1960-03-02

Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Last evening while I was dealing with the winter works program, I was interrupted, as usual, by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay). At one point, I did not quite catch what he had said, but this morning, on going over Hansard, I find on page 1690 (page 4 of the appendix) that he said this:


Mr. Tremblay:: Yes. Is it for that reason that the hon. member is trying to protect certain very dubious individuals in my constituency? Criminals?
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever protected any criminals, and have no intention of doing so either now or in the future. That remark on the part of the hon. member is a reflection on my good name as member of the House of Commons and I would ask that you kindly request the member for Roberval to withdraw those words.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises today a question of privilege arising out of something that was said last night. Normally that would not be in order. Questions of privilege which arise in this way in the course of debate must be taken up at once. After they have become a matter of record it is rather late. The hon. member indicates that he did not hear what was said at the time. I am not sure whether there is any real reflection on the hon. member involved in what was said, but as he has complained I will give the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) an opportunity to comment on it.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, last evening, when the member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) was making a speech on the employment situation in Canada, he took the liberty of referring to my riding, to which I obviously cannot object. However, I pointed out to him-and my remark took the form of a question-"Is it for that reason that the hon. member is trying to protect certain very dubious individuals in my constituency?"
That is exactly what I said. I said it because I had reasons for doing so, and I undertake to state in the house, when we take up the items of the Department of Justice, what I had in mind.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the member has cast reflections upon my personal good name and I demand that he withdraw his words.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the hon. member in the first instance. I doubt that there is sufficient cause for complaint in what he said. I will not direct the hon. member to do something which he does not wish to do voluntarily.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on this question of privilege and point out to you that yesterday I had to withdraw a statement made under exactly the same circumstances when, in asking a question of the Chairman, I insinuated that he was using two different weights and measures as between the opposition and the government. When the Chairman asked me what I meant by that I afterwards told him that the insinuation was not one on the Chair, and I withdrew it. What the hon. member for Roberval has done now is to say that he asked a question as to whether or not the hon. member for Lapointe was protecting criminals. If that is not by insinuation a reflection on the hon. member's reputation, then I do not know what it is, sir. I think it is a point which is well taken, and I wish Your Honour would take some action on it. Perhaps Your Honour might wish to take it under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give some thought to the remark which is complained of, particularly since there is no motion or other matter on which we can proceed now.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement about the participation of the government in world refugee year through the admission of tuberculous refugees and their families to Canada.
I am pleased to report that the 100 families already admitted have shown a remarkable ability to integrate rapidly into Canadian
1640	HOUSE OF
Admission of Refugees
society. Some of the tuberculous cases have already been discharged from hospital and, with the modern methods of treatment available in Canada, it appears that most of the remaining cases will be discharged within the next two months. Few of the refugees afflicted with this illness will require prolonged treatment. It is also evident that all but a handful of the refugee families will become almost entirely self-supporting within two or three months.
I should like to stress that the choice of the 100 families which have been admitted was left entirely to the high commissioner for refugees. The government was prepared to accept the most serious cases should the high commissioner have thought it helpful to move them from their present locations in Europe.
This project for the admission of tuberculous refugees involved many novel problems for the Canadian authorities. Accordingly it was decided that at the outset the number of families to be admitted should be limited so that an appreciation of the precise problems could be obtained. Since a workable procedure has now been developed for rehabilitating these families, and since the period of treatment and integration has proved shorter than originally estimated, the government has decided to authorize the admission of additional families.
Tuberculous refugees in European camps have various destinations in mind for emigration, and the number wishing to come to Canada is not unlimited. Our representative in Geneva is now consulting with the high commissioner for refugees concerning the availability of additional numbers for inclusion in an extension of the original scheme.
Statements which have been made by representatives of several provinces lead us to believe that a number of provinces are prepared to join with the federal government in an extension of the original program on _ a basis similar to that which was worked out in connection with the first 100 families.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will agree that by originating and extending the program for admission of tuberculous refugees, Canada is making a substantial contribution toward the solution of one of the most difficult aspects of the refugee problem, which is the resettlement of the "hard core" cases.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will welcome the decision of the federal government to add to its responsibilities in respect of the admission of handicapped and tubercular refugees. I hope every effort will be made with the provincial


governments in so organizing things that this desirable movement may be carried out as far as possible, and that we will continue to do our share in liquidating this problem which has been with us now for so many years.
I would also express the hope that in considering the admission of additional refugees the government might not restrict the number to refugees in Europe, but that if cases can be found in Asia which are admissible in this category-there will be no discrimination against those cases from there.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of months we in this group have been indicating that Canada should be more lenient in taking a larger number of refugees into our country. Therefore we are particularly pleased with the attitude taken and the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
He mentioned that some provinces appear to be prepared to go along with the announcement. I express the hope that some consultation has already taken place. This was one objection raised by Saskatchewan to the procedure that has been taken although, as I am sure the minister will agree, Saskatchewan was most pleased to co-operate in this undertaking. As the minister is no doubt aware, the Commonwealth of Australia has been most lenient in its immigration policy, much more so than our country, and we welcome the minister's announcement today.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is there provision within the NATO infrastructure for competition bidding from member countries on any contracts for equipment and supplies?
2.	If so, have Canada and Canadian companies entered any bids for such contracts in the past five years?
3.	How many bids were made each year and how many to what value, for what items, by what companies, were successful?
4.	What was the total value each year for the contracts let within the NATO infrastructure?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes; to the second part, yes; and to the third as follows. The Department of Trade and Commerce has notified Canadian companies of opportunities to bid but does not receive details of all bids submitted. As the host countries are not compelled to report results of bids received, complete information is not available. For the year 1955 there were no bids by Canadian companies. In 1956 there was one in connection with a pipe line installation. In 1957

Starred Questions
there were no bids, in 1958 two bids and in (R.C.). On January 1, 1960, A/C F. W. Mac-1959 four bids. These were in connection Lean, who was formerly deputy chaplain with communication equipment. As NATO general and director of religious administra-security regulations do not permit naming the tion R.C.A.F. (P.) was appointed chaplain successful bidder or the location of the general (P.) succeeding Brig. J. W. Forth. On project, we are unable to provide the other February 22, 1960 A/C L. A. Costello, who information asked for in question No. 3. was formerly deputy chaplain general and As to question No. 4, the total value of director of religious administration R.C.A.F. contracts let each year is not available, but (R.C.), was appointed chaplain general (R.C.) the over-all total expenditure to December succeeding Rev. R. MacLean.
31, 1959, is $1,540 million.



POSTAL RATES ON NEWSPAPERS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence a chaplain or chaplains' service?
2.	If so, what officers at what ranks hold the senior post or posts in such service or services?
3.	What changes, if any, at what date have been made in personnel holding such posts, or in the line of authority immediately below such posts since June 30, 1957?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The answer to the first part is yes. To the second part the answer is as follows: Air Commodore F. W. MacLean, chaplain general, Protestant, and Air Commodore L. A. Costello, chaplain general, Roman Catholic. The answer to part 3 contains a list of names which, if the questioner will permit and the house will agree, I will have placed on Hansard at this point to save reading it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it a long list?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to permit this list to be inserted in Hansard at this point without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer to part 3 is as follows: 1
Personnel holding the senior posts in the chaplain service since June 30, 1957, are as follows:
At June 30, 1957.
Rev. E. G. B. Foote-chaplain of the fleet P.)
Col. J. W. Forth-director of chaplain services (P.)
G./C. F. W. MacLean-director of religious administration (P.)
Rev. R. MacLean-chaplain of the fleet (R.C.)
Col. H. R. C. Charlebois-director of chaplain services (R.C.)
G./C. L. A. Costello-director of religious administration (R.C.)
On September 22, 1958, following the announcement concerning integration in the chaplain service, Brig. J. W. Forth was appointed chaplain general (P.) and Rev. R. MacLean was appointed chaplain general


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Have any studies or estimates been made by the post office in the last decade to determine what loss or profit is involved to the department in carrying newspapers at the present rate?
2.	If so, when, and what was the substance of the studies, conclusions or the estimates of the loss or the profit?
3.	What was the volume of such mailing during 1958 and 1959, and the total income received from it?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes, in relation to the mail classification second class matter, newspapers and periodicals.
2.	During the fiscal year 1958-59, based on the department's calculations, the estimated excess of disbursements over receipts amounted to $21,690,000 for newspapers and periodicals.
3.	Fiscal
year Volume	Revenue
1957-	58 521,901,000 pieces $6,256,369
1958-	59 531,149,000 pieces $6,189,125



C.N.R. SURVEYS, NORTHERN CANADA

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways conducted any surveys for a railway extension from Hazelton, British Columbia northward to Alaska or the Yukon Territory?
2.	If so, does the survey indicate that such a railway extension is feasible?
3.	Does the Canadian National Railways plan to build such an extension?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: In connection with this question, the management of the Canadian National Railways have advised me as follows:
1.	In view of the announced interest of the province of British Columbia in the line of railway north of the Yukon-Alaska border, the Canadian National Railways has given some preliminary consideration as to whether advantage might be taken of the existing Canadian National line, in particular the branch-off toward the north from the vicinity of Hazelton.
2.	The detailed survey on the ground of a route north from Hazelton has not been

Starred Questions
made, but preliminary reconnaissance indicates the feasibility of the Hazelton area as a point of boundary for a line northward.
3.	The Canadian National Railways does not plan to build such an extension but has indicated it would be prepared to give consideration to some arrangement with other interests for the use of the existing C.N.R. line as part of northern railway development.



UPLANDS AIRPORT-TERMINAL BUILDING DAMAGE, 1959

Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What was the total amount of the damage to the new terminal building under construction at Uplands airport, caused by an F-104 aircraft on or about August 5, 1959?
2.	What was the purpose of the demonstration flight which caused the damage?
3.	How long has the opening of the terminal been delayed as a result?
4.	From what parliamentary vote is money being drawn to pay for the repairs?


George Harris Hees: The answer to part 1 is $450,000 as at present determined.
As to part 2, arrangements were made with the United States air force to demonstrate the F-104 aircraft on August 6, 1959 at Uplands air station before government officials and visiting minister of defence of Belgium. On the day prior to the demonstration, shock damage was caused to the air terminal building during a preliminary flight of this aircraft.
With regard to part 3, as of now the opening has been delayed some five months and it is anticipated it will take another three or four months to complete all necessary repairs.
The answer to part 4 is R.C.A.F. operation and maintenance.



WIND TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Does the government of Canada have under construction a wind tunnel designed to test supersonic aircraft?
2.	If so, what will the total cost be?
3.	What is the total value of contracts awarded to date?
4.	For what purpose is the wind tunnel to be used when it is completed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: 1.	A wind tunnel is being constructed with a working section 5 feet square and operating at subsonic, transonic, or supersonic wind speeds. It is designed to permit the testing of models appropriate for basic and applied aerodynamic research.
2.	The estimated total cost of the project is $9 million of which the wind tunnel itself will cost $4,163,885, excluding cost of buildings, foundations and design.

3.	The total value of contracts awarded to date is $8,031,639.
4.	The wind tunnel will be used by the national research council for basic research work in experimental aerodynamics.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce relating to his answer to my question No. 37. I wonder if the minister could advise the house the further purposes of the basic research to be carried out by the national research council, since this wind tunnel was originally designed to test the Avro Arrow CF-105 and the Canadian government is no longer interested in the development of supersonic aircraft.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the hon. member is misinformed when he says the wind tunnel was designed for the purpose he mentions. It was designed for basic research in aerodynamics and it will be used for that purpose. We have research commitments to the commonwealth advisory aeronautical research council and to the advisory group for aeronautical research and development of NATO. This is part of our share of the cost of doing basic research in this field.



FREE PORK OFFER

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the federal government made an offer of free pork?
2.	If so, who Is eligible to take up such an offer?
3.	To whom and in what quantities has pork been disposed of through this system?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisler of Agriculture):: The answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 is that pork was offered to Canadian charitable and other institutions eligible for sales tax rebates and to the provincial governments for distribution through local welfare organizations in their respective provinces. Pork was also offered to international relief organizations such as CARE.
The answer to part 3 is that as of February 12, in Canada, to provincial governments, welfare organizations, individual institutions and federal departments, there had been distributed, 5,105,634 pounds; and to international welfare organizations, 8,099,138 puonds. As of February 27, the amount distributed for relief in Canada had climbed to 7,089,426 pounds.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. Speakman (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to ask of the Minister of Agriculture a question arising out of his reply to starred

question No. 38. Will the minister ensure that welfare organizations and other recipients of these gifts of pork are advised that this is a gift of the government at Ottawa and not of provincial governments, since this is an inference that can be drawn, as is the case in certain provinces, by the methods used in distribution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think hon. members will realize that I have no control over the actions of the provinces. I believe it is well understood that this pork was made available by the taxpayers of Canada for distribution in needy cases. Distribution is in the hands of welfare organizations and of the provincial governments. The provincial governments, particularly, look after welfare cases-pensioners and people of that kind-and if the impression has been given in some provinces that the province has donated the pork, that is something which I hardly have the means to prevent.



PUBLIC WORKS DREDGE 128    DISMISSAL OF VETERAN

Mr. Bourgei: 1.	Has a request been made to the Prime Minister for a special investigation into the dismissal of a Hong Kong veteran from the department of public works, dredge no. 128?
2.	If so, has such an investigation been authorized and what are its findings?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	The man concerned is Cecil DeVouge. He was employed during the 1957 dredging season but was not reemployed the following season because his performance failed to meet departmental standards.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, following the answer given by the Minister of Public Works to starred question No. 40, would the minister explain what he meant by saying that the man concerned did not meet departmental standards?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer means exactly and precisely what it says.


Maurice Bourget: I do not think that is an answer to the question I asked, Mr. Speaker. Does it mean, then, that the new departmental standards are to the effect that to keep your job you have to be a Tory?


Mr. Speaker:: The question seems to be out of order, but as it has been asked I am not going to prevent the minister from replying if he wishes to do so.
Starred Questions


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, unlike the last government this government approaches these matters differently. This man was discharged for gross incompetency, a fact which I did not want to proclaim from the housetops. However, gross incompetency may by something my hon. friend would not consider a reason.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister to give one instance where a man had been discharged for political activity. Can he give one instance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: The minister should not make such a statement without proof.


Mr. Graffiey:: Remember 1935; we do.


George Harris Hees: Ask Jimmy Gardiner.


Lionel Chevrier: You were in diapers then.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi needs time to cool down, perhaps he can find it outside the chamber. I think hon. members will agree that we cannot conduct the business of the house if everybody talks at once and members attempt to carry on long interruptions from their seats.



SHANNON PARK NAVAL HOUSING PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Hellyer:
1.	Has construction commenced on a shopping centre at the naval housing project known as Shannon Park?
2.	If not, what is the reason for the delay?
George Randolph Pearkes: The answer to the first part is that a contract for site improvement, excavation and laying foundations has been awarded by Commercial Developments (Maritimes) Limited. I understand that work has commenced on this contract.
The answer to the second part is that, as the hon. member knows, the original developer had financial difficulties and that, coupled with drainage problems, has resulted in a delay in the construction of this centre.



MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Pickersgill:
1.	Since July 1, 1954, were there any occasions when "the regular monthly statement of the government's financial operations" was not issued?
2.	If so, what were the months in each year for which the statement was not issued?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	1955, March; 1956, March; 1957, March; 1958, March; 1959, February, March.

Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Carter: 1.	What was the cost to the government of its share toward civil service pensions for the calendar year 1959?
2.	What amount was paid by the government in 1959 for pensions to retired (a) government officials; (b) civil servants; (c) members of armed services; (d) any other government retired persons?
3.	How many former civil service employees are receiving pensions?


TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did any boards, commissions, corporations or any other authorities of this government hold public hearings since January 1, 1959?
2.	If so, which ones, on what dates, for what purposes?
3.	At any of such hearings, was a transcript of evidence, official or otherwise, permitted?
4.	If so, at which hearings?
5.	Which of such transcripts, official or otherwise, were printed or mimeographed, and available to the public for free examination at the particular authority or for sale by the queen's printer?
6.	What private firms, if any. took official or unofficial transcripts of such hearings?
7.	If any boards, commissions, corporation or any other authorities of this government bought such transcripts from private firms, what price did they pay for each or for any series?


ALMONTE, ONT.  UNDERGROUND COMMUNICA- TIONS SYSTEM
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Have any expenditures been made by the Department of National Defence on an underground communications system near Almonte?
2.	If so, in what amount?
3.	Were any contracts awarded for such an underground development?
4.	If so, to which companies, in what amount for each such contract and for what purpose?
5.	Have any buildings been erected? If so, for what purpose?
6.	Are they now in use? If not, are they to be destroyed?
7.	Were any guarantees or termination allowances made to any company in connection with this project?
8.	If so, in what amounts, to which companies?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: While I am on my feet I should like to take this opportunity to table the list of returns to orders that were outstanding at the opening Of the present session.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I
ask the Acting Secretary of State if he will be good enough to ask the consent of the house to have this list of outstanding returns appended to Hansard of today?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Léon Balcer: The list is tabled.


On the orders of the day:


Chesley William Carter: May I
repeat my question to the Acting Secretary of State; I was not clear as to what his reply meant. My question is, would the minister be good enough to seek the consent of the house to have the list of the orders for returns which he tabled today appended to today's Hansard?


Léon Balcer: I do not see any special advantage in that course. I am following the practice which was established last year. If the hon. member wishes to have any information, this list is in the hands of the Clerk and can be consulted at any time.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr. Roberge (for Mr. Dupuis):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the city of St. Jean, province of Quebec, or its representatives, and the Minister of Transport, the board of transport commissioners, or any other federal agency, concerning the installation of a signal system at level crossings in the city of St. Jean.
George Harris Hees: My department has been in touch with the hon. member. It is my understanding that he has agreed to put a date limitation of 1957 on the answers which are required. With that consideration in mind there is no objection to passing this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the order be made accordingly? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as amended?
Motion as amended agreed to.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization council and Canada as a member of that council were consulted before the decision was made to fly in the corridors to Berlin above the 10,000-foot level.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that a decision to that effect has not yet actually been made, and so far as I know there has been no discussion of the question in the North Atlantic council.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the
Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether Canada agrees with the reported decision by Britain, namely that to take such action as has already been referred to is not really firmness in the cold war but counteraggressiveness?


Howard Charles Green: I think I would not be helping to bring about a proper settlement of this difficult question by making any statement today.


REPORTED DECISION TO ESTABLISH MOBILE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising out of a press report to the effect that the NATO commander in Europe stated that the allies had decided to establish a mobile task force to deal with any military emergency, such force to be equipped with both conventional and nuclear weapons.
My question is, was Canada consulted about this decision and has Canada agreed to participate in this force, which has been referred to by General Norstad as a fire brigade?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Possibly I could answer that question. NATO, in addition to having the capability of waging full scale war, must be prepared to react instantly and in appropriate strength to other aggression against NATO territory.
Our officials have been advised of the intention of the supreme allied commander to organize an air transportation force of several battalions for the latter purpose. It is understood that initially the force would be composed of French, United Kingdom and United States troops supported by transport aircraft from the same countries. This force can be augmented by additional battalions if required.
While Canada has been informed of the intention to form this mobile force, we were not requested to participate, nor is it anticipated that Canada will be requested to do so. The house will remember that our ground forces are limited to one brigade group, which it is considered should operate as a complete tactical formation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. My question is based on a telegram
Inquiries of the Ministry received from the town clerk of Glace Bay in which is requested a review by the government of the employment situation at the Point Edward naval base. My question is this. Will the Minister of National Defence authorize a review of the employment at Point Edward naval base to meet the request made by the town council of Glace Bay, and with the object in mind of finding ways of continuing employment?


George Randolph Pearkes: I reported about a week ago that another government vessel is moving into the Point Edward naval base for refit in the middle of March.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Gloucester. In view of the answer given to me on Friday last in reply to a similar question, by the Associate Minister of National Defence, and in view of the reply which was given today, would the minister assure the house that these men will be allowed to continue in employment at least until the investigation spoken of by the associate minister is completed?


George Randolph Pearkes: The associate minister will be back in the house tomorrow. I suggest that the hon. gentleman ask him this question.



ST. CATHARINES, ONT.    REPORTED CLOSING OF FACTORY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister noticed reports in the press in the last two days to the effect that a long-established factory in St. Catharines, Ontario, is to close by the end of the year, laying off 500 employees? If so, because of his interest in providing employment will his department be in contact with the industry and the union to arrange for the establishment of a new industry, or to take care of those who are laid off?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member is going rather far afield in saying that it is the responsibility of the minister to establish a new industry everywhere an old industry closes. If this is a matter of general unemployment, we are shortly to resume the debate on that subject and I suggest that the hon. member take up his point in that debate.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a very good reason for raising it now, in view of the request of the minister for constructive suggestions.

Inquiries of the Ministry I therefore asked the minister if he had taken notice of the fact that this factory is to close.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have an opportunity to make constructive suggestions as soon as the house proceeds to the debate to which I made reference.


Harold Edward Winch: I made the suggestion in my last speech, so I should not have to do it again.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the serious oil pollution of the coastal and offshore waters of Newfoundland, which is destroying thousands of sea birds which form a part of the diet of many of our people, would the minister advise the house whether the government has any plans to meet this problem of pollution.


Howard Charles Green: I am not at all sure that these sea birds come under my jurisdiction. However, I realize that this is a very serious problem in Newfoundland, and I shall be glad to make inquiries on behalf of the hon. member.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him to advise the house when we may expect the document "Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook for 1960" to be tabled.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it will be tabled tomorrow.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell us whether any consideration is being given in his department to extending a moratorium, in so far as loans under the National Housing Act are concerned, to those holding mortgages on their homes at Elliot Lake?


David James Walker: All these matters, particularly those affecting Elliot Lake, are constantly under consideration by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation over which my department has jurisdiction. The hon. gentleman will be glad to know that so far there have been no defaults in connection with loans made by the C.M.H.C. in the direction he has indicated; everything is in very good order.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: A supplementary question. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to an article on the front page of yesterday's Sudbury Star which points out that the first eight of the 2,000 keys to these homes have already been turned in and the owners have left; and that the department is asking its lawyers to look into the cases of the eight people who have left?


David James Walker: My attention was drawn to this report a few minutes ago, and I can assure the hon. member that the report is false.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether the government intends to bring in a bill to amend the Criminal Code in so far as capital punishment is concerned, in accordance with the statement made by the hon. member for Parkdale in Hamilton on February 29 when he said that the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough now being debated by the Commons would be defeated, but added "I am sure the government will introduce legislation taking into account the views which have been expressed."


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: On a point of order, it is not permitted to read extracts from papers, or comments from here and there, and ask ministers if they wish to comment on them.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not ask anyone to comment on it. I simply asked the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of privilege. I am speaking on a point of privilege, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I will try to get this sorted out. I heard the Minister of Justice on a point of order, and I expect the hon. member for Laurier would like to say something on



I960

[Stage Direction]
the point of order. I believe the Minister of Justice has not yet finished making his point of order.
Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should restate the point briefly. In my understanding of the rules it is not proper to ask questions based upon extracts from newspapers, whether those extracts refer to statements by individuals or whether they contain editorial or other opinions. My point is that the hon. member asking the question must ask his question and not quote somebody else in the course of asking it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order let me say it would be very easy for me to quote all sorts of precedents from the Minister of Justice when he sat on this side of the house, in connection with this type of question. As to the second point, I wish to say that the minister, as usual, did not listen to the question because the question, as it was put in the first place, was not based on an article. I simply put the question to the Prime Minister and asked him first of all-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am quite satisfied that the question up to the point where the hon. member began to refer to the other statement is complete in itself. If the hon. member would let it stand at that we might get on with it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I have an answer from the Prime Minister?


John George Diefenbaker: What was the question, Mr. Speaker?


Lionel Chevrier: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was not listening any more than the Minister of Justice was.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked for the question, not a speech.


Lionel Chevrier: I asked the question once and I will ask it a second time. It is this. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation amending the Criminal Code in connection with capital punishment, as indicated by the hon. member for Parkdale in a statement made in Hamilton?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the matter is one of government policy which will be announced in due course.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to be answered by either the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the Secretary of
Inquiries of the Ministry State. My question has to do with motion No. 9 asking for the tabling of correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of New Brunswick in connection with the East St. John thermal plant, which motion was adopted in this house on February 3, subject to the usual limitations.
My question is this. Has permission been sought from the government of New Brunswick to table these documents?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. My reason for asking the question is that a similar motion was introduced in the legislature in Fredericton yesterday, and the premier of the province said he had sought permission from Ottawa.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, since the legislation was announced in the speech from the throne, he has received any protests from any Indian chiefs or councillors regarding the proposal to give the franchise to Indians; and if so, what reply has been made?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have received protests, and I will have to take the rest of the question as notice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite satisfactory.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has referred to me a question asked by the hon. member for Laurier on Friday, February 26, concerning the legislation recently proposed in the United States Senate with regard to cargo aircraft. Hon. members will be aware from the discussions which took place in this house last week that the purpose of the legislation in question would be to provide government guaranteed loans to United States air carriers for the purchase of such aircraft.

Inquiries of the Ministry As my colleague the Minister of Defence Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Production stated last week, this legislation Minister): I think that is an admirable sug-has been followed closely by the Canadian gestion, Mr. Speaker, government. I can assure the hon. member
that our representatives will continue to keep	SUPPLY
abreast of the situation and will take all	The house in committee of supply, Mr. appropriate steps to safeguard the Canadian Flynn in the chair_ interest in this matter.	'



SUGGESTED CONFERENCE AND STUDY OF OLYMPIC GAMES SITE

[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. In view of the fact that the world figure skating championships are presently being held in Vancouver; in view of the fact that members of the international Olympic committee are presently there and, among other things, are inspecting the Garibaldi park area as a possible future winter Olympics site, and in view of the tremendous interest in this matter in British Columbia, could the minister appoint someone in his office to (a) confer with and receive representations from international Olympic committee members and (b) study and make an early report on proposed Olympic site areas in western Canada?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker,
this matter was raised in the house some two weeks ago, at which time I indicated that representations had been received from the Calgary, Banff and Lake Louise districts on the subject of holding the winter Olympic games in that area. Since that time I understand there has been a suggestion made that the winter games be held in 1968 in the Garibaldi park area north of Vancouver.
In reply to the hon. member I should say I would be very glad to hear representations from any groups in any part of Canada on this subject.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO OLYMPIC CONTESTANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, and I am sure there will be no objection to it. I have read in the newspapers that the Prime Minister is to attend the banquet to be given by Ottawa to the Olympic ski champion. I ask him whether he would convey not his own personal congratulations but the congratulations of all members of the House of Commons to the Olympic medal winners and all the contestants.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Special services
[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 first day of December, 1959, to the thirtieth day of April, 1960, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $15,000,000.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, at ten o'clock last night, when speaking on this item, I suggested to the committee that it might be advisable for a public debate to take place on this matter in Elliot Lake, and I suggested that debate could possibly take place among the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Leader of the Opposition and myself. In thinking about this matter I have come to the conclusion that it would be advisable for the Minister of Labour at least to attend the debate, so he could receive the benefit of the opinions that might be expressed from the floor by the people at that time. If he also wished to debate the matter at that time, all well and good.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a number of members have made some constructive suggestions. I feel that while the suggestions I have made may not be the complete answer, they should be given some consideration. I have visited Elliot Lake and talked to the people there, and I use Elliot Lake only as an example. I believe this displacement problem is something that is found throughout the whole mining industry. It is not seasonal unemployment; it is unemployment that develops in an area, and it is seldom or ever solved in that area. I suggest something that could be done to solve it in Elliot Lake, because everybody is interested in Elliot Lake. If the suggestions were put into effect in Elliot Lake I am sure they would also apply to Cape Breton Island, to the gold mining industry in the communities of Kirkland Lake and Timmins, and in other places. Probably in the future we shall be faced with the same problem in Sudbury and all the mining communities. Therefore I suggest we should have a discussion of it.
I am worried about some of the things I learned in Elliot Lake when I was there last week end. One of them was the fact

that the people of Elliot Lake have not the answer as to what should be done in this particular instance. Some of them suggest that the solution to the whole problem would be to produce uranium at the same rate as under the present five-year contract. This would mean that the miners would continue to work in exactly the same way. But, Mr. Chairman, all of us know that these things cannot be; that the former government underestimated the market for uranium; that the situation that was expected did not develop in that field, and therefore there does not appear to be any possibility of continuing things as they were or maintaining the status quo.
The ladies who came to Ottawa are to be commended very strongly on the fact that they took the initiative and came here on their own and asked what was to be done or what would be done. They made some suggestions, and I am sure the suggestions are going to be taken into consideration in the light of developments that have taken place in other areas.
I am pleased to see that they are going to the province of Manitoba to ask that province to relinquish any advantage that has been given to it through having this research centre that has been widely spoken of, and return it to the province of Ontario and in particular to Elliot Lake. If this project were brought into Elliot Lake it would not solve the whole problem; it would solve only a small percentage of the problem. Therefore I suggest that consideration be given to a problem which is much wider, and which has a wider application than even Elliot Lake.
With this in mind I strongly urge the Minister of Labour to give consideration to the setting up of a manpower resources board to engage in the retraining and re-establishment of workers on a voluntary basis in areas where their talents and their training would be used to advantage. To this end the government could co-operate with the department and with the unemployment insurance commission, which is now engaged in a small way in retraining and re-establishing workers.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the establishment of a natural industry planning board is the answer to all areas of displacement which have taken place in the last few years. If this board were given wide powers to study and ascertain the resources and materials available in a given area where a town is already established, it would find that certain natural resources would be available in that area that would be advantageous. If we gave them the advantages, as I have suggested, that have been given to the new mining companies, such as a tax-free period when they would 79951-0-104
Supply-Labour
have access to credit that would allow them to develop in that area provided by the federal government, where they would have other concessions that have been given to the mining companies including the speeding up of amortization and depreciation, those companies would find a big advantage in settling in the mining communities that have been developed across the country. I think this could be a much greater contribution to those communities than the subventions and subsidies that have been paid in the past to accomplish the same thing but without achieving nearly the results that were expected from the amount of money spent in this way.
I think the minister has been given some constructive suggestions. With this in mind I repeat that I will be quite happy to go to Elliot Lake, a focal point so far as this problem is concerned, and debate the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition the other night and replied to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I would be happy to debate with them at Elliot Lake and let the people of Elliot Lake express their opinions. I am quite sure that the three people taking part in the debate would receive a great deal of information and worth-while guidance from the people in that area if they were given the three positions, as I am sure they would be.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, it is almost a month now since the supplementary estimates were introduced, which would authorize this government to spend certain amounts for winter works to help the unemployed.
We might have expected that an item of a few millions, representing a very small fraction of the total budget, would be passed after nothing more than a pro forma discussion and the customary explanations of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). Things turned out otherwise, which is unfortunate for those who are out of work, and, after several days of sterile discussion, during which this house was the scene of a talking marathon, hon. members of the opposition gave forth a torrent of words in which we would look in vain for some constructive suggestion. There are, of course, the 10 points set out by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). We already had "Martin's Bureau of Statistics", and now we shall have "Martin's 10 commandments", which mainly consist in a request that a committee be instituted to consider what might be considered.
Even the young and brilliant member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) made a contribution yesterday, though he had promised never to use unemployment as a political football. One

Supply-Labour
would think that his leaders forced him to break his promise. Aware as I am of his talent and of his usual regard for objectivity, I know that the hon. member for Lapointe is not very proud of the remarks he made yesterday. There was, indeed, a time when he knew how to be realistic and constructive, and refrained from personal attacks like those he directed yesterday against the head of this government.
I do not propose to follow in the steps of the opposition speakers by making useless digressions, so I shall get right into the subject matter which is of interest to all of us, that is, unemployment.
There has been a lot of talk stressing the tragedy of Elliot Lake, and I personally have great sympathy for the residents of that community which is so deeply affected by the cutback in uranium production. However, I remember that, in 1929, under a Liberal administration, the pulp mills of Chicoutimi closed down, and our city found itself precisely in the same position as Elliot Lake today.
I wonder if among Liberal party veterans there is a single one who, at that time, expressed a single word of sympathy for our community, which was also in danger of becoming a ghost town. Without the courage, the determination and the enterprise of our people, it actually would have become one.
I remember, for having lived through it, the period from 1929 to 1939, when most of the people back home were out of work. I know what tragedies unemployment can lead to. To me, unemployment is not merely of academic interest, nor is it a matter of statistics; because the unemployed worker and all his family suffer even when statistics indicate favourable overall conditions.
The right to work in a country full of resources, that can afford to absorb millions of immigrants and to finance underdeveloped countries, is an essential right which should be embodied if not in the constitution, at least in the bill of rights, because liberty, freedom of speech, the right to practise one's own religion and to speak one's own language remain empty words if workers cannot make a living. Otherwise they only remain free to starve democratically and legally.
Does this mean that this government has done nothing to check unemployment? On the contrary, without the bold steps taken

by our government, the situation would be much worse. For instance, the unprecedented amounts of money made available to the building industry may be doubly considered as funds designed to check unemployment. In fact, those funds have made it possible to hire large numbers of workers in the building trades, and have at the same time helped industry generally, by putting building materials to use. In the constituency of Chicoutimi alone, for instance, it is not exaggerated to state that more houses were built in two years and a half of Conservative administration than during the whole previous Liberal administration. That is, it seems to me, a way of checking unemployment, although opposition members may claim that nothing has been done.
As I should like to be brief, Mr. Chairman, I shall come at once to the practical conclusions, suggestions requested last evening by the Minister of Labour. It seems to me that the basic weakness of our economy is that we can achieve full employment only in war time and that, so long as we are at peace, we cannot provide work for all of our workers.
Of course, account must be taken of the fact that Canada is a country which has to export, and that export markets are necessarily unsteady. However, Mr. Chairman, with a little imagination, we could find a formula that could allow us to provide jobs for all our workers, without upsetting the federal budget, or ruining our provinces and municipalities. To achieve that objective, I would suggest the adoption of a job insurance scheme that would replace our present unemployment insurance program. As things now stand, as soon as a worker is out of work, provided he qualifies, he gets unemployment benefits for a number of weeks.
Millions are thus spent every year to keep people idle and get them into the habit of loafing. With a contribution that might perhaps be slightly higher than the one now paid by employers and workers, there would be enough money in the fund to undertake useful works that would beautify and enrich our country, while providing employment for all who are temporarily out of jobs in industry or business.
I know that employers and workers would all be quite happy to pay a higher contribution, providing it would rid them for-

ever of the spectre of unemployment- The mere fact of undertaking works, purchasing materials and generally distributing purchasing power would revitalize industry generally, and probably in a short time, the employment insurance agency would have no workers available to pursue its works, except in isolated cases, such as Elliot Lake.
Another consideration of a psychological nature, is that the worker would be much happier earning his living than wilting away, with or without unemployment insurance benefits.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the practical suggestion I wanted to make to the Minister of Labour. And I hope that, until my suggestion is considered further, the requested funds will be voted without delay to relieve the present situation.


Mr. Deschaieleis:: May I ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat? I believe he said that, in his opinion, the right to work is a fundamental one. Is he in favour of including this right to work in the bill of rights that the Prime Minister plans to introduce?


Vincent Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel authorized to announce government policy, but if I may express a personal opinion, I would say: Yes, I do favour including it.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I make no apologies for entering this debate a second time. Yesterday's performance by the Minister of Labour in this house was the worst I have ever seen during the many years that I have been in parliament. He rose to reply to a question which was put to him by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and during the course of that intervention, not only made a speech but poured out invective on all those of us who sit on this side of the house. He stated, for instance, that we were deliberately holding up this item; that we had nothing to offer; in effect, he said that he was bankrupt of ideas. The effect of the minister's intervention was to say to those of us sitting on this side of the house, I have nothing to offer other than the item which is now before the committee, what have you got to offer? If you have any suggestions to make here, this is the time to make them. I must say I have never seen the minister so annoyed, and I am amazed at his impotence and that of his government to stand up to a situation the responsibility for which is his and that of his government. Instead of doing that, he has poured out invective on those who sit here.
79951-0-104J
Supply-Labour
The minister apparently still thinks, as do many of the ministers who sit with him on the other side of the house, that he is in the opposition. They do not realize that they are the government and that they alone have the responsibility to meet the situation as it stands before them today. However, if the minister thinks he is going to solve this problem by a winter works program which will give some 30,000 or 40,000 jobs to people when, on the other hand, because of the bad policies of the government in the field of aviation, in the field of textiles, in the field of uranium as well as in the field of coal producing there have been put out of work no less than 50,000 workers, then I say he is mistaken. I say to him and to those who sit on the other side that the present position in the field of employment and unemployment is due to wrong policies advocated by the government and put into effect by the government. This is the reason we find ourselves in the position in which we are today.
Yesterday the minister in his intervention referred in disparaging terms to the ten points made by the hon. member for Essex East. Here is what he said, as found at page 1617 of Hansard for March 1, 1960:
I have sat here hopefully and patently waiting for some concrete suggestions as to how this problem should be met, but there has not been one.
That was the Minister of Labour speaking when he was excited, speaking when he had been spurred into action by those of us who sit on this side of the house. He was annoyed at himself and at his government because they were not able to meet the position. I ask you now, sir, to listen to the Minister of Labour in a more sober moment when he rose in this debate and said, at page 1403 of Hansard, February 24, 1960:
I want to say that there have been some constructive suggestions from those who have taken part in the debate, suggestions that need closer scrutiny by the government.
Those are certainly statements that are not concurrent. In other words, they are statements that indicate that the government and the minister are going in two directions at the same time. Of course, that is not new. I could point to many other statements by his colleagues in the government which indicate that they are going in two directions at the same time.
I should like to ask the Minister of Laboui this question. Has he given closer scrutiny and study to the suggestions which were made, as he said they would require?

Supply-Labour


Mr. Slarr:: I imagine the hon. member refers to the suggestions made by the hon. member for Essex East.


Lionel Chevrier: And others.


Michael Starr: I did mention there were some others who made suggestions. The suggestions of the hon. member for Kootenay West were very constructive, but no others, including those of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Lionel Chevrier: I think, in view of these two contradictory statements, the minister owes it to the committee, when he rises at the end of this debate, to tell us what action, what study the government has given to these suggestions. He said that there were constructive suggestions from those who had taken part in the debate and that they needed closer scrutiny.


Michael Starr: And they will be given close scrutiny.


Lionel Chevrier: I say with regard to that that the minister referred in disparaging terms to the suggestions made by my colleague the hon. member for Essex East, notwithstanding the fact that several of them were originally made by himself and by his own party. Is the minister, in effect, now saying that what he, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs proposed when they were on this side of the house was proposed under false pretences to fool the people of this country or did they mean what they said? If they meant what they said, then they should listen to the constructive suggestions which were made by my hon. friend the member for Essex East.
I now want to put succinctly on the Hansard record the proposals which were made by those of us who sit on this side of the house. Of course, it will not be possible for me to list them all but I have selected 25 and I would ask the minister to take note and listen to them.
1.	Responsibility for unemployment, in the face of the present emergency, should be taken from the Department of Labour and transferred to the government as a whole.
2.	Canada should have a national advisory board on economic development, automation and employment to help deal with long term problems of production and employment.
3.	Appointment of a special parliamentary committee to assess the effects of unemployment and to explore ways and means of dealing with the problem, as advocated by the Progressive Conservatives while they sat in opposition.

4.	A federal-provincial conference on unemployment, as advocated by the Progressive Conservatives when they were in opposition.
5.	The government should call a conference of industry and labour to discuss and examine the unemployment problem, as suggested by the Canadian Labour Congress and by Les Syndicats Catholiques.
6.	Immediate consideration be given to the utilization of the services of an outstanding businessman, who has a knowledge of the problem and the capacity to provide leadership in supplying jobs.
7.	Modification of the winter works program to make it more acceptable to municipalities, as recommended by the conference of mayors and municipalities.
8.	The government, as a whole, not just the Minister of Labour, should concentrate its attention on surplus areas of unemployment to assess the economic factors and to establish methods of providing work in those areas.
9.	Intensification of the vocational training program to provide necessary skills for the unemployed in the surplus areas and generally throughout the country.
10.	The government should establish an Atlantic provinces capital assistance fund in order to finance large projects essential to sound economic development.
11.	Modification of the 50-50 sharing formula to give greater assistance to provinces and municipalities with heavy unemployment and a small capacity to pay.
12.	The planning of the winter works program earlier so that the municipalities might get projects ready in time, as we recommended in August, 1958, and again in May and June, 1959.
13.	Special assistance to the Atlantic provinces for the building of highways and not just roads to resources.
14.	The whole public works and construction program should be planned and timed to provide maximum employment in the winter months.
15.	Vocational training of the unemployed should be paid for by the federal government on a basis similar to the veterans training and education at the end of the war.
16.	The Prime Minister should carry out his pledge to the textile workers of Canada.
17.	The government should not curtail housing in the face of unemployment.

18.	The government should approach the province of Quebec to the end of getting them to co-operate in the roads to resources program and other similar programs.
19.	The government should pay 90 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway in the Atlantic provinces to speed up construction and provide employment.
20.	The government should accept at once the recommendations of the fisheries council regarding fishing vessels including subventions for vessels built in Canada.
21.	The government should provide subventions on coal for industrial purposes in the Atlantic provinces equal to the subvention paid on coal shipped to Montreal.
22.	The government should carry out the national resources development program promised in the Atlantic resolutions.
23.	The government should carry out decentralization of industry as promised in the Atlantic resolutions.
24.	The government should carry out its pledge to reduce transportation costs in the Atlantic provinces to give them access to the markets of central Canada.
25.	The government should establish a municipal loan fund.
Then I would bring to the attention of the minister-and I hope he will deal with it when he rises-an editorial which appeared in last night's Journal dealing with this debate and dealing with the whole subject of winter unemployment, and the suggestion made in the last paragraph but one of the editorial which reads as follows:
But what we feel might help would be a special study of winter unemployment, of steps to cope with it, or to cope with it as far as possible.
Has any attention or any consideration been given to this matter? Here is the answer to the minister who said yesterday that not one concrete suggestion had been made from this side of the house. I have just given 25 serious suggestions, several of which were made by hon. gentlemen when they sat on this side of the house.


Michael Starr: May I ask a question?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member may do so when I am through with my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I know the the minister's tactics. He likes to interrupt and then to make a speech but he is not going to put me
Supply-Labour
off saying what I intend to say today because I intend to reply in kind to some of the things that were said on the other side of the house yesterday and previously. It was said on the other side of the house that when we were in office we had no policies to deal with unemployment.
Mr. Pallet!: Or anything else.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank my own friend for that extremely intelligent intervention. But in dealing with the question of employment and income I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that from 1945 onwards there was contained in the white paper which was tabled in this house by the Right Hon. Mr. Howe, who was then minister of reconstruction and supply, a concrete plan based on at least eight proposals to deal with employment and income in this country. That is a program that is there for anyone to see. Any hon. member can send for it; it is in the documents of this house. He can consult it in order to ascertain that in those days we had a program to deal with the position as we found it then. Not only did we have a program but we put it into effect and it had results.
I should like to place on Hansard the results of the program during the period of 11 years. I ask permission to table now a statement headed "Labour force and unemployment" showing the situation which existed from 1946 to 1959. It gives the labour force in hundreds of thousands, the people without jobs and seeking work, the percentage of the labour force without jobs and the figures given by the Minister of Labour, as found at page 515 of Hansard. The sources of the information contained in this table are to be found in the "Canadian Statistical Review, 1957 Supplement". I would ask permission to table this document.


Mr. Pallell:: Would the hon. member indicate whether it is a dominion bureau of statistics compilation?


Lionel Chevrier: I said it came from the "Canadian Statistical Review, 1957 Supplement", which is a document published by the government.


John Cameron Pallett: By the dominion bureau of statistics?


Lionel Chevrier: I am told it is published by the bureau of statistics.


The Chairman:: Order. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to have this table printed in Hansard at this point of his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

S upp ly-La hour
lEditor's note: The table referred to is as follows:]



LABOUR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
With-		Figures
out jobs	Percen-	givenand	tage of	by Min-Labour	seeking	Labour	ister ofForce	work	Force	Labour(thou-	(thou-	With-	(HansardYear	sands)	sands)	out jobs	p.515)(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)1946	4,829	143	2.9	4.71947	4,942	98	2.0	3.01948	4,988	102	2.0	3.21949	5,055	132	2.6	4.01950	5,163	166	3.2	6.11951	5,217	106	2.0	3.31952	5,315	129	2.4	4.01953	5,383	137	2.5	3.41954	5,426	232	4.2	1955	5,558	230	4.1	7.4 (?)1956	5,705	179	3.1	5.51957	6,003	257	4.3	5.61958	6,127	405	6.6	9.41959	6,228	350	5.6	
Sources of information: columns 1 and 2: from 1946 to 1956 included, The Canadian Statistical Review, 1957 Supplement. Column 4, containing Mr. Starr's percentages, Hansard p. 515.
Lionel Chevrier: If that table is carefully examined it will be seen that from the period 1946 to 1956-10 years-the average annual percentage of the labour force without jobs in Canada was 2.8 per cent.


Michael Starr: Was that for the month of June?


Lionel Chevrier: That is for the whole year. That is the average annual percentage of the labour force without jobs.


Michael Starr: For the month of June?


Lionel Chevrier: No, for the whole year; for the 12 months in each year from 1946 down to 1956. I say that during that time that average was 2.8 per cent; and I bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the experts in the field say that 3 per cent of the labour force without jobs is the eauivalent of full employment.
That was the position as it was then. I draw this table to the attention of the hon. member for St. Mary who had some comment to make on it. I hope he will take the trouble to look at it and see for himself that it is taken from the statistics of the government.
I say that if the Minister of Labour and the government find themselves in the position in which they are now it is owing in large measure to their own policies in the fiscal and the monetary fields. As we know, there was a recession in 1957 and the former administration dealt with a similar recession in a clear and straightforward manner. That is not the first time there has been a recession in this country. There was also one in 1953; and
[The Chairman.]
during the course of that recession we refused to increase our long term financial commitments. We chose instead to reduce taxes.
The present administration, in order to meet the recession of 1957 chose to increase its long term expenditures instead of reducing taxes. It chose to deal with the recession just as if it were a depression. This method has had disastrous consequences such as those from which we are still suffering.
Let us see what happened. First, long term public expenditures, as we know, particularly in the field of public works, do not have the immediate effect of coming to the assistance of those who are in dire need- as are the unemployed-in the same manner as does a reduction in taxation.
Next, the increase in long term expenditures cannot easily be stopped once they are started, with the result that instead of bringing about a temporary deficit we have a long line of deficits such as those we had since this government has been in office. Thus, the budgetary and non-budgetary deficit in 1957-58 amounted to $160 million; in 1958-59, $1,250 million; in 1959-60, $850 million and in 1960-61 it will probably be in the nature of $400 million. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this series of deficits is at the origin of all our financial problems. In 1958, in the face of this deficitary position, the government decided to sell a new series of government bonds and by doing that created a serious condition on the market.
In order to help the government finance its position, the Bank of Canada had to increase the monetary supply. It increased the supply by $1,700 million, an increase of 16 per cent. This caused an inflationary situation and the Bank of Canada had to stop its monetary expansion. Then the government found itself in competition with private enterprise, with the corporations, with municipalities and the like, in its desire to get funds in the open market in order to solve and finance its deficit position, in order to get that money, it had to do one thing, increase the interest rates. It is this increase in interest rates which has brought about the situation and the consequences which the small borrower and the small businessman find so difficult to meet.


Mr. Aiken:: On a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he seems to be straying into another field entirely, that of fiscal policy, high interest rates, and so on.


Jacques Flynn: The fact that the committee has given unanimous consent to waive the rule of strict relevancy makes it hard to

say where the line should be drawn in the discussion of this subject of unemployment. I think the hon. member should be allowed to continue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely financial and fiscal policy is strictly relevant to this discussion of unemployment.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman will only bear with me until I come to a conclusion he will see that there is a very close relevancy between financial and monetary policy and the situation in the field of unemployment as it exists today.
The consequence of this financial policy is that the service of the national debt has increased; it rose considerably. In fact, in this fiscal year, 1960-61, it will be $100 million more than it was a year ago. Because of that, and for the reasons I have given, the provinces, the municipalities and large corporations were obliged to borrow in the United States because they found the interest rates in the United States far more attractive than in Canada. By doing so, our foreign debt was increased.
The tight money policy has had a disastrous effect on small borrowers and on the small businessmen which this government was going to protect. In Quebec there were 50 per cent more bankruptcies in 1959 than in 1958, and because of that position, which was announced not by myself but by the clerk of the superior court of the district of Quebec, who made the statement himself and said it was due to the credit restrictions of the present government-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Lionel Chevrier: No. At the end of my speech, but not now.
The government's monetary policy, by these restrictions, is supposed to fight inflation. The government's fiscal policy, by its deficits, has contributed directly to increasing the menace of inflation. There is a flagrant contradiction between the two policies of the government, and this has brought about a thoroughly inflationary situation and a tremendous increase in the cost of living-2 per cent per year since the present government took office. These are the policies which have brought about, directly and indirectly, the present unemployment situation in a large measure-tight money, high interest rates, an increase in the cost of living, credit restrictions. Are you surprised, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the government is at its wits' end and does not know what to do; that it is asking those of us who sit on this side of the house for concrete proposals?
Supply-Labour
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, either the government stands up on its feet or it resigns office. Either it stands up on its feet and meets the position-because it is the responsibility of the government, and not of those who sit on this side of the house -under our constitution the responsibility of dealing with a situation such as this, which is a serious one, is the minister's; it lies exclusively with him and his government and with his supporters on that side of the house-or it fails.
The minister has himself admitted his abysmal failure; his incapacity to submit anything concrete, and he has called on us to submit to the house concrete proposals. Over and above stating what we did in the white paper, the action we took with regard to the plan contained in the white paper, and with what results, I have put on the record 25 concrete proposals which were submitted by all of us-each and every one of us-who have taken part in this debate. Now I ask the minister if he will not give serious study to these proposals and if, instead of making the kind of excited speech which he made the other evening, he will not during the course of this debate try to deal with our suggestions in a more constructive way.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I now ask my question? I should like to ask the hon. member for Laurier if he has seen the table printed in yesterday's Hansard in connection with bankruptcies in Canada and, particularly, the item under Quebec which shows that in 1957 they were at an all-time high figure of 2,554. In 1958, they were down. In 1959 they went down further to 2,220. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has also seen the totals, which have steadily declined since 1957 when this government took office.


Lionel Chevrier: I must answer by telling the hon. member that I have not seen that table, but I will look at it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me answer the question. I have been asked it, and surely I am entitled to answer. I will say to the hon. member that the prothonotary of the superior court of the district of Quebec in a statement made in Quebec city less than six weeks ago said that because of the credit restrictions of this government, bankruptcies in the province of Quebec had doubled in 1959 as compared with 1958.


Mr. Johnson:: Could I ask a further question? To which prothonotary is the hon. gentleman referring?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not the clipping here, but I can get it very quickly-

Supply-Labour


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Quebec or Montreal? (Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: He does not know.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes I do. It is the protho-notary of the superior court of the district of Quebec, and he was dealing with bankruptcies in the province of Quebec; not in the district of Quebec, but in the whole province, and he indicated that they were 50 per cent higher in 1959 than in 1958. (Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Could he find out from the prothonotary whether or not those figures are accurate?
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I can't hear what the hon. member is saying.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Could the hon. member for Laurier find out from the prothonotary whether or not those figures are accurate?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is bright, intelligent; let him do that himself.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: On a question of privilege, I thank the hon. member for Laurier for those compliments. I can well imagine he must have been looking at himself in a mirror when he attributed those fine qualities to me.
(Text):


Mr. Siewari:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on this item but in view of some of the observations made by hon. members who have participated in this debate, and particularly those observations which related to the province of New Brunswick, I feel compelled to make a few remarks. I appreciate the privilege of following the hon. member for Laurier and I have listened with a great deal of attention to his contribution. I should like to tell the hon. member now that for many years I have held for him a great deal of admiration and respect not only for his ability as a satesman but for his competence as a lawyer and public speaker. I hope that some of my remarks will not be considered by that hon. gentleman to apply to him directly.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Gloucester is not in his seat as I had some remarks that I felt applied to him and to the province which he represents. As one hon. member stated the other day, there has been a tendency among some of the maritime members to come to this parliament and indicate that the provinces in these Atlantic areas are poor cousins of the rest of Canada instead of those hon. gentlemen getting together and making our true position known.
I appreciate the invitation extended by the hon. member for Gloucester to get together in that connection but in view of the

remarks he has made in this committee from time to time regarding the situation in New Brunswick I do not put too much stock in his invitations.
The hon. member referred at various times and in various ways to the winter works program provided for in the item of $15 million which is presently under discussion. The unemployment situation is not a new one and of course is not to be taken lightly but I suggest to hon. members that it cannot be solved by our putting thousands upon thousands of words on the official record of this place and by creating screaming headlines in newspapers across the country. The problem can be solved only by each and every one of us-and we are supposed to be the leaders and representatives of the people- getting together to produce some constructive proposals.
The unemployment problem did not develop overnight. I can tell the hon. member for Gloucester that in the 40's I made many surveys in the maritimes for the Department of Public Works and conditions in Gloucester were just as bad if not worse than they are at the present time.
I was particularly interested when the hon. member for Kent spoke on the agriculture item. I can recall when potatoes in New Brunswick could not be sold for 70 cents a barrel but had to be dumped. That was not under a Conservative regime and so the government cannot be blamed for all the ills and troubles that are being experienced at the present time.
The province of New Brunswick is dependent primarily on primary industries, namely fishing, lumbering and, to a lesser extent, on agriculture. As a result of our primary industries we tend at times to have a certain amount of seasonal unemployment. We must try to establish in New Brunswick and throughout the entire Atlantic areas secondary industries that will provide some means of lessening the impact of seasonal conditions on employment.
The hon. member for Gloucester referred to the winter works program as inadequate. Is it inadequate from the standpoint of the program or from the standpoint of the unwillingness or inability of the county of Gloucester to take advantage of it. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that possibly a drive to collect $1 million in delinquent taxes in the county might enable it to have additional funds with which to undertake projects under this program. During the past year Gloucester county took advantage of the program to the extent only of $13,000, while in the same period the little county of Charlotte which I represent took advantage of it to the extent of $28,000.

The hon. member for Gloucester jumped from the province of Nova Scotia and read several articles from La Presse. He did not, however, read to this committee an extract from the January report of the unemployment insurance regional director in the city of Moncton. With the permission of the committee I should like to place a few extracts from this report on the record. The report refers first to my county of Charlotte. I am reading from extracts from the report as they appeared in the St. Croix Courier of February 18, 1960:
Fish processing and woods operations were at a high level in Charlotte county at the end of January, it was reported in Moncton last week by the regional director of the unemployment insurance commission.
R. P. Hartley, Q.C., in his regular monthly review of the employment situation in the province, said excellent fish catches in the Charlotte area had resulted in a "much improved situation" with five factories now employing a total of 700, compared with one plant in operation for the same period a year ago.
The report then refers to the snow conditions to which reference was made by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska and then goes on to point out that the position this year so far as New Brunswick is concerned is much better than it was a year ago.
The subsequent paragraphs of the report, I believe, bear out my contention that to supplement the primary industries in the maritime area we must have secondary industries of such a nature as will take up the slack in the seasonal unemployment. I am not suggesting for one moment that the present unemployment situation is caused solely by the seasonal aspect of it but I do suggest that in the Atlantic area particularly a large percentage of the unemployment at the present time is due to the nature of our industries.
In the county of Charlotte the unemployment situation is considerably less than it was a year ago. An editorial which appeared in the St. Croix Courier of February 25, 1960, states:
There are approximately 500 fewer people looking for work in Charlotte and part of York counties now than at the same time in 1959, statistics of the local national employment office disclosed Tuesday.
I might say that the registration district of the unemployment insurance commission for Charlotte county includes part of the constituency of York-Sunbury. I continue:
A bureau news release listed the number of unplaced applicants registered at the Water street office now at 2,245 compared with 2.722 for the same period last year. The current list is made up of 1,667 men and 578 women.
I point that out because the women listed as unemployed are women who are normally 79951-0-105
Supply-Labour
employed in the canning industry. Mr. Hartley summed up the situation in this way:
Reviewing the over-all employment picture, Mr. Hartley said conditions in the province, as reflected by the number of job applicants registering at national empolyment offices, were still somewhat better than a year ago.
The hon. member for Gloucester did not tell the committee of the increase in mining work in the constituency of Gloucester and of the possibility that a $17 million or $18 million smelter would be erected in that area. He referred to the Conservative promise of public works. I should like to point out to him that under this government he has received in his constituency more money for public works, public buildings and harbours and rivers than at any time when the previous administration was in office. I should like to give the figures to the committee. In 1958-59, up to March 31 of that fiscal year, not including any dredging, there was spent in the constituency of Gloucester, $603,442.04, and my information is that in that year there was spent for dredging an amount that would increase the total amount spent to over $1 million. In the previous year, 1957-58, when this government was in office, there was spent in that constituency $583,433.64. At no time previous to that was there anything like that amount spent. I say that this government has fulfilled any promises or any commitments that it made in respect of public works in the constituency of Gloucester.
From time to time, on the basis of unemployment figures, the hon. member has also inquired as to the coal situation in the province of New Brunswick. I refer to the mines at Minto. According to the latest report, the Minto mines are able to sell all the coal that can be mined in that area. I point these things out not to indicate for one minute that I am, or anybody else is, wholly satisfied with the situation as it now exists in the province of New Brunswick. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska indicated with some vehemence and heat the conditions in his constituency. I can sympathize with him; I know the conditions there almost as well as he does, since that is my native county.
I suggested-and I again suggest-that in addition to this winter works program we must endeavour by means of adequate electric power to bring secondary industries to the province of New Brunswick so that we shall have industries to absorb people who are laid off seasonally. Hon. members know that except under exceptional circumstances you cannot fish during the winter season although this year as I have indicated, we are most

Supply-Labour
fortunate in that we are running five factories where last year we ran only one, and shortly we shall open another. Within a month it is expected that the largest fresh filleting plant at Beaver Harbour will open, but we must provide some industries, some small payrolls, which will take up the seasonal unemployment.
I should like to suggest to the minister that in so far as this winter works program is necessary, and in so far as I can see it will be necessary for some time to come, consideration should be given to its extension so that it will become a little easier for certain municipalities temporarily short of funds to enter into the program. I would suggest that in the case of large capital expenditures involving considerable capital, such as the installation of sewers and water mains, the government consider increasing its contribution to the material items of these projects. I would also suggest that possibly-and I pass this on to the minister-the government should consider making it available to schools and school boards so that they could take advantage of this assistance to provide additional classroom space and do certain necessary repairs and alterations. I realize there are certain difficulties in connection with this proposal but I believe that through the municipalities and the provincial government this matter could be sufficiently straightened out.
I would also suggest-and in this I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate-that we should give further assistance in the training of young people in vocational guidance so that they will be able to adapt themselves to changing economic circumstances and be able to provide themselves with an assured means of income. It has been definitely established that the bulk of the people unemployed consists of those who did not go sufficiently far in school to qualify for higher education or for a better job. These are the people whom we should try to help so that we shall make worth-while citizens out of them.
Unemployment affects not only the man who is out of a job but also his home. If he is a young man of 20 or 21 he probably has to live with his parents and that increases the burden on them. He is not able to set up his own home or build his own house, and so on. Therefore, we have not only a falling off in the purchase of consumer goods but also their production, and we have an impact on the whole strata of society. In other words, unemployment lessens the standard of the Canadian way of life which we all want to have and should have.

I should also like to make another suggestion to the minister. If at all possible there should be a further extension of the winter works program so that incorporated towns might be encouraged to build fire halls and other public buildings. I realize that in certain municipalities the number of towns is limited and it might be difficult to have a municipality or an incorporated village assume this responsibility, but I suggest this is one thing that should be considered by the Department of Labour.
I would also suggest, and this is only a practical detail, that provision should be made for the announcement of the winter works program earlier in the current season; and that the privilege be given to those who wish to take advantage of it of starting their works at a time in the fall when they can be done economically without waiting for severe frost and winter conditions to set in. I have some knowledge of what it is like trying to do summer work in the winter time because it was my privilege during the last war to be the engineer in charge of the Pennfield airport and I can assure hon. members that trying to put down sewer and water lines at 30 degrees below zero is no fun. I suggest that if possible the program be announced earlier in the year and that the municipalities and towns have their applications approved so that they can start work even before the period now covered by the winter works program.
I did not come to this house as the representative of Charlotte to make political speeches. I came with the intention of making some contribution if I could on behalf of the people of my constituency and the province in which I was born and in which I have lived for most of my life. I think that should be the goal of each and every one of us. The unemployment problem is not one that can be solved by a few people. We as Canadians must solve it and we can only solve it by working together. Over the years the unemployment problem has continued to increase. Shortly after the end of the second world war there was a definite increase in unemployment and it has continued to increase except in certain areas.
I appeal to each and every member of the house not only to support the winter works program and the money now being voted for it but to endeavour by precept and example to encourage in the minds of our people a realization of the necessity of assisting themselves by trying to establish the secondary industries to which I referred.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the occasion to speak immediately after the hon. member who has just resumed

his seat because he began his remarks by stating that there is no point in placing hundreds of thousands of words on Hansard but instead we should try to establish methods to do away with the constantly and possibly increasing problem of unemployment. How can this be done unless the opposition, with all the strength at its command advises the Minister of Labour and the government of ways and means by which this will be accomplished?
We all realize that in this debate tempers have been quite high, but in the face of the remarks of the Minister of Labour last evening, when he said that the opposition had at no time brought forward any constructive suggestions as to methods by which the problem under discussion could be met, I state that the opposition is forced to go on and bring to the minister's attention such means as we may think of. I appreciate the effort of the hon. member who just sat down to try, even as a member of the government party, to tell the Minister of Labour the ways and means by which he can solve the unemployment situation which definitely creates much suffering in our country.
The Minister of Labour last night made a statement to the effect that the opposition was taking too much time on this matter which we consider important, and in that regard may I point out the fact that out of eight speakers who spoke on unemployment yesterday only three were from the Liberal opposition, four spoke on behalf of the government and one on behalf of the C.C.F. group. In the face of this fact surely it cannot be said that the Liberal opposition should not be allowed sufficient time to explain to the minister, who is crying out for information, any thoughts that we may have on the matter.
I appreciated very much the speech of the hon. member for Laurier this afternoon when he went to the extent of enumerating once again to the Minister of Labour the 25 suggestions made by the opposition during the course of the debate. If there has been any time lost surely it is obvious that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and the hon. member for St. Mary played their part yesterday. We heard it said that in no way was the government responsible for the present situation. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot stated that it was true that two manufactures had closed down in his constituency-


Mr. Ricard:: Replaced by four.


Osias.-J. Godin: -but that was not the responsibility of the government in any way. In no way could this be tied up to the financial 79951-0-105 J
Supply-Labour
policies of the government but rather the reason for the closing of these two industries was that the ladies now wanted stockings without seams. Surely this was time lost. He was followed by the hon. member for St. Mary who made a purely political speech. He referred at length to the forthcoming election in the province of Quebec and at one stage he became so involved in his political speech that he referred to you, sir, as ladies and gentlemen.
Surely we must bring a more serious approach to this problem, and in an effort to do so I as a backbencher am prepared to try to give two suggestions to the Minister of Labour as to how I feel the problem should be met by the government. I consider the problem of unemployment definitely one of the most important facing us at this time. Why? Because unemployment is a criterion by which one can analyse the efficiency of the policies of the present administration and measure the prosperity of the country. I realize that on our statute books there is provision for unemployment insurance. That measure has a definite purpose but the country cannot exist and grow if we rely only on the unemployment insurance fund. I realize that people are happy to get the benefits of this legislation which was introduced by a Liberal administration but they do not wish to remain at home and only receive unemployment insurance payments.
We have spent two days in the house discussing the death penalty. I realize the importance of that matter but we have had the death penalty since confederation and surely if we can afford to spend two days on that subject at a time when we are faced with unemployment we should be able to consider the question of unemployment properly. We all realize that the matter of changing the Criminal Code with respect to the death penalty can wait another three weeks or a couple of months for decision. What is the problem with respect to unemployment?
I say that it is twofold. First, there is the value of the earnings to the person who receives a salary. We have heard something about that and that is the first reason that we wish to solve the unemployment problem, in order to be certain that the father of a family can receive a salary which will enable him to take care of his dependents.
However, there is another factor to consider in connection with unemployment and that is the factor of production. If we have a country in which people for long months or possibly for years contribute absolutely nothing toward production, then we know that our situation is deteriorating. I am not interested too much in statistics, and I do

Supply-Labour
not wish to be involved in this argument as to who is responsible for the problem. The only value which statistics have in this matter is to show that unemployment is a Canadian problem, that unemployment is increasing, and that should be sufficient in so far as the use of statistics is concerned. They have served their purpose when we have made up our minds about that.
What are the causes of unemployment? I say that if the government makes a full study of unemployment they will realize that the responsibility for it rests with it. A moment ago the hon. member for Laurier attempted to discuss the fiscal policies of the government as they were tied in with the question of unemployment. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka raised a point of order to the effect that such a discussion would be outside the realm of this debate. I am sorry the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is not here at this time because at this time I should like to show him that, according to his own Prime Minister, unemployment is tied in with the financial problems of this country. I should like to quote from a Canadian Press report which appeared in the Ottawa Journal and is dated February 15, 1958, The report contains remarks made by the Prime Minister at Prince Albert on February 14, 1958, and here is what that report says:
The Prime Minister said here Friday night his Conservative government inherited the unemployment problem from a Liberal administration which "failed to act when it was warned."
"We are defeating the problem," he said. Figures for the last few weeks showed a slower rate of increase in unemployment.
"Where did unemployment come from? In the first place because we tied our economy too closely to the United States, losing our markets everywhere else. Second, because small businessmen were strangled by the tight money policy of the former government."
It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that the complete reply is given to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka by his own Prime Minister and that unemployment in this country is necessarily tied up with other fiscal problems.
I was very interested in the reference made by the hon. member for Laurier to the problems and policies in connection with uranium. My riding is not so far from Elliot Lake, and I know the problems we have in connection with uranium today are the cause of the situation at Elliot Lake. I say that the Minister of Labour, and possibly the entire government, as was suggested by the Liberal opposition, should sit down and study this problem.
After having discussed the problem itself and its causes, may I ask what we are doing

about it? There is this measure that is before us now. I recall that it was rather shortly after my election when I first heard of this winter works program. How did that come about? Once again we saw the government in action as we have seen it in other phases of the winter works program. I recall that the announcement of the program was made at a political meeting out west. Nobody knew what it was, and what happened after that? I have copies of the telegrams that went forward because we find the telegram method was used concerning the winter works program just as it was used in connection with Avro. The premiers of the provinces were sent telegrams about this winter works program. I would think that, this would indicate how little thought was given to the program before a decision was made concerning the solution of the unemployment problem in Canada.
I have always considered the Minister of Labour to be a very kind man with a very good disposition. The only exception to this was a few minutes in this debate. I should think that the approach of the Prime Minister to this unemployment problem at the time of the election campaign, the promises made by the Prime Minister, coupled with the good nature of the Minister of Labour, would give this country what is required for a study of this most acute problem. There is no doubt about that.
I should like to cite how important it was for the Prime Minister of this country to solve this unemployment problem during his approach to the electorate. We have heard repeatedly how the unemployment problem was inherited from the Liberal party. I am not interested in such a discussion. I think when a government has been in power for three years, when it has promised it would solve this problem absolutely and we now see it rising again, there is no merit in discussing the question of inheriting a problem.
When I hear some hon. members from the government side stating that there is absolutely no unemployment at this time, that the situation is much improved, then I think if you hired someone to build up statistics on this matter you would find there are a great many Conservative members in this house who will tell you there is no problem. There are people who have said during the course of this debate that the unemployment problem was inherited from the Liberals. Surely there must be one, and only one answer to this. I think we are entitled to ask the minister, the Prime Minister and the government to tell us which it is in 1960.

If we know the problem and its causes, how are we going to measure the situation and how are we going to build up the determination to solve it? I should like to quote the words of the Prime Minister with regard to how he was prepared to measure the mination to solve it? I should like to quote in the Toronto Star concerning a political speech made by the Prime Minister at Brantford on February 17, 1958:
He charged the Liberals were trying to "All Canadians with fear" by saying there were 800,000 Canadians out of work. The actual number, he contended, was only half that.
Surely, at that time, if the Prime Minister had occasion to state that someone was referring to 800,000 unemployed, it is possible that his vision was too short to see that under his own regime in February, 1960 that would be the number of unemployed people.
How are we going to measure the situation? If that was an argument during a political campaign, it should be today an absolute argument to the Prime Minister to get down to work and to try to solve this problem but not necessarily by the scheme we have before us.
This afternoon when the hon. member for Laurier made the speech which he had occasion to make and indicated to the Minister of Labour the 25 suggestions at least which were indicated by the Liberal opposition, the hon. member for Parry Sound objected to certain of them. I must state that the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka is immediately to the south of my riding. For the purpose of my future contentions I should like to give a few figures-but they will be very few- concerning the problem of unemployment in my riding and also, in order to assist the committee, I will give the figures for the riding of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka which is immediately to the south of mine in order that the committee will have a clear-cut picture of the unemployment situation in these two ridings.
In the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka as far as the labour force is concerned, it is a much smaller agency that the government has there. The agency which covers Parry Sound has a labour force of 5,100 persons only. It covers only 2,230 square miles. The agency of government which covers in full my riding, although my riding is only a part of the agency established in Sudbury, has a labour force of 44,000. It covers 21,000 square miles and is roughly ten times larger than the unemployment agency in the riding of Parry Sound.
I will give you a few figures. I have obtained the figures for both agencies of the government for the month of January or
Supply-Labour
rather at January 31, 1960, which was the last date for which figures were available and also January 31, 1957, which was the last January of a Liberal administration. The figures are these. The unemployed at the agency of Sudbury on January 31, 1957 was 2,363; in Parry Sound it was 444. On January 31 of this year, 1960-and these are the last figures available from these agencies-the figure is 5,070 in Sudbury and in Parry Sound 861. In both ridings unemployment in January of those two years has risen over 100 per cent.
Surely this would indicate that the problem is not getting less but is definitely getting worse. That is why I wish to indicate to the Minister of Labour and to this committee that that is what the Canadian people are worried about and know about. The figures are definitely increases. I am not wishing to base my entire remarks on statistics, but surely these figures will indicate that the problem is definitely rising, that the problem in both these ridings-one which is represented by a Conservative member and one by a Liberal member-is getting worse and that unemployment has risen 100 per cent in each case. The figures for unemployment in January this year are double what they were in 1957.
I have looked at the record and the committee is fortunate that the Minister of Labour at one stage a few days ago was forced into tabling the details of the employment the winter works program would give to the citizens or the unemployed. I have made a check in order to see what it meant in my riding for those 5,070 and I have made a check of what it would mean in the Parry Sound area, taking the large municipalities as a measure-and I have done this in Parry Sound. In the city of Parry Sound this program provides absolutely no jobs whatsoever. I have checked Gravenhurst. This program creates no jobs in Gravenhurst in the riding of my friend, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. This program provides absolutely no jobs in Hemsworth. The program will provide six jobs in Huntsville. It will provide five jobs in Bracebridge; or in other words a total of 11 jobs, according to the perusal I have made in those centres.
I have checked my own riding of Nickel Belt and I find that in Capreol, Gorson, Levack, Creighton, Chelmsford, Blezard Valley, Hamner and Rayside, no jobs would be provided. Those are big centres in my area. In Coniston there is one program which will give 11 jobs to the unemployed there. This number happens to be the same as that which I mentioned in the riding of my friend the hon. member for Parry Sound. Surely this is no solution to the problem of unemployment if the matter is important.

Supply-Labour
It is important if we consider what has been achieved in other countries such as England and elsewhere. They are not faced with the same unemployment problem and this has not been explained by the government. They are not faced with the problem of unemployment to the same degree as we are, and that is something that should be explained by the government at this time.
If the problem is definitely a difficult one, if the problem is as we see it, unemployment has risen in these two ridings and those are the only two I had the time to study. The figure in those two has been doubled. In speaking about the percentage of unemployment according to the labour force in the riding of Parry Sound-since apparently some of the members would like to have more information-it is 17 per cent; 17 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. In my riding the figure is 13 per cent. Surely that fact is significant.
Is it not time that we tried to give to the municipalities a program which will fit in with their own. I realized when I checked the list that if you take from last year to this year, many municipalities when they first heard of this telegram and this possibility of 50 per cent went into some of these schemes. But if you check this year, most of the municipalities which had programs last year, have none this year. This should be an indication to this government that there is something lacking and missing in this program. If it is so worthwhile for municipalities, why would they not be back this year, those who had some last year? Why should we see most of them off the list this year? That is roughly the position in my riding.
What I say is this. The municipalities have programs but they have programs of their own, programs which have a significance in their area or locality. They have constructions they must make. They would probably be prepared to make them in the winter months if they obtained a few dollars from the federal government. But what type of work has been going on under this winter works program? I have heard comments and read articles indicating that members of councils were most displeased at being forced into works programs in which they have no intention of getting involved, just in order to try to get the 50 per cent bonus from Ottawa. But they are not repeating that procedure this year. If we are going to pay something, why should we not pay it. This is the proposition put to the Minister of Labour.
Why should we not pay something toward worthy projects put forward by the municipalities-projects initiated by the citizens

themselves concerning the construction of various buildings? Let us pay the labour costs of such constructions. The citizens of these municipalities would then have something which they want. Instead, we have brush cutters; we have people cutting branches along creeks and ditches. Mr. Chairman, how can you cut branches along a ditch in the wintertime when there is five feet of snow? These things are of no value at all, but this is the type of program the municipalities are forced to undertake because we will only pay half of the labour cost. Let the municipalities pay for the materials, but let us give them the opportunity to improve their cities and townships as they see fit. If this were done I am sure the programs undertaken would be more numerous than they are now. I am sure the government realizes that although there are 5,000 or more unemployed in my area, only one contract has been applied for under this scheme. It is evident that this scheme by no means meets the need.
I say, in closing, as I see that my time is expired, that what is needed now is a total study in this country of the whole employment field with the assistance of all those persons we have in our employment offices, all those people in charge of labour unions and all those people in industry who can help to solve this problem of rising unemployment. I recommend to the Minister of Labour that this should be a complete study, a sound study which will give this government the advice and opinion of every citizen who has something to contribute toward the solution of the present serious situation.


Mr. Thrasher:: I hesitated to interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking, but I wonder if he would answer a question at this time. Do I take it from the hon. member's remarks that he is advocating increased government expenditure?


Osias.-J. Godin: If I can rely on what the Prime Minister said about unemployment-and I take it that the statement of the Prime Minister would be a sufficient answer for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour-the right hon. gentleman said that deficit or no deficit, unemployment would be met at all costs.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, in launching this new discussion on unemployment, the Liberals have again failed to rouse public opinion against the government. They kept harping on the same old note they had struck during the sessions of 1958 and 1959.

I have always been astonished to hear their loud protests whenever we seek to establish the responsibility for today's employment conditions. They hasten to exclaim that the problem does not lie in that direction and that, instead of trying to discover who is responsible for the present situation, we should try to settle the problem. I share this view with the reservation however, that the Liberals should be the very ones not to express such an opinion because they are to a high degree responsible for the situation which this government has to face.
Those conditions are due to a lack of foresight in Liberal policy and developed during the war years, when the Liberals, in the smug enjoyment of an artificial prosperity, did not choose to act at the proper time to forestall the present situation that was foreseeable as far back as 1950. And, as the Liberal party is trying to make a scapegoat of the Conservatives, we might perhaps wonder, under the circumstances, what those people did when they had to face a serious unemployment situation.
If we go back to the year 1935, Mr. Chairman, we find that, at that time, we were up against an extremely difficult economic situation. In 1935, the Liberals who had abused the people, as they indeed have on various occasions since, got themselves elected on the formal and specific promise-
(Text):


Mr. Rouleau:: No one will suffer. (Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -to settle the unemployment situation and to check the recession.
Now, what did they do from 1935 to 1939, to remedy the depression? What positive steps did they take to face the disastrous economic conditions at that time? It seems to me that conditions were not much improved on the eve of the 1939 war, because, as we may recall, the province of Quebec had been forced, in 1936, to resort to special legislation for the relief of citizens affected by the depression. Then came the war, and the Liberals were well served by the turn of events. The state of war served them well, because, during that time, large numbers of citizens who had been unable to find work before 1939 found jobs and were able to earn their living.
That wartime situation went on until 1950, when the threat of unemployment began to worry the Conservative party, which then
Supply-Labour
demanded that the Liberal government take positive steps for the return of Canada's economy to a peacetime basis.
Once again the events in Korea, the threats of war which were still being felt at the time, saved the Liberals.


An hon. Member:: Each man for himself.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: They had a rude awakening in 1957, when the difficult economic situation forced them to think and realize that the criticisms then made by the Conservative party were justified; and it is precisely because people realized that the Liberals had not managed to live up to the situation in the 1950's that they accordingly asked another group of citizens, another team of public men, to take over the administration of Canada's business.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot in the space of two or three years, correct a situation resulting from twenty-two years of lack of foresight and haphazard policy, which could not give Canada's economy an impetus, a leadership based on the economic facts of Canada's position in the North American context.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, it is with great interest and astonishment that I listened to the numerous suggestions-twenty-five, I believe

made by the former member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier). The hon. member suddenly discovered measures which might correct the present situation. He went on to list a series of projects, suggestions which, all of them, it seems to me, are designed to correct some situations, some Canadian economic facts.
Well, if those suggestions are applicable to fundamental problems within the Canadian economy, I wonder why the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) could not make them at the proper time to his own government, so that today we would not be rushed into correcting-


An hon. Member:: The country was well administered at that time.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -things that could have been normally corrected, when the country was in an era of greater prosperity.
The whole attention, the whole debate is centred on a particular aspect of unemployment: the winter works program introduced by the Conservative government.
The opposition expects this winter works program to be a universal panacea, providing for all present requirements.

Supply-Labour
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is considering the problem from a wrong angle. The winter works program, supported by the Conservative government, is simply one of the remedies which must serve to correct the present situation.
In order to correct those conditions, we must, at the same time, count on the general economic recovery which is felt throughout Canada today.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to draw the attention of the house for a few moments on the issues which more particularly affect my riding of Roberval.
My colleague the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) referred to it at length last evening when he asked me to take part in this debate and to offer suggestions about the particular problems of my constituency.
There has been an attempt to magnify the unemployment situation in my constituency. The situation is not at all tragic, and I do not hesitate to say so. To understand it, we must study some facts.
First, what does the economy of the Roberval riding consist of? The people of my constituency are primarily farmers, and no one would deny that the agricultural situation in the province of Quebec is, at this time, excellent. There are of course a few things that need to be set right, there are some weaknesses, but we can say that, in general, the farmers are satisfied and that the Roberval constituency, like all others, shares in this prosperity of the agricultural class. Then, we have in the constituency, a number of woodsmen, people who earn their living in the forest, either as lumberjacks or as employees of various industries related to the lumbering industry. In that industry too, the situation is good, not to say excellent, because employment has been normal and regular with about the same number of people working last fall as in previous years, at the time of this so-called Liberal prosperity.
On the other hand, there are in my consti-uency, lumber and woodworking industries. They too are very prosperous, since none of them has closed down; on the contrary, employment has increased in that industry.
Who are those affected by unemployment in my constituency? I must first say that they are the unskilled workers, people with no standard technical trade and who, therefore, find it difficult to get work.

Mr. Chairman, I have in the past suggested measures to promote technical and industrial training for the young people in my constituency, so that they might readily find employment in industries which now require specialized technical skills.
The unemployment problem, as it exists in my district, is primarily a seasonal one, and, it is mostly woodsmen who are affected by it. However I must say that conditions in this particular field have greatly improved and are likely to improve further, in view of the fact that lumbering industries in the Chicoutimi-Lake St. John district, and particularly in Roberval county, are carrying out a program that will provide employment for the workers on a year-round basis. They are considering a formula that would enable workers to work throughout the year, whereas under the present formula, workers usually work six or seven months and then are unemployed for varying periods, depending on the season.
Last evening, Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Lapointe who, I do not hesitate to say, is one of my best friends. He belongs to a category of public men whom I respect and who deserve to be respected. My friend, the hon. member for Lapointe, mentioned yesterday-or rather, he quoted last night-a pastoral letter of His Eminence Cardinal Leger on unemployment. He pointed out the responsibility which devolves upon those in authority of taking an interest in the solution of the unemployment problem. However, he forgot to stress one fact. He forgot to show how, at the provincial level, the government of our province of Quebec has shouldered this responsibility in our district, and more particularly in my riding, by supplying a good many jobs to the residents of that area in the past two years.
Let me merely mention, as far as my constituency is concerned, some of the works that the government of the province of Quebec has undertaken to improve the employment situation. The Quebec government is building a big bridge at Mistassini; it is building a road section to the Mauricie, commonly known as the La Tuque road; it is also building a road section between Chambord and St. Andre, and it is building the Normandin road. All this, Mr. Chairman, must be added to the numerous schools, colleges and convents that were built in the last two years.

Last evening, the hon. member for Lapointe could have mentioned projects already undertaken by the Quebec government in his constituency, and in Chicoutimi riding, particularly work on the Ste. Anne-Tadoussac road, on a new road section between Jon-quiere and Larouche, and on various projects and road-building work in this area of the province of Quebec.
I simply point out, by the way, the construction activities in the field of public buildings, under the leadership of the Quebec government. I believe that, on that count, the hon. member for Lapointe had no reason to deplore any failure on the part of authorities to assume their responsibilities and to do all that is possible to meet the unemployment situation.
Mr. Chairman, one of the particular problems of my constituency is the lack of industries; besides, it is still one of the causes of unemployment in my area. I would simply ask here, in all honesty, the following question to my friends of the Liberal party: What industries are there in the constituency of Roberval, that have been set up in the last 22 years? What are the new industries set up by the Liberal party in the constituency of Roberval? None at all, Mr. Chairman, because on that count, industries in our province are privately owned, and belong to private citizens. It is private enterprise or private initiative which is responsible for the new industries now existing in Roberval county.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Lapointe and other members of his party might have made suggestions to their government, in 1957, with a view to improving industrial conditions in the constituency of Roberval. Mines have been developed in that area, thanks to the government of the province of Quebec; unfortunately, development was delayed by the construction of the Chibou-gamau-St. Felicien railway, a delay for which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was largely responsible, as I indicated last year.
If you take a good look at the employment situation in the constituency of Roberval, I think you will find it is not much more serious than a few years ago.
In that connection, may I refer to a speech made by my predecessor in the house, Mr. Georges Villeneuve, on January 27, 1955. Here is what he said on the unemployment problem, and I quote from page 614 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I find that in my constituency unemployment does not cause as much concern now as it did last year. However, we do have
Supply-Labour
seasonal unemployment and it is a problem which requires our attention as well as all our ingenuity if we want to solve it.
What was stated in 1955, at the time of the Liberal prosperity, I am allowed, I hope, to state again today, since we have inherited this difficult situation from the Liberal party.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I should like once again to remind my colleague from Lapointe of certain statements he made in a speech on television during the 1958 election campaign. He stated at the time that the Liberal party should feel largely responsible for unemployment and he said, among other things-and I report his words in substance, I think-that the Liberals had fallen asleep when they were in office, that they should change course and that it was precisely because they had neglected the people and their problems that the people had withdrawn the trust they had put in that party.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, not later than a few weeks ago, the same hon. member, speaking on T.V. in the Chicoutimi-Lake St. John area, pointed out that the unemployment situation in our district today was perhaps due to the fact that some negative criticism had been voiced with regard to the industries of our part of the country, and had thus adversely affected our industrial development.
In drawing attention to those speeches and remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe, it is not merely to pick a quarrel, but because I want him to join forces with the government in order to improve the employment situation and urge our Chicoutimi-Lake St. John area to seek a greater share of the general prosperity of this country, and enjoy other industrial developments than those it had under Liberal rule.


Augustin Brassard: I rise on a question of privilege. I just heard the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) give some sort of paraphrase of a speech I am supposed to have made in 1958 on a television broadcast. I shall get the text of my speech because it was certainly recorded, and I shall claim the privilege of repeating here exactly what I did say, because the hon. member did not at all quote the very words I then used.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: I reported substantially what my hon. friend said.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully through the simultaneous translation system to the remarks made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for

Supply-Labour
Roberval. After listening most carefully to what he had to say-and I am certain the translation was correct-I can only say this: when, oh, when, are we going to arrive at the time in this session when the government as a government and government members supporting the government are going to stop blaming the government failures on what occurred under the Liberal administration?
You, yourself, Mr. Chairman, must have noted that we have been in session now for almost two months. We have been sitting here in this house for almost two months and we have not done very much so far. What do we find, Mr. Chairman? We find government members on the front benches or members like the hon. member for Roberval who just sat down explaining the failure of the government to deal with problems on the basis of what the Liberals did prior to 1957. The government has been in office since 1957 and surely we have reached that time when the Conservatives can stop damning the Liberals and the Liberals can stop referring to everything said by the Conservatives when they were on this side of the house. Surely in this session we have reached the stage when we can get down to business, forget the past and deal with the present.
It was my privilege to speak in this debate last Friday. I had no intention of getting up again but felt definitely impelled to do so because of the statements made by the Minister of Labour last night when I think, for a little while, he forgot himself. Because he was under attack by certain members of the official opposition the Minister of Labour felt obliged to rise and to go so far as to make charges. He did not differentiate in any way whatsoever in what he had to say. There are two parties in the opposition, one the official opposition and one this party, the effective opposition.
Last night the Minister of Labour referred to the opposition benches and made statements which the C.C.F. members cannot let pass unchallenged. I certainly am not going to let them go by without having something to say about them. I am directing what I have to say now to the Minister of Labour who said last night that nobody in the opposition during the six or seven days discussion of unemployment had made any contribution or suggestion with respect to the problem of unemployment. I have no right nor do I take the right to speak on behalf of the official opposition but I do say, and I do not do this very often, that there were suggestions made by the official opposition. I also say that all members of the C.C.F. party have spoken in this debate and we

have all made suggestions as to the unemployment situation with respect to what action should be taken both from a short range and a long range point of view.
I challenge the Minister of Labour to go over Hansard, check the speeches of members of the official opposition and those of the C.C.F. members and then say that no suggestions were made. But the fact is that the Minister of Labour refuses to accept any suggestion to deal with unemployment made by the official opposition or the C.C.F. unless it is something with which he agrees. If he does not take the view that he accepts it, then in his opinion no suggestion has been made. In my estimation that attitude is deplorable and despicable. Since when has it been the case that only the Conservatives have suggestions to make?
We are a democratic parliament and I am most amazed that the Minister of Labour cannot recognize the existence of any suggestions unless it happens to be something that he can personally accept. I held the Minister of Labour in high regard until his speech last night but last night he went right down into the gutter. He who thinks and prates so much about democracy nevertheless takes the position that no suggestion has been made unless it is something that he wants to accept. If that is the minister's understanding of democracy and parliament, then the sooner he is out of parliament the better for democracy in Canada.


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


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would it be fair to say that most of the suggestions emanating from the C.C.F. have been virtual socialism and would it be fair, if you admit that, to say that the Minister of Labour cannot be expected to accept suggestions which are pure socialism? I do not say all the suggestions but a substantial number of those coming from the C.C.F. are virtual socialism.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a very nice question and I am glad the hon. member asked it. We in the C.C.F. are socialists and proud of it. Our objective is the establishment some day of democratic socialism in this country. But we are also eight representatives of the people sitting here as elected members of parliament dealing with day to day problems, and on every matter that comes before the house we put forward proposals that we think are in the interests of the welfare of the people of Canada.
When the Minister of Labour spoke last night he said that no proposals had been put

forward from the opposition benches to deal with the problem of unemployment. We put some forward and so did the official opposition which is not a socialist party. But because they are proposals which are not acceptable to the government the Minister of Labour says that no proposals were put forward. I say that is a despicable and rotten attitude to be taken by a cabinet minister who says that he believes in democracy and therefore believes in the right of members of opposition parties to make representations. What really got me and, indeed, was the main reason for my getting to my feet this afternoon, was this statement made by the Minister of Labour last night. I am glad he is looking at me and not talking to his colleague. Last night, he made a statement which I think was one of the rottenest I have ever heard made at any time.


Mr. Cardiff:: That is three times you have said that now.


Harold Edward Winch: That is right, and I am going to repeat it half a dozen times before I sit down. I should like to hear the hon. member speak constructively from his feet instead of interrupting while sitting on his backside. As a matter of fact, I can now understand the report in Maclean's magazine to the effect that some of the Conservative backbenchers are getting heavy in the rear end.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Harold Edward Winch: Attribute the shame to the man who wrote it and not to me. I want to say that was one of the most despicable, rottenest statements I have ever heard from a man for whom I previously had the highest regard, that is until last night. I am referring to the statement made by the Minister of Labour to the effect that the opposition-he did not differentiate between the official opposition and the C.C.F.-were trying to make political capital out of unemployment and laughing- those were the words-at the unemployment situation.


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


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, later. I am referring to the problems facing Canadian industrial companies in world competition; what they have to do to get greater efficiency and the planning necessary to take care of the workers.
In one moment I will answer questions, but I have only so much time and I shall be glad to answer questions when I sit down. When are you going to face up to the developments taking place in the capitalist world? When are you going to face up to what is happening in so far as exports are
Supply-Labour
concerned, when we are an exporting country. You never heeded the warnings so far as Fernie was concerned or so far as Elliot Lake was concerned, and now you have 10 months' notice that another company is going to close up, to consolidate for greater efficiency. The question is, what about the workers? How about planning between the government, industry and labour, so that when this sort of thing which is now happening in St. Catharines and which, by the way, is going to take place on an increasing scale, does occur plans will be ready to take care of it? When will these things be done on a basis which will take care of the workers who are being displaced and put them in new industry?
I am very sorry that this is happening in St. Catharines, but this just adds to what I tried to say last Friday. I did my best, I will tell the hon. member for York-Scarborough, to emphasize the essentiality of long range planning so that in the interests of efficiency the workers are cared for. I want to say-


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. member permit this question?


Harold Edward Winch: As soon as I am through you can ask all the questions you like, but not until I am finished.


An hon. Member:: Are you afraid of the question?


Harold Edward Winch: I said I will stay here and I will stay here as long as the Chair will allow. I hope you will ask questions fast and furious, and so long as the Chairman will give me time for you to question me and for me to answer, then I shall continue. However, I am limited now in the length of time I can speak. However, I am not limited with regard to how long I can answer questions. Therefore you are not going to catch me there.
I came into politics some 27 years ago. I know what it means to be unemployed. I want to tell the minister through you, Mr. Chairman-I am waiting, sir, until the Minister of Labour can listen-that he did something last night that I, as one of eight socialists out of 265 members, would never have done. I believe that no member of parliament, be he Conservative, Liberal or C.C.F., takes unemployment as a laughing matter. There is no one out of the 265 men and women who takes unemployment as a laughing matter. We are all concerned with the situation.
We in this party tried to ask the government to deal with the problem on the short range and long range basis. In particular, I want to draw your attention to what I said

Supply-Labour
last Friday. Last Friday when I spoke for the first time on this matter of unemployment I said this in the first two minutes, and I quote from page 1491 of Hansard for February 26, 1960.


An hon. Member:: We can read.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps you can read, but I am damned if you understand. I said this:
I have no Intention whatsoever, Mr. Chairman, of saying anything on charges and counter-charges as between the government and the official opposition on the responsibility for the problem. I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of saying anything whatsoever on recriminations between the government and the official opposition on this matter, nor of saying one word about the private feud between two Conservative members in this House of Commons. I want to deal with this question of unemployment.
That is what I said, and I followed that out, as did every other member of this party. If the Minister of Labour will recall what I said on Friday, he will remember I referred to short range and long range planning. In particular I mentioned the long range and pointed out that problems are developing. I asked the government if they would face up to them. We have heard a great deal about Elliot Lake, about Fernie and about the coal mines on Vancouver island. However, this problem is brought even closer to home. There is an additional factor to which I tried to refer during questions on orders of the day.
It is no longer just a case of Fernie or of Elliot Lake or of the maritimes or of Vancouver island. We see capitalism faced with competition and having to close plants. John Inglis is closing its St. Catharines plant. An article in the Toronto Star states that the John Inglis Company Limited announced yesterday it will start immediately on the construction of a $2 million plant in Scarborough to handle the production now carried out at its St. Catharines plant. But it is going to close the plant at St. Catharines and 500 are going to be out of work by the end of the year. This has happened since last Friday when I spoke. We were asking that the emergency situation with regard to unemployment be taken care of, and we ask also, when are you going to face up to the developments taking place in your own capitalist system?


Frank Charles McGee: It is a short question.


Harold Edward Winch: It may be a long answer. May I continue?


An hon. Member:: You may.


Harold Edward Winch: I intend to do so whether the hon. member likes it or not. Through you, Mr. Chairman, may I tell the Minister of Labour that there is no member in this

house, irrespective of party, who treats unemployment as a laughing matter. It is a serious problem. Many suggestions have been made as to the handling of the unemployment situation and it does not become the Minister of Labour to say that the opposition puts forward no suggestions just because he does not like to accept them. The ideas and the propositions are there.
May I say that the evidence is now becoming increasingly clear of the seriousness of the situation of competition and the need for greater efficiency and production. That is going to hurt labour; but you cannot hurt labour too long. The time is now imminent. I am using St. Catharines as an example- and Elliot Lake-in the past and going beyond that. Will the Minister of Labour and the government not accept the constructive proposition to face reality, to plan for our greater efficiency, and for our operation on a more competitive basis in order to take care of the workers of this country? Whether the Conservatives like it or not, the workers are the ones who produce all wealth. For the minister to say that the members laugh is, I say, Conservative hypocrisy. I could use a stronger word but I do not want to be ruled out of order.
We are faced with a serious problem. I refer to the three parties in this chamber. There are 208 Conservatives, 48 Liberals and 8 C.C.F. I want to say this to the government. If you will get away from making charges as to who is responsible; if you will forget the past and will look at the present and the future; and if you will bring in something definite to take care of our unemployment and to take care of Canada, you will have the unanimous support of all members in this chamber. Have you patriotism to the people of Canada? Have you an understanding of the problem? Have you the guts to forget politics, to bring in unemployment measures and to discuss them on the basis of what will make a greater Canada and greater security for every person in our country?
The challenge is there. The decision is up to you. But because you are the government, with 208 members, only you have the power to move. Will you move? That is the question we are asking. Will you move? Will you quit your talking and indulging in wishful thinking and bring down definite policies? If you do so, this party will back you right down the line. If you do not do so, we are going to criticize constructively. I am going to tell the Minister of Labour that we are not the ones who are laughing. You are the ones who are cynical; and while you are being cynical and charging the opposition with laughing,

people are going hungry in this country. That is not what they were promised in 1958 and in 1957.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are only a couple of minutes left until six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, but during that short time I should like to say that I feel this far-ranging debate on unemployment, on this most serious domestic problem before us, is one in which all hon. members, if they so wish, should have an opportunity to take part, and I intend to take part in it. May I say that I respect as much as does any hon. member the sincerity of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I know how deeply he feels with regard to this problem and other social and economic problems. However, my respect for his sincerity does not persuade me to agree with all the solutions to the problem which he puts forward or indeed with the way in which he puts forward his solutions.
Last night, in an intervention which I think was most unfortunate, the Minister of Labour challenged the motives of some of us, or all of us in the opposition, taking part in this debate. I regretted as much as did my hon. friend-in fact I deplored it-some of the words and the attitude of the minister at that time. But I may say that I did not consider that to be the normal attitude of the minister in this chamber and that I do not consider him in any respect to be a rotten or despicable person. Normally I think his attitude is not based on considerations of that kind. Over the years in this chamber I think he has won a reputation for sincerity and integrity. That is why we deplored all the more his intervention last night. I think that over the years the minister's attitude and approaches to this problem have not been rotten or despicable and I would not go as far as did my hon. friend a few moments ago in describing what happened last night. These things do occur. I think the minister lost his temper. His patience gave way.


An hon. Member:: Under provocation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have been charged with prolonging this discussion-although I certainly do not accept that charge and I have no apology to make for our party-and deliberately obstructing the passing of this item in the estimates.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Someone says "What are you doing now?" I am stating my position on the
Business of the House
most important domestic problem now before the Canadian people. If that is obstructing, I plead guilty to doing it.


Jacques Flynn: I am very sorry to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition-


Harold Edward Winch: May I have an opportunity to answer all those questions?


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but it being six o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Progress reported.



PRIVILEGE


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. During the course of my remarks this afternoon I stated that bankruptcies in the province of Quebec had increased by 50 per cent in 1959 over 1958. That was in answer to a question by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Aiken). I was quoting the prothonotary of the district court of the province of Quebec. I have since sent for the statement which he made and which I did not have before me at the time. It is contained in an extract from La Presse dated January 12, 1960. What Mr. Robert Cote then said is exactly what I stated in the house save and except that it is directed towards bankruptcies in the district of Quebec and not in the province of Quebec as I stated. I was in error to that extent and I should like to make that correction.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I was going to ask the house leader what it is the intention to go on with tomorrow.


Michael Starr: Tomorrow we will go on with the same debate. When we get through with it we will go on with the legislation outlined by the house leader last night. Friday, the same as was outlined on Monday and Tuesday.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.
It being two minutes past six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO 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. Argue: 1.	Has the national harbours board, Montreal, entered Into any contract or agreement, with any protective agencies for protective duties in regard to Montreal harbour?
2.	If so, what is the date of each agreement or contract, with whom was it made, what was the nature of each and the terms, and for what reason was each entered into?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The national harbours board advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Agreements entered into with Brinks Express Company of Canada Limited for transportation of currencies-
(a)	From Jacques Cartier bridge toll houses to national harbours board, Montreal harbour head office, 357 Common street, for a period of 12 months per year;
(b)	From wharfage office, 400 Youville square, to head office, 357 Common street, during season of navigation;
(c)	From head office to bank, 12 months per year.
Date of Agreement
Consideration
Terms
26th April, 1957
$195 per month during season of navigation.... One year, commencing 1st May, 1957,
$165 per month during winter months	 and thereafter until cancelled by
either party on 30 days' written notice;
24th November, 1954.. .	$180 per month during season of navigation.. .
$149 per month during winter season	
From 3rd January, 1955, to 1st May, 1957;
1st April, 1952
$163 per month during season of navigation. .. $135.50 per month during winter months	
From 1st April, 1952, to 1st January, 1955;
16th March, 1951	
$126.50 per month during season of navigation. $ 99 per month during winter months	
From 1st April, 1951, to 1st April, 1952;
12th July, 1949
$115 per month during season of navigation. ... From 15th June, 1949, to 1st April, 1951 $ 90 per month during winter months	
Agreements entered into with ,1. Broderick Service Incorporated for inspection and survey of personnel employed in transit sheds and grain elevators, for the purpose of enforcing the no smoking regulations-[DOT]
Date of agreement	Date of inspection
Terms
May 26, 1958	 May 28,1958
July 11, 1958	 July 22, 195S
November 25, 1958. November 25, 1958
May 21, 1959	 May 21, 1959
2 representatives at $25 each per 8-hour shift	 = $	50
4 operators at $20 each per 8-hour shift	 80
Total cost of inspection	 $ 130
2 representatives at $25 each per 8-hour shift	 = $	50
2 operators at $20 each per 8-hour shift	 40
Total cost of inspection	 S 90
2 representatives at $25 each per 8-hour shift	 = $	50
2 operators at $20 each per 8-hour shift	 40
Total cost of inspection	
$	902 representatives at $25 each per 8-hour shift	
= $	502 operators at $20 each per 8-hour shift	
40$	90
Total cost of inspection

Questions
Date of agreement	Date of inspection	Terms	October 21, 1959	October 21, 1959.	. 2 representatives at $25 each per S-hour shift	... = $	502 operators at $20 each per 8-hour shift	40Total cost of inspection	... $	90November 4, 1959	. November 4, 1959	. 2 representatives at $25 each per 8-hour shift	... = $	502 operators at $20 each per 8-hour shift	40Total cost of inspection	.. $	90


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD PERSONNEL, MONTREAL
Mr. Argue: 1.	What are the names of the executive officials, purchasing agent, and members of the national harbours board, Montreal?
2.	On what date did they take up their present positions, what are their duties, qualifications, salary, and under what authority were they appointed, and on what date?
3.	Have any of these persons held previous federal government positions?
4.	If so, what were they, dates of service, duties, salaries, and qualifications?
5.	Were any of these positions obtained by competitive civil service competitions?
6.	If so, which ones and what was the date?
7.	If not, under what authority was the appointment to each made, on what date, and on whose recommendation?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The national harbours board advises as follows:
1.	G. Beaudet, port manager; G. S. Anderson, assistant port manager, administration; F. C. Oppen, assistant port manager, operation; J. A. Landreville, purchasing agent.
There are no members of the national harbours board in Montreal. They are located in Ottawa.
2.	G. Beaudet, port manager; entered service of the national harbours board on 16th January, 1947, as assistant port manager; promoted to position of port manager on 1st February, 1955.
Duties-operation and administration of Montreal harbour.
Qualifications-professional engineer bilingual, general administrative and business ability, capability for directing the many departments of harbour operations, necessitating a broad knowledge of harbour engineering, terminal railway operations, grain business, warehousing, marine, rail, and truck traffic and transportation, labour relations, tariff application, public relations, control of revenues and expenditures, etc.
Salary-$15,000 per annum.
Authority for appointment-national harbours board minute 1955-M-10, dated 24th January, 1955.
G. S. Anderson, assistant port manager, administration: entered service of the national harbours board, Ottawa office, as an engineer on its engineering staff on 6th December, 1935; transferred to Montreal harbour as executive assistant on 1st July, 1956; promoted to asistant port manager, administration, on 1st August, 1957.
Duties-general administrative duties and, in addition, direction of the following harbour departments through their respective heads: purchasing and stores, wharfage, personnel and harbour police.
Qualifications-Degree in civil engineering from University of Saskatchewan, proven executive and administrative ability.
Salary-$11,500 per annum.
Authority for appointment-national harbours board minute 1957-M-187, dated 22nd July, 1957.
F. C. Oppen, assistant port manager, operation: entered service as acting port secretary on 1st January, 1954; appointed port secretary on 1st December, 1954; appointed assistant port manager, operation, on 1st August, 1957.
Duties-general duties in connection with the operation of Montreal harbour, also direction of the following operating departments through their respective heads: harbour master and fleet, railway traffic, cold storage warehouse and grain elevators.
Qualifications-qualified master mariner, extensive experience in superintending and operating ships, and thorough knowledge of all phases of harbour operation.
Salary-$11,500 per annum.
Authority for appointment-national harbours board minute 1957-M-187, dated 22nd July, 1957.
J. A. Landreville, purchasing agent: entered service as clerk in the wharfage department on 15th May, 1930; appointed asistant to purchasing agent on 1st October, 1950; promoted to purchasing agent on 1st April, 1959.

Questions
Duties-calling for tenders and/or prices on materials and services, and placing purchase orders.
Qualifications-experience in purchasing, good knowledge of markets, availability and quality of goods, general knowledge of accounting and business practices, proven integrity, good judgment and initiative.
Salary-$5,400 per annum.
Authority for appointment-national harbours board minute 1959-M-175, dated 27th July, 1959.
3.	Yes.
4.	G. Beaudet, port manager, was employed as manager, Montreal branch, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, from April to December, 1946.
Duties-administration of National Housing Act.
Salary-$5,400 per annum.
Qualifications-degree in civil engineering, experience in housing construction, knowledge and experience in financing and administration of housing loans.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by 5.
7.	Mr. Beaudet was appointed by letter from the general manager, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Date of appointment-1st April, 1946.


MAJOR GENERAL M. H. S. PENHALE
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Does Major General M. H. S. Penhale, director of the civil defence college at Arnprior, report directly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in the matter of civil defence or does he report to the Prime Minister and/or the ministers of national defence or justice?
2.	Has Major General Penhale made a report to the government along similar lines to the material contained in his recent article which appeared in the Royal Canadian Air Force Staff College Journal?
3.	Is the government taking any action to arouse public interest in civil defence measures?
4.	If so, what specific measures are being taken to enlist the co-operation of provincial and municipal governments?
Answer by: Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1.	The Minister of National Health and Welfare.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	The specific measures taken for this purpose include:
(a)	The government has proposed to, and worked out with, the provincial governments an allocation of civil defence functions and responsibilities to be assumed by the federal authorities on the one hand and the provincial and the municipal authorities on the other.
(b)	Two federal-provincial conferences of ministers were held during 1959 to discuss and resolve questions of mutual concern regarding civil defence.
(c)	The dominion government has revised the basis of providing financial assistance to provincial and municipal civil defence projects and increased the proportion of the cost borne on federal appropriations from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. For the next fiscal year, 1960-61, the government has proposed to parliament an appropriation for financial assistance to provinces and municipalities in this field in an amount twice that which had been allocated in previous years.
(d)	Frequent consultations have been held between civil and military representatives of the dominion government on the one hand and ministers and officials of provincial governments on the other on the implementation of policies in the field of civil defence.
(e)	The Canadian army has allotted duties to many of its officers and units to assist the civil authorities in the preparations for civil defence responsibilities in wartime, and the army has undertaken special training and equipment of its units for these purposes.
(f)	Federal officers have been provided in each of the provinces to work with provincial authorities in developing plans and other preparations for emergency measures to be taken in wartime in those areas, including civil defence measures. Plans are now being developed with respect to the preparation of combined communication and related facilities to permit the effective functioning of governments at all levels in wartime emergencies.


UNIFICATION OF MEDICAL SERVICES, ARMED FORCES
Mr. Argue: 
CAN.-U.S. BRIDGE, FORT FRANCES, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is there a bridge between Canada and the United States for motor and pedestrian traffic at Fort Frances, Ontario?
2.	If so, what authority or organization owns and controls this bridge?
3.	What is the authority, statutory or otherwise, which gives such an organization the right to levy a toll?
4.	Has there been any change in either the organizations ownership, name or legislative basis since the original authority was given?
5.	If so, what are the changes?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The board of transport commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Minnesota, Dakota, and Western Railway Company and International Bridge and Terminal Company are joint owners.
Questions
3.	Chapter 108, statutes of Canada, 4-5 Edward VII, 1905, an act to incorporate the International Bridge and Terminal Company.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


CAN.-U.S. BRIDGE, FORT FRANCES, ONT.  TOLLS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government received any annual statements from any authority which collects fees on a bridge at Fort Frances which sets out the total revenue with the breakdown as to its source in types of vehicle and pedestrian traffic?
2.	If so, what are the figures and the rates of toll each year for the past five years?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The board of transport commissioners for Canada advise as follows:-
1.	Yes.
2.	Table I hereunder shows the number of vehicles and persons using the bridge in the years 1956 to 1959 inclusive. Table II (a) gives the tolls chargeable for various kinds of traffic. Table II (b) gives the commuter tolls. These are the current tolls established in 1956.
The gross income of the bridge from the year 1956 to date is as follows: 1956, $188,550; 1957, $196,136; 1958, $203,608; 1959, $208,788.
The breakdown as between vehicles and pedestrian revenue is available only for the year 1959 and is for vehicles, $142,736, and for pedestrians, $66,052.
Table I - Traffic Statistics
Vehicles	1956	1957	1958	1959Passenger cars (inc. taxis)	
Commercial vehicles (inc. buses	. 378,308	380,927	398,034	412,225and trucks) 	. 43,056	54,978	53,556	56,874Motorcycles 	. 142	143	142	153Other vehicles (bicycles etc.) 	. -	5	22	-Total 	. 421,506	436,053	451,754	469,252
Persons
Drivers of vehicles	
421,506	421,347	435,609	450,771Passengers	
584,259	597,941	626,227	639,881Pedestrians	
241,476	217,167	230,199	216,386Total	
1,247,241	1,236,455	1,292,035	1,307,038
Table II (a)-Kind of Traffic Tolls 40 cents; rig, one or two horses, with one Auto trailer, 50 cents; truck with one person, 40 cents; bicycle with one person, person, 50 cents; automobile with one person, 10 cents; motocycle with one person, 25

Questions
cents; extra persons in vehicles, each, 10 cents; pedestrians, each, 10 cents; pedestrians with baby carriages, 10 cents; horse with one rider, 10 cents; horses, cattle, swine, sheep and/or goats, each, 10 cents; passengers and pedestrians, under five years old, free.
Table II (b)-Commuter Prices Tolls Kind of Traffic
Vehicles (car) including driver-ten one way trips, $2.50.
Vehicles (truck or horse drawn) including driver-ten one way trips $3.50.
Pedestrians or passengers-twenty one way trips $1.00.
Note-Good only to purchasers and holders of commutation tickets, paid for in advance, and for one year from date of purchase. At expiration date of said ticket, and on demand, accompanied by unused tickets, refund will be made to said purchaser of unused tickets at rate of 25 cents on vehicles (car), 35 cents on vehicles (truck or horse drawn), and 5 cents on pedestrians or passengers.


JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE TOKENS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the authority administering the Jacques Cartier bridge now use a toll system, based on tokens and machines?
2.	If so, what steps were taken to ensure that counterfeit tokens, slugs or other devices could not be used in the machines?
3.	Is supervision at the machines able to catch any attempts to use counterfeit tokens or slugs?
4.	If not, has later examination of the "take" indicated there is use, substantial or otherwise, of counterfeit tokens or slugs?
5.	If so, has action been taken in any way to handle this problem?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The national harbours board advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Counterfeit tokens, slugs or other devices will not actuate the toll collecting machine and register paid fare unless they are manufactured within the very strict tolerances for diameter and thickness of Canadian coins.
(b)	It is believed that the value of the tokens as a toll (8 cents) is too low to warrant the manufacture of counterfeit tokens to the exact tolerances required. It is estimated that the manufacture on a small scale of counterfeit tokens or slugs would cost approximately 6 cents each.
(c)	A newly developed device will shortly oe installed in the toll collecting machines in automatic lanes which will immediately detect the use of slugs regardless of accuracy of reproduction.
3.	(a) At attended lanes the toll officer in attendance can immediately detect the use of counterfeit tokens or slugs whether or not they are built to exact tolerances.
(b) At automatic lanes with present equipment, the bridge sergeant would detect the use of counterfeit tokens or slugs if they are not built to exact tolerances, since they would immediately register a violation which would sound a bell, indicating that a car had gone through the lane without payment of proper fare.
4.	The average number of slugs found in the reject box of the collection machines is approximately four per day, out of a total of approximately 45,000 tokens or coins registered daily. This, however, does not indicate that a patron depositing a slug in the machine has gained access to the bridge without paying the proper fare. It only indicates that an attempt was made to go through the lane by using a slug.
5.	(a) Patrons attempting to use slugs for payment of fare have been apprehended and in two cases legal action has been taken which resulted in fines of $50 in one case and $25 in the other.
(b) As indicated above in answer 2 (c), a newly developed device will shortly be installed in the toll collecting machines. This device will immediately detect the use of slugs.


VETERANS DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Are any tax exemptions made for veterans in receipt of disability pensions?
2.	If not, has the government given any study to the American practice of exempting soldiers bonuses and veterans pensions for tax purposes?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
1.	Yes. Section 10, subsection 1(d) of the Income Tax Act provides exclusion from income of any compensation paid under section 13 of the Pension Act for injury or disease, or any aggravation thereof, resulting in the disability or death of any member of the naval, military or air forces of Canada in respect of service therein during world wars I and II, or in respect of peacetime service therein.
In addition, section 10, subsection 1(e) of the Income Tax Act provides a similar exclusion from income of any compensation on account of disability or death resulting from war service received by a Canadian resident

from countries which were allies of His Majesty during world wars I and II and which granted substantially similar relief for the year to members of its naval, military or air forces as that provided for persons in receipt of a pension under the provisions of section 13 of the Pension Act. The countries that qualify for purposes of this particular subparagraph are as follows:
World war I: Belgium, Brazil, China, commonwealth countries, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hedjaz, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland Portugal, Rumania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Siam, United States of America, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.
World war II: Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, commonwealth countries, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Salvador, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Siam (Thailand), Turkey, United States of America, U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.
The provisions of these two subparagraphs refer only to war service pensions received on account of disability or death and, as such, do not extend in any way either to payments on account of superannuation or to naval, army or air force long service pensions.
2.	Answered by (1) above.


WAR CLAIMS FUND
Mr. Winch: 1.	What was the amount of money deposited in the war claims fund from enemy assets of world war II (German and Japanese)?
2.	What amount of money has been paid out of this fund?
3.	What amount of money, if any, has been paid to Canadian veterans who served in Hone Kong?
Answer by:	Hon. Donald M. Fleming
(Minister of Finance):
Questions
1.	(a)	German assets	
$10,214,100(b)	Japanese	assets	
3,768,200(c)	Approximate net earnings after deposit-German	
804,100Japanese	
421,200

2.	Amount paid out	 $12,310,000
Amounts recommended for payment by the commission but not yet processed ...	3,498,700
3.	$3,035,151.


$15,808,700 PORK STORAGE  WEEKLY COST
Mr. Benidickson: What is the estimated cost, on a weekly basis, for storing presently held stocks of pork acquired by the government under terms of the Agricultural Stabilization Act?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
$40,000 (approximately).


POSTAL RATES ON NEWSPAPERS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government received any representations, orally, by letter or by brief from the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association during the past decade regarding the rate of postage charged, or regarding any changes in the rate charged on the delivery by the post office of daily newspapers?
2.	If so, on what dates and to what effect?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) On the 4th and 11th June 1951.
(b) That the rates of postage proposed in clause 11 of Bill No. 322 (1951) an act respecting the Canada post office, discriminated against daily newspapers and would prevent daily newspapers from serving a large number of rural subscribers because the proposed rates of postage would make it necessary for the publishers to charge a higher subscription price.

Thursday, March 3, 1960

(Translation):