1960-03-01

NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That items numbered 242 to 255 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1960-61, relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on estimates, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That items numbered 457 to 482 inclusive, and 495 to 497 inclusive, as listed in the main estimates 1960-61, relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, presented to the house on Thursday, February 25, be concurred in.


Mr. J. P. Deschateleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move an amendment to this motion, but before doing so I wish to say a few words in explanation.
On Thursday last, February 25, the standing committee on industrial relations met for organizational purposes. There was no definite agenda before the committee, and there was discussion as to the advisability of requesting from the house the right to sit while the house itself was sitting. The hon. member for Essex East made a motion-


Mr. Speaker:: I must question whether it is proper to refer to what took place in committee before the committee has reported. I
suppose this is a report of the committee, and in so far as what the hon. member is saying relates to this report it would be in order. Perhaps there is some contrary view. I just raise the question.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker. If I understand correctly we have now a motion before us for the adoption of a report. This motion is, I submit, a debatable one. The report itself contains two items. One has to do with printing, and the other is a request to sit while the house itself is sitting. I am endeavouring to keep my remarks in line with the second item, to wit, the right to sit while the house is sitting.
The hon. member for Essex East expressed the view that if the committee should sit while the house is sitting it should study the problem of unemployment. The Conservative members of this committee were in favour of a request to sit while the house is sitting, but they, and especially the hon. member for Essex West, opposed the motion to study unemployment.
In dealing with this request to have the standing committee sit while the house is sitting I should like to refer to Hansard of February 15, 1954 at page 2102, where the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was then the private hon. member for Prince Albert and a member of the opposition, had this to say:
A committee set up to study and report on unemployment would hear evidence of those who are warning this government and the country of the need for action now.
If this suggestion the present Prime Minister advanced at that time, was standing on only one leg, it is surely standing on two legs today when we have twice as much unemployment as we had at that time.
The motion before the house now seeks to grant the standing committee on industrial relations the right to sit while the house is sitting. We have no objection to this provided that the committee studies the problem of unemployment which has reached a state of national emergency.
I propose to move an amendment, but before doing so I should like to appeal to the Prime Minister and to each and every hon. member of this house. Let us take this golden opportunity to instigate action. This may be the last opportunity we will have during this session. We should not only grant this

Industrial Relations Committee standing committee the right to sit while the house is sitting, but at the same time we should empower it with full authority to investigate the most serious domestic problem facing Canada today.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc):
That the said report be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the standing committee on industrial relations with instruction that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that the committee not sit while the house is sitting until the definite subject of unemployment is referred to it for study.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been asked to accept an amendment which to my mind is out of order. It is open to the house to amend the motion to accept the report of the committee which is before the house. The report of the committee reads in part as follows:
Your committee recommends:
1.	That it be empowered to print, from day to day, such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order No. 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That is one part. The other part reads:
2.	That it be granted leave to sit while the house is sitting.
As I understand the procedure it would be in order to adopt the report in part or to amend the report within its terms, but the rule of relevancy applies equally to a motion to amend the report of a committee as it does to any other amendment. The proposed amendment goes beyond the committee's report, in that it seeks to give a new instruction in these words:
-that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that the committee not sit while the house is sitting until the definite subject of unemployment is referred to it for study.
That is attaching a condition to the acceptance of the second paragraph of the report. If an instruction is to be given to the committee, notice of it will have to be put on the order paper and the motion moved in the ordinary way, because it is an originating motion, unless it can be brought within the four corners of the rule of relevancy that I have suggested.
That is my view of this amendment. Before dealing with it I should be glad to hear any hon. member who feels that the rules support a contrary view.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to speak to the point of order and bring to Your Honour's attention one or two points which I believe are relevant. While Your Honour has said that the motion is out of order, you have not given the citation or the standing order under which the hon. member's amendment is out of order. Your Honour has simply said that
[Mr. Deschetelets.l

the amendment is out of order; that it goes beyond the committee's report and that it attaches a condition to a paragraph of the report, notice of which must be given. It is with that statement of Your Honour that I respectfully take issue.
My reasons for stating that this amendment is in order are first of all that it does not go beyond the terms of the report made by the hon. member. It does not go beyond them because it offers in amendment to the two things which are under discussion and which are now before the house, namely power to print a certain number of copies and to sit while the house is sitting, that the power be taken by the committee not to sit while the house is sitting until such and such a thing is done.
What I should like particularly to bring to Your Honour's attention is the motion made by the Prime Minister himself shortly after the establishment of those committees, which I think is germane to the issue. The motion was the following:
That the standing committees of this house be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
And so on. What the hon. member is doing now is amending the motion before the house to send this report to the committee and give it the powers that the Prime Minister moved in the motion he made following the establishment of the committees. Therefore, having regard to that motion, the amendment of the hon. member is in order.
There are other points, but I will not take the time of the house to deal with them now; they are contained in citation 291 of Beau-chesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms", fourth edition. They are also contained in May's sixteenth edition at page 605, which I will not read because I do not want to take up the time of the house unduly. But I do say that all these citations, sir, point to the fact that where wider powers are being given-and that is not the intention of this amendment; this amendment simply refers the matter back to the committee for consideration of the direction that it should not sit while the house is sitting except to consider the subject of unemployment. The Prime Minister, when he sat in opposition, spoke to a motion by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Green). So that I will not be accused of misquoting I shall quote from what the Prime Minister said at page 2103 of Hansard of February 15, 1954:
After all, we are $10,000 a year men and women now, and would welcome all the worth-while work we can get to do. A committee such as this-

That was a committee on unemployment.
-would make a sphere of endeavour available to members that could not but be advantageous, that could not but bring forth suggestions which the government might find helpful to meet a situation which is becoming worse.
Then he went on to say:
We are not trying to build up fears that will bring on a depression. What we are trying to do is have parliament make a contribution now, to the end that we shall be able as a nation to compete in the markets of the world and thereby assure employment to Canadians in Canada. That is the purpose of this amendment, and it was in that spirit we moved it.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What was the amendment?


Lionel Chevrier: The amendment, sir-


Mr. Green:: On a motion to go into committee of supply, was it not?


Lionel Chevrier: -was as follows:
Whereas the facts respecting unemployment recently presented to the government by Canada's two largest labour organizations are widely at variance with the statements issued by the government.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that a select committee should be appointed immediately for the purpose of examining into and reporting upon the actual unemployment situation throughout Canada and for the purpose of making recommendations to this house as to short term and long term methods for dealing effectively with this problem.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Was that not an amendment on a motion to go into supply?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Caught again.


Lionel Chevrier: -that was an amendment to a motion to go into committee of supply, and what the hon. member is doing at the moment is moving an amendment to the report of the industrial relations committee to discuss the very same matter which the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra were seeking to discuss at that time. The hon. member has made it very clear that the situation today is much worse than it was then.


Mr. Hees:: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: It is several times worse. I submit that the amendment moved by the hon. member is quite in order in view of the previous motion by the Prime Minister that this committee be given all the powers required in order that a matter such as this could be studied.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I expect that the citations Your Honour clearly had in
Industrial Relations Committee mind when you first raised the question will now be under your hand; but perhaps I might be permitted to take a moment or two to refer to them and to refute the attempt by the hon. member for Laurier to apply a completely inapplicable precedent, in which attempt, however, he was neatly exposed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The two principles which I submit make this amendment clearly out of order at this time are those regarding relevancy of amendments and that new matter cannot be raised except on a distinct motion after notice. You will agree, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed amendment is not relevant to the motion before the house and, further, that it is so irrelevant that it raises an entirely different and new proposition which can only be properly raised by motion after notice. In that regard I would refer Your Honour to citation 203 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 171, which in subparagraph 1 reads as follows:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
Then to complete the exposure of the attempt made by the hon. member for Laurier to apply as a precedent for this situation, an amendment made on a motion to go into supply, Beauchesne continues:
The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into supply or ways and means.
So I do not think I need say more. I do not really believe that the hon. member himself thought he would get away with it. With regard to the question-


Lionel Chevrier: You are anticipating the ruling.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now, with regard to the question of relevancy, Mr. Speaker, the same citation, subparagraph 5 reads:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
I submit that applies to this amendment. What this amendment actually seeks to do is to give the committee new instructions. It is not amending the motion to adopt the committee's report, it is an attempt to give the committee new instructions and new powers. The amendment says-I had better read it.
That the said report be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the standing committee on industrial relations with instruction that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that the committee not sit while the house is sitting until the definite subject of unemployment is referred to it for study.

Industrial Relations Committee
You will recall the principle, Mr. Speaker, that the moving of instructions to a committee is a matter that requires a motion, which motion can only be moved after due notice has been given. I have not been able in the time at my disposal to put my hand on the specific rule, but it is found in that part of Beauchesne's fourth edition starting at page 236.
Now, the very fact that many of these motions have been required to stand instead of concurrence being granted later that day when the committee first reported is the result of this rule that no motion of such importance as this may be brought up in the house and debated on the same day it is first moved because, in fairness, the house requires notice of any such proposal. Since, therefore an attempt is being made, under the guise of an amendment to the motion to adopt the committee's report, to give the committee specific and further instructions, then of course that is an attempt that must fail; because it would be an attempt to take the house by surprise by debating a motion of which the house has not had adequate notice.
I submit, therefore, that on both branches- that the amendment is not relevant to the motion before us, and that it raises a new matter which can only be brought before the house on a distinct motion after notice- the amendment is out of order.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I think, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Justice has said does not shed much light on the point about which Your Honour asked the house for its views in connection with the decision that confronts you. I thought at first the Minister of Justice was going to discuss whether this particular motion was debatable. However, since there is now no argument on that point we can address ourselves to the main consideration; that is, whether or not the amending motion is relevant to the main motion. The main motion is a motion for concurrence. The amendment is certainly relevant to the motion for concurrence as it sets out the circumstances under which that concurrence is acceptable to certain hon. gentlemen.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note the form of the amending motion. It is drawn according to the form outlined for motion No. 95 which will be found on page 397 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. I am sure Your Honour, when he looks at the form of the motion contained on page 397 of Beauchesne, will see the force of the argument I have just put forward. We are adopting this particular procedural technique because under the rules

relating to standing committees of the house it is not possible for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision.
The committee on industrial relations in its first report seeks leave through the chairman to sit while the house is sitting; and the decision, as I say, cannot be reversed by the committee itself. My authority for that statement is citation 322, which will be found in Beauchesne at page 251 of the fourth edition. Citation 322, to which I have just made reference, provides a way out of the difficulty that confronts a committee once a decision has been taken by it, and that is by a decision of this house, instructing the committee to reconsider its decision, in this case restricting the sittings of the committee while the house is sitting to those occasions when the committee of the house is dealing with the subject of unemployment, which is the particular instruction which we wish the house to give at this time.
The report of the committee with which we are asked to concur is to be found at page 200 of Votes and Proceedings for last Thursday, and in the report the following appears:
Your committee recommends:
1.	That it be empowered to print, from day to day. such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
2.	That it be granded leave to sit while the house is sitting.
I submit to Your Honour that the amending motion is quite relevant to the second recommendation of the committee's report. The effect of the amendment is simply to restrict the sittings of the committee on industrial relations while the house is sitting to sittings dealing with the subject of unemployment. The house is asked in this motion for concurrence to grant the committee leave to sit while the house is sitting, and the amendment limits the application of that leave to sittings of the committee dealing with unemployment.
If Your Honour has any further doubt, may I put this question. Would it not be possible in an amending motion to restrict such sittings of this particular committee while the house is sitting to certain days of the week? That surely would be relevant, and if that would be relevant it is relevant too, I suggest, that this house has the power to instruct this committee to sit, under certain circumstances, on certain days of the week or in respect of a certain subject matter.
That is the submission which I make to Your Honour, with much confidence in its validity. I also refer Your Honour to citation-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Your confidence is unjustified.

Industrial Relations Committee Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl): The Minister of either permissive or mandatory. They refer Finance (Mr. Fleming), who has just come to the action which might be taken in respect back from another place, has some observa- of bills which are referred to the committee tion to make?	for consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I was just venturing the opinion that the confidence which the hon. member has just evinced in his own argument is entirely unjustified.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say-this has nothing to do with my procedural argument-is that I welcome my hon. friend back to the house, and I only hope that his few days' rest, during which he doubtless had some academic tuition, has made him more mellow and on that account more constructive.
May I refer Your Honour to citation 220, subsection 2 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says:
On May 5, 1893, the Speaker of the Commons of the United Kingdom laid down the following rules with reference to the instructions: "The principles which guide a limit in the system of instructions on going into committee may be thus stated: First, an instruction must empower the committee to do something which the committee is not otherwise empowered to do."
So I suggest to Your Honour that by the mere fact that this is a debatable motion, and therefore amendable, it must mean that the house is capable of putting forward an amendment; and there is nothing in our general rules permitting debate on this kind of motion which limits the form of the amendment in the way in which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has sought to do in the argument he has presented.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and those enunciated by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), I submit to you with great respect that this amendment is in order. If you so determine this amendment will afford the industrial relations committee the opportunity to do some useful work in respect of a serious problem now facing the people of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to add anything to the arguments which have been presented to support your sound judgment of some time ago resisting the attempt to smuggle into the house at this stage a debate on unemployment. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the reference by the hon. member for Laurier to May's sixteenth edition was a reference to the committee of the whole house and instructions that might be given to a committee of the whole house; and if Your Honour refers to pages 501 and 502 of May you will find those instructions are


Lionel Chevrier: Page 605 was my quotation.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word on this motion. When the Minister of Justice said a while ago that this amendment was irregular because it brought up a new matter, I think he was slightly mistaken. The amendment is to the effect that the report be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the standing committee on industrial relations with the instruction that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that the committee do not sit while the house is sitting. That is the main point. The hon. member who brought it forward did not ask the house to instruct the committee to go forward and study the whole matter of unemployment. He said that until that particular subject is referred to it for study, the committee should not consider it, and that might be ordered by the house. But this is just an addition to asking the government and hon. members to permit the committee to sit while the house is in session. I think it is quite different from what has been said before.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me a further word. In the Canadian Commons Journals, volume 65 for 1928, reference is made to the same situation. If I may just state the weight of the ruling, which by the way was also by an outstanding Speaker, it was to the effect that the house can always refer a report back to a committee with instructions to amend the report in any particular. In this particular case, the particular is the right to sit while the house is sitting.
If you wish, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to let you have a look at this reference in the Journals.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept much of what has been said, but the problem is to apply it to this particular proposed amendment. I was taken by the force of the argument of the hon. member for Essex East that if the amendment were to the effect that the committee might sit while the house is in session, except for example on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that would be an appropriate amendment to refer back to the committee for consideration.
But that is not what we have before us, and if I accept this amendment it seems to me that I am opening up a debate on the unemployment question and the necessity

Industrial Relations Committee for discussion of that question by this committee, which would be quite beyond the scope of anything the committee has reported. The committee has not mentioned in its report any subject matter with which it has dealt or refused to deal, or what it proposes to do when it resumes its sittings. So there is nothing in the report about unemployment or the committee's consideration of that subject to which to attach this amendment. If it is relevant it must be attached to the committee's recommendation that it should have power to sit while the house is sitting.
If we were to accept this amendment we would in effect be saying, "You may sit while the house is sitting, but you may not do so unless you study the subject of unemployment". That in effect is the negative of this recommendation; and if it is the negative, then citation 202 of Beauchesne makes it clear, particularly in paragraphs 12 and 14, that such an amendment is not in order. Paragraph 12 reads:
An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.
Paragraph 14 says:
An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.
The amendment does not go quite that far, but it instructs the committee that before it can sit while the house is sitting it must have undertaken a study of unemployment. That is what I read in the latter part of the amendment; that the committee shall not sit while the house is sitting until the definite subject of unemployment is referred to it for study.
The original terms of reference to the committee seem to be broad enough to give the committee power to undertake a study of unemployment if it feels disposed to do so. What we are asked to do by this amendment is to alter the terms of the instructions as to what the committee may study, or at least in relation to the times at which it may make its study; and that to my mind is irrelevant to what the committee has reported to this house.
I should like to refer hon. members to citation 203 of Beauchesne, particularly paragraph 3:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
And to paragraph 5, which reads:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.


I think it is open to the hon. member who moved this amendment to put a motion on the order paper to instruct the committee to deal with the question of unemployment. That motion could then be brought up and debated. However, I do not think he can introduce it as an amendment to the motion before us because it goes beyond the terms of the report and constitutes, in effect, a new instruction to the committee as to what it must discuss. I therefore rule it out of order.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I take it that the motion before us is that the report should now be concurred in. Having regard to the strong and sincere stand which the Prime Minister took on this matter of unemployment in the past, reference to which has been made already this afternoon, in a particular debate on unemployment when the situation was not as serious as it is now, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not forget technicalities and ask the house to give unanimous consent in order that this matter may be debated as a question of urgency by this particular committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not really know what the hon. gentleman means when he says this matter should be debated as a matter of urgency. Since February 9 the question of unemployment has been discussed in this house on several occasions. On February 9 it was discussed from 8.30 until 10.00 p.m. On February 12 it was discussed throughout the day; on February 19, the same; on February 24, the same; and on February 26, the same. Mr. Speaker, I simply say to hon. gentlemen opposite that if in that time they have not been able to produce anything, I see no benefit in the suggestion which is now put forward.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is difficult to understand the reply by the right hon. gentleman, who himself took a strong position in this house in 1955 in support of a motion by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs contending that the way to deal with unemployment was by means of a careful examination and study by a parliamentary committee. Does the Prime Minister not believe that in addition to the general discussion in this house, the granting of authority to this particular committee enabling it to call in economists, officials of the department, representatives of industry and labour and agriculture, would be a constructive procedure?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I allowed the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps improperly, to ask for unanimous consent to a proposal he made, a proposal which of course is not relevant to the debate now before the house. There is nothing about unemployment in this motion which is before us. The motion asks for the adoption of a report by the committee which hon. members have before them. The Prime Minister replied to the question which was put to him by the hon. gentleman. I considered both the question and the reply to be out of order, and only permitted them because the house is always willing to consider giving unanimous consent if it can be given. However, I do not think we can pursue a debate on unemployment. The motion before the house is for concurrence in the report of the committee, which has two sections, the first concerned with printing, et cetera, and the second asking for consent to sit while the house is sitting.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in his capacity as leader of the house, whether he and the chief whip could make arrangements for the seating with the opposition of the 13 Conservative members who participated in the unemployment debate since, in the words of the Prime Minister, they were guilty of obstructing the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a statement he made in this house on February 1, 1960 in connection with the visit of a farm delegation on the question of deficiency payments. The Prime Minister said the delegation was advised that a final decision would be announced in parliament within a period of 30 days. That was on February 1, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to announce that decision.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Moose Mountain had also intended to ask that question. I would point out, as I pointed out a moment ago, that supplementary estimates have been before the house on several occasions since February 5.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Let us debate the supplementary estimates.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman could just contain himself-I know it is difficult for him. I do not mind the hon. gentleman's facetious remarks so long as they are not taken as being other than facetious. I would point out that I have been waiting for the opportunity to discuss the matter and give an answer respecting the requests for deficiency payments. As soon as the supplementary estimates have been concluded-and I would have thought they would have been concluded long ago-then it is the intention of the house leader to introduce the agricultural estimates. In any event it is the intention to introduce them on Friday. 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.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell the house why he did not take the course he has taken on previous occasions, namely make his statement on motions, thus keeping his promise to the farm delegation instead of repudiating another promise?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the simple reason is this. When I have risen on motions and endeavoured to make a statement, hon. members opposite have complained that I am going beyond the rules of the house. I am to have the opportunity of presenting the views of the government on the agriculture estimates, and I shall do it at that time. It would have been done previously if it had not been for the hold-up of the work of the house on the part of hon. members opposite.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia informs me that he is rising on a point of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the Prime Minister's

Inquiries of the Ministry statement that whenever he makes a statement on motions he always receives complaints from hon. members of the opposition that he has gone beyond the statement he should make on that occasion. My point of order is that the statement by the Prime Minister is not true, and that-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the hon. member for Assiniboia that it is not a point of order to disagree with the statement made by the Prime Minister.


Hazen Robert Argue: But, Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister has raised a question of privilege.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am on my feet to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I will dispose of the point of order before hearing the question of privilege.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let me say-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rose on a point of order. I will deal with the point of order now and later with the question of privilege. The point of order he has attempted to raise thus far is not to my mind a valid point of order. The hon. gentleman is simply attempting to controvert a statement, and I ask him not to continue in that line.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then on a question of privilege, it was suggested by the Prime Minister that because hon. members of the opposition have debated the question of unemployment and a certain item in the supplementary estimates at length we have obstructed and prevented him from making the announcement he promised the farm delegation he would make. My question of privilege is that that statement is not true. It is an unjustifiable reflection on the opposition. If the Prime Minister wants to make a statement I invite him to do it now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply point out that when I made a statement on agricultural policy in this house on August 30, 1958, as reported at page 4349 of Hansard the hon. member for Assiniboia rose in his place and said:
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the very long statement that has been made by the Prime Minister. When a statement is made on motions, the length of the statement seems to be in inverse ratio to the acceptability of the announcement. If it is an excellent announcement it can be dealt with very quickly. If it is an announcement which is likely to be met with a good deal of criticism, then of course it is a long statement and one has to drag in a good many

other things in an attempt to muddy the statement and so confuse the people who are being affected.
On and on the hon. gentleman went in that direction. I do not intend to give him the political opportunity to do that any more without having the right of reply myself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister not aware that in order to discharge the solemn and unconditional commitment he gave to this house on February 1, 1960, he would be given the unanimous consent of this house now to make a statement as full as he would desire to make at this time?


John George Diefenbaker: My statement still stands. The hon. member has expressly put himself in the position in which he finds himself by the actions that he and those associated with him have displayed during the last two or three weeks in holding up the supplementary estimates, thereby preventing the agriculture estimates from being brought before the house.


Mr. Starr:: Deliberately holding up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, now supported by the Minister of Labour.


Michael Starr: Yes, deliberately holding up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take exception to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman who said that because hon. members of the opposition parties have been discussing the government's lack of policy on unemployment we have been thereby preventing the proper discharge of the business of this house. I want the Prime Minister to know that we on this side-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Even the press gallery saw you wink.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that though hon. gentlemen opposite may treat the subject of unemployment as a big joke, it is not considered as such by hon. members on this side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has raised a question of privilege. He made the point that it does not lie with hon. members to complain about members exercising their privileges as members of the house in taking whatever time is necessary or appropriate to dispose of the business before the house, and that is true. I have heard from time to time comments in moderate terms about the actions of hon. members in dealing with public business, and I do not think the house

takes too great exception to that; but every hon. member does have the right to take such time as he feels necessary or appropriate within the rules to discuss the business of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the house leader. Can he inform the house how many Conservative speakers have taken part in this debate on unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this is an
appropriate point to call orders of the day again. If there are no further questions we will proceed with orders of the day.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DELIVERY AND QUOTA POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the delay in filling wheat delivery quotas on the prairies because of shipping priorities given to damp grain from northern areas, can the minister tell this house when greater movement of dry grain can be expected so that the present 3 and 4 bushel quotas may be filled?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The bulk of the damp grain in western Canada eligible for delivery under the advance delivery quotas of a 6 bushel maximum authorized by the Canadian wheat board has now been largely delivered. Indications are that there is very little damp grain eligible for delivery under this policy left on farms in western Canada, and that the problem of the prompt movement of this grain for drying at the terminals has largely been solved.
With the expectation of an early opening of navigation, plans are now being completed to resume the shipment of dry grain to the lakehead to meet sales commitments. To the extent possible the first priority for the movement of the dry grain will be from delivery points which are still on 1 and 2 bushel quotas. When these 1 and 2 bushel quota points have been raised to a higher level, then the shipment of dry grain from the points currently on 3 and 4 bushel quotas will be authorized.
In so far as shipments to Pacific coast ports are concerned, shipments of dry grain will continue to be authorized along with shipments of as much tough and damp grain as the drying facilities of the terminal elevators can handle.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether there will be continuing
79951-0-100
Inquiries of the Ministry priority to elevator marketing points in southern Saskatchewan where quotas generally have been low, particularly because of the discrimination at the end of the last crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there was no discrimination last year in the bad sense of that word. Every effort is being made this year to equalize the quotas in so far as it is possible across the prairies, and special attention is being given to those few stations which remained on the 6 bushel quota last year and did not reach the 7 and 8 bushel quotas as the other stations did.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: In view of the fact that the British fishing industry has warmly welcomed the announcement that the British minister of agriculture and fisheries will lead the British delegation to the Geneva conference on the law of the sea, supported by advisers from the British fishing industry, will the Canadian delegation to Geneva be headed by our Minister of Fisheries and will our delegation include advisers from the fishing industry?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation will be headed by the high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Hon. George A. Drew. He headed the delegation in 1958, and did so very successfully. I am sure he will represent Canada at the conference this year with great credit. A strong delegation has been chosen; the names were announced several weeks ago. One of the members, for example, is the dean of the law school of the University of British Columbia, Professor George Curtis, who did a very extended survey for the previous government on the question of the laws having to do with the territorial seas. There are no actual representatives from the fishing industry itself. I believe that the Canadian delegation, as it has been chosen, is an excellent one with very much the same composition as the delegation of 1958.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the reply of the minister to the effect that the Canadian delegation will be composed of three lawyers and a diplomat, will he reconsider his decision and take into consideration the advisability of including in the Canadian delegation fisheries advisers drawn from each coast, thus following the practice adopted by our United

Inquiries of the Ministry States neighbours, who have included in their delegation eight or ten representatives from the fishing industry?


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that the delegation consisted of four people, three lawyers and- I forget the fourth.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A diplomat.


Howard Charles Green: The delegation is larger than that. We gave very careful consideration to the question of adding to it representatives from the fishing industry and from the fishermen on both coasts, and decided that that would not be a very effective way to set up this delegation.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES UNIVERSITY GRANTS  INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGE- MENT WITH QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister seen in Saturday's press the statement by the premier of the province of Quebec to the effect that the question of university grants has now been settled to all intents and purposes, and has he any comment to make thereon?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the premier revealed for the first time that when the Quebec legislation was adopted a joint statement would be issued by Ottawa and Quebec announcing that the $25 million held in trust by the national conference of Canadian universities would be returned to Quebec? Has the minister anything to add to that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister take cognizance of it and comment on it at the next session?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is demonstrating unusual patience in suggesting this matter may be discussed at the next session.


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As far as the next sitting is concerned, I think it would be more useful if the course were followed that I suggested when my hon. friend asked me a similar question a few days ago. There will be a measure before the house soon which will afford all hon. members an opportunity


of discussing this subject. I placed on Votes and Proceedings today a resolution, Mr. Speaker, contemplating amendment of the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Meanwhile may I ask my hon. friend whether from now on, until we discuss this measure, we are to get our information from Quebec?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think if my hon. friend gets his information from that quarter it will be a lot more accurate than most of the information he has been getting from his own sources lately.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He is getting it from you. (Translation):



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monimagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to make a correction of a press report following a recent visit of mine to Winnipeg.
I think that a statement I might have made has been misconstrued.
I am reported to have said that, in the field of relations-
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising
on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat until I hear the point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my point of order
is this. If I apprehend the hon. member correctly-I am not seeking to interfere with his freedom of speeeh-he is attempting to correct in the house the report of a speech he made outside of the house. If that sort of privilege were to be extended to all of us, sir, it would, I think, paralyse the proceedings of this house.


George Harris Hees: On the point of order, also, I remember very well that when I was in the opposition the hon. member stood up in this house-and he was minister of citizenship and immigration at the time-and tried to correct the now famous speech that he made in Vancouver, dealing with second class babies, as he called them.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member for
Montmagny-L'Islet clarify the question of privilege which he is raising at this time.

Is he dealing with a statement which was made in the house or one he made when he was on his visit to the west?
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that when I spoke in Winnipeg, a different meaning was placed on my remarks, and I should like to state exactly what I said at the time.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry; the hon. member is justified in raising a question of privilege if what he says in this house is misinterpreted to his disadvantage in the press, but not on a statement which he makes outside the house.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Is J. D. Barrington, a former president of Polymer Corporation of Canada Limited, at present a director of Polymer? If not, when did he resign?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The answer to the first part of the question is that Mr. Barrington is not a director of Polymer at the present time. The answer to the second part of the question is that he resigned on January 22, 1960.


Joseph Warner Murphy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did Mr. Barrington, while a director of Polymer Corporation, make an offer for the purchase of Polymer, either for himself or for other interests?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barrington, not in his own name but in the name of other interests, was interested in the purchase of Polymer.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the unlimited possibilities of the commonwealth scholarship plan for the multilateral exchange of ideas and the consequent strengthening of the commonwealth, would the Prime Minister 79951-0-1001
Inquiries of the Ministry consider confirming this program as a hardy perennial by planting it firmly in the earth of the statutes of this parliament rather than by sowing it as an annual in the shallow and sometimes arid soil of estimates?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, stripped of its
herbage what the hon. member is asking is whether consideration might be given to putting in statute form the commonwealth scholarship plan. It is an interesting suggestion. What we are trying to do is work out machinery to make the commonwealth plan operative, and I think it would be premature at this time, before the machinery has been worked out on the basis of experience, to decide on action through placing this matter under statute. Later on, after we have had the necessary experience and the plan has been under way, consideration might well be given to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister an answer to the question I asked him on February 17 last with reference to a letter sent by the Department of Veterans Affairs, on which was affixed a 4 cent stamp?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Veterans Affairs happened to be working late that night and put a stamp on it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the cabinet's jurisdiction will soon expire with respect to disallowance of certain controversial labour legislation enacted a little less than a year ago by the Newfoundland legislature, would the Prime Minister indicate whether the cabinet has reached a decision either in favour of or against disallowance and, if so, what that decision has been?


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the period for disallowance has expired?


William Moore Benidickson: No.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is a settled rule of the house that it is not appropriate to ask questions about the exercise of the prerogative of disallowance. That is my recollection.


William Moore Benidickson: May I refer you, sir, to Hansard for January 27 of this year, at page 388? Your own words at that time were:
I should think It would he In order to ask the government whether it had or had not disallowed the legislation, but not to discuss the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member's question is limited to that extent, then I will accept it.


John George Diefenbaker: The question is whether or not the government has disallowed. If that is the question, then the answer is in keeping with the question.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister inform the house whether it is the intention to bring forward any general amendment of the Criminal Code this session?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker, it has been decided not to introduce a general Criminal Code amendment bill this year. We made quite extensive amendments to the Criminal Code last year and I doubt very much if it is really in the public interest to be altering the Criminal Code in a major way each year. There will, however, be a bill proposing an amendment to the Criminal Code concerning Hornet rifles and any other amendments which circumstances may indicate to be necessary this session, but not a general amending bill.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to lirect a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arising out of an answer given to me on February 25, in which she said there was no case of a refugee immigrant family paying as much as $60 for a single room. Would the minister care to comment on the statement in Le Devoir on the following day in which the accuracy of her statement was challenged?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker,

I do not know that the accuracy of the statement was properly challenged. These people have not paid this rent. The rent is being paid by the taxpayers of Canada through the government, and while the premises occupied are not large they are commonly described by the rental agencies in Montreal as one and a half room apartments. As the hon. member knows, I have not seen them myself; I have to take the reports which come to my desk. I have had the matter investigated.
I might say that we are not happy with some of the accommodation these people have had to accept. As I explained the other day, some of the accommodation is not as good as it might be, but we have tried to put these people in lodgings where they are able to visit their relatives who are in hospital. Under the circumstances we have done the best we could on short notice. It is temporary accommodation, and just as soon as they can be moved to proper accommodation that step will be taken; but so far these people have not paid any rent themselves. They are under no obligation to pay.



AIRPORTS' DORVAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the visit made by an official of the Department of Transport to Dorval airport recently, at which time he stated in effect that there was no doubt whatever that the building would be completed on time but that it was another matter as to when operations would commence, can the minister say when this is likely to take place?


George Harris Hees: We expect to have people moving into the airport next September, and that is our hope.


Lionel Chevrier: Has any decision been made in connection with the bar?


George Harris Hees: I thought I might get that question one of these days from the hon. member. The answer is that at large airports, where total employment may number in the thousands and where several score of private businesses may be carrying on activities, the department's role is primarily that of a landlord in relation to both land and buildings. The department expects the private businesses which are established on airports to carry on their activities in accord with provincial and municipal law.

The matter of a liquor licence would, in accordance with this concept, be left entirely to the restaurant concessionaire to decide upon and, where permissible under local law, to apply to the necessary provincial authority if a liquor licence is desired.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a further supplementary question. Why did it take a year to make up your mind on this question?


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member knows, Dorval airport will not be ready for occupancy until well on into the year, and I think this gives the concessionaire there plenty of time to make application if he so desires.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the increasing traffic congestion along the Vancouver waterfront, and in view of the ever-present threat of fire, can the minister now advise the house what further steps are being taken by the national harbours board to provide adequate access to the harbour area?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With regard to roadways on its own properties, within the past year the board has done the following three things:
1.	Completed the extension of the road from Dunlevy avenue to Centennial pier.
2.	Completed the widening and extension of Commissioner street.
3.	Opened negotiations with the city for overhead crossings at the foot of Heatley avenue and at the foot of Dunlevy avenue.
When this program has been completed, adequate access roads will have been provided to all harbour properties under board jurisdiction.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: While the Minister of Transport is on his feet I wonder whether he would comment on a recent editorial which appeared in Aircraft, the first sentence of which reads-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: This question has to do with aviation, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, am I not right in my recollection that it is out of order to ask a minister to comment on something stated in a newspaper article or editorial?


Mr. Speaker:: In putting his question I think the hon. member was leading off with the wrong foot, in saying that he was asking for comment on an editorial. It is not usual to ask for an expression of opinion on the opinions of newspapers or their writers. However, if the hon. member has a question of fact-


Lionel Chevrier: The question of fact, sir, is this. I simply wish to ask the minister if he has seen the sentence which says there is now a new hazard to aviation in Canada, and that is transport minister Hees. Has he any comment to make on that?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. I could well imagine that might have been printed in 1954, 1953, 1952 or previously, but I do not recollect seeing it recently.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister seen the advertisements in the Montreal press by Simpson's to the effect that drawings for automobiles were to be held yesterday and on the first two Mondays in March? Will the minister investigate this matter and advise the house whether these drawings, as games of chance, are a violation of our Criminal Code, and if so what action he proposes to take?


Edmund Davie Fulton: think I must start with the hon. gentleman's second question first and reply that the minister will not investigate it, because, as I am sure the hon. gentleman well knows, enforcement of the criminal law rests with the provincial authorities.



CONGRATULATIONS TO MEMBER FOR YORK EAST ON BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: If the house will allow me, and I am sure it will-while this is not generally done-the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) has a birthday today and I

Supply-Labour
should like, on behalf of all hon. members I am sure, to extend to him the warmest congratulations. He is the dean of the house, having been here uninterruptedly for 34 years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I be permitted to join with the Prime Minister in this happy infraction of the rules and add our congratulations to the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to add our congratulations to this hon. gentleman to those of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. He does not very often delay the proceeding of this house but his observations are always very much to the point. We have certainly had an enjoyable association with him for many years.


Some hon. Members:: Speech, speech.


Mr. R. H. McGregor (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for bringing this to the attention of the house. I just want to say this. If a good many hon. members made fewer speeches in the house, they would be here longer.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance which relates to his pending budget. In view of the higher prices for the same pharmaceutical preparations in Canada as compared with the United States, would the minister consider removing the 11 per cent sales tax which constitutes a large amount of this difference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not customary to ask, on orders of the day, questions which relate directly to the fiscal policy of the government.

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.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: Before the hon. gentleman speaks, I should like to say that yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised a question of privilege because the last time we were in committee he requested permission of the committee to have a certain table printed at one point in his speech. I think the committee gave permission and, by inadvertence, the table was not printed. I suggest, if it is agreeable to the hon. member, that the table be printed at this point in the proceedings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The table above referred to is as follows:]



TABLE SHOWING ESTIMATED UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
(figures	in	thousands)	
				Without	Percentage
				Jobs	of Total
				Seeking	Labour
Date	Work	Force1931 June	1 .	481	11.61932 June	1 .	741	17.61933 June	1 .	826	19.31934 June	1 .	631	14.51935 June	1 .	625	14.21936 June	1 .	571	12.81937 June	1 .	411	9.11938 June	i .	522	11.41939 June	1 .	529	11.41940 June	1 .	423	9.21941 June	1 .	195	4.41942 June	1 .	135	3.01943 June	i .	76	1.71944 June	1 .	63	1.41945 June	1 .	73	1.61946 June	1 .	124	2.61947 May	31 .	92	1.91948 June	5 .	81	1.61949 June	4 .	101	2.01950 June	3 .	137	2.81951 June	2 .	81	1.51952 May	31 .	105	2.01953 June	20 .	92	1.71954 June	19 .	189	3.41955 June	18 .	159	2.91956 June	23 .	117	2.01957 June	22 .	164	2.71958 June 21 .	324	5.21959 June	20 .	234	3.7Source:	The	figures	as	to persons	without jobs
and seeking work for 1931 to 1945 inclusive are taken from "The Canadian Statistical Review, 1957 Supplement" Table 7 on page 26.
The figures for subsequent years have been taken from "The Labour Force, November 1945 to July 1958", Reference Paper No. 58,	1958 Revision,
Catalogue No. 71-502.
The percentages have been calculated in each case.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Since we have been refused permission this afternoon to discuss the problem of unemployment before the industrial relations committee, we are now bound to carry on the discussion of this most serious and grave problem before this committee of supply. It is true, as the Prime Minister stated earlier this afternoon, that

we are now entering the sixth day of debate on this particular item having to do with payments to provinces under the municipal winter works incentive program for 1959-60 and 1960-61 fiscal years.
When this item was introduced on February 9 and debated again on February 24, the Minister of Labour took time to inform the committee on the policy supposed to have been adopted by the government under this particular program to ease the serious unemployment situation. Unfortunately most of the time was taken up by a manipulation of statistics and percentages, and even by a reference to what the government was supposed to have done to take care of the serious unemployment situation since it took power over two years ago.
While this debate was taking place, while suggestions were being offered by the hon. member for Essex East, by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and by other members of the opposition, the committee was denied definite information. Following a precedent set by the Prime Minister himself, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by the Minister of Transport and by the Minister of Justice with reference to the Jacques Cartier bridge, the Minister of Labour saw fit to keep this committee in the dark by refusing to give information on the actions of his own department, and particularly about measures being taken to find, if possible, a satisfactory solution to the seasonal unemployment problem.
Earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister stated that during five days of debate the opposition has been unable to supply anything. Well, Mr. Chairman, we got very little from the Minister of Labour. This committee will be interested to learn, not from the Minister of Labour, not even from the Prime Minister but from the premier of New Brunswick and from the minister of labour for Nova Scotia, that a joint federal-provincial economic study of seasonal employment problems in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia will be commenced in the next few months. Now, Mr. Chairman, the announcement of this step is being made to the house not by the Minister of Labour, not by a member of the government, but by a member of the official opposition.
This committee will be interested to know that through the Minister of Labour an offer has been made to undertake, in co-operation with the provinces mentioned, a thorough joint economic study and analysis of our seasonal employment problem, with the cost being borne on an approximately equal basis by the federal government and the government of the two provinces involved. This, Mr. Chairman, is pure mockery of parliament
Supply-Labour
and is typical of the attitude taken by the present government on matters of this nature and on matters of primary concern to the Canadian parliament. I welcome the announcement made on Friday last by Premier Flemming of New Brunswick and by Hon. Stephen Pyke, the minister of labour for Nova Scotia. This economic study of seasonal employment problems is directly in line with the suggestions made in this house by the hon. member for Essex East and turned down by the Minister of Labour.
The hon. member for Essex East went even further and asked for a more definite commitment when he asked for a federal-provincial conference with labour and management taking part. We want today to know the details of the Minister of Labour's proposals which were made to Nova Scotia and to New Brunswick which he refused to divulge to this house. We as members of parliament have a right to know what is going on.
Mr. Chairman, in the last two or three sessions, on most occasions when hon. members from the Atlantic provinces dared to exercise their duties as members of the opposition and offered criticism of the policies or lack of policies on the part of the present government, they have been called to order or accused by government members of running down their provinces and of being prophets of doom and gloom. The members of the present government are so embarrassed by their promises that they become reluctant to consider constructive suggestions made by opposition members.
The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond speaking in this debate on Friday last accused us of exaggerating unemployment figures and even of misrepresenting them. We are using figures which are supplied to us by the Minister of Labour himself and by the dominion bureau of statistics. Are we exaggerating, I ask, when we say that there are today in the vicinity of 135,000 unemployed in the Atlantic provinces representing between 11 per cent and 12 per cent of the labour force? Are we exaggerating when we warn the government about the unemployment insurance fund, which from $916 million in 1955 is down to $445 million as of January 31 of this year, and will probably decrease to close to $350 million by March 31? Are we exaggerating, I ask, when we claim that the present winter works program is inadequate, not practical and does not meet the needs of the serious unemployment situation? Are we exaggerating when we claim that the present government is not keeping its promises which it made to the unemployed of this country during the 1957 and 1958 election campaigns?

Supply-Labour


Mr. Hamilion (Noire Dame de Grace):: Yes, you are exaggerating.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The people of Canada know we are not exaggerating. The 800,000 unemployed today know that we are not exaggerating, but we do realize that you were exaggerating when you made those promises. Hon. members on the other side may boast about the fourteen new industries introduced in Nova Scotia in the last three years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I hear "Hear, hear". But we do not hear one word about the larger number of industries which have closed down during the same period. Can hon. members boast about the Nova Scotian coal production which has decreased by 1,300,000 tons in the last two years? Is this the promise which was made by their party to the coal miners of Cape Breton in the last election campaign? The Minister of Veterans Affairs will not boast about the number of industries in New Brunswick which have dropped from 1,077 in 1952 to 975 after seven years of Tory government.
I agree with the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond that since 1957 a great many of the young people of the Atlantic provinces stay at home and swell the labour force. The hon. member, to use his own words, said that these young people know there is new hope in their province and in the other Atlantic provinces. I agree that they have been given new hope by the Tory promises of 1957 and 1958, but the main reason they stay at home today and swell the labour force is because not only is there no work for them at home, but if they dared travel to Quebec or Ontario to get work they would be forced to beg their way back home because unemployment today is at a high level even in those two central provinces. Our young people cannot live on hope alone; what they want is work.
We heard a lot about decentralization of industry. We have been told that we have yet to see a member of the Liberal party rise in his place and say that research centres, and so on, should be taken out of the central provinces in order to be established in the maritime provinces or in the western provinces. We opposition members from the Atlantic provinces are outnumbered by government members in the ratio of three to one, but have we heard one government member from these provinces even suggesting to the government that the nuclear research centre or other crown agencies should be established in the Atlantic provinces? No. The promises which they made were made outside of the house and do not mean a thing today. They

were selling the people of the Atlantic provinces, as was said by one of their own members, a bill of goods which they have failed to deliver.
Mention has been made of the defence contracts for the city of Halifax and Nova Scotia. The city of Halifax has today more unemployed than at the same period last year. I want to warn the government that in cutting defence expenditures the Nova Scotian labour force will be so seriously affected that the government will be compelled to find new industries to absorb the men displaced by defence cut-down.
Even the Minister of Veterans Affairs was scandalized and amazed the other day when on Friday, February 12 last, I mentioned the high unemployment figures ini New Brunswick, figures which have increased considerably since that day; as was also the Minister of Labour when I drew his attention to certain projects which could alleviate the situation in my own constituency of Gloucester. On that occasion I was accused by the Minister of Veterans Affairs of not getting up and speaking for my constituency when I was sitting on the government side of the house. I challenge the minister to look at the record. If he does he will find that in 1954 I spoke on 30 different subjects and in the session in 1955 I spoke on 24. Every time we criticize the government we are blamed for making personal attacks on ministers of the crown.
Notwithstanding what has been said on the government side as of January 31 of this year there was, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, 504,000 unemployed in Canada. There were 782,000 registered for unemployment insurance benefits; there were
786,000	unplaced applicants, 125,000 of which were in the Atlantic provinces alone; and as I said earlier this number has increased considerably since. There are today over 40,000 unemployed in the province of New Brunswick alone. This is not, as was said the other day by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, only picking up monthly statistics. The program which we have now before the house is insignificant and does not meet the problem of unemployment.
I have here an editorial from La Presse dated January 20, 1960.
I should like to bring to the attention of the committee one or two paragraphs from this editorial. It has as title:
(Translation):
Is that seasonal unemployment?
Hardly a few weeks ago, In their year-end surveys or New Year messages, federal and provincial ministers promised prosperity all around with an optimism that each of us was only too eager to share. However, that optimism was

dealt a rather shattering blow by the latest unemployment statistics, issued yesterday. And yet they are only the early winter figures, covering only the period from mid-November to mid-December. And the picture is darkest in the province of Quebec.
Farther on, the editorial says:
Over 12 per cent of Canadian workers have no steady job or no job at all. Is this not much too high a figure in a country which is considered prosperous? Especially if we consider that the position has certainly deteriorated since mid-December, and will continue to deteriorate until spring.
And still farther, we read:
True, the situation is slightly less serious than last year. But the improvement is far from satisfactory. The number of unemployed remains abnormally high. The comparisons being made in government circles, in an effort to brighten the picture, are strangely shaky. To prove that things are getting better, the present position is compared to that of a year ago, and last year to the year before, although 1958 and 1957 were recession years. It is quite a distortion of the truth and of the facts this attempt to suggest that all goes well, because things are not quite as bad as in bad years.
And the article concludes:
What about the famous winter works program in all this-the one that the federal Minister of Labour had talked about so much? It was of little help last year. And now, we hardly ever hear anything about it. Nothing was said about it in the speech from the throne, where unemployment was referred to only incidentally, as if it did not exist. Is the government going to wake up to reality?
I have here another editorial published in La Presse, dated December 17, 1958. It is entitled:
Federal winter works assistance program a huge hoax.
Those were the words of the mayor of Shawinigan.
(Text):
Whose responsibility is it to find a cure for this unreasonable, this serious, unemployment situation? This government was assigned this responsibility at the last election by the electors of Canada. It was assigned this responsibility because it had made certain promises. Those promises should be kept. I would remind the committee of the promise made by the Prime Minister in Welland on March 21, 1958 when, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of March 22, 1958:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker today promised jobs -not relief payments-for Canada's unemployed.
We don't want relief-that's why we launched this public works program," the Progressive Conservative leader said, referring to the works program the government says will total $1,185,000,000 this year.
And the Prime Minister went on:
"I hope that by June or July the application of our policies will have met the problem, through 79951-0-101
Supply-Labour
loosening tight-money and through public works, so that no one will be suffering from unemployment."
The Prime Minister should be the last person to mention loosening tight money in the light of the money situation today considering the all-time high interest rates. Then, speaking in Halifax on March 24, 1958, the Prime Minister was reported as follows in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:
His government was launching "one of the greatest public works programs this country has ever seen" in order to stimulate employment. "I am able to tell you that we're over the peak as the result of our policies. I can see the light ahead and employment reasonable and complete, over the next few months."
That was two years ago, and today we are facing a situation where 800,000 people are unemployed in this country. Then the Prime Minister continued:
"I know what unemployment is. They don't have to tell me second hand," he added. "But as long as I am Prime Minister, deficit or no deficit, no man or woman is going to be allowed to suffer because of unemployment," he pledged.
These are words which have been quoted very frequently in this house. I should like the Prime Minister to go into certain sections of my constituency and neighbouring constituencies and find out, not at second hand but at first hand, what is going on. There is dissatisfaction with the policies of the present government so far as unemployment is concerned. I have here an article from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of January 18, 1960, which has for title: "Labour Council 'Dissatisfied' with Prime Minister's Action." It reads in part:
The New Glasgow and District Labour Council is completely dissatisfied with the action taken by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker regarding the employment situation in Trenton plants, it was learned at an executive meeting of the council held Sunday.
"It is only right that the Prime Minister give immediate attention to this serious problem which exists in Trenton" Council President Warren Riggs said Sunday night. "And by the letter received from him this week, it is obvious he is not going to do anything about it at the present time."
I have here another article from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald dated January 22, 1960. It has for title "Thousands Jobless in Shining Sixties". Here is a further article from the Toronto Star dated January 28, 1960. It has for title "How Many Without Jobs?" I should like to put on record the paragraph from this article which reads:
With roughly one in nine persons on the nation's labour force seeking jobs, this could be regarded as one of Canada's most urgent problems. Yet, except for an occasional outburst in parliament, the politicians remain unperturbed, the government is doing little, and there is a minimum of public outcry. It is only the long lines that form at dusk before the institutions offering free bed and meal that provide any evidence of distress.

Supply-Labour
Yet in the face of all this the Prime Minister is accusing us of taking the time of the house in order to discuss unemployment.


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


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When I have finished my remarks. We are only allowed a limited time in which to speak. I have here a letter from the United Steelworkers of America, local 1231, Trenton, Nova Scotia. It is dated January 19, 1960 and it is signed by the financial secretary. I will not take up the time of the committee by reading the whole of this letter, but the second paragraph says:
Some of the privations brought to our attention are unbelievable in a country such as Canada. We have 1,200 men idle and hundreds of them have no regular or seasonal insurance credits.
What is the attitude of the present government toward this unfortunate situation which exists in the maritime provinces? I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg South, speaking in this chamber on February 5, as reported in Hansard at page 805, said:
-even at their present rates of pay, in certain regions of our country that rate of pay, being equalized as it is across the nation, is deemed probably by civil servants to be adequate. I think that civil servants who are employed in Newfoundland and the maritimes would feel that they were being reasonably well cared for.
There is the attitude of the government. They want to differentiate with regard to the residents of the maritimes. This exemplifies the attitude taken by the government -that though we in the maritimes are struggling to meet high living costs brought on through exorbitant municipal taxes and transport charges we should be satisfied to receive less income than the other sections of the nation.
Suggestions have been made by the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and by a number of other hon. members on the opposition side but the Prime Minister said this afternoon we are offering nothing to settle the problem.
I have in my hand an article to which I should like to direct the attention of the committee. The article is entitled "To Live or to Die" and is taken from the February issue of the Atlantic Advocate. I wish to place on the record the following paragraph:
Here in the Atlantic provinces is an ideal opportunity. There will be plenty of others in other parts of Canada; hut let us take for examination our own Atlantic area where the need is great.
We are worse off than the rest of Canada by more than a third. Pledges have been made to rectify that disparity. The Atlantic resolutions promised help. The Gordon royal commission recommended it. One of the measures common to both was the establishment of a capital projects commission.

Such a commission could be set up with a directive to carry out full-scale engineering studies of various proposals that are being advocated and have long been advocated by the governments and business groups of the region.
I leave this thought with the government for consideration. If I had sufficient time at my disposal I would suggest to the government through the Minister of Labour various measures which even in my own constituency of Gloucester would alleviate the unemployment situation to a great extent.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I will answer questions when I complete my remarks.
There is, for example, construction of public wharves which provide facilities to fishermen. They enable fishermen to increase their production and create additional employment on shore. This year the estimates show a reduction of $30 million with respect to the construction of wharves, harbours, et cetera, $3 million in New Brunswick and $2.5 million in Nova Scotia. When the government provides fishermen with such facilities we can be sure that production will increase and additional work will follow.
I wish to bring to the attention of the government what is being done in Europe today. This should give the government some food for thought. In the United Kingdom the development areas policy introduced during the depression years is now being extended to cover almost one fifth of the nation's population and in the last 15 years has provided work for more than half a million displaced workers who were able to find jobs in their home towns or regions.
The tax exemption and direct grants plan introduced in the southern half of Italy, together with rail rates reductions for the moving of produced goods, have resulted in an uplift for the area and have provided opportunities for the establishment of new industries. Special bonuses or initial investment grants granted by the French and Dutch governments to industries establishing in recognized backward areas have succeeded in bringing back those areas in line with more fortunate sections where industries were already established and operating at full capacity.
Only recently the Belgium government introduced exceptional measures to assist the coal mining areas which were facing problems quite similar to those affecting the coal industry of Nova Scotia today.
The policy adopted by European countries not only promotes the economic expansion of

regions where industries are lacking, but also acts as a brake on the further development of already over-industrialized areas.
Areas like the Atlantic provinces are not begging for hand-outs or ad hoc measures which could provide nothing but temporary relief. What we need now are fundamental measures such as tax concessions, low cost loans and an adequate freight rate deal, measures which could attract some industries which are today being establish elsewhere in this promising country of ours.
In conclusion I say that the Atlantic representatives should unite and with one voice insist on something exceptional, something which has already been described as being of a scope this nation has not attempted before. Surely what Europe is doing Canada can do. It can be done in this country of ours where our national resources are practically untouched and still remain an attraction for unlimited development. Regional retardation in Canada should not be permitted and means should be taken to bring about a lasting solution to existing conditions.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, would the
hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat? In his remarks the hon. gentleman referred to unemployment in Trenton and generally in Nova Scotia and the maritime area. During the past year some 47 million tons of freight passed through the St. Lawrence seaway and the Welland ship canal.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am getting to the question
in a moment if my hon. friend will just be patient. Formerly the bulk of this freight was carried easterly by the C.P.R. and C.N.R. Would the hon. member not agree that the St. Lawrence seaway for the construction of which we give credit unhesitatingly to the Liberal party has contributed in no small way to the unemployment at Trenton where the Eastern Car used to build railway cars that were utilized to haul this freight eastward? Would he also not agree that the construction of the pipe line which brought oil and gas into the eastern markets has contributed in no small measure to the loss of coal markets to the mines of Nova Scotia?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, that is a
long question and if I had 30 minutes at my disposal I might possibly answer it in full. I suggest to the hon. member that he direct his question to the Minister of Transport. I would remind him of the statement the minister made in Halifax only a few months ago to the effect that the St. Lawrence seaway had not affected in any way the eastern ports of Canada.
79951-0-101i
Supply-Labour


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Would the hon. member
now answer my question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Certainly.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: I should like to ask the
hon. member if he would explain to the committee why in his constituency only two projects were undertaken under the winter works program in the amount of $13,000 as against $28,000 in my constituency?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I shall be pleased to answer that question. The answer is that restrictions are too severe and, as I said before, the program is not practical.
Let me warn the hon. member for Timmins to withdraw the offer he made the other day to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to pay his expenses to go and sell the idea to his municipalities. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has met with no success in this regard himself because he has a poor bill of goods to sell and furthermore he must be a poor salesman.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, we have had
five days' discussion more or less centred on item No. 615 of the Department of Labour. This vote provides $15 million as a payment to the provinces for one half of the cost of labour for approved winter works projects under the federal-provincial program. Hon. members of the opposition have characterized this $15 million payment by Ottawa for winter works projects as peanuts. As the Minister of Labour has pointed out, the provision of 40,000 extra winter jobs is not "peanuts".
The minister has stated he hopes that the final payment by Ottawa may be as much as $25 million. This will depend on the initiative of the municipalities and the provincial governments. It is up to the municipalities and provincial governments to arrange for projects under the terms and conditions in the dominion-provincial agreements, and then Ottawa will pay half the cost of labour. In my constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre this program has provided jobs and thus helped in some worth-while undertakings.
I am thinking of one particular instance, namely the assistance given by this program to much-needed improvements to one of our fine parks which is such a tourist attraction in the summer. Most of the work on this project was done by day labour, which helped the local winter employment picture.
I mention winter works to lead up to a look at the possibility of greater winter construction by private contractors. In this connection, I should like to read a short excerpt from an article in the Globe and Mail by

Supply-Labour
E. N. Davis regarding winter work on the South Saskatchewan dam. Mr. Davis is an editorial writer for the Liberal newspaper, the Regina Leader-Post. In his own newspaper Mr. Davis writes editorials painting the darkest possible picture of unemployment in the west. In the Globe and Mail he tells this story about work on the South Saskatchewan dam, 75 per cent of the actual cost of construction being paid by the federal government. Here is part of his article:
Those who think that work on the $96 million South Saskatchewan dam stopped with the coming of winter would he due for a surprise were they to visit the dam site now.
They would see scores of mechanical earth-moving giants crawling over the wintry landscape. They would hear the sharp staccato beat of riveting hammers echoing up and down the valley.
Approximately 300 men are on the job. Some are operating and servicing the fleets of earth-moving machines used on the first phase of the east and west embankments. The remainder are erecting the steel superstructure for the construction bridge which will span the 800-foot wide channel into which the river has been squeezed, and which will link the operations being carried out on each side of the river.
Gordon Watson, engineer for the P.F.R. administration says the experience being gained on the dam confirms that this type of work can be carried out economically with heavy equipment, even if temperature drops to 40 below zero.
Paradoxical though it may appear, severe winter conditions have enabled the contractors to recover ground lost because of the unseasonal October blizzards; the project is back on schedule. The $8,500,000 federal vote for the job in the present fiscal year will be utilized in its entirety.
Present indications point to a federal appropriation almost double this year's $8,500,000, and a new peak of employment of approximately 300 men at work on half a dozen contracts.
Winter work in connection with the dam is going on in my own city of Moose Jaw. Commercial Shearing Limited of Youngstown, Ohio, and Hamilton, Ontario, were awarded a $2,787,250 contract for 550 steel rings for the five huge river diversion tunnels which will divert the river while the dam is being completed. The first steel has been unloaded at the Moose Jaw plant and 30 or 40 local men will get jobs. There will be additional trucking jobs to transport the steel rings to the dam site. My object in referring to the report on the work on the dam is to show that construction ideas and construction machinery are changing, and it is now possible for contractors to plan for more winter work.
I have watched with great interest the steel work going up on the 9-storey building on Metcalfe street which I pass every day on my way to this house. This work has been going on all winter and one can hear the riveting hammers going nearly every day. There could be many other such winter construction projects, I am sure. I think
fMr. Pascoe.]
this represents a challenge to construction firms, a challenge to put their building programs on a basis that will reduce the effects of seasonal winter unemployment that was just as bad, if not worse, when the former government was in power, and when much less government effort was made to solve the problem. Other speakers have pointed out that the winter works program represented by this vote of $15 million is only one way in which the federal government is tackling the problem of unemployment.
I should like to refer briefly to another program in Moose Jaw, Mr. Chairman, which is being greatly assisted by the department of the Minister of Labour. I refer to the $2 million Moose Jaw technical institute, which is now being completed and which already is in partial operation as classrooms are finished. When the building is completed there will be 24 classrooms and a total floor area of
150,000	square feet. During this debate mention has been made of vocational training. Last year the Minister of Labour outlined what the federal government is doing in this regard. The technical institute in Moose Jaw is being established under a plan of assistance by the federal government outlined by the Minister of Labour. On May 15, 1959 the minister made this statement, as reported in Hansard at page 3418:
One of the measures we are taking is the technical and vocational training program now under way in co-operation with the provinces. Under an agreement signed in 1957, some $40 million is being made available to the provinces over a 5-year period for the establishment of suitable training facilities.
This is the federal program that is helping in a very big way the technical institute at Moose Jaw. A capital allotment of $1,470,300 from federal funds is being used for the building and equipment. To help in the problem of providing more jobs, there are at the present time three federal-provincial costsharing agreements under the Vocational Training Co-Ordination Act. First, there is the vocational and technical training agreement No. 2. This is the basic federal-provincial agreement through which the federal government reimburses the provinces for up to 50 per cent of the capital and operating costs of trade or technical institutes and vocational or technical high schools. This agreement extends for a 5-year period to March 31, 1962. Under this agreement Saskatchewan has a capital allotment of $1,470,300 for buildings and equipment over the 5-year period; also, an annual allotment as follows:	1957-58,	$157,000;	1958-59,
$157,000; 1959-60, $186,400; 1960-61, $215,800; 1961-62, $215,800.

The Saskatchewan department of education has indicated that it will use all of the capital allotment, $1,470,300, on building and equipping the technical institute at Moose Jaw. Of the total annual allotments of $500,400 to date, approximately 50 per cent, or $250,200, has been used for capital expenditures for the Moose Jaw technical institute and the remainder allotted for the annual operational costs of training programs.
Then there is the special vocational training projects agreement. This agreement covers special training programs undertaken by the provinces as provided for in approved schedules of the agreement. The 1959-60 allotments to Saskatchewan under this agreement are as follows: Schedule H, student aid, $30,000; schedule M, training of unemployed workers, $40,000; schedule P, training in primary industries, agriculture, homemaking, etc., $15,000; schedule R, training of physically handicapped, $24,000.
The third arrangement is the apprenticeship training agreement. This agreement provides for sharing of the costs of training industrial apprentices registered under provincial apprenticeship legislation. The 1959-60 allotment to Saskatchewan under this agreement is $135,000. I have here a newspaper advertisement with the heading, "Winter Training Program for Unemployed". This has to do with Saskatchewan, and the advertisement reads as follows:
The department of education through the federal-provincial special projects agreement announces a special winter training program for unemployed workers... at the technical institute, Moose Jaw.
The first course started on January 4, 1960 and the second course started in mid-February. The courses vary in length from six to eight weeks. The types of training provided are motor vehicle repair, carpentry, plumbing and sheet metal. The advertisement goes on to say:
Training in these trades will be based upon the courses prescribed for first year indentured apprentices.
Who may apply:	This program is intended
primarily for unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the trades who have become unemployed through seasonal lay-off and who wish to improve their qualifications through basic training courses...
Qualifications:	1. Age:	minimum 18 years. 2.
Education:	grade eight standing. 3. Applicants
must be definitely interested in trade employment.
Tuition: There is no tuition fee for these courses.
Allowances: Trainees will receive allowances as follows:
1.	Reimbursement for transportation from home to Moose Jaw and return, one round trip by train or bus.
2.	Living allowance depending upon unemployment insurance benefits received. Information on rates available at all N.E.S. offices.
In that regard, Mr. Chairman, applicants, as I said, must be unemployed, in good health
Supply-Labour
and physically able to perform practical shop work. Trainees will be paid a nominal living allowance but are responsible for finding their own lodgings in Moose Jaw. The content of courses is patterned after that of first year apprenticeship courses under the Saskatchewan department of labour so that candidates may qualify for transfer to regular apprenticeship for subsequent training.
Last year about 160 men received training in the same four fields at Saskatoon under the newly inaugurated federal-provincial special vocational projects scheme. This year nearly 100 more will be accommodated in the shop section of the new technical institute at Moose Jaw. Course graduates may raise their competency to the point where they can expect longer employment each season or enter regular apprenticeship channels, as many of last year's graduates did.
In addition to the training now provided under this class, construction of the technical institute in Moose Jaw at a cost of $2 million, of which the federal government is paying about $1,700,000, has provided much construction work all winter. The new federal building in Moose Jaw has also provided winter work for a large number of men.
This is just a brief outline of some of the efforts that the government is making to provide more employment in my area. I can assure the Minister of Labour that his assistance in this regard is greatly appreciated. Now that the winter is nearly over I think we have passed our worst unemployment period, even for the winter months in the years ahead. I am sure the Moose Jaw technical institute, built, as I have said, in very large part by federal government financing, offers a means for our young people to fit themselves for good jobs as the present economic growth continues. I can assure the Minister of Labour that his efforts and the efforts of the government to reduce unemployment are not regarded as "peanuts" in my constituency.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take advantage of the introduction of this item by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to say a few words on unemployment, not only in my area, but in the country in general.
I do not intend to weary the minister with statistics. I have just heard the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) tell us all that the Minister of Labour has done in his attempt to relieve the acute problem of unemployment in this country.
The way we look at it, Mr. Chairman, is this. Whether there are five, six, or ten

Supply-Labour
children in a family, the ones requiring our greatest care and attention are not the healthy ones but those who are ailing.
I will not quote statistics to the minister because figures represent unemployed men, women and children. That is why I do not want to start an argument with the Minister of Labour, because it is about the plight of those people behind the statistics, people who are suffering, that we should do something.
I readily admit that the Minister of Labour has tried to do something. Even if we are in the opposition, we must at times, endorse measures taken by the government in its attempts to find an answer to our problems, but what worries me is that the answers offered, namely the winter works program to relieve unemployment, are not satisfactory. There are still too many unemployed Canadians and when I think of the solemn promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) in this respect, I wonder if he can sleep soundly at night after promising Canadians that not a single citizen in this country would suffer from unemployment.
In Quebec, at the end of January 1960, nearly 250,000 unemployed had applied for U.I.A. benefits.
Mr. Chairman, there have been years of less unemployment. There were people affected at that time, but not so many as now. Yet, I remember how fervently and feelingly the present Prime Minister was urging the government to call a federal-provincial conference to consider a possible solution to the serious unemployment problem. If there ever was a time when we should ask that such conference be called, it is now when thousands of Canadians are trying to find a job and the means to earn bread to feed their wives and children. Consequently, I ask the Prime Minister to remember now the feelings he expressed when he was sitting on this side of the house, and, if possible, to give evidence of human sympathy by calling a federal-provincial conference to consider the unemployment problem.
I know that some hon. members from the C.C.F. tell us now and again that unemployment is hurting this country's production. Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that it is difficult to consider unemployment from the point of view of national production alone, without regard for the human element and the moral factors affecting men, women and children. There, I think, is our main reason for dealing with unemployment.

The leaders of the western democracies often tell their voters: "You know, we must get away from communism and from absolute socialism because we have moral, intellectual and spiritual values which should be prized above everything in this world". But, Mr. Chairman, it is not just a question of appealing to people's idealism in order to try and preserve our most cherished values. In addition to making them understand the importance of our ideals and our moral and intellectual values, the course we take must agree with the principles we preach and I think that unemployment is one of the worst evils in our society. That is why this government should not hesitate to do everything in its power to find an immediate solution to this problem.
The other day I heard the Minister of Labour reply to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who had made some concrete suggestions-and I admit that some of them were long-term ones-that his proposals could have no immediate effect.
But if year after year the Minister of Labour keeps replying that our suggestions cannot give results for years to come, what is he doing to provide now for the consequences of unemployment one, two or even three years from now?
To my mind, as he indeed informed the cabinet, the Prime Minister and the representatives of the C.T.C.C., some planning is required, and I am not afraid of the word planning.
Sometimes, I admit, when the word is used by socialists, it may have unpleasant connotations. But if we look it up in the dictionary, we find that the word planning means "to make plans for the future." I therefore unhesitatingly urge the government to plan for the future and to provide for one, two or three years from now.
In this connection, when look at the noisy and fallacious publicity of the Soviet union, I think that we are in danger of running into trouble here in Canada. Through its embassy here in Ottawa, the Soviet union is flooding Canada rwith publicity on all that happens and will happen until 1965 in the U.S.S.R. I have here a pamphlet on working hours, on the number of homes being built each year, and so on. About working hours, for instance, the Russians state the following:
(Text):
By 1966-68, all Soviet workers will be transferred to a 35-hour working week (five seven-hour working days), and workers engaged underground or

in trades injurious to health to a 30-hour working week (five six-hour working days).
(Translation):
There are people here in Canada who quote this material in support of the statement that we are not doing enough for our own people. They forget to tell Canadians, however, that such a program, if it is ever implemented in Russia, will be put into effect at the expense of human dignity and personal freedom. We must prevent such propaganda from taking root in the minds of Canadians who are suffering from our own system at the present time.
I am convinced that our system is one of the best, if not actually the best. But it has certain shortcomings which we must hasten to correct. If we cannot agree on a two- , three- or four-year policy, we must be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to find more than mere stop gaps to unemployment, although I am not in favour of full employment-I do not believe in it-even if the theory exists; it is all well and good to preach integral employment or the theory of full employment, but I do not believe that such a thing will ever be possible. However, there is a percentage below which we must not drop.
Too many Canadians today are suffering from unemployment. We must do more than we are doing today. I hope the Minister of Labour is listening to what I have to say and will not accuse me of making politics, because I am trying to deal with the matter in terms of the human problem involved.
Like many other members of this house, when I am through with politics I shall be able to make a living elsewhere, perhaps better than I am doing here. For the time being, I am simply trying to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the human problem which is involved in unemployment, and to ask him to stop flinging statistics at us, to say that there are 10,000 or 5,000 less unemployed than there were last year, or that there are more Canadians at work. It is not those who have jobs who deserve our sympathy; they don't need it; they are making a living. Let us save our sympathy for the unemployed.
Even if 40,000 Canadians were given jobs through the winter works program, what about the 600,000, 700,000 or 750,000 others who are jobless? What about the other thousands who are not getting any unemployment insurance benefits?
I believe those problems not only deserve our sympathy, but call for concrete measures on the part of the government, who should
Private Bills
try to solve them. I am not telling my colleagues in the house anything new in saying that prolonged unemployment only breeds misery among its victims and their dependents. Unemployment also undermines the courage of its victims. And anyone whose morale is affected-
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Order; it being five o'clock, I must now leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed with a consideration of private and public bills.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: As there are a number of divorce bills standing for consideration in committee of the whole, is it agreed that in accordance with section 1 of standing order 54, they be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion?


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: I wonder if, before we go into committee on these divorce bills, we could have unanimous consent to deal with two private bills standing on today's order paper, Bills Nos. SD-13 and S-14? If we could expedite these bills, then we could get them into committee.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been suggested that private Bills Nos. S-13, an act to incorporate Canadian Reassurance Company, and S-14, an act to incorporate Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada, be taken now in priority to the divorce bills. Is it the pleasure of the house to accept this suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Murray Douglas Morton: the second reading of Bill S-13, to incorporate the Canadian Reassurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the house for consenting to having these bills dealt with first. The present application is an application by the parent Swiss reassurance company, which is the largest reassurance company in the world. It has at present a subsidiary in New York in the United States, the North American Reassurance Company. Because 10 to 15 per cent of the business of the North American Reassurance Company is done in Canada, they have now seen fit to apply to this house to set up a subsidiary in Canada and thus transfer that

Private Bills
business directly to Canada, which will mean a head office being set up in Toronto and a transfer of a payroll of roughly $120,000 to $150,000 per year to the benefit of Canadians. The proposed manager of the Canadian branch will be a Canadian.
This company, of course, is applying primarily for the right for reassurance work, although other powers are asked for in the charter. The proposed company will have an authorized capital of $3 million. It will commence business with a subscribed and paid-up capital of $1 million, and in addition a paid-in surplus of $1 million, thus bringing roughly $2 million for investment in Canada.
This company, of course, is being formed in compliance with the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, which is chapter 31 of Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, as amended in 1957. If you recall the amendment in 1957 it provides that at least the majority of the directors must be Canadians, and this will naturally be complied with because it is the law of the country. I also stated that the company will be managed by a Canadian who has been trained in New York and is returning to Canada to carry out the operations of the company. If the house sees fit to pass this bill and it goes through the normal processes of the committee, the company hopes to start operations at the beginning of May of this year. When the bill comes before the committee the officials of the company will be there to answer any questions which hon. members may have concerning the company, as also will be the parliamentary agent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. A. R. Webster (St. Antoine-Westmount) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-14, to incorporate Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill asks for the incorporation of the Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada with head office in Montreal. The Munich Reinsurance Company of Germany, a joint stock company under German laws, was founded in Munich in 1880 with the approval of the royal Bavarian government and is now the second largest reinsurance company in the world. It is a professional reinsurance company engaged exclusively in reinsurance.
In order to extend and organize its business abroad, and because the needs of overseas markets can only properly be met by local

organizations, the Munich Reinsurance Company has since the end of the last century transacted business in the United States through a branch office. In Canada the Munich Reinsurance Company opened a Canadian branch office under the management of Sterling Offices of Canada Limited in Toronto in November 1957.
The Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada will have a capital of $1 million and a surplus of a further $1 million fully paid up. The Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada will transact both Canadian and foreign reinsurance business of every description with the exception of life business. The board of directors will be composed of nine gentlemen of whom, in accordance with the legal provision, at least five will be Canadian citizens.
The Canadian branch of the Munich Reinsurance Company which has at present a premium income of $2,500,000, will retrocede 50 per cent of its business to Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada, as soon as the latter comes into being. This will assure the Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada from the outset a sound business basis. It is intended, if this is agreeable to hon. members, to set up business in Montreal as of June 1.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member one question. Will officials or representatives of this company come before the committee to explain the purposes in detail and answer any questions which are asked?


Allan Ross Webster: Yes. The attorney for the company plus the officials will be in attendance on the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. Speaker:: We will now revert to item No. 63. Mr. McCleave moves that pursuant to section 1 of standing order 54, the divorce bill standing for consideration in committee of the whole be referred to the committee of the whole in one motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information I have some objection to this as of law. Happily this only means that they can be divided once we are in committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, they will be taken in committee as the committee decides. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-1, for the relief of Frank Gerald Donnelly

Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in objecting to these bills being taken in a block I have in mind several problems that I think the members of the committee should give consideration to. One of them is the fact that if we discuss these bills in block instead of each particular bill individually the ground for the relief of a particular case may not be the same as in other cases.
I have a letter here which appeared in Liberty magazine. This letter refers to our divorce cases at the present time, and I should like to read it. It appeared in the issue of August, 1959, and is headed "Collusion in Divorce". A Montreal address is given, but the name of the writer has been withheld. It begins:
Re your May article, I went through Quebec's scandalous divorce mill: I wish to congratulate you on this outspoken article. Right at the moment, my wife and I are going through this "mill", and I do hope that, because of your article, something concrete will be done to clean up this mess.
From the very moment that I paid the $1,200 for the divorce, until now, everything about it has been in very poor taste.


The Deputy Chairman:: I must remind the hon. member that he is strictly out of order. I do not hear of anything in that article which refers to Bill No. SD-1, which is a bill for the relief of Frank Gerald Donnelly. We must, as the hon. member knows, be relevant, and I do not think that that letter refers to this bill at all.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue reading the letter so that I may later ask the chairman of the committee concerned if it does refer to this particular case. The name has been withheld, and the committee may be in a position to obtain it. As it stands, this letter could refer just as easily to Bill No. SD-1 as it could to Bill No. SD-2. If it happened that this letter does refer to this bill, I am sure it would be very much in order.


Mr. Drysdale:: On a point of order, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to Beauchesne, paragraph 158, section 3:
An unsigned letter should not be read in the house. On the 16th May, 1928, a member stated during debate that a letter which he had been quoting was not signed. The Speaker said: "Such a letter should not be read into Hansard; all letters when read must be signed and they become part of the documents of the house."


Charles Edward Rea: I should like to refer to Beauchesne 157, section 5:
Private Bills-Divorce
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
I feel, therefore, that the hon. member's letter is not in order.


William Arnold Peters: I want to dissociate myself immediately from the suggestion that this is my letter. This is a letter which appeared in a magazine and it was written by somebody who was getting a divorce through the House of Commons this year. I agree that a letter which is unsigned should not carry too much weight, but I point out that if this person had signed this letter he would immediately become guilty of the criminal offence of collusion.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: If we are still referring to this letter, how do we know that it is a valid letter? Anyone, for instance, could send in a fictitious letter unsigned. I suggest we are wasting the time of the house if we try to substantiate something on such a basis. That is the reason why an unsigned letter should not be produced.


William Arnold Peters: This is not really an unsigned letter; the name has been withheld by the paper concerned.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Then I ask that the hon. member should produce the name before we proceed.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must inform the hon. member again that he cannot read articles discussing proceedings in this house. I must therefore ask the hon. member to refrain from reading the letter further.


Mr. McCleave:: I do not think the record should be left with any imputation that by even a remote chance the parties involved in this case have anything to do with that letter. The circumstances of the divorce are quite unrelated to anything suggested in that letter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill SD-2, for the relief of Romeo Diiorio-Mr. McCleave- Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Would the chairman of the private and miscellaneous bills committee give us an assurance that the possibility of collusion cannot exist in this particular case?

Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not think I could give such an assurance as that, but it does seem very remote on the facts of this particular case.


William Arnold Peters: Were there detectives involved in this case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: There were detectives involved, but their evidence was supported by the evidence of another party, the spouse of one of the people found in the hotel room.


William Arnold Peters: Can I inquire if the papers which were served by the detectives were served on this gentleman in his office?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is that there is nothing which appears in the record which we have before us to indicate where the papers were served. The hon. member can look at the record in the hands of the clerk of the miscellaneous private bills committee. He would then be able to satisfy himself with regard to his question.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-3, for the relief of Marie Evelina Simone Lorette Clarest Gelinas-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Were detectives used in the preparation of this divorce case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is that detectives were used to produce the evidence before the committee of the other place.


William Arnold Peters: Were these detectives the same ones that have appeared in other divorce cases?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, I think they appear in about a dozen other cases before us this afternoon.


William Arnold Peters: Is there a pattern of similarity established in this particular case as compared with the other cases in which these detectives have operated which might indicate that collusion has taken place in this particular case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think not. There does not appear to be any pattern of similarity here, looking quickly at several cases. It seems to be the habit in Quebec to use the evidence of detectives to establish what the evidence

of neighbours could establish-that two people are living together as man and wife, which is the circumstances of adultery here.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-4, for the relief of Yvette Dubois Leduc-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, were there any children of this marriage or any previous marriages? If so what arrangements were made for their custody?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there is a child of the marriage. The child is living with the respondent.


William Arnold Peters: Was any maintenance awarded by a civil authority and did the committee take into consideration the question of maintenance?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The respondent in this case is the husband. There was no action for maintenance in the court. It would be rather unusual that such would happen when the husband is the respondent. The child was left with the husband. I have not seen a case yet where the husband has sued when the child was left with the husband respondent.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-5, for the relief of Lily Cohen Turner Hamburger-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair,
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in this case there is a change in name from "Hamburger" to "Hamburg". What is the explanation of that?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think this was done at the option of the husband who dropped the "er" off "Hamburger" when he came to Canada.


William Arnold Peters: Were detectives employed by the respondent in this case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there was one employed by the petitioner. The evidence was procured by the petitioner herself and a paid employee.


William Arnold Peters: Was there any indication that there could have been mutual agreement among the parties concerned?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, it is true that this is a motel case but the evidence suggests a pattern of liaison between the husband and his girl friend over a considerable period of time.


William Arnold Peters: Where any reasons advanced for the ready admission of strangers in the night under secretive and embarrassing circumstances?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the hon. member mean that the entry into the motel was carried out under secretive circumstances?


William Arnold Peters: Was any reason given why admittance of a stranger was allowed late at night under circumstances embarrassing to the parties concerned?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the detective involved in this case knocked at the door. It was opened a little way and he shoved his big foot in and followed it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-6, for the relief of Marthe Turcotte Bazire.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-7, for the relief of James Joseph Kalmin.- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I notice in this case the man applied for the divorce. Would the sponsor of the bill indicate to the committee the reason for this?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The wife of the petitioner had left her husband and was living with another man for a long period of time.


William Arnold Peters: Was it considered that collusion could have been established? Was any legal advice given in this case which would make it suspect?
Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Jardine McCleave: I do not think there would have been a chance of collusion in this case. The odds would be about one in a million at a very conservative estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-8, for the relief of Barbara Dolores Jones Ogilvie-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, was a motel
involved in this case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, Mr. Chairman. This was again a case of a man leaving his wife and living with another woman as man and wife.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-9, for the relief of Margaret June Barrie Belanger-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, would there be any indication in this case that agreement had been reached between the parties?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think not in the circumstances of the case. The parties had been separated for some time. Provision was made for the care of the children of the marriage. The petition for divorce followed some time after the separation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-10, for the relief of Hannah Margaret Burlie Griffiths-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, were the investigators in this case admitted under embarrassing circumstances?

Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the entry was made into the man's apartment well after midnight. Some words were exchanged but I do not think anybody thought to ask the man whether or not he was embarrassed. The man did not appear so we will never know.


William Arnold Peters: I presume it was not the apartment of the people concerned in this case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: It was the man's own apartment.


William Arnold Peters: Does it not seem strange that people under presumably embarrassing circumstances should readily admit strangers late at night?


Robert Jardine McCleave: There may have been extenuating circumstances that the man had something to drink in this case.


William Arnold Peters: Is the hon. member suggesting that he was inebriated?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The evidence given to the committee of the other place was only to the effect that he had been drinking heavily. The detectives who gave evidence did not state anywhere that he was incoherent or had lost the use of his faculties to such a degree as to render him incapable of answering their questions.


William Arnold Peters: Would it not be necessary for the committee to establish the fact that he was in a condition in which adultery could have been proved?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes; the evidence shows that he was very inquisitive. He asked a great many questions quite coherently, so that it would appear that he was in complete control of all his senses.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, is there any indication that this was a continuing relationship with the lady, the third party concerned in this case, or is it possible that the drinking could have had some connection with it?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, it was clearly established that the man had been with this lady on several other occasions before this particular morning.


William Arnold Peters: Is it indicated that the adultery charge could have been proved, or could have reasonably been expected to have been proved, or were there other occasions than this particular one?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. There is so much excitement in the committee this afternoon that I cannot catch all the questions of my hon. friend.


William Arnold Peters: I am curious about this particular case where alcohol is involved. I think some of the medical practitioners who
[Mr. Peters.l
were so vocal yesterday might argue legitimately that certain conditions would not be fulfilled under circumstances where a sufficient amount of alcohol was present. In his reply the hon. member said that there were other occasions when the gentleman had been in close enough proximity to this lady that adultery could have been assumed to have taken place, and there was some evidence of that on other occasions.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am not sure of that, Mr. Chairman. In difficult cases such as this it is sometimes the practice for the detectives hired to follow the man or the woman on a number of occasions to establish the pattern of conduct in their lives. In this particular case, looking at the history of the marriage itself, for example, one would realize that a few drinks would not set him off.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-11, for the relief of Ruth Sherman Roll-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: In this case I am wondering whether the hon. member who was the chairman of the committee can give us an assurance that there had been no opportunity for collusion, and that this was a straightforward case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think I would not give that assurance in any case. All I or any member of the committee can do, or the people in the other place who heard this case, can do, is to look at all the evidence and make a decision as to whether the grounds for divorce have been met and whether the case is a good one or not. I do not think that anybody can ever give the assurance asked for by the hon. member. 1 think it is more likely that there was no collusion.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in asking this question I have in mind something that the Prime Minister said the other day in referring to the capital punishment debate. He said that all hon. members must take a moral and an honest position to see that legislation that is passed is what it appears to be. For this reason I believe we should be careful to make sure that Bill No. SD-11 has no collusion

attached to it. I say this because, as I have already stated, a reputable man has written a letter that would indicate that somebody this year is going to pay $1,200 to the House of Commons or to the other place, and is going to obtain a divorce which the parties have committed collusion to get.
I agree the hon. member should not have to say there was no collusion in this case or in the other. His assurance will certainly, in my opinion, strengthen the reasons for getting this particular bill through the House of Commons. If hon. members have all given as close attention to this bill as has the chairman of this committee then maybe they themselves are going to be able to say, when they vote for one of these bills, that it is a good case and no collusion took place here. As conscientious members we should ask these questions. We do not suggest that the hon. member answering the questions on behalf of the committee should have to say whether or not collusion did take place. If he gives us the assurance that it is not a likely case where it did take place, certainly I am happy to take his word for it. In this particular case were detectives used to establish the evidence?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, Mr. Chairman, detectives were used. I thank the hon. member for his kind words, and would point out to the committee that one can establish a lot in these cases by the advantage of seeing the parties before the committee. This, of course, happens in the committee of the other place. Many of these gentlemen have the advantage of a great number of years of experience in hearing these cases. They have the advantage of looking at the parties, particularly the petitioning husband or wife, and knowing whether they are giving straightforward evidence, or whether there is something sneaky about the way in which the whole matter has arrived in Ottawa.
For example, I had the opportunity of reading the evidence of the wife since the hon. member started to ask questions about this case. I had read the evidence before; I read it again. She is in her mid-twenties; she seemed to establish a very solid ground for her divorce with the committee of the other place, and she painted a picture of the relationship when she and her husband lived together, which was not a happy one.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in this particular case the sponsor of the bill has mentioned that this was a very young couple. The husband was not old, either; the lady was in her twenties. In this particular case did the committee make any effort to effect a reconciliation rather than passing this relief measure?
Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, indeed; this is one thing we can say about our colleagues in the other place. Wherever it is possible they will ask a great number of questions, or suggest to the people concerned that they consult family counsellors or their ministers. There were quite a few questions asked by Hon. Mr. Gershaw who, as I think everybody knows, has a tremendous reputation across Canada for trying to patch up these unhappy marriages that come before the Senate and the House of Commons.


William Arnold Peters: I am pleased to hear this because I did not know before that the other place had this service. I think it is an advantageous one. If this young lady had brought her case before a provincial court rather than bringing it to the House of Commons she would not have had the benefit of that type of service, and I am quite pleased to know that the Senate has now decided to supply that.
In view of the fact that consideration has been given to reconciliation in this case, did the detectives appear as stupid as they usually do or was it a clear-cut case where evidence was presented that might indicate that there had been some collusion, particularly in view of the fact that the Senate thought that there might be a possibility of some understanding being arrived at?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the evidence in some cases is gone into very thoroughly from the point of view of the course of the investigation before entry is made into the hotel or motel. In this case that did not happen. I think that once the committee had heard the wife's story of the unhappy marriage with her husband they were quite prepared to get down to the bare bones of the evidence that was required to round out the story. They did not require very much more and I must say that I agree with them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-12, for the relief of Francis Lawrence Bray- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in this particular case I notice that the husband is the

Private Bills-Divorce
one who had made application lor relief from his marriage. Would the sponsor of the bill care to comment on the facts in this case?


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is one of those very straightforward cases that one finds when you have a husband divorcing his wife. I would say that in at least 90 per cent of those cases where the wife is named as respondent she has left her home and has established a permanent liaison with somebody else. That is exactly what happened here.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Pramble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-13, for the relief of Beverley Cowan Moore Robinson-Mr. McCleave

Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: In this case I should like to know if detectives were used, if it occurred in a motel or hotel and the circumstances involved.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is very simple. There were no detectives and no motels and no hotels. The husband and wife had parted and the husband had taken up a liaison on a permanent basis with another woman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-14, for the relief of Enid Grace Pascoe Dawson -Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask if detectives were used and if this was a hotel or motel situation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: There were detectives and the matrimonial offence occurred in the respondent husband's apartment with a woman with whom he had been seen on previous occasions.


William Arnold Peters: How was admittance to the
apartment gained?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Detectives had watched
the place in question on two prior evenings.

On the third evening the first detective called the second detective who arrived on the scene about 9.30 in the evening. Around eleven o'clock or 11.30 at night the two detectives went to the apartment and pressed the buzzer on the door. The gentleman inside happened to be a doctor. They said, "Doctor, this is an emergency", and he opened the door and they went in.


William Arnold Peters: That was very handy but we
are speaking of detectives who I presume are licensed people and who are supposed to have some ethics. Is there no question in the mind of the sponsor about accepting testimony of this nature from people who have admitted that they have lied?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member has hit
a gold mine in this question. I am sorry that I inadvertently misled the committee when I said that they were detectives. These two gentlemen have appeared in quite a number of cases but they call themselves insurance investigators. I do not mind naming them for the record. One is George Rolland Foucher, 43, of Montreal, and the other is Don Kennedy, 29, of Montreal. For some years they have been coming before these committees of parliament and giving evidence in divorce cases. They have investigated these cases. I think the hon. member heard them give evidence in a case that was heard by the miscellaneous private bills committee. There is a problem in the fact that these people have not taken out licences to be detectives in the province of Quebec.
I have had some discussion of this matter with the chairman of the committee of the other place and we hope that some friendly persuasion will lead Mr. Foucher and Mr. Kennedy to mend their ways. It is quite true that because they are not licensed detectives they are not liable to certain penalties that could be applied by the provincial authorities. The hon. member has a good point. It shall be pursued.


William Arnold Peters: I had not realized that Kennedy was one of the men involved in this case. Now that it has been brought to our attention I think I may say that members who were on the committee a year or two ago were very unimpressed with his ability as a detective and were very impressed with his ability to deal with the truth very loosely. He had a very short memory and every time he had to call on his memory the result was different than the time before. Because of the reputation of these gentlemen I would assume that we should give much closer study to this bill

than we would have otherwise. In view of the fact that these gentlemen's names have been mentioned, I would suggest that the sponsor of the bill could not assure the committee that there was no collusion in this case. Because this detective agency is not licensed and because the word of these men is unsupported in the main except by people who have no more character than they have, I would think that this could possibly be the case we have been looking for. This may be case that appears in Liberty magazine in the form of a letter. I would suggest that we are going to have to give closer attention to it. I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill, through you, Mr. Chairman, if the committee of the other place asked for any verification of the charge of adultery, other than the unsupported testimony of these detectives.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Some slight evidence on the part of the petitioner, Mr. Chairman, to the effect that it was quite probable her husband had, in fact, committed adultery.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: As a point of interest, Mr. Chairman, is the copy of the evidence from which the hon. member is reading the same as that which is available to the sponsor of the bill? I do not mean to indicate I do not enjoy the exchange of views across the floor, but I think the hon. member has the same evidence as is available to the sponsor. I would suggest, that if he wishes to challenge any of these divorces on the grounds of collusion, the proper way would be for the committee to have the Minister of Justice intervene rather than to waste a whole hour on these divorce matters.


William Arnold Peters: I am really surprised at this intervention. The hon. member is suggesting that we have not the right, in this committee, to question any of these bills.


Mr. Graffley:: He did not.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I was not suggesting you had no right to intervene in this particular bill. I was suggesting you have the same information available as the sponsor of the bill. I know he can read, and I suppose you can too.


William Arnold Peters: I do not believe it matters whether or not I can read. I do not think this is the point in question. The problem is that these bills are going through this committee, and they are not being sponsored by me. They are being sponsored by an hon. gentleman who is quite capable of answering all the questions and who has done a remarkable amount of work on them. He has, I think, given the committee more information, and has given more study to these matters
Private Bills-Divorce
than any other chairman of the private bills committee. I have read the record for past years and noted the manner in which the divorce bills have been handled, the slipshod way they have been passed. I would suggest that the fact of whether or not we can read them is of no importance at all.
I think the sponsor of these bills is quite happy to justify them before the committee. The committee of the other place may be willing to grant relief to these people, but certainly no hon. member in this committee should have a hand in the passage of these bills if he has not given some consideration to them and does not know something about these particular bills. If there is any question in any hon. member's mind about any phase of a particular bill, then I think that hon. member has an obligation to the country- so long as we are handling divorces in this manner-to ask questions. I would think, therefore, that the fact of whether or not I can read is not of much importance. The fact of whether or not the sponsor of these particular bills is satisfied in all particulars is of importance to me and should be of importance to all other hon. members.
I suggest that hon. members of this committee who have heard detectives like Kennedy testify have an obligation to give very close consideration to any bill with which detectives of this type have any connection. I believe the private bills committee was of the general opinion that the evidence of such detectives

I think this can be checked- was very shady, very sketchy and their memory or loss of memory always suited their own purposes.
I do not believe it is of any importance whether or not the members have read the information adduced by the committee of the other place. Most of the witnesses do not appear before the private bills committee of this house, so we are depending entirely on somebody else's interrogation of the witnesses and we are giving consideration to a decision that was taken by other people. With this in mind, I would say we have an obligation to this committee; we have an obligation to the Canadian public in general; and we certainly have an obligation to the people who are involved in these divorce cases to ascertain whether or not there was any collusion or whether they are bona fide applications for divorce. I think we have an obligation to do this.
I am very happy that the chairman of the private bills committee who sponsors these bills is prepared to answer these questions. I am very pleased also that he is capable of answering them. He not only has read the

Supply-Labour
evidence, but in many cases he has sat in the committee of the other place and has had an opportunity of listening to and meeting some of these people. I am quite sure that if the hon. member who made the interjection were to ask the sponsor of these bills if he gave much credence to the evidence of the detectives in this case he would find that some of the evidence of these detectives is suspect, even in the sponsor's mind.
This raises another matter which I think should concern the committee. We have people coming before committees and testifying under procedures that would be considered other than the normal court procedure and where they do not have to be too worried about perjury. It has already been established, certainly in my mind, that they do not give much consideration to the truth. Some of them are more interested in making a fast buck by getting paid for the number of days they work on these particular cases. Some of these detectives have been in Ottawa on a number of cases and there are 500 cases to come before us. I feel we have an obligation to ascertain for ourselves if there have been any unusual circumstances arise in connection with the evidence of these detectives in the past and, if so, I think we should have the opportunity of calling these detectives who are operating on a continuous basis in divorce cases before our committee and requesting that they give us some justification for some of the evidence they present.
In this particular case, I should like to ask the sponsor how extensive was the time spent by these detectives on this particular case.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I can answer that very simply. They were in company together on three occasions and they had some other evidence to support the chain of conduct which I mentioned before.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the sponsor-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter which was under consideration at five o'clock.

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

liscal years of amounts not exceeding one hall 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
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, as I said when the house adjourned, young men and middle aged people who find themselves without a job for quite a long time, soon get demoralized and even end by feeling that they are useless in our society. While at first they think of themselves as unemployed, they soon come to look upon themselves as unemployable in the society in which they live.
Especially do our young people, Mr. Chairman, lose the best years of their lives trying to be useful members of society. They lose the best years of their lives when they should be trying to get settled and wield due influence as citizens in their community. In addition to losing their morale, our young unemployed may even become bad citizens in a society which almost rejects them; at least they think of themselves as being rejected by society when they are unable to find employment and earn a living for themselves and their families.
As I said this afternoon, what is important, serious and tragic in the unemployment situation, are the human factors. They are the factors we should consider. Human dignity is what we have to consider. It is with that situation that we must deal and we, as the representatives of the people have a very serious duty, I believe, in this regard.
In Montreal, His Eminence Cardinal Leger dealt with the matter last year when he reminded all representatives of the people, at the municipal, provincial or federal levels, of their duty with regard to this situation affecting a very great number of Canadian citizens.
I will quote only an extract of Cardinal Leger's letter, which was published in Saturday Night of February 14, 1959. About unemployment, His Eminence wrote;
(Text):
This evil afflicts a very large number of workers, brings misery to their families and seriously jeopardizes social order.
Who would dare to say. in the face of this situation, that all types of unemployment are normal, and at the most constitute a "neccessary evil?" Such a statement would be as little in agreement with the natural law as it is with the oresent-day science. A Christian cannot remain indifferent in a situation which creates such

great suffering. Behind the statistics and figures, we must discern the men and women, the children and the aged who are reduced to poverty and exposed to the terrible temptations of despair.
Deprived of the moral advantages which result from employment, the unemployed have the impression that they are no longer useful to society. This situation upsets family life and endangers the peace and harmony that should reign in the home. The head of the family is humiliated because of his inability to fulfill his family responsibilities; he feels that he is a failure. Discouragement can take hold of him, and his enforced idleness can expose him to all sorts of temptations. The increase of criminal offences in times of acute unemployment is a further indication of the gravity of the situation.
How can we reconcile the vision of thousands of citizens without work with the picture of a country which is immensely rich and in full development?
A recent report on the royal commission for Canada's economic prospects states that our country ''is one of the rare countries which can find, within its boundaries, the greater part of the primary materials which are necessary to any great industrial power, and since 1945 a great number of discoveries and developments have come up to make Canada still more self-sufficient ... Canada can consider itself particularly privileged and blessed among the other nations of the world."
A reform of the economy is necessary and it is possible. It is false to state that the economic order is affected only by certain mechanical influences, as it were, and that it follows certain inescapable laws which man is incapable of influencing. Economic life is the work of reason. It is certain that it has its own laws and its own exigencies, but by his free behaviour and the activity of his reason, man has the power to modify the operation of the economic structure and to direct it, with due regard for the particular circumstances of the times and for the common good of all.
(Translation):
I said earlier that the representatives of the people have a serious duty. But those who lead the government, who shape the destiny of our country, have an even more serious duty, because theirs is the responsibility of correcting the faults of our system.
In his letter to the archdiocese of Montreal, His Eminence Cardinal Leger gave some views about the duty of the members of the House of Commons of Canada. In concluding, I would like to read what His Eminence had to say about the duties of the representatives of the people in the House of Commons. Again, according to Saturday Night of February 14, 1959, he said:
(Text):
If I am a representative of the people, a city councillor, a member of the provincial government or federal government:
Do I realize the grave responsibility of my mandate in the face of present unemployment?
Am I convinced that "the state has the important mission to prevent any disturbance of the equilibrium of economy resulting from the conflicting interests of selfish individuals or groups?"
Supply-Labour
Am I convinced that "the state is obliged to protect the right to work of its citizens, (not in the sense that outside of a collectivist society it should itself furnish employment) but it must take care to diminish the rise of unemployment or at least to palliate its consequences by exerting influence on economic and professional organization whose autonomy, however, it must take care to respect?"
As a servant of the common good, have I always done everything possible to prevent, to delay or to ease this human suffering?
(Translation):
There, Mr. Chairman, is the duty of the people elected to the House of Commons of Canada. I think it is even a greater duty for the members sitting on the treasury benches, because they have the grave responsibility of looking to the future, and to the young people who are unemployed and have to think of their future.
I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is a man of great humanity. Last year, a delegation from my constituency-I might even say the whole area-came to meet him. We handed him a brief on the employment situation in the Lake St. John and Saguenay district. I know he understood our demands. Of course, he is not alone in the cabinet, but in view of his understanding of the problem now affecting not only Canada, but particularly my constituency, and, in view of his humanity, I think he might do much more to find a solution.
When the C.T.C.C. came to meet the cabinet-and I believe the Minister of Labour was at the meeting-it recommended, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has been doing for more than a year-the establishment of a commission to study the problems of automation and unemployment.
This commission should include representatives of labour, of management, of public bodies and of the provinces, to investigate the problem and try once and for all to find solutions which would save us from having to take up the house's time year after year to call the government's attention to Canada's unemployment problem.
The minister has refused to set up a commission of that kind. Obviously, that is a matter which comes under his own and the cabinet's responsibility, but I think the suggestion made by the present Leader of the Opposition in 1958, and by the C.T.C.C. a short time later, has great merit and might, if adopted, help us find solutions.
We are often accused of criticizing without offering any remedies or suggestions. However, I think our leader, the hon. member for

Supply-Labour
Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) made a suggestion in 1958 which ought to be considered. That suggestion was included in the Liberal platform for 1958, and reads as follows:
(Text):
As Mr. Pearson advocated in 1958, Canada should have a national advisory board on economic development, automation and employment to help deal with long term problems of production and employment. Such a board would include representatives of labour, industry, agriculture and the universities as well as representatives of the departments of government immediately concerned.


Mr. Clancy:: But nobody who works.


Augustin Brassard: What?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: But nobody who works.
Twenty two years to bring it in.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, we often hear the remark: "What did you do?"
Mr. Chairman, what incited the Canadian people to elect a Conservative government to which they entrust this country's business? It was because Conservative candidates promised the Canadian people that they would do much better than we did. I know that the Liberal party-


Mr. Tremblay:: People had enough of you.


Augustin Brassard: I know that the Liberal party accomplished some excellent things when it was in power. The Liberals administered this country without aiming at political profit for their party. They placed the welfare of Canadians before party interests. Now, during the 1957 and 1958 elections Conservative candidates promised us to do much better, and that is what we are urging them to do at this time.
It is not a matter of what we did and what we did not do, because there is no comparison between what we did and what is happening today. The important thing to know is that the Conservative candidates, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, promised Canadians that they would give them an administration which would be infinitely superior to the Liberal government.
As those people are now in power they should keep the solemn promises they made to the people of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, instead of interrupting me, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) would be much wiser if he got up and told the house what he thinks of the unemployment situation in our district.
[Mr. Brassard (Lapointe) .1
Mr. Chairman, as I said at the start, I thought I might deal with the unemployment question without having to answer interjections of a political nature. Before we adjourned at six o'clock, the Minister of Labour listened to us and not a single member interrupted the speakers who took part in the debate. However, tonight, there is one who is well known here for his rather unique character. I mean the hon. member for Roberval, who interrupts us only to change the subject. I hope that hon. member will have the spunk and intelligence to take the floor himself, take part in this debate, and offer the government suggestions that might be of help to those who are suffering, not only in my constituency and throughout the country, but especially in his own constituency.
Mr. Chairman, before closing-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: That is why you are
protecting-


Augustin Brassard: Has the hon. member for Roberval a question?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Yes. Is it for that reason that the hon. member is trying to protect certain very dubious individuals in my constituency? Criminals?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the hon. member means, and especially-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: You know perfectly well.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know, above all, what this has to do with unemployment; but if that situation just referred to by the hon. member has anything to do with unemployment, I shall certainly be prepared to intervene on behalf of the unemployed, not only in my constituency but also in his own, because he is amazingly silent on the subject.


Azellus Denis: What project has the city of Roberval submitted?


An hon. Member:: None at all.


Augustin Brassard: In any case, Mr. Chairman, I should like to try to close my remarks on a more peaceful note. If the hon. member for Roberval will kindly keep to his seat and, above all, hold his tongue, which is always very active when it should not be, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour-


Azellus Denis: He should have been born mute, this one.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to consider the possibility of establishing a commission to study the problems of automation and unemployment, and make sure that he includes in this commission representatives of employers of labour, of public organizations and of the provinces in order to seek a solution to this serious problem.
It is all very well to make fine speeches, as the member for Roberval does from time to time, against communism and socialism, but the important thing is to prove by definite measures that our system is the best. It is not by words and speeches that we will convince people who are hungry and suffering that communism and socialism are doctrines we must reject. Let us suit the action to the word, and to our principles. This is a responsibility of members who sit on the treasury benches and they have the power to take action in this regard.
I urge the Minister of Labour to consider the problem and, if he feels that if he personnally cannot cope with the serious problem confronting the people of Canada today, I suggest that he seek counsel from whoever can help him do so.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, this is the sixth day we have spent on the estimates now before the house, and if we considered only the speeches made by opposition members, particularly by Liberal members, we might think the Liberals are the only ones who understand the unemployed and who are concerned with unemployment. However, Mr. Chairman, if we go back a few years and look at the record, we have to recognize that the Conservative party, in the few years it has been entrusted with the task of running the country, has done much more than our friends in the opposition.
At this stage in my remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I first thank the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) for saying that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has done something to alleviate unemployment. May I suggest to hon. Liberal members that they tune up their fiddles because the hon. member for Lapointe is the only one of this group who admitted that the Minister of Labour has done something to relieve unemployment.
The hon. member for Lapointe also said that you cannot expect full employment of Canada's labour force. In view of this
Supply-Labour
remark, Mr. Chairman, I ask my Liberal friends why, after claiming over the years that the Liberal party was providing work continuously for the whole labour force, that same party introduced unemployment insurance?
Was it, Mr. Chairman, a roundabout way of taxing labour so as to freely apply the cost plus system which they introduced when they were in office, and which they have always exploited?
Today, Mr. Chairman, we are told that the unemployed are in serious difficulties, that they are in deep misery, but of course, we are not told that it is under the regime of our friends the Liberals that the black market developed, and that workers could not get any meat, because the government had introduced rationing. And, consequently it is under their regime that we had the worst black market system ever to flourish in Canada. And those are the people who today shed tears over our so-called jobless. In fact, they held the unemployed so close to their hearts that they were strangling them; and they still want to strangle them, because they do not want to hear their voices which would blame them for their failure to do what they were supposed to do when they were in office.
Mr. Chairman, last week the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) -and I am sorry he is not here now-took the floor in defence of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. He said that in St. Hyacinthe a plant was closed. He also said that when we Conservatives were in office unemployment figures were such and such. Let us then consider the facts, Mr. Chairman, and see, when the Liberals were in office how many unemployed there were.


Azellus Denis: Tell us about the situation today.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In June 1954, when those
Liberal pecksniffs were in power, we had in St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, 2,835 unemployed; in January 1955 there were 2,438; in 1956, 2,553; in 1957, there were 2,809; in February 1957, 2,914; in March 1957, 3,045.


An hon. Member:: Going up.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Still under the rule of the Liberals to which you belong, my friend. During that period, did we hear the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) deplore the plight of the unemployed? No, never. They tried to make the people believe that Canada was enjoying unequalled prosperity.

Supply-Labour
Today, with a few hundred more unemployed, -because our friends in the opposition failed to act as they ought to have done when they were in power, we, the Conservatives, now have to pay the piper.
(Text):


Azellus Denis: Why not?
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And today, they are whining because they have no more people at the helm who promoted the cost plus system that made several of their friends rich men. They deplore losing power merely because they lost their business as well. That is why they are whining. And how they whine.
Now let me go back for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to what that hypocrite from the county of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville said last week. He stated that the Super Knitting Mills which were employing 225 people at St. Hyacinthe, had closed down. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. But, if the Super Knitting Mills closed down, it was to allow, -and I have before me a report published by Le Courrier of St. Hyacinthe, which says:
A new industry for our town on the 22nd.
This can be read in the issue of February 18, 1958. I am reading this out:
The city of St. Hyacinthe will have a new industry within its limits as from next Monday; the Exquisite Form Brassiere (Canada) Limited, which exists-
Seeing the inconsistency of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill), this is meant for him.
-which has a branch in Moncton (New Brunswick).
And further on, I read that the plant, Mr. Chairman, will give employment to 400 people instead of the 70 employed by the former company.
If I read on, Mr. Chairman, I find that the Gotham Hosiery was said to have closed down. That is true. But if the Gotham Hosiery had to close down, it was for the good reason that women do not want stockings with a seam at the back.
I realize that hon. members in the opposition are at a loss with regard to this, because:
(Text):
They have lost contact between the grass and the brass. They are going up and down, right and left and jumping around but they do not know where they are going.
(Translation):
However, during the weekend, I had, with the mayor of St. Hyacinthe, Mr. 
Jacques Lafontaine, a prominent notary, a talk during which he told me that after having discussed the situation at length with the owners of the Gotham Hosiery, he had come to the conclusion that if that company had closed down, it had only itself to blame for it had let other manufactures secure the market.
I am assured by the mayor of St. Hyacinthe that within two or three months, another plant employing 500 to 600 "hands" will be built in our town.


Azellus Denis: That will mean 250 men and a half.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It means 250 and a half, says the senseless joker for St. Denis. If employment is provided for 250 people, and there are at least three people in each family, it means that at least 750 people will benefit. It is too little for the stupid joker from St. Denis; he wants much more.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this is a world where everything needs to be rebuilt because of the rigid attitude and lack of foresight of the Liberals. We have to rebuild Canada. We have already made a start on it, as can be seen in my constituency. Just to prove my point, let me give you further evidence that the people in my area are indignant at the sanctimonious member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) for casting aspersions on the people of St. Hyacinthe.
The people of St. Hyacinthe are fed up with this kind of wet blanket talk from certain pecksniffs. I do not say that all Liberals are the same. I see my friend from Cartier (Mr. Crestohl); I also see my friend from Levis (Mr. Bourget) and my friend from Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) others whom I shall not name, because I do not want to take up too much of the house's time. Those are reasonable people. On the other hand, there are in the ranks of the Liberal party people like the member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, and others who are conspicuous by their absence but who are none the less real pecksniffs, self-appointed pecksniffs.
May I quote now, Mr. Chairman, an item published in Le Courrier de St. Hyacinthe, which says:
Four rather new Industries give work here to 492 people.
The article refers to
The Regent Chocolates Limited, a member of the Trumps syndicate-
The Kimberley-Clark Corporation of Canada Limited, which manufactures various sanitary

products, among them the famous Kleenex; the Megantic Knitting Limited, and the Centre Manufacturing Company (Evan Pants, Inc.).
These industries-


Azellus Denis: Read the page of the employment wanted ads.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Those industries, Mr. Chairman, have been established in the city of St. Hyacinthe for a few months only, since the election of the Conservative government, and they are constantly progressing. Indeed, to the great astonishment and great resentment of the Liberals who do not want to realize it. Nothing pleases them more than to see unemployment. It is the only way they can conduct their campaign. If there are 1,000 unemployed more this week than last, they rejoice. They bring it in the house in order to sow fear, discord and a certain confusion among the population. Why? Because they can never expect people with common sense to support them. All they want is to create confusion, for they believe that they have more chance, in this way, to succeed in their campaign.
Now, Mr. Chairman, may I quote from another newspaper, the Clairon Maskoutain, which my hon. friend from Levis should recognize, since probably in a moment of distraction, he came in my constituency to encourage the few Liberals we have there.


Mr. Bourgei:: Are they not more numerous since 1 have been there?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is a Liberal newspaper for which I have much respect because, at times, it gives the facts in their true light. On page one, column 6, I read:
According to various comments heard, the winter employment campaign will be a great success in our town. However, it will be impossible to give an exact account of the work done during the winter months, since several people have had work done without the knowledge of the committee.
That is without the executive committee being told about it. Such is the opinion of a Liberal newspaper about the winter works program of this government.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to say any more about that and to come back-


Azellus Denis: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No, only after I am through.


Azellus Denis: It happened twice, and you never let me.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I make it a habit to answer sensible questions, but stupid, no-


Azellus Denis: Just a teenie-weenie question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No, intelligent questions, fine; but stupid questions, no.
Supply-Labour


Azellus Denis: I'll do my best.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: During the few minutes at my disposal I should like to go back for a few moments to a matter referred to by my hon. friend the hon. member for Lapointe and tell the house, without wishing to tell my own life story, that 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 of the Goodyear Company of Canada Limited is referred to, everyone knows that he is a fellow who has always kept in close touch with the working class, who has always wished to be at its service, and who has always managed to maintain what our friends opposite never did, that is, contact between the grass and the brass.
So I have good friends in the Catholic unions-


An hon. Member:: Name them.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The C.C.C.L.; Jos. Piche, Rene Gosselin, from the textile federation; Roland Picard, etc., etc. There are many more you have never heard of.


Azellus Denis: Name five or six.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I know from experience, and for having been told by those people, that year after year, the C.C.C.L. came here to meet the uncompromising ministers of the former Liberal government and present briefs, and received no consideration. Since the Conservative government's accession to power, since the assumption of office of the Minister of Labour, who certainly is the best Minister of Labour Canada has ever had, the C.C.C.L. has submitted its views to the present government.
Naturally, Mr. Chairman, the Conservative government is unable to clear up in so little time a mess that was 22 years in the making.
We have been in office only since June 1957 and the working people of Canada have put their faith in us-


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Labour problems will be settled to their satisfaction, to the great disappointment of our Liberal friends, but since the people of Canada have faith in us, we shall keep on being worthy of their trust for years and years to come.


Azellus Denis: I should like to put a question to the hon. member. How many projects

Supply-Labour
were submitted by the city of St. Hyacinthe under this program? Is the answer one or two zeros?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have forgotten that I had a note concerning what the hon. member for St. Denis said the other day. He gives me the opportunity to-


Azellus Denis: I believe that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sure the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot will rephrase his wording as he referred to lies by other hon. members.


Azellus Denis: I will ask the hon. member to withdraw what he just said. He is used to it, anyway.	.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman-


Azellus Denis: Withdraw what you just said.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, when I am speaking about what they are saying I admit I have to say they are telling lies, having no alternative.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry, but 1 shall have to ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: With all deference to your judgment, sir, I will withdraw but I will say that the hon. member for St. Denis is telling nothing but what is not the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Azellus Denis: He cannot do that.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a double negative.


Azellus Denis: On the point of order, I am asking a question. I am just asking him how many projects were advanced by the city of St. Hyacinthe by virtue of the winter works program. He can answer, one, two, three or ten or none. I do not want a speech from the hon. member.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here-I had forgotten it-from the clerk of the town of St. Hyacinthe to the effect that every time they have applied for help from this government the city of St. Hyacinthe has always received it.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Azellus Denis: We have had a speech from the hon. member.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for St. Denis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Azellus Denis: I do not want members on the other side to applaud me. I am not the government announcing unemployment or a deficit. I should like the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot to answer my question. I am asking him how many projects have been advanced by the city of St. Hyacinthe. He can say whether it is none, one, two or three projects. I am asking him a question about apples. I do not want him to answer with oranges.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to answer that. The other day the hon. member for St. Denis-


Azellus Denis: There he goes again.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -said that the city of St. Hyacinthe had not applied for one project under this scheme.


Azellus Denis: Why?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I can tell him that what he said the other day was altogether contrary to the truth, as he has always been used to, that everything he advanced was contrary to the truth. I can tell him that the city of St. Hyacinthe has applied once for help from the government because it is required that the municipal council apply only once, and the mayor of St. Hyacinthe told me only on Saturday that if they had to come to the government of Canada two, three, four or ten times he was sure that they would be welcome here two, three, four or ten times.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, we have heard with great interest the remarks of the spokesman for the Quebec Conservative members. We had a very good time and we hope that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot will speak more often in the future. As far as the value of his remarks is concerned, I am going to leave that to be weighed by public opinion.
Since the beginning of this debate on unemployment each member who has spoken from this side of the house has brought forward numerous suggestions and recommendations-


William Heward Grafftey: Name one.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member for Essex East gave ten.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -with respect to the serious unemployment situation. Hon. members will recall the ten proposals brought forward by the hon. member for Essex East and also the suggestions brought forward by the hon. member for Laurier on February 19 last. It does not appear that any of these proposals have met with government approval. They have not even been commented

on by the Minister of Labour. If the government does not want, for one reason or another, to adopt any of these proposals, why can they not accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Essex East to empower the standing committee on industrial relations with full authority to investigate the problem of unemployment?
As found on page 2095 of Hansard for February 15, 1954 the former speaker made a ruling, which ruling reads as follows:
-as hon. members know, it has been the practice to refer matters pertaining to labour, unemployment and employment to the standing committee on industrial relations.
We also note that on February 15, 1954 the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, then an opposition member, made a motion for an examination of the problem of unemployment by the standing committee on industrial relations. May I remind hon. members that in February, 1954, the unemployment figures were much lower-


Mr. Creaghan:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Chair would rule whether or not this discussion is in order. It seems to me that this afternoon the Speaker ruled this particular discussion completely out of order as an amendment.


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to another motion.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I should like to have a ruling from the Chair whether or not the hon. member can discuss something which it was decided this afternoon was out of order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If you will permit me to speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon there was a suggestion made to refer the matter of unemployment to the standing committee on industrial relations. The amendment was ruled out of order because at the time we were discussing two precise items, namely the power of the committee to print and also permission to sit while the house is sitting. Now, tonight, Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with unemployment and my suggestion is that we refer the whole question to the committee on industrial relations. I submit very respectfully that my remarks are in order.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I was wondering if the hon. member might permit a question. He said in his remarks that the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he was a member of the opposition, had suggested that the question of unemployment be referred to the committee on industrial relations. I was wondering if he could give the page to which he refers.


Lionel Chevrier: He did not say that.
Supply-Labour


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: He certainly did.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I was just about to give the reference to the page at which these remarks could be found when I was interrupted by my hon. friend. The remarks of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs can be found on page 2095 of Hansard for February 15, 1954, and at the time there was an amendment to the motion to go into supply. The motion was in the following terms, and I quote:
Now, therefore, be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the standing committee on industrial relations should immediately examine into and report upon the actual unemployment situation throughout Canada and present recommendations to this house as to short term and long term methods for dealing effectively with this problem.
At page 2085 of Hansard for the same day the present Secretary of State for External Affairs is reported as having said, and I quote:
But let members of the House of Commons find out for themselves what the actual unemployment situation in Canada today is. And, having done this, let them recommend to the house and the government the steps which could be taken to meet the situation, both the short term and the long term problem. Let such a committee bring in worth-while recommendations which, I believe, would be of great help to the nation.
Speaking also on this motion, the present Prime Minister, then an opposition member, had this to say at page 2099 of Hansard of that day:
We are not political sadists who get any satisfaction out of the existing state of affairs, but we do believe the time has come to secure action on the part of parliament-
At page 2102 of Hansard, he went on:
A committee set up to study and report on unemployment would hear evidence of those who are warning this government and the country of the need for action now.
In 1954 and 1955 it seems that our friends opposite were more concerned about the unemployment situation than they are today, even although the situation today is much more serious than it was at that time. I cannot refrain from quoting the present Minister of Labour, then an opposition member, who stated at page 1693 of Hansard for March 3, 1955:
I think we are wasting time by quoting figures. What is needed is some drastic action on the part of the government rather than the quoting of any figures.
During the period of time that this unemployment situation has gradually increased, no visible effort has been made by the government to alleviate the condition or to provide safeguards against its increase. Consequently we find ourselves with unemployment on a scale of national emergency-
May I remind hon. members again that the unemployment figures in 1955 were well

Supply-Labour
below what they are now. At page 1694 of Hansard for March 3, 1955 the present Minister of Labour went on, and I quote:
Neither the municipal nor provincial governments can exert a great deal of control over the causes of unemployment, which are basically economic. The federal government is the only government which under the powers it possesses can exert control over those causes of unemployment.
The Minister of Labour brought forward a very peculiar and questionable suggestion at that time, and I quote:
I feel it is at this time that the municipal and provincial governments should adopt a policy of doing nothing about the present situation in order to force the federal government to take the responsibility which is rightly theirs.
The minister went on:
Not too long ago in this house it was announced that a federal-provincial conference will be held some time in June-
And then later, he said:
However, June is a long way off.
We were then in March-
-and unemployment is with us today in full force. It is obvious therefore that a conference on this particular subject should be called now in order to arrive at some conclusive plan to deal with this serious problem.
Let us pause here for a few moments. In March, 1955 the present Minister of Labour made two suggestions concerning unemployment. The first was that municipal and provincial governments should adopt a policy of doing nothing about unemployment and that the responsibility rested on the federal government alone. I ask this question of the minister. How is it that the same man who made those suggestions is today precisely the one who presents a winter works program which would put nearly all the burden on the municipalities?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member is asking me a question, I will be glad to answer it now.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have-


Michael Starr: The hon. member has asked me a question.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If the Minister of Labour wants-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Do not ask questions if you do not want answers.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I would be glad to hear the minister after my remarks. If he wishes to make another dull speech, he will have the opportunity.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Do not ask questions if you do not want answers.


William Moore Benidickson: This is the committee stage, and we expect to ask questions and get answers.


Michael Starr: The hon. member refuses to let me answer.


William Moore Benidickson: You can answer at the end.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I would certainly be interested, this party would be interested and the committee would be interested as well as the country, to have the Minister of Labour explain the suggestion that he made at page 1694 of Hansard for March 3, 1955, and I am going to repeat the words he pronounced at that time:
I feel it is at this time that the municipal and provincial governments should adopt a policy of doing nothing about the present situation-
I am not surprised that now that the Minister of Labour is a member of the government he does nothing about unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, if the present Minister of Labour in March, 1955 thought that a federal-provincial conference should be called to study unemployment, and if at that time he thought that the reason for calling such a conference was to extend it between March and June, why does he not propose now such a federal-provincial conference when the figures of unemployment are much higher than they were in 1955? If in March 1955, according to the Minister of Labour's own view, unemployment was in a state of national emergency, what is the term we should use to describe the situation in Canada today?
If in February, 1954 the situation of unemployment was serious enough to warrant a full scale study by the committee on industrial relations in the opinion of the Prime Minister and in the opinion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, do they not now think when we have reached nearly
800,000	jobless in this country we should immediately empower the committee on industrial relations with all authority to go to the root of this most serious domestic problem facing Canada today?
I submit that the standing committee on industrial relations is the machinery we need for such a task. This committee will call as witnesses experts, economists, industrialists, union officials, unemployment insurance officials and others, and they could examine and study many important and vital questions in relation to unemployment such as these: What is the extent of unemployment in Canada today? What are the implications of unemployment on the national economy? What are the short term methods that could be adopted to bring immediate relief to nearly one million of our fellow Canadian citizens?

What are the long term methods that could be brought in to prevent a similar disaster in the future? I would also think that such a committee empowered with the full authority of parliament could visit such hard hit communities as Elliot Lake and others, and make recommendations as to alleviating measures.
I really think that such a committee working along these lines would not only be the most important committee we would have but that its findings would affect the welfare of this nation for a generation to come. I do not think that a greater challenge has ever faced parliament than this important problem of unemployment, and I would hope that we will deal with it with the same independence of mind that has been shown so far in another debate still pending. If we do so we will then see parliament at its best.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked a question in his speech as to why I made a certain statement. That statement was to the effect that I suggested that provinces and municipalities should not do anything about unemployment. The reason for that is very clear. The Liberal government that day did not recognize unemployment as their responsibility, and in order to force them to recognize it as such I made that suggestion, whereas the situation is now in reverse.


Lionel Chevrier: What are you doing about the situation today?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, we have done many things about that situation, and I outlined them last Friday.


Lionel Chevrier: The most anemic speech I have heard in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Michael Starr: I have sat here hopefully and patiently waiting for some concrete suggestions as to how this problem should be met, but there has not been one.


Lionel Chevrier: It is your responsibility.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, all there has been is the ten points of the hon. member for Essex East, and the only reason he made the ten points was because he wanted three committees and two advisory committees, and I think he suggested some advisory committees to the advisory committees. That is the attitude which the former government took and it is the attitude the Liberal party still take. They are still empty in their thoughts and have no ideas whatever.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I am sitting here waiting
patiently for some concrete suggestions for
79951-0-102
Supply-Labour
immediate action and I will continue to sit here until I get some. Instead of making empty speeches about unemployment they should get down to concrete facts and treat the matter seriously. As members of this house they should put forward concrete suggestions.


Maurice Bourget: We did.


Michael Starr: It is a difficult situation to encounter and try to alleviate. I have said time and time again that this government has taken the responsibility and recognizes that responsibility. I have also said that in addition to certain things which this government can do on its own it is necessary to have the co-operation of all the people in this country to alleviate completely the situation. But apart from those things which I have enumerated now and on previous occasions in this debate we in this government are kept busy undoing the harm which has been done by certain gloomsters whose objective seems to be to destroy and not to create jobs for Canadians.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Flynn: I think for the sake of order I will recognize the hon. member for St. Mary.
(Translation):


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, since I represent in parliament a riding where most people are in the ranks of labour, I can state in this house-
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: I will entertain one question from the hon. member.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know from the Minister of Labour if it is not true that in February, 1954 he voted with the Conservative party for a motion to refer the study of unemployment to the standing committee on industrial relations?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont has asked me this question but it is not true. I think it was referred to a select committee, and that was a suggestion from one hon. member. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont has spoken at least twice in this debate, if not three times, and during the whole time he has read former speeches made by hon. members. He has brought up points of order

Supply-Labour
and has spent one and a half hours doing that, and I have heard nothing concrete from him yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: Read the newspapers in your riding.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: The uncapitulating government.


Michael Starr: Sit down and say something sensible.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They can't do it; they lack the intelligence.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Get a flag.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I hope my voice is strong enough for hon. members to hear. I call on the hon. member for St. Mary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, and my point of order is this: that the minister made a statement in his speech which I consider was a reflection on myself.


Michael Starr: I did not have you in mind at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a right according to the rules to make a correction, when the minister sits down. The minister said that no member of the opposition except the hon. member for Essex East had made any practical suggestions. I suggested the other day, the last time this subject was discussed-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of
order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am making a correction as I have a right to do under the rules, as the chairman will concede at once. I made a number of suggestions concerning practical things to be done, and I would remind the minister of two or three of them right now and ask him if he is going to do anything about them.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down. Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, the government does not want to hear practical suggestions. It just wants to howl down the opposition.


Michael Starr: Not true.


An hon. Member:: A point of order.


Jacques Flynn: I can only deal with one point of order at a time. So far as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is concerned, he has not raised a point of order. As
[Mr. Starr.l
he says, he has the right to correct any statement if he thinks he has been misquoted, but I do not think he should rise when the Chair has recognized another hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the minister
rising and speaking for 15 minutes? Are there two rules in this house?


Jacques Flynn: I ask the hon. member for Laurier to withdraw that statement.


Lionel Chevrier: I asked you, Mr. Chairman, if there were two rules in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Lionel Chevrier: My reason for asking whether there were two rules was that the minister was allowed to make a speech that lasted for about 15 minutes in answer to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, yet when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate rises and does exactly the same thing he is called to order. In view of that I asked: s'il y a deux poids, deux mesures a la Chambre?


Jacques Flynn: I think the question by the hon. member for Laurier was more of an insinuation than a question.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Jacques Flynn: I want to draw attention to the fact that the minister was answering a question. Surely, the difference between the intervention by the Minister of Labour and the intervention by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is that in the first case the minister was answering a question and in the second the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate rose on a point of order which I have ruled not to be a point of order. In these circumstances I do not think the Chair has ruled differently for one side of the house, and if the question put by the hon. member for Laurier should be interpreted as an insinuation, I think it should be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Lionel Chevrier: So that there may be no doubt about what I said, I did not intend it as an insinuation affecting the Chair, and if Your Honour took it as such, then I withdraw the remark.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege, and my question of privilege is that a statement was made about the Liberal opposition of which I am a member which is not in accordance with the facts. It was made by a minister of the crown in this house, and under the rules when an hon. member makes such a statement in the course of his speech the hon. member aggrieved has a right to make a correction. That has always been understood, and I had

sought to make the correction in the shortest fashion. I will still do so if I am not going to be howled down again.
My point was that I suggested the other day that the government should undertake a vocational training program similar to the veterans training program, paid for by the federal government and not pushed back on the provinces. I made that as a practical suggestion and I should like to hear what the minister has to say about it. I also suggested that the capital grants commission which the Tory government promised for the Atlantic provinces should be established at once, and I should like to hear what the minister has to say about that. I also suggested that the program of the fisheries council of Canada with regard to fishing vessels should be put into operation at once, and I should like to hear what the minister has to say about that. I also suggested that the other Atlantic resolutions sponsored by the Minister of National Revenue should be carried out at once, and I should like to hear what the minister has to say about that, too.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate realizes very well that that is not a question of privilege. I would ask the Minister of Labour not to reply at this time. I recognize the hon. member for St. Mary.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, since I represent in parliament a riding where most people are in the ranks of labour I can state in this house that the workers of my constituency will never forget the poor representation given to them here by the Liberal party.
During the discussion on a Department of Labour estimate, we have witnessed tonight a most degrading scene for the Canadian parliament and the Liberal party. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said earlier, Liberal members' speeches are less calculated to offer practical solutions to unemployment than to make headlines in the next day's papers.
I imagine that the Liberals are pleased when unemployment is mentioned in this house, but the happier they are to see people out of work, the more uneasy they will be after the investigation on the Jacques Cartier bridge.
Mr. Chairman, everybody knows that the Liberal party has never paid close attention to the plight of the working class, perhaps because they preferred to protect the interests of shareholders of the Rio Tinto Mines 79951-0-1021
Supply-Labour
Company, where they had a great many friends. They preferred to take this course rather than to look into the chronic problem of unemployment.
Everybody knows that when the Liberal party was in office, we had to wear ourselves out in order to earn a living. For the members of the Liberal party, the war was a stumbling block. The Liberal party never agreed to put before the house a practical policy to avoid a degree of unemployment such as we have had lately.
If my Liberal friends want to be consistent, logical and avoid big headlines in the papers, I would suggest that they refer to previous debates on unemployment.
I am sorry to see that there are here certain members who were in this House of Commons when the words I am going to quote were spoken and who never uttered a single word when the unemployment situation was being discussed. However, we now find that they are pleased to see the increase in the number of unemployed in this country and it is quite natural; they offer no concrete suggestion to correct the situation.
Mr. Chairman, if the Liberals really mean to be sincere, I would ask them to re-read what Mr. St. Laurent said in this house on February 20, 1950, as it is found at page 56 of Hansard, about a program put forward to solve the unemployment problem, and I quote:
And special inducements were proposed to make it financially advantageous for provincial governments and municipalities to co-operate in the shelf project and to co-ordinate the timing or execution of these public works. It was felt that with that kind of co-ordination it would be possible to time the execution not only of such projects as were of national concern but also of those which were local responsibilities of provincial or municipal_
Mr. Chairman, this is precisely the policy which the Conservative government is trying to apply. It is the policy suggested by their leader in 1950, though he did nothing about it. And today, those same people come here, in this house, to upbraid a government which wants to achieve what the former prime minister of Canada wanted to do to cure unemployment. That is the Liberal party, Mr. Chairman.
During the same debate, on February 27, 1950, Mr. Stanley Knowles asked the prime minister the following question:
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider giving the house a statement at an early date as to the government's proposals for relieving unemployment.

Supply-Labour
This was in 1950, and Mr. St. Laurent answered:
X have nothing to add at the moment to what I then said.
That was the comedy and the blackmail which the Liberals offered the population as long as they were in power. Today, we see the opposition members rise in this house and behave like school children.
Now, I represent a constituency which is entirely a labour riding. Now that illegitimate child which has been named unemployment- was put into the world by those heartless fathers the Liberals, who tell us now: "You; the Conservatives, now have this illegitimate child and you have to bring him up!"
Mr. Chairman, I am not among those who profit from such deplorable conditions as unemployment by resorting to demagogy. Only, like my colleague, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Rieard) I am asking the following question: Why did the Liberals stress that unemployment insurance act formula so much in 1942?


Mr. Godin:: In order to protect them from the Conservatives.


Georges-J. Valade: In order to protect the public against unemployment. But there was unemployment, when they were in power. I shall tell you what you have done. You have allowed the unemployment situation to become more serious. If statistics have to be quoted, may I give a few figures: for March 1950, as can be seen in the official record of this house-and I refer to a question answered by Mr. Cote, the representative of Verdun-Lasalle-the figures established for the period 1948-50, indicated an increase in the number of jobless people for each province in this country. If the hon. member who asked me this question would listen, I shall quote those figures:	In the province of
Quebec, there were on July 1, 1948, 29,000 unemployed; on December 30, 1948, there were 55,900; on the 30th of June 1949, when seasonal unemployment had somewhat abated, there were 42,400; on September 29, 1949, 43,900; on November 3, 1949, 51,900; on December 1, 1949, 67,300; on December 2, 1949, 88,200 and on February 2, 1950, 109,300.
Mr. Chairman, do not forget that it was the time of the stingy Liberal regime and that seasonal workers were getting no unemployment insurance benefits. Well, I say that under the Liberal administration, unemployment was more acute than it has ever been, under any administration.

We realize to what extent the Grits, who will always be oppositionists if they keep on behaving as they are now doing, are glad of an unfortunate situation. But do not forget that they are not improving the fate of the unemployed when they are talking that way in the house. At the next election, I shall remind my electors of the unfortunate speeches they made in this house about the fate of the unemployed.
In my opinion, we of the Conservative party are too conscious of our obligations and duties to make politics out of this unemployment situation. Our friends claim that there have never been so many unemployed than at present, but I have just showed them they are wrong in quoting figures which speak for themselves. If they will look up Hansard for June 19, 1950, on page 3838, they will read the following:
After all, there were some 425,000 Canadians who suffered from unemployment last winter, whether it was seasonal or whatever it was.
I would point out that this refers to 1949.
Those people are anxious to know If any steps are being taken to avoid a repetition of that situation again next winter. I suggest to the minister that it is not howling calamity to ask the government just what steps are being taken to avoid a repetition of that situation.
That, Mr. Chairman, was at the time of the former Liberal administration in 1950.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we realize to what extent our friends to the left are not sincere. They have (tried to fool the house in launching into a debate about Elliot Lake. I should like to associate myself with the hon. members who have expressed their sympathy to the people of Elliot Lake about the situation now prevailing in that city. If the Liberals thought they could raise these people against the government, they made quite a mistake, because last night I watched a people's forum on television station CJAD. In fact, it had been announced that the Elliot Lake situation would be discussed, and all listeners had been asked to phone in to the station and give their views on the situation.
I must say that despite the powerfully organized Liberal machine, the people were not taken in. The people who phoned the station said the Liberals were responsible for the present situation at Elliot Lake, and that the Conservatives should not be blamed. Mr. Chairman, I think the people will not be fooled by this kind of publicity and blackmail.

Again I say it is unfortunate that the opposition should be happy at the situation arising out of seasonal unemployment.
Sometimes I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how the Liberals can take such advantage of the generosity of the house in using three times as much time as the Conservatives to discuss unemployment. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the house shows great patience in putting up with it. Personally, I have had to wait six days before speaking. Opposition members prevented my speaking earlier. They acted so as to get the headlines in the next day's newspapers.
I realized that the Liberal opposition, for lack of something better, tries to prepare the Liberal provincial campaign on the question of unemployment.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a point of order. The hon. member for St. Mary implies that he has tried for two or three sittings to take part in this debate and that the opposition has prevented him from doing so. I do not think it is-


William Heward Grafftey: Question.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I believe that the statement of the hon. member for St. Mary-


Georges-J. Valade: I would like to hear the question of the hon. member. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I do not understand the intervention of my hon. friend.


Jacques Flynn: I do not quite see the point of order in the question of the hon. member.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I understand his sensitiveness about that matter, and to avoid all misunderstanding about that, may I say that I have not been prevented arbitrarily, as it was done at the time of the Liberals. I say that the Liberals, under our democratic system, take three times as long to discuss the question of unemployment as any other party. This is what I meant.
May I come back to the matter under discussion. I said earlier, when my hon. friend was clever enough to interrupt me, that the Liberal members are trying to conduct in this house the political campaign of the provincial Liberal party. Since they have no leader, no program, they try to make the headlines by making speeches here in order to attract the attention of the population of Quebec which, however will ignore them at the next provincial election.
Obviously, they will do anything to create a sensation, but in addition to discussing the Jacques Cartier bridge, they should read and reread the statements made by their leader,
Supply-Labour
Mr. Pearson, in the Times for February 17, with regard to unemployment. I quote:
(Text):
It would be stupid and foolish to blame unemployment on the Conservatives.
(Translation):
And we heard the Liberals in this house say nothing but that the Conservative party was responsible for that unemployment situation.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the function of an opposition, I am quite willing to agree, is to criticize. But the question I should like to put to certain members of the opposition is: "What do you suggest?" And that, as the minister asked a moment ago, in order to try to improve that unemployment situation in Canada.
Not one of them has put forward any concrete solution, or even introduced any worthwhile suggestion. They all said: "Our function is not to make suggestions but to criticize. Well, the Liberals have no right to criticize when their fellow citizens have nothing to eat, they have no right to limit themselves to criticism in this house, because they represent the people. They have been elected to a function which should make them aware of their obligations towards the classes they represent. There are very few members in this house who do not have to represent the working class of their constituencies. Therefore, we urge them to be loyal and honest towards their constituents and to tell this house what they would suggest in order to alleviate the seriousness of this temporary situation of winter unemployment.


Azellus Denis: Let the province of Quebec pay half of it. There is a suggestion.


Georges-J. Valade: You have nothing new to offer. This government has already offered to pay on a 50-50 basis. The Conservative government has told the municipalities and the provinces: Undertake works programs and we shall pay half of the cost. Well, for the Grits to provide work for 30,000 people is not sufficient, they are not interested, they would just as soon have 30,000 more unemployed. In fact, they prefer that to providing employment, even for only 30 men. That is their way of thinking. They laugh and smile, they do not think of discussing the Jacques Cartier bridge, but only the employment situation.
I was listening to the hon. member for Laurier, (Mr. Chevrier) on television. It was on a Monday, I think it was about three

Supply-Labour
weeks ago. The hon. member for Laurier would probably remember the date better than I-in any event, it was on "Tribune Libre", and he said it was under a Conservative government that unemployment had been the greatest. You know how clever he is: he took the period from 1945 to 1955, and said that under the Liberal administration, unemployment had been only 2 per cent. Imagine that. The hon. member took a 10-year period, but he skipped the 1949 period, when there were 10.7 per cent unemployed people in Canada. The member for Laurier cleverly concealed from the people of Montreal what his friends knew about the unemployment situation when they sat together in the cabinet.
He said that the Conservatives had done nothing about unemployment. But, in his cleverness, he forgot to say that the Conservative government had launched a winter employment campaign; that it had increased unemployment insurance benefits and that it had decreased-a thing the Liberals never wanted to do-the number of immigrants admitted in Canada during the period of unemployment. This is something that the Liberals never wanted to do at the time they were in power.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the Liberals, who had better take care about the Jacques Cartier bridge, do not say in this house that the Conservative party has extended unemployment insurance coverage to include all the seasonally unemployed, like the fishermen, the stevedores, the farmers, the married women and many other groups. Those are things the Liberal party did not do. Besides, this government has extended the period of benefits, a thing these gentlemen opposite had refused to the population.
I do not wish to delay the debate, Mr. Chairman, but I only want to say, as a representative of the working class, that workers in my riding are very happy, that they put all their faith in the Conservative party and that they are not fooled by criticisms of the Liberal party because, in their opinion, it doesn't amount to much.
Knowing that our friends like to make a political issue out of unemployment, I should like to say that I am in favour of a more careful study of our legislation, with a view to taking some measure designed to avoid the seasonal unemployment that affects so many homes. Therefore, I urge authorities to call a federal-provincial-municipal conference where labour and management representatives, labour union and local chambers of commerce would get together to devise an acceptable plan to avoid the slack period that affects workers every year.
[Mr. Valade.l
Furthermore, I would like to suggest to the federal government, that loans to municipalities should be made at a reduced rate of interest, which could vary from 1 to li per cent, in order to facilitate the carrying out of necessary works.
This would induce municipalities to participate more actively in winter and seasonal works. Thus, we would contribute to the relief of unemployment, and our Canadian homes would be grateful not to the former Grit administration, which did nothing, but to the Conservative government which gave proper attention to the problem.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am very surprised that many members of the house, during the last several hours when we have been discussing unemployment, have acted as though they were at a political circus or convention.


Mr. Pallell:: That statement is incorrect.


William Arnold Peters: While this is all right once in a while I think it would be much more in keeping with the situation if it took place on some other debate than that concerning unemployment.
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member should stick to the facts.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Peel again refers to something that he does not know much about. I am referring to political circuses as I see them and the proceedings have more closely resembled a political convention than the operation of the House of Commons in years gone by or debates on other subjects in recent days. A great deal of the discussion has been about what is going to happen in an election in the province of Quebec. I do not think that is too important to me when we are having an unemployment debate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We will remember that.


William Arnold Peters: I was very surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that he hoped hon. members would quit wasting time discussing unemployment so that he could introduce a matter he has been waiting a number of days to introduce and that he considered the debate now taking place to be a total waste of time.
Mr. Pallet!: That statement is inaccurate. The minister never said that.


William Arnold Peters: If this is the attitude of the leader of the government, then I am not surprised at the things that have gone on in the last few hours.


John Cameron Pallett: The minister never said that it was a waste of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister said it.


John Cameron Pallett: The Prime Minister merely said that you are obstructing this legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Labour said that.


William Arnold Peters: If the Prime Minister thinks it is a waste of time then he is probably not interested in the proposals put forward but I think they warrant some consideration and I am quite sure that the Minister of Labour is interested in all the proposals that are put forward. I do not think he is going to implement all of them but I am quite sure he will give some consideration to them. If he would not then I would agree with the Prime Minister that this debate is a waste of time.
Mr. Pallet!: The Prime Minister never said that it was a waste of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He said that it was obstruction.


William Arnold Peters: I have been interested in a particular aspect of unemployment which has also come to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister recently. I refer to the area displacement problems facing a large number of sections of the country, and particularly the situation at Elliot Lake.
I took the opportunity to go to Elliot Lake last week. I understand that a number of ministers have been invited there. The Prime Minister has been invited. From headlines in the Sudbury Star I see that the Prime Minister and his wife may visit Elliot Lake shortly. I would strongly recommend that all members of parliament who are interested in area unemployment should go to that area and have a look at the town and the situation developing there. I think they will realize that this is a very serious problem, a problem that should never have been allowed to develop but now that it has developed we are going to have to do something about it.
I do not think it is good enough to say that the Conservatives are not doing this and the Liberals are not doing that. I do not think we should introduce political arguments relating to the hon. member who represents the riding concerned or the minister particularly concerned with the matter. I think we have to give very serious consideration to solving the problem and I suggest it does not really
Supply-Labour
matter what member of parliament makes a suggestion. He may only have an idea, but if we in Canada cannot sit down, collectively solve our own problems and arrive at a solution that can be implemented to alleviate a situation on which attention is focused by what has happened at Elliot Lake but which exists in many other areas, in fact, in all our primary producing industries and every mining camp ever developed in this country, then I suggest that we are not functioning as a very effective form of government.
I think we can give this kind of consideration if we quit bickering back and forth about who was responsible and decide what we are going to do because the problem is going to have to be solved and we may as well decide to do something about it. In speaking on this matter the other night I suggested that we should set up a national industry planning board with considerable authority and that such a board would be able to go into an area depressed by unemployment and assess everything on the economic side of the picture, all those things that were favourable and everything that prevented industry from settling in that area and making the community operate as it would if industry already existed there.
Elliot Lake probably deserves more consideration than any other town we have ever considered. It deserves it because we have been building Elliot Lake from the time we started natural resource development in Canada. The government of the day realized that mining there only had a five year life at a guaranteed price and that something would then happen. The price of the ore was either going up or down or there would be no contracts.
Elliot Lake is not a normal mining town but probably the most complete and modern city in Canada today. It is the size of North Bay and it has no old buildings. Every building in the town is new. Those who had shacks there before the development had to tear them down. I believe it is the most modern city of its size in Canada and probably anywhere on the North American continent. We built and established Elliot Lake. Government control was evident at all stages of the development of the town. Elliot Lake was developed because we needed atomic energy for defence. We needed material for atomic defence and there was co-operation. We had co-operation from the United States in building the town, and I think it is a credit to the Canadian people.
But it is no credit to the Canadian people if the citizens of this town are now thrown out of work and have to look for jobs in other communities and leave behind them five

Supply-Labour
years of their lives with nothing to show for it. I suggest that we can do something about the situation. I talked to an engineer at Elliot Lake the other day who told me that a small factory could probably be established immediately which would employ 50 or 75 people in the manufacture of toys and allied products from hardwood.
I hear some people saying, what an argument that is. We only need in that town enough employment for 9,000 people. It is quite likely that the whole 9,000 will not want to stay there. Some of the miners who have been making $12,000 and $14,000 per year are not going to be satisfied to remain in that town and work for wages which the industries will probably pay.
However, this is no reason for not establishing these industries or for not giving some assistance to the establishment of them. I am not sure just who those ladies from Elliot Lake were, but most of them were not miners' wives. They were the wives of businessmen, members of the chamber of commerce, church organizations and other organizations that are very concerned about this particular problem. They came to Ottawa and were particularly interested in having this research centre switched from Manitoba to Elliot Lake. I pointed out to a number of people with whom I talked that Manitoba may have some claim on this Whiteshell research centre. There may have been reasons for the original decision to locate it in that particular province.
However, I believe the government, and certainly the Prime Minister when he spoke to these ladies the other day, indicated that serious consideration would be given to this matter. I understand that these people have gone home and are telling other people that the Prime Minister is going to look after them. One woman who appeared on television said that a nice man like that would never let them down. The farmers of western Canada could tell them what this nice man could do and could not do. There have been other organizations that have come to Ottawa, the representatives of which are probably not as naive as some of these ladies from Elliot Lake. I would suggest that we cannot wait for somebody to fulfil promises about Elliot Lake. Now is the time to do some planning rather than to make promises. If we cannot solve this problem, then how can we run a country?
There are only 9,000 people concerned. There is a statement here as to how many houses there are in this town. It does not really matter how many houses there are. They are going to be there anyway. They are not going to be sold. Central Mortgage

and Housing Corporation is now requesting permission to rent these houses. I noticed that, according to the newspaper, eight holders of C.M.H.C. mortgages have walked out of their homes, turned the key and left. They are now being searched for by the officials of that corporation because they have left their mortgage and everything else and just walked out. There were 2,000 homes built under Central Mortgage there. We have this town, and I think the problem can be solved. It cannot be solved, however, if we are not going to face up to it.
I cannot see any reason why this matter cannot be referred to a committee. I do not understand why we could not have the best specialists in these fields give the government some assistance in setting up a board that would work, not only in the Elliot Lake area but if it were successful in Elliot Lake it would be able to re-establish industries in places like Cape Breton island and in other coal mining communities in the maritimes. I would suggest that we in northern Ontario, in the northern gold mining communities would be quite happy to give back to the Canadian people the money received through emergency gold mining assistance if some way could be found to use this money through a planning commission to bring industry into the area to satisfy the needs of our communities. We would rather have this plan than the continued bolstering of the mining industry through subventions and other forms of assistance because that industry may have passed its peak and become a liability rather than an asset.
I suggest this can be done, Mr. Chairman. If we have not enough brains in Canada to decide what industries could be brought into places like Elliot Lake for the least amount of money, then let us hire them from some place in Europe. I was very interested in talking with a gentleman the other day who has recently come from Europe. He pointed out that a great deal of development has taken place in West Germany. He said that this was not the result of the German people being smarter than anybody else but because they decided a certain thing had to be accomplished and they set out to accomplish it. After the war they had to re-establish industries where no industries existed. This gentleman then pointed out that the German people then did something we have never been willing to do. They hired the best salesmen they could find and sent them across the world to sell the industrial products which the country was beginning to produce. I believe we have capabilities which are equal to those of other countries.

I think we are going to have to realize that if we are going to plan the development of a town like Elliot Lake to produce war material then we are going to have to plan an economy for that area that will meet the needs of the area just as we did in the first place to get the uranium industry established. We can do this and I suggest that we will do this. I should like the Leader of the Opposition, who has a great interest in this particular problem, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce who also has a great interest in this particular problem, to go to Elliot Lake with me to debate this particular problem. Then the people of Elliot Lake would have an opportunity of knowing what they were going to get.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Will the house leader indicate what the business is for the rest of the week, and could he tell the house what we will be doing on Monday and Tuesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with our progress on the supplementary estimates. We have covered four items and we have 15 more to do. When that is finished tomorrow afternoon, early, then we will go on with the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the tenure of office of judges. I will list the other items with which we should like to deal as promptly as possible.
The last item would be followed by the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with the National Housing Act; then, the motion in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to set up a joint committee to deal with
Business of the House
amendments to the Indian Act; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with amendments to the Railway Act; and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with the Trans-Canada Highway Act. This would be the business for Wednesday and Thursday, in that order, unless something unexpected happens. On Friday we will commence with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and Monday and Tuesday of next week will be devoted to a supply motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the house leader whether he has given any thought to the time at which we might resume the debate on capital punishment in which everyone in the country is so greatly interested?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I recognize the interest, but I am not in a position tonight to name a date for that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether it may be sometime next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As I say, I am not able tonight to name a date.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if any further consideration has been given to taking the housing resolution before the matter of the Judges Act in the name of the Prime Minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have thought over that suggestion but so much depended on what happened to the supplementary estimates and whether or not certain of my colleagues will be present on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. It is more advantageous to consider the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
79951-0-103
[Stage Direction]
Questions