Canada.



GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE-RESOLUTIONS OF DOMINION MARINE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of Transport received,
since January 1,	1959, any resolutions of the
Dominion Marine Association, either singly or jointly with the Lake Carriers Association, giving its views on pilotage in the great lakes?
2.	If so. on what date or dates were these resolutions received?
2.	If so, on what date or dates were these resolutions received?
3.	What did the resolutions state?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	No.
2,	3. Answered by No. 1.



SAULT STE. MARIE AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Nixon: 1.	What are the names and addresses of those who submitted tenders for the construction of the Sault Ste. Marie airport, and the amount of their respective tenders?
2.	Did each of these tenders cover the same specifications?
3.	Has the contractor carried out the work thus far according to the original specifications?
4.	When was the work to be completed according to the contract?
5.	Is it up to schedule? If not, for what reason?
6.	When will tenders for terminal be called?
7.	When is the airfield scheduled to be ready for use?

Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Michaud & Simard Inc., Quebec, P.Q. . Standard Paving & Materials Ltd.,
Toronto, Ontario	
H. J. McFarland Construction Co., Picton,
Ontario	
Cart Paving Company Ltd., Toronto,
Ontario	
Curran & Briggs Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. Rayner Construction Ltd., Toronto,
Ontario	
Armstrong Brothers Company Ltd.,
Brampton, Ontario	
North Shore Construction Co. Ltd., Monttreal, P.Q	
Towland Construction Ltd., London,
Ontario	
Warren Bituminous Paving Co. Ltd.,
Downsview, Ontario	
Miller Paving Ltd., Toronto, Ontario .. McNamara Construction Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario	
Les Constructions du St-Laurent Ltee.,
Beauport, P.Q	
Johnson Brothers Co. Ltd., Brantford,
Ontario	
C. A. Pitts General Constractor Ltd., Toronto, Ontario	
Wood posts $1,891,845.30	Steel posts $1,894,720.30
1,899,235.80	1,894,060.80
1,962,694.75	1,965,194.75
2,127,972.75 2,231,223.10	2,130,097.75 2,237,273.10
2,248,274.85	2,247,274.85
2,263,364.75	2,265,639.75
2,325,930.50	2,338,430.50
2,335,912.75	2,340,162.75
2.340.506.25 2.340.281.25	2.343.881.25 2.344.281.25
2,382,681.00	2,393,481.00
2,390,379.11	2,402,879.11
2,617,713.10	2,619,663.10
2,696,019.00	2,670,019.00
Note: Alternate tenders were requested for the use of wooden posts for the fencing or steel posts.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	October 31, 1959.
5.	This contract is ten (10) months (including winter weather) behind schedule due in part to the death of a principal member of the contracting firm at a critical period in the job, and also due to wet organic soil conditions which the contractor had not fully realized he had to contend with.
6.	It is expected tenders for the terminal building will be called in the fall of 1960.
7.	No scheduled date has been determined with air lines for use, but it is anticipated they may use it in 1961.



CANADA-U.K.  RECIPROCAL SOCIAL SECURITY AGREEMENTS

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has any agreement been concluded between the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom in the matter of reciprocal arrangements regarding social security benefits?
2.	If so, was such an arrangement first presented to parliament for discussion and consideration? If not, for what reason?
3.	What is the significance, if any, of correspondence exchanged in the matter of social security benefits between the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom, as recently tabled?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	The provision of social security benefits under Canadian and United Kingdom laws to persons making application for benefit in one country who have resided for a period of time in the other country has been the subject of an exchange of correspondence between the United Kingdom high commissioner to Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The details of the arrangements made are set out in the correspondence which was tabled in the house on January 22, 1960.
2.	Reference to the aforementioned correspondence will make it clear that no new responsibilities in respect of social security have been assumed by Canada which would require any change in existing legislation; nor will any benefit payments be made to persons under Canadian laws as a result of the arrangements made in this correspondence which are not already authorized under the existing laws. While there was, in consequence, no necessity to refer this matter to parliament, nor to seek parliamentary authority for any legislative change, copies of the correspondence containing full details of the

arrangements that have been worked out were tabled as soon as possible after the opening of parliament.
3.	By arrangements set out in that correspondence, it will now be possible for persons in the United Kingdom, formerly resident in Canada, to qualify, subject to certain conditions, for United Kingdom family allowances, retirement pension and unemployment benefit by virtue of their previous residence or employment in Canada.
After making a detailed study of the residence and other conditions of eligibility contained in Canadian legislation (respecting family allowances, old age security, old age assistance, blindness and disability allow-
Questions
ances, unemployment insurance and hospital insurance), the United Kingdom authorities came to the conclusion that, without any changes in the Canadian laws as presently constituted, they would be justified in relaxing certain of the requirements of their own legislation in favour of persons coming or returning to the United Kingdom with earlier periods of residence in Canada. The Canadian government for its part has undertaken that it will keep the United Kingdom advised of any changes which may be made by parliament from time to time affecting the position under Canada's social welfare laws of persons from other countries who come to settle in Canada.

Monday, February 15, 1960