1960-05-24

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Fraser.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would care to comment on the reported statement of the premier of British Columbia that while in Vancouver recently he, the minister, had been invited to discuss federal-provincial financial arrangements for the Columbia river project and had not replied to the invitation which, no doubt out of respect for my hon. friend's favourite procedure, was sent to him by telegram.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: If that is the report in the press it is not a completely correct report of what happened. I was in Vancouver last week on the Sunday and Monday. I had previously addressed a letter to the premier of British Columbia suggesting that it might be advisable for representatives of the department of the provincial treasurer of that province and of the federal Department of Finance to meet at a mutually convenient time to discuss any questions related to the financing of the Columbia river development that might be appropriate.
I was on a quite tight schedule on that trip west. I was due to leave Vancouver early on Tuesday morning. At a very late hour on Monday night-indeed, just when I was in the act of packing in preparation to leave Vancouver-I received a telegram from the premier suggesting that I should go on to Victoria. It was quite impossible, of course, to do so at that time, as I was due to speak in Winnipeg the following day. I proceeded to Winnipeg, fulfilled my engagement there and returned to Ottawa on Wednesday morning. On my return on Wednesday I addressed 79951-0-263J
a letter to the premier explaining the circumstances and why it was quite impossible, under the circumstances, for me to accept his invitation at that time, but suggesting that when he returned from his trip to the United Kingdom, on which he was to leave at the end of last week, I would be happy to arrange for such a meeting at a time that would be convenient to him.
I do not of my own knowledge know this, but I am told that having dispatched this telegram to me on Monday-apparently late on Monday-he went to the radio or made a radio statement within a day or so complaining that he had not received any reply to his telegram and that I had not gone to Victoria. Under the circumstances, if he made any such statement, it was obviously entirely premature. I think it would have been the part of fair play to wait until adequate time had elapsed for a response to reach him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I thank the minister for his reply and tell him I quite understand the difficulties of a tight schedule. Does he care to comment on the further statement made by the premier, namely that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) had already informed the government of British Columbia some time ago that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost of this project but that, in the reported words of the premier of British Columbia, they have been running away ever since from that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not made any such statement to the government of British Columbia. There has been no running away from anything. It is not the practice of this government to run away from its positions, its statements or its responsibilities. I think this matter would be much better advanced, Mr. Speaker, to the mutual advantage of British Columbia and the rest of Canada if an effort were made to arrive at understandings of the positions of the two governments without rushing into radio or press reports, as apparently has been done in the quarter referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, and trying to make some political statement.
The fact of the matter is that there has been an exchange of correspondence on this subject with the premier of British Columbia. We have been quite clear in the statements

Inquiries of the Ministry we have made to him. The matter of the development and the sharing of cost has been discussed at the several conferences that have been held between representatives of the federal government and representatives of the government of British Columbia. At this very time a meeting is in progress at Washington at which both governments are represented in discussions with representatives of the United States administration on this entire problem.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think it is not inappropriate for me to say that there have been ample opportunities for discussion of this subject and that all the opportunities that are required will be afforded. There will be no running away from any responsibility on the part of the federal government. We simply ask that all those concerned approach this matter in the same understanding and co-operative attitude.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Finance that the government not run away from their responsibilities to protect the residents of the Arrow lakes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the interests of the residents of the Arrow lakes area have been given due consideration at all times by the representatives of the federal government in the discussions which have been carried on.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Might I ask another supplementary question. I noticed that the premier of British Columbia passed within a few hundred miles of Ottawa the day before yesterday. Did Premier Bennett at that time make any effort to see the minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I have received no communication from Premier Bennett since Monday night, May 16, when I received a telegram at a very late hour, as I have said, as I was packing to leave for Winnipeg. I have had no communication from him since. He did indicate in that telegraphic message to me that he was leaving for England at the end of the week and would be gone for some time.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: May I ask a further supplementary question. Is this an example of those more harmonious relations which this government has established with the provinces?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may intervene, I suggest that the question is not an appropriate one to ask; it is an argumentative one, not one seeking information.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the denials by some leaders of farm organizations, does the minister wish to modify his statement made in the house last week that the federal cabinet had not received any alternative proposals to deficiency payments from farm groups?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly to what the hon. member is referring by denials of western farm organizations. The situation is as I outlined it in the house last week. The liaison committee representing the ten western farm organizations which wrote and wired requesting an interview with the Prime Minister and the cabinet were asked to send down in writing an alternative proposal for discussion between us.
I stated last week that they had not yet done so. They did submit a brief which to a considerable extent went over some of the things they stated when they were down on the march something over a year ago, which they thought might or should be done with regard to the dominion government assuming a larger portion of storage charges, and things of that sort. Some individual farm organizations have made representations, of course, but the liaison committee as a whole did not put in any definite alternative as requested in the reply to them by the Prime Minister.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. My question was prompted by two statements appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press following the announcement made in the house by the minister, to the effect that two major Manitoba farm groups had stated Friday that western farmers had made alternative suggestions to the Prime Minister for farm aid, and that they seemed to be under the impression that there was no reason for the government delaying the calling of a meeting to discuss them. Also the statement which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member a supplementary question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; my supplementary
question is this. Since the minister made his statement, has he not been made aware of this denial by the western farm groups?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, these clippings from the Winnipeg Free Press were drawn

to my attention this morning. I have just stated the situation, and it is the situation that I outlined last week.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, members of parliament recently received from the Minister of Agriculture for Canada formal invitations to the opening of a certain building, all printed in English. Can the minister tell us whether there were any written in French?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is a detail which is attended to in my office. I presume the hon. member has reference to the opening of the new building to be called the K. W. Neatby building. I am not aware whether invitations were prepared in both French and English, but I will inquire and find out.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to questions by the hon. member for Kootenay West and the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to make a brief statement concerning the fingerprinting of public servants.
During the second world war members of the Canadian armed services were fingerprinted, primarily for purposes of identification. In the years following the war the Department of National Defence and a number of other departments and agencies initiated the practice of fingerprinting for those employees requiring access to classified information, as well as for certain employees responsible for the protection of public property.
In 1954 the previous government decided to extend this procedure to all persons employed in positions requiring access to classified matters, including certain persons employed in positions of trust although they might not have working access to secret and confidential papers. At that time the civil service commission was asked to provide the necessary facilities for taking fingerprints of these categories of civil servants at its offices here and across the country. Crown companies and agencies were asked to make separate arrangements for the fingerprinting of their employees.
Inquiries of the Ministry
There has been no change in this policy since its inception, and I should like to assure the house that it is not the government's intention to extend this procedure to all public servants.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I should like to ask the minister to tell the house what departments or agencies he was referring to in his answer when he said that since the war a number of other departments or agencies had begun the practice of fingerprinting. I have in mind departments other than the Department of National Defence and others directly relating to security matters.


Léon Balcer: According to the information I received this morning-and I am not sure whether the list is complete-the following departments are concerned:	post office,
R.C.M.P., national defence, both service and civilian personnel; national research council, Canadian Arsenals, Atomic Energy of Canada, and some employees of the Department of Public Works in the custodial group, which means the char people and elevator people in buildings housing classified information.


George James McIlraith: A further supplementary question. If this was done by the previous government with respect to these employees in the Department of Public Works, why was it necessary to issue an order in the last few days requiring this action to be taken?


Léon Balcer: There were no new orders
issued by this government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question. Who makes the decision as to which civil servants should be fingerprinted?


Léon Balcer: The decision is taken by the various heads of the departments.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the press report that this procedure is to be extended to some 2,000 officials in the Department of Public Works inaccurate?


Léon Balcer: I do not know the exact figure. I do not think there is anything I can add to what I have said so far.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Would the minister mind telling me what access an elevator operator has to secret documents?


Léon Balcer: When I mentioned those employees I was referring to people who are in buildings at night, and during the daytime, when it might be possible for them to have access to these documents.


Harold Edward Winch: From the elevator to private offices? Oh, come.

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



REPORTED RAIDS BY MOUNTED POLICE ON CHINESE COMMUNITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I direct this question to the hon. lady because I believe the activities to which I shall refer concern her department. Is the minister able to give the house any report on the reasons for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation and raids that are taking place today in Chinese communities across Canada?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is a natural outcome of the investigation which I announced in the house on January 14.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In the statement made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on January 19, as reported at page 83 of Hansard of this year, the hon. lady said in part:
It is a little early as yet to evaluate the extent of the alleged illegal entries-
That is, from the mainland of China, Macao and Hong Kong.
-but there are indications that a number of persons may be involved both in Canada and in the Far East.
Is the minister now in a position to give any statistical information about the number of illegal entries to Canada from China and the number of people involved in the black market method of bringing immigrants to Canada?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information. The investigations are in the hands of the police, and I am afraid it will be quite some time before we will have any specific information.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary.
Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation authorized Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon, of Montreal's La Presse, to criticize the foreign policy of the United States, to attack the members of NATO and to praise the speech of Mr. 

Gromyko, minister of foreign affairs for the U.S.S.R., in his broadcast commentary on the French network, at 3 p.m. yesterday, May 23, dealing with the emergency meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations?
Second, could the responsible minister ask-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that our practice is not to have a series of oral questions. As I understand it the hon. member has put one question, and perhaps he might await an answer.
(Translation):


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and answer it in due course.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, Could the responsible minister, at the same time, ask the C.B.C. for an explanation about the views expressed by the so-called expert on international affairs engaged on that occasion by the government-owned network, which views were inconsistent with those expressed in this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) on the recent tension in the wake of the summit conference failure?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I let my answer to the first questior likewise apply to this one.


Lionel Chevrier: May I put
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? While the parliamentary secretary is inquiring into the questions just put to him, would he also inquire about a program in the English language broadcast over the C.B.C. at about the same time, so that we may know whether the views expressed on that occasion were not identical with those expressed on the French program?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member for Laurier does not seem very explicit. Could he specify the name of the person involved, or the date of the program just referred to?


An hon. Member:: It's pure hearsay.
Another hon. Member: This is just to whitewash Mr. Gagnon.


Lionel Chevrier: If the parliamentary secretary wants additional information, I may tell him that the program was broadcast at about the same time; the participants were Messrs. Blair Fraser, Norman De Poe, Stanley Burke and James M. Minifie, who made pretty



I960

[Stage Direction]
much the same remarks of which the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) seems to be complaining.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked me a question in connection with the united steel workers and the Rio Tinto mining company. I have inquired from the C.B.C. and they advise as follows.
The Elliot Lake news item in question, based on a story that the area council of the united steel workers of America has accused Rio Tinto mining company of trying to create a monopoly in the uranium industry, was received by the C.B.C. newsrooms from the Canadian Press early Wednesday night, May 18, and was considered along with all the other news items of the day by the editor on duty. Along with scores of other stories rejected, it was considered on the basis of its news value not to warrant inclusion in the corporation's newscasts.
Almost 20 hours later a collect wire was received by the C.B.C. central radio newsroom signed by an Elliot Lake free lance newsman whose work is unknown to the C.B.C., offering the same story. Since the news agencies had already carried the story the night before and the C.B.C. had rejected it through the usual editorial processes, the corporation refused to accept and pay for this message.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Nixon) asked whether I could bring him up to date on the progress being made at the Sault Ste. Marie airport. The runways will be completed and ready for use in the fall of this year. It is not possible at this time to say when the air terminal building will be completed, but tenders will be called this summer.



OTTAWA, ONT.    INQUIRY AS TO INVITATIONS TO OPENING OF TERMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister yet
Inquiries of the Ministry issued invitations for the gala opening of Ottawa's new air terminal building on July 1?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, but that will take place one of these fine days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What, the opening or the invitations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are not running away from it, are you?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. May I indicate first that my question is based on a question I asked which was answered by the Minister of Justice on May 13 regarding a report of the restrictive trade practices commission. I then asked the Minister of National Revenue a supplementary question, which was as follows:
May I inquire of the Minister of National Revenue what action has been, taken or is contemplated with respect to the recommendation for the removal or reduction of tariffs on zinc?
I was referring to the recommendation of the restrictive trade practices commission. The Minister of National Revenue said that he would take my question as notice, but he thought the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. Has it been brought to the attention of the minister, and is he yet in a position to answer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker. I heard the question asked, but if any changes were proposed in any tariff rate they would, of course, first have to be laid before the house.


Frank Howard: My question was what action has been taken or is contemplated with respect to the recommendation of the restrictive trade practices commission, not whether or not it would be laid before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have indicated to the hon. member that I will examine into the matter. If there is anything affecting the responsibilities of the Department of Finance I will be glad to make inquiry.

The house resumed, from Monday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Martin (Essex East).
4178	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development



LACK OF GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP


Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night, I had been giving what seemed to me to be the best reasons in favour of the immediate setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and trends, and automation.
It is quite obvious that the establishment of such a board is absolutely urgent. The main reason for it, in my opinion, is that the policy of the government, ever since it has been in office, has been one of makeshift and political expediency.
The creation of such an advisory board is, in my opinion, the most appropriate and efficient way to get us out of the economic deadlock in which we now find ourselves.
I submit there is no denial of the principle of responsible government, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) erroneously indicated last night, in the fact of seeking advice from experts; and I believe that if the government had adopted that policy two or three years ago, we would not now be in our present difficult situation. Not only is that advisory board advocated by Canadian newspapers, but it has also been many times endorsed by organized labour, as could be seen again this morning, in a release from the Canadian and Catholic Federation of Labour, which reads as follows:
The Canadain and Catholic Federation of Labour announced over the week end its intention to ask the federal and provincial governments to set up economic advisory boards to consider practical solutions to the unemployment problem.
That, almost to a word, is the very essence of the amendment put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East. Such an advisory board would also meet the hopes and suggestions expressed by our hon. Conservative friends in 1954. In fact, it is seen on page 2085 of Hansard, that the Conservative opposition at that time suggested to the government that a review of the economic situation should be made in 1954 as a means of finding employment. And everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that the situation in 1954 was in no way comparable to the present difficult situation.
I think it might be well to place on record the list of our Conservative friends who, in 1954, saw fit to suggest that we review the matter. On page 2564 of Hansard, I find the following names:
Mr. Balcer, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Diefenbaker, Mrs. Fairclough, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Fraser (Peterborough), Mr. Fulton, Mr. Green, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Hees, Mr. 

Howe, (Wellington-Huron), Mr. Macdonnell, Mr. McGregor, Mr. Monteith, Mr. Nesbitt, Mr. Nowlan, Mr. Pearkes, the Hon. Mr. Rowe and Mr. Starr.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Before commencing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a statement made last night by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, who has just taken his seat. At page 4168 of Hansard he made the following statement, and I shall read it in French: (Translation):
I should like to offer the Minister of Labour a challenge I wish he would take up one of these days. I wish he would attend a meeting in Montreal, for instance, where a third of all the unemployed in Canada are to be found, and deliver before those people the kind of speech he has made here in the house tonight.
(Text):
I think perhaps the hon. member is not in touch with what has been happening in Montreal, because I should like to point out to him that just two weeks ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), speaking to a group of labour leaders and union representatives in Montreal, made almost exactly the same type of speech that he made in the house yesterday, and he was greeted by applause from that group.
I should like first of all to examine the amendment with which we are now dealing. We are dealing with an amendment which is not quite a motion of non-confidence. There is, in this amendment, no condemnation of the government for anything it has done. It is merely a request or a suggestion that a committee should be set up. The hon. member for Essex East, after solemnly assuring the house that his amendment would not touch upon any matter that had been already decided by the house, nevertheless went ahead and made a long speech on unemployment, at the conclusion of which he proposed the motion to set up a committee to deal with the causes of unemployment. I would not accuse the hon. member of leading the house down the garden path, but he certainly did have me fooled.
I should like to have a look at the economic situation as it is in Canada today. I am positive that it is not as bad as it was painted yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East. We have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that in any expanding economy there are bound to be pockets of unemployment. This is caused by, among other things, the shifting and

relocation of industry. However, the hon. member for Essex East quoted yesterday from a dominion bureau of statistics report. I should like to refer to some of the items appearing in that report of Friday, May 20, 1960. The only figures to which the hon. member for Essex East referred were those relating to construction. I cannot find the figures to which he referred because in his remarks, at page 4132 of Hansard, he stated that construction starts fell by 35 per cent; that was for the first quarter of 1960.
Looking at the weekly bulletin of Friday, May 20 we find that building permits issued in March fell by some 14 per cent from a year earlier. I think it is fairly obvious why this happened. Parliament had not voted any funds until some time during that first quarter, so there were no funds available from the time the money voted for the previous year was exhausted.
However, there were other items in this bulletin to which the hon. member did not refer. The first is manufacturing. Manufacturers' shipments in March were valued at an estimated $1,959 million, some 7 per cent greater than in February and 3.5 per cent above the March, 1959 level. Merchandising; department store sales, during the week of May 7 were 6.1 per cent greater than a year earlier, while April sales climbed by 6.9 per cent. Agriculture and food; more creamery butter, Cheddar cheese, ice cream and skim milk powder were produced in April and January to April of this year than last. In so far as transportation is concerned, the number of cars of railway revenue freight loaded on Canadian lines in the week of May 7 rose slightly to 76,165. Manufacturers' shipments, inventories and orders; manufacturers' shipments in March were valued at an estimated $1,959 million, an increase of nearly 7 per cent from the revised average estimate of $1,837 million according to the latest dominion bureau of statistics figures.
Now, we can take any group of figures such as this and pick out one in which there is a decline, but taking the whole group as indicated in this latest weekly bulletin there has been a very definite increase all across the line in matters relating to the national economy.
I should like to look for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, at some of the subjects covered by the amendment. I think the one deserving the most attention is the question of automation. The subject of automation requires very serious consideration. There is no doubt at all that the pattern of employment is changing in Canada, just at it is in North America and elsewhere in the world. As automation advances the place of the unskilled workman in our economy is gradually lessening. It is 79951-0-264
24, 1960	4179
National Board on Economic Development becoming more and more difficult for the workman who has nothing more to offer than his own strength to secure employment, while at the same time the help wanted columns of our daily newspapers are filled with requests for skilled help, teachers and professional persons.
We ask ourselves, what can be done? The Liberal party has proposed, through the hon. member for Essex East, that a committee be appointed; that is the substance of the motion before us. I believe there are some other things that can be done. The training and retraining of displaced workers is, I believe, a top priority. This work is being substantially aided by the federal government, which pays 50 per cent of the cost of any provincial training or retraining program of unemployed persons, both for buildings and for instruction.
The second thing is that I believe education at all levels must be improved. I do not wish to encroach upon the provincial domain nor to reopen a closed debate on university grants, but I do wish to point out that the federal government has taken an interest in education, to the extent which is acceptable, and that education along all lines is one of the best methods of alleviating the difficulty of the unskilled labour force.
I should like to say a few words about the position I would take on the amendment which has been proposed. First, with reference to the setting up of a board or a commission, may I say that we have a great many boards and commissions in this country at the present time. On the government and its advisers must rest the responsibility for creating economic policy such as that which has been suggested in the motion. The problems of automation and employment are extremely important, and certainly we as members of the House of Commons and the government must give serious consideration to the direction of future development.
Those groups which are mentioned in the resolution, namely government, industry, labour, agriculture and universities all have some responsibility in the matter of better employment and the problem of the changing economic scene. Each in its own field could, I believe, contribute to a better understanding of and answers to the problems. It might be that a conference of some type of the persons and groups mentioned in this resolution would be extremely helpful; but setting up a national board to develop economic policies would be, in my opinion, setting up a new giant in the field of semi-governmental bodies which is quite unnecessary.
Even if the terms of the amendment were altered or modified in the way in which I suggested, it would still be very difficult to
4180	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development support it. It is put forward as an alternative to granting supply. I do not believe it is the kind of amendment that even the opposition can support. It is not a motion of no confidence; it is merely a suggestion which can be made at any other time in our proceedings when supply is not at issue.
In the wording of this amendment there is something which is faintly reminiscent of the session of 1957-58. It gives the appearance of being a non-confidence motion but in fact, even if it were accepted and passed, it could not do any harm. If this is the best the opposition can do in the nature of a nonconfidence motion I feel there is not much wrong in the country.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not one for which I have any great enthusiasm, although my colleagues and I are going to support it. The reason it seems somewhat nebulous really lies, in my view, in the speech introducing it, in which the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), in a rather delightful wandering, much and often intercepted by irrelevant or at least apparently irrelevant points of order raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), really did not fill us in on just what this national advisory board which he and his party were advocating would do. The motion reads in part as follows:
-a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives of governments, industry, labour, agriculture and universities,^-
While no mention is made there specifically of the provinces, they would have to come in. We are left, as a number of hon. members have pointed out, with the spectre of a board that would be rather large and perhaps unwieldy. I should like to have known whether the hon. member for Essex East contemplated something like the president's council of economic advisers such as the United States government has. I think we might have merited a bit more elaboration on how this particular board was to handle two items which, although related, seem to me to be quite different in scope and scale; that is, how it was to handle the question of economic policy, which is definitely a long term matter, and the question of automation, which is of not so great a theoretical scale and which surely will have to be faced by a series of short range steps. It seems to me that to give this suggested board those two particular functions could lead to a number of difficulties.
One word that is missing from this phrase "national advisory board," of course, is that magic word to which C.C.F. speakers usually give obeisance but which Liberal speakers


tend to shun. I refer to the word "planning". We are enthusiastic about planning, and it might just be conceivable that we are going to have a national planning board in the future. I do not know how long it is going to take; it will depend on the initiative, or lack of it, of this government. Perhaps a national advisory board would be a step along the way.
But irrespective of what the hon. member for Essex East did not say in letting us know what this board was going to do, we had a speech from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). One of the things that intrigued me about his responsibility is that he has given us what I think is the most forthright statement of any cabinet minister in Canadian history in that he has said that his government and he, in so far as his department is concerned, accept the responsibility for unemployment.
We have had in the past governments which have committed themselves. I refer especially to the Liberal government in 1945, which committed itself to a policy of full employment. But this is the first time to my knowledge, when I have ever been able to put my finger on it, that a minister has come right out and boldly said, "We accept responsibility". I think that is very much worth while.
But when we hear the minister talk we find that he gives us a picture that is rather radiant and sunny. It is as though his government has created a magnificent beach, and from one end of the beach to the other the water is warm, is at a consistently safe level, and you do not have to worry. But then he talks about problems. In other words in this nice beach, where the water is at an average level, delightfully tepid, and where you seem to be perfectly safe, there are a number of holes into which people can slip and drown. It is this kind of unevenness, these holes, that moves me to comment that I think we had every right to expect more from this government in the particular economic field than we have received.
As I said, the Minister of Labour is a particularly bothersome kind of personality to have been projected into this particular situation. We all admire him. We like the way we are treated. When you go to him or go to his office, you can get information. The other day he made reference to the fact when one of the Liberals raised the point that some unemployment insurance commission offices were no longer giving information to members of parliament, that he had provided it to me and to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai). This sort of thing

is commendable. We have the minister saying that his department accepts its responsibility. But what we have not got, Mr. Speaker, is any confidence that the minister either looms large enough in the cabinet or that this cabinet is interested enough in this particular problem, namely the problem of the developing unemployment crisis.
The minister quoted from the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. I think this is probably the most overrated commission that Canada has ever had. I would say the conclusions are almost useless with regard to any government planning. The minister quoted approvingly from the report those sections in particular that dealt with the optimistic picture. I would point out to the minister that although the conclusions of this commission are very much lacking in pungency, on page 426 of those conclusions the report states:
The fact of the matter is that the problem of preventing unemployment or of correcting a condition of unemployment once it occurs has not been fully solved. There are things which governments can do under such conditions and if they are done at the right time and with sufficient vigour and forthrightness, we may be hopeful, perhaps cautiously optimistic would be a better way to put it, that they will be successful, depending upon the circumstances at the time and particularly upon conditions and circumstances in the United States. But the business of influencing the level of economic activity in a country is a new art which is relatively untried. And there is nothing certain or foolproof about it.
I think most of us can agree with this particular conclusion; and reference is made to the fact that all the rosy predictions of the Gordon report rest on the assumption that we are not going to have any periods of severe cyclical unemployment. I do not know whether we have a really severe cycle in progress now, but I do know that as of May 5 in my own particular region, which is a prosperous one, over 15 per cent of the labour force were still seeking jobs and unable to find them. I think statistics generally indicate that we have a peculiar unemployment problem at this time, with high production but very many sore spots developing, and a very general level of unemployment that cannot be explained as frictional, that cannot be explained as seasonal and that cannot be explained simply as the result of technological change. My own assumption tends to place paramount the idea of technological change.
In my particular region, which runs roughly from Sudbury westward to the Manitoba boundary, we have the woods industry giving a rather buoyant economy at the present time. We have quite a number of mining prospects and mines in operation, and as we are in the nature of a bridge across central Canada we will always have a large number employed in 79951-0-2641
National Board on Economic Development the transportation field. In all three of our major industries, the pulp and paper industry, the mining industry and the transportation industry, immense amounts of capital have been inverted in recent years which have led to an unbelievable reduction in the working force; or if you want to put it another way, there has been an unbelievable increase in productivity.
I think this can best be seen in terms of the woods, where any woods manager today will tell you that with the equipment he has now he can cut three times as much wood with the same number of men as he could cut 12 years ago. Unfortunately there is neither the opportunity nor the prospect of increasing the cut of our woods so we can engage an increased labour force. Therefore we are left with the situation where the number of people needed in the bush is dropping, and dropping sharply.
Exactly the same thing is obvious to anyone who has followed the fortunes of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway; the railway employees are thinning out, and when central traffic control comes in, as it will within the next 18 months, the drop will be very pronounced.
As far as the mines are concerned the figures are not quite so startling. I can remember that at the first mine I worked there was an underground staff of approximately 100 to put up 400 tons of rock a day. I know one mine today in the same region which puts up over 3,000 tons a day with an underground force of 100. The picture we can see in our own particular region, and see it very startlingly and clearly, is that the kind of productivity increase which our large industries have been getting as the result of rather immense capital outlay has cut down labour opportunities. Of course in terms of gross size or growth capabilities or growth prospects, our future labour prospects are consequently deadened. It is impossible to build up a large population, even though productivity and the value of what we are producing is increasing, if your labour force is not expanding.
This particular condition which we suffer at the present time and which I think is going to increase highlights the need for some way out of the conundrum. We need some sort of study, co-ordination, planning, and then some kind of policy. I have no faith in this particular cabinet being able to get on top of this particular situation.


An hon. Member:: They have no faith in you either.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member interjects that they have no faith in me either, and
4182	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development there is no reason why they should. They are the ones with the responsibility and we are the ones to criticize. I remember that the hon. member sat in a committee I sat on and listened to one cabinet minister and several ex-cabinet ministers all say that they were far too busy to look after this and far too busy to look after that. That is one of the most unfortunate things about cabinet ministers today; they are loaded down with so much routine that these men-and I think many members of all parties share this view-have not the time to work out the kind of policy which we need.
It was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) that this resolution indicates a lack of faith in our civil servants. I have slightly more faith in the cabinet than I have in senior civil servants so far as their being able to work out the sort of policy decisions of the overall kind which we need in order to confront problems like automation and unemployment. It seems to me that we need some kind of internal change in the cabinet structure and some way of developing economic advice which can be used by the cabinet at the top level. This is why this particular board which is proposed might be useful.
I think those people who protest that this is just another step of creeping socialism should remember that the United States president has had this type of counsel at least since 1948. His advisers publish quite a number of reports, and their annual forecasts are looked over by a great many people. I think we should also remember that in the United States, where they make a fetish of free enterprise and private enterprise and a free market, they still have a tremendous number of agencies, both governmental and foundation, such as the twentieth century fund and the international brothers fund, all working on economic problems and developing economic policy. It seems that we have only the occasional royal commission.
To underline the need for some kind of national co-ordination, I think it should be pointed out that we have information sources, in the dominion bureau of statistics of a statistical nature, and in the national research council of a scientific kind. I know we also have some of our more regulatory agencies, such as the atomic energy board, the board of transport commissioners, the maritime commission, the aeronautics board, the tariff board, even the Bank of Canada and the controversial Coyne. In all these agencies we have knowledge and expertise, and I suppose the possibility of policy development on the part of these people. But it seems to me that they tend to be isolated. Regulators tend to


short range, narrow decisions. They do not manage, co-ordinate or direct. There is little indication that any of these people are being brought together with other people outside of government, such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Labour Congress, to work out plans for meeting the type of problem which has been highlighted by this amendment.
An economist by the name of Berle recently pointed out some thoughts on planning which seem to me to be relevant here. In his book "Power without Property" he said:
The word "planning" has fallen into the lingo of stereotyped political controversy; you are for it as a solution; you are against it as a danger. Analysis of what planning is seems to be absent.
Certainly we talk grandiosely here in this house-and I am including Conservative backbenchers particularly, during the debate on the speech from the throne and the budget debate-about various aspects of planning, and all types of advice is given to the government urging them to do this and that. The author goes on to say:
Factually, planning is not a panacea and cannot be

We invoke the word "planning", but planning is not in itself going to solve everything. The writer continues:
It is a process by which solutions can be reached, not a solution in itself. Planning does not remove conflicts of interest. Each economic sector will struggle to attain the most advantageous position it can, and will not be vividly interested in the problems or difficulties of other sectors. Plans when made may be successful, or they may be hopelessly inept or oppressive.
What the planning mechanism does do is to supply a means and a method by which these conflicts can be resolved. The data on which plans are constructed necessarily forces consideration and development of principles on which conflicts may be resolved, and of criteria by which solutions may be judged, revised, or improved.
Then there is this sentence which seems to me to sum up what is taking place in the United States; I cannot see it on the horizon yet in Canada.
In economics we are slowly pounding out a sort of common law whereby conflicts of interest and moral claims of individuals may be resolved other than by brutal economic struggle.
In Canada we have always hesitated to face the consequences of the brutal economic struggle. We have today a royal commission sitting to study all the problems of transportation. This underlines how deeply the Canadian government has been committed over the years to policies of participation and intervention. We have the maritime freight rates; we have these Crowsnest grain rates which no one should really talk about because it is such a sensitive point; we have subventions for maritime coal; we have a

bridge subsidy to pay the railways for maintaining this expensive link across the country.
In connection with another aspect of transportation we find the trucking people appearing before the commission and asking for subsidies so that they too may get a share of the subsidy pie. We find the C.N.R. $50 million in debt in one year with no relief in sight in the future unless the prospects change substantially. We have the president of the C.P.R. going around and certainly not being optimistic about the future of his railway. All this seems to me to indicate that we need some kind of council, some kind of national focus. Perhaps this should be the cabinet at the present time, but I do not see how the cabinet is going to get to it. Despite the multiplicity of its sittings, where is the economic policy?
One thing which is so striking about the membership of this house, when one considers hon. members who do not come from the Montreal-Toronto golden triangle or quadrilateral, if you want to call it that, is that they all want secondary industry in their constituencies. Every time they discuss their needs among themselves, one hears this demand for secondary industry. In northern Ontario, western Ontario, in the maritimes, in the outlying parts of Quebec and on the prairies, everybody wants secondary industries. Yet there are no prospects at all for a large expansion of secondary industry in these parts of Canada and there will not be, in my opinion, until this government is ready to do something which the government of the United Kingdom has already done, namely bring in an establishment of industry act together with a definite policy of putting secondary industries into regions that are depressed or which have not enough job opportunities.
It is obvious that this government is not ready at the present time to make that kind of move, but it surely has to come. Surely this is the direction in which we have to go, and that is why there is a need for some kind of national economic board or national advisory board, as the hon. member for Essex East has put it. We know that such a board could get information on statistical questions from the dominion bureau of statistics. We also know that most of the provinces now have their own statistical bureaux. I think such a board could count on a great deal of help in research from the universities or from certain agencies in the universities. I believe we might expect the regulatory agencies which are already in existence, such as the board of transport commissioners, to be able to supply a certain kind of knowledge.
National Board on Economic Development But we badly need a means of bringing all this into focus, enabling us to develop a policy designed to meet these problems.
I do not wish to stray too far from this theme, but the problem of trade, for example, readily occurs to us. We have people in business associations going around the country clamouring for a change in our commercial policy, a change which would tighten it up. We know there are interests in the country which are very much against such a change, especially the people in the west. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken)-I think he was involved-has mentioned the disquiet in many people's minds about our educational set-up. The Minister of Labour himself not very long ago expressed chagrin and shock at the number of people who were leaving school too soon without the qualifications necessary to prepare them for useful careers. These are some of the problems we have to consider. There is also, for example, the question whether we should have shorter hours to work and get down to a 30-hour week; the question of the relationship of defence planning and defence production to our economic capacity, and so on. Consideration of all these questions needs some kind of strategy board, so they may receive the kind of attention and crystallization which the cabinet does not provide at the present time.
For instance, we were very anxious, when Canadian Car and Foundry in my own area suffered a serious blow when its commercial operations were switched to Montreal, that the company should have the opportunity to produce the Bobcat vehicle for defence use. However, many people who do not come from the lakehead are saying, why should we get into a venture of this kind, and how can you approve of the creation of this particular vehicle simply as a means of cushioning a particular community from the effects of unemployment or automation? I cannot conjure up an easy solution here. I know that every one of us becomes torn between constituency interests and the national interest. But surely, somewhere, someone should be considering questions such as this and giving advice with regard to them.
We are a number of years away, I should say, from the stage where we are going to have a national planning board whose plans would be automatically implemented. The Canadian tradition has been to appoint royal commissions and get indefinite recommendations, or sometimes definite recommendations, as in the case of the Rowell-Sirois commission, and then to implement pieces of those recommendations as the political and economic situation demanded or permitted. It
4184	HOUSE OF
National Board, on Economic Development seems to me 'we should consider that it is about time to move toward the creation of an agency such as has been suggested, to make a more modern approach to this question.
I Should very much like to hear, for example, whether this country could or should guarantee the right to work, so that anyone who wished to work might know that they could go somewhere in Canada and get a job at a minimum wage, by a simple application.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Could he tell us whether the act to which he referred as having been introduced in the United Kingdom proceeded along the lines of establishing a special committee from outside-presumably people with Some knowledge of business-or whether the task was done by the high civil service officials inside the government? I am puzzled as to the exact usefulness of a committee brought in rather accidentally and then set to work on this very difficult problem, and I ask myself whether its members would be as capable of doing a job as a selection of top civil servants.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In answer to the hon. member's question, as I understand it the policy has been worked out mostly by politicians who recognized the need in northwestern England, in parts of Wales and Scotland, and have taken the lead.
I am speaking on the basis of a very biased article which I recommend to the hon. gentleman. The article is entitled, "The Apotheosis of the Dilletante" and is written by Thomas Balogh. It is an attack on British civil servants for being a bunch of mandarins who, by being all-around gentlemen, sort of crossword puzzle experts, have never got around to having enough expert knowledge in any one sector to develop or elaborate policy. I feel that this criticism can be applied to our senior civil servants. There may be some excellent all-arounders, but I do not know whether we have a sufficient concentration of special abilities in some kind of co-ordinate form that will allow us to develop really positive policies.
I know that hon. members on the government side of the house will argue that there is no need for this. One would assume there is not when one listens to the bland assurances of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour that everything is fine. Perhaps they are right, and it may be that time will prove them so. However, we do have enough serious problems in Canada to warrant this kind of thing. We have a country which in my opinion is economically more difficult to govern than Britain or the United States. I think it is time that our cabinet, our civil


servants and the best abilities we have in the country had some means of concentrating in order to develop the kind of reports and policy suggestions that the President of the United States, for example, gets from his council of economic advisers.
The need, of course, is urgent or less urgent, depending upon your political position and the region from which you come. I know it is fashionable, especially in the house and in the open, for hon. members of the government to express all kinds of compliments. One must give credit to the Minister of Labour, who has said that this government accepts the responsibility for the problem. The hon. gentleman has admitted that there are problems in various sectors, but on the other hand he frequently tells us that everything is fine. I suggest to the minister that the unemployment problem is building up. We must recognize that a large part of our working force in Canada is becoming permanently unemployable. We therefore have to get to the roots of the problem very quickly. I do not have confidence in the minister's civil servants being alive to the problem and doing something about it.
Another question that comes up in any consideration of Canadian economic problems is where do the provinces stand? The mari-times, through the Atlantic economic council, are complaining about the monetary and fiscal policies of this government and urging that there should be some way of developing policies to help regions like the maritimes. We have had strong indications of the feelings and problems of the prairie farmers. We also have had on the part of secondary manufacturing industries a demand for change in our commercial policies. The situation in our mines and forests does not compare favourably with that of even two or three years ago. Looking ahead we can see that these industries will be in serious difficulty unless action is taken. This is especially true of the pulp and paper industry, which faces the threat of Russian competition.
With all these manifold problems which Canada has always faced but which in my opinion it faces today in a more acute form through increased competition, it is time to take action. There is the germ of a suggestion here upon which I should like to see the government act.
One of the points made by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects with respect to the whole question of economic planning and development is this:
The whole matter is further complicated by the very important part which public confidence has to play. If businessmen and investors are confident and optimistic, it should not be hard for governments to encourage expansion of economic activity.

We are beginning to get indicators in this area. We know that a large part of the money for our expansion has come from the United States, but we see indications that this source is beginning to decline. We have the problem of the outer seven and inner six in the European common market. We have the age-old problem of inflation. We have the Minister of Public Works being so bold as to say, in effect, that this government is not going to take exceptional action this year in order to bail out the construction industry, which is facing problems and predicaments; yet that industry is crying and howling long and loud at the present time. We know that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has expert knowledge in this field and a body of facts available. I also imagine it has a policy that might be fitted into a larger picture, but we have no idea what is being done to elaborate that policy.
A few weeks ago I talked to a veteran newspaper man who spoke about the changes that have occurred since this government took office. He said that a newspaper man always looks for the source of power. If he finds it in a certain place he can put his finger on the pulse, as it were; he can formulate a conception of what is in the wind, what action the government will take in certain areas, and find answers to his questions. He said that when the Liberal government was in power there were two or three places you had to look. You had to check the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Finance and usually the prime minister's office. The interesting thing he finds about this government is that now the real pressure is brought to bear in one central place. If you want to find out what is or what will be cooking you go to the Department of Finance.
To someone listening to this statement this will seem to be a natural situation. It would seem that this should be the department where major decisions are taken. I suggest, however, that the Department of Finance will tend to make most of its decisions negative ones because of the very nature of the relationship of the treasury board and the fact that the Minister of Finance is the budget master who is always concerned with things along that line. I do not want to suggest that this department should not be a large source of power or that decisions should not be made by the man who is in charge of the budget and keeping our monetary affairs in balance; but if that is where the main source of power lies at the present time I venture to suggest that we will have a negative attitude, one that will not enable us to develop positive policies to meet the
National Board on Economic Development wide range of problems we hear mentioned by practically every hon. member who speaks in this chamber.
For this reason I suggest that the time has come to implement a proposal similar to that made by the hon. member for Essex East. The way the hon. member outlined it, I fear there would be created far too big a board or council to be effective at the start. One thing I would hope for from such a board is that the government would stop trying to represent every region, every ethnic and religious group and every branch of industry in the country, and that kind of representation mania. Surely we are at the stage where there are men in Canada who are big enough and able enough to rise above the limitations of ethnic or religious considerations or an industrial or labour background and serve as a small council of economic advisers who could be of genuine assistance to the government, and especially the cabinet in working out economic policies to enable them to face the diversified range of problems we have in Canada.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce are not organizations which you readily think of as sitting down amicably together in a given situation; yet if you read what all three organizations have been saying recently you will see that they have been asking for something like this. I really thought the lion had laid down with the lamb a few months ago when I learned that the financial editor of the Globe and Mail advocated some sort of over-all planning board. He emphasized that it is necessary to parcel out capital requirements for certain developments in the future so there will not be too much competition among the various branches of industry. When you have very large agencies such as the labour congress and the manufacturers' association beginning to see that we cannot meet the gigantic problems facing us without some form of co-ordination I think it is time for us to start looking at our own federal government, the role it plays and the liaison with provincial governments.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has insisted that the government accepts the responsibility for a national economic policy. I think it is time for them to say how this responsibility is going to be met and I think it needs to be met by more than platitudes or the general bland assurance that under this government everything is great. We will be watching very closely to see how much power is given to the Minister of Labour and what changes he will make in order to carry out the indications he has given
4186	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development which, even though we know this motion will be defeated, suggest that the government is going to do something along this line to meet the kind of problem that has brought about this debate.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, having heard most of the speeches in this debate I have come to the conclusion that the main theme of the opposition by way of a solution to a problem is the creation of a board or commission, irrespective of the results that may be obtained. They would like to have boards or commissions to look into problems affecting our economy and to tell us where the disease is and how it should be diagnosed. Unfortunately, however, they do not bring forward any recommendation as to the proper remedy to apply in order to cure the ills but leave it to the government to accept the responsibility of adopting policies and introducing the legislation necessary to cure these ills.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am convinced that under no circumstances has the government ever fallen down with respect to its responsibilities for the curing of ills.


Harold Edward Winch: How many boards have you appointed in two years?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The national energy board, the board of broadcast governors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A national record.


James Russell Keays: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) accused the government of belittling the problems facing our economy and of not being concerned with a variety of problems affecting unemployment, exports and imports, agriculture, housing and railways. As already mentioned in this debate, the government is aware of and is giving close attention to the problems in all segments of our economy. To solve these problems the opposition has introduced an amendment advocating the setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and automation with representatives from different bodies with the aim of developing economic policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment. No one will disagree with the objective of the opposition but I believe that the method suggested in order to arrive at a solution is not the proper course to follow. I have been searching for words to describe the Liberal opposition and have found them in the statement that they are a quixotic government with a quixotic mind.


Harold Edward Winch: Government?


James Russell Keays: Party. I am glad the hon. member has drawn that to my attention.


Harold Edward Winch: You had it right the first time.


James Russell Keays: They are realists but they are not too practical: I humbly submit that a little more practicality and a little less unrealistic thinking on the part of the opposition would help the government to do the things which are desired for the whole Canadian population.
The hon. member for Essex East was here in 1935. He must have been aware of the problems facing our economy at that time, but did he ever suggest the procedure he is now bringing forward to cure the ills of that day? No, Mr. Speaker, fortunately he was taken off the hook at the cost of a war.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


James Russell Keays: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member not know that in 1936, immediately after the Liberals came into office, an organism was appointed called the national employment commission to study the problems of unemployment of that day, and that it was not necessary for the opposition at that time to urge that kind of course because such action had already been taken by the government?


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I think the results obtained speak for themselves, and that is just what I was referring to a few moments ago. In 1935 the Conservative government brought in an unemployment insurance measure. Was it not the King opposition that claimed it was unconstitutional? After the Liberals came to power in 1935 did they not take six years to bring in the Unemployment Insurance Act even though they had claimed that the Conservative legislation was unconstitutional? As already stated by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), did it not take the former minister of national health and welfare 20 years to bring in a national health insurance plan? Yet this same gentleman stands up now and expects the present government in the short period of two years to cure all the ills caused by their administration. I believe it took the dark, the bleak, the dull days they have spent in the opposition to lighten their intelligence.


Mr. Palleil:: They did not have much to work with either.


James Russell Keays: Their proposals in 1956 brought about a tight money policy that crippled small industry and meant a cup of coffee every second day for the aged and nothing for the blind and crippled. How can the hon. member for Essex East be termed anything but a Johnny come lately? Is he not aware, as found on page 2387 of Hansard for March

24, 1960, of the committee set up by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and the Minister of Labour to consider the most appropriate basis for an official national measure of unemployment in Canada and to recommend accordingly, and to review the adequacy of existing statistics for this purpose? I will not refer to the balance of the statement made at that time because it already appears in Hansard.
Is the hon. member not aware of the advisory committee set up within the Department of Trade and Commerce to look after the interests of small business? Are members of the opposition not aware-perhaps they were absent from the house-that on March 31 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) brought in a budget designed to give buoyancy to our economy, to combat both deflation and inflation, a budget that inspired more confidence in the people of Canada than any other since 1867.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Chair ruled yesterday that we could not revive the debate on the budget which the hon. member appears now to be seeking to do.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned those things because I believe those are the steps which have to be taken by this government to rectify the ills of the past administration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) insists that I make a ruling on his point of order. I would say that certainly it would not be in order to revive the budget debate but I doubt that a reference to the effect of the budget, as presented, would be out of order. I would not want to cut the sentence in two.


James Russell Keays: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I should like to consider the effects of these different measures taken by our government to aid our economy. The output of steel has been higher than the final two months of 1959. The steel mills in the first weeks of May have turned out 120,240 tons of ingots as compared with 110,803 tons a year ago. Shipments of iron ore during March totalled 219,619 tons as compared with 190,601 tons a year ago. Then, 90 per cent of the department stores dealing in various commodities find their position improved by as much as 5 per cent to 13 per cent as compared with a year ago. The effect all this has had on our export and import trade can be gauged by looking at the statistics for the first quarter of this year which show that exports were valued at $1,219 million, 22.8 per cent higher than the corresponding period last year and imports were valued at $1,330
National Board on Economic Development million higher by 9.3 per cent than a year earlier. Thus the imbalance in the first quarter of 1960 was sharply reduced to $38.7 million from the $166.2 million in the same period of 1959.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, these have been the measures which this government has taken to give a lift to our economy. This has not been done through the creation of boards and commissions, irrespective of the assurance which the opposition gives that results can be obtained in that manner. I believe that the creation of too many boards and commissions is conducive to excessive bureaucracy. We must admit that we have inherited too many boards and commissions from the Liberal party. Very often these boards and commissions bring forward the ills from which our economy is suffering in their true light, but they always leave it to the government policymakers to initiate the methods by which these ills may be cured. Excessive bureaucracy may lead, and has led to indifference amongst business people toward political life.
Our government must, therefore, approach these problems of the present and the future in a business way, and not in a manner that will result in an excess of reports and red tape. We should actually adopt business methods to apply at home as well as abroad. When I refer to "abroad" I may remind hon. members that the methods adopted by the Department of Trade and Commerce are proving worth while today. I spoke about realism and the lack of practicality which is apparent in the opposition. They remind me of people who may be standing knee deep in the December snow while speaking about this year's tulips.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) mentioned yesterday that the core of the problem was in finding ways of attracting capital to Atlantic provinces enterprises. When a businessman contemplates undertaking a new business does he not consult industrial experts, export and import experts and financial institutions capable of advising and guiding the prospective entrant into new fields? No true Canadian is dependent upon others to tell him the type of business in which he should indulge because he is quite capable, as time has proven, of finding his own field of activity. However, he needs counselling and this government has set up the necessary machinery to give information to those who may desire it. It would be a sad day when any government would say to an industry, you will locate in this particular area; you have no choice in the matter.
However, I agree with the hon. member for Gloucester when he speaks about the
4188	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development Atlantic coast fisherman as the person in our national economy who must not be forgotten. This recalls the statements made during the 1957 election campaign to the effect that if you voted Conservative you would sell no groundfish to the United States market. This was the tenor of the remarks addressed to the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces. As a result of action taken by the Department of Fisheries, the sale of lobsters and other groundfish in the United States market has increased.
What else has been done in the Atlantic provinces? I will admit that what has been done does not meet all the desires of that area. However, this government has only been in power two years and has taken positive action to remove some of the difficulties from which the Atlantic area has suffered. Did this government not transfer 10,000 barrels of disease-resistant oysters to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? Did it not find a new formula for the D.D.T. spray for spruce budworm which does not kill the fish? Did it no build a new vessel, the Cygnus, commissioned and in operation for the department in maritime waters? Did it not increase activity in groundfish investigation through the fisheries research board at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and the board's vessel, the A. T. Cameron? Did it not increase the degree of co-operation between the department and the provincial administration in the maritimes, notably the development of gear and techniques, and courses for fishermen?
These and many other things mentioned by the hon. member for Gloucester have been the ways and means this government has adopted to help the economy of the Atlantic area and those engaged in the fishing industry. I will repeat that this does not represent all that is required, but I believe that anyone will realize that a government cannot accomplish everything within the short period of two years. The steps taken so far will, I am sure, prove fruitful to those engaged in fishing on the Atlantic coast.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I make reference to those divisions within the departments which bring help and information to those who require it in their attempt to bolster our economy. However, there are a few other words which are necessary, and they are those which should be addressed to industry, to labour and to management: Work harder, co-operate more and bargain harder.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with only part of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Keays). He blamed


the Liberal party for taking six years to set up the unemployment insurance commission.
If he had gone a little deeper into the matter, he would have seen that, as soon as the question had been submitted to the supreme court, and the latter had rendered a decision in October 1937, on November 5, 1937, the Canadian government submitted to the provincial governments a plan asking for authorization to set up an unemployment insurance commission to settle all problems that might come up from time to time.
He would also have found out that all provinces agreed, except two, those of Mr. Aber-hart and Mr. Duplessis. It was only after Mr. Duplessis' defeat in 1939 that the Ottawa government was able to secure provincial assent.
It shows that, in this as in other respects, the Ottawa government wanted to respect provincial rights and that is what kept the unemployment insurance commission from being established sooner.
And heaven knows what dreadful predicament workers who are now unable to find employment would be in but for that commission.
Mr. Speaker, may I therefore, right at the start of my remarks, be allowed to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).
The speech he made yesterday is probably one of the best ever heard in this house. He sought to indicate that everything is rosy and, with much ponderation, artful dodging of difficulties, and very skilful play upon words, he attempted to show that the problem is not so very important.
I may say that, for a good while he certainly managed to create that impression. It was therefore the most skilful speech he has ever delivered, and for all my being in the opposite camp, I cannot do otherwise than congratulate him and tell him, even though I do not share his views, that I enjoyed his speech tremendously.
I said a moment ago that he had played upon words. He did, and most adroitly. For instance, in referring to increased benefits, he managed to drag in the question of fishermen, and in such a way that we could readily suppose that the Conservative government had extended unemployment insurance benefits to them.
Yet, as administrative head of that department, as the man upon whom rests the great responsibility of seeing that the unemployment insurance act is applied, he knows better than anyone that it already existed when

he took office, that it was under a Liberal regime that unemployment insurance was granted to Canadian fishermen, and that if fishermen did not come under the act-our national economy being somewhat upset as you will admit, Mr. Speaker,-they would be in an appalling situation, as are in any event the other sectors of our economy.


Mr. Fortin:: Because of the Liberals.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Liberal members recognize facts as they are; as for Conservative members, who refuse to admit that everything is going wrong at the present time, they will learn about it at their own cost at the next federal election.
Meanwhile, I shall go on with my remarks.
Speaking about the amendment, the minister said this: "This government does not intend to set up committees in order to shirk its responsibilities". And he added: "It would be a cabinet outside the cabinet".
Now, Mr. Speaker, would it be the first time that this government has resorted to a group of experts to look into some particular problems? I doubt whether we could find another government which has set up a greater variety of commissions, about everything and nothing, as this one has done so far. However, all those commissions that were set up were perhaps designed for the legitimate purpose of helping definite areas or special sections. What we want is a type of organization that would make regular and detailed investigations and advise the minister and the government with regard to their problems. Would the minister be afraid, for instance, that such a commission of experts might arouse him from his lethargy, in the same way as the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Coyne, tried to rouse the Minister of Finance? He would be in great need of this, if we are to judge by his actions so far and the results he is now getting.
We admit, as everybody must, that the employment situation in Canada is probably the worst we have had for a very long time.
And the minister added: "What would such a committee do?" The answer is very simple. The committee might undertake a complete inquiry on economic conditions, which could be of help to our leaders. Indeed, as the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said a few moments ago, our ministers are overworked, have too much routine work to do, and probably have no time-as I fully realize-to go deeply into the situation.
24, 1960	4189
National Board on Economic Development
Have they, in their respective departments all the necessary experts available for this type of investigation? I doubt it. And even if various specialists were available in those departments, they are civil servants, and today officials are afraid to give frank and honest opinions because of the attitude taken by the government with regard to suggestions made by Mr. Coyne, governor of the Bank of Canada. Those people are afraid to open their mouths. However, if we had an outside group of experts, they would have greater freedom for a serious study and might offer some suggestions. It would then be up to the government to find out what was fair and reasonable for this country.
Such a commission might look into the employment situation and, not being connected with the government, they would have no interest in whitewashing every action taken by this administration. Then again, being no part of the opposition, they would have no interest in belittling government action. They would be independent of those contingencies. So, after a thorough-going study of the situation across Canada, they could advise the Minister of Labour who, in the presence of undeniable facts, might be in a position, if he himself has not the power to legislate, to try and convince his colleagues in the cabinet to do something about it. They could consider the particularly complex problem of unemployment, for unemployment is practically permanent at this time, and does not seem to fall off even in the summertime. Then too, there is seasonal unemployment, which requires an altogether different approach. A commission such as this independent of both the government and the opposition, and made up, not of civil servants but of employees who need not tremble at the frowns or thunder of either the minister or the Leader of the Opposition, might manage to come up with concrete, considered recommendations of such a nature as to help this government which, heaven knows, certainly needs help at this time.
For instance, it could consider the fact that men are being gradually replaced by machinery. The hon. member for Port Arthur said a few moments ago that, for the last 12 years, only half as many men as before are needed in the lumber industry. In the pulp industry and paper mills, new machines are so efficient that, in paper making for instance, only three men are now needed where 18 used to be required. Everything is done by machinery. There are devices that show where a break can occur. All the operator has to do is to push a button; the machine
4190	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development stops, the repair is made, and the machine is again set in motion. Thus, in many cases, a man has only a few hours of actual work to do in a whole year, and this creates a new problem that must necessarily be solved. We cannot ask the worker himself to solve this problem; because it is not his doing. So, we must ask the government to consider the situation. But, as the hon. member for Port Arthur said, the government has no time for it, nor have the Ministers of Labour, of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) or of Finance (Mr. Fleming). Still, someone has to do it. The only people who could have time to consider it would be those men that we could pick and single out for their special qualifications in different fields of the economy and, in this way, make up for the ministers' own lack of time by making suggestions to improve the situation.
Such a commission could find remedies that could become permanent features. But no, when we talk of a committee or commission or board, it is rejected by the present government, which has perhaps appointed- at least to my knowledge-more commissions than any other. Could it be because the suggestion comes from the ranks of the opposition?
The minister said yesterday; we have read the suggestions put forward by the opposition. We are considering them. It will probably take over two months to implement them.
However, we are dealing here with something positive that does not commit the government. The government can appoint an advisory board, but it does not have to accept its recommendations. The government could later consider what had been recommended by a group of men in a position to advise. Why is the government against this? Why did the Minister of Labour, last night, try to minimize the importance of such a board? It is beyond me. This is not a motion of want of confidence in the government. I realize that the motion would raise a problem that the government could not accept. I would say that on the political side, perhaps something can be done. We are just suggesting this: that the government itself set up this commission of experts to make a study in that direction. The Minister of Labour has thought fit to say that he does not want a 

government within another government. I cannot recall any advisory board having been in the nature of a government within a government.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: How do you explain that, under the previous government, when there was a fairly acute unemployment problem, no commission was appointed along the lines suggested by the hon. member?


Alexis Pierre Caron: There was an unemployment problem at the time the Liberals were in power. As I said, the Liberals have not always had it soft. They have known difficult times. However, the unemployment problem which faced them in 1953 and in 1955 did not deteriorate to the point it has reached in this country today. At that time, we had in the cabinet men like Mr. C. D. Howe, for instance, who, on finding that our United States market was declining, toured Latin America, starting with Mexico and went deep down into South America, showing those people, with the help of our industrialists that Canada was able to produce many commodities they needed. I remember perfectly that, immediately after the visit, that is, in the fall of 1955, Canada was flooded with orders. As a matter of fact, the wheels began to spin so fast that, in 1956, we were favoured with a very prosperous year, thanks to the efforts and prestige of the men who formed the Liberal cabinet.


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


Roland Léo English: When he speaks of the year 1956, is the hon. member unaware that, in March 1956, there were 510,963 live claims for unemployment insurance?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the 1955 statistics at hand but I know that, as from the winter of 1956, conditions improved and that in summer and autumn 1956, we had almost record seasons for Canada. All that was due to the Liberal administration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Therefore, according to you, a commission such as the one you have been talking about would have been a good thing to have set up under the former administration?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I admit that such a commission would have been a good thing; I recognize it today.
I agree that it would have been a good thing even at the time of the Liberals. However, if at that time the Liberals felt they had no need for it, is this a good reason why this government should turn down the suggestion from Liberal ranks at a time when we are facing the worst situation ever known in this country?
It has also been stated by the Minister of Labour that the income of workers had reached an all-time high. Perhaps it has, in some cases, but certainly not in the case of civil servants. We are told of record salaries; well they have to be record salaries, in the light of the increased cost of living between 1959 and 1960.
According to D.B.S. figures,-and I shall not quote those of 1952-53,-for 1959-60, we note that the cost of food has increased by 1.6 per cent; of housing, by about 3 per cent; of clothing, by 1.2 per cent; household appliances, by 1 per cent. The cost of other services has gone up from 133 to 137 per cent. Of course workers need record wages to meet those growing costs.
The minister added that employment had reached its highest level, but if we consider the continual increase in population,-a yearly increase of 600,000,-and if we take into account an increase of about 100,000 workers, is that comparable to the increase of population? No. There is a normal increase, a natural one, which occurs under any government, be it Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. or any other; it is the increase in population. It is necessary that it should be so, but what about those who are out of work? That is the question which the hon. minister did not answer. Yes, what about those who have no jobs? Are they happy at the thought that nothing seems to be done to help them?
Yet, Mr. Speaker, those people would be very happy to know that the government has accepted some suggestion, even one coming from the opposition, in order to find a way of solving almost permanently the problem which is causing them to suffer today. Now, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East is precisely aimed at giving special help to those who are suffering the greatest hardship in this country.
My last reference to statistics will consist of figures published in the Labour Research bulletin, under the heading "Unemployment again, unemployment still". We find that the people hardest struck by those conditions in this country are, first of all,
National Board on Economic Development the Atlantic provinces as a whole, which have 18.3 per cent of Canada's unemployed; Quebec comes second with 15.6 per cent, while British Columbia has 9.7 per cent of this country's total of unemployed, the average percentage throughout Canada being 10.7 per cent.
It has been said, and newspapers have repeated it, that when the figure is higher than 3 per cent, conditions are abnormal. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly facing an abnormal situation, one which demands an outstandingly vigorous policy if we want to try and settle the issues we face at this time.
In concluding his remarks, the Minister of Labour said: "When I was in the opposition, I offered criticism, but on a constructive basis." Well, sir, I have here some criticism made by the hon. minister during the 1955 session, during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As we may see on page 78 of Hansard, volume I, he said:
(Text):
As an example, we in Oshawa found last year that when the rolls showed a decrease in the number of registered unemployed of something like 600 or 700 they were the people who on April 15 were cut off supplementary benefits, but work was still not available. Contracting work was not in progress and construction had not started.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to find the constructive basis in those remarks made by the Minister of Labour in 1955.
(Text):
Therefore, those people were left stranded without any financial assistance whatever from April 15 to some time toward the end of May.
(Translation):
What constructive basis is there in that part of the speech made by the present Minister of Labour, who was then precisely dealing with the unemployment situation? (Text):
I strongly urge that the Minister of Labour consider the extension of time for supplementary benefits beyond April 15; my suggestion would be from May 15.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, we have asked for the same thing, and the minister did not see fit to admit we were right.
What about the whole series-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member.


Alexis Pierre Caron: You want to ask me a question? Very well, go ahead.

National Board on Economic Development


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Under present circumstances, what is your opinion about immigration?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will possess his soul in patience, I intend to refer to that in a moment, and I shall express my opinion clearly on the matter.
What did the minister do about all the suggestions made to him by members of the opposition? Since the beginning of this session, at least twenty five suggestions to improve the situation have been submitted to him. He told us yesterday that he was considering them but the process seems to be rather slow at this time.
Our municipalities are shouldering responsibilities which belong by rights to the federal government. Our municipalities have to support, house and clothe, and feed families of workers who no longer get unemployment insurance benefits. Such is the burden falling upon the municipalities, which are not responsible for the situation. And was it not the present Prime Minister who said, in 1955, that unemployment was within the jurisdiction of the federal government and of no other authority?
Our municipalities are hard up; they have trouble making both ends meet. They are spending so much on welfare that they are wondering where they are going to end up in a year or two. If the situation goes on, we will have more bankrupt municipalities than ever before in our history, and the carelessness and inaction of this government will be to blame.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I make a remark. May I point out to the hon. member for Hull that the government of the province of Quebec foots the entire public relief bill.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to allow questions, but I will not accept speeches within my speech, no more than the minister will accept a government within a government.


Mr. Ricard:: Therefore, he is right, is he not?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying he is right. I am just saying I refuse to accept it, that is all.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex East is precisely the remedy we need to end this situation. Canada's unem-loyed-particularly in large cities, when they are now reduced to begging-would be very pleased to see the government accept this

amendment. They would see a ray of hope in the fact that the government, which so far has been unable to cope with the unemployment situation, is calling upon experts to try to find a way out.
Mr. Speaker, while hundreds of thousands of workers are walking the streets, seeking employment, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough)-I am coming to the point-authorizes the publication of advertisements such as that one in a Belfast newspaper, where jobs are being offered to accountants, aerodynamicists, architects, beauticians, bookkeepers, cashiers, bricklayers, butchers, meat cutters, etc. The list goes on and on.
As evidence of the inconsistency of the government's policy, here is something that happened recently. A gentleman from Hull, a meat cutter with years of experience, called on me and asked me to help him find a job. Confident by reason of the fact that the department of immigration, presumably in co-operation with the Department of Labour, had been advertising jobs available in Canada, this gentleman, as I say, sought my help in finding a job. Quite pleased at the prospect, I wrote the following letter to the minister:
The Hon. Michael Starr,
Minister of Labour,
Confederation Building,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Minister,
When I received a copy of the invitation to come to Canada, extended to several trades in Belfast, Ireland, by the Minister of Immigration I wondered whether we really had no Canadians able to fill at least some of those jobs.
In the list, I find "butchers and meat cutters", and I know that the unemployment insurance office does not seem to be aware of any scarcity in this trade, because Mr. Rene D. Lamothe, 135 Montcalm street, Hull, who has 25 years experience in meat cutting and slaughtering, and who is now in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, has not been offered this type of employment.
As the unemployment insurance commission does not seem to be aware of opportunities in this field, could you let me know to what department Mr. Lamothe should offer his services?
I shall be looking toward to an early reply.
Yours truly,
Alexis Caron, M.P. for Hull.
Here is the minister's reply, dated March 24:
I acknowledge your letter of the 18th-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I realize that he was drawn into this matter by the hon.

member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), but I would ask him to relate his remarks to the appointment of the committee referred to in the resolution that the house resolve itself into committee of supply.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, once a question is asked, one is placed at a disadvantage in not being allowed to answer it. I do not think it is in line with the traditions of this house to subject an hon. member to such a situation. The hon. member wanted to know something about immigration, and I just happen to have a case for him, which shows the inconsistency of the government's present policies. However, your ruling would deny me an opportunity to discuss it. Preventing me from replying to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm would be going rather far, I think. If I must comply, I shall in future refuse to accept any questions, because I do not enjoy being gagged. When asked a question, I like to be able to answer it.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point of order Your Honour has raised? It appears to me that as my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is recommending a motion to the house for a commission to study economic development it would be a very odd kind of commission that would study economic development without taking account of the effect of immigration on that development and the relationship of immigration to the whole problem of employment. I submit that even if there had not been a question asked of my friend from Hull (Mr. Caron) he would be quite in order in terms of the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I agree. My invitation to the hon. member for Hull was to relate his remarks to the subject matter of the motion before the house. The hon. member certainly may discuss immigration in relation to the commission or the board the establishment of which is recommended by this motion. That was the only ruling I made.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I intended to do, on the basis of the amendment which has been introduced. I note it is to be a board of advisers on economic matters and automation.
This ties in with the fact that we are asked, in certain quarters, to admit immigrants, while we have 800,000 unemployed in Canada.
I think that if the minister of immigration could count on the co-operation and advice
National Board on Economic Development of a board such as this, it might help her develop the proper policy to follow and would prevent abuses on the part of certain companies which are authorized to request immigrants.
I will sum up-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker-


Alexis Pierre Caron: No questions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister replied that he had asked the Hull office to keep on trying to find a job for Mr. Lamothe in his particular trade. Mr. Lamothe is still unemployed, and that was in March. Why? Because there is no organization within the government; because there is no organization within the departments of labour and immigration to solve those problems which should indeed be solved, and I suggest the government is responsible for that. I am of the opinion that the people are in need of something more definite, more concrete and better organized than what we have at the present time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I say-


Alexis Pierre Caron: No questions, I will not answer them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They are too embarrassing.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If a board such as this had been set up last year, it could have been of great service to the Department of Labour, which is causing the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund to bear upon only two groups of our population, namely employers and employees, whereas the unemployment problem is the concern not only of two groups but of the whole Canadian economy and of all Canadian taxpayers.
In spite of what he did, the unemployment insurance fund keeps being drained at such a rate that it will be in pretty bad shape next winter if the situation remains the same. Again, I say that we need a committee of experts, a board, and if we do not accept it, the proper authorities will have to assume the responsibility. Don't you believe, Mr. Speaker, that such a board could held solve all economic problems?
Recently, on April 28 and, therefore, not very long ago, I received from the president of DuPont of Canada a copy of his annual speech delivered before the board of directors of that company.
Here is what that man, free from all political ties and concerned solely with the administration of that company, said:
(Text):
For the moment let us speculate on just how a comparative balance sheet of Canada's national
4194	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development economic position would appear if one could be prepared along the lines of that of an industrial corporation. On the asset side, the major change would be a notable increase in the value of productive fixed assets. This in itself seems good, but does it tell the whole story? A security analyst examining a corporate statement would want to know how this was financed-from earnings retained in the business, from borrowings, from a merger or from the company not paying its bills. More intensive analysis of Canada's balance sheet would show him cause for concern.
There is nothing wrong with debt provided it is incurred for productive purposes and provided there are definite means to repay it as it becomes due. But Canada's financial statements would show that much of this debt-money borrowed to meet the deficit on international payments-was in fact incurred to pay for food, clothing, travel and other items which have long since been consumed. Our national picture is like a corporation borrowing funds in order to pay out dividends in excess of earnings. Surely any corporate president going before his shareholders with such a set of financial statements would be called severely to task.
(Translation):
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is the finest account I read recently of the general economic situation of Canada.
The suggestion, proposal or amendment- you may call it what you wish-of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) suggests a way to cope with the situation.
The definite purpose of this proposal or amendment is to attempt to find methods likely to cure the ills that beset our economy.
Besides, suggestions have been made to the Department of Labour but the same answer is always given: No. Those people do not want a government within another government.
On February 1 of this year, as reported on page 550 of the English version of Hansard, the following question was put: (Text):
Asked by Mr. Martin whether the government had given consideration to the proposal for a conference of representatives of labour, government and management to deal with unemployment, etc., made by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress three weeks before, the Prime Minister said: "The answer is no."
(Translation):
This is the way this government, which is always in some predicament, replies to the proposals of the opposition.
The member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Keays) charges us with not putting forward any suggestion; yet the minister said yesterday that he received 25 suggestions and that he was considering them.
Mr. Speaker, after the 1958 election, the Conservatives said they had a rendezvous with destiny.
Well, they lamentably missed their rendezvous with their promises, having promised


to do much better than they have done. The Prime Minister, even at the risk of breaking section 65 of our election regulations, promised work for everybody, which is not allowed under the Canada Elections Act. He did not provide work; he gave unemployment to almost everybody.
Mr. Speaker, here is what the minister of immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) had to say in 1955:
that the government should Immediately consider plans to remedy this critical situation, and to take whatever action is necessary to establish a long term program to promote employment, such program to be submitted to parliament during this session.
We have not gone that far. We are only asking the government to accept the advice of experts selected outside parliament, who are not members of the Liberal or of the C.C.F. or of the Conservative group, but with extensive knowledge in the economic field, who could indicate to the government what can be done to improve the situation which is deteriorating all the time.
(Text):


Mr. Paul Martineau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex East we could first of all consider the reasons for his proposal that a national advisory council be set up. That proposal if I understood the hon. member correctly, was based on his assessment of the present economic situation facing our country. Having referred to these reasons, if by any chance they were found to be sound, then we could perhaps go ahead and analyse whether or not the setting up of an advisory committee or board would be the solution to the problems which, according to his assessment, are facing this country.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, I believe that he has pointed to a deteriorating economic climate and a general weakness in the economy. Since yesterday-previously too, of course-I have examined some of his arguments in relation to the economic situation facing our country at the present time and I have come to the conclusion that if there is much that is deteriorating and shabby it is certainly not to be found in our economic condition but can be found, I believe, in great abundance in very many of the deteriorating and shabby arguments that the opposition has been putting forward. I say that they are deteriorating and shabby. They are repetition, continuous repetition that adds nothing new to the question and does not advance the solution one iota.

Yesterday the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), a good friend and a man whom I respect very much, uttered some profundities. He said that we will never solve the unemployment problem by making speeches. Coming from the source that it did, that was certainly a profound observation because all that hon. gentlemen have been doing since the house started on January 14 is to make speeches and not speeches throwing any light on the subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is completely against the rules of the house to reflect on debates that have already been closed. It seems to me that is all the hon. gentleman is doing. Since, according to my reading of yesterday's Hansard, members on this side who have spoken were restricted severely to the motion before the house, it seems to me that the same rule should be applied to the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister above all members of the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that what I have quoted is part and parcel of this debate because they are words used by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont yesterday in the course of this same debate.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think you have disposed of the point of order. Could the hon. member read' from Hansard that portion of my remarks?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is relevant to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. The rule is that no one should reflect on a decision of the house but I do not think it has been applied to mean that nobody can make any reference to a speech already made by a member of the house in the course of another debate if the question decided in that debate is not brought into the discussion. Therefore I do not see that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue has committed any breach of the rules up to now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With great respect, Your Honour, I was listening to the hon. member and he was entering upon a discussion of speeches made by members of the opposition since January of this year.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a well-known rule of the house, sir, that you cannot go back and revive debates or quote from debates of the
National Board on Economic Development same session. You can quote from debates in another session but not in the same session, and it seems to me that the hon. gentleman should be held to that rule. I am not asking for any restrictions upon hon. members opposite that are not put upon us but I think we should be treated equally.


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: I think the Chair has treated everybody in the same manner up to now. I would point out to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that there is a difference between reviving a debate and reviving a statement made by an hon. member.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the interjection by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is only another indication of the weakness of one of the arguments we have heard from that side of the house in the course of this debate. In order to oblige the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, who asked me to quote the particular section, may I be permitted to refer to page 2175 of Hansard of March 15 where he is reported as saying:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members from the province of Quebec rightly believe that the unemployment problem will not be settled by dint of speeches.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: That is why we want a national advisory board.
(Text):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, that is the reference I was making. To substantiate his assessment of the weakness of our economy the hon. member for Essex East referred yesterday to imports. He did not say that the position was weak with regard to exports. He simply said that there are indications of elements of strength in our export situation. He thought he was making a great concession, but after saying that he went on to say, "But can these increases in our exports during recent months be maintained"?
Certainly the export picture right at this juncture is very good indeed. In every succeeding month since September of last year there have been increases in the volume and value of exports, and during the first quarter of 1960 exports reached a figure of over $1,200 million. That was an increase of some 22 per cent over the corresponding period of 1959.
At the same time our imports, it is true, increased but they increased much less rapidly than our exports. Our imports increased by 9.3 per cent and therefore our import imbalance picture improved very substantially in the first quarter of 1960. The import imbalance is down now to some $38 million whereas it stood at something like $162

National Board on Economic Development million lor the first quarter of 1959. Surely such astounding progress, on the one hand a 22 per cent increase in exports and on the other hand only a 9 per cent increase in imports, is not a basis for pessimism and is not a basis upon which the hon. member for Essex East can come to the conclusion that we are faced with this great, this terrible weakness in our economy, a weakness which I suggest lies more in the arguments of the hon. member. That was one of the points upon which his amendment was based.
He also picked out certain other elements where he felt there were weaknesses. Before we come to that I should like to say a further word about exports. Many people have been, and I suppose justifiably, asking themselves, what is going to happen next? Our exports have been holding up well. They held up well in 1958 which according to everybody was a depression year. However, there was no significant drop in our export figures for 1958. There has been a substantial increase in those figures for 1959 and today we are starting a new year. We have completed one quarter of that new year and we have chalked up a record in volume and value of exports.
In view of that encouraging picture can we be satisfied that there is reason for the anxiety and gloom exhibited by members of the opposition? When I hear these members of the oppositon speaking I am reminded a bit of a bunch of spoiled children. They have had everything that their little hearts could desire, but they are not satisfied because they think that sometime in the future perhaps things will not be as rosy. I believe that is a correct appraisal of the attitude which these hon. members have adopted. When we look at our export situation we can see important problems developing, perhaps as some have suggested through the formation of trading groups in Europe or the emergence of a new industrial trading giant such as Japan. It is up to the people of Canada, under the leadership of the government as that leadership is being provided now, to find a solution to these problems and assure that the progressive trends in our export trade will continue.
There is, as people know and will readily admit, great prosperity in Great Britain and in the countries of western Europe. These countries have become so prosperous in recent months that they have lifted import restrictions. They have gone all out to increase their volume of trade. I submit that this provides another great opportunity to our Canadian exporters to fulfil the needs of the people of these countries who are now prosperous and who are now increasing their standards of living to a degree they have never
[Mr. Martineaui
experienced before. Instead of looking at our export figures and asking whether or not they will be maintained, I submit that hon. members of the opposition would be better advised to try to point out to the people the true facts and the unparalleled opportunities for greater sales which would result in greater progress in Canada. I must say, therefore, that in so far as the weakness in our export trade is concerned as mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East, that weakness exists only in his own imagination and in the fallacy of some of his arguments.
Again I must say that the hon. member picks out of our whole economic situation a few choice items such as construction, and he seemed greatly perturbed about the fact that construction was going downhill. In the last week's issue of the Financial Post, I have just seen the report of the MacLean building survey. According to that survey there has been an increase of 26.5 per cent in all types of construction as compared with the first quarter of 1959. This report admits that during the first quarter of 1960 residential starts were down as compared with last year. It was stated, however, that this decline was more than offset by progress in industrial, engineering and commercial construction. I say again, therefore, that when the hon. member for Essex East bases his amendment on weakness, he must look elsewhere than in the construction field. And so it goes all along the line.
The hon. member mentioned, for instance, that there was a decline in the output of automobiles during one week. It is, of course, quite understandable that he would be interested in this subject because he represents a Windsor constituency. He just picked out one week. I was looking at some of the automobile production figures, and I found that in March there had been a substantial increase in production over 1959. There is no doubt that 1959 was a year of great recovery, and there is no doubt that 1960 will be a record year. The Financial Post as late as last week stated that all indications, taken as a whole, pointed to the fact that 1960 will be a record year unequalled by any of the past years, including all of the great years of prosperity, so-called, which my hon. friends say occurred under their regime. The Financial Post has not, as yet, revised its opinion. The article stated that this record year would be experienced by most firms in most industries. Now that was quite a sweeping survey of all spheres of activity, and after making adjustments for some declines in certain fields, it is stated we will have a record year.
In so far as residential construction is concerned, according to the latest survey there

will be a marked improvement as more and more conventional lenders come into the field. The hon. member, therefore, was giving a very shaky reason for the establishment of that much vaunted national advisory council which he recommends in his amendment. If we look at the recent speech made by the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Mr. A. C. Ashforth, we find that he says the year 1960 will see a contained boom in Canada. There is every reason for optimism concerning economic conditions in this country.
I do not want to burden you, Mr. Speaker, or the house with a long series of statistics. However, everywhere we look we can see indications that 1960, presenting as it may formidable obstacles, will chalk up new records which will be the result of the industry of the Canadian people supported by vigorous leadership as exemplified by the present government.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: What about unemployment?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have mentioned that
before and I am going to mention it again, Mr. Speaker. I am glad my hon. friend mentioned unemployment. I treated a bit of it at the start of my speech. However, a certain phrase used by the hon. member for Essex East struck me forcibly because it stirred vague memories of its having repeated many times in the past. With a great show of concern and with his face wrinkled by the preoccupations which he felt-and which I have every reason to believe were sincere-he said, "We now have a hard core of unemployment in this country". He said that as if he were finding something that came from high above, as if he had received some sudden inspiration on the spur of the moment as to this hard core of unemployment in this country; and he spoke in such terms as to lead this house to believe that this was recent invention and that it had been invented by the present government.
I was a bit curious about that reflection and I went back a few years. I happened to be reading a speech made by no less a personage than a former minister of finance of this country, a highly respected man; I refer to Mr. Dunning. This speech was so enlightening that I believe it merits quoting here. I refer to Hansard of February 25, 1937, page 1217. These words were uttered by Mr. Dunning, the then minister of finance, in his budget speech of that year:
Still more disheartening to most observers is the failure of the numbers on relief to decline proportionately with the revival of business ... However. to those observers who look for an early end to the relief problem the decline during the past year will appear discouragingly small.
National Board on Economic Development
Then he went on to say this:
It is probably true, Mr. Speaker, that a hard core of unemployment and relief will always remain.. . Even in the best of times, we have always had unemployment, but the unemployed have not been "in the statistics" nor a charge upon public funds to the same extent as today.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker. In 1937, not under a Conservative administration but under the great Liberal regime, almost two and a half years after it had taken power in 1937 on the promise that it would solve once and forever that great problem of unemployment, the minister of finance of that day admits tragically to the house that there was then a hard core of unemployment and that it would remain with us in the best of times. Yet today members of the opposition come here and say, "We have the answer to that hard core and the answer lies in the establishment of a national advisory commission".
That proposal may seem fairly sensible to a great many people. Certainly on its surface it looks to be appealing. But again I think it is always a good thing to look back into the record in order to see whether similar situations have ever existed previously and whether similar remedies were applied and, if they were applied, what were the results.
We remember 1935. We remember the great campaign carried on that year. It was an election year and Mr. King rode back into power on the promise of solving that big unemployment bug which was then plaguing the country and with regard to which no session passes without ample reference being made. His remedy to the problem was precisely the establishment of a national employment commission. That sounds very much like a national advisory council to look after full employment, automation and related problems. Hence one of his first gestures after assuming power was to bring forth that child of his brain which he had long nurtured.
It is extremely interesting to follow the progress of that commission throughout the years during which it worked. First of all, we have its establishment in the early part of 1936; I believe it was January. It was established then. That was already six months after it was promised but nevertheless it was established and persons were named to this commission and were supposed to get to work. When Mr. King made his much heralded promise during the election campaign of 1935, he pointed to an unemployment figure during that summer of 1935 of some 400,000 persons.


Harold Edward Winch: I hope the hon. member has enough time left to get to 1960, 1961 and 1962.
4198	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development


Paul Raymond Martineau: We are getting there presently. If you take one thing at a time you never go wrong. I can understand the impatience of hon. members opposite in skipping those years. They always want to have this country believe that unemployment was a problem which was created in 1930 and which promptly came to an end with the ascension to power of that great Liberal regime in 1935. But let us face the facts as they are. If we analyse correctly the performance of our economy and the performance of the past administrations, perhaps we shall get to the root of the problem and find the correct answer. I am making my speech now. The hon. member has made his speech. He had his little say. Now let me have mine.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are back in 1937; and in that year in parliament there were many queries as to that famous national employment commission that had been set up. On going through the record we find that by the middle of 1936-oh, the commission had done a great deal of work-the government had issued 35 orders in council whereby they appointed all sorts of people and bought all sorts of the most modern equipment of that time to launch their famous commission. In 1937 parliament again convened. There was a debate on this national employment commission and we find that the unemployment figures were stable. In 1938 we find the same thing again; it is repeated all over again. It is on the record. If hon. members care to look it up they may read the debate on the national employment commission and get the facts.
By 1939 this commission had been in existence for three years. Up to that stage it had spent in excess of $325,000. I should like to point out that this was a formidable sum, even by today's standards. In those days it represented a substantial portion of the government's revenue. They had spent that sum and finally they came out with a report. The commission was established on the assumption that it would be an indefinite commission. It was not formed for any special time. It was something which most observers thought would last forever or as long as that government existed, at any rate. But by 1939 the Liberal administration was so proud of its infant that it promptly disbanded the commission entirely as soon as the report was out. The report was tabled in the house with great fanfare and then quietly and promptly buried and forgotten.
Of the many recommendations which were contained in the commission report, none was enacted in that year, 1939. Here we are in the fourth year after the Liberal regime, the men who were going to cure this


great unemployment problem. They had this commission and at the same time unemployment continued its same course of stagnation and was as much a serious problem in 1939 as in 1935. As a matter of fact-these figures are all contained in the record-by January or February of 1939 there were over one million people receiving relief in Canada. This despite the four years of that great administration which was going to cure unemployment and which had devised that child brain of its leader, their great unemployment commission, to solve that problem once and for ever, eradicating it from the face of our national economy.
Mr. Speaker, in the face of that remarkable performance can we take seriously the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East? First of all he bases his amendment on the great deteriorating state of the economy-which facts and figures prove to be otherwise-and second he proposes a remedy that has already been tried. When that commission sat for three years and tabled its report no step was taken to improve the unemployment situation. So I can only conclude that this amendment is certainly not a remedy in 1960. I have full confidence in the measures that this government has taken, is taking now and will take in the future to meet the problems of the day as they arise. In 1957 everyone said we were in a recession. The year 1958 was supposed to be a recession year. Our government did take certain measures. As hon. members know, they increased by a substantial amount the money supply. Government expenditures were vigorous and pronounced. Taxes were reduced. These measures were all adopted by our administration and as a result recovery was initiated in 1958. In 1959 when the corporations, businessmen and the population at large were engaged in the performance of the year that was just ending, everyone agreed it was record year in almost every phase of Canadian activity.
I am telling you that to show the hon. members that this government has taken measures. Some of them were said to be very vigorous. They were all adopted and they were all appropriate to the needs of the times. And they all performed their useful function, namely putting an end to the Liberal-induced recession and bringing back a period of prosperity which we have enjoyed and which we will continue to enjoy.
Hon. members say that in 1960 things are pretty good but there are clouds on the horizon and things will not be quite so good later on. I have full confidence in what has been done. This government has advisers; it has economists; it has whole armies of people who are taking the pulse of the

economic life of this country and who are suggesting to the government the measures which should be taken. Our government has the responsibility of decision. When the facts are before the government the government will act. Past performance is a gauge and guarantee of future success in solving these problems.
I just want to leave one parting thought. The government has shown that it will take every measure that a government can take to restore confidence in this country, but in the last analysis success or failure depends not on the many speeches which have been made here either on one side or the other. It reposes in the determination of the people themselves, in their confidence. I think that we should reflect on what has happened in Europe after the last war and how Great Britain has recovered. I was in Britain during the last war as were many other hon. members here, and we all know how they faced problems which had no comparison with the present problem facing our own country today. Britain and other countries in western Europe have staged a dynamic recovery despite great odds. Is it unreasonable to assume that if our own Canadian population, which has received so much in the post-war decade, not so much because of what the government might have done but simply because of a variety of circumstances beyond our control, were faced with obstacles it would not rise to conquer those obstacles so that our chart ahead would be one of continued and solid progress? That is why I think that this amendment is only another one of these smoke screens and must be dismissed. Let us get down to some serious business.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this motion calling as it does for the setting up of a national advisory board on economic development and automation to recommend policies designed to achieve a high and stable level of income and employment is very timely. The solution to Canada's most urgent domestic problem cannot be further delayed. It is crying out for action. Canada cannot afford to have the level of unemployment which has been existing.
May I quote from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, April 26 entitled "Diversification believed answer to unemployment". In part the article says:
Canada cannot afford the luxury of either keeping a large number of potential workers idle, or of supporting them. In a carefully prepared study of unemployment and the present day importance of secondary industry, H. B. Style, president of John Inglis Company, has pointed out it has cost $900 million in the past two years for unemployment insurance, with more than 8 per cent of the labour force idle, future growth is threatened, for
National Board on Economic Development we are not offering the opportunities to hold our young, ambitious youth, nor to attract productive-minded immigrants.
It is true we cannot afford this idleness. It is a waste of human resources and assets which cannot be allowed to continue. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Russians do not pay out $900 million in two years for idleness; they make sure their people are productively engaged, and when we are engaged as we are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is a nice statement.


George Harris Hees: Another Cyrus Eaton.


Mr. Starr:: He would rather live with Khrushchev.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -in a struggle with a godless ideology we will certainly have to do some streamlining of our system to make it more attractive as well as more productive.
This problem is not of a single cause. It is a complex thing but it is one which is capable of solution. In the Unemployment Insurance Act we have undoubtedly room for some irregularity. This was pointed out by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Thrasher) recently when he said in a speech that there were cases of fraud being perpetrated against the Unemployment Insurance Act.
But this does not mean, as some supporters of the government are trying to convince the people at large at the present time, that anything like the bulk of those who are registered for employment in this country are slackers. Far from it. The large majority of the people registered for employment at the present time are honest, industrious people who ask nothing else than the opportunity to go to work and to earn for themselves their daily bread. That is a right which we could not deny them. It is a right which we cannot afford long to deny them.
As I said before, there are several factors involved in this unemployment situation. There is unemployment which has been called seasonal, and that which is known as frictional which occurs when a person leaves a job and is waiting to find another. There is also the hard core of unemployment which has grown up in the last two or three years and which seems to have been caused by automation. Then there is, perhaps, unemployment from other causes. We know this is a complex question, but we do know one thing else, and that is that this government has no solution and that its actions have not been equal to coping
4200	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development with the situation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in this house on January 19, 1959:
We have with decisiveness met the problems as they have arisen. We intend to continue to do so. We realize the unemployment problem as it is. We have acted. We are now criticized for having acted, in effect, because, having placed $750 million in one stream, namely the housing plan, naturally there would be inflationary influences. I believe our first responsibility is to assure that everything will be done in order to meet the situation of those who, by reason of conditions over which they have no control, find themselves unemployed. That is what we have done. We did it in connection with the unemployment insurance. We extended the period. We did it in connection with the winter plan. We have done it in connection with housing, with public expenditures and with public works. That course we intend to follow in the days ahead.
Whatever the course that has not been followed; whatever the plan that has not been successful; whatever the government has undertaken has not been good enough, because the problem today is as bad as it ever was. In fact, it is worse in its effect than at any time since the thirties. In determining the nature of this problem it is necessary to obtain as much additional information as possible. Again, if I may, I should like to quote, this time from the Globe and Mail of February 19, 1960. This is from an editorial which reads, in part:
So who is unemployed, and where and why?
This is the point, and this is the question all parties should ask if unemployment comes up for general discussion in the commons today. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact that Canada has chronic labour shortages in several fields at this time in occupations which require high skill or training. This newspaper is willing to accept it as an equal matter of fact that Canada has temporary or chronic labour surpluses in certain other fields. Which are they? If we knew precisely what skills were in shortage and to what extent; if we knew precisely what skills were in surplus and to what extent, we could discuss unemployment, and act upon unemployment, more intelligently both inside and outside parliament.
Surely a break-down could be obtained without too much difficulty. Surely a census could be made of those who are registered as seeking employment. We can find out who they are by age, by training, by experience and by any other category which might be felt to be helpful toward determining a solution of this perennial problem. If, at the same time, those who are unemployed but who are not registered were asked to do so for the purpose of the breakdown, an accurate picture of the problem would emerge. Next year the decennial census will be taken. This involves the asking of questions in relation to 18 million people. I suggest it would not be difficult to take a census involving some
800,000	people. This should be done at once without further delay, because the information is badly needed.


In the meantime, some things are obvious even to casual observation. The government's program-if one can dignify it by calling it a program-has been inadequate. The winter works program was too little and too late. It was discriminatory in its application.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I call the hon. member's attention to the direction given by the Speaker and by myself up to now that this amendment does not permit a discussion of the policy or lack of policy of the government in relation to employment? Of course, if the questions which the hon. member has been discussing could be resolved or settled by the establishment of the board which has been suggested, that would be in order, but up to now he has not related his comments to the setting up of such a board as the amendment seeks to establish.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is precisely the tenor of my proposal. It is that such an advisory board would, I am sure, recommend action along many of the lines I have been suggesting, including the carrying out of a survey and the compiling of a breakdown of the labour force in order that we might know exactly what the problem is and how we could best cope with it.
As I also mentioned, the government embarked on a housing program. This was very highly touted. It was much talked about and much bragged about, and if it contributed to employment in the past, then the reverse must be true now. The level of housing, and consequently of employment in housing and the allied industries, has fallen off markedly. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) when he was minister of public works stated in this House of Commons on February 4, 1959:
Completions for 1958 numbered 146,686. This again is a record and above the highest figure before, which was in 1956, namely 135,700. At the end of the year, there were under construction 88,162 houses. This, again, is a record, the previous high being 79,339. As I pointed out, one of the main objectives was to help create employment by this housing policy. There can be no doubt but that house-building in 1958 has set the pace for all activities in Canada. It has been in the forefront of economic activity in Canada. We estimate that during the year there were probably 200,000 man-years of employment provided by on-site construction alone. This means about 400,000 jobs because it takes about six months to build a home.
If that is correct and if the Secretary of State for External Affairs was accurate in the figures he used at that time, and when housing has fallen off this year again due to government policy by one quarter to one third, as it has, then the number of jobs must have fallen equally by 100,000 to 135,000.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


David James Walker: Thank you very much. Does the hon. member for Trinity realize that in the year 1960 we expect to have one of the greatest years in the history of Canada for completions of houses? We expect to have
140.000	completions. We had a carryover of
82.000	houses at the beginning of the year and, taking half of the estimate of 120,000, that would be 140,000 for this year. I just wondered if my hon. friend realized that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that a question or a speech?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is a rather long question, Mr. Speaker, and it tended to impart a certain amount of information that is not borne out by the statistics.


John Cameron Pallett: The statistics of the Martin bureau?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend seems not to be statistically inclined this afternoon. If the minister would take the starts for the first three months of this year and adjust them seasonally he would find he would be lucky if there were 125,000 housing starts this year and the latest estimate is that considerably less than that number of houses will be started. On that basis it is true that 100,000 to 135,000 less jobs will be available for Canadians.
One other important factor I should like to mention is that there is not one really big national program under way at the present time, not one program of the magnitude of Kitimat, the trans-Canada pipe line, the St. Lawrence seaway or the Avro Arrow. This is the first time in ten years there has not been one of these big projects under way.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member is not discussing the amendment but is discussing unemployment.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Has the hon. gentleman heard of the South Saskatchewan dam?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have heard of the South Saskatchewan dam. Although I sincerely hope it will be beneficial to that region of the country it is not of the same magnitude as those projects I have mentioned. This is the first time in ten years there has not been one of these major projects under way. The Right Hon. C. D. Howe used to say that in his opinion there should be one project of this magnitude under way
National Board on Economic Development at all times. There is none now. The leadership is gone. The vision, the mirage, has vanished.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I again invite the hon. member to relate his remarks to the amendment.


Michael Starr: He has not said anything about it yet.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is all directly related because this is the background for some suggestions I am going to make which I feel sure would be some of the conclusions which this advisory board would come to if the government would accept the resolution we have presented to it.
To illustrate the urgency of this matter may I say we are no further ahead now than we were in 1953 in terms of our gross national product. I have here a bulletin from the organization for European economic co-operation which is an index showing the relative growth in gross national product at market prices for each of the countries under study. The base year, equalling 100, is 1953. Whereas by 1956, the last full year under a Liberal administration, the Canadian per capita gross national product had increased to 106, by 1958 it had declined to 99. This means that in the year 1958 our gross national product per capita was less than it had been in the year 1953. Surely this is one of the most disillusioning and disturbing facts which an advisory council would have to consider and upon which they would have to advise this government.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. Is he not aware, since he is talking about the output per capita, that the figures for the first quarter of 1960 are the highest in the history of Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I certainly hope that the figures are better than they have been under this administration in the past.


John Cameron Pallett: Apparently the hon. member does not keep his statistics up to date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: An advisory committee such as is proposed in our amendment would have much scope for its activities. Never has there been a government which was more in need of advice or slower in acting on it.
Many suggestions have been made one of which is technical training. This suggestion which I made in the House of Commons last year was applauded by the Minister of Labour and yet in effect a whole year has gone by and nothing has been done. I was reading an article just yesterday about the magnitude of the present plan under which approximately 2,500 or 3,000 individuals are
4202	HOUSE OF
National Board on Economic Development receiving technical training. Surely that is not comparable to the magnitude of the problem facing us. The scale is too small. We have to gauge the size of the problem before we act. Certainly what I had in mind was something which might involve an expenditure of $100 million or $200 million a year but which would bring benefits to the economy of hundreds of millions or a billion dollars a year after the plan had been in operation for a short period of time. Big dividends would be available but we have to face the magnitude of the problem existing in this country. It is the failure to do this which is responsible for our condemnation of the government.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Sounds like the south sea bubble.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a good way to treat vocational training.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have not even trained enough people under the existing plan to fill the available job openings. To this witness the fact that advertisements are published abroad asking for immigrants to fill a whole series of jobs for skilled labour. This was further amplified-if any further amplification was necessary-by the Minister of Labour in the House of Commons last week when in reply to questions we were told that recruiting for radio operators had to be carried out in the United Kingdom because there were not a sufficient number available in Canada and because our training program had been inadequate. Or perhaps it is just because the system is so complex and communications between various branches of government so bad that one branch of government did not know what people another branch had available to fill those jobs.
May I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, before six
o'clock I had started to mention a number of suggestions that I thought might be conclusions of a national advisory board if one were established. The second suggestion is portable pensions. It seems to me that this is not only an obvious but also an essential development. I was talking to a man a few days ago who was seeking employment. He had been turned down by one automobile manufacturing firm, by one rubber manufacturing firm, by one agricultural implement organization, by one electrical manufacturer


and by one government. He was turned down in every case for the same reason, because he was too old. He was in his mid-forties. What a travesty, Mr. Speaker, what a waste and what a heartbreak. This man is disillusioned, disappointed and has lost his reason for existence.
The next suggestion has to do with fiscal and monetary policies. There have been too many gyrations. The management of our economy has not been smooth enough. Far too much new money was created in 1958 and then none in 1959. Why? Was it because of government pressure? What was the reason for the tight money policy last year? Was there a shortage of goods and services?
Mr. Pallet!: Will the hon. member give the amount of new money created each year, if he is going to make that statement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member can look that up for himself. In 1956 there was a shortage of capital goods, capital goods which were being used to increase the industrial capacity of this country and to provide additional jobs for Canadian workers. But this was not so last year. This was not the case. What was the reason then? Was it fear of inflation? Was the government afraid of the so-called wage-cost cycle? If so, it has not said so. We do not know the reasons but we do know the results. The provinces and municipalities had to borrow abroad. Many necessary local projects were postponed or cancelled. Was the danger due to the actions of this government the year before or were there other factors we have not been told about?
Another suggestion is the increasing of our export sales abroad. Some Canadian manufacturers seem to prefer an exclusive jurisdiction within a small limited market rather than seeking a part of a world-wide market. We as Canadians have to become better salesmen. We have to go out and try to sell our products abroad. Our trade commissioners do a very worth-while job and are most competent people but they cannot substitute for hard salesmanship. Recently a Toronto publisher was telling of a trip he had taken abroad. He expressed the opinion that if Canadian manufacturers really applied themselves and sent trained and skilled salesmen around the world looking for orders they could increase Canadian sales of manufactured goods two or three times in a very short period.
Another suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is aid to our tourist industry. There should be loans to establish new tourist facilities. I am sure that many members have had the experience of talking to United States visitors to Canada

who were not impressed with the accommodation and food they had found in certain localities in our country. I was also surprised this afternoon that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) did not mention this when he was speaking.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thought I would be out of order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure that any time that suggestion would be put forward it would be favourably received. Furthermore, the government has reversed the trend of increasing our tourist traffic. By further procrastination and postponement of the completion of the trans-Canada highway it is extending even farther ahead the time when more United States and other tourists will use that highway to visit more of the towns, cities and pleasure spots of our great country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there should be accelerated depreciation for equipment and research designed to facilitate winter employment. May I recapitulate these suggestions? They are: (1) A massive scheme of technical training and retraining; (2) a system of national portable pensions; (3) a sound fiscal and monetary policy; (4) the encouragement of export sales of Canadian manufactured goods; (5) the guaranteeing or otherwise providing of loans to build up a greater tourist industry; (6) the acceleration of the completion of the trans-Canada highway for the same purpose; and (7) the allowing of accelerated depreciation for equipment and research to facilitate winter employment.
These are just samples of the type of suggestions a national advisory board might make. This is a time for action. It is futile for government supporters to attempt to bring into the present situation the alleged opposition of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King to Lord Bennett's proposed unemployment insurance legislation. As a matter of fact, for the benefit of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Keays) and the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), may I say that as soon as the court decided that Lord Bennett's unemployment insurance legislation was ultra vires Mackenzie King wrote to the provincial premiers on November 5, 1937 asking them to agree to a constitutional amendment. Mr. Duplessis refused. It was not until the Liberals came into office in the province of Quebec in 1939 that consent was obtained and the Unemployment Insurance Act was then promptly established. What a mess we would be in today without it. Even this act, which is now due for an overhaul on the basis of experience, is not sufficient for today's problems.
The situation continues to deteriorate. There is much public concern as evidenced
79951-0-265
24, 1960	4203
National Boavd on Economic Development by numerous warnings. I should like to mention two briefly. The first is found in the Financial Post of May 14. Under the heading "Jobless Picture Getting Darker" the editorial has this to say in part:
Current unemployment, even if overstating honest-to-goodness hardship, is a clear warning that national policies in the economic sphere are lagging behind the realities of growth and change here and abroad. The welfare of all Canadians is very much at stake.
The second is taken from the Montreal Gazette of May 17. The article is headed "Rate of Job Creation Lags Behind Demand", and it reads in part as follows:
The pattern of job creation clearly indicates the imbalance between development and production. It just as clearly indicates wherein new jobs must be created as the emphasis shifts from the development of the booming fifties to the production of the competitive sixties.
Surely this is sufficient reason, Mr. Speaker, to justify the setting up of the proposed national advisory board. We have heard some strange statements from ministers during this session but perhaps none stranger than that of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) last night indicating the government's opposition to the appointment of a national advisory committee as recommended in our amendment. "It would be", he said, "an evasion of governmental responsibility", and this from a government which has set up more committees and commissions in order to evade responsibility for action than any other government in our history and has gone so far, in the hope of evading responsibility, as to promise committees which it does not get around to setting up. In this way it uses commissions that have been proposed as a means of escaping decisions and taking action. The best example of this, Mr. Speaker, is the proposed Hoover type commission. This proposed commission, if and when it is set up, is being used in order to remove from the government any responsibility for changes in the civil service which may be considered necessary in the interests of the economy.
However, when we advocate a national advisory board as a permanent agency to give counsel and advice to the government, expert advice and guidance, so that the government might discharge its responsibilities more efficiently, the minister says we cannot do this; it would be an invasion of responsibility. It is impossible to imagine a more flimsy, more ridiculous reason for rejecting a motion of this kind.
Some years ago, Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said this:
When men are employed, they are best contented; for on the days they worked they were

Division
good-natured and cheerful, and, with the consciousness of having done a good day's work, they spent the evening jollily; but on our idle days they were mutinous and quarrelsome-
The dignity of man is enhanced by honest labour. We have a responsibility to allow each and every Canadian to earn a living and to justify his existence. This is a responsibility which must be faced, and which this government has refused to face from month to month. This evasion of responsibility is not based upon lack of advice.
More than 25 suggestions were enumerated by members of the Liberal party earlier this session, and what results have we seen? Not one of those suggestions has been acted upon. Why do the ministers not rise in their places and say that at least they will try, at least they will implement some of the suggestions in order to determine if something worth while cannot be done? This is not the course the present government follows. It has abdicated its responsibilities to hundreds of thousands of Canadians; it has allowed a situation to continue which has affected the good name of our country abroad. This has resulted in a lessening of the desire of immigrants to come to this country. It has affected our national and international credit; it has affected the regard in which we are held.
We urge, Mr. Speaker, that the government accept our proposal which has been put forward in good faith. The situation cries out for action, action which is the responsibility of this government to the people who elected it just three short years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 8.15 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (d) of standing order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendments now before the house.



REQUEST FOR VESTING OF PENSION RIGHTS

Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up a grievance, and it is that for the most part there are no vesting rights in industrial pension schemes in vogue in our country. When I say this I realize that the employee can recover his contributions if there is termination of service before the pension matures; but for the most part he cannot benefit from the contributions made on his behalf by his employer. He has no right at all to any part of those contributions.
I have had representations many times from workmen in my area, and I know that early in March when I was away from this house representations were made to the government, to all members of the House of Commons and to members of the cabinet in respect to these pensions, and also in respect to a restoration of the pension vesting provisions of the Income Tax Act.
That prompted a question by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the Prime Minister said, in effect, that consideration was being given to these representations and that when a decision had been made it would be communicated to the house. There were other supplementary questions asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West, by the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Har-die) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) concerning the deletion of paragraph 10 (b) from the blue book. This deletion was published in the Canada Gazette of July 18, 1959. Whether that deletion was by order in council or by some other order I am not aware, and I do not know whether that order has ever been tabled.
I have brought up this question of the vesting of pension rights before in this house and I will not give all the reasons why I think this is very desirable. Most industrial pensions in our country mature after 20 or 25 years, and I do not think it is right that an employee has to work up to the very last day in order to get any part of his pension. Through misadventure or through sickness he might lose his pension by just a few days or a few months; and I have seen a case where it has been lost because his service fell short of the term by something less than one month.
With earlier pension rights I think it might be easy to work out portable pensions. It would be easier for a skilled man to get employment after he reaches the age of 40. Because of these pension plans, at the present time it is very hard for him to get employment in any trade. When he goes to apply he is generally turned down because he would become a liability owing to the pension 79951-0-265J
24, I960	4205
Request for Vesting of Pension Rights plan and therefore the employer will not hire him. I know that in the province of Ontario the suggestion has been made that there could be portable pensions, but I think that here we should have uniformity in relation to these pensions across the country.
I think the federal government might constitutionally, through the provisions of the Income Tax Act, provide for earlier vesting. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said this matter came under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but the Income Tax Act comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I believe the federal government could provide that there should be earlier vesting. If earlier vesting was not allowed by the employer the right of the employer to deduct contributions from his income tax could be disallowed in whole or in part.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am
sure all members of this house regardless of party are pleased to see the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) back in good health to carry on his old fight on pension vesting. I know the hon. member has taken a long time interest in this problem. I think his first efforts in this direction were made in 1955, if I remember correctly, and although he was unfortunately absent through illness this session he continued to take an interest in this question as one could see by the resolution appearing on the order paper in his name this session.
I also represent a constituency which includes many workers who have been very interested in this question for a number of years. In 1950 the government distributed a blue book which established principles for pension vesting as related to the Income Tax Act, and according to those principles it was stated in the book:
The rights provided by employer contributions must vest in the employee within a determinable period, and particularly on the attainment by the employee of an age which would prejudice him m the event of severance from employment. Therefore, vesting should be absolute upon attainment oi age 50, subject to a minimum period, not exceeding 20 years of service or participation.
That is a very important clause of the pension vesting principles established in the blue book in 1950.
It was in 1955 that the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers was the first union in Canada to recognize the fact that the government was not applying the principles as established in the blue book. As a consequence the union made representations at that time to the former minister of finance and to the former minister of national revenue as well as to other members of the cabinet, and the matter was then taken into consideration. It was under consideration for a good
4206	HOUSE OF
Request for Vesting of Pension Rights length of time without any decision being announced. Then the present government came into office, and further representations were made. The government representatives agreed with the union that the matter should receive further consideration. Members of the union and some employers' organizations waited almost with bated breath the decision of the government on this question. However, they were disappointed when on July 18 of last year they read in the Canada Gazette new regulations with respect to the principles of pension vesting which in effect cancelled the former requirements.
I think I should explain that in brief all that pension vesting means is that if an employer is to get certain concessions with respect to his income tax in return for establishing a pension fund he must provide his employees with certain vested rights and interest in their pensions. Following the news published in the Gazette of July 18, 1959, further representations were made by local 598 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers. Members of this local, together with some of the national officers, met some members of the cabinet and, I think, the president of local 598 met the Prime Minister personally and had a discussion with him on this matter of such importance to the union. In addition, the Canadian congress of labour made representations supporting the principles of pension vesting and urged the government to establish those principles in the income tax regulations.
Then the International Nickel Company made representations to the government in which it opposed the principles of pension vesting and the proposal that they should be included in the income tax regulations with respect to pension plans. In fact, the company was of the opinion that such rights should be established as a result of the processes of collective bargaining. Once again the members of the government told representatives from the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers that further consideration should be given to this question of vesting rights with respect to pension plans established by corporations and companies. The union has waited a long time for a decision. As the hon. member for Welland has mentioned, I asked the Prime Minister some time ago when a decision might be expected on this important issue, and the right hon. gentleman replied to the effect that when a decision was made it would be announced. Since then we have continued to wait for this announcement.
Then during the discussion of some of the income tax resolutions I raised the matter
[Mr. Herridge.I

again briefly. I think at the time I did something very unusual for me Mr. Speaker-I was slightly out of order. Anyway, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) replied to my inquiry and indicated that this was a provincial responsibility, because civil and property rights come within the jurisdiction of the provinces. We know that civil and property rights come within provincial jurisdiction but we claim, as did the representatives of the union, that when this government gives certain exemptions from income tax to corporations who set up certain funds for pensions purposes, it has the right to specify that the exemptions shall be related to certain responsibilities and obligations toward the employees; in this particular case, the vesting of pensions. That is definitely within the jurisdiction of the federal government and it was recognized as being so by the previous government and also by the present government in listening to representations on this question by unions and employers.
I wish to bring to the attention of this house that there seems to have been a great departure in government policy compared with that which was indicated by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) on November 7, 1957. I want to read a letter which the Minister of Labour wrote at that time to Mr. LeRoy L. Brown, 1110 W. 8th Avenue, Vancouver, 9, B.C. This is what the Minister of Labour had to say:
I am sorry it was not possible to reply to your letter of October 20, on the question of vested rights in pension plans, in time for the meeting of the B.C. labour federation on October 24.
Vested rights in pension plans, either contributory or non-contributory, is a subject that has, as you know, received considerable attention not only in the House of Commons but in trade union and employer circles as well. Many factors enter into the problem, which tend to make it rather complex, and while I propose bringing your representations to the attention of the Minister of Finance, I do not know of any proposed legislation concerning vested rights in pension plans.
The present guide or "blue book" used by the Department of National Revenue in registering pension plans for tax purposes stipulates that a plan will not be given favourable consideration unless employer contributions are vested by the time an employee attains age 50, subject to the completion of a stated period of service with the employer or of participation in the plan not exceeding 20 years.
Under the Government Annuities Act, administered by the Department of Labour, employers of labour may contract with the government for the purchase of annuities arising out of the operation of a pension plan which must be approved by the Minister of Labour for purposes of the act. The department's policy in approving a pension plan is more restrictive than that of the Department of National Revenue. A plan is not approved unless there is complete vesting of at least the completed 20 years of employment. This period of employment includes service before as well as after the plan is installed. Vesting of future service

benefits based on years of participation in the plan is not acceptable; neither is a period of service combined with a minimum age.
I wish to bring this sentence to the particular attention of the house:
It is a matter of government policy to encourage early vesting of employer contributions in pension plans.
Thank you for your good wishes.
24, 1960	4207
Request for Vesting of Pension Rights of transferable pensions will provide a mobility of employment and residence to which every man is entitled in an economy such as ours.
I urge the government to give this immediate consideration and we still await with some hope the announcement promised by the Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Starr.
On November 7, 1957, shortly after the government came into power, the Minister of Labour indicated by his letter that it was government policy to encourage vested rights in pension plans. However, that enthusiasm was not indicated in the new regulations of July 8, 1959 published in the Gazette which wiped out the former blue book under which this encouragement was given and it was possible for corporations to receive exemptions without granting vesting rights.
We still await an announcement of the government's decision which the Prime Minister promised to give in reply to my question a few weeks ago. I cannot believe that the government will sidestep this question by suggesting that because property and civil rights are involved it comes within the purview of the provinces and not within the jurisdiction of this government.
The actions of the former and present government, the correspondence and the letter of the Minister of Labour clearly indicate that both the former and present administrations clearly recognized this as a responsibility of the federal government as far as exemption for income tax purposes are concerned.
I urge the members of the government responsible for this aspect of the legislation and pension plan regulations to give serious consideration to the representations that have been made on this subject by a number of groups including the international mine, mill and smelter workers, local 598 of that union and the Canadian labour congress.
As the hon. member for Welland pointed out, this right is sought by employees to give them a sense of security should illness or other hazards strike and terminate employment. As the hon. gentleman indicated, this is a step in the direction of a national transferable industrial pension scheme which would provide employees with mobility. They would no longer be chained to a job for 10 or 15 years despite ill health in order to qualify for a pension to which they are entitled because of having only worked in one industry for 10 years or more. The provision


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to make any statement of decision on this matter for, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated on a previous occasion, it is a matter under study. I shall confine my remarks tonight simply to certain factual statements by way of setting forth the problem for a better understanding of it, if I may do so.
The fact is that parliament has no jurisdiction to provide for vesting of pension rights. This is obviously a matter falling within the sphere of property and civil rights and is a matter strictly under provincial jurisdiction. Some of the provincial governments have already been examining the question. It may be recalled by hon. members that at the recent session of the legislature of Ontario there was discussion of this matter and the legislature on motion of the government there established a committee to study this question. That study, according to my information, is proceeding. Evidence is being taken on it and the counsel of experts has already been sought on the subject. With respect to jurisdiction it is a matter beyond question that this is something lying outside the jurisdiction of parliament. The only way in which it has at any time become a matter of federal consideration has been in relation to the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
As all hon. members are aware, the act makes provision for deduction from income in the case of both employers and employees of certain payments made to pension funds. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has referred to the situation that followed 1950. At that time regulations were issued, of which the hon. gentleman made mention, on the assumption that it was within the power of the government under the provisions of the Income Tax Act to say that the right to deduct these pension payments should be limited to cases where certain rights, in the clause that he mentioned, were preserved.
I must point out in the first place that that was interpreted in the government departments concerned as applicable only to pensions of a contributory nature. In other words, it was deemed applicable to those to which both the employer and employee contributed. It was interpreted as not having
4208	HOUSE OF
Request for Vesting of Pension Rights any application at all to pension funds established only at the instance of the employer to which the employee made no contribution.
Another development occurred not long after. Because of the multiplicity of these pension funds and the very great variety of them it was found to be quite impossible to undertake a review of all the pensions plans and to determine whether in every case under the terms of the trust created there was a vesting or a compliance with the provisions of the regulation. It became a physical impossibility. Some few years ago any attempt at a detailed review of these trust documents was given up. That was before we came into office. There are literally thousands of these plans.
The hon. member for Kootenay West spoke of the issuance of the new blue book as though that made some change in the situation. It really did not. It did not make any change in the situation at all. It was recognized that this was something under the then existing circumstances that was quite incapable of enforcement and, indeed, it was concluded that it was beyond the powers conferred by the act to attempt to impose or enforce such a condition. It is quite clear, therefore, that the regulations which appeared in the Canada Gazette last July made no change in the situation. They simply took account of an existing fact, a fact which had already been in existence for several years in the practice that had been followed. Therefore I wish to make it quite clear that no change in this respect has in fact occurred since the present government came into office.
The hon. member for Kootenay West spoke of the desirability of providing for transferability of pension contributions. I wonder whether he has overlooked the amendment introduced into the Income Tax Act at the 1959 session on a government resolution that made just that kind of provision. You will find that in section 11, subsection 1, paragraph (u) of the Income Tax Act. It makes clear provision for the transferability of these pension contributions so far as parliament can so provide in enacting taxing legislation within the ambit of the federal powers.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize that I have not risen to announce any policy in this respect. I have risen simply to indicate certain facts to the house in the hope that they may contribute to a clearer understanding of the situation, of the limitations that affect the federal authority in this respect, and of the fact there is an indication that the provincial legislatures and governments are carefully examining this question since it is only in that quarter that provision can


be made that will effect the right of vesting in such funds as between employers, employees and trustees of such funds.
As the Prime Minister indicated on an earlier occasion, this subject is complex. It has received and is receiving very careful study. Some hon. members may regret that it is as complex or that the federal powers are as limited as they are in this respect, but they are the facts and whatever consideration can be given to this question must be given within the kind of limits I have indicated.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member going to speak on the same subject?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should say that I have to confess that when the minister who moved the motion now before the house rose to speak I did not caution the house and I hope that by unanimous consent the house will agree that the debate has not been closed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I trust, sir, that the minister will not be allowed to speak a third time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I
would urge that unanimous consent be given. I had no desire to curtail the debate. I hope the debate will continue until ten o'clock.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the discussion of this very important subject. I was interested in hearing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) state that portable pensions are not a matter of federal jurisdiction. I maintain, however, that the federal government has some responsibility in the matter of pensions and the provision of a general pension plan acceptable in every part of Canada. If that is the case, then it has got to be a federal proposition and not merely a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
One of the major problems facing workers in industry today is the difficulty of men over 40 getting another job if for some reason their previous job comes to an end. As everyone knows, the acceleration of technological change has hit the hardest at older workers who have been displaced by machines. Many of these displaced workers were participants in pension schemes of all kinds, as intimated by the Minister of Finance, but their prospects for security are threatened through loss of employment. As a result, people 45 years of age and over find it extremely difficult to get a job in industries that have their own pension plans which in many instances preclude the hiring of men

and women over 40. The only fair solution to this problem, and it is a serious problem, is a measure or method, call it what you will, which would permit an employee to change his job without affecting his pension plan. I have an article here written by Mr. Cecil G. White, a fellow of the society of actuaries and an employee in the department of insurance. I think it is a very important article and I wish to read from it. It has this to say in part:
Why is it so important for the employee who changes jobs to preserve the pensions he earns with a succession of employers? There are several reasons, but the one that concerns us today is the effect this will have on his chances of employment in the future.
Many employers may be unwilling to hire an older worker who has no pension credits from previous employments. Quite naturally, these employers wish to avoid the embarrassment and bad public relations that may arise if they should be obliged to retire such an employee before he has had time to earn an adequate pension.
The two alternative possibilities are to keep the employee in service beyond the time when he is really effective or to bear the cost of supplementing his pension, but both of these involve added expense for the employers and are therefore unattractive. These considerations appear to be among the most important obstacles associated in the minds of employers with the hiring of otherwise qualified older workers.
This may or may not be an ideal solution but it is an attempt to alleviate discrimination against older workers. I am sure that the proposal advanced in the article will be of interest to every member of the house. I continue:
Well, now, here we have a serious problem. A pension plan with all its advantages for a firm's employees seems to have the disadvantage of raising a barrier against the hiring of some older people. Is this really the situation? In a sense it is, but perhaps it would be more correct to say that each of them has built up his own barrier during his years of previous employment by his failure to preserve his pension credits.
One remedy for this lies in making it possible for those employees who leave an employer after a reasonable period of service to keep the pension credits that they have earned. How can this be done? One method that seems obvious, but like many obvious methods involves some technical difficulties, is to transfer the employee's rights under one plan into the plan of his next employer.
Now, the income tax amendment mentioned by the Minister of Finance a moment ago was designed to facilitate some transfers.
To date, however, such "portable pension credits", as some people call them, are used only sparingly in Canada, being found most commonly in plans for government employees.
Other attempts to preserve the pension credits of employees who change jobs have been made through the mechanism of industry-wide pension plans. Under such a plan, an employee may move from one employer to another within the industry and always retain his earned pension. However, this arrangement can benefit an employee only as long as he stays within the industry, so that even an industry-wide plan is limited in its application.
24, 1960	4209
Request for Vesting of Penson Rights
Most employees who change jobs in Canada do so without the benefit of either a system of "portable pension credits" or an industry-wide plan. How do they make out in their efforts to preserve the pensions they have earned with a succession of employers? Any attempt to answer this question must take account of two main factors in Canadian pension plans-the vesting formulas and the optional forms of benefit available on voluntary termination of service.
The vesting formula determines the conditions under which the employee acquires a right to part or all of the contributions made by the employer on his behalf. The employee always retains a fully vested right to his own contributions, but his entitlement to the benefit arising from the employer's contributions depends on his length of service or sometimes on the number of years he has participated in the plan.
There is great variety in the vesting provisions of Canadian pension plans. Plans paid for entirely by the employer frequently have no provision for vesting any rights in a separating employee, except at retirement age.
I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that very many of these plans are such now that they are paid by the employer. However, the employee always retains a full and vested right to his own contribution.
Of the pension plans to which the employees contribute, comparatively few give full vesting before the completion of 15 years of service. Some plans have a formula that provides gradual vesting. Under these, the proportion of the employer's contributions that vests in the employee, increases year by year until the full amount is vested.
A typical formula gives the employee a vested right to 10 per cent of the employer's contributions after 10 years of service, with an additional 10 per cent being granted each year thereafter, so that full vesting is achieved on completion of 19 years of service.
A very few plans in Canada provide that the employer's contributions vest in the employee as soon as they are paid, regardless of the employee's age, service or participation in the plan. Such plans offer no restriction on the mobility of the employee. If the occasion arises for him to seek other employment, he is always in the favourable position of having pension credits.
From this brief description of the vesting provisions in Canadian pension plans, you can see that it is seldom possible for an employee who changes jobs to build up pension credits for his service with each employer. From this point of view, the present situation with respect to vesting in pension plans is less than satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I draw to his attention the fact that this is a period for the expression of grievances. Normally there are a number of contributions made and many members are given the opportunity of participating. I think the hon. member has trespassed on the tolerance of the house by the reading of such long extracts. I suggest that he content himself with what he has read and proceed with his own comments.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall abide by your decision, sir, and I will not continue to read from this very interesting formula which I believe should be of
4210	HOUSE OF
Request for Vesting of Pension Rights interest to every member in the house. In any event, the question before us is whether or not employers in industry, civic departments such as boards of works, hydro, utilities and so on, with which I am very familiar, are reluctant to hire persons who are over the age of 40 because of the danger of upsetting their own pension plans. Consequently, they have set an arbitrary retirement age of 65, notwithstanding the fact that many men of 65 are in their best productive years.
In order to make a portable pension plan work it would have to be a federal-provincial plan under a federal-provincial act. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who has been under fire during the last two days, should be commended for his efforts to encourage employers to give the older worker a chance at employment. In a booklet published by the Department of Labour he gave a summary of the capabilities of the older worker. I commend this booklet to every employer in the country, including the departments of the federal government as well as civic departments, because I have reason to believe that some discrimination against older workers exists even in the departments of the federal government.
I cannot think of anything more appropriate with which to conclude my brief remarks on this subject than to quote a few paragraphs-I promise it will be only a few paragraphs-from an article which I found in my scrapbook.
Consider what men have done in the field of leadership after sixty. Take Clemenceau, Adenauer and Voltaire-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member is departing from the grievance upon which he embarked, namely I suppose it might be described as the portability of pensions. He is now on the subject of the employment of older workers which seems to me to be in a different field. I would suggest that he conclude his remarks on the subject that he introduced.


Hubert Badanai: May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, just to quote two more paragraphs from this short article?


Mr. Speaker:: Not if they are in the same vein in which they started. They do not seem to have any relationship to the subject which the hon. member is supposed to be discussing.


Hubert Badanai: Look at Winston Churchill; when he had reached the age of 79-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I think the hon. member should abide by the ruling. Unless the quotation which he wishes to read covers the subject of the transfer of pensions, I suggest he conclude his remarks.


Hubert Badanai: I shall not read any further, Mr. Speaker. While I do not think that the reading of this particular article has no bearing on the subject under discussion, I am merely pointing out that men of 60 years of age, men who are pensioned off early in life, are still in a condition to be very productive in every field of endeavour including the arts and labour. Right in the House of Commons here we have men who are over 65 years of age and who are keen and alert. Indeed, they are even more effective than are many of the younger men. That fact should, of course, give encouragement to the younger men to gain the wisdom of those who have reached the respectable age of 65 years and over. I feel rather strongly on this age question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to resume his seat. I am sorry, but I cannot allow him to continue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order that has been raised, I wonder whether Your Honour would hear an argument that has occurred to me as I have been listening to the hon. member for Fort William. It seems to me that the portability of pensions would make it much easier for employers to employ older workers and that there is therefore between the two subjects a real connection which my friend the hon. member for Fort William is seeking to show.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the viewpoint, and the hon. member who has the floor made that point earlier in his contribution. However, it seems to me that he has got off entirely into the question of the employment of older workers.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. Is the hon. member proposing to speak on the same subject?


Mr. Carter:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo will permit me to do so, I will recognize the hon. member for Macleod first.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: I rise to speak on this subject of portable pensions, Mr. Speaker, because I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiments expressed by those who have spoken already on this subject. In my area of southwestern Alberta we have a large number of new industries, a growing industrial development and the problem of the mobility of labour. In other words, looking ahead we must have a system whereby the worker can transport his credits, his vested interest in a pension, from one job to another

in order to give him mobility. It is in the best interests of the industrialists, the nation and the worker that such a system in some way be granted to the worker. In other words, in order to use the skills we have in industry to the best advantage, to allow the individual to migrate to whatever position is open for him and to take with him his credits and built-up annuity to the new position, is extremely important. To deny the worker that privilege-this is what is being done in effect under the present system-is to freeze the individual in his job.
After he passes a certain age and after he has a certain number of credits built up over the years whether it be in industry or in the civil service or elsewhere, that individual is extremely reluctant to move to a new position because of his pension and because he has family ties and other things for which he has been building up that pension and he is looking to it to take care of himself and his dependents.
I do not wish to prolong the discussion, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give everyone an opportunity to sneak on this important-subject. Everyone knows that to evolve such a plan that would give to the labourer that mobility of movement which he needs to transfer from one job to another is not a simple task. It involves a complicated system and must be figured out in such a way that the objective of mobility of the laborer is accomplished. Of course it is beyond the scope of my remarks, in the few minutes that I have at my disposal to go into some of the plans I have thought of at one time or another. Suffice it to say that whatever plan is developed, the objective behind it should be to give mobility to the worker and to safeguard his pension rights.


Chesley William Carter: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support my colleague the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) with respect to the grievance he raised. The purpose of any pension is to provide security. In the case of pension plans in industry, the federal government contributes to that security by a tax exemption. That contribution is considerable. In fact, we have a 50 per cent stake in those pension plans and that amounts to many millions of dollars. Since we contribute to those plans we have a responsibility to see that the maximum security is achieved. There are many cases in which the employee is deprived of this security through no fault of his own. Now that we are living in a period of rapid technological change, jobs disappear almost overnight. The employment may be terminated after many years of loyal service and 79951-0-266
24, 1960	4211
Request for Vesting of Pension Rights at a date when it is impossible for the employee to build up any further security.
The minister has enumerated the difficulties which lie in the way of dealing with the problem and I would not for one moment wish to minimize them. As he pointed out, there is a wide variety of plans and there is a particular problem with respect to those plans which are non-contributory. The minister also told us that this responsibility is shared by the provinces; that the matter of property and civil rights is really a provincial matter; and that in fact the federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever over vested pension rights. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the responsibility is shared does not relieve us of our duty and our responsibility in this matter. While the federal powers may be limited our duties are not limited and our responsibility is not limited.
The basis of tax exemption is security for the employee, and as I have pointed out we share in that to the extent of a 50 per cent reduction. Because we share in that we have a duty to see that the purpose of this exempts achieved. I think-we have a duty and a responsibility to attach conditions to that exemption which will ensure maximum security to the employee.
As a matter of fact the federal powers may not be as limited as might at first sight be supposed. An amendment to the British North America Act, reads as follows:
The British North America Act, 1867, is amended by adding thereto immediately after section 94 thereof the following heading and section:
The heading is entitled "Old age pensions", and then follows section 94 (a):
It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law, present or future, of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions.
Since all pensions are based on age and there is an age qualification and people get pensions mainly on account of old age, it would seem that the federal government might have jurisdiction in this matter after all. It is shocking to think in this day and age that there are pension plans where an employee after many years of loyal service can lose his pension with only a few days, a few weeks or months to serve. That is not a credit to our free enterprise system.
I have had brought to my notice cases where these pension plans, these industrial pensions, have been reduced and in some cases eliminated altogether when the pensioner has become eligible for the old age pension. In other words, if the industrial pension was less than $55 a month when the pensioner

Request for Vesting of Pension Rights became 70 years of age he lost his industrial pension and was taken over by the government of Canada. In cases where the industrial pension was over $55 a month, it was reduced by that amount. That is certainly a contravention of the purpose of the tax exemption and of the spirit of the Old Age Pensions Act. It should concern this parliament that such things happen and we should be prepared to do what we can about it. We can do something and, as other hon. members have already pointed out, we can bring some pressure to bear on this question. We can give some encouragement to partial pensions through the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
I should like to support the suggestions put forward by my colleagues and by other hon. members here this evening that no exemption should be granted in cases of pensions where the conditions do not permit of at least a partial pension after a reasonable period of service.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who have been raising this problem for some time now. It is a problem which is of great concern to the workers and all those who are now finding it more and more difficult to negotiate and obtain from their employers increases in pay and are being asked to take other benefits to compensate for that.
In relationship to pension plans workers in many industries have found it not advantageous for them to engage in a pension plan for the very simple reason that it ties them to the one job. It means that as they grow older the company has more control over them and their opportunities in that field become less and less as their age increases. I agree with the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and the point I believe he was trying to make, that we should allow workers to travel from job to job so that it would not be necessary to employ only young men to give them a lifetime in the industry which would enable them at least to establish a full pension. I think if we combine the two ideas the hon. member for Welland mentioned, namely the portable plan and the vesting rights in the plan, we might make pension plans advantageous for all the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember when Professor Clark went to the United States and examined their program; he compared the social security program in the United States to the Canadian old age pension plan. I believe he had in mind the versatility of the plan, the mobility of their social security

scheme and the fact that it did allow a worker to transfer from one job to another, the vesting rights not being held by the employer but by the partial pension agency, which would keep control of the pension.
I think tonight that Barbara Ann Scott in the best days of her skating experience and when she was world champion could not have competed with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when he skated over this ticklish problem of who has the jurisdiction over pensions, the federal government or the provinces. While we have some say in this matter through income tax exemptions I believe there is not a great deal of difference between what we are suggesting would be advantageous for the workers in this matter of pensions and the national old age pension plan which we now have under the federal government. I believe it is very important that these vesting rights in the pension plan be immediate and that a worker working in an industry for any length of time should have an initial period through which he would have to work before he became a full time employee. While he is still a temporary employee I would suggest that probably he should not enjoy vesting rights; but as soon as he becomes a full-fledged employee in a company he should have those vesting rights.
In my part of the country, northern Ontario, where we have been dependent on national resources such as the mining and lumbering industries, these industries in particular indicate the need and show that what we have done in the past with regard to pensions and allowing employers to maintain control of and sole right in the pension has been detrimental. We have been concerned in the last few months with the problem of people being laid off and having to change to new jobs in the town of Elliot Lake. In this particular area if the miners had had vesting rights, as was suggested, if they had worked in the mining industry in Elliot Lake for five years they would be leaving there with a contribution in their pockets or in some national agency which would be regarded as an annuity to which their employers had helped to contribute. It would enable them after 20 or 25 years, whatever period they saw fit, to retire knowing they would have a pension capable of supporting them.
I,	like other hon. members, have seen industries which did not exist for the full length of time which would have enabled these pensions to mature. We have all seen other abuses in cases where the pension plans have been of considerable size. I am thinking in particular of the Big Dome mine

which was reported to have close to $750,000 in its pension plan for approximately 500 employees. In this particular company, after you had worked a year or two, for no particular reason the boss would say on a Saturday: don't come back on Monday, you are fired. On Wednesday, you asked the boss if you could have a job and he would say: Sure, come on back, you are a good worker. This was repeated time after time. By this means the pension fund would last forever, because to my knowledge very few workers have ever been able to take advantage of it.
The people of Canada are concerned about this question. The provinces have given consideration to it. A government in Ontario which is favourable to the federal government has seen fit to say that some time in the future it will agree to this kind of plan.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilion South):: What company was the hon. member referring to when he made the accusation a little while ago?


William Arnold Peters: The Big Dome mine.
If all hon. members are agreed, as I am sure they are, it follows that in the near future the government will bring in a bill which would allow for vested rights of pensions and also take care of the other problem, namely transferability.
Finally-and this affects members of parliament and others interested in pension plans -if and when we obtain vesting rights and transferability we should also have a clause written into the bill which would allow death benefits to be paid, or the amount that the pension represents to be transferable to the spouse or to the children who are left under the age of 21.



SUGGESTED REVISION IN OPERATION OF NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICES

John Whitney Pickersgill: If no hon. member wishes to say anything further on the subject of the vesting of pension rights I have a grievance which is of interest to my constituents and about which I should like to say a few words. It has to do with the operation of the national employment service as it affects constituencies where the commission has no offices and where there is a rather high degree of seasonal unemployment, as unhappily, there is in my constituency.
I do not want anything I say to be misinterpreted as the slightest criticism of the personnel of the unemployment insurance commission who, I think, are conscientiously doing a very good job under great difficulties in every part of Canada with which I have 79951-0-266 J
24, 1960
Operations of Employment Offices anything to do. What I am talking about is the system itself, and I am not saying, either, that it is the fault of Her Majesty's present advisers, though this is a grievance against the government because it is something which I feel ought to be changed in the circumstances.
So that I can save the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), the pain of asking me why we did not change it, let me say that whether we should have changed it or not, we did not change it. We are now in 1960 and the power to change this is vested for the time being-and not for very long -in someone else. Those people will be judged not by what we did before 1957 or by what we left undone before 1957 but what they have done, or left undone since 1957. Because I do not want to make this controversial, I intend to appeal to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr)-and I trust someone will carry my appeal to him-to get the commission to do something about this question.
The problem is this: once a person has exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits there is at the present time little or no real incentive for him, particularly in the winter months when there is practically no employment available in many parts of the country, to keep his name on the registers of the employment service. Means are provided for his doing so if he wishes, and the commission always shows the greatest possible courtesy if he does so, but there is a tendency for those who are unemployed to let their names drop off these registers. I can understand, also, that the staff do not want to keep a lot of deadwood on the list, and they should not. I make no criticism of that.
This does mean, however, that a great many people who are unemployed, and who in many cases, have been longer employed than a great many others who are getting insurance benefits, are denied the opportunity of hearing about such jobs as may be available simply because they do live in outlying places and are not readily accessible to the offices. This is a difficult problem. I do not think there is an easy solution to it; if there were it would no doubt have been solved long ago. But it is a problem. The national employment offices exist to serve all Canadians and not just those who happen for the time being to be drawing benefits.
I do not think the commission or its employees consciously tend to bring job opportunities to the attention primarily of those who are drawing benefit rather than to others, but I suggest that unconsciously it does happen that way, because those persons who are

Operations of Employment Offices on the list are more readily available and because it is easier to bring matters of that kind to their notice.
I feel that some device should be found for maintaining a priority in the offering of these jobs, and that it should be the exact opposite of the usual rules of seniority which one readily understands. But in the case of a national employment service, surely the job should be offered first to those who have been unemployed the longest and not to those who lost their jobs the most recently.
In urban communities this may not be a very great problem. In urban communities where there is an employment office in the community where an unemployed person even if he no longer has benefits can without very much effort on his part see that his name is kept on the list, a man can be informed of job opportunities without too much trouble. But when you live, as do many of my constituents, 100 or 200 miles from the nearest office, when job opportunities do turn up it is often necessary to make rather complicated inquiries by the postal service which is not as good, I am sorry to say, in many parts of my riding, as it is in metropolitan Montreal.
Again I am making no criticism on that account, but it is one of those facts. I do think more attention should be given to establishing some practical and workable means to ensure that those unemployed persons who are driven on to relief because their benefits have expired are given an opportunity- indeed, I would say, a priority-with regard to learning about opportunities for employment.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and express my appreciation for his bringing up the subject. In the matter of obtaining employment my constituents are handicapped to an even greater extent than his are.
I should like to make it very clear at the beginning that I have no criticism whatever to make of the officials of the unemployment insurance commission. I have nothing but good to say about them. They are doing a difficult job well. My criticism is, if anything, against geography. I know that this government despite its power cannot alter the shape of the physical properties of Canada but I do think it should take these physical characteristics into consideration in making decisions as to who should have jobs and when.
As hon. members know, although my constituency takes in central Newfoundland it extends all down the east side of the great northern peninsula and includes all of Labrador. Many of my constituents live a long way

from the unemployment offices at St. John's, Grand Falls and Corner Brook. Communications are slow and unless there is some policy adopted whereby available jobs are divided up regionally I cannot see how the men in remote areas will have a fair chance of obtaining employment in competition with those who live in the vicinity of the employment offices.
I am not sure that the establishment of more employment offices would be a satisfactory answer. I do think there should be more field men provided and the residence of those making application for jobs should be taken into consideration by those who have it in their power to grant employment.
In my own district there is seasonal unemployment. At this time of year when work grows more plentiful and there are a number of jobs offered the people living, for instance, in north White Bay are definitely handicapped compared to those living in more populous areas, but those who live in remote districts should have an equal opportunity of earning much-needed income during the period of employment.
I would hope a policy would be adopted whereby those who live in remote areas would be given opportunities of employment equal with those living near the employment offices at St. John's, Grand Falls and Corner Brook. If such a policy were instituted it would mean that many men would have employment this summer and would be able to support their families. On the whole I believe it would create a better feeling of satisfaction among the people in many parts of my riding and indeed in all the remote areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. There does appear to be a reasonable opportunity in Newfoundland this year for a number of people to be placed in employment. I think it would be nothing short of tragic if the greater number of these jobs were filled from one or two areas instead of being spread all over the island and Labrador where some of this employment will take place.
From recent letters and telegrams I have received I know that the people in northern Newfoundland feel they are not receiving a fair chance to obtain work when it is offered. I urge the government to give this matter careful and sympathetic consideration now because with the season advancing there is a considerable amount of urgency. Unless a decision is made now and such a policy put into effect immediately it will be too late to bring about a fair distribution of employment in Newfoundland and Labrador this year.


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the remarks of the last two speakers.

However, there is not much time in which to discuss this important subject. For the purposes of the record I should like to point out that there are two policies in existence which would be contrary to the proposal advanced.
In the first place Canadian National Railways in the maritimes has a policy under which preference must be given to laid-off former C.N.R. employees. There are also many municipalities that give preference to local residents especially in the winter works programs. The policy suggested would encourage people to remain on benefits even though there might be an opportunity of work because it was proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) that preference should be given by the national employment service to people who had been on benefits for the longest period of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unemployed for the longest period.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Unemployed or on benefits. Nothing could do more to discourage initiative in the minds of the public of this country. I believe it would be impossible to give any serious consideration to such a proposal. Consequently I feel it would be unwise at this time for the government to give any consideration to the implementation of such a suggestion.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS A-Department-
75. Departmental administration, $6,370,736.
Business of the House
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE General administration-
207. Departmental administration, $2,454,511.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-390. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,630,716.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader would recapitulate the business for tomorrow and the rest of the week so that it will be on the record.


Mr. Churchill:: I think it is advisable to put it on Hansard. Item No. 1 tomorrow will be No. 9 on today's order paper, the resolution concerning the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Item No. 2 will be No. 4 on today's order paper, Bill No. S-27, respecting the sale of feeds. The third item will be the budget resolutions. If there is any spare time left we will then take up estimates. The estimates for the balance of the week will be those of the Department of Agriculture, where there are only seven items to finish, then post office, mines and technical surveys and transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Estimates will be taken up in any case on Thursday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The intention is to carry on with the estimates on Thursday and Friday.


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