1960-03-03

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Miss Margaret Ailken (York-Humber) presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg) presented the first report of the standing committee on marine and fisheries, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing order 70 I have a petition to present which is that of Carl Hamilton, of 155 McLeod street, city of Ottawa, county of Carleton, province of Ontario, Canada, secretary, one of the loyal subjects of Her Majesty in the right of Canada. Having perused the rules of the house with reference to this matter I find that it is my responsibility to read the petition, which I have done, and I have found that there are no irregularities, no violations of the rules and that it follows the form of petitions in every respect.
Very shortly, the petition relates to a notice of motion now standing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration for the appointment of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Indian affairs, and relates also to Bill No. C-2 standing in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Bill No. C-3 standing in the name of the Secretary of State. It is the type of petition which is a personal one requiring immediate remedy, and comes within the provisions of standing order 70, subsection 8, of the standing orders.
If I may relate the particulars of the petition very briefly before reading the prayer in order to bring it in that way to the attention of the house, they are three in number.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the right to present the petition under standing order 70 in his place in the house, but as I read the rule it is not debatable, and I suggest that he present the petition before proceeding any further.


Frank Howard: It is not my intention to debate the petition, but inasmuch it is of the type requiring immediate action to deal with it I only wish to inform the house of what is in the petition itself. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds may I refer to standing order 70, which relates to petitions, so we may be clear that the proper procedure is being followed. Subsection 2 reads:
Any member desiring to present a petition in his place in the house must do so during routine proceedings and before the introduction of bills.
Then in subsection 3 it states:
On the presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed.
Once a petition has been presented it is referred to the clerk of petitions and then, of course, is returned under a later section of the rule, to be reported upon.


Frank Howard: As I pointed out initially, standing order 70, subsection 8, also makes reference to the fact that no debate shall be permitted, as you have indicated, but it also says:
-if it complains of some present personal grievance-
As this one does.
-requiring an immediate remedy-
This is one of those, that is a personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy.

Indian Affairs
-the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
I submit that under this rule the matter may be brought into immediate discussion. It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the petition. It is only because it is one of those which I feel fall within subsection 8 of standing order 70 that I wish to give the house an indication of what it says so we may decide whether or not it should be brought forward for immediate discussion. In order to do this I would indicate what the prayer says.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: It
seems clear to me on reading subsection 8 of standing order 70 that any debate that can be allowed can only take place tomorrow on the report of the clerk of petitions, and not immediately on the presentation of the petition, if it is a matter requiring immediate or urgent attention. Indeed, subsection 7 says:
On the next day following the presentation of a petition the clerk of the house shall lay upon the table the report of the clerk of petitions upon the petitions presented and such report shall be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day-
Then subsection 8 says:
No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to therein may be read by the clerk of the house at the table, if required; or if it complain of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
It is clear, therefore, that discussion, if such discussion be in order, could not take place today but only tomorrow.


Frank Howard: With respect to the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice, I would point out that there is relatively little precedent in our rules but there is in the United Kingdom a quite extensive reference to the presentation of petitions and to bringing the matter forward for discussion immediately. I think, sir, a reference to May's "Parliamentary Rules and Practices", sixteenth edition, will show that standing order 93 is comparable to our standing order 70. You will find that the procedure is that which I suggest should be followed here, namely that there should be an immediate discussion allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the page?


Frank Howard: It is page 1075, and deals with standing orders of the United Kingdom as they relate to petitions. They are comparable to ours and were adopted in 1842. They have been in use ever since. There is also an instance which can be found in our Canadian Journals relating to the petition of the Bishop of Ontario in 1880. I can give the reference

to Your Honour there. It is at page 130 of March 12 of that year. There is a reference to a petition which was presented that day:
And the said petition was read and received: praying that the bill now before parliament, to legalize marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, may not become law at present, but that the various religious bodies of the dominion be allowed an opportunity of expressing their convictions regarding it.
Ordered, that the said petition be printed.
It was discussed and reference was made to it at that time. I suggest this is substantially the position of this petition, in that it relates to the business of the house. It prays that some of the business of the house be speeded up, namely the motion of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to give immediate consideration to the setting up of that joint committee; and prays, second, that Bills Nos. C-2 and C-3 be not proceeded with beyond the stage which will allow citizens outside the house to appear before the committee and present their ideas. This is substantially the position which existed in parliament in 1880 in the reference that I read.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a preliminary point of order, and I thank both hon. members for discussing it because it is one that does not arise very often. May I read subsection 8 of standing order 70 which has been referred to by the Minister of Justice. The procedure is, of course, that the petition, having been presented, is referred to the clerk of petitions. The next day the clerk of the house tables a report if it is in order. Up to that stage the rule says there is to be no debate. Then subsection 8 states:
No debate shall be permitted on the report-
That is the report of the clerk.
-but a petition referred to therein may be read by the clerk of the house at the table, if required; or-
And this is the part the hon. member for Skeena alleges permits him to discuss the matter today.
-if it complain of some present personal grievance-
That is the petition referred to therein.
-requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
It seems to me that the rule is clear. The practice with respect to petitions has altered greatly in recent times. At one time parliament spent much of its time receiving petitions, but now they are a rarity. There is no debate on the first presentation of a petition. The rule which the hon. member wishes to invoke in my view would only be applicable when the petition is reported and laid on the table tomorrow with the report.

But as it is a matter of novelty I think no harm is being done if I rule in that way provisionally now and consider the matter so that we may have proper authority for it and proper precedent for the future. That is the ruling I make at the present time.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask for some clarification, Mr. Speaker. Your ruling is that the petition now presented, upon a report tomorrow, may be further considered?


Mr. Speaker:: Then that section applies tomorrow when the petition comes back with the report.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government has approved a proposal by the Canadian Red Cross Society that a donation of $20,000 be made from the international relief fund to finance emergency relief assistance to the many unfortunate victims of the terrible tragedy that struck Agadir, Morocco, earlier this week. The government has authorized the use of an R.C.A.F. aircraft to speed the dispatch to Morocco of assistance from this country.
The Canadian Red Cross, through whose willing assistance and co-operation we were able to confirm the early reports of the deaths, injuries and destruction of property, are organizing a team of medical personnel which, together with necessary equipment and supplies, will be flown to the disaster area in an R.C.A.F. aircraft.
This tragedy evokes the deepest sympathy throughout Canada, and I am sure hon. members in all parts of the house would wish to join me in expressing to the government and people of Morocco our sincere condolences.


CIVIL DEFENCE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce, following the planning conference of federal, provincial and Canadian army representatives in Ottawa, that a new series of civil defence survival exercises will be conducted in May.
The first of these exercises, to be known as TOCSIN, will be under the direction of the emergency measures organization. The series replaces those run in the past by the civil defence division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. TOCSIN will practise emergency arrangements for carrying on government at federal, provincial and
Proposed Legislation
municipal levels; test elements of the emergency communications system; exercise the national attack warning system down to provincial centres, and examine some of the problems to be faced following an attack.
At this stage the public will not be asked to participate actively in the exercise except in those localities where the municipalities wish to make local arrangements for this purpose. The exercise will revolve around a simulated nuclear attack on Canada by manned aircraft.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he can say if there will be any participation by the civil defence organization in the United States in this particular exercise?


John George Diefenbaker: I would not say this particular one will have that co-operation or joint activity on the part of the United States.


STATISTICS ACT
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-49, to amend the Statistics Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize the governor in council to obtain a representative poll of public opinion on the question of the abolition of capital punishment in Canada. Section 33 of the Statistics Act already provides that the governor in council may authorize the Minister of Trade and Commerce to have any special statistical investigations made that he deems advisable. The proposed new section merely directs the attention of the governor in council to a particular investigation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ACT ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR UNIVERSITY GRANTS  EXTENSION OF INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act to provide certain alternative arrangements for payment, either by Canada through the Canadian universities foundation or directly by a province, of the grants to institutions of higher learning presently paid under the authority of

Proposed Legislation
the Appropriation Act; and also to extend for a further period of two years the rate of 13 per cent for standard individual income tax for the purpose of calculating the tax equalization payments to the provinces and the amounts payable to the provinces under the tax rental agreements.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minisler of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Yukon Act to increase the number of members of the council of the Yukon territory from five to seven; to provide for the creation of an advisory committee on finance and for the payment of allowances for living expenses and travelling expenses of the members thereof; to establish a court of appeal for the Yukon territory; to authorize the territorial court of the Yukon territory to sit in the Northwest territories in civil matters; to provide for the appointment, remuneration and allowances of deputy judges of the territorial court; and to provide further for the general application of game legislation in the Yukon territory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Francis Alvin George Hamilton: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act to establish a court of appeal for the Northwest territories; to authorize the territorial court of the Northwest territories to sit in the Yukon territory in civil matters; to provide for the appointment, remuneration and allowances of deputy judges of the territorial court; and to provide further for the general application of game legislation in the Northwest Territories.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
March 1-The Minister of National Defence- The following proposed motion:-That a special committee be appointed to examine all expenditure of public monies for national defence and all commitments for expenditure for national defence since April 1, 1958, as reported in public accounts,

and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and in particular what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the government may be effected therein, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses; and that in accordance with standing order 67, the committee shall consist of not more than fifteen (15) members to be designated by the house at a later date.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER GREATER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
March 1-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That a select committee, to be designated, be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, with power to send for persons and papers, and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.


STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON DISORDER IN HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day I wish to say a brief word. On reflecting more quietly about the commotion which occurred during the question period yesterday I asked myself whether I had been as entirely fair as I would wish to be to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), on whom alone my ire unfortunately fell. While I do not propose to absolve him, I should like to say that perhaps the report in Hansard does not indicate that others on both sides of the house must share the responsibility for a course of conduct that I felt had to be stopped.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would comment on a report which appeared in the press this morning to the effect that the Canadian representative at the NATO council chastised

the government of the republic of Germany for its efforts to secure bases in Spain.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I read that report myself, and I think perhaps it could do with a little amending. The fact is that this question was discussed in the NATO council yesterday, and earlier Canada had made representations in Bonn, in London, and in Washington concerning the failure to consult in the NATO council on this question at an early stage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the representations concerned merely the failure to consult through NATO, or were they representations on the substance of the matter?


Howard Charles Green: The representations were on the failure to consult in NATO, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs somewhat along the same lines as that asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In view of newspaper reports from West Germany to the effect that defence minister Strauss insists that the western allies were fully informed of what he calls the technical feelers-let me say I remember one prewar German diplomat who used that term quite frequently-made to Spain, in connection with his project for West German military supply depots and air training facilities in Spain, would the minister inform the house whether the Canadian government was informed of the technical feelers made to Spain?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government was not informed.


DISARMAMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a report in this morning's press that a meeting of the representatives of the five western nations in Washington to prepare disarmament proposals for the March 15 Geneva conference with the Soviet union has broken up. Can the minister say whether the talks have collapsed because of the failure of President de Gaulle to approve the proposals that have been worked out?
79951-0-106
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the talks among the five western nations on the disarmament committee have not broken down at all. They will be continued in Paris next week and the presentation will be made to the NATO council, I think, next Wednesday. Then, of course, those representatives of the five western nations will go to a meeting with the five eastern nations on March 15.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether or not the subsequent Paris meeting was made necessary because the French delegation were unable to get approval of the proposals from President de Gaulle?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker; it had been the intention right along that there should be a meeting of the five western nations in Paris.


Hazen Robert Argue: A further supplementary question. Does the minister think France has agreed to the position of the five nations' delegation?


Howard Charles Green: This question of the disarmament proposals for the 10-member meeting is a very complicated one, with many different policies to be considered; and there is no such position at all at the moment of one nation agreeing and other nations not agreeing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question arising out of those questions and answers. Is there now an agreed western position?


Howard Charles Green: Well, we are working on that now, Mr. Speaker, and I hope there will be one on March 15.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL  REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING ELIMINATION OF TOLLS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a delegation from the great lakes waters development association urging the elimination of the tolls on the Welland canal? What action has he taken in connection with these representations?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; on Tuesday I received a large delegation as described by the hon. member. I met with them for over two hours, and had a very thorough and useful discussion. During the discussion I pointed out to them the proceedings that had taken place in this house in 1951 when the hon.

Inquiries of the Ministry member for Laurier, as minister of transport, introduced this measure in the house on behalf of the government of that day and advised the house that it was the intention of the government to pay for the cost of building the St. Lawrence seaway which, as he described it, would extend from Montreal to lake Erie-which of course includes the Welland canal-by means of imposing tolls, and that the cost of the seaway and improvements to the Welland canal would be paid off over a period of 50 years.
I pointed out to them that this measure had been voted on by the house, had been passed by unanimous vote, and that the present government had seen no reason to change the view of the parliament of that day which had voted unanimously that the Welland canal should pay tolls the same as the rest of the St. Lawrence seaway system.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Quite apart from the proposed legislation now before parliament standing in the minister's name, has the government any plans to encourage and increase the flow of mortgage funds from the private lenders into house construction during 1960?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the government always has that matter under constant and serious consideration, and is considering this question at the present time.


John Richard Garland: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. In view of the press release yesterday to the effect that only 100 new National Housing Act mortgages by private lenders were approved in January 1960 as compared with 1,028 last January, can the minister say whether the government has any current estimate of the number of N.H.A. loans that will be made by private lenders in 1960. If so, will he advise the house?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to give a ready answer to that question at the present time. Any answer could only be conjecture.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell us how many housing loans he expects Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will make directly this year?
[Mr. Hees.l


David James Walker: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell us whether the government has yet reached a decision as to whether it will amend the National Housing Act to permit the chartered banks to make National Housing Act loans at the current interest rate?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, no answer is necessary to that question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister takes this problem seriously enough.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is embarking on a course which will inevitably lead to a debate. The rule is that a member may ask a question, but if he is not satisfied with the reply he is not entitled to comment. He may ask a supplementary question to explain the original question, but not to comment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I pose a supplementary question. Does the minister think it is advisable that the Canadian chartered banks should be allowed to make National Housing Act loans at the current interest rate?


David James Walker: Any announcement along that line, Mr. Speaker, will be made after the matter has been given due consideration.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give the house some indication that the decision will be made in time so that it will affect this year's current building program and not, like the winter works program, be left until it is too late?


Some hon. Members:: Order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister has yet had an opportunity to peruse part of the return made yesterday, sessional paper No. 211, presented by the Acting Secretary of State, which lists the orders for returns from the last two sessions of parliament that have not yet been completed. In view of the fact that there are some 30 items outstanding; in view of the fact that some of the items refer to matters that are before the house for debate today on the supplementary estimates and for debate tomorrow under the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and in view of the fact that more than 50

per cent of the outstanding returns in both sessions relate to one particular department of his ministry, I wonder if the matter could be checked upon.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that matter. I remember when I was sitting in the opposition we used to encounter the same difficulty and I found it very effective, when there was anything in the nature of a delay, to raise the matter and thereafter it was usually found that what had happened was that the particular return had been lost in the shuffle from department to department. I will see to it that consideration is given to the hon. gentleman's suggestions.



REPORTED REMARKS BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON NARCOTIC CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the reported remarks of the Minister of Justice have been noted by him, to the effect that the government proposes to take concrete steps to make an effective attack on the narcotic drug traffic in this country. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, under whom this matter comes primarily, in a position to make any comment at this time?


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No further comment, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether it is the intention of the government this session to introduce legislation along the lines indicated by the Minister of Justice?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State arising out of an editorial which appeared in the Fort William Times-Journal, commenting on a report that cheques made out to unemployed persons for unemployment insurance payments are marked "printed in the U.S.A." Can the Acting Secretary of State inform the house whether this printing cannot be done in Canada and, if not, why not?
79951-0-1061
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of
State): I am very surprised to hear that, Mr. Speaker. I will investigate.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he received a delegation this morning from the Canadian welfare council to make representations about the admission of refugees? If so, has the Prime Minister anything he can communicate to the house about the representations and the attitude of the government thereto?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is so that the delegation in question met with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (Mrs. Fair-clough), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and myself this morning and made certain representations. The hon. gentleman asks me about the nature of those representations. The first was:
That the federal government, In consultation with the provinces, arrange as expeditiously as possible for acceptance of public responsibility for established public health and welfare services for privately sponsored refugee families admitted under the government's program for private sponsorship during world refugee year.
The second recommendation was:
That the federal government extend the program allowing for private sponsorship of refugee families in connection with world refugee year to include European refugee families who are not in refugee camps and refugee families who are in other parts of the world.
The third recommendation was:
That the federal government extend the program allowing for private sponsorship of refugee families in connection with world refugee year beyond the end of world refugee year.
The fourth was:
That the federal government, in consultation with the provinces, undertake to bring in additional families with one or more members suffering from tuberculosis, extending the program beyond the end of world refugee year if necessary in order to do so.
And finally:
That the federal government take whatever steps may be necessary to permit, in connection with world refugee year, the legal adoption of refugee children, regardless of origin, by Canadian families.
These representations were made and of course, as the hon. gentleman knows, they require consideration.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the great public interest in the question, does the Prime Minister expect that it will be possible to have that consideration completed at an early date?


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly, sir, it will receive the earliest possible consideration. Knowing, of course, that there is public interest in all the circumstances, it points to the necessity of some conclusion being arrived at shortly.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the attention of the government been drawn to the speech from the throne as presented by the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia at the opening of the house of assembly on February 24, 1960, in which, in two of the paragraphs, namely paragraphs 5 and 10, concern is expressed over the chronic unemployment in the province? If so, what assistance, if any-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know how the hon. member can support a question, which is based on a speech from the throne in one of the provinces, to the federal administration. That is certainly not an administrative responsibility of any member of the Canadian government. If his question is on unemployment generally, I suggest that he hold it back for five minutes until the house goes into committee on that issue.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I be permitted to show why I was asking the question?


Mr. Speaker:: No. I do not think the hon. member can found a question on a throne speech of any province. If he has a question of fact which he wishes to ask which supports itself, he is entitled to ask it, but not a question that arises out of a speech from the throne.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My reason for asking this question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of fact that he wants to ask he can do so, but what I have already said stands.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has it been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Labour that paragraph 10 of the speech from the throne-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


[Later]:


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I now direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Has any request been received from the government of Nova Scotia to join in a study of the unemployment problem, including the problems of seasonal unemployment, in Nova Scotia?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister give any details of what action has been taken by the government?


Michael Starr: We have agreed to give them all the assistance possible.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Kootenay West referred to certain complaints which had been received concerning lay-offs of casual employees at the Point Edward naval base. I then told the hon. member that I would look into the matter. I understand that yesterday, while I was unavoidably away from the house, two more questions were asked on the same subject. May I also state that I have received continual representations on this question from the Cape Breton members. There has been an opportunity to review the situation thoroughly and, with the permission of the house, I should like to give a rather lengthy answer to this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to give an answer longer than is usual at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: If it is agreeable to hon. members I could, of course, file the answer so it could be recorded in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have his answer included in Hansard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister should give the answer so that supplementary questions can be asked, if necessary, especially in view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence answered two of these questions yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has leave to complete his answer.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, for some years the Department of National Defence has

used a standard point system for determining which employees will be released when a reduction in force becomes necessary. This system awards points for three factors, seniority, efficiency, and entitlement to the preference for war service.
The system is understood and accepted as being fair by the great majority of the department's civilian employees, and by staff associations and other employee organizations that represent them. The points given a veteran entitled to the preference are the equivalent to an additional two years' seniority. This, coupled with the preference invariably given by my department to qualified veterans at the time of employment, ensures that the rights of veterans are fully protected.
At most national defence establishments two categories of civilian staff are employed, those in continuing positions and those with casual status who are employed and released in accordance with fluctuations in the amount of work to be performed. By the very nature of their employment, casual employees are subject to lay-off on relatively short notice. Because of this, the department's lay-off system provides for the release of casual employees before a reduction in staff affects those in continuing positions. The lay-off at Point Edward naval base was confined to casual employees, with none of the staff in continuing positions being affected. This lay-off was carried out in strict accordance with departmental regulations.
Last year, as the result of a reorganization at this establishment, the continuing establishment of helper positions was reduced. A number of employees, some of them veterans, who were given the option of remaining in continuing status at the lower classification and pay of labourers or of reverting to casual status as helpers with a pay rate 8 cents per hour higher but losing their status as continuing employees in the event of a lay-off, chose the higher pay and the greater hazard of losing their jobs. The implications of this choice were explained to all the men concerned, and I do not think the department can allow them to change their options in the light of changing circumstances.
The secretary of the Cape Breton district command of the Canadian Legion appears to believe that any man entitled to the veterans preference, regardless of his seniority, should be retained in preference to any non-veteran. I am sure the hon. member will support me when I say that this proposition is not acceptable, since it would mean that a man with a few weeks' service would be
Inquiries of the Ministry retained and a man with 25 or 30 years' service released to make his retention possible.
Our system for deciding which employees are to be laid off when a reduction in force has to be implemented represents a sound compromise between a number of conflicting points of view, and it ensures that the interests and rights of veterans are given proper consideration. The lay-off of employees at Point Edward naval base, like all lay-offs, is a matter for deep regret, but those affected by it, both veterans and non-veterans, were treated in accordance with the rules that have been established to ensure that equity and justice prevail when civilians have to be laid off by the department.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I ask the minister a supplementary question. Could employment be found for some of these veterans, who unfortunately have been laid off according to the rules outlined by the associate minister, in connection with the boat that the Minister of National Defence floated in the house yesterday?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Ship, not boat.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Ship.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Kootenay West I can only repeat what I stated in the house last Friday, and that is that at all times the government will make every effort to help those who served in our two world wars and who are today veterans.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Associate Minister of National Defence in regard to Point Edward. I tried to follow him closely as he gave his report, but I do not know whether I have it accurately. In any event, it does not give all the information that I have concerning the workers at Point Edward naval base. In view of the fact that we still seem to be stuck with a lot of crazy Grit regulations, I feel that those regulations should be gone into very thoroughly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: After three years?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I would ask the Associate Minister of National Defence to fully investigate the remarks made to me by Commander Steele of the naval base, when he told me this government was looking after K. C. Irving. He said nothing about the Saint John dry dock. This statement was further communicated by this commander to the hon. member for Cape Breton North

Inquiries of the Ministry and Victoria. I would ask that this man's competency to run this base be fully investigated.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister answer today the question I put to him last week, and give the house the latest figure as to unplaced applicants for jobs in Canada?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, as of February 18 of this year the latest unplaced applicant figure is 800,494.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Up again.



MUSQUEAM INDIAN RESERVE, B.C.-INQUIRY AS TO REPAIRS TO DIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that last spring a major break occurred in the main dike on the Musqueam Indian reserve, causing considerable flooding and consequent damage to houses in the Dunbar area of Vancouver and on the Indian reservation, can the minister advise whether steps are being taken to eliminate the possibility of a similar occurrence this year?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I made some inquiries with respect to this matter, and I found that on February 16 authority was given to accept a contract for the placing of 1,650 tons of rip-rap in the affected area on the Musqueam Indian reserve. Work is proceeding on this project, and field reports indicate that one scow of materials has been unloaded and was in place by March 1.
(Translation):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Lahaye (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries.
On December 31, 1959, 79 fishing cabins and 27 fishing nets were swept away by the ice as a result of an unusual swelling of the St. Lawrence river, causing the loss of over $14,000 in equipment and a loss of revenue of about $30,000. For the small population cl' Batiscan-about 250 families-this loss takes on the proportions of a disaster.

Could the minister consider granting some compensation for this painful experience suffered by our fishermen?
(Text):


Mr. Denis:: Nice speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the minister was able to hear the interpretation. I was not able to.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I was given notice of the question. I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am sure that hon. members are most sympathetic to the fishermen of Batiscan in the losses they have suffered. The situation, however, is that the matter would appear to be within the competence of the provincial authorities, and dealing with the problem is primarily the responsibility of the province. There are cases, of course, of major disaster where the provincial government concerned seeks the aid of the federal government. The federal Department of Fisheries has no provision for compensating for losses of this kind.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Acting Minister of Justice whether the letter which the attorney general of Quebec promised to send to the Minister of Justice, as shown in the correspondence which was printed in Votes and Proceedings on February 16, where it was stated that as soon as concurrence in the proposed amendment to the British North America Act was obtained the government would be advised, has been received.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: shall make the proper investigation.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yesterday the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning migratory birds and oil pollution off the Newfoundland coast. Of the several departments that are affected by this, mine is the most directly affected. The regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act read in part as follows:
No person shall knowingly place, cause to be placed or in any manner permit the flow or

entrance of oil, oil wastes or substances harmful to migratory waterfowl into or upon waters frequented by migratory waterfowl or waters flowing into such waters or the ice covering either of such waters.
We have been in communication with our field officers in Newfoundland, and if the hon. member has any particular cases in mind in which this regulation has been violated I should be glad to hear from him so we can take the proper action under the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether his department has any means of enforcing this regulation outside the territorial waters of Canada, where most of the pollution originally takes place?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The acts which are concerned with this subject are the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fisheries Act, all of which are only effective at present up to the three mile limit. As the hon. member probably knows, there is a convention which Canada has signed but which has not been ratified by enough nations to put it into effect, that is the high seas convention, by which it is hoped some day to give jurisdiction over the pollution of waters all over the world.

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


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I realize that in rising to speak on this serious subject of unemployment, referred to in the speech from the throne once as the recurring problem of seasonal unemployment, I am braving the displeasure of the Prime Minister, who referred to our intervention Tuesday as obstruction. Indeed, this debate on this major problem has been designated in some quarters as a filibuster. If it is a filibuster, Mr. Chairman, it is very strange indeed that 19 supporters of the government, not including the minister's intervention the other evening, have participated in it.
The fact is that this discussion has been prolonged, of course, because of the serious nature of the problem and our inability to secure from the government the information
Supply-Labour
and the plans which we think the problem requires. While the House of Commons is the place for a debate of this kind, I feel, and I think most members will agree with me, that a more appropriate mechanism, if you like, for analysis and examination of the problem, with suggestions to be made, with experts and officials to be called as witnesses, would have been a committee of this house. However, this has not been made possible by the government, so we discuss the matter in committee of the whole.
I do not feel that the government has done justice to this situation in the statements that have been made by only one minister, the Minister of Labour, who of course is the one primarily concerned. I do not believe the minister himself has taken this committee into his confidence as he should have done. He has not even informed us of the steps, however inadequate they may be, that the government has taken.
We had proof of that, Mr. Chairman, only this afternoon as the result of a question addressed by the hon. member for Gloucester. We know from the reply to that question, and we know from reading the newspapers from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, that in those provinces a joint federal-provincial economic study and analysis of the unemployment problem is to begin shortly.
Here was a step which might have been of some importance in dealing with this matter in that part of Canada. Here was a matter which we had brought up ourselves in this debate, and we had asked for information concerning it. We got that information through the speech from the throne in the legislature of Nova Scotia and through the newspapers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I say with all respect to the minister that I think he owed it to this committee to give us that information at the beginning of this debate.
We on this side do not underestimate the difficulties of the problems of employment and unemployment with which the government is confronted. We know, as well as the minister, that this is a tragic human problem for all those who wish to work and cannot find work. We learned this afternoon of the increasing number of people in that unhappy category. We know also that this problem has to be faced and dealt with by the government within the limits imposed on the government by a free society which means, of course, limitation on government authority. It means, of course, that we do not want to order people around, even in the interests of employment.
The very complexity and the very difficulty of this problem and its human importance surely underline the obligation of any government on any level-indeed on all levels-

Supply-Labour
to take every step possible to meet it. As the minister knows, that is why co-operation among all levels of government is essential if this problem is going to be dealt with effectively.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out on this side, not only did this matter require co-operative action by all levels of government but it is too difficult, too fundamental, too all-embracing a problem and too complex for any one department of any government, including the federal government. As has already been suggested on this side, it should be taken over by the government as a whole, and there should be set up some kind of central planning agency along the lines, as a matter of fact, that this party has put forward more than once during the last three years, going back to the election of 1958, by the establishment of a committee on development, employment and automation about which I hope to have a few words to say later.
When we suggest that perhaps this problem is beyond the scope and the authority of any single department of government, of course that is no reflection on the Department of Labour and certainly no reflection on the minister. It is our view that the present mechanism for dealing with what is becoming a continuing problem in this country is just not good enough.
Let me give you one example, Mr. Chairman, in respect of a new development or a new form in which this problem has arisen. Let us take as an example the uranium areas of Bancroft, Uranium City and Elliot Lake. They are areas of new development, of resource exploitation where we are now facing, or indeed where we now have a surplus employment area almost before the development has been completed; I refer to the physical development. This experience-and it is not a happy one- is not going to be unique in this country. In the future other areas will develop, grow up and find themselves in that situation. The old days when the worker could fold his tent when a mine was exhausted and silently steal away into the night are gone, and they are not likely to return in our complex industrial civilization. Furthermore, the workers today will not tolerate that kind of industrial development. Pioneering of that sort is finished.
That means, among other things, that government must give more consideration than has been given in the past-and I am not talking only about the last three winters -to this kind of development and the situation regarding employment in those areas when they face conditions which they perhaps did not expect when the development began. This means that governments, provincial and federal, in this country will be obliged to

plan ahead in order to meet this situation in a way in which it has not been done in the past.
If, for instance, this government knew that this situation was going to develop in these three areas-and it now claims that it did; indeed, it reproaches us on this side for not having been aware of it five years ago. The government now claims it knew this situation was going to develop, although I must say that the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this house last summer and the year before do not seem to be very convincing evidence of that fact. But if the government did know that this situation was developing, what was done to prepare for the resulting unemployment which, in the light of that fact, was inevitable? That is a problem, and we are going to have that problem repeated in this country in the years ahead.
Then there is another problem; or rather it is another aspect of the same problem of unemployment. There is the problem of the redevelopment of old established areas now slowly declining. There are in Canada areas that are faced with this social and economic unemployment problem. We therefore ask ourselves this question, and the government should be asking itself the same question. Are we going to have in this new, vigorous, buoyant and undeveloped country depressed areas with a steady and high level of unemployment? Are we going to have as endemic, as imbedded in the structure of this country, the kind of situation that is referred to in the editorial in the Halifax Chronical-Herald of February 24?
I might just read a couple of paragraphs from that editorial. It refers to the situation in Pictou county in Nova Scotia. The editorial states:
What is required, and required immediately, is a recognition by federal and provincial authorities that a serious social and economic crisis has developed in Pictou county and that extraordinary treatment must be applied to overcome it.
And again:
A few weeks ago we calculated in these columns, on the basis of information obtained from the national employment service, that one half of the industrial force of Pictou county was idle. This desperate plight is steadily getting worse.
The editorial goes on to state as follows:
The appeals that have gone out from labour, religious and other groups for federal measures to alleviate this regional poverty in the midst of what Ottawa claims to be national prosperity have drawn no more than officialdom's stereotyped niceties in reply.
The last paragraph states as follows:
There must be many in Pictou county crying out in their hearts to Ottawa these days, as the psalmist cried out to his Lord: "How long wilt

thou forget me!" Particularly when they read of how countries of Europe have been successfully restoring the economies of their declining regions with governmental measures.
In that connection it is interesting to see what has been done in the United Kingdom to convert depressed areas into areas of new industrial development. It is worthy of study, especially in its application to the problems we face. It is the kind of study which undoubtedly would be made by the committee of which I have spoken. Indeed, perhaps such a study, although I do not know, is being made by the Department of Labour. We can certainly learn a great deal from United Kingdom experience in facing this kind of problem.
So we ask ourselves the question. Can we in this country work out arrangements, national and regional, to anticipate this kind of difficulty? The minister now tells us that he is beginning the process of working out such an arrangement with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Of course we wish him well in this activity, even though we are, to say the least, surprised that we had not heard about it at the beginning of this debate.


Michael Starr: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit me to interrupt him?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Michael Starr: The only assistance that has been given was in response to a request from both provinces individually whether the Department of Labour would provide the facilities to make this survey. We have agreed. This means that one of the men from the economics branch of the Department of Labour will go there and in co-operation with provincial officials will proceed with this survey. That is all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1 wish the minister had been able to tell us even that. But I must confess that the statements which have been issued in Fredericton and Halifax go well beyond what the minister has said.


Michael Starr: It is not my fault at all with regard to these communications. I do not want to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has now said that as far as the federal government is concerned these reports from the Atlantic provinces about the general economic and social study and analysis of the employment problem are exaggerated.


Michael Starr: They are not exaggerated. The reports will be made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then, Mr. Chairman, what I say is this. It is an important development. It is the kind of thing we have been pressing 79951-0-107
Supply-Labour
for on this side, and I think the minister might have given us information earlier concerning it. Are we going to have this kind of planning, which I suggest is becoming increasingly important, or are we going to drift along and have a debate every year in this house at the height of the unemployment problem, with ad hoc proposals for situations as we face them?
There is no division of opinion, surely, on the seriousness of the problem we face, even though we may have different opinions about its nature. Even if we disagree, Mr. Chairman, about the figures and the statistics-and perhaps it would be a good thing if we had a truce in the battle of statistics-one of the things we might have been able to do if we had a committee to study unemployment at the present time is to work out a system of measuring the employment and unemployment situation which would have been agreeable to all concerned. If we could have summoned before the committee those in the bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour who work out these figures, and then found out the basis on which they made their calculations, perhaps we would have agreed on an acceptable measuring rod which would have been, I am sure the minister will agree, a very happy result indeed.


Michael Starr: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: However, we do agree surely that the problem is serious, and we must admit and accept the fact that it has been serious now for three years, with its impact approaching what are surely tragic proportions in some areas of this country, as the percentage figures which have been tabled in this house indicate beyond possible shadow of doubt, especially in the Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Chairman, the unevenness of the impact of this problem creates its own problems, because it means that measures which are taken uniformly on a national basis are uneven in their benefits to various parts of the country. There is no better example of that than the winter works program. The winter works program is fine to the extent that it gives work which would not have otherwise been available; but it is inadequate, surely, in the face of the problem before us. It has not been planned sufficiently in advance either this year or last year, and it undoubtedly is uneven in its results.
As has been pointed out in this debate, and it is a very important point with which I hope the minister will deal, the richest communities and municipalities in this country where unemployment in some cases is least, and which are in the best position and the easiest position to deal with the problem, are those which are benefiting most by this

Supply-Labour
winter works program. And some of the areas which are suffering most, by their very poverty are getting the least from the program because they are not able to meet conditions which have been laid down.
How many men have been put to work by this program? I think the minister said that he hoped there would be 40,000 this year for an indeterminate period of time, and I think last year it was 32,000 or 34,000; something like that. But I ask the minister how many of those 40,000 or 34,000 would have been working on these projects even if there had been no federal help. We do not know, perhaps; but we do know that some of the municipalities, at least, especially the ones which have come into this program, are those which are the richest and strongest, so some of them would have gone ahead with the program without help. Therefore employment which is included in the 40,000 figure would have been provided in any event.
Then the minister and hon. members opposite made comparisons with the late thirties. It was said that things were just as bad or worse then. Well, Mr. Chairman, we on this side have not accepted the validity of that comparison or the validity of all the statistics used, but surely no one can get any comfort from the comparison even if it is accepted on the terms on which it was put forward to us by the government. In the thirties we had a terrible depression. Now we are told we are not in the midst even of a recession. We are told the recession is over, even though the jobless are still with us. So, Mr. Chairman, what comfort can one get from a comparison, regardless of the basis on which it is made, between the situation now and the situation in the thirties?
The seriousness of the problem, then, is obvious, but the nature of the problem I suggest is not understood. And it is not easy to understand, because there are different kinds of unemployment. And the differentiation between them is becoming clearer each year we are faced with this problem. When the speech from the throne talked only about recurrent seasonal unemployment it gave the impression that this is the only kind of unemployment which causes this problem in this country at this time. As a matter of fact there are three quite distinct kinds of unemployment, and unless we keep the distinction between them clear in our minds it will be hard to do very much about them.
The first, of course, is the cyclical or if you like economic unemployment due to the ups and downs of the business cycle, it is not only a problem requiring national solutions, if it can be solved at all, but also to international action.
Then there is the problem of technological, sometimes called structural, unemployment where people lose their jobs not through the changes in the business cycle so much as through changes in technology, changes in consumer preference-the textile industry is a good example of that-the lack or depletion of resources or the development of geographical disadvantages. All that kind of thing makes this sort of unemployment something quite different from what I have called cyclical unemployment, and often in contrast to that type of unemployment because it is localized in its effects both in respect of areas and in respect of industries.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Could I ask a question purely for my own understanding, Mr. Chairman. When the hon. member uses the word "cyclical" he does not mean the same as "seasonal", does he?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not, and I am glad my hon. friend pointed out the possibility of that kind of misunderstanding. By cyclical unemployment I mean unemployment caused by the rise and fall of the business cycle not only in our country but internationally and it is something, as I have said, that we can do something about nationally but cannot cure by national action alone. The problem requires international co-operation, and I will be talking about that matter when we get on to trade questions.
In addition to the cyclical and the technological unemployment we have the kind of unemployment which is most in our minds in this country, and because it is so much in our minds it confuses the issue at times and makes it more difficult for government to deal with the whole problem. I refer, of course, to what the government itself has called in the speech from the throne-the only kind of unemployment which was mentioned-seasonal unemployment. That is, of course, unemployment which is brought about by variations in climate, with which we will always be faced in this country. If not for always at least for some time we cannot overcome completely the effects of climate. So we have to keep these three types of unemployment distinct in our minds if we are to find any solution to the problem.
The cyclical, the first kind of unemployment, I suspect is not very high in this country at the present time because the low point in the business cycle, we have been told by experts of the government, was passed in 1958 and a recovery has been going on since the summer of that year. We have also been told that at this particular time, March 1960, we are at the crest of the cycle. In that sense 1960 may be a comparable year to 1956, which was at the crest of the

business cycle of that era. Yet, Mr. Chairman, that makes one feel all the more worried about the situation which faces us; because if when at the crest of this cycle, in a year of expansion and prosperity which we are told we are going to have-and we have had a report today from the Minister of Trade and Commerce which indicated that investment intentions were going up 4.6 per cent next year-if in the middle of that kind of situation we have this amount of unemployment, which is far from normal, what will be the effect on the employment situation in this country when we get over that crest and approach the other side of the cyclical curve? We all hope without exception in this committee that these economists and experts who are now predicting that the recession phase of the cycle will soon be upon us are wrong, but in any event whether they are right or wrong the current unemployment situation cannot be explained in cyclical terms without creating more anxiety than comfort.
As for the seasonal unemployment problem, no one knows precisely what proportion of our unemployed are without jobs because of seasonal factors. I have seen a figure which suggests that perhaps 50 per cent of the unemployment is due to that factor. But whatever the figure may be it is a very serious part of the problem the exact nature of which I suspect we do not yet fully understand.
What are we doing about it? We talk about the winter works program but we all know that that is having a limited effect, indeed what we hope to gain by the winter works program in terms of employment will be more than neutralized by the amount of employment we are going to lose by the reduction in construction and housing in this country.
The dominion bureau of statistics issued a report a little while ago to the effect that more than one third of the decline in jobs in January of this year compared with the end of December 1959 was due to the drop in construction. The figure given, I think, was a drop of 50,000 jobs. That drop will more than neutralize the 40,000 jobs which we hope our winter works program will provide. We learned today from the white paper we had tabled this afternoon and at which I have had a chance only to have a brief glance that investment intentions for 1960 in the field of construction and housing are going to be down from the past year.
What can we do about this seasonal problem? The first thing, surely, is to learn more about it. We should learn more about a problem that is now regular and persistent 79951-0-107}
Supply-Labour
and has gone on long enough in this country to lend itself to the diagnosis which is, I am told, the first step before a cure.
We should learn why this problem varies from one region to another both in its timing, in its magnitude and in its nature. I have been told that there are studies of this matter going on in the Department of Labour. I certainly hope so, but if that is the case they certainly have not been made public. Perhaps they are not as complete as I believe desirable and as might happen if there were a special employment committee charged with the responsibility of analysis and report and the recommendations of solutions.
That is why we reiterate that in facing this No. 1 domestic problem the best brains of government on all levels, of business and of the universities should be brought together to make an analysis-especially a regional analysis-as necessary to ensure proper action. As we have already pointed out, in any study of that kind an important part would have to be played by the representatives of the trade unions and perhaps also of agriculture. That, I suggest, would be the first step.
The second step, surely, would have to be -and this has already been mentioned-a conference with the provinces and municipalities on this question of seasonal unemployment. The responsibility in this matter is not exclusively that of the federal government. It is a joint responsibility and the problem will be solved only as a result of co-ordinated attack on all levels of government on the problem itself. We will have to work out in this country a far more comprehensive program in this attack than that which is embodied in the winter works program which is before us at the present time. It is the kind of problem that will have to be kept under continuous survey by some permanent government agency. It may be unrealistic to think it can be completely eliminated in a climate like ours but it can surely be greatly reduced.
There is the third kind of unemployment, the technological. What can we do about that? It is responsible, I suppose, for a very high proportion of the unemployment we have had over the years. The adjustments today which are required by technological advances which we cannot stop and should not try to stop and the steps to meet these technological changes are difficult, but if they are not taken technological unemployment will become a permanent or perhaps a semi-permanent part of our economic and social fabric.
I ask the government what it has done to meet this problem or to show its awareness

Supply-Labour
of it? Perhaps I can mention particularly one aspect of it which is very much in everybody's mind and which particularly commands the attention of trade unions, and that is the problem of automation.
The Minister of Labour said the other night that he had had nothing from us. My friend the hon. member for Laurier certainly mentioned some proposals the other day, three or four of which I should like to repeat because they have a direct bearing on this problem. One is the expansion of the vocational training program. A second, which was put forward by us as far back as three winters ago, is the establishment of a special capital fund to encourage industrial development in the Atlantic provinces. Another is the establishment of a national advisory board on economic development, automation and employment to which I have already referred. Another is the establishment of a national science commission to promote, sponsor and co-ordinate scientific research and development to ensure a more effective use of our resources, as put forward by us in 1958.
I have attempted to state the problem, Mr. Chairman. It is not going to be solved by just assuming that the laws of nature and of economics will take care of these things and that eventually everything will be fine again and people will go back to work. The recession is over, we are told, and they have not gone back to work.
At the time, when we are worried about this unemployment problem and wondering what steps the government can take to put people back to work by accelerating expansion in our economy, the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance-particularly the governor of the Bank of Canada -tells us that we are living beyond our means and so we have to cut down on unnecessary capital expenditures.
What happens if we are going to do that? There are some signs in government financial policy now which indicate that that is going to be done. Are we going to have more unemployment because of the necessities of fiscal and monetary policy?
Let me refer to what the Minister of Finance said as far back as January 21, 1958, as reported at page 3569 of Hansard:
Let me make it abundantly clear to every member of the house-that the instructions that have been given by the government are to the effect that while we are seeking to reduce expenditure where expenditure is needless we have said that there shall be no reduction in expenditure where it means Jobs, and we are seeking to increase construction in useful public works down the line.
That statement was made by the minister at that time but if we look at the situation today in regard to government intention

with regard to expenditures we find in the current estimates before us under the standard objects, in object No. 13 which deals with the construction or acquisition of plant or works-and that is the estimate which should mean most in terms of employment-the amount in the main estimates for 1959-60 is $430,759,973 but the amount this year is $357,409,179, or a drop of $73,350,794; in that phase of expenditure which is designed, so the Minister of Finance told us two years ago, to create the jobs which he sought to have created irrespective of fiscal considerations.
So we are bound to ask ourselves the question-and with a great deal of anxiety-if we have this present unemployment with our present activity, what will happen if we allow, or even attempt to direct, a slow-down of that activity for anti-inflationary or balance-of-payments reasons? I am not suggesting we do that. There is a good deal of argument-and it will be a long drawn out economic and financial argument-that will be going on in the next two or three months on this point.
But what will be the effect of such a policy on unemployment if it is instituted? In other words, how can we have stability, financial stability, without more unemployment in a free society? How can we check unwise expansion without checking full employment? Every government in our democratic society that I know anything about today, including our own, is committed to the proposition of full employment, and rightly so. How can we have that and at the same time check inflationary dangers? How can we slow down an unhealthy boom in some areas of our country, or of our economy, without making bad conditions even worse in other areas? If development should slow down, or even is slowed down deliberately, it may check inflationary dangers but it may also have the result of bringing about-and I quote from Mr. Coyne's speech in Winnipeg, which I am sure most hon. members have read-it may also have the effect of bringing about those "fluctuations in the level of employment", which, as the governor of the bank points out, by themselves may cause inflation.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, this points up something that perhaps we are at times apt to forget. The importance of spending in an economy such as ours, in a situation such as that in which we find ourselves today, is not so much in the amount spent, but in the nature of the spending and in the area of the spending. Perhaps all levels of governments should be more selective in spending instead of trying to cut down right

across the board. For instance, we hear a great deal of talk these days-we have had a lot of it in the house-about the value of the government's housing program in the creation of employment, a program which is being cut down. While we hear this talk in the House of Commons the governor of the Bank of Canada, a man with some influence in these matters, points out that there is a danger in this kind of spending, and I quote from his speech in Winnipeg, where he says:
It is evident also that through pursuing an excessive rate of growth a quantity of business investment in new enterprises or for expansion has been undertaken in too much of a hurry, at high cost, in directions which perhaps should not have been exploited at all, or not until the following year or later years.
Then, he goes on:
Clearly, not all capital spending contributes to sound growth, or to any growth.
He suggests it does not even contribute to sound employment policy on all occasions. How, then, is a democratic government in a federal state going to control the direction as well as the amount of spending and investment to ensure that it does have maximum social, economic and employment benefits, without running into those other dangers that the governor of the Bank of Canada talks about, or without taking much more control of the economy than in the case at present or that public opinion would permit government to take at present?
Mr. Coyne said that if we had been wise in recent years we might have built fewer houses, and I quote from his speech:
We would have had somewhat less in the way of natural resource development. . . and would of course have had somewhat less spending on public buildings and other public facilities.
He then warned us that even the expansion of the kind that we had in this country out of which we all took so much pride and from which we get our vision of the future was not, and I quote from his speech:
contributing to the maintenance of stable employment conditions.
He goes on to say that other countries where expansion has been more moderate have had as good a record, or a better record of employment than Canada. Therefore, I ask again, can we have full employment, full freedom of enterprise, a minimum of government interference and an expanding economy all at the same time? How are we going to balance one against the other, if we cannot have them all at the same time?
These, Mr. Chairman, are the problems and short of international peace and security there are no more important problems facing the government.
Supply-Labour
Are these situations that I have talked about, which cause so much anxiety, to become built-in, a part of our democratic and federal economic structure? This would be intolerable. The day has gone by when the people would accept it for long. So what is the remedy? I am not in a position to put forward a concrete proposal which immediately would put 200,000 or 300,000 people to work. It cannot be done that way in working out government policy. Even if I were the government I could not do it that way, and in any event I have not that responsibility at the present time. That rests over there. I have some understanding, I hope, of their difficulties, and perhaps it is not possible to put forward this kind of exciting proposal which will have that result immediately. But, as I have tried to suggest in this statement, the first thing to be done to find a remedy is a far-reaching, full-scale examination of the problem, not only in its emeigency aspects in relation to the present situation, but in its long term aspects as a developing and dangerous part of our society; this built-in unemployment that we face. '
There is something else we have to accept. The wealthier parts of this country will have to accept obligations, perhaps in the way they have not in the past, to the economically weaker and less developed parts of the country and to help value their special problems. There is only one way it can be done. And it has been done in the United Kingdom. If you read the United Kingdom program for the depressed areas you will see how it was done. Nor did they have the financial and economic resources over there at that time that we have in this country now. The only way it can be done is by government schemes of capital assistance to encourage industrial and economic re-development in those areas. Perhaps this re-development aspect of the problem is as important as new development projects in our economy. If that should mean-and I suppose it would-heavier tax burdens, no Canadian has the right to complain if the taxes, if the money from those taxes, is used to put into effect constructive and forwardlooking plans worked out in co-operation with the provinces so that we will not have underdeveloped areas in this country indefinitely in the future. I am thinking, of course, particularly, of the Atlantic provinces.
We have had this problem with us now too long for superficial and temporary measures which are mere panaceas. Therefore I express the hope that the government will soon be able to come up with something much better than this winter works program. If they do, and if we put into effect sensible

Supply-Labour
taxation, trade, fiscal and investment policies, and if we get the co-operation of all levels of government, we in the federal parliament can, I think, go far to overcome those employment difficulties in so far as any government can overcome them at all. There are things governments cannot do, and there are things that domestic policy cannot accomplish because international action can spoil all our best plans.
If we do not take this approach we will probably be faced with a worse situation next year. We will be debating this matter all over again next year and perhaps even for a longer period of time than we are doing now. We will have it all over again next session. So surely the government would be well advised to give this possibility, this danger, this dilemma the most serious, expert and urgent consideration and then take the necessary action to deal with it in the light of that consideration.
Chronic unemployment is the problem. It is serious and it is increasing. It is not going to be resolved merely by a change in the economic climate or by the maintenance of what we call normal prosperity. Surely we have learned that over the last three years. There is something new about this problem in the last few years. There is something more worrying about it. This hard core of unemployment is building up and accumulating. It is now becoming a menacing long term problem and if we should face another recession with the chronic unemployment of this present period remaining high then we would be in very serious trouble indeed.


Mr. Slogan:: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? In view of the fact that on February 23 Mr. Campbell said in the Manitoba legislature that he would be willing to get in touch with the Leader of the Opposition in this house regarding the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment, I wonder whether that gentleman has got in touch with the Leader of the Opposition and whether the Leader of the Opposition has changed his stand on this issue?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, discussions between myself and the leader of our party in Manitoba on the possible establishment of a nuclear research station in Manitoba or in northern Ontario do not seem to me to have very much bearing on the speech I have just made. I can assure my hon. friend there will be ample opportunity to discuss this matter when the energy committee is set up which the Prime Minister said two weeks ago would be set up immediately.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I feel this is one of the most important debates that has

taken place in the House of Commons in recent years. I think that statement is borne out by the fact that members of all parties in the house, over a period now running into the eighth day, have taken part in this important debate. Some years ago when the country was in the depths of a great depression it was the unanimous belief that parliament and the country must do everything possible to maintain full employment. That belief was prevalent during the war. That belief was prevalent at the federal-provincial conference held in 1945 and in the green book proposals that were put forward at that time.
Economists of the day said that steps were necessary in order to provide full employment and full employment was defined as a condition where there were not more than two per cent of the working force out of work at one time. When members of the C.C.F. stated in the past that in our opinion full employment could not be provided without a very fundamental change in the economic system, without bringing in a system of social and economic planning, we were sneered at. We were told that our statements implied blue ruin and that if we would merely let the economic system take its head then, with either the Liberal or the Conservative party in power, we would have full employment. That belief has not been borne out by the facts.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That statement was half correct. There would be full employment with the Liberal party, not with the Conservative.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know whether the hon. member is suggesting that the Liberal party kind of half looked after the problem but the fact is that in recent years there was a great deal of unemployment under the former administration and today under the present administration unemployment is as bad if not somewhat worse than it has been in previous years.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Stick to the facts. It is twice as bad.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question? Has he taken the trouble to examine the tables that have been put on Hansard repeatedly showing the average of unemployment since the war? If so, how can he make a statement that is so out of accord with the facts?


Hazen Robert Argue: The statement I made is very much in accord with the facts. There was widespread unemployment under the former administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was not.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have examined the facts and the facts prove that in the 22 years of Liberal administration there were many periods of widespread unemployment both before the war and since the war.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is changing his statement.


Mr. Ricard:: He is absolutely correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: A further disturbing feature that seems to have crept into our discussion is the apparent acceptance by the government of the situation as being a normal one. The item in the estimates before the house today is an important one. It is an item that is necessary but it is an item of only $15 million. It is an item that, without question, provides for some additional projects and some additional employment in the country at this time. But the item in the estimates is not only inadequate to meet the grave unemployment situation, with over 800,000 unplaced applicants, but it is also inadequate precisely because such a small proportion of the total cost of projects is provided by the item. An estimate has been made that only 13 or 14 per cent of the cost of projects is provided for through the payment of labour under this item.
The Minister of Labour has taken part in the debate formally and informally. He has taken part in the debate at times by making rather lengthy statements and at other times he has merely entered the debate to ask questions or, for a very short period, to hurl accusations at the opposition. However, the minister said one thing for which I give him full marks. He said that the government has taken the responsibility and recognizes the responsibility. The government has taken the responsibility and recognizes the responsibility but it is not prepared to deal with the question, nor is it prepared to act in a forthright manner.
The thing that disturbs me is the apparent evidence that the government does not consider the problem nearly as important as it did two years ago. While the government considered the question of unemployment as important shortly after taking office and was prepared at that tme to undertake certain measures to deal with the problem, today there is a growing body of evidence to support the contention that the government not only is not concerned about unemployment but is taking action that will make unemployment even more serious and drastic than it was a few years ago.
The minister, in speaking in this house on February 24 said, as recorded at page 1404 of Hansard, that after this government took
Supply-Labour
office in 1957 they had undertaken certain actions to deal with the unemployment situation. I quote:
Housing was stimulated.
Then, he says:
Public works were stepped up in order to help those who might find themselves without employment. Then we extended the unemployment insurance benefits by an additional two months in the seasonal class.
He went on to say that deficit budgeting was brought about in order to stimulate employment. Those were real actions that were taken at that time and, no doubt, they resulted in substantial numbers of people being placed in jobs who would not have been so placed if the government had not taken these actions. But the government, as I see it, has been facing two main problems. They have been facing the problem of inflation and the problem of unemployment. I think there is some contest within the cabinet as to how the government should deal with the question of inflation and the question of unemployment. The Minister of Finance has taken a rather cynical attitude, namely that he is going to do, within the terms of the free enterprise outlook, everything he can to balance the budget no matter what the results might be.
I think it is the Minister of Finance who is determining economic policy for this government today. The economic policy of this government is to hold down expenditures, to hold down even some of those expenditures that undoubtedly would result in further employment in this country. 1 have in my hand the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961 and they show the estimates of the Department of Public Works for public buildings, construction and services. The Minister of Labour, in saying how the government dealt with this question in 1957, made it as an important point that public works were stepped up in order to help those who might find themselves without employment. However, the estimates for the coming year show the government has reversed its position. The estimates as tabled show that the Department of Public Works will spend $16.5 million less for the construction of public buildings in the current fiscal year. This is not the way to deal with the unemployment problem, either the unemployment problem that is with us today or the unemployment problem that, unfortunately, will be with us 12 months from now if the government does not take action different from that which it is now taking.
The minister made a great thing about the government extending unemployment insurance. That was done. However, after the

Supply-Labour
government had extended unemployment insurance certain action was taken to make it more difficult tor the workers to get unemployment insurance. I refer to the very controversial, and I think discriminatory, regulations Nos. 172 and 173 which in certain instances deny unemployment insurance benefits to the workers of this country. For the first time, accrued holiday pay is classified as income to prevent workers from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Severance pay is placed in this same category, and this is another cause for dissatisfaction amongst the unemployed at Elliot Lake. Although these people have received the very small sum of $400 for severance pay, that $400 is melting now when they are without work. The unemployment insurance commission, without even referring this to the unemployment insurance advisory committee, have initiated these regulations which, in my opinion, are discriminatory and deprive unemployed people of the benefits to which they are rightly entitled.
I have in mind the minister's own statement that action was taken so far as the unemployment insurance commission is concerned, and in addition that action will be taken soon, apparently, to rescind these vicious regulations to which I have referred. I am informed that the unemployment insurance advisory committee is meeting tomorrow and I hope, as a result of their representations, this very necessary action will be taken.
The minister has said that on previous occasions the government decided that housing should be stimulated; that the building of houses was an important way to provide jobs in this country. Now we find housing is not being stimulated. As a matter of fact, housing is being slowed down and there have been very few housing starts since January. The Minister of Finance has apparently decreed that money shall be saved if it is possible, so there is no allotment for house construction and this undoubtedly will make the unemployment problem worse than it has been.
The government took office in 1957 and, in the words of the minister, they recognized the unemployment problem existed. They took action. Housing starts ran up in 1958 to 164,632; in 1959 they had dropped to approximately 137,000 and by 1960 they will have dropped down to about 125,000. I am wondering whether even this very low figure will be reached because of the very bad beginning we had in January. Private loans under the act dropped to 100 in January compared with 1,028 for the same month a year earlier and 183 in December. Housing starts also dropped but not as sharply as the loans. They totalled 3,724 across the

country compared with 4,833 in January, 1959 and 7,003 last December. There were 7,000 in January 1958; 4,800 in January, 1959, and down to 3,700 in January this year. So the government record in the field of housing is a bad one.
In recent months housing starts are showing further deterioration. How can the minister claim the government is accepting responsibility for unemployment when the record shows that action by the government will undoubtedly reduce further the employment in this country. The Minister of Finance has decreed that there shall be retrenchment; that there shall be fewer housing starts; that there shall be less money spent on public works. Under the former administration we heard a great deal about an all-powerful minister of trade and commerce. It was alleged that C. D. Howe had great control of the Liberal cabinet. I think C. D. Howe was a pygmy compared with the Minister of Finance in the power that the Minister of Finance is wielding today.
The Minister of Finance says: there will be retrenchment, we will hold down the wages of civil servants; we will cutback housing construction, we will reduce expenditures on public works, no matter what the Minister of Labour may say. The Minister of Labour obviously has little influence on his colleagues who have pulled the rug from under him and have left him with a token estimate of $15 million that does little to deal with the great unemployment emergency facing the country at this time.
We feel the time has come for decided action by the government and we think that action should be taken along a number of lines. I have already suggested this afternoon that regulations 172 and 173 under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be immediately rescinded in order that unemployed persons can have the money to which I believe they are entitled.
This group has already said-and I put this suggestion forward again-that there should be established in this country a national industrial planning board to provide and to stimulate secondary industries in the areas of this country that are depressed. Unemployment across this country is not even. As so frequently happens, the maritimes are experiencing chronic unemployment. There is chronic unemployment in other areas across the country. I do not suppose it will ever be possible in Canada completely to wipe out areas of unemployment and areas in which industries are not able to compete. However, I believe that, as a general principle the people living in large sections of Canada have the right to share in the general wellbeing of the country year in and year out. I

think the maritimes have a legitimate complaint that their areas have been deprived of the right to share in the production of this country.
I put forward as the third proposition the the suggestion that the government should establish a national manpower board to look after and to promote the retraining of unemployed people, to make provision for their employment in industries and in areas where job opportunities are available and generally to make every recommendation possible to provide full employment in our nation.
The question to which the Minister of Finance has addressed himself, namely the matter of inflation, is an important one. I remember that last session the Prime Minister asked us on this side of the house this question: which is more important, unemployment or stable prices? The government obviously has decided that here are two difficult problems, that it cannot cope with both and that it will make an effort to prevent inflation. I think the government is failing on both counts because prices are continuing to rise and unemployment stays with us. But I think there is action the government should take in the field of prices in this country.
No matter what may be said to the contrary, I believe the Canadian nation is prepared at this time to support government action to prevent prices from rising and going through the ceiling. Some of the main labour organizations in this country, as well as farm organizations and others, have impressed upon the government the need to take action to prevent this continual spiral of inflation.
I am suggesting that at least in key industries there should be established in this country a prices regulation tribunal to which key industries would be obliged to refer before they have the authority or the right to increase their prices. I think particularly of a key industry like the steel industry. I do not think the government should be prepared to allow the steel industry to increase prices at will without first having to substantiate the need for any increase in prices. I think also of the manufacturers of automobiles, as is suggested, or the manufacturers of other key commodities.
I think the people of this country will support action to prevent a continuation of inflation. I agree that if we are going to solve the unemployment problem we must at the same time solve the question of inflation. You cannot plan on one economic front without planning on other economic fronts. That is the dilemma the government is in. The Minister of Finance is in control; he has his own way. The Minister of Labour is a very small
Supply-Labour
and, I am exceedingly sorry to say, ineffective voice apparently in the cabinet; because I am sure he would like greater action from his government in order to deal with the unemployment situation.
I think there is need in this country at this time to increase the income of low income groups, to increase the purchasing power of people with small incomes, of workers who are out of work or low paid workers in depressed areas in this country and people who are engaged in industries and in occupations where income is low.
As the final proposal I would suggest that the government should take action to reduce interest rates in this country which, 1 submit, are preventing the economic expansion required to provide full employment. The position in which we apparently are today is that every party in this chamber wants full employment. The opposition members,, both of the Liberal party and of the C.C.F. party, have offered to the government suggestions and proposals. The Minister of Labour has not heard those proposals. He has refused to say that such proposals have been made. But the government is responsible. It is the job of the government to govern the country, not the job of the opposition. In my opinion, we have discharged our responsibility by bringing forward the problems and by asking the government to consider certain action; but it is the responsibility of the government to take action.
The Prime Minister is committed to full employment. No person in this country has taken a stronger stand in favour of full employment than has the Prime Minister. Reference has been made in this chamber previously-I do not need to refer to it again; it has been quoted often-to the statement of the Prime Minister that as long as he was Prime Minister, everything would be done, without regard to limit, to see that no one suffered from unemployment. According to the last estimate, half a million Canadians are out of work and are looking for jobs. The Prime Minister says no one will suffer from unemployment. The Minister of Labour says: We are unable to deal with this situation; will the opposition give us some ideas? According to the Leader-Post of February 25, 1958, speaking at Cornwall, Ontario the Prime Minister made this statement:
As long as I am prime minister, no person in this country is going to suffer because of unemployment. My heart goes out to those in that position. I've kept my promises in the past. That promise will be kept to the letter.
I ask the Minister of Labour why the Prime-Minister and the government have failed to keep this promise and commitment to the-

Supply-Labour
Canadian people. In the light of the government's commitments to the Canadian people, I suggest to the government that they must take far greater action now than anything that has been contemplated by the government to date. I wish the Minister of Labour well, but I hope that when he speaks he will recognize that something has to be done, that something needs to be done, and that he will have a greater influence amongst his colleagues in the future than he apparently has had in the recent year.
This debate is important. For the life of me I do not know why other cabinet ministers have not taken part in this debate. I do *not know, for example, why the Minister of Public Works has not defined the program *of his department to deal with unemployment. I do not know why the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not taken part in this debate to show how the policies of his department will increase trade and increase employment opportunities. The Minister of Finance has not graced us with his presence in this debate except perhaps on very rare occasions. I will not say cabinet attendance is inadequate at this moment, but it has been inadequate during many parts of this debate.
It is lamentable that on one occasion there was not a single cabinet minister in the chamber when, let me say to the Minister of Labour right now, the Minister of Labour was at the back of the chamber taking a well deserved breather. It is pretty hard for any person to stay in this chamber hour after hour after hour. I think when the Minister of Labour found it necessary to leave the chamber there should have been other members of the cabinet present and this affront to parliament and to the unemployed, as well as to this debate, should not have taken place. Action is required, and if the minister and the government will act they will get full co-operation from the members of this house in expediting legislation.
The Prime Minister said that this debate has gone on too long. I think it has gone on into the eighth day for two reasons; one, that there is a great problem facing this country and, two, because of the government's refusal to take the necessary action to deal with the problem.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speech which was made by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, and I must compliment him on the calm and tempered tone of his address. To me sitting here in this house during the past few days it was a welcome change, and I certainly want to say

to him that I welcome his analysis of the economic factors. I appreciate his realistic approach to this problem and the suggestions he has made are good, and those suggestions are good for action to be taken in the future.
I am very sorry to see that the hon. member for Assiniboia, in making also the same kind of speech, had to bring into focus the lack, as he termed it, of cabinet ministers in this house. I had no intention of mentioning this at all, but since he has mentioned it I must say that I, too, have been disappointed at the attendance in this house in regard to this very serious matter, and that applies to hon. members on the opposition benches as well. There has not been the attendance the problem deserves either on the opposition side or the government side, as the hon. member mentioned. This matter is a serious problem. The government is treating it as such and has always felt from the very beginning on assuming office that it should take that responsibility.
The Leader of the Opposition made mention of the fact that 19 members of the government had taken part in this debate when he dealt with what he termed a charge of filibustering. That is quite true; but on the other hand it is a matter that concerns every hon. member of this house-


Mr, Pickersgill:: Then why call it a filibuster?


Michael Starr: I think I said that the Leader of the Opposition referred to it in that way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Michael Starr: I have not said anything yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with the minister, but I would like to ask a question. My question is, does the minister disagree with the Prime Minister's reference to this debate as obstruction?


Michael Starr: I do not think the Prime Minister stated it in those terms at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He used that word.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has an unhappy knack of twisting around certain terms and words used in this house, and I think he does it particularly for the benefit of the political achievements which he may have in mind. I do not intend to enter the same type of debate which we experienced when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate entered into the debate on previous occasions. I hope I can continue this debate on the same basis that

the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia carried it on for the early part of this afternoon.
The government as a whole-I have said this on previous occasions and I repeat it-* has assumed the responsibility for unemployment. We have said that right from the start, and this is possibly the only time that a federal government in this country within recent years has accepted that responsibility.
As far as the suggestion which was made first of all by the hon. member for Essex East, and then again by the Leader of the Opposition today, that this matter of unemployment should be taken away from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour and placed before the government as a whole is concerned, that has always been the case. Most certainly nobody in this house or even in this country would give me the credit of having the ability, the knowledge, the knowhow or the energy to solve completely the whole unemployment problem of this country. This present government is responsible for that problem and has been responsible for it. I, as Minister of Labour, answer on behalf of the government in this respect.
The item which is before this committee will provide jobs now for this winter for 40,000 Canadians and a little over, according to the latest figures we have. I mention this because it seems to me to have slipped the minds of the opposition in the last few days. As I understand it, we are talking about jobs for Canadians, and that is what we are trying to provide. I have not said at any time that this program is the complete cure for unemployment at this time of the year. I certainly have not said that. I realize that it is not. Everyone realizes it is not, but it does provide over 40,000 jobs and is to us a program to meet part of that problem.
My colleague, the Minister of Public Works, is standing by ready with a bill to provide some half a billion dollars worth of funds for the housing industry of this country which will give many more thousands of jobs to Canadians within a very short space of time. If I may take the liberty of mentioning this-[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister permit me to observe what the leader of the house-


Michael Starr: Before the hon. member asks a question, I just want to say that I, too, only have thirty minutes and there are some important things I want to say. If the hon. member wishes to ask me a question, would he allow me time to finish what I want to say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just want to point out that the hon. member for Laurier
Supply-Labour
the other night suggested that the housing bill could have been dealt with yesterday. He asked the acting leader of the house if that could be arranged, so if the minister is trying to suggest that the opposition has prevented discussion of the housing bill, I am sure the minister would want to revise his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, what I was saying to the committee was this. Here we have one program providing 40,000 jobs and here we have another providing many more thousands of jobs than the 40,000. They are both together. Why do we have to jump over 40,000 jobs and go on to the others? That is part and parcel of the whole situation. As we enter this eighth day of debate I think it is a good thing to keep that thought before us.
I was rather sorry to note yesterday that hon. members opposite seemed to be disturbed by some of the things I said the other night. They seemed to take exception to the fact that what I was looking for were positive recommendations that would achieve results now, not at some unknown date in the future. I agree that I am only human the same as anyone else. I know there have been times in the past and that there will be times in the future when hon. members will speak out with some heat. If it were otherwise we would not have a good parliament. We should speak out and express our views with conviction. Thas was my feeling the other night.
I hate to keep coming back to this but I thought this was what the opposition had in mind when special concessions were sought to discuss this item on a wide range. I thought the idea was that hon. gentlemen opposite would use this time to bring forward positive measures that could be put into effect right away. That is why I said what I did the other night which of course seemed to perturb hon. gentlemen a great deal, so much so that, as I have said, other items are waiting and have been to some extent held up.
I hope that hon. members opposite will understand me and be assured that the last thing in my mind is to hurt their feelings. I do not want to put them on the spot because I am sure they can put themselves on the spot much better than I can.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not worry about that.


Michael Starr: I am always happy to hear from the hon. member for Essex East, that much-travelled member of this committee. I am always delighted to have suggestions from him.

Supply-Labour
What we have had thus far in the debate could perhaps be reviewed. First we had eight points enunciated by the hon. member tor Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ten.


Michael Starr: Yes, ten. I pointed out in reviewing those ten points that after summarizing them they called in the main for the establishment of conferences and committees and more committees. There has not been any reply to that criticism. I offered that criticism in good faith after carefully examining the ten points the hon. member put forward. The answer so far has been to repeat those ten points but nothing is to be gained by repetition.
What was the next step? Yesterday the hon. member for Laurier came to the rescue of the hon. member for Essex East. He took the ten points the hon. member for Essex East had put forward and added 15 more, making it 25. When you add more committees to the committees already established or suggested, then you certainly have a great many committees. Hon. members opposite seem to think that I am being unfair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister a question. Would the minister deal with those 25 points, point by point, for the committee?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I just said that I thought hon. members opposite were of the opinion that I am being unfair. Let them ask themselves this one question: Among the 25 recommendations that have been made which one of them will provide one single job to a Canadian this winter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will answer that question right now, if the minister will let me. If the minister will do what was suggested by me and by the hon. member for Westmorland, that is modify the 50-50 formula so as to pay more in those areas where the unemployment is greatest and where the municipalities are hard up-say by amending it to 75 or 80 per cent-there will be more jobs right away.


Michael Starr: That is a laudable suggestion and I agree with the hon. member that it would bring about more vocational training.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not talking about vocational training; I am talking about this government's winter works program.


Michael Starr: The hon. member suggested a modification of the program-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I want the formula changed from 50-50 to 75 or 80 per cent in those municipalities where they cannot afford

to take advantage of the 50-50 formula. If that were done there would be more jobs right away.


Michael Starr: If that suggestion were carried out it would mean that the provinces would be notified. They in turn would look for locations where the training schools could be constructed. They would then have to hire architects-


John Whitney Pickersgill: My suggestion has nothing to do with vocational training. I was talking about the winter works program.


Michael Starr: The hon. member is talking about building vocational schools.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am not, Mr. Chairman. The minister seems persistently to try to misunderstand. I am talking about the winter works program with which this item is concerned. The government now pays 50 per cent of the labour costs of these projects. If the government would raise that contribution to 75, 80 or 90 per cent in the Atlantic provinces the government would get more projects and there would be more jobs right away.


Michael Starr: The most interested governments in Canada in respect of this municipal works program were the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which came into the picture immediately. They made suggestions last winter to modify these programs. Those suggestions were put into effect and the winter works programs were modified to quite an extent on the suggestion of those two provinces. Since those modifications went into effect I have received no request whatever from either province for any further modification of these programs.
I have studied the 25 recommendations very carefully and am able to say that not one of those recommendations will meet the test now, this winter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
point, of course.


Michael Starr: If the hon. member would just contain his impatience-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is very difficult in the face of this kind of presentation.


Michael Starr: I do not want to leave the impression that these recommendations are without merit. They are certainly deserving of study on a long range basis, especially the suggestions made this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition. That study will be given to the recommendations that are found reasonable, but there is nothing revolutionary in any of the suggestions that were made. Many of those things are in effect

now, many are being undertaken in the various departments of government and many will be accelerated as the days go by.
As an example, let me deal with the suggestion made for the calling of a conference on unemployment. These conferences have been called in the past. There was also mention made in this debate of the wisdom of the government announcing the municipal incentive works program at a date earlier than it was announced the year before. We announced it this year by some two months earlier but now hon. members opposite say that was not early enough and that it should be earlier yet. Let me point out, however, that the municipalities have not complained. They felt that this year the announcement was made at a proper time and gave them ample opportunity to prepare for these programs. No complaints of that nature were received from any of the municipalities. We complied with the suggestion made last year and announced the program two months earlier, in the first week of September.
As I said earlier, I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings in this respect, but there is nothing new in most of the suggestions that have been made. As I say, they will be very carefully examined and those that are new, that have merit, that are reasonable suggestions most certainly will be given every consideration and study. We talk about the seasonal problem, and many people are surprised that that problem is still with us. But I say that we are dealing with a problem that has been with us since confederation. The simple fact of the matter is that we have such a climate in this country that at this time of the year, with the kind of weather conditions we have had in the last month, there is a segment of our people which does not work, and naturally so. Many of the construction jobs it this country cannot be carried on when we have such large amounts of snow covering the ground, and most certainly this means that people in the construction industry are, of necessity, laid off.
Because of our weather conditions we have a most unsuitable climate for winter work, and we have a tremendous concentration of primary research development which is subject to seasonal dislocation. In these two facts alone lies the explanation of recurring winter and seasonal unemployment in Canada. All the economists have agreed on this, and there are a number of reports to this effect. They have been making those reports for the last quarter of a century, and they have warned us that this situation is not getting better but worse.
Supply-Labour
The answer is that we must have more secondary industry in this country and everyone knows this. It is beginning to penetrate the minds even of hon. members opposite. We are in a state of transition as a supplier of primary products for secondary processing in the United States. That is where the market area is and that is where the markets are. It is in the secondary processing that you have the high content of skilled labour.
This government is aware of the situation and our policies are being directed toward dealing with the situation. It is a situation which has been getting more pronounced since the war; it is a situation which must be dealt with by encouraging secondary industries, by encouraging processing and manufacturing industries. We are doing this and we will continue to do it. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, it will not be done overnight, but it will be done. We will carry on with the job, as was requested by the Canadian Labour Congress when they presented their brief just a short while ago.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the fact that the government claims the recession is over. It is not only the government that claims the recession is over. The Canadian Labour Congress, which is vitally interested in this matter, and which in the past two years severely criticized the government and asked it to do something about it, said in its brief a short while ago, and said very factually, that the recession is over. Bank presidents and other people have said the same thing. The government are not the only people who are saying that this is a fact; other people are saying it. I am very much surprised that the only people I hear expressing contrary points of view on this matter are the opposition in this house. I think it is getting to be fairly obvious that seasonal unemployment in this country is a continuing problem.
I am very much surprised that the opposition should say that we in our two and one-half years in office should eliminate something that has been recurring, and continually recurring, winter after winter, for the past 22 years.


Mr. Bourgel:: What about your promises, then?


Michael Starr: In the last session we heard
about the black days of the 1930's, we heard about one million unemployed. These were some of the predictions that hon. members were making in this house and outside this house. This session we have heard about three quarters of a million looking for work. The dominion bureau of statistics says that as of the middle of January there were 504,000

Supply-Labour
persons out of work and seeking jobs. I do not intend to argue about figures; but I say it is too bad that because of the availability, two sets and, yes, even three sets of figures that have been brought into the picture, two completely unrelated statistics should be used to undermine confidence in Canada. This is a serious matter, and it has gone all over the world. It has reproduced repercussions abroad and in Canada and I feel that it has harmed our economy. It has created a great deal of confusion in the discussion of those problems.
Just to illustrate this, with the permission of the hon. member for Essex East I should like to refer to his television interview on "Press Conference". From this the committee will see how much confusion is created. In answering a question asked by Mr. Dempson who said:
The dominion bureau of statistics says that the unemployment figure is 370,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As of December.


Michael Starr: I am just reading what is in the script.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is 504,000 today.


Michael Starr: I continue:
The dominion bureau of statistics says that the unemployment figure is 370,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are quite right, the dominion bureau of statistics reported on the 12th of January that as of the 12th of December, there were 370,000 people out of work-
Then, the hon member went on to say:
Now, I would point out that there is another figure of the bureau of statistics that should be noted. The bureau of statistics points out, according to the Minister of Labour that as of the 31st of December last, there were 685,000 people receiving unemployment insurance benefits.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Michael Starr: Certainly the dominion bureau of statistics did not issue that figure; it was the unemployment insurance commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will read on he will find-perhaps he does not understand this point-that in the statistical review of the bureau of statistics that body points out that the daily record of unemployment in this country is the live claimants figure; that is to say, the number of people in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits, and that was the reference. If my hon. friend will look at the interview he will see that is attributed to the bureau of statistics and its statistical survey.


Michael Starr: That is compiled for administrative purposes by the unemployment insurance commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What difference does it make?


Michael Starr: May I say that the bringing in of these three different sets of figures has caused a great deal of confusion in the minds of the people. For example, the Montreal Gazette of this morning has an editorial headed: "No Real Unemployment Figure", and they go on to point out this confusion. The Toronto Star, in an editorial on February 19, pointed to the discord in jobless figures. The Toronto Telegram a few days earlier had a similar editorial. There is no doubt about the confusion. The fact that a great deal of confusion has been deliberate does not make it any less harmful both here and in other countries.


Mr. Fisher:: Does the minister feel that this confusion arises in the telecast where the hon. member for Essex East at the press conference said that in effect 22 years was a mighty short time? Is that the one?


Michael Starr: Not entirely that one point but, together with other things that were said here and on television I think it has created a great deal of confusion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that was the most glorious period in Canadian history.


George Harris Hees: The blackest period in Canadian history.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the international labour office in Geneva has laid down the stipulations for an official unemployment figure based on the labour force. The United States has such a figure. Thus I feel that they have been able to obtain a picture of the problem which is close to the actual facts of the situation. The need for such a clear and accurate representation has long been overdue.
I have consulted on this matter with my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and as a result of our consultations we propose to ask the officials of the dominion bureau of statistics, the Department of Labour and the national employment service to go into this whole matter thoroughly and fully. They will be asked to produce for Canada a statistical representation which will reflect accurately and completely the jobless situation at any time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will there be an opportunity to examine their conclusions in a parliamentary committee?


Michael Starr: Again the hon. member is impatient. When this figure is available this will be the official unemployment figure for Canada. Such a figure may be a more broadly based figure than the present D.B.S. figure. Whenever a report is forthcoming on this matter it will be made available to the house.

I am sure that all hon. members on both sides of the house would welcome such a clarification and I am sure it would be welcomed across Canada. We would then have only one official figure to deal with, one that would be accepted on the basis of the report of this committee. I am sure that it would end the confusion which now exists in this respect. It is not my intention to deal any further with this matter in this debate.
I have endeavoured on previous occasions to go over the whole picture of what the government intends to do, and I want to point out again that the suggestions that have been made are suggestions for long range planning, and they will be given careful study. We are making manpower surveys continuously in the labour department in conjunction with other departments and these will be amplified. We will try to get at the root of the whole problem but it is a long range problem and here we are dealing with an item to provide jobs now.
I should like to say a few words on training. A number of suggestions have been made in this regard. I must say, as I have said on a previous occasion, that no one is satisfied with the present state of affairs as far as training is concerned. As Canada moves into secondary industry and as the rate of industrial growth is accelerated, certainly more training will be required. New programs will be worked out and they must of necessity be worked out with the co-operation of the provinces. But in addition I feel that they must and will be worked out with industry and with the unions, keeping in mind the special problems of regional difficulty and of technological changes. We have made a beginning on these things and we will carry them through, I hope, to a successful conclusion. I think that would be good planning and these steps should bring about satisfactory results.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the mistakes of many years cannot be rectified in a few months. We have our programs and we have our policies. In the main they are directed to the problem which confronts us. In what the Toronto Star called on February 19 "a period of unprecedented boom" I am sure these problems will continue to exist. However, I want to say that I do not believe they will be overcome by following a depression psychology. They cannot be solved by a deliberate sowing of hysteria or panic. They can only be overcome by the kind of realistic approach that I have outlined in brief today and by the kind of policies that the government has been following and, as I have stated, will continue to follow.
Supply-Labour (Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I do not hesitate to rise a second time in this debate, because I wish to reply to the unwarranted statements made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) when, in a speech he made in this house on March 1, he referred to the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) in terms which are quite typical of him, but which I feel bound to challenge.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot chose to discuss the speech I made on February 24 on loans to municipalities in connection with winter works.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot said I had stated that a plant in his constituency had closed down, and I quote from page 1611 of Hansard the very words used by the hon. member. Referring to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, he said:
He-the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville-said that a plant in St. Hyacinthe was closed.
Mr. Chairman, I told the house, and I repeat, that not just one but five plants had closed down. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot was rather insidious in describing my comments.
I will quote his own words-and I am happy they were his-because I have never made it a habit to use dubious expressions.
Here is what the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot said, and I quote directly from page 1612:
The people in my area-
Says the member for St. Hyacinthe,
*-are indignant at the sanctimonious member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville for casting aspersions on the people of St. Hyacinthe.
And the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot goes on:
The people of St. Hyacinthe are fed up with this kind of wet blanket talk.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I see that in his three last speeches, the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot has used three times the word "degobil-ler", meaning "to spew" or "to throw up". Obviously "of abundance of heart the mouth speaketh." I do not envy the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot his use of such words. I feel sorry for him.
But just at the time when the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot rose, two days ago, to state that people in his constituency had no cause for complaint against this government, the plant where he used to work before coming to Ottawa-and where he should have stayed to understand what is going on-the Goodyear plant laid off 30 people because of the Japanese imports that are threatening this industry.

Supply-Labour
And I understand that within the next few days, lay offs will be increased from 30 to 100.
If I point out those facts, it is simply because the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot does not seem to represent the views of his constituency, and I am very sorry about that.
He said too-and I want to quote those famous statements-according to page 1614 of Hansard:
-for about 25 years I have been closely in touch with the working class of St. Hyacinthe and that, as my hon. friend, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has no doubt realized, I enjoy quite an enviable reputation.
When the former director of personnel for the Goodyear Company of Canada Limited is referred to-
He is talking about himself.
.-everyone knows that he is a fellow who has always kept in close touch with the working class-
An act of humility.
-who has always wished to be at its service-
An act of humility.
-and who has always managed to maintain what our friends opposite never did, that is, contact between the grass and the brass.
Mr. Chairman, those statements of the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot are not denied by the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville, but by the labour unions of St. Hyacinthe themselves in a recent statement published in La Presse and of which I have copy here. Here is what the workers thought of the intervention of my friend the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot in the labour field, in the field of unemployment. I quote textually the statement of the labour unions, that is the organization known as the conseil central des syndicats nationaux et catholiques de St. Hyacinthe.
Mr. Chairman, I will quote a few excerpts from this letter addressed to the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot:
Delegates to the conseil central des syndicats nationaux et catholiques de Saint-Hyacinthe have taken note of a statement you made in the House of Commons, and which was reported in the Courner de Saint-Hyacinthe-
The article continues:
The delegates voted unanimously for taking exception to the attitude you have shown. They feel bound to challenge some of your statements: "I have spent", you say, "almost a quarter of a century of my life among workers, and I think I am not boasting when I say to the house that I know the workers."
And the conseil central des syndicats nationaux et catholiques de St. Hyacinthe goes on to say:

You further state that, in your office of St. Hyacinthe, you are keeping in touch with the "grass and the brass," with various categories of workers and various industries in the city. You add, without any supporting evidence, that those workers unanimously recognize the merits of the legislation regarding the unemployment insurance act.
The delegates to the conseil central des syndicats nationaux et catholiques consider that statement contrary to the views of the workers in the city of St. Hyacinthe. They humbly suggest that you consult them even, if only out of courtesy, before speaking on their behalf.
Mr. Chairman, I say that if the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot had been in the least careful, he would have remained seated on March 1 instead of again making such statements in this house.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out a further statement of the hon. member's that will make you realize his growing interest in his riding, and particularly his thorough knowledge of that area.
When he rose on March 1, 1960-and I refer to page 6 of the appendix to Hansard, the hon. member listed some industries that were supposed to have settled in the city of St. Hyacinthe since he was elected to the House of Commons, and he mentioned among others, the Centre Manufacturing Company (Evan Pants, Inc.).
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot obviously does not know what I am going to tell him, and I am sorry- as representative of St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville-to have to give him some information with regard to his own city, but I shall do so anyway. The company he mentioned, the Centre Manufacturing Company was established at St. Hyacinthe in 1938. It was founded by Mr. Elzear Larue, and today, in 1960, it is still there. The company never budged from St. Hyacinthe, and its current president is Mr. Ernest Larue.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot rises in this house and makes the unfounded statement that a new industry has just moved into his riding, whereas the company has been there all along for 22 years.
Now, the hon. member who makes such irresponsible and inaccurate statements feels no compunction in calling other people liars, even to the point of having to withdraw his statement. As a matter of fact, he is now known as this year's record holder for the number of withdrawals in this house. Let me tell him I don't envy his record at all.
Mr. Chairman, leaving aside the remarks that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe should not have made, I shall now speak

to him objectively, as I did last Friday. I shall tell him that I have nothing against the people in his riding. On the contrary, I like and respect them, and that is why I am sorry, as are all hon. members here in this house, that the constituency has 3,600 or 3,800 unemployed. I am also sorry to have heard the hon. member say that his constituents are satisfied with this government and with the federal aid to municipalities through the winter works program.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I shall quote the figures which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) read into the record on February 19, 1960, as may be seen on page 1278 of Hansard. Since the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot does not seem to be aware of the situation in his own area, I will enumerate municipalities, one by one and I will tell him just how many unemployed will be getting relief through that supposedly beneficial Conservative legislation.
In the city of St. Hyacinthe, the main city of the constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot how many persons will benefit from the present winter works program? Zero, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, when I say "zero" that means that none will benefit from that program and, therefore, no amount of money will be paid to the municipality.
St. Joseph village, zero; Notre Dame de St. Hyacinthe, zero; Douville, zero; Ste. Madeleine, zero; St. Thomas d'Aquin, zero; La Presentation, zero; St. Charles-sur-Richelieu, zero; St. Charles-Riviere Chambly, zero; St. Denis, zero; St. Denis-Riviere Chambly, zero; St. Bernard-Sud, zero; St. Judes de St. Ours, zero. Ora pro nobis. St. Barnabe, zero; St.-Pie, village and parish, zero. Ora pro nobis. St. Liboire, zero; St. Ephrem d'Upton, zero; St. Theodore d'Acton, zero. Ora pro nobis. St. Nazaire d'Acton, zero; Ste. Rosalie village, zero; St. Germain de Grantham, zero; St. Eugene de Grantham, zero; St. Hugues de Ramsay, zero. Ora pro nobis. St. Simon de Ramsay, zero.
Out of 26 municipalities in the constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, only one will benefit from the winter works program, and in the following way: the municipality of St. Damase got approval on a $12,500 project providing jobs for 35 unemployed and, incidentally, that is not a project initiated by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot; I do not even know whether he was aware of it or not. Now those 35 unemployed who will work for five months, in winter, will be getting altogether the sum of $12,500 from the federal government. How much a month per worker does that break down into? The answer is $73 a month, or $18 a week. Those are the wages that will be paid to men working on this winter works
Supply-Labour
project. But there are over 3,500 unemployed in St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I have not the latest figures with me. I am told that the total is about 3,800 but, in any case, whether it is 3,500 or more, whether it is 3,800 or 3,600, the government has managed, through that winter works program, to provide work for only 35 people.
That is what we want clearly understood by Conservative members, and especially by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.
Mr. Chairman, there is not a single community in Canada where the present municipal winter works program has given satisfaction to the unemployed, or has even partially solved the problem. Does anybody think the problem can be solved by providing jobs for 35 people in a constituency where there are 3,800 unemployed? In all the constituencies of Canada, you have similar figures, that is 21, 30 or 50 persons getting jobs while there are thousands of jobless people, and the situation is the same in the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm-


Mr. Pigeon:: Look at the figures.


Yvon Dupuis: No, I am looking at the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and it's enough for me.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Don't insult the people of Joliette.


Yvon Dupuis: No, in looking at you, I have no intention of insulting them, because I know they will change their minds at the next election.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The people of St. Mary changed theirs; like the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), you had to make a switch.


Yvon Dupuis: I moved away and got myself elected elsewhere; a Liberal member can get himself elected anywhere.


An hon. Member:: You left St. Mary.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I shall now, in view of the fact that my friend the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) seems to be smiling-he is not smiling?


An hon. Member:: No.
Another hon. Member: Not since yesterday. (Text):


Azellus Denis: He is cooling off.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: I shall now remind my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi that in his whole constituency, comprising half a hundred communities, exactly 46 people, according to the very figures of the Minister of

Supply-Labour
Labour, will benefit from the winter works program of the present government. Forty-six people out of how many unemployed? I have not looked up the statistics, but you need only refer to the hon. member's own speech to see that unemployment has gone way up in his constituency.
Mr. Chairman, I have said all there is to be said on the winter works program. I have no intention of adding anything more, but I have a right and a duty to tell the house that, before speaking in this house, the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot should turn his tongue seven times in his mouth. And with regard to "casting aspersions" or *"spewing" he can certainly keep that "Ricard-ish" expression to himself, because I never heard it once in the four years I spent in the Quebec legislature.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I just have one or two questions to pass on to the minister arising out of remarks made before the house some days ago as to how the program relates to Indian bands. Since that time I have had occasion to put questions on the order paper and also to have some copies of correspondence filed as a sessional paper. But I inquired of the minister whether he would undertake to communicate with his colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and attempt to have the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or more particularly the Indian affairs branch of the department participate in this scheme to the extent that these Indian bands which do not have a sufficient amount of money in their band funds be able in some way to participate also in the program. I wonder whether the minister could indicate what has happened to that suggestion? At the time I made it the minister did not reply but he nodded his head and I took it to indicate that he would take that course and would communicate with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Michael Starr: Yes. I will discuss that aspect with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Frank Howard: It has not been done yet?


Michael Starr: No.


Frank Howard: There is one other matter on which I should like to raise a question. I think it is unfortunate-and I do not think the minister did this in any deliberate way; certainly not-that the minister left an incorrect impression with the committee in dealing with the participation Indian bands may make under this particular program. The impression that was left with the committee by the minister was that a number of Indian bands had been in communication

with the government and that these particularly were in western Canada, leaving the implication that there were other Indian bands in eastern Canada which had communicated with the government in their desire to participate in this program.


Michael Starr: There was no attempt on my part to leave that impression at all. If I used the plural, I did so inadvertently.


Frank Howard: The words are there in Hansard. We may as well make some reference to them and show how I came to the conclusion that a number of Indian bands were participating in this program. This is to be found at page 905 of Hansard following a question of mine:


Michael Starr: Some requests were made approximately a month ago by Indian bands, particularly in the western part of Canada, that they be allowed to be included in this municipal incentive program.
And so on. I merely wanted to draw attention to this matter and to clear it up. The fact is that no requests have been received from Indian bands, in the plural, and no requests have been received primarily from an Indian band in the singular, just indirectly through the municipality of North Vancouver, as the sessional paper indicates. I am glad this matter has been cleared up in my mind.
I would urge again, knowing Indian bands and knowing the limited financial resources that they have, that they are in a far worse position than is any municipality, if the ones in my own constituency cannot participate in this type of program. I would urge very strongly that the minister undertake immediately to enter into some discussion with the Indian affairs branch. I certainly hope that branch will undertake to participate, as I think they should, by financing in some way the Indian bands who may want to participate but yet do not have sufficient money in their band funds. I am very much afraid that even though a request was received by the municipality of North Vancouver on behalf of the Indian village over there,-that initial request was made on October 20 of last year to the Department of Public Works first but eventually got to the proper department-[DOT] even though it was made then, it took until the first part of February some time apparently to make a decision as to whether they should be able to participate. That being so, I am afraid not one Indian band will be able to participate in this program this winter. It will mean absolutely nothing to them.
I am not saying this in criticism of the government or of the minister but, first, because of the time it took to determine whether Indian bands and band councils should participate in the program and, second, I expect

because of the time it may have taken the Indian band itself to have cognizance of the program and want to participate in it. But if it refers to Indian bands, I am quite sure when the program winds up for this winter we will find that no Indian bands have participated in it or if so, only in an extremely limited sense. I would leave that one thought with the minister and ask him to do everything he can to obtain this program officially for the Indian bands.


William Moore Benidickson: During the debate I have been surprised that the minister has made such slight reference to the conference which took place in 1958. We have asked him several times to what extent the recommendations of that conference have been implemented. Their primary concern was, of course, the broad one of winter employment. It is a long document of some 54 pages. The minister simply replied that if anybody wanted to see what has been implemented and what has not been implemented, he could go and look at the document. I am sure I tried hard; but the minister has made little reference to it himself. It is full of recommendations that have not been implemented.
I want to refer to two and ask if the minister would make some brief comment. I am thinking of the recommendation on page 44 which was made by the industry group and in which they stated as follows:
-and our suggestion is that the government institute as soon as possible a review of the types of incentives that might be applied, and also of the areas to which they should be applied.
A great deal was said at this conference about incentives and the necessity for incentives in the business sphere as well as incentives even in government departments. It was pointed out that you could not expect to get deputy ministers to be too active in sponsoring winter works if the cost to the department were larger than it was in the summertime and the budgets did not provide especially the incentives to do the work in the wintertime and that kind of thing. I think that was an extremely important recommendation.
Then the other recommendation which I think the minister should tell us something about is the recommendation on page 46 where it says:
The desire for a high level of employment was stressed and it was indicated that this was related to the variations in seasonal employment. However, this aspect was considered to be beyond the jurisdiction of the present conference.
That is the conference of some time ago.
It is recommended that the government call a meeting to deal with the problems relating to the development, continuance and maintenance of a high level of employment.
Supply-Labour
What meetings along those lines have taken place and, in addition, what examination has taken place of the opportunity to provide incentives, both fiscal incentives as well as incentives even within the area of government for government departments and crown companies, to ensure that a greater amount of work is done in winter time?


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member repeat that part of his remarks dealing with the meetings?


William Moore Benidickson: The minister will recall that there was a brief summary in this very lengthy report as to the recommendations which had been received. They were received from several panels, for example the industry panel, the municipal panel, the labour panel, the publicity panel and so on. But it was indicated that we simply had a summary, and that to find the recommendations in this conference one must look to the reports of each of these panels.
I indicated that in the report of the panel on industry they pointed out, as Professor Bladen did in his address to the conference, the importance of incentives in all areas, but the industry group reported to the conference, broadly, that the aspect of maintaining a high level of employment was beyond the jurisdiction of that conference, and it was recommended that the government call a meeting to deal with the problems relating to the development, continuance and maintenance of a high level of employment. It was this type of thing which was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, and various types of discussion have been the subject of debate while we have had this item before us.
Could the minister indicate what types of meetings have been held with all these groups since this recommendation was made?


Michael Starr: To my knowledge, no meetings of this type have been held.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that we have listened to his defence today but we regret that it does not meet the objections which we put forward strongly on the general problem of unemployment. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, inadequate as we think this program is we do, of course, propose to support it, as we did last year. We regard it as a most inadequate one. Now we would hope that the minister will see to it that there is no longer any delay in our proceedings.
However, I would put this question to the minister. I ask him if he does not think, even at this late hour, that in the light of

Supply-Legislation
this debate he should increase the appropriation and broaden the base of this measure so as to make it more effective to deal with the greater number of unemployed in our country?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the reason why this program was brought into being was because of the serious concern in respect to this problem felt by the government. The $15 million provided is an estimated amount. If municipalities bring forward municipal projects and it is necessary for the government to make further appropriations to meet our share of the cost, then most certainly it will be honoured.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask just one question. Will the government immediately consider changing the 50-50 formula so that the federal government will pay a higher share in those areas of the country where unemployment is heavy?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the formula is not 50-50. In four of the provinces the provinces contribute 25 per cent additional. One province contributes 30 per cent additional to the payroll cost. At the moment we feel that this program as it is now, welcomed as it is by the municipalities, does not need to be changed in that respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister means, then, that the government will not consider increasing the federal share.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 615 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, may we have a recorded vote on this item.
Item agreed to: yeas, 127; nays, 0.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
616.	To authorize payment to each member of the Senate in the current and subsequent fiscal years, notwithstanding anything in the Senate and House of Commons Act, of an amount equal to the transportation and living expenses of the member while on the journey from Ottawa to his place of residence and return on each occasion during a session of parliament when parliament is adjourned for Easter or Christmas or, in lieu thereof, on any other occasion during that session, $1.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask just one brief question about this item which has to do with authorization

of the payment to each member of the Senate of expenses incurred in relation to travelling from his home to Ottawa to attend sessions of parliament. I am assuming that the Minister of Finance is undertaking the passage of these items on behalf of the government. I hope he will display the characteristic diplomacy in providing for their dispatch. If there is any difficulty in that regard the hon. member has next to him the leader of the house who undoubtedly will be able to afford him the necessary subtlety to permit passage.
I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance if, in view of the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite had strong views about Senate reform when they sat on this side of the chamber, the government has taken any steps to implement the views which hon. members opposite expressed so vigorously, in 1955.
I had the opportunity this afternoon of reviewing some of the speeches made by various hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe who was at that time acting as leader of the Conservative party, the present hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Middlesex East, were among those who spoke very strongly on a motion proposing an amendment regarding Senate reform. The present Prime Minister himself made a very notable contribution on that occasion.
My researches do not reveal that the Minister of Finance extended his wide knowledge to this field at that time, but it would be interesting to know from him on behalf of the government tonight whether the government has given consideration to its well-known views about Senate reform, and also whether consideration has developed to the point that would permit the hon. gentleman to make a statement about that matter concerning which he and members of his party had such strong views when they sat on this side?
I think the minister would perhaps welcome the opportunity of making the speech which apparently he failed to make when this matter was discussed in 1955.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I shall make no effort to follow the hon. gentleman into such an irrelevant domain as he has trespassed or wandered into this evening. I am sure that all other hon. members are aware that the purpose of this item is to make provision for the payment of the expenses of the members of the Senate just as the next item, No. 617 makes provision for the payment of the expenses of members of

the House of Commons incurred in connection with the normal Easter recess, or a Christmas recess if there should be one, or some other recess declared by parliament.
It is and has for some time been the rule that members qualified for immediate payment of expenses incurred in coming to Ottawa from their homes to attend the sessions of parliament and returning to their homes after the sessions. Authorization exists for that payment now, but provision has not been made for payment at the time the expenses are incurred of travelling expenses of members in connection with an Easter recess or some other recess declared by parliament. These two items will authorize the payment of those expenses when incurred.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, hon. gentlemen opposite used to have strong views on other matters, too, in addition to Senate reform. This particular matter is one concerning which the minister used to express his views with customary strength, vigour and determination. I refer to the affront to constitutional principles and parliamentary rights through putting dollar items in the estimates. I wonder if the hon. gentleman feels a little worried about putting forward of these dollar items in the light of his past?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman did not have the same sensitivity on this subject in those days. May I say to him that the use of the dollar item in a situation of this kind is, I think, distinguishable from those cases in which objection was taken to it by the opposition at the time to which the hon. gentleman refers.
This is an authorization in connection with the time of payment. In the ordinary course provision must be made in the estimates for the payment of the money. Therefore, the full rights of parliament are preserved and there will be discussion of this subject every year under the estimates. I think the hon. gentleman will see that the rights of parliament are fully provided for. This is simply a matter of the time of payment. The money must still be provided by an annual item in the estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I admit there is a distinction in the way the device is being used by the present government and the way it was used in the past. The difference is that they are doing it now. The statement my hon. friend made just now in explanation is exactly the kind of explanation we used to make when we used this procedure.
Mr. Martin <Essex East): Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the minister regards the question of Senate reform as irrelevant now?
Supply-Legislation


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I certainly regard it as irrelevant to item No.
616	now before the committee.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may transgress the rules for a moment. This is the first time I have had occasion to speak when Your Honour was in the chair. I should like to express my personal satisfaction that Your Honour is back among us again to carry out the duties you performed so well in the past.
I now wish to raise a point different from those points just raised. I should like to express appreciation for this particular item and' express the congratulations of this group to His Honour the Speaker for bringing in this item. On a personal basis, the lack of this item has been no handicap to me in the past because I am fortunate enough to live close enough to Ottawa so that moving back and forth does not involve a sacrifice to me.


Charles Edward Rea: I am wondering if the hon. member is aware that we are discussing item No. 616? His remarks appear to be directed to item No. 617.


Murdo William Martin: My remarks could be reserved for discussion under item No.
617	but I think they are quite appropriate at this time because I do not like to draw any distinction between members of this house and the other place.
In the past hon. members of this chamber and possibly hon. members of the other place have been in a difficult position, especially those who lived many thousands of miles from Ottawa. They had to be on very friendly terms either with their local bank manager or, failing that, with the director of the local branch of the Household Finance Company. This item alleviates that condition and on behalf of the members in this group I should like to say that we are very much in accord with this provision.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
House of Commons-
617.	To authorize payment to each member of the House of Commons in the current and subsequent fiscal years, notwithstanding anything in the Senate and House of Commons Act but subject to the approval of the commissioners of internal economy, of an amount equal to the transportation and living expenses of the member while on the journey from Ottawa to his place of residence and return on each occasion during a session of parliament when parliament is adjourned for Easter or Christmas or, in lieu thereof, on any other occasion during that session, $1.
Mr. Mcllrailh:: I want to raise a matter
on this item. I think it is appropriate for me to do so because I can never benefit from this item, and never have, or from the item

Supply-Legislation
which provides the actual money for this purpose. I just wonder what is the purpose of this item, when someone in authority-I have not been able to find out what particular minister-has been responsible for a new practice around here to prevent the placing of government telephone books in the telephone booths in the opposition lobbies and, I presume, in the government lobbies also, although I am not an authority on that part of the building. It has always been the practice to provide them. This year when the new books were issued, not only were they not provided, but when I caused a question to be raised-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not
quite understand what telephone books have to do with this item.


George James McIlraith: May I address myself to
the point of order, Mr. Chairman? I did not think it was appropriate to bring members to Ottawa and to spend the taxpayer's money in so doing if such impediments as deliberately keeping government telephone books from them was going to be put in the way of their work.
To conclude my remarks, I caused inquiries to be made on this matter and found there had been some order issued, by whom I know not, that these books be not put in the opposition lobby and presumably not put in the government lobby. I would ask the house leader to look into the matter and see that they are provided.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not suppose it is relevant to this item but I can assure the hon. member I did not make any such order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The treasury board.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure him
also that there is no discrimination practised against the opposition lobby because my parliamentary secretary has just told me that there is no telephone directory in the telephone booths in the government lobby either; but this no doubt is indicative of the fact that hon. members are so attentive to their duties in the house that they are not finding time to spend in the telephone booths.


William Moore Benidickson: The constituents do not
know that.


Ernest James Broome: I do want to re-echo the
words of the hon. member for Timmins. As one member who does come from a long distance away, may I say that this item will be of advantage to me. This expense bears most heavily on us. I think this item is an indication of the consideration the present government has for the rights of

the ordinary backbenchers, consideration which hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Essex East, have some difficulty in understanding. They cannot understand that the government can consider the problems that the ordinary backbencher faces, and when the government can do something to help them in the way of treating them with that consideration which we give our own civil servants, they do so. Therefore, on behalf of at least the members from our area I should like to thank the government through the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
618.	Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council, by Canada with the provinces, of amounts equal to one half of the amounts confirmed by the provinces as having been spent by them for campground and picnic area developments-Further amount required, $800,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word on this, what I call, pleasant campground and picnic places program, which I think has been quite worth while. I do not know just how far it has been developed, but I think the item is quite worth while and this co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in this way can be of some considerable benefit in the development of our campgrounds and recreational areas across this country. Can the minister tell the committee the number of provinces that have participated in this program and what has been the total expenditure to date, including this supplementary estimate? In view of the experience with this program over the past year, just how does the government view the success of the program, and has the government in mind any modifications or changes in it? I think this is an interesting item.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this program of campgrounds and picnic sites was first inaugurated as a method of helping winter employment. The first program of 1957-58 started after Christmas. The effective date was January 2. In that winter of 195758, nine provinces participated, the exception being Quebec. The following year we started the program earlier, on October 30, and seven provinces participated that year. This present winter, 1959-60, the program started at the same time, October 30, and to date eight provinces have accepted the federal offer, and Prince Edward Island has indicated that it is considering participation.
In so far as the money is concerned, in the first year 1957-58-I am now giving fiscal

year figures because the figure covers two fiscal years in each winter

there was nothing in the main estimates, but we put $1 million in the supplementaries that year. The actual expenditures in that year, up to the end of March, were $0.49 million. In the fiscal year 1958-59 the main estimates had a figure of $1 million, and the supplementaries $1.5 million and we actually expended $1.72 million. In the fiscal year 1959-60, the estimates were $1.5 million and the supplementaries were

and it is the supplementary we are dealing with now-$0.8 million. The estimated expenditure for this winter is $2.3 million. The estimates for next year show a figure of $0.8 million, and we estimate from the indications from the provinces we will require in the supplementaries next winter $0.9 million, for a total estimate of $1.7 million.
If you take the same figures of actual expenditures by winters rather than by fiscal years, the first program from January 2, 1958 to March 31, 1958 actually accounted for $1.3 million by the federal government. Therefore, the actual expenditure that winter was $2.6 million, when you take the 50 per cent that the provinces had to provide. In the second winter, from November 1, 1958 to May 31, 1959 the actual expenditures were $1.81 million, or $3.62 million when the combined totals are added up.
The third winter, of course, is an estimate. The estimate at the present time is $1.85 million. This is on the basis of present indications by the provinces. The amount committed to date and authorized by the governor in council under this $1.85 million is $1.25 million, or an actual expenditure to date over the three winters of $3.46 million. Of course, to get the total amount you double that.
In answer to the other question asked by the hon. member about the program itself, I would like to say this. Even though this program was originally started primarily because of our desire to help winter unemployment, actually it was because of a real conviction that it was a good program. The idea originated in the dominion-provincial tourist conference in the fall of 1957, and we took this suggestion as one way to help winter unemployment and at the same time carry out a very useful program for those who travel on our highways.
This year there is no great change in the program except that we have asked the provinces, in fairness to the federal government, to put up a plaque on each of these picnic sites or campgrounds which shows that the site or campground is a co-operative effort by the two governments, and that is all the plaque says.
Supply-Northern Affairs


William Moore Benidickson: Who is paying for the plaque?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We pay half of the bills. I think that is all on that point. Naturally the main estimates will be debated later and then the supplementaries next winter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I can hardly believe that I heard the minister correctly and I would not be in order in talking about this if he had not already brought up the matter. He was talking under this item not only about this supplementary estimate but also about the main estimates under this item. He said that an amount of $800,000 had been put in the main estimates for the forthcoming year but that already they required another $900,000 which would come in the supplementary estimates. If they know now that they are going to need another $900,000, why have they reduced the main estimate item to $800,000?


William Moore Benidickson: To fool the public.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the mechanics of the setting of the amount for the estimates can be appreciated. When we submitted our main estimates in the fall we had no indication at that time just what each province was going to submit. It is part of the program that the provinces submit their own requests. It is an open end offer as far as we are concerned. We put in an estimate of $800,000 which we thought would cover it. However, the response by the provinces has been so great that, as I have said, it is estimated that the total amount will be about $1.7 million for the year.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much that the minister is here during this discussion. Very often we have supplementary estimates before us and the minister primarily concerned is not in the house at the time. I think it should be noted that the minister is here and ready to answer our questions respecting additional votes for his department. I should like to ask the minister whether under this program any money is being devoted to Garibaldi park. I should also like to ask what is happening with respect to the negotiations between the governments of Canada and British Columbia regarding the possibility of the government of Canada assuming complete responsibility for Garibaldi park and making it a national park.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not have my complete file here on that subject and it does not actually come under this particular item although it has a bearing. The answer to the first part of the question is that to
1712	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs my memory, and I think I am right, no part of this estimate-in fact, the same applies to previous years-contains any money to be be spent within the actual confines of Garibaldi provincial park. For the past three winters items such as the one before us now have enabled the provincial government to build picnic sites or campgrounds along the route of any provincial highway and if there is some operation like this in Garibaldi park I see no reason why it cannot be included.
The second question dealt with the discussions that took place between the provincial government and ourselves about the possibility of making Garibaldi a national park. At the moment this matter is inactive. The federal government expects certain conditions to be met by a provincial government before a national park is set up. The provincial government must agree that all resources in the proposed national park area will be turned over to the federal government free of encumbrance. This means that all the timber, wild life, mineral and recreational resources of the area can only be used as laid down in the National Parks Act. In other words, you cannot take off timber or move in and take out any minerals that may exist. There are also certain limitations on the types of recreation that may be carried on in a national park compared with a provincial park.
For these reasons I would imagine that the provincial government decided that it would like to look a little longer at how it could make use of Garibaldi park, for it has much greater freedom than we would have in using the resources of the park area.


Erhart Regier: While we are on this matter I hope the committee will allow a slight extension beyond the ordinary rules. No doubt the minister has taken a great interest in the recently held winter Olympic games. There has been a great deal of publicity in British Columbia of late as to the possibilities of holding the next Olympic games in Garibaldi park. I know that the minister indicated in his reply that no advantage can be taken of existing legislation or the vote now before us as far as Garibaldi park is concerned. Yet the proposal is rather widespread that in 1964 the Olympic games be held in Garibaldi park.
I think the minister will agree that there is really no hope of having the Olympic games there unless the federal government begins to be a factor in the development of that park. What initiative is the minister's department assuming in the matter of persuading the government of British Columbia to relinquish its rights respecting Garibaldi


park, not only in relation to the vote now before us but with regard to the larger field involving the necessity of a national park on the lower mainland accessible to the majority of the people living in British Columbia?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Speaking for myself, I think the federal government would hesitate about imposing its wishes on a province with respeot to any matter concerning the province's resources. These are first, last and always provincial resources, but we are prepared to co-operate in any of these programs. I think you will find that the common denominator is that a province suggests a particular program and we simply examine it to see if it meets the criteria under which we will set up a program.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does that apply to the
Columbia river too?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, it does.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am glad to hear that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The second part of the suggestion was that inasmuch as the lower mainland of the province obviously needs more recreational facilities we should push the provincial government to agree to setting up a national park there. I do not think that suggestion indicates a full realization of what are the needs of the lower mainland. I hope the people of British Columbia will pardon me for discussing their situation, but as I see the needs of the lower mainland they are for recreation. I think this can be provided more readily in recreational areas under provincial legislation and jurisdiction because then there is provision for what we call multiple use of the resources of the area. The thinking now is that sometimes it may be considered against the public interest to set aside areas in the completely natural state that the National Parks Act requires as opposed to the setting up of an area as a recreational area.
If it is a recreational area, we are allowed to use the forests without destroying their beauty; we are allowed to take out the minerals and put something back in their place to keep the area just as beautiful. We are allowed to use all the resources to the best advantage, without setting aside forever the exploitation of the resources of the area. This is one of the limitations we have in the National Parks Act. We keep the National Parks Act going for obvious reasons, because we want to preserve some of our most beautiful areas forever so that future generations can see this country as it was in, the beginning.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the
minister has just referred to beautiful areas. I want to refer to the unbeautiful areas parliamentary-wise. I think the remarks of the minister will confirm the fact that parliament is not, with respect to this item, being given either adequate information or the respect to which members on all sides are entitled, particularly from the ministry. The minister indicated that he expects now this is not a realistic item in so far as the expenditures of his department are concerned. Indeed, he suggests that after the budget comes before this parliament we will be asked to appropriate a sum greater than the amount requested at this present stage and beyond what is in the book of estimates as presented to this parliament.
This item refers, as members will recall, to a program that was introduced as a winter employment program. It was introduced in January, 1958. It was restricted in use, so far as the provinces were concerned, to winter use. It has, therefore, a very close relationship to the recently concluded discussion on another subject before this committee. It was supposed to help employment. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we now have evidence this program is not being frankly presented to this committee in its proper aspects. Indeed, I am quite sure that when the minister says this estimate is underestimated, we can see very clearly that the ministry has gotten very green around the gills about the financial mess in which they are at the moment. They are not presenting to this committee the proper expectations of the ministry with respect to expenditures.
In other words, they have jettisoned-in this estimate we can see it-the pledge that they made through the Prime Minister that, deficit or no deficit, no person would suffer because of unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: I am not returning to that subject. I am saying that this item is restricted to winter works.


An hon. Member:: Wasn't eight days long enough?


William Moore Benidickson: On this item we are not getting a frank report. I speak only for my own constituency. I want to say there is so much hanky-panky with respect to this type of expenditure of public funds that I think this committee should give this very careful review.
I will say this. I mentioned this afternoon some 30 returns which parliament had voted and under which parliament was entitled to information. I may say that 50 per cent of the 79951-0-108
Supply-Northern Affairs unfulfilled returns in the session 1958-59 concerned the department presided over by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The reason for that is that this department is entering into a system of hanky-panky with respect to this type of roadbuilding. In July, 1958 the minister did reply to a question of mine indicating that with respect to a road in my riding they did find money up to the time of the election in 1958. They did find money with respect to the Minaki road. After that, the unemployed were ignored.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not think I can allow this discussion to go on the way it is.


An hon. Member:: Why? Who are you?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am a member of this house. The subject we are debating here tonight is the expenditure of $800,000 for campgrounds and picnic sites. If the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River wants to go into the subject of my negligence or anything else he charges me for in my department I shall be glad to take him on at the proper time and give him some answers to these questions. I do suggest he should confine himself to the question of campgrounds and picnic sites, and I shall be glad to give the information.


Charles Edward Rea: I think the hon. member strayed when he got into roads to resources. I am sure he will confine himself to this item.


William Moore Benidickson: I shall be happy to abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I want to refer to the answer to question No. 146, July 10, 1958, when I found the minister mixing up votes made in committee of supply, using those for political purposes, and finding that afterwards, on a night such as this, there was no employment created except at election time. I think the minister should give this committee a full accounting on this particular item because usually provision is made for this item in the supplementary estimates. I think he should give this committee a full report as to expenditures to date in this year for every project under this particular item before we are asked, in view of the record of casual, careless expenditure in the past, to pass this item. We should be entitled to a detailed report from him on the expenditures for this item in the current year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to categorically deny the charge made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that there has been anything in

Supply-Northern Affairs these programs, including this one, of political hanky-panky, any form of political purpose, aimed at election time.


William Moore Benidickson: Why did you quit after the election?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. I recall that last year, when the election was being fought in Ontario, these charges were made. The people of Ontario spoke rather decisively on that occasion about these charges.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The minister raised a point of order a few minutes ago and restricted the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. It seems to me the same rule should be applied to the minister.


Charles Edward Rea: I will assure the committee that the rules will be applied to both sides in exactly the same manner.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Since that point has been well looked after, anyway, the second point to which I shall refer is the fact that the hon. member wants all the details of all the projects under this vote all across Canada. Do I understand that he wants this information for each of the years or just the year under review?


William Moore Benidickson: My statement was that I should like it for the current year, but I want to accommodate the committee. I would imagine that the minister, through his officials, is provided with a pretty complete statement of the expenditures to date for the current fiscal year. I would be prepared, if the committee agrees, to have that appended to Hansard to save the minister time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was going to point out that in the first two winters 508 projects were undertaken. To compile the information for those projects would take a long time, I suggest several months of work for several officials. Under projects undertaken this year, I have no way of telling the committee, until all the provincial programs are fully reported to me, even the number of projects.
I should like to point out to the committee that the procedure we follow is this. When a province presents its program we do not do any more than examine the criteria we have set up to see if they are being met. Those criteria are that the labour costs in them must represent at least half of the total expenditure and where the labour costs are less than half, the federal contribution is limited to the labour content. The second criteria we look at is that that development must be located on land owned or to be acquired by the province and constructed by
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
them with the understanding that the development will continue to be owned by the province.
Having examined the projects they submit in the light of that criteria, the next thing we do is this. When the bills are submitted and approved by the provincial auditor they are then checked over by the officials here and the final step is usually an examination by somebody on our staff of some of the projects they have completed to see if the work is of a type that we would like. To get all the information the hon. gentleman asked for I would suggest would take me or take the departmental officials several months. But if he wants it, I shall be glad to start work on it. I have looked at the list of projects in some of the provinces. The preparation of maps, and the cost items in each of these would be a tremendous undertaking. But if he wants it, he is entitled to it and I shall be glad to do all I can to get it but I cannot do it tonight.


William Moore Benidickson: I will reserve my request, Mr. Chairman. I have never been unaccommodating with respect to suggestions from the ministry with regard to expense. I felt obliged to advance the fact that the minister's own department is one that has been most careless and disrespectful of requests from this side of the house for legitimate information. Fifty per cent of the unfilled orders passed by this house, not only this session but last session concerned the minister's department. At any time when any minister makes a representation to a member of the opposition, not knowing the consequences by way of cost in complying with the request, I have never known a case when I was on the other side of the house- I will give credit to the opposition in those days-when accommodation was not granted when it was explained that the return required undue expense and probably did not actually meet the desire of the hon. member asking for the information. Accommodation has always been advanced and I assure the minister that 1 would do so in this case as in the past.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to answer the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I realize that I am out of order because he chose to deal with the subject which you ruled out of order, may I have permission to answer?


Charles Edward Rea: I recognize the hon. member for St. Denis.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just a minute. I have asked permission to answer the hon. member.



I960

Charles Edward Rea: The Chair cannot give permission to break the rules. I am sure the minister knows that. The Chair can only interpret the rules. It is entirely up to the committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Go ahead.


Charles Edward Rea: Has the minister unanimous consent to make a statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it is brief.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The only thing I am going to say is this. It is another subject. In this question of the matter of accommodation, the hon. member was very good to me last year. I offered to allow him to look at a certain file of documents and pick out the ones he wanted. He accepted that offer. I want to make it clear that what I am saying now does not allude to him. But the other cases that I put forward in this house last year and this year represented thousands of man-hours that would be required to get the information, and I have had to ask my department to put in thousands of man-hours last year in order to try to bring in some of this information. This does not apply to the hon. member. Really my answer applies to other members.


Azellus Denis: Everyone will agree that we are interested in finding jobs for the unemployed as much as we can. This item has that object in view. As the minister has just said, the government has spent millions of dollars since its inception. I think it is over $6 million; the minister will correct me if I am wrong. I should like to know the exact amount of money provided by the federal government in order to help find some jobs in the provinces.
But what I am more interested in is this. I belong to the province of Quebec in which we have a government which is the best one since confederation. But unfortunately it is a place where there is greater unemployment. One third of the unemployed belong to the province of Quebec. In any event, I should like to know what amount of the money we are voting today will go to the province of Quebec. According to this item the provinces share when they enter into agreements. I should like to know from the minister whether there has been any agreement with regard to this item or any previous item of the same category. I should also like to know by exactly what amount the province of Quebec has benefited by this program. At the same time may we get a breakdown of the amounts by provinces, what is the benefit received by each province. We are greatly interested in knowing those figures.
79951-0-108i
Supply-Northern Affairs
In addition to that, within two or three months unfortunately we have had three premiers, I think we have had enough premiers to have at least one who could get along with the federal government and who could get in touch with the federal government and the federal government could have written letters to the province of Quebec. I should like to know if there has been communication between the federal government and province of Quebec as far as this item is concerned. Maybe the province of Quebec is not aware of the fact that Quebec can get a part of this amount of money or maybe the federal government is not interested in spending too much money in that province. I should like to know whether some steps have been taken, between the province of Quebec and the federal government, in order to tell the province of Quebec that this item still exists and that they can take advantage of it.


Mr. McFarlane:: I am also greatly interested in this item, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering whether the minister could give us any idea at all where these picnic areas are located, especially in British Columbia. I should also like to know the total amount contributed to British Columbia for last year. In our area we feel that actually we are not getting our fair share of picnic sites and campground areas. We have several ideal locations but so far we have not been able to get the provincial government to contribute toward them and to construct them. I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting the minister for the excellent service that has been given, especially in British Columbia. If I can get the information for which I have asked, I should appreciate it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder
whether I might be allowed to answer those two questions before they get too far advanced? The hon. member for St. Denis asked for the amount by which Quebec had benefited. To date it has been nil because they have not entered into the agreement the first winter nor the second winter. I am hopeful that they will reconsider their stand and come in on this program. There have been conversations with one or two of their ministers within the last two or three months and I am hopeful they will be fruitful.
The hon. member asked for the amount of money in each province. The hon. member for Kootenay East asked for the same thing. I can give the committee the figures for the two years which are complete, 1957-1958 and

Supply-Northern Affairs
1958-	1959. For British Columbia, for the first year 1957-58 the figure is $367,000. I will just use the round figures. The next year for British Columbia the figure is $387,000. For Alberta, the first year $104,000, the second year $225,000. For Saskatchewan, the first year $36,000, the second year $122,000. For Manitoba, the first year $90,000, the second year $125,000. For Ontario, the first year $604,000, the second year $880,000. For Nova Scotia, the first year $8,500, the second year $43,000. For Prince Edward Island, the first year $2,000, the second year nil. For Newfoundland, the first year $54,000, the second year nil. I have not the figures for the present winter.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I think I made a mistake when I said that in Quebec we have the best government since confederation; what I should have said was, according to Union Nationale. While I am on my feet I should like to know which of the premiers the minister was in communication with regarding this item, and what amount of money has been spent by the federal government up to date without Quebec having any share of it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is proper for me to mention individual names of ministers until some decision has been made. As to the second question, I did give the total figures at the opening of my remarks and I think you will be able to find them on the record tomorrow.
The total amount which has been spent to date by the federal government is $4.36 million. This will be a little larger by the end of the year. The expected amount at the end of the year will be $4.96 million. Roughly $5 million will be our share by the end of the
1959-	60 program. That means the total amount spent in the provinces will be $10 million, because our share is half.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, about the communication with the premier of Quebec, how was that done? Was it done by letter or telegram or communication of some kind? Did the minister send the letter or was it the other way round? We are very interested in knowing why Quebec is not sharing in this. We should like to know who is responsible for Quebec not sharing in it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I sent a letter to the premier of Quebec at the beginning of the program, and a second followup letter was sent to the premier of Quebec but I have forgotten the exact date. There have also been oral conversations in the last two or three months.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I notice in realizing the importance of the minister's remarks that there is nothing constructive as

far as Garibaldi is concerned. This has a rather unique significance. There is the vaguest suspicion in British Columbia that the Conservatives in Ottawa and the Social Credits in British Columbia are one and the same outfit. Now, I hope that is not so.


Mr. Henderson:: That is not true.


Erhart Regier: May I say that this is one time that I hope the expression of opinion of the hon. member for Cariboo is a fact. The minister has as much as admitted-


Walter Clarence Henderson: Pardon me; are you calling me a liar?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Clarence Henderson: The Social Credit-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Will the hon. member please sit down. I heard what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said, and I am sure the hon. member for Cariboo is mistaken.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I wish on this occasion to pay my respects to the hon. member who intervened, because I know very well indeed that he is not a supporter of the Social Credit government of British Columbia. He is a Conservative at heart, first, last and always. However, that will not prevent me from entering his riding when I see fit to do so.
However, I regret very much the minister having to admit that none of this money is likely to be spent on Garibaldi. It is important at this time that I raise this issue because of the announcement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in respect of the next Olympic games. I admit that he had to be mowed down by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister had to announce that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard did not know what he was talking about in regard to the next Olympic games. I feel this is regrettable indeed because here is an opening for Canada to make a name for itself. Here is a chance whereby we might utilize one of our greatest pleasure resorts. However, I feel it will take a little bit of leadership on the part of the minister and he will have to be a spear or a thorn with regard to the decisions made, not only by the existing government of British Columbia but also the governments we have had in the past. Garibaldi has to be made a national park if we are ever going to realize its full potentialities.
I hope that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano is going to participate in this debate because I have read a number of newspaper reports wherein he is reported to have claimed that he is going to fight in order to make a national park out of Garibaldi park. I hope he

will rise in his place and defend the news releases which have been issued either by him or on his behalf in the press.
All I am asking the minister now is, what leadership is the government at this time giving in the direction of making out of Garibaldi park a national park for the purpose that we might be able to share in the vote now before us? This would also provide national park facilities to the majority of the people of British Columbia in the area they now live, that is in the lower mainland.
I ask the minister what leadership his department is giving in that respect or are they humbly submitting to the old attitude of the British Columbia government that someday 100 or 150 years hence they will utilize the minerals in the park but in the meantime will take a dog in the manger attitude and not allow national development?


Mr. Payne:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word at this time. The area in question is in my riding and is known as Garibaldi park. I should like that understood so that all present will know the area whereof we speak. This is one of the finest alpine beauty spots in the world offering great possibilities for skiing and other sports activities.
I should further like to invite the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam sometime after the session concludes to come to God's country and have a look at the place. I think he might enjoy it. I should also like to extend that invitation to all hon. members of the committee. I can assure them they will receive a hospitable welcome and will see some of Canada's finest scenery.
I wish now to speak about my position in respect to this matter. I observe that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is chuckling away to himself, no doubt congratulating himself on having created a great deal of embarrassment for me. I can assure the hon. member that that is not so. I can further assure him that in the past two sessions, and again in this one, also in the areas in my riding, I really do believe, have required no spokesman to represent them other than the man the people of that riding have sent to this House of Commons. In saying this I hope I speak with a certain amount of modesty.
My position is well known on this question. I have announced in my riding and have stated in this chamber that I will support in every way the establishment of a national park in Garibaldi and will urge the federal government to do so when and if the province of British Columbia surrenders that which they now own, the park area. That is my established position and it will be
Supply-Northern Affairs a frosty Friday that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam or any other succeeds in embarrassing me in relation to the position I have taken because certainly it is well known throughout my area and in my riding.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I come from a province that I could talk about at great length too. I would like to know what Olympic games and Garibaldi park have to do with the item we are discussing. I should like to know whether we are all going to spend the evening talking about our own ridings and provinces or devote our attention to the item under consideration.


The Chairman:: As hon. members know I just arrived a few moments ago. I have noticed, however, that some latitude was given. If the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam who has been seeking the floor will assure me that he will speak for only about two minutes I will hear him.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I have no intention of putting the hon. member for Coast-Capilano on the spot. I wanted to remind him, though, that Garibaldi park is of as much concern to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam; and the hon. member for Fraser Valley as it is to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has returned to the committee- at least he was here a moment ago-because I think his criticism of the government's policy in regard to this item was uncalled for and unfair. I am pleased to see the hon. gentleman taking his seat at this moment. If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard the minister say that the amount expended by the government of Canada under this item had increased yearly and that it was not, as he characterized it, an election bait in the election campaign of 1958.
I commend the government for this program. In the province of Alberta we have increased the beauty of our highways under it and I have heard favourable comments from many tourists from all over Canada and the United States.
I should like also to thank the minister for giving us the information he gave tonight concerning the erection of these plaques because in Alberta the provincial government is taking all the credit for the erection of these enjoyable attractions and additions to our highways.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, may I just
follow the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to

Supply-Northern Affairs acknowledge that I am in the committee and to say to him that I would go further and state that this is a new policy. I will give full credit to the government for introducing this particular policy but my complaint is that it had not used this policy in the normal, official and proper way. It used this policy, - as I said, in a hanky-panky way for political purposes and not for the relief of unemployment during the winter months.


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, for several minutes I have been trying to get the Chair's attention to comment on something the minister said a few moments ago. I may be wrong but my memory is that he gave a summary of the total expenditures by provinces during the first two years of the scheme. He mentioned why Quebec was not included but I think he neglected to give any information on the province of New Brunswick. If that was an oversight I would appreciate it if the minister would give the figures, if any, for this province at the present time so the record will be correct.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, before we hear from the next hon. member I think the minister should answer the question just put by the hon. member for Westmorland. I can understand why there was no money spent in Quebec but we have in New Brunswick a different government from that in Quebec although I do not always agree with the policies of the government of New Brunswick. Also there are in New Brunswick so many beautiful potential sites for camping grounds and picnic areas that I cannot understand why New Brunswick did not take advantage of this program.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, if I neglected to give the figures for New Brunswick it was purely through inadvertence. The figure for the first year, 1957-58, is $45,000 and for the second year, $27,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister give the figures for Newfoundland?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, for Newfoundland the figure for the first year is $54,000 and for the second year nil.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word or two on this item because it relates to a program in western Canada and particularly in Alberta which I value and under which much benefit has been derived. In Macleod riding which I represent we think a lot of it.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has said it was hanky-panky and to a certain extent political. The hon. member usually carefully weighs his views before he speaks and I am sure his pronouncements carry much


weight with hon. members of this committee but in this particular instance when he described it as a political program he was completely wrong.
Let us take the province of Alberta for example. This is a co-operative program between the municipalities and the province. The province of Alberta administers the program. The federal government has virtually nothing whatever to say about where the projects are started in a given area or where the camping grounds or picnic areas are developed. Any allusion to the fact that the expenditure of that money is influenced by decision of the federal government is completely erroneous. That is certainly true in my riding and in all the ridings with which I am familiar.


William Moore Benidickson: It does not apply to Ontario; it may be right in Alberta.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Let me say this. Allusion was also made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to the fact that this item was not exact; in other words, he took issue with the minister and said that more exact figures should be brought before this committee so that we would know exactly the amount that was being spent. Now, he can think twice- and I am sure he is capable of doing this- and he would know that when you are starting these different projects, as these local and provincial governments are doing, you start where the need exists. For instance, in the Crowsnest pass area, during the past month and a half four new campsites and picnic areas were started in order to give employment.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that this program is fitting like a glove into those small areas, giving employment to the people whom one could not reach in any other way. Therefore, I say that those who pick on this program and say it was ill conceived and is being used for political purposes are completely out of order and completly wrong in their statements and such statements deserve to be challenged.
In closing, I want to compliment the minister on this program and I want to compliment the government on what they are doing. If and when there are any additional improvements needed I am sure it will be because of the efforts of those people in the municipalities, those people in the towns, those people in the provinces, who are looking to the dominion to pay 50 per cent of the bill they are putting forward in order to develop ways and means of giving employment and getting useful work done.
I should like the minister to answer this question. How much of the money in this

particular vote is to be devoted to the development of campgrounds, and picnic areas along the main trans-Canada highway? Is the program along the main trans-Canada highway being conducted on a 50-50 basis with the provincial government the same as it is with provincial roads?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the hon. member's question, the trans-Canada highway program of campgrounds and picnic sites is a separate vote. The agreement was that over a two-year period there would be an expenditure of $2 million on that item. We will share 50 per cent, but it is not limited to the winter months; it can be extended all during the year. Also, there is an agreement as to the location of those campgrounds and picnic sites. It was an agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments that there would be one campground in each 100 miles and one picnic site in each 50 miles. There was one condition that the federal government put in at the beginning, namely that these campground sites along the trans-Canada highway would not be charged for, but some of the provinces objected; therefore, we mutually agreed last fall in a conference that there would be charges if the province wished. That is all the information I can give at the present time except possibly to say that four provinces have already completed some of their campgrounds and picnic sites. Those provinces are British Columbia, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the future of this particular program. In commenting earlier the minister told us that in 1958-59 the actual expenditures had been $1.72 million. Then, in 1959-60 the actual expenditures were $2.3 million.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Estimated.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Estimated; the minister further told us that the program was going very well; that everyone was happy with it; that it should be a continuing program. Other hon. members have paid equal tribute to it. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin said that it is increasing yearly, as the figures which the minister gave us showed. The hon. member for Macleod told us that it is a program that hon. members think a lot of and that anyone who criticizes it, runs it down, or says that it is used for political purposes is out of order. What I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, is by what process of mental manipulation the minister arrives at the figure of $0.8 million as being required in the next fiscal year? Why would he anticipate that this program
Supply-Northern Affairs would be reduced to approximately one-third of the actual expenditures in 1959-60, when everyone has paid tribute to the fact that it is doing so well and is so well received in all parts of the country?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, probably the hon. member for Trinity was not here when I gave the explanation earlier. When we made up the estimates in the fall we had no way of knowing just what the provincial programs would consist of, and the figure of $0.8 million was put in for next year. Therefore, our supplementary estimates at this time of the year will take us up to March 31. We have a fairly good idea that the $800,000 we are voting now will cover us up to March 31 and that we have plans for this year's program right up to April and May, which we were pretty definite on, but you never know in the fall what the next program will come to.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I must inform the member for Macleod that I misinformed him. I said that the vote for the campgrounds and picnic sites on the trans-Canada highway was a separate item. The amounts are kept in a separate bookkeeping item, but actually the money comes out of the same item in the vote. I could have given this earlier but I did not notice it when I was answering the question. In the year 1958-59, out of a total of $1.72 million, $1.5 million was in the supplementaries for campgrounds and picnic sites, and there was no expenditure that first year along the trans-Canada highway. But in the second year, 1959-60, of the $2.3 million that is estimated up to the end of this March, $1.85 million of that was for campgrounds under the winter works program, and $0.45 million was for the trans-Canada highway. Therefore, there will be in this fiscal year roughly $500,000 spent. Next year, based on the submissions of the provinces so far, for the year starting April 1 and going into next year, $0.9 million is winter works and $0.8 million is trans-Canada highway. If the winter program is extended on into next year we may have a different vote. I have told the committee about the supplementaries, and these are the best estimates I have at the present time.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Did I understand the minister to say that the provinces were contributing 50-50 on the trans-Canada highway?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


William Moore Benidickson: Ninety per cent on some portions under the Liberal proposition.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Mr. Nielsen:: The minister mentioned the participation of 10 provinces in the campground and picnic sites program. I wonder whether the minister would correct me if I am wrong. Does the government of the Yukon not also participate in this program with the federal government to establish campgrounds and picnic sites? If so, what was the federal participation last year and the year before?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I apologize to the hon. member for Yukon. There is a program in the Yukon territory on a half and half basis. I was looking at the figures for campgrounds last night and along 500 to 600 miles of highway through the Yukon there are now campgrounds and picnic sites approximately every 41 miles on the average, which have been provided by the government at Ottawa and the territorial government. It is a very pleasant highway to drive along.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has just said that this item of $800,000 in the final supplemen-taries, repeating what he said a few moments ago, is an item for the same program as the item of $800,000 in the main estimates which are also before us. He explained that the reason is that at the time the main estimates were drawn up the minister and the department did not have any exact knowledge of what money would be required under a program which, according to the minister, has been so successful. Surely the minister, knowing how much was to be spent in the current year through the main estimates and the final supplementaries-as a matter of fact, the total amount is $2,300,000-in the light of that information should have put more than $800,000 in the main estimates for the coming year. He has already told us also that he knows now that he is going to need another $900,000, almost $1 million. The Minister of Finance brings in his main estimates and makes a great play of the fact that he has reduced controllable expenditures but now we have learned that he has to add $1 million to his controllable expenditures next year because the minister is going to need nearly $1 million. He is going to need $900,000.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that
opens up the whole issue of the last eight days. These expenditures are for the benefit of the unemployed. We have not been reducing these expenditures. There is the winter works program and as far as this general campground program is concerned we have offered to go as far as the provinces want to go. There is no limit. The provinces are still submitting programs for the coming fiscal year. I will not be able to tell the house for two or three months yet what the precise amount will be for the next fiscal year but I have tried to be frank with the committee and

give an idea of what the program was costing and what it was doing in a small way to help the unemployed during the winter months.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister say whether or not there is any limit on the amount of money that the government intends to recommend to parliament for this program? Is there any limit on the total amount?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, it is an
open end offer at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister would tell us what estimate he submitted to the treasury board last fall in the light of the fact he knew he was going to spend over $2 million. Is this just another case of that flimflam that the Minister of Finance gave us when he brought down the main estimates? In other words, the minister submitted an estimate of over $2 million and the Minister of Finance said, "We will knock $1 million off it now and you can bring it in under a supplementary". I think we ought to have the Minister of Finance here to tell us about this. He is the one who is responsible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I understood the minister to say that he now knows that another $900,000 in addition to the $800,000 will have to be spent. Is that right?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what he said.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The supplementary estimate with which we are dealing now is for $800,000 which takes us to the end of this month. We know that almost definitely within $4,000 or $5,000. At the time I made up my estimates last fall the estimated amount for the period March 31 to May 31 was $800,000. Since that time programs along the trans-Canada highway have come in on which we had no information at that time. I was quite frank with the committee tonight when I said that on the basis of present estimates it looks as though we will have to ask for approximately $900,000 in the supplementaries for 1960-61 but I will not know the correct amount until the provinces have completed the submission of their programs.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, I hope I am not out of order in speaking on item 618, but since the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano brought up the question of the Olympics I should like to extend to all members of the House of Commons and to their wives and to their constituents an invitation to the world Olympics in 1968 at Banff, Alberta. At Banff, Alberta, we not only have

beauty but we do not have to build a mountain as would have to be done in Garibaldi park.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the hon. member know that he will not be around here in 1968?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the minister just told us in his explanation, for which we thank him, that when he presented his estimate to treasury board and the Minister of Finance last fall he knew that an amount of approximately $800,000 would be required for the period from March 31 to May 31.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, I said that we estimated that the amount we would need from March 31 to May 31 for the coming fiscal year would be $800,000.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is precisely the point. The minister is telling us that in these few months he expects he will spend $800,000 and yet this is an estimate put in the estimates tabled in the house for the whole fiscal year. The fiscal year of the government is not from March 31 to May 31; it is for 12 months. How can the minister come here and tell us that he is only making provision in what he is asking for in the main estimates for the period March 31 to May 31? Can he project on the basis of past experience approximately what he would expect to spend on this program for the full 12-month period?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman. There is a lack of comprehension on the part of some members of the opposition. The campground and picnic site program I am speaking about now has a winter works part to it which extends from November 1 to May 31 and covers part of two fiscal years. The program is decided each year on the basis of the unemployment situation. I am always hopeful that the program will be renewed next year but until it is renewed I cannot put an item in the main estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I pointed out that under the same vote there is the other part having to do with trans-Canada highway picnic grounds which is an agreement that runs over the full 12 months for two years. If the provinces submit their estimates of work to be done under that program I can then calculate what I think I will need for the next year, and I have given the house tonight information that was not available four months ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has made the precise point. He says that the part from March 31 to May 31 is the winter works part of the program. What about the money 79951-0-109
Supply-Northern Affairs that will have to be expended next fall from October until the following March? Is that not next year's winter works program and does the minister not anticipate at this time the necessity of having to carry on the program then, because he has told us it is open-ended? It is a blank cheque to the provinces. They can submit any number of projects and they will be approved. Can the minister not foresee the approximate extent of the program next winter in view of his experience in the last two years?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will try to spell it out in very simple terms for the hon. member. The program for the winter of
1960-61, the coming fall until the following spring, has not been decided on by the government and will not be until we have a picture of the unemployment situation next fall.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister
if what he is saying now is that the government does not know whether it is going to carry on this program in the winter of 1960-61? If so, where did he get the figure of $900,000 he was telling us about? Is that another $900,000 for March to May or is it just a figure he pulled out of his head?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I must be having some trouble-


George James McIlraith: You are.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -getting across to hon. gentlemen across the aisle a very simple proposition. First, the program of campgrounds and picnic sites to provide winter work runs from November 1 last to next May, and this vote is divided into two fiscal years. We know fairly definitely the amount of money we will need for this program and that has been indicated in the supplementary estimates we are dealing with now and the main estimates for next year. In addition to the winter works program, which is split into two fiscal years, there is a campground and picnic site program for the trans-Canada highway which works the full 12 months and which also covers two fiscal years.


William Moore Benidickson: But that expires December 31, 1960.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not sure of the exact date, but I have to work the two programs into one vote. I think if hon. members just take it quietly and think about this for a while they will realize this is an accurate explanation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the minister for this further explanation, and I hope he now thoroughly understands his program.

Supply-Northern Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister's explanation may be satisfactory to him, but how does he explain the fact that last year at this time there was a figure of $1.5 million in the main estimates, yet he has reduced that item of $1.5 million in the main estimates to a figure of $800,000 this year in connection with a program which was so successful? Last year, at this time in the main estimates there was $1.5 million and now he has $800,000. How does he explain that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister not going to deal with the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition? Otherwise, the minister is obviously establishing the fact that he has agreed with the Minister of Finance, for the purpose of bookkeeping, to enable the Minister of Finance to give a false picture as to the financial situation in this country. The minister knows when these estimates are prepared what his requirements are. These supplementary estimates should have contained more, and this was an effort to assist the Minister of Finance in showing the government's expenditures for a given period are at a reduced level. Is this not so, and why does the minister not help the passage of this item by frankly admitting that was the real purpose behind this particular accounting method?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot cope with the hon. member for Essex East in his dialectical semantics.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister explain why he has reduced this item from $1.5 million to $800,000 this year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: For the very clear reason, Mr. Chairman, that I go by the estimates of my officials, what they think the items will cost. If there was any such idea as that suggested by the hon. member for Essex East in our minds, then we obviously would not have made an open-ended deal, we would have closed it off.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister a question. The minister says he requires another $800,000. Does the minister give us an undertaking that if this $800,000 were voted now, not one cent will be spent after March 31?


George Harris Hees: What are you trying to do, limit us?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am just asking for information.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has said this is an item which deals with unemployment, and that is why they are asking for this money. We have shown he reduced the estimate from


$1.5 million to $800,000 on an item which provides work, and he has no explanation for that reduction.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think we can let the hon. member get away with a thing like that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There it is; there are the figures.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member takes these two figures and draws his own conclusions from them. All I am going to point out is that I do the best I can with the information I have before me from each of the provinces. This is not the federal government doing the estimating, but the provinces submitting their intentions for the coming year. All I tried to do was make it clear to the committee the way the expenditures run in connection with this program. First of all, we do not actually know, at this time of year, what the final expenditures will be. No person does. This is the best estimate we have.


George James McIlraith: The minister is pointing out that notwithstanding his experience in the two previous years with this program, and knowing that, he estimated the expenditures for this year at just half what he estimated them a year ago, although the expenditures for a year ago had increased by 50 per cent over the estimate. Surely he does not expect the house to believe the explanation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance ought to be in here to face this.


William Moore Benidickson: He has not been here throughout the debate on unemployment.


Murdo William Martin: It is not often I find myself in agreement with my hon. friends to the left. However, if we accept the argument of the minister we must, at the same time, completely reject the presentations made by hon. members from the various provinces across the country. We have been told by hon. members from various provinces across the country that this has been a very successful program, but a successful program is not curtailed, it is expanded. If we accept the explanation of the minister, the departmental officials in their wisdom and from their experience have cut this estimate in half which would mean that the program has not been successful and, therefore, they have cut it in half. We cannot have it both ways. Either the minister is right, and the recommendations of his department, or hon. members are definitely wrong in the picture they are painting. I think the minister should give a better explanation of this item than he has given so far.


Azellus Denis: In Quebec, it is about the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
619. Acquisition of the pipelines (including the oil therein) and related facilities that are located in Canada and that belong to the United States government and form part of what is known as the Canol pipeline system, $670,000.
George James McIlraith: I would like to ask the minister exactly what facilities are being purchased, what facilities are covered by this item?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the best way to handle this is to give briefly the story of the Canol pipeline system. During world war II, as a result of an agreement between the United States and Canada, four pipelines were constructed by the United States army in Canada. Canol pipelines, as these were called, consisted of four main divisions. Canol No. 1 was a four-inch line from Norman Wells to Whitehorse; Canol No. 2, a four-inch line from Skagway to Whitehorse; Canol No. 3, a two-inch line from Carcross to Watson Lake; Canol No. 4, a three-inch from Whitehorse to Fairbanks, Alaska.
The four-inch line, that is the line from Norman Wells to Whitehorse, was dismantled in 1947 by agreement between the two governments. The Canadian portion of the four-inch line from Skagway to Whitehorse was transferred to Canada in 1958, without a transfer payment as was specified in a note between the two countries. In 1958 the Alaska portion from Skagway to the Canadian border and the terminal pumping facilities at Skagway were transferred to the White Pass and Yukon Corporation by the United States army.
As a result of negotiations completed just recently between Canada and the United States it was agreed that the Canadian section of the three-inch line from Whitehorse up to Fairbanks, and the two-inch line from Car-cross down to Watson Lake, with all the appurtenant facilities of both lines, would be transferred to Canada effective February 29, 1960. This date has been changed just recently to March 31, 1960. We thought we would be at these estimates a little sooner. The compensation to be paid was based on an evaluation to be made by appraisers appointed by each government to determine the current market value of these assets. In their joint appraisal report of May, 1959, the appraisers estimated the current commercial value at $1,710,777.
Taking into consideration such factors as customs levies sales and income taxes and the release of the United States from certain obligations, it was agreed by Canada and the United States, as a result of a joint meeting on September 9, 1959, that the transfer price should be $617,021. In addition to the transfer 79951-0-109i
Supply-Northern Affairs price it was agreed that Canada should purchase the oil in the three-inch line at the date of transfer at cost plus a reasonable charge for handling. The value of this oil was calculated to be $51,920.40, United States funds. That is where the situation lies now.
The Canadian section from Carcross to Watson Lake and the Canadian section from Whitehorse to the United States boundary at Alaska is now being transferred to Canada. When the transfer is completed the government will have the question of disposition before it.


George James McIlraith: I have just one question by way of clarification. First, I want to thank the minister for the explanation he has given. But am I to understand from him there is no allowance made for customs and taxation in the item we are now voting and that it refers to payment to the United States plus payment for oil and certain other matters?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. The value, according to the appraiser was $1.7 million.


George James McIlraith: Yes; I heard that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: But in the negotiations that followed the argument of the Canadian government was that this material had been brought in without custom duties, without sales tax and so on and therefore the price should be reduced. Also under the agreement the United States had certain obligations to Canada and we argued that in view of the fact they had not paid these taxes the price should be reduced to this figure you see in the estimates of $585,000 plus the cost of the oil, or a total figure of $670,000.


George James McIlraith: I wanted to be clear on that point. There is nothing in this item providing for charging any customs now that the Canadian government through the department is acquiring it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I gather that this estimate is to pay for the completion of a series of transactions covering the Canol pipe line project going back a good many years and this particular transaction, I think the minister stated, covered Canol No. 4.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Canol No. 4 and perhaps part of Canol No. 3. In any event, can the minister tell us when the earlier transaction was completed dealing with the other parts of the pipe line, the dates they were completed and the cost of the Canadian government in taking over the other parts of the line?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The four-inch line from Norman Wells to Whitehorse was just dismantled so there is just no taking

Supply-Northern Affairs over there. That is the section from Mackenzie river up over the Mackenzie mountains down to Whitehorse. That was the four-inch line. Then as to Canol No. 2, the four-inch line from Skagway to Whitehorse via Car-cross, the Canadian portion of that line was transferred in 1958 without transfer payment as specified in paragraph 7 of the annex to the note 288, dated June 30, 1953. In 1958, as I said earlier, the Alaska portion from Skagway to the Canadian border and the terminal facilities at Skagway were transferred to the Whitepass and Yukon Corporation by the United States army. That was under the note of June 30, 1953. But the value of the balance, it was agreed, should be decided by these appraisers. Instead of it being $1.7 million, thanks to some very good bargaining on the part of some of our officials, the amount was reduced to approximately this figure of $700,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister why we took this line over at all? What value has this particular line to us?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The first thing to remember about the line is that it is in use all the time. It is used to bring oil from Skagway up into Whitehorse following the right of way of the White Pass and Yukon Railway. It is also used-and we hope will be used- to run to the new refinery which is being built at Haines Junction. There is a new refinery there. I think it was built last year and it is in operation now. By taking over this line it is hoped we can work out eventually some deal that will bring cheaper fuel to the people of Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Having regard to the minister's remarks concerning the refinery at Haines Junction, is it contemplated in the transfer of the pipe line assets to the Canadian government that any subsequent arrangement is going to be made with the operators of this refinery in Haines Junction for transfer to them of these assets? Is the government in the course of negotiating with these people now for such a transfer or does the minister know whether any application has been made, for instance, to the board of transport commissioners for the operation of any line crossing the Alaska-Yukon boundary? While the minister is on his feet answering these questions perhaps he might inform me who the appraisers were who made the estimate of the value of the line being transferred.


George James McIlraith: Before the minister answers I wonder whether I might raise with him a very small matter? In his answer a moment ago to the Leader of the Opposition I believe he stated that part of this line being
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

purchased under this item was used to transport oil from Skagway to Whitehorse. I think that is not what he intended to say. As I understood his earlier remark, the part being purchased under this item is the part from Whitehorse extending to the Alaska boundary. I just wanted clarification of that point.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. There is no difference between us. The first part from the Canadian border to Whitehorse was taken over last summer or at least in 1958. It is being operated at the present time by White Pass and Yukon. The two lines we are taking over are one from Whitehorse to the Alaska and Yukon boundary, and the other pipe line running down via Carcross to Watson lake. The hon. member for Yukon asked about the disposition.
These matters are now before the government. At the present time White Pass and Yukon, is operating the section from Skagway through to Whitehorse and the refining company has asked that they may take over the line that runs up to the Alaska border. That is as much as I can say at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: The reason I asked, of course, is that I understand-although I may be incorrect in this understanding-that White Pass and Yukon who operate that section of the line from Skagway to Whitehorse supply petroleum products now to Yukon and they offered, I believe, to the board of transport commissioners two and a half or three years ago to operate the line as a common carrier; that is to say, if another firm or petroleum distributor wishes to come into the area to compete with White Pass they could do so as a common carrier with that line. I raise this point because I think some people fear that should there be placed in operation another supplier of petroleum products, another line into the Yukon, this may have an effect opposite to that of saving the user of petroleum products in the Yukon any money.
I wonder whether the minister can assure the committee now whether it is the intention to place this matter-namely the matter of the possibility of a transfer of this facility to any other petroleum distributor intending to operate either in Yukon or Alaska-before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The point raised by the hon. member for Yukon has not been considered by me or the government but I will take it under advisement because we still have the disposition of these pipe lines to decide.

I was asked a question as to who are the appraisers. The names I have here are Mr. J. Bland of Defence Production for Canada and Mr. Darnielle, a United States professional appraiser. I do not know his initials.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the explanation of the minister to the purchase of this pipe line by the government, but I am not very clear yet as to the reason the government purchased it. Why did they purchase it if there are private interests who want to operate and rent it? By purchasing it in this way they are just assuming a liability which otherwise would have been assumed by private interests. Now they have purchased it, why are they not considering operating it as a crown corporation? We would like a further explanation as to the reason the government intends to spend $670,000 of this country's money on the purchase of this pipe line, while at the same time, according to the minister's remarks, he seemed very vague as to the disposition of the property after it is purchased.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, before the minister makes a reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West may I place on record my very violent opposition to any suggestion that the pipe lines in the Yukon be operated by a crown corporation. The White Pass and Yukon route have been in operation there for some 60 years and depend to a very large extent for their existence on the operation of the petroleum distribution system. Any detraction from their position by the government coming in and competing with them and controlling the supply and distribution would, I am afraid, severely interrupt, if not bring about a cessation of their over-all operation of shipping; their railroading and trucking operations throughout the whole of the Yukon territory. They have built it up over the years and one of the mainstays of the operation is the petroleum distribution business, so any competition in this way by a crown corporation would be quite unacceptable.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers I would also like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for the Yukon. I believe we have too many crown companies now and this is a way by which on government can take over from another government commonly owned assets. There should be a transitional stage and it should then be turned over to some private operator up there who can operate it under our free enterprise system. Let us keep the crown out of this.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had
Supply-Northern Affairs anything further to add to what the minister from the Yukon has just said. I am interested to know why we are spending $670,000 of public money when apparently the minister said today, and as the hon. member for the Yukon added by way of further explanation, that it is intended to turn the property over to a private company, although at the present time the disposition of the property is not quite certain. What is the reason for purchasing this property when at the present time the government does not even know what its disposition will be?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the answer is quite simple. The lines were built in 1942, and as part of the agreement Canada agreed to purchase these facilities when the war should end. Negotiations started shortly after the war, were carried on and are now completed.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I think this is hardly good enough. The minister is now asking us to spend almost $1 million of the taxpayer's money to buy something which, if I gauge his remarks rightly, he intends to hand over to private enterprise immediately afterwards. I think it is hardly good enough to ask the taxpayers of Canada to bail out something that is obviously bankrupt at the present time in order to make it available to private enterprise to make some money. I object very strenuously to this.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave that wild thought floating around this chamber. It is not for me to say whether this Canol pipe line was a wise thing to undertake during the war years, but I would like to point out to the committee that it cost several hundred millions of dollars and the United States put up all the money. If after this tremendous expenditure we end up with the useful parts of the line for a sum of a little over half a million dollars I do not think the taxpayers can feel they have had a bad deal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister assure the house that if the property is sold for private interests the taxpayer will not lose more than this estimate, or whatever the cost is?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister will guarantee that whatever arrangement is made it will be on the basis of a common carrier provision in the agreement to make sure that any company can use these lines. Second, the decision which the government will make, I am sure, will be based on finding ways and means of bringing the lowest priced fuel to this newly developed part of Canada.	.
house: of commons
Business of the House


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, is it not a fact that any disposition of these lines must be handled through the board of transport commissioners, so that the government cannot give any guarantee as to it being a common carrier?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member may be right, Mr. Chairman. Applications probably have to be made to the board of transport commissioners, but I would also remind him that at the present time, if this item goes through, we can pay off the United States and then transfer it over as of March 31. Then we will be owners of the appurtenances and will have some say in the matter.


Erhart Regier: Will the minister explain why it is necessary for the government to enter that arrangement at all, if private enterprises are expected to be the operators? The sum of $1 million does not mean much to oil companies, so why should not they be the people who do the buying? Why does the taxpayer have to foot the bill in the first place?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is a very simple reason. This is an agreement between two sovereign nations and the agreement has to be completed by Canada fulfilling its obligation of purchasing the facilities. Once the facilities are purchased then it becomes a matter within the country and we will take the necessary steps to make such disposition as is fair and reasonable.


Erhart Regier: I would like to ask whether agreements are already in existence whereby the government agrees, once they have concluded the purchase, to resell this pipe line to individual interests and, if so, what are the terms of the agreement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no such agreement, Mr. Chairman.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue this matter a little further. I do not know about other hon. members, but I for one am not satisfied with the answer given by the minister at the present time. In order to give this matter the consideration it deserves, I wonder if I might call it ten o'clock?
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before Your Honour leaves the chair I wonder if the leader of the house could give us a preview of next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to, Mr. Speaker, but these previews are very misleading because this week, although I had outlined quite a bit of business, we did not get very far. I think it is rather useless setting out half a dozen items of business when we are just inching our way forward. However, for tomorrow, Friday, in view of the urgency which is now attached to the passing of the supplementary estimates, some of the items we have already passed and some that are coming forward require special attention at the earliest possible moment in order that payments which have been delayed may be made, we shall continue with the supplementary estimates. Hon. members will, if they look at the supplementary estimates, realize that some of these things are getting to be critical when it comes either to payment to the provinces for money they have advanced or payment to farmers, for example, under the health of animals division, compensation for animals slaughtered and things of that nature.
So tomorrow my hope is that we can finish the supplementary estimates and then carry on with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. It is my hope that we will finish the supplementary estimates in good time so that the estimates of the Department of Agriculture can be considered with some thoroughness. If the supplementary estimates are delayed until quite late in the day I must reserve the right to shift the business to something that is perhaps smaller in content than the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the Prime Minister proposes to make his statement on grain deficiency payments tomorrow as he indicated he would?


George Harris Hees: He will if you give him a chance but you are holding him up with this filibuster conducted by the Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could remind the minister that the Prime Minister said categorically on Tuesday that we would take the agriculture estimates as the first item on Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the contrary, I indicated when I was outlining the program on March 1 that we would take the agriculture estimates as the first item on Friday but I fully expected that the supplementary estimates would be completed at that time. Let me remind hon. gentlemen of the words used by the Prime Minister on the occasion referred to as reported at page 1583 of Hansard of March 1:
When they are introduced I will then do that which I have been looking forward to doing for

the last two or three weeks; that is, give an answer in detail, together with the reasons and arguments in support thereof, something I cannot do other than when debate is permitted.
The Prime Minister was referring to his statement on agricultural policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that he did not read all that the Prime Minister said. That right hon. gentleman also said that regardless of what progress might be made the agricultural estimates would be taken on Friday. The
Business of the House
minister will find it in that statement if he looks carefully.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged, Mr. Speaker. There is no such statement as "regardless of what progress was made".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the full statement then.


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