1960-12-15

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton)
presented the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous consent, and it is understood that the provision with respect to sitting while the house is sitting is only to convenience veterans who may be here as witnesses.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it I may put the motion before the house by unanimous consent, and that the hon. member's remarks were addressed to this motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to enter into agreements with provincial governments or agencies thereof for the undertaking jointly with those governments or agencies of projects for the alternative uses of lands that are marginal or of low productivity, projects for the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas, and projects for the development and conservation of the soil and water resources of Canada; for the payment to the provinces of contributions in respect of the cost of such projects undertaken by a province or agency thereof: to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to undertake programs of research and investigation in respect of these matters; to provide for the establishment of advisory committees and the appointment of their members, and to provide for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the consent of the house I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members that this is the birthday anniversary of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), a member of this house who enjoys universal affection and who has served his country well. To him I extend, I am sure on behalf of all hon. members, warmest congratulations and good wishes.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has injected into the proceedings a matter about which there will be, surprisingly enough these days, a strong measure of unanimity, because the hon. member for Greenwood is not only a very respected member of this house but an outstanding Canadian. The Prime Minister has taken advantage of this opportunity to let the hon. gentleman know of our esteem for him and our appreciation of his services to this parliament and to Canada.
May I say personally, as an old friend of the hon. gentleman, that I am very happy the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is not in his seat today owing to a slight cold, because it affords me the opportunity to say to the hon. member for Greenwood, a very dear and old friend, that I am happy to join, on behalf of the Liberal party in this house, with the Prime Minister in his expression of congratulations to the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join with the others in offering to the hon. member for Greenwood our heartiest congratulations. I have been privileged to know him and to be associated with him in the House of Commons now for quite a number of years. He enjoys universal respect in the House of Commons as a man of integrity and culture, and a man who has the well-being of all Canadians at heart. We are pleased to say to him, "Happy returns of the day".


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would be a strange man if I were not much gratified by the kind words of the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other parties, and I would be also a strange

Inquiries of the Ministry man if I were not moved by the kindness of this house. Growing old is a serious business, but as long as one has the kindness of friends to help one on the way, it can be tolerated.



INQUIRY AS TO MATERIALS COVERED BY PERMITS ISSUED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the information the minister gave the house yesterday that 17 export permits have been issued since October 1 for the sale of goods to Cuba, will the minister tell the house whether the class of goods for which any such permits have been issued are listed on the export control list established under section 3 of the Export and Import Permits Act?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some misunderstanding with regard to the export control list. It covers not only strategic materials but other goods which from time to time may be in short supply or should be subject to control. The matter was thoroughly discussed in the house on previous occasions. No one is better informed on the subject matter than the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) who, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of trade and commerce in 1951, gave a complete explanation, as found on pages 1542 and 1543 of Hansard, of that year, of the purposes and uses of the Export and Import Permits Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What year was that?


Mr. Mcllraith:: What year was that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was in 1951. The items which I mentioned yesterday as having been exported from this country were all for civilian uses. There was nothing of a military nature, nothing of a strategic nature.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Under which section of the Export and Import Permits Act were these permits in fact issued if they were not for strategic materials?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not have the act in front of me. I have the export control list in front of me, and it deals with such articles as animals and animal products, wood and wood products, metalworking machinery, chemical equipment, general industrial equipment and things of that nature. Then it has

a part dealing with arms, munitions, military, naval and air stores and so on, and atomic energy materials and equipment, which are obviously strategic and cannot be exported. There is a section dealing with transportation equipment and so on. The list is a mixture of articles for civilian use and for defence or other usage. It is quite within the four corners of the act to issue export permits for certain articles which are solely for civilian use. One example I might give is a cobalt bomb unit for a cobalt therapy installation used for medical purposes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the importance of this subject I should like to ask a supplementary question, and in doing so I would appreciate it if the minister would give us tomorrow the section under which these non-strategic goods have been the subject of issued permits. Has the minister recalled the statement which he made in the house on August 16-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the minister recalled-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to be starting out in the direction of argument or opinion, but if he has another question not in the nature of argument he may put it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when you hear my question-


An hon. Member:: What question?
Another hon. Member: Ask it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister recall the statement which he made in the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -on August 16-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member, in the light of the caution I have given, wishes to bring his question within the rules I think hon. members should hear it so I may then decide whether it is out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister recall the statement he made in the house on August 16, 1958, when he presented to the house a revised export control list which was to be, to use his own words, "in conformity with the agreed new strategic list"?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I recall it, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That being the case will the minister reconcile what he said on that occasion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now the hon. member is pursuing the line which I cautioned him against. He has completed a question, has asked for information tomorrow as to the section, and has drawn the attention of the minister to the statement which he had in mind. It does not seem proper to me to pursue the matter by an expression of opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I indicate to you that yesterday the minister replied to certain questions put to him in writing by the hon. member for Ottawa West. As a result of those replies I formulated certain questions which were put orally to the minister a few minutes ago. The matter is one of great current national and international interest. The statement made, I say, by the minister on August 18, 1958, establishes that the list dealt exclusively with strategic goods, and the reply of the minister now is not in conformity with that earlier statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex East may be quite correct about the importance of and interest in the matter, but in putting questions to ministers on their administrative responsibility it has been the invariable rule that the answer is not subject to comment or debate, nor should there be cross-examination. It seems to me, therefore, that the hon. member will have to find a more appropriate occasion upon which to pursue the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The privileges of the house are certainly involved in this matter, Mr. Speaker. The minister has given certain replies to the hon. member for Ottawa West, and he made a statement in this house on August 18, 1958. I say that the statement made on that day, and the reply-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is dealing with the minister's reply. On the point of order, if the privileges of this house are involved, the question is whether the hon. member for Essex East has a right to comment on an answer that has been given. That is what he is attempting to do, in my view. If he wants to assert that there is a precedent or authority for that proposition I shall be glad to hear him, but not to discuss the answer to the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I have been seeking to do has been to point out, as fairly as I can, that this house has been misled-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -by the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that is a matter of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is proceeding directly in the face of the practice of the house when he makes a comment of that kind on an answer that has been given. There are opportunities to debate subject matters which are properly inquired into, but this is not an opportunity for debate.
In view of what has been said I will give the minister an opportunity to say a word or two.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have been accused by the hon. member for Essex East of misleading the house, and he is under obligation now to withdraw that untruthful remark.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I have never insisted that a member withdraw the imputation that the house has been misled. The house is often misled by inadvertence or accident, and it has not generally been considered there has been an implication in the statement that it was deliberate unless it has been so stated. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East, if his remarks bear the implication of deliberately misleading, would be the first to wish to rectify them. I did not understand it in that sense.


Mr. Aiken:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, which the hon. member for Essex East raises, I think it should be noted that he has committed the most outrageous breach of the rules of the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is no doubt trying to be helpful, but I have disposed of the point of order and it is not appropriate for him to rise now and comment on the conduct of the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the deliberately misleading statement made by the hon. member for Essex East with regard to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know that the hon. member feels impelled to rise by reason of what was said earlier, but I hope he will not involve me in another question of privilege and will consider the consequence of what he has just said.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was weighing every word very carefully, Mr. Speaker. I feel that this is a matter which cannot go without further comment. The hon. member for Essex East referred to a statement I made in the House of Commons on August 16, 1958, and attempted to leave the impression with the house that I had described the Export and Import Permits Act export control list as being solely a strategic list. That is not borne out by the statement I made on that date.
In order to make it perfectly clear that the house has been misled by the hon. member for Essex East, let me indicate what was stated with regard to the Export and Import Permits Act in 1951 by the hon. member for Ottawa West who listed-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may have the attention of both hon. gentlemen, the minister has the floor on a question of privilege. Perhaps the Clerk can give me some assistance as to whether a point of order would supersede a question of privilege.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, my
point of order was this-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would defer his point of order for a moment. If a point of order arises as a result of what is being said on a question of privilege, I am advised and it seems reasonable that the point of order could be heard.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, the statement the minister is now going to read is not the statement I used. I would ask the minister if he would deal with his own statement made in 1958. I could rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not raising a point of order, and I must give the floor back to the minister.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it not an established rule of the house that a question of privilege must be dealt with at the time it arises?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not half an hour later.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it is the normal practice to deal with a question of privilege at the time it arises. This is in reasonable proximity, and I feel I must allow it to be proceeded with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I can understand, Mr. Speaker, how uneasy hon. members of the


opposition are at being caught in a trap of their own setting for which the hon. member for Essex East is responsible.


Peter Francis Martin: We shall see about that in a few minutes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I intend to read-and this is quite brief-an explanation of the act which I have mentioned and of the export control list, which is set out at page 1543 of Hansard of April 2, 1951 in these terms:
The export powers under the existing act may be summarized under four headings. Those four headings are:
(a)	To establish a list of countries, exports to which shall be subject to licence.
(b)	To control exports of arms, munitions, war materials or supplies.
(c)	To control exports of commodities where this is necessary to ensure adequate supply and distribution within Canada, and
(d)	To control exports where this is necessary to implement intergovernmental arrangements or commitments.
In 1958 it was found necessary to revise the export control list and I made an announcement in the house on August 16, at that time tabling the revised list which subsequently was printed in the Canada Gazette on August 27. When I made my statement in the house I pointed out that we were revising our export control list in conformity with the agreed new strategic list. I did not say it was solely due to strategic materials, but that was the reason for the revision.
On that occasion, as reported at page 3649 of Hansard, I said:
In revising our export control list in conformity with the agreed new strategic list, it has been the objective wherever possible to narrow the range of commodities of all types which will require export permits.
I went on to list a number that had been dropped from the former export control list. I then went on to say:
The export control list, moreover, serves an important function in indicating those items which are regarded as strategic, and an endeavour has been made to set forth the list in such form that traders may use it for this purpose.
I did not say it was solely for that intent. This is just a guide to exporters so they will not run afoul of the law in attempting to export strategic materials. I went on to say further:
Our new export control list will serve as a clear lead as to strategic control policy.
I also pointed out earlier today that the export control list contains lists of materials which under no circumstances could be considered to be for military purposes or, as we say, strategic purposes; which might be used for warfare. I mentioned animals and animal products, for example, and wood and wood products, and things of that nature.

My question of privilege is simply this. The hon. member for Essex East misled the house when he stated that I had said in 1958 that the export control list was simply a strategic control list. It is more than that, as will be seen from a reading of the statement I made on August 16, 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up the time of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite, the big steamroller behind the government, are giving a fine demonstration of the bill of rights. This is a new type of closure, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Stop play-acting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nevertheless we in the Liberal party are going to make ourselves heard, notwithstanding what hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Regardless of the rules of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister
should withdraw his remarks, which were clearly contrary to the rules of the house. The hon. gentleman used the word "deliberately". I am not going to ask him to withdraw that, but I am going to ask him again to look at the two statements he has already read. If the minister's statement is not open to the interpretation I have placed on it I would be very surprised if the hon. gentleman on reflection would not agree.
Now that the hon. gentleman has raised this question further I would ask him to table copies of the export permits in question and the dates under which they were issued so that we can get to the bottom of what was obviously a misleading statement on the part of the minister.


George James McIlraith: I have a supplementary question that I wish to direct to the acting minister, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Kootenay West wished to comment on the matter of privilege.


Mr. Herridge:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the hon. member for Ottawa West has a question?


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question before the house.


George James McIlraith: I want to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises out of a part of my own speech in the House of Commons, as it appears on page 1542 of Hansard of 1951, part of which the minister quoted. My question is based on the part which he did not quote, and which reads as follows:
-it was desirable to prevent this country's serving as a back door for exports from the United States. As hon. members know, there is a free flow of material from the United States to Canada, and it was necessary to prevent that freedom being used as an indirect method of exporting United States goods from that country contrary to their export control legislation.
The question I wish to direct to the minister is this. In view of the confusion, certainly in my mind, arising out of the answers given by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce and the minister on this question of exports to Cuba, will the acting minister prepare a carefully worded statement advising the house as to just what is being exported to Cuba now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The things that are being exported to Cuba now are materials that are almost wholly Canadian in origin.


Hazen Robert Argue: Like baby chicks.


George James McIlraith: What control is exercised by the Canadian government to make sure that none of the goods that may be described as largely United States produced are being exported through Canada to Cuba contrary to United States law?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question will have to be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he returns, because this comes directly under his authority; but the point that I am dealing with is that the items I have mentioned in answer to the questions are items which are almost wholly of Canadian origin.
May I have the consent of the house tc add these words to the last sentence in the answer I just gave to the hon. member for Ottawa West; with the exception of civilian aircraft engines which are sent to Canada for repair and go back to Cuba. They are, of course, not wholly of Canadian origin, but are just up here for repair purposes and then they show on the export list when they are sent back.


George James McIlraith: I have a further question I should like to direct to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is simply this.

Inquiries of the Ministry Is he aware that the present Export and Import Permits Act was passed in the 1953-54 session, and is chapter 27 of the statutes of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question on a matter which is open to all hon. members of the house; they can read the statutes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister whether he will comply with my request that the dates on which the permits were issued be given to the house, and that copies of these 17 permits be tabled?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will refer that to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister whether he will table them not later than tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: No; you had his answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is out of the country. This is a matter of great national importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, as I reminded him earlier, is limited to the answers he gets. There are other means of obtaining the tabling of documents if the answer is not satisfactory.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in view of the importance of this matter, would he see to it that copies of these permits are laid on the table for our scrutiny, together with the date of issuance?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, consideration will be given to that matter. I am rather surprised at the way the hon. gentleman is carrying on today, because he apparently has not read that on December 12 the Leader of the Opposition agreed with the attitude and course taken by this government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The observations just made regarding the Leader of the Opposition, of course, are not only contrary to the facts but were out of order. Since they were out of order, it may be pointed out that this is one occasion on which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition agree only in part, and I strongly recommend to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that he follow the lead of the Leader of the Opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mike had better hurry back.



O.E.C.D.-STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CHARTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the Leader of the
Opposition raised the question of the O.E.C.D. convention and asked whether consideration would be given to having it brought before the house. It was signed yesterday. The convention will be tabled when received, as well as the report of the preparatory committee of the 20 countries. The convention will be submitted to both houses for approval as soon as possible after signature.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of continued reports that certain United Nations troops stationed in the Congo may be withdrawn, and the importance to the rest of the world of a successful United Nations operation. Has the Prime Minister anything to report to the house on this situation, and has the Canadian government given any consideration to increasing the number of our troops in the event that other nations withdraw their forces?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was in the mind of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) who directed notice to me in this regard.
I think I should mention in general the situation in the Congo. Recent reports of developments there are most disturbing. During the past few days the security council has been discussing the Congo situation as a matter of urgency. A deadlock has now developed in the security council, and the general assembly will be required to resume its consideration of the matter.
I think I could say nothing further than this. As Mr. Hammarskjold said in July, the United Nations through its operations and its action in the Congo has been given its greatest opportunity in history. I hope there will not be carried into effect the threatened withdrawals of national representatives in the United Nations forces. To do so can lead only to more chaotic conditions in that country.
As to any consideration being given on the part of Canada to increasing its forces, I may say that such consideration has not been given. Canada has been generous in the contributions it has made to the United Nations and to the United Nations forces. At

the present time I can only say that no consideration is being given to any additional forces to meet a situation created by the anticipated withdrawal of certain national troops.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. If consideration were given I presume, of course, as the Prime Minister previously indicated, that matter would be brought before parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: That matter was made very clear.



CANADIAN ASSISTANCE IN RECRUITING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a question yesterday in connection with the recruitment of up to 500 French speaking teachers, and I gave him a partial answer. I now find that there has been a request from the director general of UNESCO, and that action has been taken. The external aid office has approached the educational authorities of the province of Quebec and various educational and teachers' organizations with a view to securing names of suitable candidates who are prepared to volunteer for this service.
The director general of UNESCO has requested reports on the candidates available by December 31, and it is hoped that the teachers recruited by UNESCO may take up their duties in the Congo early in the first quarter of 1961. However, it seems that most Canadian French speaking teachers already have commitments until the end of the teaching year in 1961. The government is in close co-operation with the provincial authorities and with Canadian educational and teaching associations and is prepared, as I said yesterday, to comply with the request of the director general in whatever way is possible.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Prime Minister can say, as a result of the inquiry which has been made, whether there is any likelihood that the number of 500 may be reached even at the end of the school year in 1961.


John George Diefenbaker: I should not like to enter the realm of speculation in that regard.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can bring the house up to date regarding Canada's proposal before the United Nations assembly that a bank of experts be organized by that organization.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: On September 26 I brought before the United Nations assembly the question of the creation of an experts' bank. The Canadian delegation has brought this matter before the assembly in two resolutions. The first, which Canada took the initiative in presenting, places the existing United Nations arrangements for providing operational and executive experts to underdeveloped countries on a permanent basis. This received the support of the assembly. The second, dealing with arrangements to facilitate the prompt supply of technical assistance personnel to underdeveloped countries, was adopted unanimously. It recommends that governments consider the desirability and feasibility, within their own constitutional and administrative structures, of establishing and maintaining reserves of qualified personnel available for assignment by the United Nations to advisory or operational technical assistance posts.
This experts' bank, if mobilized, if accepted not only in principle but translated into reality, would provide in the days ahead for the instant mobilization of technical assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to ask a further supplementary question. Following this important request, which recognizes the bilingual nature of our country, can the Prime Minister indicate what number of teachers have informed the government that they are prepared to accept these positions, or are interested in them?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member would place his question on the order paper I will have the information ready for him. Information of this type cannot be given in these circumstances.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it 3 or 300?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman seems to have his own sources of information.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a somewhat belated supplementary question to the Prime Minister, occasioned by this tempest in a teapot. In view of the fact that we have food banks and royal banks and blood banks and he has now mentioned human expert banks-we also have a Bank of Canada-which may cause some confusion in the public mind, will the Prime Minister give consideration to the government giving a lead to the country and to other nations by using more descriptive, more colourful and more imaginative language when describing those government agencies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. gentleman might give the house

Inquiries of the Ministry the benefit of his views, because I find the socialist party has that capacity for picking out extraordinary terms.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister inform the house whether he has received a telegram from the Fort William-Port Arthur and district labour council requesting consideration for tenders of lakehead firms in awarding the contract for steel fabrication for the lakehead seaway terminal? If so, can the minister indicate whether the contract has been awarded, and to whom?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no; the matter is before treasury board.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. There was some concern in my own constituency about minor outbreaks of rabies this past summer. It is my understanding that some years ago the federal government together with the provincial government paid part compensation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter George Pitman: The question I should like to ask is this. Can the minister indicate whether there is any possibility of restoring compensation to farmers who have lost animals as a result of minor outbreaks of rabies?


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I must thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The payment of indemnity to livestock owners as a result of losses from rabies was based on an agreement between the province of Ontario and my department, under which the cost was shared by the county, the province and the federal government. The payment was based on claims submitted by the provincial department of agriculture. However, no claims have been received for losses occurring since July 1, 1960, and I am therefore not in a position to say whether compensation payments will be restored.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question arising out of the statement attributed to the Prime Minister of India this morning, when he called on members of the truce supervisory commission formally seized with jurisdiction in Laos, to reassemble to deal with the difficult situation which now prevails in that country?


John George Diefenbaker: Prime Minister Nehru made the suggestion as the most effective means of preventing a further deterioration of the situation in Laos. The house will recall that the international supervisory commission was adjourned sine die in July, 1958, at the request of the royal Laotian government. The Canadian government at that time took the position that the duties of the commission had been completed, and that it could not agree to any further commission action which would infringe Laotian sovereignty.
The suggestion by the Prime Minister of India that the commission be reconvened will be examined in the light of the very complex situation which exists in Laos at the present time. Canada's attitude is that while welcoming any action of this type which might be suggested in order to bring about a diminution in the seriousness of the situation in Laos, there is no reason at this time which would impel any immediate change in the stand we have taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that the present government of Laos is of a different complexion than the government which existed when this situation was put to the Prime Minister some months ago, last session, will the government inquire whether or not it is now desirable to have the truce supervisory commission, of which Canada is a member, reconvened?


John George Diefenbaker: I understand that the United States, Britain and France are meeting in Paris this week to discuss the crisis in Laos. There has been no consultation with Canada in this regard.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Forestry, though I do not see him in the house. Anyway, my question is whether he has ministerial responsibility for the "resources for

tomorrow" conference and, if so, when the agenda and the details of the program for that conference will become available to the public.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Perhaps I may answer that question, in view of the fact that the conference comes under my responsibility. There will be a meeting early in January in connection with the general planning for this conference, and following that meeting it is hoped information will be available to the public.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO EARLY TERMINATION OF TAX AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister comment on a news dispatch to the effect that Premier Frost of Ontario would favour a termination of the current federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements in 1961 instead of 1962? Also, has Premier Frost made any representations to this government in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should realize that there are only five more sitting days before the Christmas recess, and that the question he has asked would probably occupy most of the time if it were fully answered. I do not want to exclude that sort of inquiry, but it seems to me that it is not a question which can be dealt with without notice on orders of the day, relating as it does to the settlement of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, particularly agreements of five-years' duration.


William Hector McMillan: May I ask whether Premier Frost has made any representations to the federal government to terminate the agreement before 1962?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have heard of no such suggestion.



PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-52, to establish a national productivity council-Mr. Hees-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 10-Objects and powers.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose last night we were considering
Productivity Council
clause 10, and more especially the amendment by the hon. member for Timmins, which I need not read again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two observations about the hon. member's amendment, along the lines that were made just before the committee rose yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier, who at that time read the words of the Prime Minister, which I am sure I do not need to repeat now, that the government would welcome any suggestions for the improvement of this bill.
It is surely evident that if this productivity council is to have any real impact upon the Canadian economy, it must have the power to make recommendations to industry, to labour, and above all, in the broader field, to make recommendations to the government. It seems to me that since there has been a good deal of confusion between statements by the different ministers, by the sponsor of the bill, the godfather of the bill and the stepfather of the bill, who seem to be unable to agree about the purposes and objectives of the bill, it seems to me that at least this one point might be clarified, and clarified completely.
If I seem to exaggerate; if anyone thinks I am exaggerating when I say there are differences in view as to the very basic purpose of this council, I would draw hon. members' attention to the original statement at the resolution stage by the sponsor of the bill, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, under the doctrine of collective responsibility, presumably was speaking for the whole government then as no doubt he was on another occasion when he described certain people in this country as wonderful people. On this occasion when he was speaking about this bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, as recorded on page 566 of Hansard for December 6:
The national council should act as a policy making body . ..
Then the Prime Minister, speaking on second reading on behalf of the absent Minister of Trade and Commerce and, I might add, speaking instead of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, had this to say, as found on page 750 of Hansard for December 13:
I know we shall welcome any ideas or suggestions that may lead to any improvement in the bill, providing those suggestions are not of such a nature as would, in effect, constitute the council as a policy making body...
Whom do you believe, the Prime Minister who says that this council must not be constituted as a policy making body or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who in first putting forward that it was expedient

Productivity Council
to introduce a bill for this purpose said that this national council should act as a policy making body? Which of these gentlemen is speaking the real mind of the government, or has the government any mind in this matter at all?
It seems to me this is a question that should be resolved on this clause which deals with the purposes of the council. Whether or not the council is a policy making body, it is obviously there to do something; and how it can do anything that will be effective unless its power to make recommendations is clear, explicit and unqualified is very hard to see. For that reason I am happy to support the amendment of the hon. member for Timmins.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, now that the minister has had a chance to think about this matter overnight, would he indicate to us whether he is prepared to accept the amendment? It might save any further remarks on my part.


Mr. Starr:: I gave the reasons why the government cannot accept the amendment, and I have had no reason to change that attitude overnight.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, in order to explain the problem raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may I say that I have had occasion to read Hansard and to study the remarks of the minister, and I note something in his remarks that may explain the strange phenomenon that confronts us at the present time. If hon. members will look at page 807 of Hansard for December 14 they will find that the minister stated, near the bottom of the page:
... this and other measures that will be brought down are part and parcel of a program to take care of the federal share of responsibility in this field and which will create an atmosphere that will give employment to these people.
This is the first time I have ever heard of employment being provided by an atmosphere. I therefore looked at the dictionary definition of the word, because I thought possibly there was a definition with which I was not familiar. Among the various definitions of "atmosphere" I find that one is "air" and another has reference to the normal pressure of the air at sea level being about 15 pounds per square inch.
In view of the completely opposite views of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister, as outlined by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, maybe there is a little too much air involved in the bill and there should be a little more substance. Again, if we refer to the remarks of the Minister of Labour as found on page 802

of Hansard, we find that he had this to say with regard to the amendment now before us:
There is no provision in the bill which says the council cannot make recommendations to the government. Consequently it is my opinion that if, in the belief of this council, the over-all effect of its work could be improved with more beneficial results for all Canadians as a result of some action of the federal government, this council would be free to make such recommendations and suggestions, and these would be welcomed and given consideration.
In my view this is a very strange procedure. Are we to assume that just because there is nothing in the bill preventing the council from doing any particular thing, the council is free to do that thing? This is certainly a new procedure in the setting up of councils of this kind. I suggest it is much more appropriate that provision should be made for the council to make recommendations, because from past experience I would say that unless this power is given to them the hands of the members of the council will be tied, for all practical purposes, from the point of view of any recommendations they might make on the basis of the vast amount of knowledge that will be available to them. I would ask the minister to reconsider the matter to see if he cannot agree that this amendment would definitely be an improvement to the bill.
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Timmins) negatived: Yeas, 29; nays, 59.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 10 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question on this clause which I think would possibly have been more correctly asked on an earlier clause, but I was unavoidably absent. My question has to do with paragraph (iii) of subclause (a) which deals with the maintenance of good human relations in industry. There are many unions in Canada representing thousands of workers which are not affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress and whose members are making a considerable contribution to the Canadian economy in primary industries such as mining, fishing, transportation and construction. In view of the fact that there are many thousands of workers in the category I have mentioned, will there be an opportunity for representation on the council on behalf of unions not affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, ordinarily in appointing labour representatives to any organization established by the government, the representatives of the organized groups such as the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Federation of Trade Unions-that is the new name for the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour-and in some cases where it is deemed advisable the legislative

committee of the railroad brotherhoods, are consulted. I realize there are unions that are particularly expert on some phases of the work that might be involved here. I believe representation from those people who might be affected, or who could be of some help, should be given consideration when appointments are made of the representatives of labour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very pleased to hear the minister say that, because that is the very point I had in mind. There are unions not affiliated with the congress whose officers and members have particular experience in a certain industry. Some of them are of long standing in Canada, and in my opinion some consideration should be given to these unions in representation on this council.


Michael Starr: In making a further comment on this may I say that I hope when something of that nature is done, there will be an understanding on the part of the Canadian Labour Congress and the federation of trade unions as to why it is being done, and I hope they will extend their co-operation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope so too.


Mr. Howard:: I wonder if I may discuss with the minister the full intent of subparagraph 6, and whether or not it is a bit restrictive in its language. It reads:
(vi) the extension of industrial research programs in plants and in industries as a means of achieving greater productivity,
I think the implication here is that when it talks about extension, this would prohibit the fostering and promoting of the use of industrial research programs. When you speak of extension it seems to me to imply that there is such a thing in existence at the moment in all plants and industries. I believe that the words, "use and extension of" such programs might be better. This would allow the council to think in terms of discussing with any plant or any industry the institution of industrial research programs rather than their extension.


Michael Starr: Many industries in this country have research programs of their own. For example, the pulp and paper research institute was set up by the pulp and paper industry. This productivity council, of course, will not be delving into research. I am certain, however, that if they felt it was necessary in a certain industry, and that the productivity of that industry would be increased through research, then the council might be in a position to advise that industry of this solution to the problem of gaining greater productivity in that particular industry. I feel that this productivity council will make full use of the facilities of the national research council
Productivity Council
in this respect, and possibly convey the information that may be derived from the national research council to a particular industry.


Charles Benjamin Howard: As the minister has said, there are some industries which do not have any research programs. I wonder how this council could, as the bill says, promote the extension of research programs where none exist. How do you extend something that does not exist? If you were to put in the words "use and extension" it would make the clause much clearer.


Michael Starr: I explained a moment ago, I thought to the hon. member's satisfaction, that if in the opinion of the productivity council greater productivity could be brought about in an industry through research, no doubt the council would advise this industry that they avail themselves of research in some other area that is now in existence or set up their own research program. No doubt this council would give that sort of advice to that particular industry.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I still do not see how you can extend something that does not exist. It is a matter of extension.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member is playing on words. It is the extension of research that exists in one industry when it should also be undertaken in another industry; that is an extension.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think the minister is playing on words, too, and he has had far more practice than I in this regard, belonging to the government that he does.
Let me look at another part of this clause, if I may. I think this is restrictive to the extent that it applies, in so far as research programs are concerned, only to industrial research programs, plants and industries. We are going to have a council representative of more than plants and industries. If you look back at clause 2 you will find there are to be five members chosen from the field of agriculture and other primary industries. Let us confine it to agriculture. How does this council get involved in the extension, to use the minister's play on words, of research programs in agriculture if the clause only makes reference to industrial research programs in plants and industries? Is it not restricted to that extent also?


Michael Starr: As a matter of fact the word "industries" covers the whole field. When you talk about the agricultural industry you are talking about the largest industry in this country.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It may be that there are some people who will disagree with the minister in this regard. It does not say anywhere in

Productivity Council
the bill what an industry is. If it is the interpretation of the minister that you can extend an industrial research program to the agricultural industry, he is not only playing on words but he is being misled by words. In this connection I am reminded of an article in the Prince Rupert daily News, which gave a definition of politics. It says it is what makes you want to say sound like an answer to a question that was asked. This is obviously what we have got from the minister.


Mr. Thrasher:: Get out of the gutter and get on with the bill.


Mr. Carter:: Clause 10 sets out the general objects of this council. It reads:
The objects of the council are to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the council may, in furtherance of its objects-
Before we can estimate just what gains we are making in productivity, it is necessary for us to know what the level of productivity is at a given time. What is our present output per man hour? When we come to inquire into that, we discover that there is a great lack of statistical information. I am told that there is a publication by Hood and Scott available from the Queen's printer which gives some figures, and I know that the Gordon commission presented some figures on productivity which were projected back, I understand, as far as 1926.
Recently the Senate committee on manpower and employment in their latest report, I think, dated December 8, has an appendix which for the first time lists the man hour productivity in various industries.
Apparently the difficulty with these figures is that there is no common denominator between them; hence they cannot be used for accurate comparisons. On December 13 the Prime Minister put on Hansard some figures which he attributed to Dr. Eugene Forsey, the research director of the Canadian Labour Congress. I take issue with some of the figures given by Dr. Forsey, because I think they are apt to mislead us as to what our real gain in productivity actually is. At the bottom of page 748 of Hansard Dr. Forsey is quoted in the following words:
In 1946, the number with jobs in manufacturing was about 1,222,000. Last year, it was 1,502,000 ... or an increase of 23 per cent.
The Prime Minister then went on to elaborate as follows:
Then he says-
That is Dr. Forsey.
-that while there was an increase in manufacturing employment of about 23 per cent during that period, the gain in manufacturing production was about 75 per cent.

A little further on he again quotes Dr. Forsey in these words:
From 1947 to 1959 manufacturing production rose almost 60 per cent; manufacturing jobs rose only about 19 per cent.
What I want to point out is that a contrast of that kind does not give us an accurate picture of what our gain in productivity actually is. In April of 1959 I put on Hansard some figures which I should like to quote at the present time. As I stated on Wednesday evening, we can get a rough idea of our productivity as a nation if we take our gross national product in constant dollars and divide it by the average labour force. In 1954 our gross national product in constant dollars was $20,186 million and our average labour force was 5.493 million. If we divide the gross national product by the labour force we get a figure of 370. If we go on to 1958 we find that the gross national product in constant dollars in 1958 was $23,704 million while the average labour force was 6.127 million. If we divide the latter figure into the former one we get a comparable quotient of 387. That computation works out to a gain of about 5 per cent in four years or an over-all yearly gain of about 1J per cent in productivity for the nation as a whole.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Will the hon. member explain how he can relate his remarks to clause 10 of the bill which is under consideration?


Chesley William Carter: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thought I had done so at the beginning of my remarks, when I said that clause 10 sets forth that a general objective of this council is to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity. I was saying that if we are to promote improvement in our efficiency we must know what our starting point is, or in other words we must know what our productivity figure or index is at the present time. That is the purpose of this discussion.


Jacques Flynn: Even if clause 10 describes the objectives and powers of the council and therefore deals with the purposes of the bill, we should now discuss the terms of clause 10 and it seems to me that this discussion must be more strictly relevant to the wording and substance of clause 10 than to the purposes which are therein referred to.


Chesley William Carter: I am dealing directly with the purpose of clause 10, which is the purpose of council as set out under this clause. What I am going on to point out is this. After stating the general objectives', clause 10 goes

on to enumerate a number of specific objectives, one of which is contained in subparagraph (vi) which reads as follows:
(vi) the extension of industrial research programs-[DOT]
I should like to point out that it is equally necessary to promote a statistical research program. I know that a great deal of statistical research is being carried out in various departments at the present time. The Department of Trade and Commerce has a statistical branch. The bureau of statistics has a statistical branch. I think there is another one in the Department of Labour. I am not suggesting that the council should undertake a program which would duplicate what is already being done. Rather I am suggesting that there should be some agency to coordinate this work in such a way that we shall have a figure which will enable us as a nation to measure our progress in technical efficiency and will also enable one industry to compare its progress with the progress that is being made in other industries. We have not such a figure at the present time, and I think it is essential that we should have one.
I would be the first to admit that it is not easy to get a figure that will have great accuracy because there are many factors which vary from one industry to the other. For example, as has been pointed out by many hon. members, productivity is in large measure geared to our markets, and when markets begin to decline there is a tendency for a decline in productivity corresponding with the fall in the market. That factor varies from one industry to the other, and it is a factor which would affect the index figure. In addition, a firm might be faced with the choice of laying off people or of working to a limited capacity, and they may not be able to obtain full efficiency with part of their plant lying idle. Then there are others who would be faced with a choice between the cost of closing down and reopening as compared with the cost of carrying their staff while not fully employed. These are all factors that vary and there is a need for somebody to work out a common denominator that will permit an adjustment to be made in the calculation of productivity figures which will at least give us an approximate idea of how we are doing with regard to our gain in technical efficiency. For that reason I move:
That paragraph (a) of clause 10 be amended by deleting the word "and" at the end of line 24 and adding the following:
(viii) The promotion and co-ordination of statistical research into man hour productivity on a basis that will be comparable for all industries.
Productivity Council


Michael Starr: I think I should make some observations on this proposed amendment. At the present time a great deal of information is available on production by industries through the dominion bureau of statistics, and we also have a good deal of information available in the Department of Labour concerning manpower. The dominion bureau of statistics has a special section which deals with productivity measurement, and this section will be able to supply information to the council which should be helpful. The job of this council will be to help to improve productivity, not to measure it. It will have at its disposal all the information which is available, and I doubt whether any further information could be amassed as a result of an amendment of the type proposed here.


Chesley William Carter: The point is this. How do you know you are improving productivity if you have no means of measuring it?


Michael Starr: We have.


Chesley William Carter: Can the minister tell me what our output per man hour is at the present time as a nation?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member had told me he wanted that information I think I should have been able to provide it for him.
Amendment (Mr. Carter) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 34.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have read through the whole of this bill, though somewhat hurriedly, and I may be mistaken in this statement; but as far as I can observe the word "employment" and the word "unemployment" do not occur anywhere in the bill, except that the word "employment" is used once in the preamble. In the body of the bill, the operative part, there seems to have been an oversight, and nowhere is there any reference to employment or unemployment. Since we are told this measure is part of the government's plan to promote employment and cure unemployment, it seems to me there is a very simple way of remedying the omission. I do not intend to make a long speech about it. I am just going to move an amendment. I move:
That clause 10 be amended by inserting in line 6 on page 3 after the word "efficiency" the words "and employment".
The effect of this amendment would be to make the clause read:
The objects of the council are to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency and employment in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity-
I cannot imagine that the government will not welcome this rescue operation on the part of the opposition.

Productivity Council


Mr. Graffiey:: I was just wondering if the hon. member had read the preamble-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I mentioned that.


Michael Starr: The purpose of this productivity council is to bring about increased efficiency in the productivity of industry. Because of that, naturally, employment will be created to a greater degree. The effect of this amendment would be that the council would be dealing directly with the employment or unemployment factor. That is not to be the case. This council will be dealing with the efficiency of productivity in industry, and employment will be a natural consequence of its work.


Murdo William Martin: Apparently the minister is continuing to follow the line of substituting air for substance. Certainly this group wholeheartedly endorses the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I think if the efforts of this council are to be directed into the field of employment only by implication, as is the case with regard to so many other things which are incorporated in this bill, it will be a great pity; and the effect, I am sure, will be that there will be a great deal less support for this measure on third reading than there was on second reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Reading through the debates it is clear, I think, that the concept which the Minister of Labour had with regard to this bill was one which would be shared more widely on this side of the house than by most of his colleagues, at least by those of his colleagues in the government who have spoken on the measure.
As far as the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce were concerned, this bill was intended to deal primarily with the purposes and objects as stated in clause 10. But the Minister of Labour, recognizing the importance of this problem, did say at one point, in the only clear and succinct statement which has been made by the minister yet on this measure, that it was also intended to deal with unemployment. Indeed, we have been led to believe that one of the reasons we are here at this time of the year is to give the government power to bring in more vigorous methods of dealing with unemployment.
I believe that of all the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in the course of his brilliant parliamentary career, none has had as great and as constructive a purpose as the amendment in his name now standing before us. The hon. gentleman has pointed out that all throughout this bill there has been, for some reason or other, a reluctance on the part of

the administration to recognize the existence of either employment or unemployment. Certainly nothing in the operational part of the bill by implication or directly has any reference to the problem of unemployment or employment. The hon. member for one of the eastern townships who spoke a while ago suddenly thought he had found an unusual bit of information for the committee when he observed that there was reference in the second line of the preamble to the word "employment", and of course the hon. member's chagrin was great when he was reminded that that was one of the very points made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
It is worth while looking at the preamble again:
Whereas in order to provide expanding opportunities for increased employment and trade and rising national standards of living, it is in the national interest to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity-
That is the only reference in this bill to the most serious problem that confronts us in Canada at this time, certainly on the domestic level; yet there is a refusal on the part of the government to carry into the operational part of the bill what is stated so piously in the preamble.
If the word "employment" is not to be included in clause 10, as is proposed in the amendment of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, then why should it be in the preamble? I should certainly want it to be in the preamble in any event so we would at least have that degree of recognition by this government in this bill of the seriousness of the need for employment. What possible reason can the government give for this exclusion? What possible reason can the Minister of Labour in particular give for not including a reference of this nature in the measure? He is the one minister who in the statements he has made about this bill has said it is intended to deal with employment. He is confident it will deal with it in the short term, because the minister said that by next July, six months hence, we would have some indication of the effect of this bill on employment conditions.
I suggest that if the government persists in refusing to accept this amendment it only justifies the contention we have been making that this measure and its companion measures, all of them introduced at a time when we unanimously agreed to dispense with the debate on the speech from the throne, are intended not to provide the government with methods to cure unemployment or to provide a mitigation of unemployment but to provide the government with an excuse for not dealing with unemployment, so that later on hon. gentlemen opposite can piously refer to these

great measures passed in the early part of this session when we unanimously agreed to postpone our normal discussions in order to deal with these important emergency measures.
What is emergent about this, unless there is a recognition of the actual fact of heavy unemployment in this country? There were 425,000 unemployed people in Canada as of yesterday, a figure that is growing day by day and month by month. All this government does is bring forward bills that look impressive in form but that are really merely facades for the government to enable hon. gentlemen opposite to make strong speeches of achievement later on, as they will certainly do and as the Prime Minister assuredly will do when he talks about having fulfilled all of his promises. He will say that the government brought in a bill to provide for a productivity council that will seriously affect the problem of unemployment, but he will not tell the committee or the country that the government through the Minister of Labour has refused to accept, in the statement of the objects of the council, reference to employment in the way suggested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
In spite of the criticism I have levelled and will continue to level against his administration, I believe the Minister of Labour is sincere in the job he has undertaken. But I say he does not do himself justice when, as Minister of Labour, he does not accept this amendment which will clearly establish that one of the functions of this council is not only to produce efficiency but also, at least in the long term, to do something about employment.
The reluctance of the government to accept this amendment is the most demonstrative proof we have had of the fact that the government, in spite of the propaganda it has used during the past three or four weeks, is not disposed to seriously tackle the problem of unemployment in Canada.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Chairman, in considering amendments, hon. members sit in the committee in the capacity of judges. They listen to debates and each hon. member draws his conclusion as to which arguments are more effective, and is guided by those arguments in his vote.


William Heward Grafftey: A new Liberal theory?


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I was convinced out of the mouth of the minister himself and on the basis of his own language that he feels this is a valid amendment which he should accept. If the minister will read Hansard tomorrow I am sure that upon examining his remarks he will find that he 90205-6-53i
Productivity Council
has said the amendment is a good one. In a sense the hon. gentleman has said, "We are concerned with productivity which will produce employment, and employment will follow". That is exactly what the minister has said, and I cannot understand why after offering an argument which I interpret as one in support of acceptance of the amendment, the minister remains mute and does not rise to the great heights to which hon. members of a government sometimes should rise in accepting an amendment proposed by the opposition.
It would not be a reflection upon the draftsmen of this measure. I think governments do themselves honour in sometimes accepting amendments proposed by the opposition. It would certainly give hon. gentlemen a lift. To be so stubborn-and I use that word advisedly-as to continuously reject amendments because of the government's majority or because the opposition may get credit for a good amendment is not conduct befitting a wise government.
I address myself to the minister directly. He does say that the council will produce employment after productivity is satisfactory. Why, then, should the minister refuse to say, "We are concerned with appointing a council which will concern itself with employment". That is all the amendment says. Certainly if I were to judge the evidence given by the minister himself I would find the amendment valid and acceptable; and it is astonishing, as the hon. member for Essex East has said that the minister would not rise to those heights.


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


Leon David Crestohl: Surely.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. gentleman quote chapter and verse of an example where the previous government in 23 years accepted an amendment proposed by the opposition?


Leon David Crestohl: I think that is either an
ignorant statement to make-ignorant in the sense that the hon. member was not here______


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member did not make a statement but asked a question. There is a subtle difference.


Leon David Crestohl: I am answering the hon.
member's question, and the answer is yes! Amendments were often accepted by the former government, both those proposed by the official opposition and by the C.C.F. The former government was not so stubborn and did not say that just because an amendment came from the opposition it was not good.

Productivity Council


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Mr. Peters:: Just before the vote is called, may I say that this is a very important amendment and one that will affect the decision of many members of the house. This is particularly true when we take into consideration what has been said with regard to the establishment of this council and the objectives of the bill. If the government is not willing to insert the word "employment", then we can only come to the conclusion that the results of this bill without the amendment will be advantages to industry itself. If the objectives in setting up a productivity council are not to create employment, then some people will suffer because of the increased productivity. With that in mind many hon. members will have to give very serious consideration to the bill itself.
If this amendment is written into the bill, if the amendment is accepted by the government, as I think it will be, then I shall have to look at the decision I made previously in the light of the amendment. If the amendment is not accepted, then probably I will have to go along with the attitude I have already taken.


Michael Starr: For the benefit of the hon. member who talks about the objectives of the bill in the field of employment, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer him to the preamble, which sets out the objective very clearly. It reads:
Whereas in order to provide expanding opportunities for increased employment and trade and rising national standards of living, it is in the national interest to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productivity efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity-
I do not think it is necessary to spell that out any further.


William Arnold Peters: I would assume from the remarks of the minister that there is really no objection to accepting the amendment. It may be true that there is no objection on the part of the government to including an actual clause in the bill saying that the objectives of the council are to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency and employment in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing the council may, and so on.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, if the important part of this bill is only the preamble, what is the point in going on with the substance of the bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the question is put, Mr. Chairman, I ought to point out what the government are really doing by rejecting this

amendment. The government are asking us to endorse a pious hope, because, that is all the preamble of any bill is. What they are saying in the body of the bill itself where it sets out the duties of the council is that the word "employment" is not to be used.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I think I should make a few remarks on this question. This is a completely extraneous argument that has been brought forward. All measures the government has brought forward this session have been designed to create employment. When we brought in the amendments to the National Housing Act-and we brought forward measures which are clearly going to create employment in the country-we did not say, to build houses and to create employment; we did not say to build sewage projects and to create employment. When we came to the bill respecting loans to small businesses we did not say we were going to build additions to businesses which are obviously going to create employment; we did not put in the words "and to create employment". That is perfectly clear, and it is absolutely unnecessary to put these words in here; this is an absolutely extraneous argument.


William Arnold Peters: In reply to the hon. member who has just taken his seat, may I say that what he says in regard to one piece of legislation he mentioned is quite true, where assistance was given by the federal government to certain types of business; but it is not fair to refer to that type of legislation and to put this legislation in the same class. In the first instance, the secondary result of the assistance will be employment. All we are asking here is that the council be empowered to also take into consideration the employment picture in so far as the productivity aspects of this legislation are concerned. We ask that because of automation and because of things that have happened thus far.
This bears little relationship to certain other objectives which are obviously going to result in employment. If you build houses, obviously you employ people. We have not been able to turn them out automatically yet; we still employ carpenters and other people. But when we increase productivity we do not necessarily create employment. We are suggesting that the employment aspect be written into this clause so that the council will be able to judge for itself and guide itself in undertaking this part of their program.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 52.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the clause carries may I say a few words, now that the government, not only in words used by the Minister of Labour in turning down the amendment but by the vote of its followers, has made it perfectly clear that this productivity council is to have nothing directly to do with employment. That was what the minister said; he said that employment might follow. The minister's words can be checked in Hansard. I listened very carefully. He said that it had nothing directly to do with employment. Before we are asked to vote on this, sir, I should draw attention to that famous day on the road to Damascus when not St. Paul but perhaps St. John saw a great light and made a great speech on television- this was on September 21-in which he said:
I want to talk to you tonight about employment and unemployment.
These were the opening words. Now, it would be an abuse to read anything more than the opening words except in so far as they relate to this bill and to this clause of this bill. But the Prime Minister did tell us the other night when he spoke on second reading, and in his second speech, that this bill was a part of the program which he had referred to on September 21 to deal with employment and unemployment. That is what he himself said in this house, and here is what he said on that occasion:
Our plans are already made and will be presented in detail to the next session of parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: September 21. I continue:
Naturally I cannot say what these plans are in those matters which require the approval of parliament, but I can assure you that they will be based on a current and realistic appraisal of the employment problem. In the meantime we continue to examine every possible action. Before the next session of parliament I intend to call to Ottawa representatives-
This was done.
-of business, labour, farm and other leaders of the nation. We have, of course, had the benefit of the views of many of these leaders as individuals, as well as of leading economists both in and outside the government service. The government will now seek the collective views of the national organizations which they represent so that the people of Canada will know that the course we follow will have the support of all available ideas.
In other words, the conference that the Prime Minister was talking about was, he said, to deal with a current and realistic appraisal of the employment problem. When that one-day conference ended the Prime Minister called a press conference and announced that the child of that conference was this productivity council as yet unborn. Now, when the child is born it does not seem to bear much evidence of its paternity. The Minister of Labour, defending the bill
Productivity Council
as its stepfather in the absence of its sponsor and of its godfather, says that the council is not to be concerned with employment but is to be concerned with productivity and they hope that out of increased productivity employment may follow. I say, that this clause left as it is is a travesty. It is a fiction, a word that I think is perhaps now consecrated in parliamentary usage, and it is perhaps a very useful word-


Mr. Martineau:: The hon. member knows all about fiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to apply to this clause that we are now being asked to support.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I have only two questions to ask the hon. member with respect to clause 10. First of all, I ask him this question. If you go up to a man and kick him in the shins do you have to say to him, "I have kicked you in the shins"? Clause 10 speaks for itself. This play on words is simply creating a straw man. I ask the hon. member another question. Does not increased productivity mean increased employment? Answer that honestly.


An hon. Member:: Not necessarily.


William Heward Grafftey: Of course it does.


Peter Francis Martin: Not at all.


William Heward Grafftey: That is the crux of the question. Either say yes or no and let us not get into a forensic debate and splitting hairs over increased productivity, which clause 10 seeks to bring about. We on this side say that increased productivity increases employment. I repeat that when you kick a man in the shins or when you spell out something like to a little child you do not have to say, "I have done it". Clause 10 speaks for itself. Employment is dealt with in the preamble and I repeat that clause 10 speaks for itself. I think it is an insult to the intelligence of people generally and the members of the house to have to cross T's and dot I's in such an infantile way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has done me the honour of asking me two questions and I would not like to show disrespect for his grey hairs by failing to reply. I will answer the second question first. In my opinion and in the opinion of a great many of the unemployed who are unemployed as a result of automation, increased productivity very frequently results immediately in increased unemployment. That is precisely the problem that we thought the productivity council was to deal with and that is precisely the impression that the right hon. gentleman sought to give, whether consciously or unconsciously I am not prepared to say, in that press conference and also when he talked about these measures.

Productivity Council
As for the question about kicking on the shins, I am not accustomed to that form of activity at all but I might say that if I were an unemployed person I would consider that the government had kicked me not in the shins but in the face with this legislation that is now before us.


William Heward Grafftey: Since hon. members opposite have insisted that increased productivity will increase unemployment, then they have no other choice but to vote against the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Powers.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, there are two phrases in clause 11 to which I should like to address myself for a moment or two. First I should like to refer to subclause (a) which reads as follows:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council, make bylaws regulating its proceedings and generally for the conduct of its activities, including the establishment of regional offices.
In other words, the bill gives the council the authority to make its own bylaws and regulations. That is a provision that has been used over the years in legislation creating a body of this kind. Provision is made that the body shall have the right to make its own bylaws in order to administer its affairs. However, there is one aspect of such bylaws or regulations to which I am certainly opposed. We frequently find in such regulations that it is provided that there shall be no appeal from any decision made by the body in question.
I simply make this observation and hope the minister is familiar with the fact that there is a tendency to make such a regulation providing that there shall be no appeal from any decision of the body or council. Having in mind the fact that the bill of rights is now law and also the fact that in the last two years a number of great legal and parliamentary authorities have taken the position that to give a body created by statute the authority to be final in its decisions creates a form of supreme court, I simply ask the minister to take cognizance of that tendency at the present time.
This council is to be given the power to make regulations for its own administration but I should like the minister to see to it that the council does not obtain such authority, as has happened sometimes in the past, and I hope any such authority now exercised will be minimized as time goes on. I would ask the minister to see that in this case there is nothing in the regulations to provide that the council shall have the last word without any appeal to the courts, thus making the council a sort of supreme court of Canada. This is a dangerous trend. I should like to

appeal to the minister to see to it that the council does not obtain the same authority as the Supreme Court of Canada.
With respect to subclauses (b) and (c), I should like to draw the minister's attention to this point. Under subclause (b) the council may acquire by purchase, lease, gift, donation, bequest or otherwise. How can the council acquire otherwise that which it seeks to acquire? Therefore, I should like the minister to tell us what is meant by the use of the word "otherwise". The same word also appears in subclause (c) where it is provided that the council may expend moneys received by it through the conduct of its operations or by gift, donation, bequest or otherwise.
Although I am not now addressing myself to clause 16, I should like to point out that the word "otherwise" is not used although we And there a similar phrase. This is not simply a matter of semantics. The inclusion of the word "otherwise" means nothing unless it is intended to cover something about which we cannot be told. If it is intended to cover something about which we are not to know, then why is the word "otherwise" included? Under paragraphs (b) and (c) every possible means of acquiring property have already been specified, such as lease, gift, donation, bequest, so what does the word "otherwise" cover?


Michael Starr: I understand the hon. gentleman is an attorney by profession so he would know. According to the information I have been given the word "otherwise" is a general term used in legal drafting to include things in addition to those which have been set out in detail here. The clause gives that power, and at the same time extends it to any other matters that might not be specifically set out.


Leon David Crestohl: Will the minister please look at clause 16? We are not considering it as yet, but there you have the same wording except that you do not use the word "otherwise".


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether we are discussing clause 16 now?


Jacques Flynn: No, clause 11.


Leon David Crestohl: I am not addressing myself to clause 16. I am simply pointing out that you have identical language there but you do not include the word "otherwise". Why do you include the word "otherwise" in clause 11?


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 11 carry?


Leon David Crestohl: No, I should receive an answer.


George James McIlraith: I wanted to raise another point. Is the minister going to reply to the hon. member?


Michael Starr: I did reply to clause 11 and the hon. member raised a question with regard to clause 16 which can be dealt with later.


Leon David Crestohl: No, then it will be too late to deal with clause 11. I only referred to clause 16 because I pointed out that the minister uses the identical language that he used in clause 11 but he does not add the word "otherwise". Why is the word "otherwise" included in this subclause? Surely, the draftsman or the government must have had something in mind when they used the word "otherwise". It certainly is sufficient, in my opinion, to say that anything that is acquired by gift, lease, donation or bequest is covered without the addition of this word "otherwise". I have no conception what that word "otherwise" could possibly cover. If "otherwise" is only a matter of form, why was that same form not followed in clause 16?


Michael Starr: I do not want to try to match wits with the legal gentleman, but I am advised that clause 11 deals with powers; it is an entirely different situation. Clause 16 deals with acquisition by gift, donation or bequest, and it has a different aspect altogether. Consequently the legal department, which has some fairly reputable people who are experts on these things, felt that the word "otherwise" should be in clause 11 but it was not necessary in clause 16.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Just on that same subject, if I may add a word. Clause 11 sets out many modes by which the council may acquire property, while clause 16 simply limits the mode to three cases, donations, gifts or bequests. If the hon. gentleman will consider that for an. instant he will find that these three words refer, in effect, to donations and, in such case, there is provision for appropriation by the council of an amount equal to such donations. In clause 11 we are dealing with the different methods by which the council may acquire property and it would be outlandish to try to specify every means. It is for this reason that in clause 11 the word "otherwise" is included, whereas in clause 16 the word "otherwise" is not included. There is the intention to limit the appropriation to the amount of the donation.


George James McIlraith: I think what the minister and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister are doing is to make it quite clear once again that the remarks made in introducing this legislation in which there was a reference to the government matching the property acquired by the council, did not set out the true position. The matching grants apply only to property acquired without cost in certain ways, and this rather narrows the thing as compared with what was presented to the committee at the resolution stage. I
Productivity Council
did not rise to press that point, however, but I feel hon. members should be aware of it now and have a look at clause 16 before we reach it.
I wanted to raise an entirely new matter, Mr. Chairman, and to ask the minister what expectation he has of donations being made by national organizations, whether trade bodies, industrial bodies or labour bodies, to this council. Has he any intimation on which he can base some expectation of gifts?


Michael Starr: I have great expectations.


George James McIlraith: I want to get it more precise than that. Has there been any intimation given to the government that if the legislation is passed-


Michael Starr: Not to my knowledge.


George James McIlraith: -gifts will be made? Was this question discussed before the bill was prepared with any national bodies, either in the field of industry or labour?


Michael Starr: I said not to my knowledge.


George James McIlraith: Then the government must assume that for the first three years the council may only have the $150,000 provided in a subsequent clause for its annual operations, is that correct?


Michael Starr: I see no mention in clause 11- does the hon. member refer to $150,000?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Peter Francis Martin: It was mentioned at the time by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George James McIlraith: The question can be rephrased so it will be more clearly understood by the minister. In setting up this council the government, according to the answers by the minister, must have assumed that there would be no funds coming to the council under clause 11?


Michael Starr: If that is what the hon. member assumes the government assumes, then he is entitled to do so.


George James McIlraith: We are entitled to have full information as to what the government has done in this connection. It is proper to ask the minister that question. I could make a great many assumptions about this government, but I am not going to take the time of the committee to do that now. I am asking the minister a proper question and I should like a proper answer from him.


Michael Starr: The hon. member is entitled to ask any questions he feels like.


George James McIlraith: And he is entitled to answers from a ministry which is competent. If it is incompetent to answer, then the committee has its remedies.

Productivity Council


Michael Starr: Of course the hon. member asks many questions that have no relevancy and which are not based on facts. He wants the government to project its mind into the future and predict what might happen. In other words, he asks us whether any company in this country is prepared to give so much money, and certainly we do not know that. This bill is put forward and money is being provided by the government to get a start. I am sure that industry generally will cooperate because it will be for their benefit and for the benefit of their employees in the field of productivity and trade.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is one question that I wish to ask. This clause provides for the establishment of regional offices. Can the minister inform the committee whether there has been any consideration as to the area of regions or populations covered. Would it cover those included under the unemployment insurance commission and so on?


Michael Starr: This is an area in which the council itself will decide as to the scope of its activity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It might include several regions within a province.


Michael Starr: It might include several regions.


Leon David Crestohl: Can the minister or the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue give the committee one example of what this word "otherwise" might cover? We do not know.
(Translation):
Mr. Dorion Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. colleague has often had occasion to see this word in various statutes, where it is obviously used to remove any possibility of impediments to the acquisition of needed property. It should be noted here that clause 11 deals with the objects and powers of the council. Indeed, it reads as follows:
In addition to the general powers conferred upon or vested in the council by this act the council may,
b) acquire by purchase, lease, gift, donation, bequest or otherwise-
There might be other methods of acquiring, which are unprovided for here and which might perhaps be an obstacle to the acquiring or renting; that accounts for the use here of this word which, by the way, occurs in many statutes of similar nature. I cannot see how the word might constitute an obstacle or an objection, particularly in the light of paragraph (c), which reads as follows:
-expend any moneys appropriated by parliament for the work of the council or received by the council through the conduct of its operations or by gift, donation, bequest or otherwise.

Of course, parliament retains a very large measure of control over the operations of the council, or rather the department will be kept informed of the council's activity, and I fail to see how the word "otherwise" could be a serious objection to this clause.
Of course, if I strained my imagination a little, I might find an example that would give full satisfaction to my hon. colleague. None occurs to me at the moment, but I am sure that with a bit of thought one could find a case where the word would apply; in fact, if the word were left out of the bill, the omission might, at a given time, hinder the proper operation of the council.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-Not agent of Her Majesty.
George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the minister the significance of the reference in clause 14 where it is stated that the members and staff of the council are not part of the public service. I ask that question with particular reference to an earlier section which provided that the executive director is paid a sum of money fixed by the governor in council out of the funds of the productivity council. Will the minister elaborate a bit on clause 14?


Michael Starr: The members of the council will not be under the Civil Service Act, although the executive director and his staff and the staff of the council shall be deemed to be employed in the public service for purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act. I think that distinction is made between the actual council members themselves and the executive director and his staff.


George James McIlraith: I was concerned with perhaps a narrower point than that. As clause 14 now reads, I take it that the executive director himself will not be a public servant except to the extent that he has the protection of the superannuation legislation?


Michael Starr: That is right.


George James McIlraith: I would take it-although I may be assuming something here-that certain work may be done in the council by employees transferring from the civil service on temporary terms. Has the minister considered the effect of clause 14 on such employees and its possible effect in removing the protection which they have as civil servants.


Michael Starr: We expect that they will hire their own staff without having to go into civil service.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
On clause 16-Appropriation equal to donations.
George James McIlraith: I think perhaps I had my remarks too closely associated with some other remarks and that I did not succeed in making them clear to the minister. The government is going to match grants made to this council where the council does not pay any consideration or in other words where free grants are made to the council. That seems to be the intention of clause 16 as I read it. What I want to point out to the minister is this. Grants may be made to the council under clause 11, for which the council has made no contribution whatever, under that word "otherwise". Under clause 16, as it now stands, such grants would not be matched by an equal contribution by the government. I am wondering whether that was the intention of the minister. I refer to the limitation after the word "acquires" in the second line of clause 16. The wording is "acquires by gift, donation or bequest". Property acquired by other means will not be matched by equal grants from the government, even though that property may have been acquired without any cost to the productivity council.


Michael Starr: It is intended that the government will match a direct gift with no strings attached to it; or in other words as to a gift that is given directly with no strings attached to the council the government is prepared to match that type of gift. However, we will not endeavour to match say a lease of property or if the council buys property, we will not match that. However, we will match any gift from anybody to the council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Money gifts.


George James McIlraith: I think the intention of the government here is clearer now. However, there is a class of property that can come to the council without cost to the council under that word "otherwise" in subparagraph (c) of clause 11. In that case the federal government would not be obligated to match it. For instance, an example would be a statutory grant by a provincial government or a local grant by a municipal government. Other examples could be given. I rather suspect that it was the government's intention that the federal government should match all property that came to the council without cost to the council-


Michael Starr: That is right.
Productivity Council


George James McIlraith: -or without any consideration. If I am right in that assumption, I would ask the minister to take a look at the limitation of the word "acquires" by these three words used here namely "by gift, donation or bequest". I will content myself with that statement.


Michael Starr: I am told that it is covered. For instance, if the council were made a gift of real estate property, the government would match in value the value of that property.


George James McIlraith: No. It would not be covered if the payment was by a vote of the provincial legislature. It is quite clear that it is not covered here. Perhaps I should ask specifically if it is the intention of the federal government to match such grants.


Michael Starr: I am told that the provincial governments and municipal governments are not excluded from participating.


George James McIlraith: They are not excluded from giving money to this body, but the federal government is not obligated to give the council a grant in such cases, because it is not done by way of gift, donation or bequest. That is the point.


Michael Starr: If it is acquired in the three ways set out here we would naturally regard it as being qualified.


George James McIlraith: It is clear that under clause 16 the federal government is not obliged to match any grants to this council from provincial governments. That being so, is it the intention of the federal government to match such grants?


Michael Starr: I see, now, what the hon. member means. Yes, the words "other than Her Majesty" naturally exclude any gift from a province. That is, the onus is not placed on the federal government to match such grants.


Leon David Crestohl: Perhaps it is clearer now why we were examining the word "otherwise". It is anticipated that the council will receive funds in various ways as outlined in clause 11, for example. It is also contemplated that the council may receive money in another way, for which reason the clause says "otherwise". The council may receive substantial moneys in some mysterious manner covered by the word "otherwise", as has been pointed out. If the council does acquire money from sources covered by this particular word-and I have asked for some clarification as to what those sources might be- why should the government not match such sums, at the same time, under the provisions of clause 16? Supposing, for example, that council received $100,000 in this way. Why should the government not match that

Productivity Council
amount? Inequity has been introduced into clauses 11 and 16 through the use of this word "otherwise".
(Translation):


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, I feel it would be dangerous to insert the word "otherwise" here. Certain donations are gratuitous while others entail obligations; in my opinion, if the method of acquiring those donations, which is described in this clause, was further extended, a certain danger could result when a donation is not gratuitous and involves obligations. The word "otherwise" could cover a great many things, and that, in itself, might be dangerous.
We are now on the item "financial provisions", while a moment ago, with regard to clause 11, we were considering the objects and powers of the council. I said earlier to the hon. member that if I tried I might find an example if we did not have the word "otherwise"; we could have lend-lease. Another example suggested to me by the hon. member is that of hire-loans.
I feel, therefore, that with regard to clause 16, this could be a danger; it may now seem only an imaginary danger, but the fact remains that in the case of non-gratuitous donations, of donations which might involve certain obligations, the word "otherwise" might prove dangerous, that is, it would be dangerous to insert it in clause 16.
(Text):


George James McIlraith: I regret very much that I have not sufficient ability in the other language to address the committee in French. I regret that very much. I wish to make it clear, that I never for a moment suggested that the words "or otherwise" be inserted in clause 16. That would be too wide a phrase.


Noël Dorion: I understood that much from the hon. member for Cartier.


George James McIlraith: My remarks were addressed only to some words which would include those free acquisitions which came under the term "or otherwise" as used in clause 11. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me that the reference to Her Majesty refers to Her Majesty in the right of the dominion. There are cases where property could be acquired under clause 11 and where no matching grants are required.


William Arnold Peters: Before this clause carries, I should like to hear the minister explain the reason behind this method of adding money to the fund the council will have. From the statement made the other night by the Prime

Minister the indication is that if companies or individuals wish to give money to this council their gifts will be free of income tax. This means, in effect, that whatever money is collected by the council in this way will be matched by the government from general tax resources, although a part of the money contributed will already have been lost to the treasury in that no tax will have been paid. It seems to me that business, or industry, or those individuals who are wealthy enough to help a foundation of this type, are going to find an extra sum of money given by the taxpayers who, it would appear, are not in a position in the first place to establish a fund large enough for the purpose which the government has in mind. I should like to know if this method of financing through income tax evasion is a new way of operating, or what the thinking behind it is.


Michael Starr: The council will be a body within which representatives of industry, labour, government and the general public will be working together for the benefit of all. It is hoped that under this program of mutual assistance the various groups, realizing the importance of the council's work, will support it financially, being aware that it is in their own interests to do so. The government feels that such an attitude should be encouraged and recognized on its past. Since the council will be working for the benefit of all Canadians and not just for one sector or group, the provisions of the Income Tax Act will apply. This is nothing new. The same practice has been followed before in situations such as this.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one question I should like to ask the minister. I see here a reference to the coming into force of the act. What lapse of time might we reasonably anticipate before the council is appointed or functioning?


Michael Starr: This measure will come into effect on royal assent. We do not intend to lose any time in appointing the council after that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question just for the sake of clarifying my own mind. I want to be clear as to what will be the income of the council. My understanding is that it will receive $150,000, the capital of anything they receive by way of gifts, donations or bequests and I also understand that the Minister of Finance will match these amounts, so that during the first three years the income of the council will be $150,000 plus gifts and donations plus matching grants from the Minister of Finance.
Might you not have a situation where by reason of taxation considerations or otherwise

the council might receive large gifts which would bring about a condition where the council might have a large income which the government might be expected to match later on when the three years are past? I am not sure whether I am interpreting this correctly, but I want to be clear.


Michael Starr: The government matches for only three years the donations and gifts that may be given to the council. That is for the three years only. The $150,000 is for each year. I do not know if the council will receive a great many donations or gifts but I hope they will receive enough to be able to carry on their work.


William Arnold Peters: We want to be clear about this principle which the minister assured us was not new. Let me take a simple example. A company may contribute $10 which is deducted from income tax. Because of the matching payment arrangement the government must pay $10 so the Canadian people have lost $20. That is a surprising way to finance the council. We should collect the taxes and be responsible. It may be more vicious than that. The price of a product might go up and no one would have any money to pay in so the taxpayer would lose even more. What other legislation exists under which a similar financing arrangement operates?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will be just as entitled as anyone else to make a donation to this council and that donation will not be subject to income tax.


William Arnold Peters: The Canadian people will lose twice the amount donated.


Michael Starr: If the council works out properly it will do the Canadian people a lot of good.


Murdo William Martin: The minister said this is not a new principle. Can he tell us under what legislation a similar principle operates?


Michael Starr: When I said that, Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the fact that donations are subject to deduction from income as are donations to any other charitable donations.


Murdo William Martin: The general taxpayer will be burdened because of the principle of matching payment.


Michael Starr: Is the hon. member against donations to the Red Cross where the same thing applies or to any other charitable organization such as the church?


Murdo William Martin: As the hon. member for Skeena pointed out this afternoon, the minister is becoming very proficient as a politician and he makes statements instead 90205-6-54J
Productivity Council
of answering questions. Whether or not I am for or against these things does not enter the picture. I asked a question of the minister. Has this principle been put into practice before?


Michael Starr: I was talking about the fact that the exemption from income tax for deductions applies in many instances. This is not the first piece of legislation under which it applies. It applies in relation to charitable organizations and others.


Murdo William Martin: There is no question about that. But has the principle of matching payments been applied before?


Michael Starr: I am told that the United Kingdom council operates on the same basis, very successfully.


Murdo William Martin: Is this the first time it has operated in this country?


Michael Starr: Does the hon. member mean with respect to donations to the council and the matching payments of the government?


Murdo William Martin: I am speaking of the Minister of Finance matching out of the consolidated revenue fund gifts and donations to the council. Is this a new principle?


Michael Starr: I am not aware of any legislation similar to this where that is being done.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, on division.
Michael Starr: the third reading of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Timmins.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in substitution for the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who is not here. I think it has always been the custom of the Chair on third reading of a bill or on any other motion that a minister makes to grant to the official opposition the courtesy of recognition immediately after the minister has spoken.


William Arnold Peters: That is what he did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.
The Chair did not see the hon. member for Essex East rising but as that has been the

Productivity Council
custom I am sure the hon. member for Timmins will allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Essex East.


Murdo William Martin: On the point of order, I am sure it is beyond the scope of Your Honour to anticipate. I have no objection to yielding the floor to the hon. gentleman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I acknowledge your appreciation of the traditions of the house and the ready recognition of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) of the force of those traditions.
We are now about to deal with the final procedural arrangements in connection with the government's policy to seek to resolve unemployment in Canada. I am sure that on third reading we would not want to be denied the opportunity of expressing our deep regret at what the government has brought forward in this attempt to provide some solution for what unfortunately continues to be the foremost domestic problem in our country. That was highlighted yesterday by the latest release of figures on unemployment which indicates an increasingly serious situation in that regard, more serious than in the comparable period in the previous year. I can only say that the parade of the government's program in this session is not one that gives anyone any justification for believing that the government finally, after three years of prodding, has embarked on a program capable of meeting the situation.
It is true that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said before we were called together, that this session was not to be regarded as meeting in an emergency; that it was not to be regarded as being anything other than an attempt to provide for hon. members an opportunity to be free of responsibility in this chamber during the summer months. But undoubtedly, the impression was created by the Prime Minister in his speech last night and in the speech he made to the people of Canada on September 21 that the government did regard unemployment as a serious problem and that it had a program designed to meet that problem. Undoubtedly, in regard to the four pieces of legislation, of which this is the last one, namely that dealing with small loans, vocational training and technical assistance, the housing legislation and the legislation setting up the productivity council, an endeavour will be made to create the impression by the administration and by its spokesmen that in these four measures the government has brought forward a vigorous, comprehensive program to attack unemployment.
Let there be no doubt about this. Legislation that the government has brought forward, with the exception of that brought
[The Acting Speaker.]
forward by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), does not in any serious way provide any solution at the present time for what is a serious problem in our country, more serious than in any other country in the western world, notwithstanding the statement of the Prime Minister two nights ago that this problem was parallelled by the situation in the United States. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding these statements, when this measure is passed the government, through its propaganda agencies, through its spokesmen over the television, on the radio and in the favoured press, will seek to convey to the Canadian people, and particularly to the unemployed of this country, that it has brought forward legislation designed to deal with this current situation of unemployment.
Today we were told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that this measure to set up a productivity council was not intended as a solution to unemployment, notwithstanding his statement of the other day. Likewise we have the statement of the Prime Minister, who dodged the question of unemployment completely in his peregrination two days ago. I have no doubt that once this bill becomes law the Prime Minister and his colleagues will go from one end of this country to the other trying to establish in the public mind that they have dealt with unemployment by these four legislative acts.
I am sure the Prime Minister, when he talks about the productivity council, will not make to the Canadian people the kind of speech he made last night, or the speech he made the day before; he will talk about the productivity council as one of the effective instruments designed by this government, following a consultation with labour, management and agriculture, to try to provide a solution to the problem of unemployment. He will do the same with regard to the small loans legislation and the vocational training legislation. But let this be clear. Notwithstanding what will be said about this measure by the government supporters, this particular bill-and it is true of its companion bills on small loans, vocational training and technical assistance-does not in any substantial or serious way provide any solution to the problem of unemployment which stares this government in the face and confronts the people of Canada at this time.
But that is not the impression the Prime Minister created before we came here, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) pointed out so effectively this afternoon. When the Prime Minister spoke to the people of Canada on the "Nation's Business" on September 21 he did not hesitate to acknowledge that at long

last that there was a serious problem of unemployment. He could not help but face the situation because of the unprecedented character of unemployment in the month of September last in comparison with the same month in other years. It is understandable why, in the closing remarks of that speech, when speaking on unemployment, as he did all the way through, he should have concluded, in part, with these words, which are found on page 8 of the release given out by the Prime Minister's office:
More must and will be done. Our plans are already made and will be presented in detail to the next session of parliament. Naturally I cannot say what these plans are in those matters which require the approval of parliament,-
But we now have those plans; we now know what they are. I ask the Prime Minister, does he really believe, now that the plans have been substantially exposed and presented in detail at this session of parliament, that we have been presented with the kind of solution which is designed to provide and capable of providing, not a year from now, not 10 years from now, but now, some mitigation of this problem of unemployment?
The Prime Minister created the impression that there can be no doubt that the government had plans. Not only did the government have plans but it was prepared to sit down and listen to the representatives of labour, management, agriculture and the universities, and then to get their-


Edwin William Brunsden: Didn't he?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, he did, for one day. I am going to deal with that in a minute. Yes, he did, and it was at the end of that conference, a conference, mind you, that lasted one day-as though there could be a satisfactory discussion between the various partners of industry, between the various segments of the Canadian economy in regard to unemployment in one day; I do not know how many organizations there were but I believe there were at least 25 which made representations of one sort or another-all of this took place in one day, and at the end of that day the Prime Minister announced the government's decision to bring in the productivity council, which is the soul and the substance of this particular bill.
Obviously, this was not the result of the suggestions by the parties to the conference. This had already been in the minds of the government; undoubtedly, this was already part of the plans which the Prime Minister referred to when he spoke to the Canadian people on September 21 last. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) said, "Did he not have a conference"? My answer is of course he had a conference.
Productivity Council
But there are two points to make in connection with that intervention. We have urged the government for three years to call a conference of representatives of labour, management, agriculture, universities and other interested parties in this country. We have been asking the government to do that very thing. We were told session after session by the Minister of Labour and perhaps by the Prime Minister, although I do not remember, that this government was elected to do a job and that they did not propose to dodge that responsibility. That was the answer given to me and to other hon. gentlemen in this party when we proposed that a conference should be called to discuss ways and means of arriving at a co-operative method for resolving or mitigating the problem of unemployment.
Only last April the Minister of Labour made a speech in Gananoque in which finally he seemed to acknowledge the desirability of such a conference. I put a question to the Minister of Labour in which I asked: "Are we to take this speech in Gananoque as meaning that the government has accepted our suggestion that there should be a conference?" The Minister of Labour dodged the question. He refused to indicate whether or not the government intended to call such a conference.
But the record is clear. Right from the very first session of the present parliament this government was urged to call such a conference and it did so only this fall after a continuous repetition of statistics indicating how serious the problem of unemployment in Canada is. So what the government was doing in that conference, which lasted only a day and should have taken many days of serious discussion, back and forth, to ascertain what the views of the parties concerned really were, was to accept belatedly a proposal that had been put forward by the Liberal opposition on no less than five different occasions during the course of the present parliament.
We have at long last in the statement of the Prime Minister on September 21, a recognition that this problem is a serious one, but in recognizing that it is serious the Prime Minister disclaims that this is a responsibility of the federal government. This, he says, and I think rightly, is a responsibility that must be shared by all levels of government. But that is not what the right hon. gentleman said when he confronted the Canadian people in the elections of 1957 and 1958. He said, "We will resolve this problem; this is a federal responsibility". He did not then talk about the responsibility as one that should be shared by the provinces, nor did the Minister of Labour as a private member of the house when, sitting in the opposition, who*

Productivity Council
said that this was a responsibility of the federal government. He criticized the former administration for seeking to place the responsibility on the provinces as well.
What does the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), that gentleman who has been transferred from one department to another and who is absent from the house on business outside the country, now say about the responsibility of the federal government with regard to unemployment? We will not forget the speeches he made when he was in the opposition. He says now that this is not a responsibility of the federal government but rather a responsibility of the Canadian people. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in the month of September when he too was confronted with the official statistics of rising unemployment in Canada. That is not the position that hon. gentlemen opposite took when in 1957, they went before the Canadian people and complained about government inaction in the field of social and economic welfare. That is not the position that the government took at the beginning of the present parliament.
But now what do we have presented to us? In the third year of this parliament, when unemployment continues to be so serious as to cause the greatest concern, what do we have from a government that was going to resolve this problem as it had never been resolved before? Four measures that are nothing more than facades, pretentions at achievement, nothing more.


An hon. Member:: How did you vote?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The small loans legislation does not add one bit to the solution or alleviation of unemployment. The housing legislation is the only measure which we hope and recognize is designed to bring some relief in that regard. Certainly the vocational training program is good in principle but long term in effect and it is not going to put one person to work immediately. It is not designed even to provide ad hoc training for men and women who can take advantage of such instruction and thereby receive employment now, not six months, not a year, not two years from now.
Then we have the productivity council bill. These three pieces of legislation, excluding the housing act amendments, represent thus far the government's so called vigorous approach to solving the problem of unemployment. One can only say that the result is disappointing. The result does not represent a vigorous, dynamic approach on the part of the administration to the solution of this problem and the reason for that is that

the government has waited too late. The government has come forward too late. If it had listened to the Liberal opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, to the Liberal opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: You would have done nothing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say now that if the Prime Minister had listened to what we said in the fall of 1958, if he had established an advisory council, if he had enlisted the assistance of those who by training could advise the government, not determine their policy but advise the government, the government would not now be portrayed, as it is from one end of Canada to the other, as a do-nothing government in the matter of unemployment. That is the fact. The government hoped by taking a relaxed course, by letting this problem run its course, that time would take care of the problem but time has caught up with the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. Time is not taking care of the problem. The problem is growing more and more serious.
When we think that the Minister of Labour, speaking for the government, refused this house the right to a parliamentary committee two years ago to examine the problem of unemployment, so that we could have experts come before such a committee to assess the nature of the problem and to provide solutions, when we think that the elected representatives of the people in this house are denied a privilege accorded to members in another chamber, the recollection of this situation only points up the bankruptcy of ideas on the part of the government with respect to this matter.


Mr. Winch:: Where do you stand on third reading of the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the hon. member will join us in our representations. This is perhaps the only opportunity that we will have for a long time to deal with the problem of unemployment and that is why we should take advantage of this opportunity.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not ask that. I said, where do you stand on third reading of this bill?


Mr. Kucherepa:: Don't embarrass him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The only people in this house who are embarrassed are those who sit behind the government and who recognize how the people of Canada feel toward this administration because of its lack of policies.


Mr. Drysdale:: Come out with a definite stand. Talk is cheap.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Demand an election.


Peter Francis Martin: I would think that would be a very successful way of determining what the people of Canada think about this government.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you said in January, 1958, too.


Peter Francis Martin: My friend the Prime Minister always resorts to precedent. What the Prime Minister forgets is this: Whatever may have been the situation in the past we are now confronted in this country with a very serious problem and the government should address itself to that problem. They should not seek refuge in mistakes or in history. They should seek refuge in courageous attempts to deal with the problem and not to dodge it as the present government seeks to dodge most questions.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Where do you stand on third reading?


Peter Francis Martin: The Prime Minister says, what do we do? We criticize the bill and then vote for it. So far as I am concerned, I shall vote for this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Then do not waste so much time talking against it.


Peter Francis Martin: I do so because I want to bring home to the government that they have no unemployment policy. I should have thought a C.C.F. member would be the first to support what I am seeking to do at this moment. Why should the Liberal party have imposed on it the responsibility, the sole responsibility, of exposing the weaknesses of the government unemployment policy? We shall vote for this bill not because we regard this as a solution to the problem of unemployment but because this bill may contain, in the long term, some benefit for the people of Canada. Having said that, I do not want the government to be under any misapprehension as to what we think of the shortcomings of this bill.
The Prime Minister, who is now making notes, can get up afterwards and talk all he wants; he can use these indirections, these diversions instead of addressing himself to the problem of unemployment. I know that he will say the hon. member for Essex East, having so seriously criticized us, nevertheless made a big mistake when he announced he was going to vote for the bill. That is the kind of argument which the Prime Minister makes at all times. I am saying to the Prime Minister, you were elected to do a job; you promised to do something about unemployment. I am saying here, as the representative
Productivity Council
of thousands and thousands of men out of work in my constituency, this government has dodged its responsibility and is doing that now in the matter of unemployment.
Is there any doubt, Mr. Speaker, that what I am saying is the case? The Prime Minister spoke on this bill. He was concerned with the relationship of the council to unemployment but he spoke about everything else but unemployment. I have examined the speech the Prime Minister made the other night, and there was no reference whatever to the problem of unemployment. Is this bill designed to assist the unemployed or is it not? I want to examine this aspect of the problem. We have had two interesting statements by the Minister of Labour, one this afternoon and the other when he spoke on this bill two days ago. The Minister of of Labour said, as recorded at page 781 of Hansard for this session:
The ultimate and most important job of the productivity council will be, if automation is resorted to in an industry in order to accelerate productivity, to recommend the retraining of the people who are displaced so that they may be best fitted into some other useful employment in our labour force.
In that statement, at any rate, the Minister of Labour recognized the problem of unemployment. He did recognize that, and in his judgment this particular bill could presumably bring about some mitigation of the current problem. But that is not what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said nothing whatever about this bill in terms of providing a remedy for unemployment. The reason I mention what the Prime Minister said was so that we will have on the record this statement, which I believe to be valid, because I have no doubt that in the months to come the Prime Minister will hold this bill up as one of the instruments by which the government dealt with the problem of unemployment, not only in the long term but in the short term. The Prime Minister is a master at this kind of innocent deception, a kind of innocent deception that in the past has had its influence and has made its impression on the electorate. We shall see whether that success of the Prime Minister shall continue in the light of this dismal record of failure on the part of the government to act.
Today the Minister of Labour made another statement. I took down his words as he replied to a question put by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The Minister of Labour said that the effect of this amendment-that is the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate- would be that the council would be dealing

Productivity Council
directly with the employment or unemployment factor and that is not to be the case. There we have an admission from the Minister of Labour that is consistent with the declaration of the Prime Minister that this particular bill is not to be regarded as dealing directly with the problem of unemployment. The Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister are in agreement on this, and we have-


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of personal privilege, if I may. The hon. member for Essex East, of course, is the sort of person who takes words out of context. If he would go on and state what followed after that he would find, as nearly as I can recall from memory, that I said this council will bring about efficiency and productivity of industry and, consequently, employment will flow from that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Whatever the Minister of Labour says, I accept. I am simply pointing out what he did say, and I took his words down directly. I ask hon. members to compare those words with what the Prime Minister said, and to compare them particularly with the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who introduced this measure several days ago. So far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce was concerned this bill was not designed in any way to do other than what was done under a similar measure in the United Kingdom. It was part of his great campaign to increase production, as though merely increasing production was the corollary of increasing employment. The hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) said that by merely providing for increased productivity you were providing at the same time for increased employment. He forgets that is not true. He forgets that the effects of automation in industry have been otherwise. He fails to point out that in agriculture over the last 10 years production has almost doubled but the reduction in employment in the agricultural industry has been about 25 per cent. There are about 25 per cent less people now working in agriculture, in spite of the great increase in production.
It is clear, whatever may be said by hon. members hereafter, there is agreement between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this measure is not designed to provide a cure for unemployment. That is not what the Prime Minister said on September 21; that is not the statement the Prime Minister gave when he conferred with representatives of labour and other segments of the population in this city a few weeks ago.

I am sure, knowing the hon. gentleman as I do, that will not be the kind of statement he will give to the Canadian people when he seeks to impress on the people what his government has sought to do to live up to the assurances that he gave to the Canadian people during the course of the last federal election campaign.
Here is an interesting statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which is to be found at page 566 of Hansard for this session:
The national council should act as a policy making body and should assist in the establishment of regional and industry productivity committees. Its chief objective should be to develop and maintain in the various and changing circumstances of industrial life a positive attitude of mind in industry, among both management and labour, respecting industrial efficiency.
It is to be a policy making body. It is not to be merely one to make recommendations. Yet in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Labour refused to accept an amendment that would give the council the authority and the power to make recommendations to the executive. The amendment introduced by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) called for the council to be given explicit power to make recommendations to the executive-not to formulate policy but merely to make recommendations-and this power was denied, although the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the council should act as a policy making body.
What was the reply of the Minister of Labour year after year, session after session, when we urged upon the government the setting up of a national advisory council? The Minister of Labour said that the formulation of policy must be left to the administration and must not be left to any outside or subsidiary body. He said that was why they could not accept the Liberal proposal for a national advisory council on unemployment and automation. That is what the Minister of Labour said during the course of previous sesions of parliament. Yet his colleague in introducing this measure took the very opposite position and said that this was to be a bill providing for a council that would have the power of formulating policy in the matters that parliament would allocate to it.
This matter is one which we feel must be thoroughly discussed and thoroughly understood in its proper context so that there will be no misunderstanding in the future as to what the government's intentions are and so that there will be no misunderstanding about this measure not really being part of a vigorous program designed to solve the problem of unemployment.

This measure, like its companion measure, is designed to deal with this situation indirectly and in the long term. No effort is made in any of the measures proposed by the government to assess the problem immediately, or to examine the nature of the problem in distressed areas. There is no sense of urgency such as that which we find in the other place in the studies that are being made there. We had here yesterday a delegation of unemployed from Windsor. I listened to the government reply or response to the representations that were made. I am sure I do not take unfair advantage, in saying that the government did not reflect a determination or a capacity to act, or did not indicate that it had a program designed to meet the particular situation, let alone the national picture. This government has yet to bring to this house any report that will tell us what is the nature of unemployment in the particular areas that are especially depressed. I am thinking of areas like my own, the maritime provinces, the city of Levis and so on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: And Port Arthur.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, and Port Arthur and other cities. This government should certainly have approached this problem in the way in which we urged it to approach it and in the way in which the other place is gradually developing an approach to the solution of this problem. This government has won and deserved the indictment of the Canadian people and of this house for its failure adequately to confront this problem. Of that fact there can be no doubt. When one examines what is being attempted by the new president of the United States, by the legislative program that is now being forecast, one finds that an attempt will be made in that country to deal with the situations as they exist in particular communities. That is what is being done by an administration that has not yet taken office as compared with the results of this administration which has been in office since March, 1958 and particularly by a government that gave such great assurances to the Canadian people.
There can be no doubt that this problem is one that cries for the kind of solution that we can give. It is a problem that touches the very soul of our society. Unless it is met forthrightly and courageously by the government, regardless of whether or not it runs across the traditional concepts of our society, it will do more harm to our free society than will anything else. I call on this government in these late hours to recognize that it has a responsibility which it is not discharging. In order to bring this matter more forcefully to the attention of the government and
Productivity Council
that of the Canadian people I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-52 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending clause 10 to include the promotion of employment as one of the specific objects of the council."
It is not too late for this government to take action that will be effective.


Mr. Speaker:: With the leave of the house I think I must call it six o'clock. It will give hon. members an opportunity to consider the amendment that is before the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Just before six o'clock the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) presented an amendment which I now propose to put before the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourned at six o'clock I listened with interest to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who went through his normal ranting and raving as he usually does-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister intending to raise a point of order with respect to the amendment?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I will place the amendment before the house. Mr. Martin (Essex East) seconded by Mr. Mcllraith moved:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill No. C-52 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending clause 10 to include the promotion of employment as one of the specific objects of the council."


Michael Starr: As I began to say, before the house rose at six o'clock I listened with a great deal of interest to what is becoming known as the usual ranting and raving of the hon. member for Essex East on his favourite subject, using the same speech as he so often uses, with its tossed salad type of verbiage. The hon. member said that this government took three years before it brought about any conference on unemployment in this country. His memory is short. If he thinks

Productivity Council
back to July, 1958 he will recall that I called a conference here in Ottawa. Representatives of labour, agriculture, industry and other important segments of our economy gathered here to discuss the problem of unemployment at that time. As a result of that conference the municipal winter works program was inaugurated that fall, and the success of that program has continued ever since that time.
The hon. member talked about the unemployment situation in Canada and said it is not right to compare it with the situation in any other country on the North American continent. Let me inform him that in the United States at this moment there is something like 6.4 per cent of the labour force unemployed-well over four million people-[DOT] and most certainly we have a relationship with that country across the border, and whatever happens in the United States is bound to affect our economy.
1 would point out also that there are always two sides to the picture and we must not forget this positive aspect of our economy, namely that there are more people employed now than ever before in the history of this country on a month to month basis. As to a comparison between November of 1960 and November of 1959, I may say there are some 99,000 more people employed in this country this year than there were last year.
It depends on the viewpoint one takes. There is always a positive and a negative side to a question. We have not said we do not recognize the serious situation presented by unemployment, and this is borne out by the measures which this government has taken since we came to office in 1957 and 1958. This session certainly shows that this government is well aware of the current situation, because each and every measure which has been brought before the house has been designed for the sole purpose of providing employment and bolstering the economy of this country.
The hon. member for Essex East in presenting his amendment finds himself in his usual position of watching the parade go by and then having to run to catch up with it. I remember reading a report of a debate in the thirties when the hon. member was on the government side of the house. It was a debate on unemployment in this chamber and when one of the members from Toronto, Mr. Massey, was speaking, the hon. member for Essex East said: Let us get this over; I have a train to catch. The hon. member has been catching trains ever since; he has been in a hurry ever since.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always got there.


Michael Starr: You left the unemployment debate to catch that train, too.
The hon. gentleman talks about unemployment in Windsor. Let me say that the figures show that ever since he was elected to be a member of parliament for Windsor, that is when unemployment started in that city. What did the hon. gentleman say in 1954 when Ford was moving to Oakville? Did he raise his voice and say they should not undermine the industrial position of that city?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has asked me a question. He asked me what I did.


Michael Starr: I can answer the question because I know the facts. Anyway the hon. member for Essex East is not happy about the present bill. He is not happy about the other bills that have been brought before the house, either. He is not happy with any of the measures which the government has evolved in order to maintain a stable economy and provide employment. Let me say this: I have a strong suspicion that there will be no satisfying the hon. member for Essex East, no matter what this government does. I think he is resolved at all costs to maintain his position of not being satisfied with anything. I think the hon. member has in his make-up a sort of gloating, gleeful personality which seems to gloat at any undermining of our economy because, as has been said by one of the hon. member's friends who is preparing to be a candidate for the Liberal party, the only way the Liberal party can assume power again is through a depression in this country.
In any event, the attitude of the hon. member for Essex East is completely negative, destructive and obstructionist. Let me advise him that he would go a lot further in carrying out the role of a reasonable and constructive member of the opposition if, from time to time at least, he could bring himself to admit that some of the things the government is doing have some prospect of being useful and successful. I honestly believe that in his heart the hon. member realizes that this government has been endeavouring to do everything in its power to help the economic situation. If not, why does the hon. member vote for these measures? Why does he place on them his stamp of approval by voting for them after spending so much time rehashing the same old speech he gives in this house from time to time?


Mr. Benidickson:: It is puny, but one more step; and late, too.


Michael Starr: One of the measures recently approved by this house was the housing measure. The hon. member for Essex East

said it was a good measure but that he had some grave doubts about its effectiveness. Let me assure the hon. gentleman that he should' not have had any doubts about it because action in this field is already taking place. Let me refer to the following article in this evening's issue of the Ottawa Citizen:
Ottawa Seeks Sewage Loan-$10 Million.
Ottawa will seek a loan of $10 million from the federal government to expedite completion of a $20 million sewage disposal project.
Mayor Nelms said the move is to take advantage of new federal legislation under which loans amounting to two-thirds of the total cost for sewage disposal projects can be secured, and under which 25 per cent of the total cost of works finished by March, 1963, will be rebated.
"This will save Ottawa approximately $2,500,000," the mayor emphasized.
Here is an example of direct action that has been taken as a result of the direct and immediate action taken by this government. A recent issue of the Ottawa Citizen carried an article under the headline "Plan 350 Homes for Low Incomes" which reads in part as follows:
A plan to provide low cost housing for people in the low income brackets was submitted to board of control by Robert Campeau, president of Campeau Construction Company Limited.
Mr. Campeau told the board he planned the construction of 350 housing units on the old Arkell farm lying between Pinecrest and the Walkley roads south of the Queensway.
Mr. Campeau is reported as having said:
"It has been said private enterprises would not provide low cost housing for people in the low income brackets," Mr. Campeau said. "Now because of the favourable financing provided by the federal government, through C.M.H.C., we are able to do, on terms comparable with city schemes for low rental, full recovery projects."
He said he already had 200 applications for the low cost housing. The salary range for people applying is from $3,800 to $4,500, he advised the board.
He added that the provision of services would be carried by the subdivider in relation to all facilities save a trunk sewer.
There is another indication of what is happening as a result of the legislation this government introduced.
Let us take a look at what is being done in the field of vocational and technical schools. As soon as third reading was given to the bill in this house the government of Ontario announced a $8 million program to be started immediately under this plan.


William Moore Benidickson: They had that in mind before, and the minister knows it. It was in the speech from the throne.


Michael Starr: That, Mr. Speaker, is an answer to the hon. member for Essex East who said that the legislation concerning vocational training and technical schools would not bring immediate results in the form of jobs.
Productivity Council


Murdo William Martin: May I direct a question to the minister? Is it not a fact that the $8 million referred to is half the quota until March 31, 1967 according to the minister's own words the other day?


An hon. Member:: Is the hon. gentleman looking for another headline?


Michael Starr: It amounts to a great deal more than $8 million. It is going to be a very large program undertaken by all the provinces across this country amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of this legislation. That is only a start. I say that all the measures we have been bringing forward are already having their effects. The hon. member for Essex East has singled out only four measures. He did not even have the patience to wait to see the whole program before condemning it. As a matter of fact he is condemning the program in advance.
In his attitude the hon. member for Essex East reminds me somewhat of a small boy at Christmas time who rushes in, tears all the wrapping off the presents and then sets up a howl that what was in the boxes was not what he wanted. I submit the simple truth is that the hon. member did not get his little red wagon, Mr. Speaker. In the case of the hon. gentleman he cannot even wait until Christmas but has to start howling even before the packages are unwrapped. I say that is not a responsible attitude.
Let us now look at the hon. member's amendment. I submit this is not a serious amendment. In the first place the inclusion of the phrase which the hon. member so strenuously urges is unnecessary as I pointed out at the committee stage. I attempted to make it clear that the purpose of this bill is set out in the preamble. When you have a whole series of bills one of whose main objects is the promotion of employment you surely do not have to spell out that phrase in every bill. That is what the measures are all about. They are designed to bolster our economy. That is what they are intended to do. They are intended to promote employment, all of them. To stick that phrase into every bill like a raisin in a fruit cake will not in any way alter or improve the effectiveness of these measures.
We submit that these measures will be effective and that in the main they will have an immediate effect. Certainly they will have a continuity of effectiveness in the years to come. These are co-ordinating measures. They are partnership measures with the provinces, the municipalities and other interested bodies in this country.
All of these measures are a part of the program and each one, I submit, is designed to deal with a specific problem in our

Productivity Council
economy. Unemployment is an economic problem, there is no question about it. It must be cured by economic measures. That is the only way it will be cured. I submit it is not a problem which can be cured by the insertion of pious phrases in our bills. We have tried to avoid pious phrases.


William Moore Benidickson: This whole bill has no content at all.


Michael Starr: We have brought forward
measures which will put into action the immense economic forces in this country.
In answer to what has been said now, I say there is nothing easier than being destructive. It is easy to get up and say in tones of righteous wrath that this is no good and that is no good. We saw an exhibition of that this afternoon. I think all hon. members recognized the righteous wrath that is usually displayed by the hon. member for Essex East. The hon. member denounced this as no good and that as no good but there was not an indication from him as to what is good. The only suggestion we ever get concerns the setting up of 20 or 22 various committees across the country.
I believe it requires a degree of constructive responsibility to analyse and appraise these measures on their merits and to judge them by their results. As I pointed out earlier, results are already quite evident. I submit there is a favourable response across Canada to all these measures and immediate action is being brought about. I invite hon. members to consider that public confidence is being maintained despite all the words, actions and hopes of hon. members opposite to the contrary.


Mr. Hardie:: The minister is certainly wearing rose-coloured glasses.


Michael Starr: The hon. member suggests that I am wearing rose-coloured glasses but at least we on this side of the house can see through them and we are taking measures to rectify whatever we see that is wrong.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: How can a blind man see?


Michael Starr: I submit that the productivity council will be useful. I have every faith that it will be a useful council and I have no doubt of the usefulness of such a body in our economy. Certainly, by itself-and I have pointed this out-it will not solve the problem, but we have a number of these measures and when they are put together we have every hope that they will have the desired effect upon our economy. I am sure that they will be beneficial and useful to the people of this country.

Let us examine the position of the hon. member for Essex East. He says the bill is no good; it will have no effect, but he will vote for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For the reasons given.


Michael Starr: He says there are all kinds of things wrong with this bill, but all of the weaknesses will vanish automatically when we put into the bill the phrase that he suggests, "promotion of employment". If we only include those words, all the weaknesses will vanish. All we have to do is to put in these three words and the bill will be perfect because he has submitted the amendment. In other words, what I think the hon. member for Essex East is trying to do is to climb aboard, and he is using this method to do it.
What will this bill do, Mr. Speaker? It will set up a council; that is, a body on which will be represented some of the leading people in our country. It will have on it representatives of all segments of our economic activity. I wish to say that the effort and the aim of this government is to mobilize the economy against insecurity. We are mobilizing the economy on all levels, federal, provincial, municipal, business, industry, agriculture, labour; nobody is left out and nothing is being left out. To do this, in order to bring about this mobilization, we are bringing in measures in the field of housing, construction, municipal aid, the economy, small business, exports, the training of workers, and so on.
I think the hon. member for Essex East will agree that in the main they are all good things. He has some doubts, and possibly hopes that they will not be as effective as we think they will be, and as we hope they will be. Of course, that is something that he has to decide in his own conscience.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, I do not mind what the hon. gentleman says about my arguments but under our rules he has no right to suggest that I have acted in anything but good faith and in accordance with my conscience.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: That is the trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a well established principle of debate that hon. members must assume that their fellow members, like themselves, are acting in good faith and from proper motives.


Michael Starr: That is right; I left it up to the hon. member to decide according to his own conscience. I did not accuse him, or say anything different.

These programs that we have brought forward, calling for the construction of new homes with low down payments, have never been experienced before in this country; programs call for the construction of new training schools; the clearing away of slum areas in our great cities, improvement in the standard of residences and home improvements for our Canadian people; for aid to universities and municipalities and aid to young people, aid for students who wish to advance themselves in the industrial life; the construction of sewage disposal plants across Canada for the preservation of our water resources.


William Moore Benidickson: Is this something that the minister is reading from a prepared text?


Michael Starr: The programs call for an opportunity for Canadian businessmen to expand; they call for an opportunity for Canadian businessmen to go into the export markets around the world and to compete there on equal terms through the provision of adequate credit. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is no "pie in the sky" approach; this is a straightforward, down to earth approach to deal with the problem.


William Moore Benidickson: Pious talk.


Michael Starr: It is also a common-sense approach which will bolster up our economy where it is lagging. It will give opportunity to our young people who have not had a chance to acquire a formal education, and it will help business, labour and industry.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the peroration of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) sounded very much like a second edition of the vision and suggests to me once again that instead of having a program of substance the government has given the greatest amount of attention to window dressing and to the package in which its program is being wrapped.


Edwin William Brunsden: You should know all about window dressing.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the amendment before the house is a straightforward one; it merely calls on the house to express the opinion that in the legislation to set up the productivity council the objective of the work of the productivity council should be the promotion of employment. If we take that as an objective, together with the suggestion that we in this party have made that the productivity council should have the right to make recommendations to the government, we might then be on the way to establishing a body that could take a very active part in assuring full employment and full production.
Productivity Council
I think the Minister of Labour would be much more helpful to the government if he spent less time in demolishing the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and more time in presenting to the house and the country the facts with regard to the government's own program. I suggest the time has come when the Minister of Labour should tell parliament and the country exactly what the government expects will be the result by way of additional employment that flows from all of the projects and all of the legislation that have been presented to parliament at the present time.
We are in a very serious situation in Canada. The government can talk in glib and glowing terms of its action; the fact remains that each passing day that this government has occupied the treasury benches, now for a period of three years, the unemployment situation has become worse. The situation now, according to the latest information, is so bad that we have a higher rate of unemployment than we had in any time during the last 15 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. I think he is under a misapprehension when he says the last 15 years because surely he is not suggesting it was worse in 1944. It is just for 15 years that we have had these figures.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will know that at that time demobilization was taking place and there were other reasons why people were looking for work.


Mr. Woolliams:: The other reason was the Liberal party.


Hazen Robert Argue: We do not want to go too far
back for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate because his party occupied the treasury benches during a very difficult period of time when they were just as unsuccessful in meeting employment requirements as the present government has been in recent years.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Wait till Tommy Douglas gets in ahead of you.


Hazen Robert Argue: The unemployment figure demonstrates not only the number of people who are unemployed in Canada but is an indication of the tremendous loss in production that has taken place as the result of the widespread unemployment. The fact of the matter is that in the last year we have lost by way of production between $1.5 billion and $2 billion of wealth, and so there is a great challenge to the government-


Mr. Speakman:: Can you prove that?


Hazen Robert Argue: -to produce a program that will, in the words of the Minister of Labour,

Productivity Council mobilize the economy against insecurity. The Minister of Labour will not justify his program or his lack of a program by talking about the large numbers of persons now employed. It is not much comfort to the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed to know that there are more employed persons now than there have been in the past. The government's program will be justified when the unemployed have an opportunity to work.
The minister and the government have talked about an over-all program. I want to say that we have been pleased to support this bits and pieces program, this inadequate program, this beginning of a program to meet the present difficulty. There are many other things that I suggest should be done. I think the government should now accept a principle that was enunciated during the war and was accepted by the nation as a whole, namely that anything physically possible would be made financially possible. I think it is physically possible to put Canadians to work and the government should be undertaking those steps that would make this financially possible.
I suggest that there should be established in our country at this time a great capital development fund in the hands of and controlled and operated by the federal government to be used for investment in Canadian industry, to be used for investment in depressed areas and to be used to stimulate our economy, to prime the pump with the objective of bringing about full employment. I suggest also that the government, in co-operation with the provinces, should be prepared at this time to assist in a massive public works program. The federal government has taken certain action in this session to stimulate public works. The fact is that many provincial governments are faced with such budgetary difficulties that they may be compelled to cut back provincial expenditures and thus the provincial governments through no fault of their own will undo much of the valuable work that is being done by the federal government.
The minister talked about the over-all program that the government had presented. He went over the various things that had been done. I suggest that in addition to this program the government should bring into operation once again the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act which was placed on the statute books in 1938 and under which at that time federal money for public works was provided to municipalities at a rate of 2 per cent. This is the kind of far-reaching program for the development of municipal projects that should be brought about at this time, and it should be the purpose and the duty of the productivity council to inquire


into the situation and to make recommendations resulting in the promotion of employment as set forth in the legislation before the house.
The minister talks about his program. I am now trying to suggest to him things that should be added to his program. I suggest that now is the time for the federal government to co-operate with the provinces in a national highway program. Now is the time for the government to cease being content with a contribution to a very limited trans-Canada highway program. The minister has asked for suggestions. He has asked for comments. I suggest that now is the time for the government to undertake measures to bolster farm income which would result in a greater demand for the products of our factories. Now is the time for the government to proceed with its well known commitment to provide for Canada an old age security system which would allow persons to retire on an adequate income.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is following in a debate which has been fairly wide but surely there are some limits to what may be discussed on an amendment which only seeks to refer the bill back to the committee to add a clause to section 10 to include in the council's powers the promotion of employment. While I have not objected to the hon. member speaking about employment and unemployment, when he gets into farm income, the trans-Canada highway and other matters it seems to me that a line has to be drawn.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest with great deference that the house listened to the Minister of Labour outline the government's broad program without any objection. He talked about such things as the government measure to provide loans for small business. He talked about the housing program, which is not contained in this legislation. He talked about other measures that the government has brought forward and he challenged the opposition to put forward suggestions. I suggest with great deference that if it is in order for the Minister of Labour to go far beyond the scope of the bill and far beyond the scope of the amendment then, no objection having been raised, the same kind of latitude should be extended to other members in replying to his statement, particularly in view of the fact that he issued a challenge to opposition members to put forward alternative suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I could accept what the hon. member says in total. I have no objection to the hon. member dealing with the matters raised by the hon. member for Essex East and the Minister of Labour

in this debate, that is, the program that the government has brought before the house. Even though that is out of order in this debate it has been discussed, but I do think that a line should be drawn short of the fields to which the hon. member referred.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder whether I could speak to the point of order and try to assist my hon. friend who is in obvious difficulty. On the government's own figures there has been a considerable drop in agricultural employment over a period amounting to some 300,000. Over the last decade the figure is some 25 per cent less in spite of an increase in production. It would seem to me that because of that circumstance it is not proper for us under our procedures to differentiate between employment in one sector of the Canadian economy as opposed to another. While the hon. gentleman who is speaking is not always in order, I think this is one of the rare occasions when he is.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank my hon. friend from Essex East for his very great assistance. While it was said I am rarely in order I think my batting average is better than that of the hon. member for Essex East. None the less I accept his offer of assistance in the spirit in which it has been given, particularly in view of the fact we must acknowledge his authority in the field of agriculture, soybeans and other related matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, your ruling was a very interesting one, namely that it is all right to be out of order in fields governed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) but one must not get out of order in fields outside of those which are of concern to the Minister of Labour.


James Stanley Speakman: Would the hon. gentleman accept a question at this point?


Hazen Robert Argue: Fine.


James Stanley Speakman: I should like the hon.
gentleman-I should like the hon. member for Essex East to pay particular attention -to answer this question. What would the hon. member, who I understand expects some day to head the new party, assess as the federal responsibility for today's unemployment?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it has been accepted by every political party, and politically by the party to which the hon. member belongs, that it is not only the duty of the federal government but it is the obligation of that government to bring about a full employment economy, just as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said in the past.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
Productivity Council


Hazen Robert Argue: He said, if I am elected prime minister no one will suffer from unemployment. Since he has been elected there has been more suffering from unemployment than at any other time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to bring forward some further suggestions that I hope the government will consider as measures which would assist in bringing about a full employment economy. The Minister of Labour referred to the government's housing program, and took great credit for the results he said would flow from that program. I would suggest that the government's housing program has been inadequate and that in the areas of low rental housing, in the provision of housing for senior citizens, it has been very inadequate indeed.
The measure before us would ask the council to inquire inito the development of improved production and distribution methods. We endeavoured, when the house was in committee of the whole, to introduce an amendment which would have widened the scope of the bill and provided for an inquiry into methods to increase markets. I think that is something that this council should consider also. It is not just a question of increasing productivity to bring about full employment, it is a question of developing the markets that are necessary for the products of our industry.
If I may say so at this time, I want to express support for those steps that have been taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees).


James Stanley Speakman: Are you going to vote for the bill?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think it is necessary for the hon. gentleman to be interrupting with this kind of running interference of his. I think he should wait until I finish my remarks if he wants to speak.
I was saying I support the measures that have been taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the calling of the trade commissioners together to assist in the development of markets for Canadian products. While I expect to have more to say on this particular point at a later time, I feel that the development of markets is essential and that the provision of 20,000 baby chicks for Cuba, reference to which I have seen, is not that kind of expansion of our export trade to Cuba that would require any criticism or opposition from the Liberal party.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in any inquiry into improved production and distribution methods this council will be forced to look

Productivity Council
at the costs taring our industry today. I think there is nothing that is causing more difficulty, causing higher production costs for the basic industries of our nation at this time than the high interest policy that is being followed by the government. The high interest rates that are prevalent in our country today are making it difficult for our industries to reach their maximum efficiency. The high interest rate coupled with the premium on the Canadian dollar is causing monetary and exchange difficulties that create a great burden for Canadian industry. This is the kind of overhaul of Canadian monetary policy that will be necessary if industries in our country are to reach their most efficient productivity.
What the government has done, Mr. Speaker, has been, useful. What the government has done is no substitute for implementing its promises to the Canadian people to provide job opportunities for all of those who are unemployed.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I support the last remarks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris).


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as I sat in the chamber just before the dinner recess I was reminded in my heart as I listened with attention to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) of an anecdote told amongst the men of my trade, the journalists, concerning the visit by Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Bulganin to the United Kingdom. During the conference they had a chat with some members of the British labour party which led to acrimonious words, and at one point Mr. Khrushchev said to Mr. Gaitskell, what is the difference between your idea of human beings, your idea of government and ours? Listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) after the dinner recess one wonders whether one concern which he shows for unemployment, in which he wishes to embrace everybody in the sweet kiss of socialist death, is not dictated by what is likely to happen to him next August. When I listened to him tonight, I was reminded again of this anecdote because Mr. Gaitskell replied with quick zeal, if you want to know the difference between our concept of people and government and your concept you should read Pericles' funeral oration.
Hon. members will remember Pericles' funeral oration. I am sure the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) is a learned man and he will remember Pericles' funeral oration.


William Moore Benidickson: No, I was not bom then.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member says he was not born then. It is always useful to have these little pieces of information. You will recall, Mr. Speaker-


William Moore Benidickson: And I am not a Tory.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -that Pericles spoke of courage being the secret of freedom and freedom being the secret of happiness, and therefore freedom belonged only to the brave. I looked up the quotation during the recess, and I find he said:
The great impediment to action is not discussion but the want of that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your Honour drew attention to the irrelevance of the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in speaking about-


James Stanley Speakman: What do you mean by irrelevance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -farm income in relation to employment. We tolerated without any interruption an interesting discourse the other evening by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) on the Kingston conference. However, it seems to me that it is rather hard' to relate Thucydides "Funeral Oration" to the productivity council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure where the divergence from the issue before the house began but it seems to me that the hon. gentleman who has just risen had some part in it. However, I would be inclined to accept his point of order if I were sure the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would not come to his rescue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I give that assurance.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I appreciate all this wandering. I have only one or two more sentences. I am glad to know that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is so greatly interested in funeral orations.


Mr. Robichaud:: What about yourself?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The last sentence I wish to add is this, and I am trying in my own way to bring a certain element of reasonableness into our conversation. The last sentence of this oration was:
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting too;-
Perhaps now the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will understand why he

wanted to intervene in this discussion or in this quotation because the next phrase is this:
-whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been a great deal of hesitation.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is a historian.


William Arnold Peters: It does not sound as though it is in order now any more than it did previously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am one of those who think that in our discussions about employment and unemployment we should be reasonable. I notice a gratuitous solicitude for the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Have hon. members noticed the delightful argument taking place here today between the leftists under the skin, the brothers under the skin, and this solicitous attitude as if only the leftists are concerned with human beings, in dilating upon the sweet paternity of the state, a socialist heresy which was hatched under the murky atmosphere of the British museum?
The difficulty with regard to discussing employment and unemployment is this. We talk about cold comfort for the unemployed. I cannot imagine any colder comfort than the speeches-if they get around to reading them -of the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Assiniboia. There was an attempt at a last minute amendment which was immediately discarded by its own sponsor who said that notwithstanding the fact that the bill is not a good bill, it was a good bill. The hon. member for Assiniboia rises in his place and says it is a bad bill but "I am going to vote for it, it is a good bill."
The difficulty is that there is so little reasonableness in what we say. We all preach our own little doctrine. When we speak about employment being higher than it was previously, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house rise in their places and say that this is a weak argument. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), who I notice is still in his seat, said this is a weak argument. The hon. member for Assiniboia said this is a weak argument. However, it is part of the economic complex of employment. Those hon. members who want to talk about unemployment talk about unemployment. Those who want to talk about employment talk about employment.
We have heard today in the press about the figures which were released yesterday with regard to the labour force. We all know
Productivity Council
these figures show an increase in unemployment. But no one bothers to say that at the same time-


William Arnold Peters: I should like to know who wrote this one.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member for Timis-kaming says he would like to know who wrote this speech. May I tell him that the same person wrote this one as wrote all the others I delivered here, namely myself. I have no script.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member has lost his touch.


William Moore Benidickson: He always writes it but he has the wrong text.


Mr. Speaker:: When everybody wants to talk and not to listen it seems to me that it is time the question be put.


James Stanley Speakman: It is about time for the hon. member for Timiskaming to get off his seat and on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wetas-kiwin has already spoken in this debate.


Edmund Leverett Morris: This report on the labour
force which was issued yesterday, as I say, showed an increase in unemployment. It is employment that we are speaking about tonight and which the Minister of Labour says is included in the preamble to the bill before us. At the same time total employment in each of the five regions in Canada is greater than it was at this time last year.
It may be said that this is cold comfort to a man who is unemployed. There is no primacy of interest or no exclusive interest on the part of the leftists in the unemployed and those who are seeking employment. Within the economic complex surely we must have regard for what is taking place in the labour force. In the Atlantic area in November, 1960, there were 530,000 persons employed; last year there were 512,000 employed; and so the story goes through each of the regions of Canada. There is an increase in each one. Our problem surely is the area of the increasing labour force and for the present at least an incapacity to provide each individual in the increasing labour force with immediate employment. The Liberal party says-


John Whitney Pickersgill: At that point may I ask whether my hon. friend would explain a little bit-I have listened with great interest to what he said-as to how it might be done?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The Liberal party has a Toronto prophet, namely Mr. Walter Gordon. It has a high regard for Mr. Gordon. Let us see what Mr. Gordon says about employment. The hon. member for Essex East, who I am

Productivity Council
sorry to note has been called from his place, may consider what it is that Walter Gordon says. Here is what the Liberal party did about unemployment. It had a royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. Let us see what Mr. Gordon says in his final report at page 421. He states as follows:
In a free and dynamic economy in which people are entitled to change their occupations as they choose and to move from place to place and in which they are continually changing products, methods and consumer demands, there will always be those who are out of work at any given time. This cannot be avoided.


Mr. Habel:: Seven hundred thousand?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Now the scene changes. Now it is a government responsibility. Let us see what else Mr. Gordon said. Of course I am talking here about Mr. Gordon in November, 1957 not November, 1960. One's vision is often changed by one's circumstances. In his final report he went on to say this, as found at page 426:
The fact of the matter is that the problem of preventing unemployment or of correcting a condition of unemployment once it occurs has not been fully solved.


William Moore Benidickson: Never.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River says "never". I thank the hon. member for that interjection.


William Moore Benidickson: If the hon. member will permit a question, may I ask him this. What is the recommendation of Mr. Gordon at that time in 1957 as a normal percentage of the labour content that might be unemployed?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Gordon went on to say that there are some people who think it ought to be 3 per cent of the working force, though many people thought the ratio is closer to 5 per cent. Now it is 6 per cent. The fact is that he went on to express the view of the possibility of influencing the economic level of a country is a new art and one which is relatively untried. There was nothing certain or foolproof about it.
All this is reasonable. Instead of that, we are getting loquacity posturing as expertising.


William Moore Benidickson: What is that word?


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am sorry if the hon. gentleman is not able this evening to understand the English I use, but that is unfortunate.


William Moore Benidickson: I acknowledge you as a specialist.


Edmund Leverett Morris: We have brought down at this time Bill No. C-52 to which the official opposition now seeks to introduce an amendment on third reading. We seek to set up a national productivity council. What is the purpose of this? The purpose is to bring together people

of representative views who could bring their best information and their best judgment to bear upon the problems of productivity in relation to increased employment and trade.
The other evening we heard a very fine speech from the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) and this was followed by a guided missive from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). On rereading their speeches I find in them a lingering, archaic economic belief-I do not wish to do the hon. lady any disservice and, if I should do so, I will immediately correct it-


William Moore Benidickson: You do not know the future of the next election.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I can only say to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) that if it does as well by me in the future as it has in the past I shall be quite satisfied. The theory implicit in this argument put up by the hon. lady and by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is that an increase in productivity at this time will reduce employment. The hon. lady nods her head in agreement, and I am glad that I did her no disservice. But, surely, the result of improving our productivity is to put ourselves in a position where the product of Canadian industry is saleable in world markets, and thereby to increase employment. How else is it to be done? You must improve productivity first of all.
What has the government said? It has said: we shall bring together broadly representative members of industry and commerce, organized labour, agriculture and members of the general public to give the body a leavening of broad interest. We want to bring about a condition in which productivity is improved in order to add to employment in Canada. In this respect it is in line with other measures which have been brought before us during the present session. Consider the National Housing Act. The hon. member for Assiniboia says it is not sufficient. That act has provided a great deal of employment in Canada through a mixture of public and private action by a government which is not fearful of entering into new fields, but will not go down the path of socialist embrace in which all freedom is destroyed.
I see the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) nod his head. I had some things to say about his philosophy during the last session. He nods his head. I was not at Calgary last week, so I do not know where he stood last week, but, surely, we have seen some amazing gyrations in which the far left is suddenly trying to embrace private enterprise. The hon. member for Assiniboia was talking about chickens going to Cuba, and

interest rates, a sort of socialist funny money proposition, but he did not say a word about loans to small business. Wait till some people hear about that, because for the last long while he has been trying to repair that oversight. This arrangement for loans to be made to small business is something for which the small business community in Canada has been asking for a long period of years. The hon. member for Essex East probably thinks that at least the intention of that particular legislation was good. It would, probably, indeed certainly, produce new and vital employment. Then we had a bill-


William Moore Benidickson: On a point of order. I think all of us have our frailties when it comes to addressing this house on points which perhaps are not pertinent to the question at issue, but I wish to say that at the moment I think the hon. member is departing from the principle of the measure under discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member has drawn attention to the fact, it is true that the hon. member who has the floor is discussing a bill which this house passed a few days ago, but-


Edmund Leverett Morris: My intention was not to discuss it at all but to point to it as an example of legislation which the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Essex East asked us to establish. Some time ago the hon. member for Assiniboia was dilating on the desirability of exporting small chickens to Cuba.
Well, we have brought into the employment picture a bill providing for the setting up of vocational and technical training institutes. One might ask: what is this going to do for employment? In my city of Halifax we desperately need more vocational training facilities. No less than 77 per cent of the unplaced applicants for employment in Halifax have received education only up to grade eight or less. We desperately need these facilities, and as a member representing that constituency I am grateful to this government for doing something to provide them in order to overcome this serious problem. The distinguished premier of my province was in this city yesterday and announced that a $1,500,000 vocational and technical training institute is to be set up. This will meet a really important need because it will be the means of meeting the challenge of the decade ahead. The situation today is almost ironic, almost an economic contradiction-we have a growing labour force, and more people at work at the same time as we have a growing number of those temporarily disemployed. That is the area which
Productivity Council
this bill seeks to challenge by bringing together the best opinions in the nation under a productivity council to deal with the problem of unemployment.
I believe I have spoken at much less length than hon. gentlemen who preceded me. It seems to me that if hon. members of the opposition who have announced they are against this bill but are going to vote for it- it is a bad bill but a good bill-share my concern as I know all hon. members in this house do for those who are temporarily unemployed they will agree that we could do a great deal for those in that unfortunate position if we were to stop talking and vote on this measure the way we say we are going to.
(Translation):


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the house will not charge me with having taken up too much of its time during the discussion of the four pieces of legislation which have been introduced since the beginning of this session.
However, there is something I want to say about this amendment. In this amendment it is requested that the bill be referred back to the committee so that it might be improved by clearly stating the object of the legislation.


Mr. Pigeon:: So as to delay it.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I just heard an hon. member say: "So as to delay it". May I tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that, if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) knew how to keep silent more often, he might less frequently suffer embarrassment.
On several occasions during the discussion the bill now before us was said not to deal with the unemployed. On the other hand, we were told that the house would be called upon to discuss four measures, of which three have been already passed. This one is therefore the fourth.
A few moments ago, the minister gave us a list of those measures. He told us that those four measures would increase employment in Canada, and thus decrease the number of the jobless. I must say that it is most confusing to listen to the speeches of hon. members on the government benches. They are indeed so confused in their explanations with regard to legislation introduced in this house, that the average man is unable to perceive what they are driving at.
However, the minister has said that these four bills were the basis for the settlement of the present economic problem. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the unemployed cannot eat statistics. They also cannot pay

Productivity Council
their rent with statistics, nor dress their children for school, nor, when they are ill, be treated by means of mere statistics.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that the government take action, not by merely introducing legislation which will serve as a basis for the settlement of the economic problem, but rather by taking the necessary steps to settle that problem once and for all.
We convened last fall to enact a program which according to the Prime Minister himself, has been ready since September 21. Well, let him submit it to this parliament right now. We have been here since November 17, and all we have seen of this program are the four bills introduced so far as a basis for the solution of the problem which is our concern. That is all. In fact, the fourth is now before the house for approval. However, none of those four pieces of legislation will settle the problem.
The minister, a moment ago, referred to the housing legislation. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did indicate this afternoon that that legislation may prove useful in certain areas, but that it will not settle the unemployment problem. Nor will it improve the present plight of the unemployed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am prepared to answer any question you may wish to ask.


Mr. Denis:: Let the hon. member write to Antonio Barrette.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we have been taunted from the very moment this bill was placed before the house, whether on second reading, or in committee, in other words constantly. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and other ministers, and even certain hon. members have said to us: "And you will support the bill".
Well, my reply is quite simple. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to the legislature in 1934, in the darkest days of the depression, when the Conservative government was in power in Ottawa, from 1930 to 1935. I have seen what unemployment means. I perfectly remember the time when people, in groups of 25 to 50, would gather on my verandah in the morning waiting to ask their member for help to buy food, or to be given blankets for their children. I distinctly remember those days and I also know that no Canadian would

want to go through them again. However, I fear that unless the government reaches an early decision on means of correcting the present situation, we will soon be faced with a situation similar to the thirties.
Some will ask why we will support the bill if we think it does not include the provisions needed to settle the problem. To those people I say this: when a jobless man has nothing to eat and is offered hardtack instead of bread, he will take the hardtack. If he is offered treacle instead of maple syrup, he will [DOT]accept the treacle.
Mr. Speaker, let it be understood that if we support these measures, it is because we want to help the government find an answer to the problem. We want to let the government lay the foundation of its program, because that is what the government calls it, a foundation. However, we want more action.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) has referred to the Gordon report. He managed to find bombastic statements to fill in an empty speech.
While the Gordon report states that under a democratic system, with private industry, there will always be unemployment, that is not what the present Prime Minister stated in 1957 and 1958 during the two election campaigns.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Speakman)-this is rather difficult to pronounce-it must be a savage word-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What an insult. The hon. member has just insulted the Indians of Canada.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: My dear friend-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) was rising on a point of order or a question of privilege but if not I would remind him that the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) has the floor.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: To the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) I would reply that I have in my riding many of them and many of them seem much more intelligent than he is.


William Moore Benidickson: There is nothing the
matter with that; that is natural.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: To the hon. member who implied many times tonight that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) never promised he would solve unemployment I would recall that in February, 1958, he said:

As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman is going to suffer from unemployment as long as public works will provide the assistance they require.
What is he doing about it? In a telecast from Montreal on February 18, 1958, the Prime Minister said:
As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada, everything that can be done-everything without regard to limit-will be done to the end that no one will suffer.


An hon. Member:: He can do nothing, though.
Another hon. Member: We are suffering right now.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: In Charlottetown on February 27, 1958, he said:
I make this promise. We acted. My pledge is to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed1-so long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation.
I am not going to read all the promises that he made on that score, but the thing is this. Owing to the fact that the government called a session to deal with the urgent problems facing this nation we gave up the right to debate the throne speech, with the intention of having those measures before the house as soon as possible and have them enacted to try to ease the situation in Canada. I do not see how any one of those four acts will help the unemployment situation in any way. What we see now is this. The government seems to be building up a great spate of propaganda on these four measures, trying to lead the people of this country to believe that they have found a solution, that they have solved the problem.


William Heward Grafftey: Is the hon. member trying to break down confidence?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I would say to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that a new word has been found in the dictionary. It is called "diefentruth".


An hon. Member:: Come again.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am coming to believe the fact that the Prime Minister will get to be known by the people of this country as the man who could play on words better than anyone else. He will be known in this country as the man who could promise heaven and earth but who could not even deliver earth.


William Heward Grafftey: Have you ever met Jean Lesage?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I must tell the hon. member who made that interjection that I have certainly met the Hon. Jean Lesage, and when
Productivity Council
I met him I got to know a much greater man than the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


William Heward Grafftey: He just increased taxes in Quebec.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I should say that in the last few months the Prime Minister has been complaining about the facts that his government had done a lot to solve all of these problems but did not have enough advertising. Taking the words of another, I would say that:
The Prime Minister's complaint that his party has failed to advertise does something less than justice to himself and to that highly talented advertising man, Allister Grosart. Mr. Grosart has done wonders with the poor material supplied him in the government and party record'.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What is the citation from which he is reading?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: From Mr. John Bird's Ottawa Notebook, and it would be interesting if the hon. member read it. In other words, it is the truth; it is not a "diefentruth".


Mr. Ricard:: That is the biggest joke of all.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I continue:
Some of the Conservative's present trouble derive, not from too little advertising, but from too much. Advertising slogans helped them to win two elections but you can't govern a country with slogans alone.
At this point, I am going to conclude by saying, Mr. Prime Minister, let me tell you, through you, Mr. Speaker, that you will have to act, and act very soon, because empty stomachs will not wait very long now.
(Translation):


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


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What kind of molasses did he serve the unemployed when there were 500,000 of them in Canada, under a Liberal administration?


An hon. Member:: In what month was that?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure tc answer the hon. member. I was expecting such a question from the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, so I have the answer ready.
First, may I say that from 1930 to 1935, under the Conservative government, no one could get anything to eat but molasses and salted pork.


An hon. Member:: The moratorium.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Second, they only got $6 a month as relief-


Azellus Denis: Relief.

Division


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Third, may I remind him that unemployment was never as high under a Liberal government as under a Conservative one, and especially from 1930 to 1935. Statistics show-


An hon. Member:: Did you have unemployed
people?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I had unemployed people in my constituency, but as I was representing Cochrane North in the Ontario legislature at the time and as I come from a poor family myself I know what poverty is and I am glad to report to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montealm that two years after my election there was no more unemployment in my constituency-Bennett relief had been replaced by work.


William Moore Benidickson: That is why you were elected.
(Text):


Mr.. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question? The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin).


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the third reading of this Bill No. C-52, I should like to assure the house it is my intention to do so with much more brevity, clarity and relevance than has been the practice for the last while. However-


An hon. Member:: Sit down, and you will make sure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: However, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did redeem himself by moving a very good amendment. One thing that puzzled me, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) spoke of Mr. Khrushchev's visit to London is that he forgot to mention that Mr. Khrushchev said if he lived in England he would vote Tory rather than Labour.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be trite to say that I am rather unhappy with this bill. I

must go further and say that the situation has not improved as the debate on the bill has progressed. We have seen complete contradictions by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) even contradicted himself. We have seen vigorous resistance by the government to every attempt to improve this bill. In fact I might say that if the government of the day would attack the problems of the day with the same vigour with which they resist any improvements in their legislation, then we might not be faced with the problems we have today.
We have been told that if we fail to find anything in the bill all we have to do is look in the preamble and we will find it there. As we know, the preamble to any bill is a sort of catchall. In fact, it reminds me very much of some words written by Mr. Wilson MacDonald, when he made reference to the speaker at a service club meeting and went on in these words:
And if the interest seemed to lag He praised the clergy and the flag,
He lauded surgeons and their knives,
He blessed all mothers and all wives.
His talk was like a soothing drug That made men want to kiss and hug;
Or give one hundred thousand bucks To under-privileged woodchucks,
Who got this way, now here's the rub, Because the motto of this club Was ever this-the thought quite missed 'em- That no one must destroy the System.
We have also seen introduced in this bill a brand new principle about which I am certainly not very happy. Under quite close interrogation the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) finally admitted that it is a brand new principle and that it was the first time it had ever been tried in this country. I refer to the system of double taxation on the general taxpayers. That is certainly a novel system of taxation and I do not think it is a good one.
As has been mentioned by innumerable members on the government side, there are in this bill some good measures-I will make that admission-and over a long period of time some good may come out of this bill that is before us today. However, we cannot escape the facts. One of the facts that we cannot get around is that in the United States and Canada at the present time we have the highest productivity of any place in the world; but at the same time that we have the highest productivity we are the only two countries in the western world with an unemployment problem. The reason that we have this problem in these two countries of highest productivity is that we have not given any consideration to the problems that arise through having the highest productivity.
Productivity Council
I do not see in this bill anything that is going to change this situation in the future. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while there may be some good in the long term view I am afraid that as the system is practised in this country the short term harm is going to far outweigh the long term good.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of discussion earlier this evening and previously about the reason why we in the official opposition are going to vote for the third reading of this bill just as we voted for the second reading of it and as we have voted for each of the other measures in the government program-I refer to these four bills-to deal with the unemployment situation. Notwithstanding our disappointment at the refusal of the government to accept either the amendment I moved in committee or the amendment that my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) moved to go back to committee to accomplish the same purpose I had sought to accomplish earlier I want to put on record quite clearly why it is our intention to vote for this measure. I am not going to complicate what I have to say now by going back over any of the other arguments that have been made about the pros and cons of the bill any more than is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, to make this position clear.
In the first place I want to say this. I am unlike the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), whose views in this matter I respect but do not share. No one in this party has at any time said there was anything positively harmful about this bill. That is a point that I should like to make absolutely clear.


William Heward Grafftey: What about the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh)?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. member will find that any member of the Liberal opposition has said there was anything positively harmful in the bill. What we have said is that it is deficient, that it was malnourished, that it was anaemic, that it was a sickly child, that it bore little resemblance to its alleged parent. It is true that we have said all those things. We have said that this measure was ushered in by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) after that one day conference as one of the cures for unemployment, and that when we tried to find out how it is going to do anything about immediate unemployment we were told, as we were told this afternoon by the-

Productivity Council


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, certainly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The views being expressed by the hon. member right now are most interesting especially when one considers that yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not entitled to interrupt in order to put forward his own point of view but rather to ask a question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: My question is as follows. How can the hon. member justify voting in favour of the measure now when yesterday he described it as a farce?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I described it in another term than that and one that is greatly beloved now by the Prime Minister. I described it as a fiction and I repeat my description of it as a fiction. It was represented to the public of Canada in the headlines last October as a measure to deal with the unemployment problem. When it is brought in here we find that that representation of it was a fiction and that in fact it is a measure which, if it has any purpose at all-and of that I think there may be some questions since the three co-sponsors, if one may so describe
them, of the bill had confused ideas about what it is supposed to accomplish-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it has any clear purpose at all, it is to improve productivity in industry. As I pointed out this afternoon to the hon. member for BromeJMissisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who raised a question about this matter, in our view improvements in productivity are in many cases the immediate effect of increasing unemployment rather than reducing it. Perhaps it might be convenient to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I see it is ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: May I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue this debate. On its completion we will proceed with supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the house leader indicate the business for Monday also?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for Monday will depend on the progress we make tomorrow.


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

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

Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Was the national industrial design centre transferred from the national gallery of Canada to the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	If so, on what date?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):
Questions
1.	Yes.
2.	December 14, 1960.


ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BRANCH
Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Was the economic and technical assistance branch transferred1 from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of External Affairs?
2.	If so, on what date?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):
1.	Yes.
2.	November 1, 1960.
865

Friday, December 16, 1960


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton)
presented the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous consent, and it is understood that the provision with respect to sitting while the house is sitting is only to convenience veterans who may be here as witnesses.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it I may put the motion before the house by unanimous consent, and that the hon. member's remarks were addressed to this motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Francis Alvin George Hamilton: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to enter into agreements with provincial governments or agencies thereof for the undertaking jointly with those governments or agencies of projects for the alternative uses of lands that are marginal or of low productivity, projects for the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas, and projects for the development and conservation of the soil and water resources of Canada; for the payment to the provinces of contributions in respect of the cost of such projects undertaken by a province or agency thereof: to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to undertake programs of research and investigation in respect of these matters; to provide for the establishment of advisory committees and the appointment of their members, and to provide for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the consent of the house I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members that this is the birthday anniversary of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), a member of this house who enjoys universal affection and who has served his country well. To him I extend, I am sure on behalf of all hon. members, warmest congratulations and good wishes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has injected into the proceedings a matter about which there will be, surprisingly enough these days, a strong measure of unanimity, because the hon. member for Greenwood is not only a very respected member of this house but an outstanding Canadian. The Prime Minister has taken advantage of this opportunity to let the hon. gentleman know of our esteem for him and our appreciation of his services to this parliament and to Canada.
May I say personally, as an old friend of the hon. gentleman, that I am very happy the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is not in his seat today owing to a slight cold, because it affords me the opportunity to say to the hon. member for Greenwood, a very dear and old friend, that I am happy to join, on behalf of the Liberal party in this house, with the Prime Minister in his expression of congratulations to the hon. member for Greenwood.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join with the others in offering to the hon. member for Greenwood our heartiest congratulations. I have been privileged to know him and to be associated with him in the House of Commons now for quite a number of years. He enjoys universal respect in the House of Commons as a man of integrity and culture, and a man who has the well-being of all Canadians at heart. We are pleased to say to him, "Happy returns of the day".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I would be a strange man if I were not much gratified by the kind words of the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other parties, and I would be also a strange

Inquiries of the Ministry man if I were not moved by the kindness of this house. Growing old is a serious business, but as long as one has the kindness of friends to help one on the way, it can be tolerated.


INQUIRY AS TO MATERIALS COVERED BY PERMITS ISSUED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the information the minister gave the house yesterday that 17 export permits have been issued since October 1 for the sale of goods to Cuba, will the minister tell the house whether the class of goods for which any such permits have been issued are listed on the export control list established under section 3 of the Export and Import Permits Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some misunderstanding with regard to the export control list. It covers not only strategic materials but other goods which from time to time may be in short supply or should be subject to control. The matter was thoroughly discussed in the house on previous occasions. No one is better informed on the subject matter than the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) who, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of trade and commerce in 1951, gave a complete explanation, as found on pages 1542 and 1543 of Hansard, of that year, of the purposes and uses of the Export and Import Permits Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What year was that?


George James McIlraith: What year was that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was in 1951. The items which I mentioned yesterday as having been exported from this country were all for civilian uses. There was nothing of a military nature, nothing of a strategic nature.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. Under which section of the Export and Import Permits Act were these permits in fact issued if they were not for strategic materials?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not have the act in front of me. I have the export control list in front of me, and it deals with such articles as animals and animal products, wood and wood products, metalworking machinery, chemical equipment, general industrial equipment and things of that nature. Then it has

a part dealing with arms, munitions, military, naval and air stores and so on, and atomic energy materials and equipment, which are obviously strategic and cannot be exported. There is a section dealing with transportation equipment and so on. The list is a mixture of articles for civilian use and for defence or other usage. It is quite within the four corners of the act to issue export permits for certain articles which are solely for civilian use. One example I might give is a cobalt bomb unit for a cobalt therapy installation used for medical purposes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the importance of this subject I should like to ask a supplementary question, and in doing so I would appreciate it if the minister would give us tomorrow the section under which these non-strategic goods have been the subject of issued permits. Has the minister recalled the statement which he made in the house on August 16-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the minister recalled-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to be starting out in the direction of argument or opinion, but if he has another question not in the nature of argument he may put it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when you hear my question-


An hon. Member:: What question?
Another hon. Member: Ask it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister recall the statement which he made in the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -on August 16-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member, in the light of the caution I have given, wishes to bring his question within the rules I think hon. members should hear it so I may then decide whether it is out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister recall the statement he made in the house on August 16, 1958, when he presented to the house a revised export control list which was to be, to use his own words, "in conformity with the agreed new strategic list"?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I recall it, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That being the case will the minister reconcile what he said on that occasion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now the hon. member is pursuing the line which I cautioned him against. He has completed a question, has asked for information tomorrow as to the section, and has drawn the attention of the minister to the statement which he had in mind. It does not seem proper to me to pursue the matter by an expression of opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I indicate to you that yesterday the minister replied to certain questions put to him in writing by the hon. member for Ottawa West. As a result of those replies I formulated certain questions which were put orally to the minister a few minutes ago. The matter is one of great current national and international interest. The statement made, I say, by the minister on August 18, 1958, establishes that the list dealt exclusively with strategic goods, and the reply of the minister now is not in conformity with that earlier statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex East may be quite correct about the importance of and interest in the matter, but in putting questions to ministers on their administrative responsibility it has been the invariable rule that the answer is not subject to comment or debate, nor should there be cross-examination. It seems to me, therefore, that the hon. member will have to find a more appropriate occasion upon which to pursue the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The privileges of the house are certainly involved in this matter, Mr. Speaker. The minister has given certain replies to the hon. member for Ottawa West, and he made a statement in this house on August 18, 1958. I say that the statement made on that day, and the reply-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is dealing with the minister's reply. On the point of order, if the privileges of this house are involved, the question is whether the hon. member for Essex East has a right to comment on an answer that has been given. That is what he is attempting to do, in my view. If he wants to assert that there is a precedent or authority for that proposition I shall be glad to hear him, but not to discuss the answer to the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I have been seeking to do has been to point out, as fairly as I can, that this house has been misled-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -by the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that is a matter of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is proceeding directly in the face of the practice of the house when he makes a comment of that kind on an answer that has been given. There are opportunities to debate subject matters which are properly inquired into, but this is not an opportunity for debate.
In view of what has been said I will give the minister an opportunity to say a word or two.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have been accused by the hon. member for Essex East of misleading the house, and he is under obligation now to withdraw that untruthful remark.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I have never insisted that a member withdraw the imputation that the house has been misled. The house is often misled by inadvertence or accident, and it has not generally been considered there has been an implication in the statement that it was deliberate unless it has been so stated. I am sure the hon. member for Essex East, if his remarks bear the implication of deliberately misleading, would be the first to wish to rectify them. I did not understand it in that sense.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, which the hon. member for Essex East raises, I think it should be noted that he has committed the most outrageous breach of the rules of the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is no doubt trying to be helpful, but I have disposed of the point of order and it is not appropriate for him to rise now and comment on the conduct of the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the deliberately misleading statement made by the hon. member for Essex East with regard to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know that the hon. member feels impelled to rise by reason of what was said earlier, but I hope he will not involve me in another question of privilege and will consider the consequence of what he has just said.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was weighing every word very carefully, Mr. Speaker. I feel that this is a matter which cannot go without further comment. The hon. member for Essex East referred to a statement I made in the House of Commons on August 16, 1958, and attempted to leave the impression with the house that I had described the Export and Import Permits Act export control list as being solely a strategic list. That is not borne out by the statement I made on that date.
In order to make it perfectly clear that the house has been misled by the hon. member for Essex East, let me indicate what was stated with regard to the Export and Import Permits Act in 1951 by the hon. member for Ottawa West who listed-


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may have the attention of both hon. gentlemen, the minister has the floor on a question of privilege. Perhaps the Clerk can give me some assistance as to whether a point of order would supersede a question of privilege.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, my
point of order was this-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would defer his point of order for a moment. If a point of order arises as a result of what is being said on a question of privilege, I am advised and it seems reasonable that the point of order could be heard.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, the statement the minister is now going to read is not the statement I used. I would ask the minister if he would deal with his own statement made in 1958. I could rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not raising a point of order, and I must give the floor back to the minister.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it not an established rule of the house that a question of privilege must be dealt with at the time it arises?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not half an hour later.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it is the normal practice to deal with a question of privilege at the time it arises. This is in reasonable proximity, and I feel I must allow it to be proceeded with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I can understand, Mr. Speaker, how uneasy hon. members of the


opposition are at being caught in a trap of their own setting for which the hon. member for Essex East is responsible.


Peter Francis Martin: We shall see about that in a few minutes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I intend to read-and this is quite brief-an explanation of the act which I have mentioned and of the export control list, which is set out at page 1543 of Hansard of April 2, 1951 in these terms:
The export powers under the existing act may be summarized under four headings. Those four headings are:
(a)	To establish a list of countries, exports to which shall be subject to licence.
(b)	To control exports of arms, munitions, war materials or supplies.
(c)	To control exports of commodities where this is necessary to ensure adequate supply and distribution within Canada, and
(d)	To control exports where this is necessary to implement intergovernmental arrangements or commitments.
In 1958 it was found necessary to revise the export control list and I made an announcement in the house on August 16, at that time tabling the revised list which subsequently was printed in the Canada Gazette on August 27. When I made my statement in the house I pointed out that we were revising our export control list in conformity with the agreed new strategic list. I did not say it was solely due to strategic materials, but that was the reason for the revision.
On that occasion, as reported at page 3649 of Hansard, I said:
In revising our export control list in conformity with the agreed new strategic list, it has been the objective wherever possible to narrow the range of commodities of all types which will require export permits.
I went on to list a number that had been dropped from the former export control list. I then went on to say:
The export control list, moreover, serves an important function in indicating those items which are regarded as strategic, and an endeavour has been made to set forth the list in such form that traders may use it for this purpose.
I did not say it was solely for that intent. This is just a guide to exporters so they will not run afoul of the law in attempting to export strategic materials. I went on to say further:
Our new export control list will serve as a clear lead as to strategic control policy.
I also pointed out earlier today that the export control list contains lists of materials which under no circumstances could be considered to be for military purposes or, as we say, strategic purposes; which might be used for warfare. I mentioned animals and animal products, for example, and wood and wood products, and things of that nature.

My question of privilege is simply this. The hon. member for Essex East misled the house when he stated that I had said in 1958 that the export control list was simply a strategic control list. It is more than that, as will be seen from a reading of the statement I made on August 16, 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up the time of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite, the big steamroller behind the government, are giving a fine demonstration of the bill of rights. This is a new type of closure, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Stop play-acting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nevertheless we in the Liberal party are going to make ourselves heard, notwithstanding what hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Regardless of the rules of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister
should withdraw his remarks, which were clearly contrary to the rules of the house. The hon. gentleman used the word "deliberately". I am not going to ask him to withdraw that, but I am going to ask him again to look at the two statements he has already read. If the minister's statement is not open to the interpretation I have placed on it I would be very surprised if the hon. gentleman on reflection would not agree.
Now that the hon. gentleman has raised this question further I would ask him to table copies of the export permits in question and the dates under which they were issued so that we can get to the bottom of what was obviously a misleading statement on the part of the minister.


George James McIlraith: I have a supplementary question that I wish to direct to the acting minister, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Kootenay West wished to comment on the matter of privilege.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the hon. member for Ottawa West has a question?


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question before the house.


George James McIlraith: I want to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises out of a part of my own speech in the House of Commons, as it appears on page 1542 of Hansard of 1951, part of which the minister quoted. My question is based on the part which he did not quote, and which reads as follows:
-it was desirable to prevent this country's serving as a back door for exports from the United States. As hon. members know, there is a free flow of material from the United States to Canada, and it was necessary to prevent that freedom being used as an indirect method of exporting United States goods from that country contrary to their export control legislation.
The question I wish to direct to the minister is this. In view of the confusion, certainly in my mind, arising out of the answers given by the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce and the minister on this question of exports to Cuba, will the acting minister prepare a carefully worded statement advising the house as to just what is being exported to Cuba now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The things that are being exported to Cuba now are materials that are almost wholly Canadian in origin.


Hazen Robert Argue: Like baby chicks.


George James McIlraith: What control is exercised by the Canadian government to make sure that none of the goods that may be described as largely United States produced are being exported through Canada to Cuba contrary to United States law?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That question will have to be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he returns, because this comes directly under his authority; but the point that I am dealing with is that the items I have mentioned in answer to the questions are items which are almost wholly of Canadian origin.
May I have the consent of the house tc add these words to the last sentence in the answer I just gave to the hon. member for Ottawa West; with the exception of civilian aircraft engines which are sent to Canada for repair and go back to Cuba. They are, of course, not wholly of Canadian origin, but are just up here for repair purposes and then they show on the export list when they are sent back.


George James McIlraith: I have a further question I should like to direct to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is simply this.

Inquiries of the Ministry Is he aware that the present Export and Import Permits Act was passed in the 1953-54 session, and is chapter 27 of the statutes of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question on a matter which is open to all hon. members of the house; they can read the statutes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister whether he will comply with my request that the dates on which the permits were issued be given to the house, and that copies of these 17 permits be tabled?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will refer that to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister whether he will table them not later than tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: No; you had his answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is out of the country. This is a matter of great national importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, as I reminded him earlier, is limited to the answers he gets. There are other means of obtaining the tabling of documents if the answer is not satisfactory.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -in view of the importance of this matter, would he see to it that copies of these permits are laid on the table for our scrutiny, together with the date of issuance?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, consideration will be given to that matter. I am rather surprised at the way the hon. gentleman is carrying on today, because he apparently has not read that on December 12 the Leader of the Opposition agreed with the attitude and course taken by this government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The observations just made regarding the Leader of the Opposition, of course, are not only contrary to the facts but were out of order. Since they were out of order, it may be pointed out that this is one occasion on which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition agree only in part, and I strongly recommend to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that he follow the lead of the Leader of the Opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mike had better hurry back.


O.E.C.D.-STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CHARTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the Leader of the
Opposition raised the question of the O.E.C.D. convention and asked whether consideration would be given to having it brought before the house. It was signed yesterday. The convention will be tabled when received, as well as the report of the preparatory committee of the 20 countries. The convention will be submitted to both houses for approval as soon as possible after signature.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of continued reports that certain United Nations troops stationed in the Congo may be withdrawn, and the importance to the rest of the world of a successful United Nations operation. Has the Prime Minister anything to report to the house on this situation, and has the Canadian government given any consideration to increasing the number of our troops in the event that other nations withdraw their forces?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was in the mind of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) who directed notice to me in this regard.
I think I should mention in general the situation in the Congo. Recent reports of developments there are most disturbing. During the past few days the security council has been discussing the Congo situation as a matter of urgency. A deadlock has now developed in the security council, and the general assembly will be required to resume its consideration of the matter.
I think I could say nothing further than this. As Mr. Hammarskjold said in July, the United Nations through its operations and its action in the Congo has been given its greatest opportunity in history. I hope there will not be carried into effect the threatened withdrawals of national representatives in the United Nations forces. To do so can lead only to more chaotic conditions in that country.
As to any consideration being given on the part of Canada to increasing its forces, I may say that such consideration has not been given. Canada has been generous in the contributions it has made to the United Nations and to the United Nations forces. At

the present time I can only say that no consideration is being given to any additional forces to meet a situation created by the anticipated withdrawal of certain national troops.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. If consideration were given I presume, of course, as the Prime Minister previously indicated, that matter would be brought before parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: That matter was made very clear.


CANADIAN ASSISTANCE IN RECRUITING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a question yesterday in connection with the recruitment of up to 500 French speaking teachers, and I gave him a partial answer. I now find that there has been a request from the director general of UNESCO, and that action has been taken. The external aid office has approached the educational authorities of the province of Quebec and various educational and teachers' organizations with a view to securing names of suitable candidates who are prepared to volunteer for this service.
The director general of UNESCO has requested reports on the candidates available by December 31, and it is hoped that the teachers recruited by UNESCO may take up their duties in the Congo early in the first quarter of 1961. However, it seems that most Canadian French speaking teachers already have commitments until the end of the teaching year in 1961. The government is in close co-operation with the provincial authorities and with Canadian educational and teaching associations and is prepared, as I said yesterday, to comply with the request of the director general in whatever way is possible.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the Prime Minister can say, as a result of the inquiry which has been made, whether there is any likelihood that the number of 500 may be reached even at the end of the school year in 1961.


John George Diefenbaker: I should not like to enter the realm of speculation in that regard.


Margaret Aitken: should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can bring the house up to date regarding Canada's proposal before the United Nations assembly that a bank of experts be organized by that organization.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: On September 26 I brought before the United Nations assembly the question of the creation of an experts' bank. The Canadian delegation has brought this matter before the assembly in two resolutions. The first, which Canada took the initiative in presenting, places the existing United Nations arrangements for providing operational and executive experts to underdeveloped countries on a permanent basis. This received the support of the assembly. The second, dealing with arrangements to facilitate the prompt supply of technical assistance personnel to underdeveloped countries, was adopted unanimously. It recommends that governments consider the desirability and feasibility, within their own constitutional and administrative structures, of establishing and maintaining reserves of qualified personnel available for assignment by the United Nations to advisory or operational technical assistance posts.
This experts' bank, if mobilized, if accepted not only in principle but translated into reality, would provide in the days ahead for the instant mobilization of technical assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to ask a further supplementary question. Following this important request, which recognizes the bilingual nature of our country, can the Prime Minister indicate what number of teachers have informed the government that they are prepared to accept these positions, or are interested in them?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member would place his question on the order paper I will have the information ready for him. Information of this type cannot be given in these circumstances.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it 3 or 300?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman seems to have his own sources of information.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a somewhat belated supplementary question to the Prime Minister, occasioned by this tempest in a teapot. In view of the fact that we have food banks and royal banks and blood banks and he has now mentioned human expert banks-we also have a Bank of Canada-which may cause some confusion in the public mind, will the Prime Minister give consideration to the government giving a lead to the country and to other nations by using more descriptive, more colourful and more imaginative language when describing those government agencies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. gentleman might give the house

Inquiries of the Ministry the benefit of his views, because I find the socialist party has that capacity for picking out extraordinary terms.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister inform the house whether he has received a telegram from the Fort William-Port Arthur and district labour council requesting consideration for tenders of lakehead firms in awarding the contract for steel fabrication for the lakehead seaway terminal? If so, can the minister indicate whether the contract has been awarded, and to whom?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is no; the matter is before treasury board.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter George Pitman: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. There was some concern in my own constituency about minor outbreaks of rabies this past summer. It is my understanding that some years ago the federal government together with the provincial government paid part compensation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter George Pitman: The question I should like to ask is this. Can the minister indicate whether there is any possibility of restoring compensation to farmers who have lost animals as a result of minor outbreaks of rabies?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I must thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The payment of indemnity to livestock owners as a result of losses from rabies was based on an agreement between the province of Ontario and my department, under which the cost was shared by the county, the province and the federal government. The payment was based on claims submitted by the provincial department of agriculture. However, no claims have been received for losses occurring since July 1, 1960, and I am therefore not in a position to say whether compensation payments will be restored.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question arising out of the statement attributed to the Prime Minister of India this morning, when he called on members of the truce supervisory commission formally seized with jurisdiction in Laos, to reassemble to deal with the difficult situation which now prevails in that country?


John George Diefenbaker: Prime Minister Nehru made the suggestion as the most effective means of preventing a further deterioration of the situation in Laos. The house will recall that the international supervisory commission was adjourned sine die in July, 1958, at the request of the royal Laotian government. The Canadian government at that time took the position that the duties of the commission had been completed, and that it could not agree to any further commission action which would infringe Laotian sovereignty.
The suggestion by the Prime Minister of India that the commission be reconvened will be examined in the light of the very complex situation which exists in Laos at the present time. Canada's attitude is that while welcoming any action of this type which might be suggested in order to bring about a diminution in the seriousness of the situation in Laos, there is no reason at this time which would impel any immediate change in the stand we have taken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that the present government of Laos is of a different complexion than the government which existed when this situation was put to the Prime Minister some months ago, last session, will the government inquire whether or not it is now desirable to have the truce supervisory commission, of which Canada is a member, reconvened?


John George Diefenbaker: I understand that the United States, Britain and France are meeting in Paris this week to discuss the crisis in Laos. There has been no consultation with Canada in this regard.


NATURAL RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Forestry, though I do not see him in the house. Anyway, my question is whether he has ministerial responsibility for the "resources for

tomorrow" conference and, if so, when the agenda and the details of the program for that conference will become available to the public.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps I may answer that question, in view of the fact that the conference comes under my responsibility. There will be a meeting early in January in connection with the general planning for this conference, and following that meeting it is hoped information will be available to the public.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO EARLY TERMINATION OF TAX AGREEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister comment on a news dispatch to the effect that Premier Frost of Ontario would favour a termination of the current federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements in 1961 instead of 1962? Also, has Premier Frost made any representations to this government in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should realize that there are only five more sitting days before the Christmas recess, and that the question he has asked would probably occupy most of the time if it were fully answered. I do not want to exclude that sort of inquiry, but it seems to me that it is not a question which can be dealt with without notice on orders of the day, relating as it does to the settlement of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, particularly agreements of five-years' duration.


William Hector McMillan: May I ask whether Premier Frost has made any representations to the federal government to terminate the agreement before 1962?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have heard of no such suggestion.


PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-52, to establish a national productivity council-Mr. Hees-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 10-Objects and powers.
Jacques Flynn: Order. When the committee rose last night we were considering
Productivity Council
clause 10, and more especially the amendment by the hon. member for Timmins, which I need not read again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two observations about the hon. member's amendment, along the lines that were made just before the committee rose yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier, who at that time read the words of the Prime Minister, which I am sure I do not need to repeat now, that the government would welcome any suggestions for the improvement of this bill.
It is surely evident that if this productivity council is to have any real impact upon the Canadian economy, it must have the power to make recommendations to industry, to labour, and above all, in the broader field, to make recommendations to the government. It seems to me that since there has been a good deal of confusion between statements by the different ministers, by the sponsor of the bill, the godfather of the bill and the stepfather of the bill, who seem to be unable to agree about the purposes and objectives of the bill, it seems to me that at least this one point might be clarified, and clarified completely.
If I seem to exaggerate; if anyone thinks I am exaggerating when I say there are differences in view as to the very basic purpose of this council, I would draw hon. members' attention to the original statement at the resolution stage by the sponsor of the bill, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, under the doctrine of collective responsibility, presumably was speaking for the whole government then as no doubt he was on another occasion when he described certain people in this country as wonderful people. On this occasion when he was speaking about this bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, as recorded on page 566 of Hansard for December 6:
The national council should act as a policy making body . ..
Then the Prime Minister, speaking on second reading on behalf of the absent Minister of Trade and Commerce and, I might add, speaking instead of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, had this to say, as found on page 750 of Hansard for December 13:
I know we shall welcome any ideas or suggestions that may lead to any improvement in the bill, providing those suggestions are not of such a nature as would, in effect, constitute the council as a policy making body...
Whom do you believe, the Prime Minister who says that this council must not be constituted as a policy making body or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who in first putting forward that it was expedient

Productivity Council
to introduce a bill for this purpose said that this national council should act as a policy making body? Which of these gentlemen is speaking the real mind of the government, or has the government any mind in this matter at all?
It seems to me this is a question that should be resolved on this clause which deals with the purposes of the council. Whether or not the council is a policy making body, it is obviously there to do something; and how it can do anything that will be effective unless its power to make recommendations is clear, explicit and unqualified is very hard to see. For that reason I am happy to support the amendment of the hon. member for Timmins.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, now that the minister has had a chance to think about this matter overnight, would he indicate to us whether he is prepared to accept the amendment? It might save any further remarks on my part.


Michael Starr: I gave the reasons why the government cannot accept the amendment, and I have had no reason to change that attitude overnight.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, in order to explain the problem raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may I say that I have had occasion to read Hansard and to study the remarks of the minister, and I note something in his remarks that may explain the strange phenomenon that confronts us at the present time. If hon. members will look at page 807 of Hansard for December 14 they will find that the minister stated, near the bottom of the page:
... this and other measures that will be brought down are part and parcel of a program to take care of the federal share of responsibility in this field and which will create an atmosphere that will give employment to these people.
This is the first time I have ever heard of employment being provided by an atmosphere. I therefore looked at the dictionary definition of the word, because I thought possibly there was a definition with which I was not familiar. Among the various definitions of "atmosphere" I find that one is "air" and another has reference to the normal pressure of the air at sea level being about 15 pounds per square inch.
In view of the completely opposite views of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister, as outlined by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, maybe there is a little too much air involved in the bill and there should be a little more substance. Again, if we refer to the remarks of the Minister of Labour as found on page 802

of Hansard, we find that he had this to say with regard to the amendment now before us:
There is no provision in the bill which says the council cannot make recommendations to the government. Consequently it is my opinion that if, in the belief of this council, the over-all effect of its work could be improved with more beneficial results for all Canadians as a result of some action of the federal government, this council would be free to make such recommendations and suggestions, and these would be welcomed and given consideration.
In my view this is a very strange procedure. Are we to assume that just because there is nothing in the bill preventing the council from doing any particular thing, the council is free to do that thing? This is certainly a new procedure in the setting up of councils of this kind. I suggest it is much more appropriate that provision should be made for the council to make recommendations, because from past experience I would say that unless this power is given to them the hands of the members of the council will be tied, for all practical purposes, from the point of view of any recommendations they might make on the basis of the vast amount of knowledge that will be available to them. I would ask the minister to reconsider the matter to see if he cannot agree that this amendment would definitely be an improvement to the bill.
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Timmins) negatived: Yeas, 29; nays, 59.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 10 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question on this clause which I think would possibly have been more correctly asked on an earlier clause, but I was unavoidably absent. My question has to do with paragraph (iii) of subclause (a) which deals with the maintenance of good human relations in industry. There are many unions in Canada representing thousands of workers which are not affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress and whose members are making a considerable contribution to the Canadian economy in primary industries such as mining, fishing, transportation and construction. In view of the fact that there are many thousands of workers in the category I have mentioned, will there be an opportunity for representation on the council on behalf of unions not affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, ordinarily in appointing labour representatives to any organization established by the government, the representatives of the organized groups such as the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Federation of Trade Unions-that is the new name for the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour-and in some cases where it is deemed advisable the legislative

committee of the railroad brotherhoods, are consulted. I realize there are unions that are particularly expert on some phases of the work that might be involved here. I believe representation from those people who might be affected, or who could be of some help, should be given consideration when appointments are made of the representatives of labour.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very pleased to hear the minister say that, because that is the very point I had in mind. There are unions not affiliated with the congress whose officers and members have particular experience in a certain industry. Some of them are of long standing in Canada, and in my opinion some consideration should be given to these unions in representation on this council.


Michael Starr: In making a further comment on this may I say that I hope when something of that nature is done, there will be an understanding on the part of the Canadian Labour Congress and the federation of trade unions as to why it is being done, and I hope they will extend their co-operation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I hope so too.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I wonder if I may discuss with the minister the full intent of subparagraph 6, and whether or not it is a bit restrictive in its language. It reads:
(vi) the extension of industrial research programs in plants and in industries as a means of achieving greater productivity,
I think the implication here is that when it talks about extension, this would prohibit the fostering and promoting of the use of industrial research programs. When you speak of extension it seems to me to imply that there is such a thing in existence at the moment in all plants and industries. I believe that the words, "use and extension of" such programs might be better. This would allow the council to think in terms of discussing with any plant or any industry the institution of industrial research programs rather than their extension.


Michael Starr: Many industries in this country have research programs of their own. For example, the pulp and paper research institute was set up by the pulp and paper industry. This productivity council, of course, will not be delving into research. I am certain, however, that if they felt it was necessary in a certain industry, and that the productivity of that industry would be increased through research, then the council might be in a position to advise that industry of this solution to the problem of gaining greater productivity in that particular industry. I feel that this productivity council will make full use of the facilities of the national research council
Productivity Council
in this respect, and possibly convey the information that may be derived from the national research council to a particular industry.


Charles Benjamin Howard: As the minister has said, there are some industries which do not have any research programs. I wonder how this council could, as the bill says, promote the extension of research programs where none exist. How do you extend something that does not exist? If you were to put in the words "use and extension" it would make the clause much clearer.


Michael Starr: I explained a moment ago, I thought to the hon. member's satisfaction, that if in the opinion of the productivity council greater productivity could be brought about in an industry through research, no doubt the council would advise this industry that they avail themselves of research in some other area that is now in existence or set up their own research program. No doubt this council would give that sort of advice to that particular industry.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I still do not see how you can extend something that does not exist. It is a matter of extension.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member is playing on words. It is the extension of research that exists in one industry when it should also be undertaken in another industry; that is an extension.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think the minister is playing on words, too, and he has had far more practice than I in this regard, belonging to the government that he does.
Let me look at another part of this clause, if I may. I think this is restrictive to the extent that it applies, in so far as research programs are concerned, only to industrial research programs, plants and industries. We are going to have a council representative of more than plants and industries. If you look back at clause 2 you will find there are to be five members chosen from the field of agriculture and other primary industries. Let us confine it to agriculture. How does this council get involved in the extension, to use the minister's play on words, of research programs in agriculture if the clause only makes reference to industrial research programs in plants and industries? Is it not restricted to that extent also?


Michael Starr: As a matter of fact the word "industries" covers the whole field. When you talk about the agricultural industry you are talking about the largest industry in this country.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It may be that there are some people who will disagree with the minister in this regard. It does not say anywhere in

Productivity Council
the bill what an industry is. If it is the interpretation of the minister that you can extend an industrial research program to the agricultural industry, he is not only playing on words but he is being misled by words. In this connection I am reminded of an article in the Prince Rupert daily News, which gave a definition of politics. It says it is what makes you want to say sound like an answer to a question that was asked. This is obviously what we have got from the minister.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Get out of the gutter and get on with the bill.


Chesley William Carter: Clause 10 sets out the general objects of this council. It reads:
The objects of the council are to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the council may, in furtherance of its objects-
Before we can estimate just what gains we are making in productivity, it is necessary for us to know what the level of productivity is at a given time. What is our present output per man hour? When we come to inquire into that, we discover that there is a great lack of statistical information. I am told that there is a publication by Hood and Scott available from the Queen's printer which gives some figures, and I know that the Gordon commission presented some figures on productivity which were projected back, I understand, as far as 1926.
Recently the Senate committee on manpower and employment in their latest report, I think, dated December 8, has an appendix which for the first time lists the man hour productivity in various industries.
Apparently the difficulty with these figures is that there is no common denominator between them; hence they cannot be used for accurate comparisons. On December 13 the Prime Minister put on Hansard some figures which he attributed to Dr. Eugene Forsey, the research director of the Canadian Labour Congress. I take issue with some of the figures given by Dr. Forsey, because I think they are apt to mislead us as to what our real gain in productivity actually is. At the bottom of page 748 of Hansard Dr. Forsey is quoted in the following words:
In 1946, the number with jobs in manufacturing was about 1,222,000. Last year, it was 1,502,000 ... or an increase of 23 per cent.
The Prime Minister then went on to elaborate as follows:
Then he says-
That is Dr. Forsey.
-that while there was an increase in manufacturing employment of about 23 per cent during that period, the gain in manufacturing production was about 75 per cent.

A little further on he again quotes Dr. Forsey in these words:
From 1947 to 1959 manufacturing production rose almost 60 per cent; manufacturing jobs rose only about 19 per cent.
What I want to point out is that a contrast of that kind does not give us an accurate picture of what our gain in productivity actually is. In April of 1959 I put on Hansard some figures which I should like to quote at the present time. As I stated on Wednesday evening, we can get a rough idea of our productivity as a nation if we take our gross national product in constant dollars and divide it by the average labour force. In 1954 our gross national product in constant dollars was $20,186 million and our average labour force was 5.493 million. If we divide the gross national product by the labour force we get a figure of 370. If we go on to 1958 we find that the gross national product in constant dollars in 1958 was $23,704 million while the average labour force was 6.127 million. If we divide the latter figure into the former one we get a comparable quotient of 387. That computation works out to a gain of about 5 per cent in four years or an over-all yearly gain of about 1J per cent in productivity for the nation as a whole.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Will the hon. member explain how he can relate his remarks to clause 10 of the bill which is under consideration?


Chesley William Carter: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thought I had done so at the beginning of my remarks, when I said that clause 10 sets forth that a general objective of this council is to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity. I was saying that if we are to promote improvement in our efficiency we must know what our starting point is, or in other words we must know what our productivity figure or index is at the present time. That is the purpose of this discussion.


Jacques Flynn: Even if clause 10 describes the objectives and powers of the council and therefore deals with the purposes of the bill, we should now discuss the terms of clause 10 and it seems to me that this discussion must be more strictly relevant to the wording and substance of clause 10 than to the purposes which are therein referred to.


Chesley William Carter: I am dealing directly with the purpose of clause 10, which is the purpose of council as set out under this clause. What I am going on to point out is this. After stating the general objectives', clause 10 goes

on to enumerate a number of specific objectives, one of which is contained in subparagraph (vi) which reads as follows:
(vi) the extension of industrial research programs-[DOT]
I should like to point out that it is equally necessary to promote a statistical research program. I know that a great deal of statistical research is being carried out in various departments at the present time. The Department of Trade and Commerce has a statistical branch. The bureau of statistics has a statistical branch. I think there is another one in the Department of Labour. I am not suggesting that the council should undertake a program which would duplicate what is already being done. Rather I am suggesting that there should be some agency to coordinate this work in such a way that we shall have a figure which will enable us as a nation to measure our progress in technical efficiency and will also enable one industry to compare its progress with the progress that is being made in other industries. We have not such a figure at the present time, and I think it is essential that we should have one.
I would be the first to admit that it is not easy to get a figure that will have great accuracy because there are many factors which vary from one industry to the other. For example, as has been pointed out by many hon. members, productivity is in large measure geared to our markets, and when markets begin to decline there is a tendency for a decline in productivity corresponding with the fall in the market. That factor varies from one industry to the other, and it is a factor which would affect the index figure. In addition, a firm might be faced with the choice of laying off people or of working to a limited capacity, and they may not be able to obtain full efficiency with part of their plant lying idle. Then there are others who would be faced with a choice between the cost of closing down and reopening as compared with the cost of carrying their staff while not fully employed. These are all factors that vary and there is a need for somebody to work out a common denominator that will permit an adjustment to be made in the calculation of productivity figures which will at least give us an approximate idea of how we are doing with regard to our gain in technical efficiency. For that reason I move:
That paragraph (a) of clause 10 be amended by deleting the word "and" at the end of line 24 and adding the following:
(viii) The promotion and co-ordination of statistical research into man hour productivity on a basis that will be comparable for all industries.
Productivity Council


Michael Starr: I think I should make some observations on this proposed amendment. At the present time a great deal of information is available on production by industries through the dominion bureau of statistics, and we also have a good deal of information available in the Department of Labour concerning manpower. The dominion bureau of statistics has a special section which deals with productivity measurement, and this section will be able to supply information to the council which should be helpful. The job of this council will be to help to improve productivity, not to measure it. It will have at its disposal all the information which is available, and I doubt whether any further information could be amassed as a result of an amendment of the type proposed here.


Chesley William Carter: The point is this. How do you know you are improving productivity if you have no means of measuring it?


Michael Starr: We have.


Chesley William Carter: Can the minister tell me what our output per man hour is at the present time as a nation?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member had told me he wanted that information I think I should have been able to provide it for him.
Amendment (Mr. Carter) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 34.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have read through the whole of this bill, though somewhat hurriedly, and I may be mistaken in this statement; but as far as I can observe the word "employment" and the word "unemployment" do not occur anywhere in the bill, except that the word "employment" is used once in the preamble. In the body of the bill, the operative part, there seems to have been an oversight, and nowhere is there any reference to employment or unemployment. Since we are told this measure is part of the government's plan to promote employment and cure unemployment, it seems to me there is a very simple way of remedying the omission. I do not intend to make a long speech about it. I am just going to move an amendment. I move:
That clause 10 be amended by inserting in line 6 on page 3 after the word "efficiency" the words "and employment".
The effect of this amendment would be to make the clause read:
The objects of the council are to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency and employment in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity-
I cannot imagine that the government will not welcome this rescue operation on the part of the opposition.

Productivity Council


William Heward Grafftey: I was just wondering if the hon. member had read the preamble-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I mentioned that.


Michael Starr: The purpose of this productivity council is to bring about increased efficiency in the productivity of industry. Because of that, naturally, employment will be created to a greater degree. The effect of this amendment would be that the council would be dealing directly with the employment or unemployment factor. That is not to be the case. This council will be dealing with the efficiency of productivity in industry, and employment will be a natural consequence of its work.


Murdo William Martin: Apparently the minister is continuing to follow the line of substituting air for substance. Certainly this group wholeheartedly endorses the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I think if the efforts of this council are to be directed into the field of employment only by implication, as is the case with regard to so many other things which are incorporated in this bill, it will be a great pity; and the effect, I am sure, will be that there will be a great deal less support for this measure on third reading than there was on second reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Reading through the debates it is clear, I think, that the concept which the Minister of Labour had with regard to this bill was one which would be shared more widely on this side of the house than by most of his colleagues, at least by those of his colleagues in the government who have spoken on the measure.
As far as the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce were concerned, this bill was intended to deal primarily with the purposes and objects as stated in clause 10. But the Minister of Labour, recognizing the importance of this problem, did say at one point, in the only clear and succinct statement which has been made by the minister yet on this measure, that it was also intended to deal with unemployment. Indeed, we have been led to believe that one of the reasons we are here at this time of the year is to give the government power to bring in more vigorous methods of dealing with unemployment.
I believe that of all the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in the course of his brilliant parliamentary career, none has had as great and as constructive a purpose as the amendment in his name now standing before us. The hon. gentleman has pointed out that all throughout this bill there has been, for some reason or other, a reluctance on the part of

the administration to recognize the existence of either employment or unemployment. Certainly nothing in the operational part of the bill by implication or directly has any reference to the problem of unemployment or employment. The hon. member for one of the eastern townships who spoke a while ago suddenly thought he had found an unusual bit of information for the committee when he observed that there was reference in the second line of the preamble to the word "employment", and of course the hon. member's chagrin was great when he was reminded that that was one of the very points made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
It is worth while looking at the preamble again:
Whereas in order to provide expanding opportunities for increased employment and trade and rising national standards of living, it is in the national interest to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity-
That is the only reference in this bill to the most serious problem that confronts us in Canada at this time, certainly on the domestic level; yet there is a refusal on the part of the government to carry into the operational part of the bill what is stated so piously in the preamble.
If the word "employment" is not to be included in clause 10, as is proposed in the amendment of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, then why should it be in the preamble? I should certainly want it to be in the preamble in any event so we would at least have that degree of recognition by this government in this bill of the seriousness of the need for employment. What possible reason can the government give for this exclusion? What possible reason can the Minister of Labour in particular give for not including a reference of this nature in the measure? He is the one minister who in the statements he has made about this bill has said it is intended to deal with employment. He is confident it will deal with it in the short term, because the minister said that by next July, six months hence, we would have some indication of the effect of this bill on employment conditions.
I suggest that if the government persists in refusing to accept this amendment it only justifies the contention we have been making that this measure and its companion measures, all of them introduced at a time when we unanimously agreed to dispense with the debate on the speech from the throne, are intended not to provide the government with methods to cure unemployment or to provide a mitigation of unemployment but to provide the government with an excuse for not dealing with unemployment, so that later on hon. gentlemen opposite can piously refer to these

great measures passed in the early part of this session when we unanimously agreed to postpone our normal discussions in order to deal with these important emergency measures.
What is emergent about this, unless there is a recognition of the actual fact of heavy unemployment in this country? There were
425,000	unemployed people in Canada as of yesterday, a figure that is growing day by day and month by month. All this government does is bring forward bills that look impressive in form but that are really merely facades for the government to enable hon. gentlemen opposite to make strong speeches of achievement later on, as they will certainly do and as the Prime Minister assuredly will do when he talks about having fulfilled all of his promises. He will say that the government brought in a bill to provide for a productivity council that will seriously affect the problem of unemployment, but he will not tell the committee or the country that the government through the Minister of Labour has refused to accept, in the statement of the objects of the council, reference to employment in the way suggested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
In spite of the criticism I have levelled and will continue to level against his administration, I believe the Minister of Labour is sincere in the job he has undertaken. But I say he does not do himself justice when, as Minister of Labour, he does not accept this amendment which will clearly establish that one of the functions of this council is not only to produce efficiency but also, at least in the long term, to do something about employment.
The reluctance of the government to accept this amendment is the most demonstrative proof we have had of the fact that the government, in spite of the propaganda it has used during the past three or four weeks, is not disposed to seriously tackle the problem of unemployment in Canada.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, in considering amendments, hon. members sit in the committee in the capacity of judges. They listen to debates and each hon. member draws his conclusion as to which arguments are more effective, and is guided by those arguments in his vote.


William Heward Grafftey: A new Liberal theory?


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I was convinced out of the mouth of the minister himself and on the basis of his own language that he feels this is a valid amendment which he should accept. If the minister will read Hansard tomorrow I am sure that upon examining his remarks he will find that he 90205-6-53i
Productivity Council
has said the amendment is a good one. In a sense the hon. gentleman has said, "We are concerned with productivity which will produce employment, and employment will follow". That is exactly what the minister has said, and I cannot understand why after offering an argument which I interpret as one in support of acceptance of the amendment, the minister remains mute and does not rise to the great heights to which hon. members of a government sometimes should rise in accepting an amendment proposed by the opposition.
It would not be a reflection upon the draftsmen of this measure. I think governments do themselves honour in sometimes accepting amendments proposed by the opposition. It would certainly give hon. gentlemen a lift. To be so stubborn-and I use that word advisedly-as to continuously reject amendments because of the government's majority or because the opposition may get credit for a good amendment is not conduct befitting a wise government.
I address myself to the minister directly. He does say that the council will produce employment after productivity is satisfactory. Why, then, should the minister refuse to say, "We are concerned with appointing a council which will concern itself with employment". That is all the amendment says. Certainly if I were to judge the evidence given by the minister himself I would find the amendment valid and acceptable; and it is astonishing, as the hon. member for Essex East has said that the minister would not rise to those heights.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Leon David Crestohl: Surely.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. gentleman quote chapter and verse of an example where the previous government in 23 years accepted an amendment proposed by the opposition?


Leon David Crestohl: I think that is either an
ignorant statement to make-ignorant in the sense that the hon. member was not here______


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member did not make a statement but asked a question. There is a subtle difference.


Leon David Crestohl: I am answering the hon.
member's question, and the answer is yes! Amendments were often accepted by the former government, both those proposed by the official opposition and by the C.C.F. The former government was not so stubborn and did not say that just because an amendment came from the opposition it was not good.

Productivity Council


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


William Arnold Peters: Just before the vote is called, may I say that this is a very important amendment and one that will affect the decision of many members of the house. This is particularly true when we take into consideration what has been said with regard to the establishment of this council and the objectives of the bill. If the government is not willing to insert the word "employment", then we can only come to the conclusion that the results of this bill without the amendment will be advantages to industry itself. If the objectives in setting up a productivity council are not to create employment, then some people will suffer because of the increased productivity. With that in mind many hon. members will have to give very serious consideration to the bill itself.
If this amendment is written into the bill, if the amendment is accepted by the government, as I think it will be, then I shall have to look at the decision I made previously in the light of the amendment. If the amendment is not accepted, then probably I will have to go along with the attitude I have already taken.


Michael Starr: For the benefit of the hon. member who talks about the objectives of the bill in the field of employment, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer him to the preamble, which sets out the objective very clearly. It reads:
Whereas in order to provide expanding opportunities for increased employment and trade and rising national standards of living, it is in the national interest to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productivity efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity-
I do not think it is necessary to spell that out any further.


William Arnold Peters: I would assume from the remarks of the minister that there is really no objection to accepting the amendment. It may be true that there is no objection on the part of the government to including an actual clause in the bill saying that the objectives of the council are to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency and employment in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing the council may, and so on.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, if the important part of this bill is only the preamble, what is the point in going on with the substance of the bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the question is put, Mr. Chairman, I ought to point out what the government are really doing by rejecting this

amendment. The government are asking us to endorse a pious hope, because, that is all the preamble of any bill is. What they are saying in the body of the bill itself where it sets out the duties of the council is that the word "employment" is not to be used.


John Ferguson Browne: I think I should make a few remarks on this question. This is a completely extraneous argument that has been brought forward. All measures the government has brought forward this session have been designed to create employment. When we brought in the amendments to the National Housing Act-and we brought forward measures which are clearly going to create employment in the country-we did not say, to build houses and to create employment; we did not say to build sewage projects and to create employment. When we came to the bill respecting loans to small businesses we did not say we were going to build additions to businesses which are obviously going to create employment; we did not put in the words "and to create employment". That is perfectly clear, and it is absolutely unnecessary to put these words in here; this is an absolutely extraneous argument.


William Arnold Peters: In reply to the hon. member who has just taken his seat, may I say that what he says in regard to one piece of legislation he mentioned is quite true, where assistance was given by the federal government to certain types of business; but it is not fair to refer to that type of legislation and to put this legislation in the same class. In the first instance, the secondary result of the assistance will be employment. All we are asking here is that the council be empowered to also take into consideration the employment picture in so far as the productivity aspects of this legislation are concerned. We ask that because of automation and because of things that have happened thus far.
This bears little relationship to certain other objectives which are obviously going to result in employment. If you build houses, obviously you employ people. We have not been able to turn them out automatically yet; we still employ carpenters and other people. But when we increase productivity we do not necessarily create employment. We are suggesting that the employment aspect be written into this clause so that the council will be able to judge for itself and guide itself in undertaking this part of their program.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 24; nays, 52.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the clause carries may I say a few words, now that the government, not only in words used by the Minister of Labour in turning down the amendment but by the vote of its followers, has made it perfectly clear that this productivity council is to have nothing directly to do with employment. That was what the minister said; he said that employment might follow. The minister's words can be checked in Hansard. I listened very carefully. He said that it had nothing directly to do with employment. Before we are asked to vote on this, sir, I should draw attention to that famous day on the road to Damascus when not St. Paul but perhaps St. John saw a great light and made a great speech on television- this was on September 21-in which he said:
I want to talk to you tonight about employment and unemployment.
These were the opening words. Now, it would be an abuse to read anything more than the opening words except in so far as they relate to this bill and to this clause of this bill. But the Prime Minister did tell us the other night when he spoke on second reading, and in his second speech, that this bill was a part of the program which he had referred to on September 21 to deal with employment and unemployment. That is what he himself said in this house, and here is what he said on that occasion:
Our plans are already made and will be presented in detail to the next session of parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: September 21. I continue:
Naturally I cannot say what these plans are in those matters which require the approval of parliament, but I can assure you that they will be based on a current and realistic appraisal of the employment problem. In the meantime we continue to examine every possible action. Before the next session of parliament I intend to call to Ottawa representatives-
This was done.
-of business, labour, farm and other leaders of the nation. We have, of course, had the benefit of the views of many of these leaders as individuals, as well as of leading economists both in and outside the government service. The government will now seek the collective views of the national organizations which they represent so that the people of Canada will know that the course we follow will have the support of all available ideas.
In other words, the conference that the Prime Minister was talking about was, he said, to deal with a current and realistic appraisal of the employment problem. When that one-day conference ended the Prime Minister called a press conference and announced that the child of that conference was this productivity council as yet unborn. Now, when the child is born it does not seem to bear much evidence of its paternity. The Minister of Labour, defending the bill
Productivity Council
as its stepfather in the absence of its sponsor and of its godfather, says that the council is not to be concerned with employment but is to be concerned with productivity and they hope that out of increased productivity employment may follow. I say, that this clause left as it is is a travesty. It is a fiction, a word that I think is perhaps now consecrated in parliamentary usage, and it is perhaps a very useful word-


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member knows all about fiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to apply to this clause that we are now being asked to support.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I have only two questions to ask the hon. member with respect to clause 10. First of all, I ask him this question. If you go up to a man and kick him in the shins do you have to say to him, "I have kicked you in the shins"? Clause 10 speaks for itself. This play on words is simply creating a straw man. I ask the hon. member another question. Does not increased productivity mean increased employment? Answer that honestly.


An hon. Member:: Not necessarily.


William Heward Grafftey: Of course it does.


Peter Francis Martin: Not at all.


William Heward Grafftey: That is the crux of the question. Either say yes or no and let us not get into a forensic debate and splitting hairs over increased productivity, which clause 10 seeks to bring about. We on this side say that increased productivity increases employment. I repeat that when you kick a man in the shins or when you spell out something like to a little child you do not have to say, "I have done it". Clause 10 speaks for itself. Employment is dealt with in the preamble and I repeat that clause 10 speaks for itself. I think it is an insult to the intelligence of people generally and the members of the house to have to cross T's and dot I's in such an infantile way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has done me the honour of asking me two questions and I would not like to show disrespect for his grey hairs by failing to reply. I will answer the second question first. In my opinion and in the opinion of a great many of the unemployed who are unemployed as a result of automation, increased productivity very frequently results immediately in increased unemployment. That is precisely the problem that we thought the productivity council was to deal with and that is precisely the impression that the right hon. gentleman sought to give, whether consciously or unconsciously I am not prepared to say, in that press conference and also when he talked about these measures.

Productivity Council
As for the question about kicking on the shins, I am not accustomed to that form of activity at all but I might say that if I were an unemployed person I would consider that the government had kicked me not in the shins but in the face with this legislation that is now before us.


William Heward Grafftey: Since hon. members opposite have insisted that increased productivity will increase unemployment, then they have no other choice but to vote against the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Powers.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, there are two phrases in clause 11 to which I should like to address myself for a moment or two. First I should like to refer to subclause (a) which reads as follows:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council, make bylaws regulating its proceedings and generally for the conduct of its activities, including the establishment of regional offices.
In other words, the bill gives the council the authority to make its own bylaws and regulations. That is a provision that has been used over the years in legislation creating a body of this kind. Provision is made that the body shall have the right to make its own bylaws in order to administer its affairs. However, there is one aspect of such bylaws or regulations to which I am certainly opposed. We frequently find in such regulations that it is provided that there shall be no appeal from any decision made by the body in question.
I simply make this observation and hope the minister is familiar with the fact that there is a tendency to make such a regulation providing that there shall be no appeal from any decision of the body or council. Having in mind the fact that the bill of rights is now law and also the fact that in the last two years a number of great legal and parliamentary authorities have taken the position that to give a body created by statute the authority to be final in its decisions creates a form of supreme court, I simply ask the minister to take cognizance of that tendency at the present time.
This council is to be given the power to make regulations for its own administration but I should like the minister to see to it that the council does not obtain such authority, as has happened sometimes in the past, and I hope any such authority now exercised will be minimized as time goes on. I would ask the minister to see that in this case there is nothing in the regulations to provide that the council shall have the last word without any appeal to the courts, thus making the council a sort of supreme court of Canada. This is a dangerous trend. I should like to

appeal to the minister to see to it that the council does not obtain the same authority as the Supreme Court of Canada.
With respect to subclauses (b) and (c), I should like to draw the minister's attention to this point. Under subclause (b) the council may acquire by purchase, lease, gift, donation, bequest or otherwise. How can the council acquire otherwise that which it seeks to acquire? Therefore, I should like the minister to tell us what is meant by the use of the word "otherwise". The same word also appears in subclause (c) where it is provided that the council may expend moneys received by it through the conduct of its operations or by gift, donation, bequest or otherwise.
Although I am not now addressing myself to clause 16, I should like to point out that the word "otherwise" is not used although we And there a similar phrase. This is not simply a matter of semantics. The inclusion of the word "otherwise" means nothing unless it is intended to cover something about which we cannot be told. If it is intended to cover something about which we are not to know, then why is the word "otherwise" included? Under paragraphs (b) and (c) every possible means of acquiring property have already been specified, such as lease, gift, donation, bequest, so what does the word "otherwise" cover?


Michael Starr: I understand the hon. gentleman is an attorney by profession so he would know. According to the information I have been given the word "otherwise" is a general term used in legal drafting to include things in addition to those which have been set out in detail here. The clause gives that power, and at the same time extends it to any other matters that might not be specifically set out.


Leon David Crestohl: Will the minister please look at clause 16? We are not considering it as yet, but there you have the same wording except that you do not use the word "otherwise".


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether we are discussing clause 16 now?


Jacques Flynn: No, clause 11.


Leon David Crestohl: I am not addressing myself to clause 16. I am simply pointing out that you have identical language there but you do not include the word "otherwise". Why do you include the word "otherwise" in clause 11?


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 11 carry?


Leon David Crestohl: No, I should receive an answer.


George James McIlraith: I wanted to raise another point. Is the minister going to reply to the hon. member?


Michael Starr: I did reply to clause 11 and the hon. member raised a question with regard to clause 16 which can be dealt with later.


Leon David Crestohl: No, then it will be too late to deal with clause 11. I only referred to clause 16 because I pointed out that the minister uses the identical language that he used in clause 11 but he does not add the word "otherwise". Why is the word "otherwise" included in this subclause? Surely, the draftsman or the government must have had something in mind when they used the word "otherwise". It certainly is sufficient, in my opinion, to say that anything that is acquired by gift, lease, donation or bequest is covered without the addition of this word "otherwise". I have no conception what that word "otherwise" could possibly cover. If "otherwise" is only a matter of form, why was that same form not followed in clause 16?


Michael Starr: I do not want to try to match wits with the legal gentleman, but I am advised that clause 11 deals with powers; it is an entirely different situation. Clause 16 deals with acquisition by gift, donation or bequest, and it has a different aspect altogether. Consequently the legal department, which has some fairly reputable people who are experts on these things, felt that the word "otherwise" should be in clause 11 but it was not necessary in clause 16.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Just on that same subject, if I may add a word. Clause 11 sets out many modes by which the council may acquire property, while clause 16 simply limits the mode to three cases, donations, gifts or bequests. If the hon. gentleman will consider that for an. instant he will find that these three words refer, in effect, to donations and, in such case, there is provision for appropriation by the council of an amount equal to such donations. In clause 11 we are dealing with the different methods by which the council may acquire property and it would be outlandish to try to specify every means. It is for this reason that in clause 11 the word "otherwise" is included, whereas in clause 16 the word "otherwise" is not included. There is the intention to limit the appropriation to the amount of the donation.


George James McIlraith: I think what the minister and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister are doing is to make it quite clear once again that the remarks made in introducing this legislation in which there was a reference to the government matching the property acquired by the council, did not set out the true position. The matching grants apply only to property acquired without cost in certain ways, and this rather narrows the thing as compared with what was presented to the committee at the resolution stage. I
Productivity Council
did not rise to press that point, however, but I feel hon. members should be aware of it now and have a look at clause 16 before we reach it.
I wanted to raise an entirely new matter, Mr. Chairman, and to ask the minister what expectation he has of donations being made by national organizations, whether trade bodies, industrial bodies or labour bodies, to this council. Has he any intimation on which he can base some expectation of gifts?


Michael Starr: I have great expectations.


George James McIlraith: I want to get it more precise than that. Has there been any intimation given to the government that if the legislation is passed-


Michael Starr: Not to my knowledge.


George James McIlraith: -gifts will be made? Was this question discussed before the bill was prepared with any national bodies, either in the field of industry or labour?


Michael Starr: I said not to my knowledge.


George James McIlraith: Then the government must assume that for the first three years the council may only have the $150,000 provided in a subsequent clause for its annual operations, is that correct?


Michael Starr: I see no mention in clause 11- does the hon. member refer to $150,000?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Peter Francis Martin: It was mentioned at the time by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George James McIlraith: The question can be rephrased so it will be more clearly understood by the minister. In setting up this council the government, according to the answers by the minister, must have assumed that there would be no funds coming to the council under clause 11?


Michael Starr: If that is what the hon. member assumes the government assumes, then he is entitled to do so.


George James McIlraith: We are entitled to have full information as to what the government has done in this connection. It is proper to ask the minister that question. I could make a great many assumptions about this government, but I am not going to take the time of the committee to do that now. I am asking the minister a proper question and I should like a proper answer from him.


Michael Starr: The hon. member is entitled to ask any questions he feels like.


George James McIlraith: And he is entitled to answers from a ministry which is competent. If it is incompetent to answer, then the committee has its remedies.

Productivity Council


Michael Starr: Of course the hon. member asks many questions that have no relevancy and which are not based on facts. He wants the government to project its mind into the future and predict what might happen. In other words, he asks us whether any company in this country is prepared to give so much money, and certainly we do not know that. This bill is put forward and money is being provided by the government to get a start. I am sure that industry generally will cooperate because it will be for their benefit and for the benefit of their employees in the field of productivity and trade.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is one question that I wish to ask. This clause provides for the establishment of regional offices. Can the minister inform the committee whether there has been any consideration as to the area of regions or populations covered. Would it cover those included under the unemployment insurance commission and so on?


Michael Starr: This is an area in which the council itself will decide as to the scope of its activity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It might include several regions within a province.


Michael Starr: It might include several regions.


Leon David Crestohl: Can the minister or the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue give the committee one example of what this word "otherwise" might cover? We do not know.
(Translation):
Mr. Dorion Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. colleague has often had occasion to see this word in various statutes, where it is obviously used to remove any possibility of impediments to the acquisition of needed property. It should be noted here that clause 11 deals with the objects and powers of the council. Indeed, it reads as follows:
In addition to the general powers conferred upon or vested in the council by this act the council may,
b) acquire by purchase, lease, gift, donation, bequest or otherwise-
There might be other methods of acquiring, which are unprovided for here and which might perhaps be an obstacle to the acquiring or renting; that accounts for the use here of this word which, by the way, occurs in many statutes of similar nature. I cannot see how the word might constitute an obstacle or an objection, particularly in the light of paragraph (c), which reads as follows:
-expend any moneys appropriated by parliament for the work of the council or received by the council through the conduct of its operations or by gift, donation, bequest or otherwise.

Of course, parliament retains a very large measure of control over the operations of the council, or rather the department will be kept informed of the council's activity, and I fail to see how the word "otherwise" could be a serious objection to this clause.
Of course, if I strained my imagination a little, I might find an example that would give full satisfaction to my hon. colleague. None occurs to me at the moment, but I am sure that with a bit of thought one could find a case where the word would apply; in fact, if the word were left out of the bill, the omission might, at a given time, hinder the proper operation of the council.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-Not agent of Her Majesty.
George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the minister the significance of the reference in clause 14 where it is stated that the members and staff of the council are not part of the public service. I ask that question with particular reference to an earlier section which provided that the executive director is paid a sum of money fixed by the governor in council out of the funds of the productivity council. Will the minister elaborate a bit on clause 14?


Michael Starr: The members of the council will not be under the Civil Service Act, although the executive director and his staff and the staff of the council shall be deemed to be employed in the public service for purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act. I think that distinction is made between the actual council members themselves and the executive director and his staff.


George James McIlraith: I was concerned with perhaps a narrower point than that. As clause 14 now reads, I take it that the executive director himself will not be a public servant except to the extent that he has the protection of the superannuation legislation?


Michael Starr: That is right.


George James McIlraith: I would take it-although I may be assuming something here-that certain work may be done in the council by employees transferring from the civil service on temporary terms. Has the minister considered the effect of clause 14 on such employees and its possible effect in removing the protection which they have as civil servants.


Michael Starr: We expect that they will hire their own staff without having to go into civil service.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
On clause 16-Appropriation equal to donations.
George James McIlraith: I think perhaps I had my remarks too closely associated with some other remarks and that I did not succeed in making them clear to the minister. The government is going to match grants made to this council where the council does not pay any consideration or in other words where free grants are made to the council. That seems to be the intention of clause 16 as I read it. What I want to point out to the minister is this. Grants may be made to the council under clause 11, for which the council has made no contribution whatever, under that word "otherwise". Under clause 16, as it now stands, such grants would not be matched by an equal contribution by the government. I am wondering whether that was the intention of the minister. I refer to the limitation after the word "acquires" in the second line of clause 16. The wording is "acquires by gift, donation or bequest". Property acquired by other means will not be matched by equal grants from the government, even though that property may have been acquired without any cost to the productivity council.


Michael Starr: It is intended that the government will match a direct gift with no strings attached to it; or in other words as to a gift that is given directly with no strings attached to the council the government is prepared to match that type of gift. However, we will not endeavour to match say a lease of property or if the council buys property, we will not match that. However, we will match any gift from anybody to the council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Money gifts.


George James McIlraith: I think the intention of the government here is clearer now. However, there is a class of property that can come to the council without cost to the council under that word "otherwise" in subparagraph (c) of clause 11. In that case the federal government would not be obligated to match it. For instance, an example would be a statutory grant by a provincial government or a local grant by a municipal government. Other examples could be given. I rather suspect that it was the government's intention that the federal government should match all property that came to the council without cost to the council-


Michael Starr: That is right.
Productivity Council


George James McIlraith: -or without any consideration. If I am right in that assumption, I would ask the minister to take a look at the limitation of the word "acquires" by these three words used here namely "by gift, donation or bequest". I will content myself with that statement.


Michael Starr: I am told that it is covered. For instance, if the council were made a gift of real estate property, the government would match in value the value of that property.


George James McIlraith: No. It would not be covered if the payment was by a vote of the provincial legislature. It is quite clear that it is not covered here. Perhaps I should ask specifically if it is the intention of the federal government to match such grants.


Michael Starr: I am told that the provincial governments and municipal governments are not excluded from participating.


George James McIlraith: They are not excluded from giving money to this body, but the federal government is not obligated to give the council a grant in such cases, because it is not done by way of gift, donation or bequest. That is the point.


Michael Starr: If it is acquired in the three ways set out here we would naturally regard it as being qualified.


George James McIlraith: It is clear that under clause 16 the federal government is not obliged to match any grants to this council from provincial governments. That being so, is it the intention of the federal government to match such grants?


Michael Starr: I see, now, what the hon. member means. Yes, the words "other than Her Majesty" naturally exclude any gift from a province. That is, the onus is not placed on the federal government to match such grants.


Leon David Crestohl: Perhaps it is clearer now why we were examining the word "otherwise". It is anticipated that the council will receive funds in various ways as outlined in clause 11, for example. It is also contemplated that the council may receive money in another way, for which reason the clause says "otherwise". The council may receive substantial moneys in some mysterious manner covered by the word "otherwise", as has been pointed out. If the council does acquire money from sources covered by this particular word-and I have asked for some clarification as to what those sources might be- why should the government not match such sums, at the same time, under the provisions of clause 16? Supposing, for example, that council received $100,000 in this way. Why should the government not match that

Productivity Council
amount? Inequity has been introduced into clauses 11 and 16 through the use of this word "otherwise".
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I feel it would be dangerous to insert the word "otherwise" here. Certain donations are gratuitous while others entail obligations; in my opinion, if the method of acquiring those donations, which is described in this clause, was further extended, a certain danger could result when a donation is not gratuitous and involves obligations. The word "otherwise" could cover a great many things, and that, in itself, might be dangerous.
We are now on the item "financial provisions", while a moment ago, with regard to clause 11, we were considering the objects and powers of the council. I said earlier to the hon. member that if I tried I might find an example if we did not have the word "otherwise"; we could have lend-lease. Another example suggested to me by the hon. member is that of hire-loans.
I feel, therefore, that with regard to clause 16, this could be a danger; it may now seem only an imaginary danger, but the fact remains that in the case of non-gratuitous donations, of donations which might involve certain obligations, the word "otherwise" might prove dangerous, that is, it would be dangerous to insert it in clause 16.
(Text):


George James McIlraith: I regret very much that I have not sufficient ability in the other language to address the committee in French. I regret that very much. I wish to make it clear, that I never for a moment suggested that the words "or otherwise" be inserted in clause 16. That would be too wide a phrase.


Noël Dorion: I understood that much from the hon. member for Cartier.


George James McIlraith: My remarks were addressed only to some words which would include those free acquisitions which came under the term "or otherwise" as used in clause 11. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me that the reference to Her Majesty refers to Her Majesty in the right of the dominion. There are cases where property could be acquired under clause 11 and where no matching grants are required.


William Arnold Peters: Before this clause carries, I should like to hear the minister explain the reason behind this method of adding money to the fund the council will have. From the statement made the other night by the Prime

Minister the indication is that if companies or individuals wish to give money to this council their gifts will be free of income tax. This means, in effect, that whatever money is collected by the council in this way will be matched by the government from general tax resources, although a part of the money contributed will already have been lost to the treasury in that no tax will have been paid. It seems to me that business, or industry, or those individuals who are wealthy enough to help a foundation of this type, are going to find an extra sum of money given by the taxpayers who, it would appear, are not in a position in the first place to establish a fund large enough for the purpose which the government has in mind. I should like to know if this method of financing through income tax evasion is a new way of operating, or what the thinking behind it is.


Michael Starr: The council will be a body within which representatives of industry, labour, government and the general public will be working together for the benefit of all. It is hoped that under this program of mutual assistance the various groups, realizing the importance of the council's work, will support it financially, being aware that it is in their own interests to do so. The government feels that such an attitude should be encouraged and recognized on its past. Since the council will be working for the benefit of all Canadians and not just for one sector or group, the provisions of the Income Tax Act will apply. This is nothing new. The same practice has been followed before in situations such as this.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one question I should like to ask the minister. I see here a reference to the coming into force of the act. What lapse of time might we reasonably anticipate before the council is appointed or functioning?


Michael Starr: This measure will come into effect on royal assent. We do not intend to lose any time in appointing the council after that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question just for the sake of clarifying my own mind. I want to be clear as to what will be the income of the council. My understanding is that it will receive $150,000, the capital of anything they receive by way of gifts, donations or bequests and I also understand that the Minister of Finance will match these amounts, so that during the first three years the income of the council will be $150,000 plus gifts and donations plus matching grants from the Minister of Finance.
Might you not have a situation where by reason of taxation considerations or otherwise

the council might receive large gifts which would bring about a condition where the council might have a large income which the government might be expected to match later on when the three years are past? I am not sure whether I am interpreting this correctly, but I want to be clear.


Michael Starr: The government matches for only three years the donations and gifts that may be given to the council. That is for the three years only. The $150,000 is for each year. I do not know if the council will receive a great many donations or gifts but I hope they will receive enough to be able to carry on their work.


William Arnold Peters: We want to be clear about this principle which the minister assured us was not new. Let me take a simple example. A company may contribute $10 which is deducted from income tax. Because of the matching payment arrangement the government must pay $10 so the Canadian people have lost $20. That is a surprising way to finance the council. We should collect the taxes and be responsible. It may be more vicious than that. The price of a product might go up and no one would have any money to pay in so the taxpayer would lose even more. What other legislation exists under which a similar financing arrangement operates?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will be just as entitled as anyone else to make a donation to this council and that donation will not be subject to income tax.


William Arnold Peters: The Canadian people will lose twice the amount donated.


Michael Starr: If the council works out properly it will do the Canadian people a lot of good.


Murdo William Martin: The minister said this is not a new principle. Can he tell us under what legislation a similar principle operates?


Michael Starr: When I said that, Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the fact that donations are subject to deduction from income as are donations to any other charitable donations.


Murdo William Martin: The general taxpayer will be burdened because of the principle of matching payment.


Michael Starr: Is the hon. member against donations to the Red Cross where the same thing applies or to any other charitable organization such as the church?


Murdo William Martin: As the hon. member for Skeena pointed out this afternoon, the minister is becoming very proficient as a politician and he makes statements instead 90205-6-54J
Productivity Council
of answering questions. Whether or not I am for or against these things does not enter the picture. I asked a question of the minister. Has this principle been put into practice before?


Michael Starr: I was talking about the fact that the exemption from income tax for deductions applies in many instances. This is not the first piece of legislation under which it applies. It applies in relation to charitable organizations and others.


Murdo William Martin: There is no question about that. But has the principle of matching payments been applied before?


Michael Starr: I am told that the United Kingdom council operates on the same basis, very successfully.


Murdo William Martin: Is this the first time it has operated in this country?


Michael Starr: Does the hon. member mean with respect to donations to the council and the matching payments of the government?


Murdo William Martin: I am speaking of the Minister of Finance matching out of the consolidated revenue fund gifts and donations to the council. Is this a new principle?


Michael Starr: I am not aware of any legislation similar to this where that is being done.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, on division.
Michael Starr: the third reading of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Timmins.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in substitution for the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who is not here. I think it has always been the custom of the Chair on third reading of a bill or on any other motion that a minister makes to grant to the official opposition the courtesy of recognition immediately after the minister has spoken.


William Arnold Peters: That is what he did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.
The Chair did not see the hon. member for Essex East rising but as that has been the

Productivity Council
custom I am sure the hon. member for Timmins will allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Essex East.


Murdo William Martin: On the point of order, I am sure it is beyond the scope of Your Honour to anticipate. I have no objection to yielding the floor to the hon. gentleman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I acknowledge your appreciation of the traditions of the house and the ready recognition of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) of the force of those traditions.
We are now about to deal with the final procedural arrangements in connection with the government's policy to seek to resolve unemployment in Canada. I am sure that on third reading we would not want to be denied the opportunity of expressing our deep regret at what the government has brought forward in this attempt to provide some solution for what unfortunately continues to be the foremost domestic problem in our country. That was highlighted yesterday by the latest release of figures on unemployment which indicates an increasingly serious situation in that regard, more serious than in the comparable period in the previous year. I can only say that the parade of the government's program in this session is not one that gives anyone any justification for believing that the government finally, after three years of prodding, has embarked on a program capable of meeting the situation.
It is true that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said before we were called together, that this session was not to be regarded as meeting in an emergency; that it was not to be regarded as being anything other than an attempt to provide for hon. members an opportunity to be free of responsibility in this chamber during the summer months. But undoubtedly, the impression was created by the Prime Minister in his speech last night and in the speech he made to the people of Canada on September 21 that the government did regard unemployment as a serious problem and that it had a program designed to meet that problem. Undoubtedly, in regard to the four pieces of legislation, of which this is the last one, namely that dealing with small loans, vocational training and technical assistance, the housing legislation and the legislation setting up the productivity council, an endeavour will be made to create the impression by the administration and by its spokesmen that in these four measures the government has brought forward a vigorous, comprehensive program to attack unemployment.
Let there be no doubt about this. Legislation that the government has brought forward, with the exception of that brought
[The Acting Speaker.]
forward by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), does not in any serious way provide any solution at the present time for what is a serious problem in our country, more serious than in any other country in the western world, notwithstanding the statement of the Prime Minister two nights ago that this problem was parallelled by the situation in the United States. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding these statements, when this measure is passed the government, through its propaganda agencies, through its spokesmen over the television, on the radio and in the favoured press, will seek to convey to the Canadian people, and particularly to the unemployed of this country, that it has brought forward legislation designed to deal with this current situation of unemployment.
Today we were told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) that this measure to set up a productivity council was not intended as a solution to unemployment, notwithstanding his statement of the other day. Likewise we have the statement of the Prime Minister, who dodged the question of unemployment completely in his peregrination two days ago. I have no doubt that once this bill becomes law the Prime Minister and his colleagues will go from one end of this country to the other trying to establish in the public mind that they have dealt with unemployment by these four legislative acts.
I am sure the Prime Minister, when he talks about the productivity council, will not make to the Canadian people the kind of speech he made last night, or the speech he made the day before; he will talk about the productivity council as one of the effective instruments designed by this government, following a consultation with labour, management and agriculture, to try to provide a solution to the problem of unemployment. He will do the same with regard to the small loans legislation and the vocational training legislation. But let this be clear. Notwithstanding what will be said about this measure by the government supporters, this particular bill-and it is true of its companion bills on small loans, vocational training and technical assistance-does not in any substantial or serious way provide any solution to the problem of unemployment which stares this government in the face and confronts the people of Canada at this time.
But that is not the impression the Prime Minister created before we came here, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) pointed out so effectively this afternoon. When the Prime Minister spoke to the people of Canada on the "Nation's Business" on September 21 he did not hesitate to acknowledge that at long

last that there was a serious problem of unemployment. He could not help but face the situation because of the unprecedented character of unemployment in the month of September last in comparison with the same month in other years. It is understandable why, in the closing remarks of that speech, when speaking on unemployment, as he did all the way through, he should have concluded, in part, with these words, which are found on page 8 of the release given out by the Prime Minister's office:
More must and will be done. Our plans are already made and will be presented in detail to the next session of parliament. Naturally I cannot say what these plans are in those matters which require the approval of parliament,-
But we now have those plans; we now know what they are. I ask the Prime Minister, does he really believe, now that the plans have been substantially exposed and presented in detail at this session of parliament, that we have been presented with the kind of solution which is designed to provide and capable of providing, not a year from now, not 10 years from now, but now, some mitigation of this problem of unemployment?
The Prime Minister created the impression that there can be no doubt that the government had plans. Not only did the government have plans but it was prepared to sit down and listen to the representatives of labour, management, agriculture and the universities, and then to get their-


Edwin William Brunsden: Didn't he?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, he did, for one day. I am going to deal with that in a minute. Yes, he did, and it was at the end of that conference, a conference, mind you, that lasted one day-as though there could be a satisfactory discussion between the various partners of industry, between the various segments of the Canadian economy in regard to unemployment in one day; I do not know how many organizations there were but I believe there were at least 25 which made representations of one sort or another-all of this took place in one day, and at the end of that day the Prime Minister announced the government's decision to bring in the productivity council, which is the soul and the substance of this particular bill.
Obviously, this was not the result of the suggestions by the parties to the conference. This had already been in the minds of the government; undoubtedly, this was already part of the plans which the Prime Minister referred to when he spoke to the Canadian people on September 21 last. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) said, "Did he not have a conference"? My answer is of course he had a conference.
Productivity Council
But there are two points to make in connection with that intervention. We have urged the government for three years to call a conference of representatives of labour, management, agriculture, universities and other interested parties in this country. We have been asking the government to do that very thing. We were told session after session by the Minister of Labour and perhaps by the Prime Minister, although I do not remember, that this government was elected to do a job and that they did not propose to dodge that responsibility. That was the answer given to me and to other hon. gentlemen in this party when we proposed that a conference should be called to discuss ways and means of arriving at a co-operative method for resolving or mitigating the problem of unemployment.
Only last April the Minister of Labour made a speech in Gananoque in which finally he seemed to acknowledge the desirability of such a conference. I put a question to the Minister of Labour in which I asked: "Are we to take this speech in Gananoque as meaning that the government has accepted our suggestion that there should be a conference?" The Minister of Labour dodged the question. He refused to indicate whether or not the government intended to call such a conference.
But the record is clear. Right from the very first session of the present parliament this government was urged to call such a conference and it did so only this fall after a continuous repetition of statistics indicating how serious the problem of unemployment in Canada is. So what the government was doing in that conference, which lasted only a day and should have taken many days of serious discussion, back and forth, to ascertain what the views of the parties concerned really were, was to accept belatedly a proposal that had been put forward by the Liberal opposition on no less than five different occasions during the course of the present parliament.
We have at long last in the statement of the Prime Minister on September 21, a recognition that this problem is a serious one, but in recognizing that it is serious the Prime Minister disclaims that this is a responsibility of the federal government. This, he says, and I think rightly, is a responsibility that must be shared by all levels of government. But that is not what the right hon. gentleman said when he confronted the Canadian people in the elections of 1957 and 1958. He said, "We will resolve this problem; this is a federal responsibility". He did not then talk about the responsibility as one that should be shared by the provinces, nor did the Minister of Labour as a private member of the house when, sitting in the opposition, who*

Productivity Council
said that this was a responsibility of the federal government. He criticized the former administration for seeking to place the responsibility on the provinces as well.
What does the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), that gentleman who has been transferred from one department to another and who is absent from the house on business outside the country, now say about the responsibility of the federal government with regard to unemployment? We will not forget the speeches he made when he was in the opposition. He says now that this is not a responsibility of the federal government but rather a responsibility of the Canadian people. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in the month of September when he too was confronted with the official statistics of rising unemployment in Canada. That is not the position that hon. gentlemen opposite took when in 1957, they went before the Canadian people and complained about government inaction in the field of social and economic welfare. That is not the position that the government took at the beginning of the present parliament.
But now what do we have presented to us? In the third year of this parliament, when unemployment continues to be so serious as to cause the greatest concern, what do we have from a government that was going to resolve this problem as it had never been resolved before? Four measures that are nothing more than facades, pretentions at achievement, nothing more.


An hon. Member:: How did you vote?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The small loans legislation does not add one bit to the solution or alleviation of unemployment. The housing legislation is the only measure which we hope and recognize is designed to bring some relief in that regard. Certainly the vocational training program is good in principle but long term in effect and it is not going to put one person to work immediately. It is not designed even to provide ad hoc training for men and women who can take advantage of such instruction and thereby receive employment now, not six months, not a year, not two years from now.
Then we have the productivity council bill. These three pieces of legislation, excluding the housing act amendments, represent thus far the government's so called vigorous approach to solving the problem of unemployment. One can only say that the result is disappointing. The result does not represent a vigorous, dynamic approach on the part of the administration to the solution of this problem and the reason for that is that

the government has waited too late. The government has come forward too late. If it had listened to the Liberal opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, to the Liberal opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: You would have done nothing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say now that if the Prime Minister had listened to what we said in the fall of 1958, if he had established an advisory council, if he had enlisted the assistance of those who by training could advise the government, not determine their policy but advise the government, the government would not now be portrayed, as it is from one end of Canada to the other, as a do-nothing government in the matter of unemployment. That is the fact. The government hoped by taking a relaxed course, by letting this problem run its course, that time would take care of the problem but time has caught up with the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. Time is not taking care of the problem. The problem is growing more and more serious.
When we think that the Minister of Labour, speaking for the government, refused this house the right to a parliamentary committee two years ago to examine the problem of unemployment, so that we could have experts come before such a committee to assess the nature of the problem and to provide solutions, when we think that the elected representatives of the people in this house are denied a privilege accorded to members in another chamber, the recollection of this situation only points up the bankruptcy of ideas on the part of the government with respect to this matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Where do you stand on third reading of the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the hon. member will join us in our representations. This is perhaps the only opportunity that we will have for a long time to deal with the problem of unemployment and that is why we should take advantage of this opportunity.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not ask that. I said, where do you stand on third reading of this bill?


John William Kucherepa: Don't embarrass him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The only people in this house who are embarrassed are those who sit behind the government and who recognize how the people of Canada feel toward this administration because of its lack of policies.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Come out with a definite stand. Talk is cheap.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Demand an election.


Peter Francis Martin: I would think that would be a very successful way of determining what the people of Canada think about this government.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you said in January, 1958, too.


Peter Francis Martin: My friend the Prime Minister always resorts to precedent. What the Prime Minister forgets is this: Whatever may have been the situation in the past we are now confronted in this country with a very serious problem and the government should address itself to that problem. They should not seek refuge in mistakes or in history. They should seek refuge in courageous attempts to deal with the problem and not to dodge it as the present government seeks to dodge most questions.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Where do you stand on third reading?


Peter Francis Martin: The Prime Minister says, what do we do? We criticize the bill and then vote for it. So far as I am concerned, I shall vote for this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Then do not waste so much time talking against it.


Peter Francis Martin: I do so because I want to bring home to the government that they have no unemployment policy. I should have thought a C.C.F. member would be the first to support what I am seeking to do at this moment. Why should the Liberal party have imposed on it the responsibility, the sole responsibility, of exposing the weaknesses of the government unemployment policy? We shall vote for this bill not because we regard this as a solution to the problem of unemployment but because this bill may contain, in the long term, some benefit for the people of Canada. Having said that, I do not want the government to be under any misapprehension as to what we think of the shortcomings of this bill.
The Prime Minister, who is now making notes, can get up afterwards and talk all he wants; he can use these indirections, these diversions instead of addressing himself to the problem of unemployment. I know that he will say the hon. member for Essex East, having so seriously criticized us, nevertheless made a big mistake when he announced he was going to vote for the bill. That is the kind of argument which the Prime Minister makes at all times. I am saying to the Prime Minister, you were elected to do a job; you promised to do something about unemployment. I am saying here, as the representative
Productivity Council
of thousands and thousands of men out of work in my constituency, this government has dodged its responsibility and is doing that now in the matter of unemployment.
Is there any doubt, Mr. Speaker, that what I am saying is the case? The Prime Minister spoke on this bill. He was concerned with the relationship of the council to unemployment but he spoke about everything else but unemployment. I have examined the speech the Prime Minister made the other night, and there was no reference whatever to the problem of unemployment. Is this bill designed to assist the unemployed or is it not? I want to examine this aspect of the problem. We have had two interesting statements by the Minister of Labour, one this afternoon and the other when he spoke on this bill two days ago. The Minister of of Labour said, as recorded at page 781 of Hansard for this session:
The ultimate and most important job of the productivity council will be, if automation is resorted to in an industry in order to accelerate productivity, to recommend the retraining of the people who are displaced so that they may be best fitted into some other useful employment in our labour force.
In that statement, at any rate, the Minister of Labour recognized the problem of unemployment. He did recognize that, and in his judgment this particular bill could presumably bring about some mitigation of the current problem. But that is not what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said nothing whatever about this bill in terms of providing a remedy for unemployment. The reason I mention what the Prime Minister said was so that we will have on the record this statement, which I believe to be valid, because I have no doubt that in the months to come the Prime Minister will hold this bill up as one of the instruments by which the government dealt with the problem of unemployment, not only in the long term but in the short term. The Prime Minister is a master at this kind of innocent deception, a kind of innocent deception that in the past has had its influence and has made its impression on the electorate. We shall see whether that success of the Prime Minister shall continue in the light of this dismal record of failure on the part of the government to act.
Today the Minister of Labour made another statement. I took down his words as he replied to a question put by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The Minister of Labour said that the effect of this amendment-that is the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate- would be that the council would be dealing

Productivity Council
directly with the employment or unemployment factor and that is not to be the case. There we have an admission from the Minister of Labour that is consistent with the declaration of the Prime Minister that this particular bill is not to be regarded as dealing directly with the problem of unemployment. The Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister are in agreement on this, and we have-


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of personal privilege, if I may. The hon. member for Essex East, of course, is the sort of person who takes words out of context. If he would go on and state what followed after that he would find, as nearly as I can recall from memory, that I said this council will bring about efficiency and productivity of industry and, consequently, employment will flow from that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Whatever the Minister of Labour says, I accept. I am simply pointing out what he did say, and I took his words down directly. I ask hon. members to compare those words with what the Prime Minister said, and to compare them particularly with the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who introduced this measure several days ago. So far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce was concerned this bill was not designed in any way to do other than what was done under a similar measure in the United Kingdom. It was part of his great campaign to increase production, as though merely increasing production was the corollary of increasing employment. The hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) said that by merely providing for increased productivity you were providing at the same time for increased employment. He forgets that is not true. He forgets that the effects of automation in industry have been otherwise. He fails to point out that in agriculture over the last 10 years production has almost doubled but the reduction in employment in the agricultural industry has been about 25 per cent. There are about 25 per cent less people now working in agriculture, in spite of the great increase in production.
It is clear, whatever may be said by hon. members hereafter, there is agreement between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this measure is not designed to provide a cure for unemployment. That is not what the Prime Minister said on September 21; that is not the statement the Prime Minister gave when he conferred with representatives of labour and other segments of the population in this city a few weeks ago.

I am sure, knowing the hon. gentleman as I do, that will not be the kind of statement he will give to the Canadian people when he seeks to impress on the people what his government has sought to do to live up to the assurances that he gave to the Canadian people during the course of the last federal election campaign.
Here is an interesting statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which is to be found at page 566 of Hansard for this session:
The national council should act as a policy making body and should assist in the establishment of regional and industry productivity committees. Its chief objective should be to develop and maintain in the various and changing circumstances of industrial life a positive attitude of mind in industry, among both management and labour, respecting industrial efficiency.
It is to be a policy making body. It is not to be merely one to make recommendations. Yet in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Labour refused to accept an amendment that would give the council the authority and the power to make recommendations to the executive. The amendment introduced by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) called for the council to be given explicit power to make recommendations to the executive-not to formulate policy but merely to make recommendations-and this power was denied, although the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the council should act as a policy making body.
What was the reply of the Minister of Labour year after year, session after session, when we urged upon the government the setting up of a national advisory council? The Minister of Labour said that the formulation of policy must be left to the administration and must not be left to any outside or subsidiary body. He said that was why they could not accept the Liberal proposal for a national advisory council on unemployment and automation. That is what the Minister of Labour said during the course of previous sesions of parliament. Yet his colleague in introducing this measure took the very opposite position and said that this was to be a bill providing for a council that would have the power of formulating policy in the matters that parliament would allocate to it.
This matter is one which we feel must be thoroughly discussed and thoroughly understood in its proper context so that there will be no misunderstanding in the future as to what the government's intentions are and so that there will be no misunderstanding about this measure not really being part of a vigorous program designed to solve the problem of unemployment.

This measure, like its companion measure, is designed to deal with this situation indirectly and in the long term. No effort is made in any of the measures proposed by the government to assess the problem immediately, or to examine the nature of the problem in distressed areas. There is no sense of urgency such as that which we find in the other place in the studies that are being made there. We had here yesterday a delegation of unemployed from Windsor. I listened to the government reply or response to the representations that were made. I am sure I do not take unfair advantage, in saying that the government did not reflect a determination or a capacity to act, or did not indicate that it had a program designed to meet the particular situation, let alone the national picture. This government has yet to bring to this house any report that will tell us what is the nature of unemployment in the particular areas that are especially depressed. I am thinking of areas like my own, the maritime provinces, the city of Levis and so on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: And Port Arthur.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, and Port Arthur and other cities. This government should certainly have approached this problem in the way in which we urged it to approach it and in the way in which the other place is gradually developing an approach to the solution of this problem. This government has won and deserved the indictment of the Canadian people and of this house for its failure adequately to confront this problem. Of that fact there can be no doubt. When one examines what is being attempted by the new president of the United States, by the legislative program that is now being forecast, one finds that an attempt will be made in that country to deal with the situations as they exist in particular communities. That is what is being done by an administration that has not yet taken office as compared with the results of this administration which has been in office since March, 1958 and particularly by a government that gave such great assurances to the Canadian people.
There can be no doubt that this problem is one that cries for the kind of solution that we can give. It is a problem that touches the very soul of our society. Unless it is met forthrightly and courageously by the government, regardless of whether or not it runs across the traditional concepts of our society, it will do more harm to our free society than will anything else. I call on this government in these late hours to recognize that it has a responsibility which it is not discharging. In order to bring this matter more forcefully to the attention of the government and
Productivity Council
that of the Canadian people I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith):
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-52 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending clause 10 to include the promotion of employment as one of the specific objects of the council."
It is not too late for this government to take action that will be effective.


Mr. Speaker:: With the leave of the house I think I must call it six o'clock. It will give hon. members an opportunity to consider the amendment that is before the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Just before six o'clock the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) presented an amendment which I now propose to put before the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourned at six o'clock I listened with interest to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who went through his normal ranting and raving as he usually does-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister intending to raise a point of order with respect to the amendment?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I will place the amendment before the house. Mr. Martin (Essex East) seconded by Mr. Mcllraith moved:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill No. C-52 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending clause 10 to include the promotion of employment as one of the specific objects of the council."


Michael Starr: As I began to say, before the house rose at six o'clock I listened with a great deal of interest to what is becoming known as the usual ranting and raving of the hon. member for Essex East on his favourite subject, using the same speech as he so often uses, with its tossed salad type of verbiage. The hon. member said that this government took three years before it brought about any conference on unemployment in this country. His memory is short. If he thinks

Productivity Council
back to July, 1958 he will recall that I called a conference here in Ottawa. Representatives of labour, agriculture, industry and other important segments of our economy gathered here to discuss the problem of unemployment at that time. As a result of that conference the municipal winter works program was inaugurated that fall, and the success of that program has continued ever since that time.
The hon. member talked about the unemployment situation in Canada and said it is not right to compare it with the situation in any other country on the North American continent. Let me inform him that in the United States at this moment there is something like 6.4 per cent of the labour force unemployed-well over four million people-[DOT] and most certainly we have a relationship with that country across the border, and whatever happens in the United States is bound to affect our economy.
1 would point out also that there are always two sides to the picture and we must not forget this positive aspect of our economy, namely that there are more people employed now than ever before in the history of this country on a month to month basis. As to a comparison between November of 1960 and November of 1959, I may say there are some
99,000	more people employed in this country this year than there were last year.
It depends on the viewpoint one takes. There is always a positive and a negative side to a question. We have not said we do not recognize the serious situation presented by unemployment, and this is borne out by the measures which this government has taken since we came to office in 1957 and 1958. This session certainly shows that this government is well aware of the current situation, because each and every measure which has been brought before the house has been designed for the sole purpose of providing employment and bolstering the economy of this country.
The hon. member for Essex East in presenting his amendment finds himself in his usual position of watching the parade go by and then having to run to catch up with it. I remember reading a report of a debate in the thirties when the hon. member was on the government side of the house. It was a debate on unemployment in this chamber and when one of the members from Toronto, Mr. Massey, was speaking, the hon. member for Essex East said: Let us get this over; I have a train to catch. The hon. member has been catching trains ever since; he has been in a hurry ever since.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always got there.


Michael Starr: You left the unemployment debate to catch that train, too.
The hon. gentleman talks about unemployment in Windsor. Let me say that the figures show that ever since he was elected to be a member of parliament for Windsor, that is when unemployment started in that city. What did the hon. gentleman say in 1954 when Ford was moving to Oakville? Did he raise his voice and say they should not undermine the industrial position of that city?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has asked me a question. He asked me what I did.


Michael Starr: I can answer the question because I know the facts. Anyway the hon. member for Essex East is not happy about the present bill. He is not happy about the other bills that have been brought before the house, either. He is not happy with any of the measures which the government has evolved in order to maintain a stable economy and provide employment. Let me say this: I have a strong suspicion that there will be no satisfying the hon. member for Essex East, no matter what this government does. I think he is resolved at all costs to maintain his position of not being satisfied with anything. I think the hon. member has in his make-up a sort of gloating, gleeful personality which seems to gloat at any undermining of our economy because, as has been said by one of the hon. member's friends who is preparing to be a candidate for the Liberal party, the only way the Liberal party can assume power again is through a depression in this country.
In any event, the attitude of the hon. member for Essex East is completely negative, destructive and obstructionist. Let me advise him that he would go a lot further in carrying out the role of a reasonable and constructive member of the opposition if, from time to time at least, he could bring himself to admit that some of the things the government is doing have some prospect of being useful and successful. I honestly believe that in his heart the hon. member realizes that this government has been endeavouring to do everything in its power to help the economic situation. If not, why does the hon. member vote for these measures? Why does he place on them his stamp of approval by voting for them after spending so much time rehashing the same old speech he gives in this house from time to time?


William Moore Benidickson: It is puny, but one more step; and late, too.


Michael Starr: One of the measures recently approved by this house was the housing measure. The hon. member for Essex East

said it was a good measure but that he had some grave doubts about its effectiveness. Let me assure the hon. gentleman that he should' not have had any doubts about it because action in this field is already taking place. Let me refer to the following article in this evening's issue of the Ottawa Citizen:
Ottawa Seeks Sewage Loan-$10 Million.
Ottawa will seek a loan of $10 million from the federal government to expedite completion of a $20 million sewage disposal project.
Mayor Nelms said the move is to take advantage of new federal legislation under which loans amounting to two-thirds of the total cost for sewage disposal projects can be secured, and under which 25 per cent of the total cost of works finished by March, 1963, will be rebated.
"This will save Ottawa approximately $2,500,000," the mayor emphasized.
Here is an example of direct action that has been taken as a result of the direct and immediate action taken by this government. A recent issue of the Ottawa Citizen carried an article under the headline "Plan 350 Homes for Low Incomes" which reads in part as follows:
A plan to provide low cost housing for people in the low income brackets was submitted to board of control by Robert Campeau, president of Campeau Construction Company Limited.
Mr. Campeau told the board he planned the construction of 350 housing units on the old Arkell farm lying between Pinecrest and the Walkley roads south of the Queensway.
Mr. Campeau is reported as having said:
"It has been said private enterprises would not provide low cost housing for people in the low income brackets," Mr. Campeau said. "Now because of the favourable financing provided by the federal government, through C.M.H.C., we are able to do, on terms comparable with city schemes for low rental, full recovery projects."
He said he already had 200 applications for the low cost housing. The salary range for people applying is from $3,800 to $4,500, he advised the board.
He added that the provision of services would be carried by the subdivider in relation to all facilities save a trunk sewer.
There is another indication of what is happening as a result of the legislation this government introduced.
Let us take a look at what is being done in the field of vocational and technical schools. As soon as third reading was given to the bill in this house the government of Ontario announced a $8 million program to be started immediately under this plan.


William Moore Benidickson: They had that in mind before, and the minister knows it. It was in the speech from the throne.


Michael Starr: That, Mr. Speaker, is an answer to the hon. member for Essex East who said that the legislation concerning vocational training and technical schools would not bring immediate results in the form of jobs.
Productivity Council


Murdo William Martin: May I direct a question to the minister? Is it not a fact that the $8 million referred to is half the quota until March 31, 1967 according to the minister's own words the other day?


An hon. Member:: Is the hon. gentleman looking for another headline?


Michael Starr: It amounts to a great deal more than $8 million. It is going to be a very large program undertaken by all the provinces across this country amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of this legislation. That is only a start. I say that all the measures we have been bringing forward are already having their effects. The hon. member for Essex East has singled out only four measures. He did not even have the patience to wait to see the whole program before condemning it. As a matter of fact he is condemning the program in advance.
In his attitude the hon. member for Essex East reminds me somewhat of a small boy at Christmas time who rushes in, tears all the wrapping off the presents and then sets up a howl that what was in the boxes was not what he wanted. I submit the simple truth is that the hon. member did not get his little red wagon, Mr. Speaker. In the case of the hon. gentleman he cannot even wait until Christmas but has to start howling even before the packages are unwrapped. I say that is not a responsible attitude.
Let us now look at the hon. member's amendment. I submit this is not a serious amendment. In the first place the inclusion of the phrase which the hon. member so strenuously urges is unnecessary as I pointed out at the committee stage. I attempted to make it clear that the purpose of this bill is set out in the preamble. When you have a whole series of bills one of whose main objects is the promotion of employment you surely do not have to spell out that phrase in every bill. That is what the measures are all about. They are designed to bolster our economy. That is what they are intended to do. They are intended to promote employment, all of them. To stick that phrase into every bill like a raisin in a fruit cake will not in any way alter or improve the effectiveness of these measures.
We submit that these measures will be effective and that in the main they will have an immediate effect. Certainly they will have a continuity of effectiveness in the years to come. These are co-ordinating measures. They are partnership measures with the provinces, the municipalities and other interested bodies in this country.
All of these measures are a part of the program and each one, I submit, is designed to deal with a specific problem in our

Productivity Council
economy. Unemployment is an economic problem, there is no question about it. It must be cured by economic measures. That is the only way it will be cured. I submit it is not a problem which can be cured by the insertion of pious phrases in our bills. We have tried to avoid pious phrases.


William Moore Benidickson: This whole bill has no content at all.


Michael Starr: We have brought forward
measures which will put into action the immense economic forces in this country.
In answer to what has been said now, I say there is nothing easier than being destructive. It is easy to get up and say in tones of righteous wrath that this is no good and that is no good. We saw an exhibition of that this afternoon. I think all hon. members recognized the righteous wrath that is usually displayed by the hon. member for Essex East. The hon. member denounced this as no good and that as no good but there was not an indication from him as to what is good. The only suggestion we ever get concerns the setting up of 20 or 22 various committees across the country.
I believe it requires a degree of constructive responsibility to analyse and appraise these measures on their merits and to judge them by their results. As I pointed out earlier, results are already quite evident. I submit there is a favourable response across Canada to all these measures and immediate action is being brought about. I invite hon. members to consider that public confidence is being maintained despite all the words, actions and hopes of hon. members opposite to the contrary.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: The minister is certainly wearing rose-coloured glasses.


Michael Starr: The hon. member suggests that I am wearing rose-coloured glasses but at least we on this side of the house can see through them and we are taking measures to rectify whatever we see that is wrong.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: How can a blind man see?


Michael Starr: I submit that the productivity council will be useful. I have every faith that it will be a useful council and I have no doubt of the usefulness of such a body in our economy. Certainly, by itself-and I have pointed this out-it will not solve the problem, but we have a number of these measures and when they are put together we have every hope that they will have the desired effect upon our economy. I am sure that they will be beneficial and useful to the people of this country.

Let us examine the position of the hon. member for Essex East. He says the bill is no good; it will have no effect, but he will vote for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For the reasons given.


Michael Starr: He says there are all kinds of things wrong with this bill, but all of the weaknesses will vanish automatically when we put into the bill the phrase that he suggests, "promotion of employment". If we only include those words, all the weaknesses will vanish. All we have to do is to put in these three words and the bill will be perfect because he has submitted the amendment. In other words, what I think the hon. member for Essex East is trying to do is to climb aboard, and he is using this method to do it.
What will this bill do, Mr. Speaker? It will set up a council; that is, a body on which will be represented some of the leading people in our country. It will have on it representatives of all segments of our economic activity. I wish to say that the effort and the aim of this government is to mobilize the economy against insecurity. We are mobilizing the economy on all levels, federal, provincial, municipal, business, industry, agriculture, labour; nobody is left out and nothing is being left out. To do this, in order to bring about this mobilization, we are bringing in measures in the field of housing, construction, municipal aid, the economy, small business, exports, the training of workers, and so on.
I think the hon. member for Essex East will agree that in the main they are all good things. He has some doubts, and possibly hopes that they will not be as effective as we think they will be, and as we hope they will be. Of course, that is something that he has to decide in his own conscience.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, I do not mind what the hon. gentleman says about my arguments but under our rules he has no right to suggest that I have acted in anything but good faith and in accordance with my conscience.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is the trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a well established principle of debate that hon. members must assume that their fellow members, like themselves, are acting in good faith and from proper motives.


Michael Starr: That is right; I left it up to the hon. member to decide according to his own conscience. I did not accuse him, or say anything different.

These programs that we have brought forward, calling for the construction of new homes with low down payments, have never been experienced before in this country; programs call for the construction of new training schools; the clearing away of slum areas in our great cities, improvement in the standard of residences and home improvements for our Canadian people; for aid to universities and municipalities and aid to young people, aid for students who wish to advance themselves in the industrial life; the construction of sewage disposal plants across Canada for the preservation of our water resources.


William Moore Benidickson: Is this something that the minister is reading from a prepared text?


Michael Starr: The programs call for an opportunity for Canadian businessmen to expand; they call for an opportunity for Canadian businessmen to go into the export markets around the world and to compete there on equal terms through the provision of adequate credit. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this is no "pie in the sky" approach; this is a straightforward, down to earth approach to deal with the problem.


William Moore Benidickson: Pious talk.


Michael Starr: It is also a common-sense approach which will bolster up our economy where it is lagging. It will give opportunity to our young people who have not had a chance to acquire a formal education, and it will help business, labour and industry.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the peroration of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) sounded very much like a second edition of the vision and suggests to me once again that instead of having a program of substance the government has given the greatest amount of attention to window dressing and to the package in which its program is being wrapped.


Edwin William Brunsden: You should know all about window dressing.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the amendment before the house is a straightforward one; it merely calls on the house to express the opinion that in the legislation to set up the productivity council the objective of the work of the productivity council should be the promotion of employment. If we take that as an objective, together with the suggestion that we in this party have made that the productivity council should have the right to make recommendations to the government, we might then be on the way to establishing a body that could take a very active part in assuring full employment and full production.
Productivity Council
I think the Minister of Labour would be much more helpful to the government if he spent less time in demolishing the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and more time in presenting to the house and the country the facts with regard to the government's own program. I suggest the time has come when the Minister of Labour should tell parliament and the country exactly what the government expects will be the result by way of additional employment that flows from all of the projects and all of the legislation that have been presented to parliament at the present time.
We are in a very serious situation in Canada. The government can talk in glib and glowing terms of its action; the fact remains that each passing day that this government has occupied the treasury benches, now for a period of three years, the unemployment situation has become worse. The situation now, according to the latest information, is so bad that we have a higher rate of unemployment than we had in any time during the last 15 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. I think he is under a misapprehension when he says the last 15 years because surely he is not suggesting it was worse in 1944. It is just for 15 years that we have had these figures.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will know that at that time demobilization was taking place and there were other reasons why people were looking for work.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The other reason was the Liberal party.


Hazen Robert Argue: We do not want to go too far
back for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate because his party occupied the treasury benches during a very difficult period of time when they were just as unsuccessful in meeting employment requirements as the present government has been in recent years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Wait till Tommy Douglas gets in ahead of you.


Hazen Robert Argue: The unemployment figure demonstrates not only the number of people who are unemployed in Canada but is an indication of the tremendous loss in production that has taken place as the result of the widespread unemployment. The fact of the matter is that in the last year we have lost by way of production between $1.5 billion and $2 billion of wealth, and so there is a great challenge to the government-


James Stanley Speakman: Can you prove that?


Hazen Robert Argue: -to produce a program that will, in the words of the Minister of Labour,

Productivity Council mobilize the economy against insecurity. The Minister of Labour will not justify his program or his lack of a program by talking about the large numbers of persons now employed. It is not much comfort to the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed to know that there are more employed persons now than there have been in the past. The government's program will be justified when the unemployed have an opportunity to work.
The minister and the government have talked about an over-all program. I want to say that we have been pleased to support this bits and pieces program, this inadequate program, this beginning of a program to meet the present difficulty. There are many other things that I suggest should be done. I think the government should now accept a principle that was enunciated during the war and was accepted by the nation as a whole, namely that anything physically possible would be made financially possible. I think it is physically possible to put Canadians to work and the government should be undertaking those steps that would make this financially possible.
I suggest that there should be established in our country at this time a great capital development fund in the hands of and controlled and operated by the federal government to be used for investment in Canadian industry, to be used for investment in depressed areas and to be used to stimulate our economy, to prime the pump with the objective of bringing about full employment. I suggest also that the government, in co-operation with the provinces, should be prepared at this time to assist in a massive public works program. The federal government has taken certain action in this session to stimulate public works. The fact is that many provincial governments are faced with such budgetary difficulties that they may be compelled to cut back provincial expenditures and thus the provincial governments through no fault of their own will undo much of the valuable work that is being done by the federal government.
The minister talked about the over-all program that the government had presented. He went over the various things that had been done. I suggest that in addition to this program the government should bring into operation once again the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act which was placed on the statute books in 1938 and under which at that time federal money for public works was provided to municipalities at a rate of 2 per cent. This is the kind of far-reaching program for the development of municipal projects that should be brought about at this time, and it should be the purpose and the duty of the productivity council to inquire


into the situation and to make recommendations resulting in the promotion of employment as set forth in the legislation before the house.
The minister talks about his program. I am now trying to suggest to him things that should be added to his program. I suggest that now is the time for the federal government to co-operate with the provinces in a national highway program. Now is the time for the government to cease being content with a contribution to a very limited trans-Canada highway program. The minister has asked for suggestions. He has asked for comments. I suggest that now is the time for the government to undertake measures to bolster farm income which would result in a greater demand for the products of our factories. Now is the time for the government to proceed with its well known commitment to provide for Canada an old age security system which would allow persons to retire on an adequate income.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is following in a debate which has been fairly wide but surely there are some limits to what may be discussed on an amendment which only seeks to refer the bill back to the committee to add a clause to section 10 to include in the council's powers the promotion of employment. While I have not objected to the hon. member speaking about employment and unemployment, when he gets into farm income, the trans-Canada highway and other matters it seems to me that a line has to be drawn.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest with great deference that the house listened to the Minister of Labour outline the government's broad program without any objection. He talked about such things as the government measure to provide loans for small business. He talked about the housing program, which is not contained in this legislation. He talked about other measures that the government has brought forward and he challenged the opposition to put forward suggestions. I suggest with great deference that if it is in order for the Minister of Labour to go far beyond the scope of the bill and far beyond the scope of the amendment then, no objection having been raised, the same kind of latitude should be extended to other members in replying to his statement, particularly in view of the fact that he issued a challenge to opposition members to put forward alternative suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I could accept what the hon. member says in total. I have no objection to the hon. member dealing with the matters raised by the hon. member for Essex East and the Minister of Labour

in this debate, that is, the program that the government has brought before the house. Even though that is out of order in this debate it has been discussed, but I do think that a line should be drawn short of the fields to which the hon. member referred.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder whether I could speak to the point of order and try to assist my hon. friend who is in obvious difficulty. On the government's own figures there has been a considerable drop in agricultural employment over a period amounting to some 300,000. Over the last decade the figure is some 25 per cent less in spite of an increase in production. It would seem to me that because of that circumstance it is not proper for us under our procedures to differentiate between employment in one sector of the Canadian economy as opposed to another. While the hon. gentleman who is speaking is not always in order, I think this is one of the rare occasions when he is.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank my hon. friend from Essex East for his very great assistance. While it was said I am rarely in order I think my batting average is better than that of the hon. member for Essex East. None the less I accept his offer of assistance in the spirit in which it has been given, particularly in view of the fact we must acknowledge his authority in the field of agriculture, soybeans and other related matters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, your ruling was a very interesting one, namely that it is all right to be out of order in fields governed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) but one must not get out of order in fields outside of those which are of concern to the Minister of Labour.


James Stanley Speakman: Would the hon. gentleman accept a question at this point?


Hazen Robert Argue: Fine.


James Stanley Speakman: I should like the hon.
gentleman-I should like the hon. member for Essex East to pay particular attention -to answer this question. What would the hon. member, who I understand expects some day to head the new party, assess as the federal responsibility for today's unemployment?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it has been accepted by every political party, and politically by the party to which the hon. member belongs, that it is not only the duty of the federal government but it is the obligation of that government to bring about a full employment economy, just as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said in the past.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
Productivity Council


Hazen Robert Argue: He said, if I am elected prime minister no one will suffer from unemployment. Since he has been elected there has been more suffering from unemployment than at any other time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to bring forward some further suggestions that I hope the government will consider as measures which would assist in bringing about a full employment economy. The Minister of Labour referred to the government's housing program, and took great credit for the results he said would flow from that program. I would suggest that the government's housing program has been inadequate and that in the areas of low rental housing, in the provision of housing for senior citizens, it has been very inadequate indeed.
The measure before us would ask the council to inquire inito the development of improved production and distribution methods. We endeavoured, when the house was in committee of the whole, to introduce an amendment which would have widened the scope of the bill and provided for an inquiry into methods to increase markets. I think that is something that this council should consider also. It is not just a question of increasing productivity to bring about full employment, it is a question of developing the markets that are necessary for the products of our industry.
If I may say so at this time, I want to express support for those steps that have been taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees).


James Stanley Speakman: Are you going to vote for the bill?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think it is necessary for the hon. gentleman to be interrupting with this kind of running interference of his. I think he should wait until I finish my remarks if he wants to speak.
I was saying I support the measures that have been taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the calling of the trade commissioners together to assist in the development of markets for Canadian products. While I expect to have more to say on this particular point at a later time, I feel that the development of markets is essential and that the provision of 20,000 baby chicks for Cuba, reference to which I have seen, is not that kind of expansion of our export trade to Cuba that would require any criticism or opposition from the Liberal party.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in any inquiry into improved production and distribution methods this council will be forced to look

Productivity Council
at the costs taring our industry today. I think there is nothing that is causing more difficulty, causing higher production costs for the basic industries of our nation at this time than the high interest policy that is being followed by the government. The high interest rates that are prevalent in our country today are making it difficult for our industries to reach their maximum efficiency. The high interest rate coupled with the premium on the Canadian dollar is causing monetary and exchange difficulties that create a great burden for Canadian industry. This is the kind of overhaul of Canadian monetary policy that will be necessary if industries in our country are to reach their most efficient productivity.
What the government has done, Mr. Speaker, has been, useful. What the government has done is no substitute for implementing its promises to the Canadian people to provide job opportunities for all of those who are unemployed.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I support the last remarks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris).


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, as I sat in the chamber just before the dinner recess I was reminded in my heart as I listened with attention to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) of an anecdote told amongst the men of my trade, the journalists, concerning the visit by Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Bulganin to the United Kingdom. During the conference they had a chat with some members of the British labour party which led to acrimonious words, and at one point Mr. Khrushchev said to Mr. Gaitskell, what is the difference between your idea of human beings, your idea of government and ours? Listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) after the dinner recess one wonders whether one concern which he shows for unemployment, in which he wishes to embrace everybody in the sweet kiss of socialist death, is not dictated by what is likely to happen to him next August. When I listened to him tonight, I was reminded again of this anecdote because Mr. Gaitskell replied with quick zeal, if you want to know the difference between our concept of people and government and your concept you should read Pericles' funeral oration.
Hon. members will remember Pericles' funeral oration. I am sure the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) is a learned man and he will remember Pericles' funeral oration.


William Moore Benidickson: No, I was not bom then.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member says he was not born then. It is always useful to have these little pieces of information. You will recall, Mr. Speaker-


William Moore Benidickson: And I am not a Tory.


Edmund Leverett Morris: -that Pericles spoke of courage being the secret of freedom and freedom being the secret of happiness, and therefore freedom belonged only to the brave. I looked up the quotation during the recess, and I find he said:
The great impediment to action is not discussion but the want of that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your Honour drew attention to the irrelevance of the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in speaking about-


James Stanley Speakman: What do you mean by irrelevance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -farm income in relation to employment. We tolerated without any interruption an interesting discourse the other evening by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) on the Kingston conference. However, it seems to me that it is rather hard' to relate Thucydides "Funeral Oration" to the productivity council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure where the divergence from the issue before the house began but it seems to me that the hon. gentleman who has just risen had some part in it. However, I would be inclined to accept his point of order if I were sure the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would not come to his rescue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I give that assurance.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I appreciate all this wandering. I have only one or two more sentences. I am glad to know that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is so greatly interested in funeral orations.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about yourself?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The last sentence I wish to add is this, and I am trying in my own way to bring a certain element of reasonableness into our conversation. The last sentence of this oration was:
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting too;-
Perhaps now the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will understand why he

wanted to intervene in this discussion or in this quotation because the next phrase is this:
-whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been a great deal of hesitation.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is a historian.


William Arnold Peters: It does not sound as though it is in order now any more than it did previously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am one of those who think that in our discussions about employment and unemployment we should be reasonable. I notice a gratuitous solicitude for the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Have hon. members noticed the delightful argument taking place here today between the leftists under the skin, the brothers under the skin, and this solicitous attitude as if only the leftists are concerned with human beings, in dilating upon the sweet paternity of the state, a socialist heresy which was hatched under the murky atmosphere of the British museum?
The difficulty with regard to discussing employment and unemployment is this. We talk about cold comfort for the unemployed. I cannot imagine any colder comfort than the speeches-if they get around to reading them -of the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Assiniboia. There was an attempt at a last minute amendment which was immediately discarded by its own sponsor who said that notwithstanding the fact that the bill is not a good bill, it was a good bill. The hon. member for Assiniboia rises in his place and says it is a bad bill but "I am going to vote for it, it is a good bill."
The difficulty is that there is so little reasonableness in what we say. We all preach our own little doctrine. When we speak about employment being higher than it was previously, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house rise in their places and say that this is a weak argument. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), who I notice is still in his seat, said this is a weak argument. The hon. member for Assiniboia said this is a weak argument. However, it is part of the economic complex of employment. Those hon. members who want to talk about unemployment talk about unemployment. Those who want to talk about employment talk about employment.
We have heard today in the press about the figures which were released yesterday with regard to the labour force. We all know
Productivity Council
these figures show an increase in unemployment. But no one bothers to say that at the same time-


William Arnold Peters: I should like to know who wrote this one.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member for Timis-kaming says he would like to know who wrote this speech. May I tell him that the same person wrote this one as wrote all the others I delivered here, namely myself. I have no script.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member has lost his touch.


William Moore Benidickson: He always writes it but he has the wrong text.


Mr. Speaker:: When everybody wants to talk and not to listen it seems to me that it is time the question be put.


James Stanley Speakman: It is about time for the hon. member for Timiskaming to get off his seat and on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wetas-kiwin has already spoken in this debate.


Edmund Leverett Morris: This report on the labour
force which was issued yesterday, as I say, showed an increase in unemployment. It is employment that we are speaking about tonight and which the Minister of Labour says is included in the preamble to the bill before us. At the same time total employment in each of the five regions in Canada is greater than it was at this time last year.
It may be said that this is cold comfort to a man who is unemployed. There is no primacy of interest or no exclusive interest on the part of the leftists in the unemployed and those who are seeking employment. Within the economic complex surely we must have regard for what is taking place in the labour force. In the Atlantic area in November, 1960, there were 530,000 persons employed; last year there were 512,000 employed; and so the story goes through each of the regions of Canada. There is an increase in each one. Our problem surely is the area of the increasing labour force and for the present at least an incapacity to provide each individual in the increasing labour force with immediate employment. The Liberal party says-


John Whitney Pickersgill: At that point may I ask whether my hon. friend would explain a little bit-I have listened with great interest to what he said-as to how it might be done?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The Liberal party has a Toronto prophet, namely Mr. Walter Gordon. It has a high regard for Mr. Gordon. Let us see what Mr. Gordon says about employment. The hon. member for Essex East, who I am

Productivity Council
sorry to note has been called from his place, may consider what it is that Walter Gordon says. Here is what the Liberal party did about unemployment. It had a royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. Let us see what Mr. Gordon says in his final report at page 421. He states as follows:
In a free and dynamic economy in which people are entitled to change their occupations as they choose and to move from place to place and in which they are continually changing products, methods and consumer demands, there will always be those who are out of work at any given time. This cannot be avoided.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Seven hundred thousand?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Now the scene changes. Now it is a government responsibility. Let us see what else Mr. Gordon said. Of course I am talking here about Mr. Gordon in November, 1957 not November, 1960. One's vision is often changed by one's circumstances. In his final report he went on to say this, as found at page 426:
The fact of the matter is that the problem of preventing unemployment or of correcting a condition of unemployment once it occurs has not been fully solved.


William Moore Benidickson: Never.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River says "never". I thank the hon. member for that interjection.


William Moore Benidickson: If the hon. member will permit a question, may I ask him this. What is the recommendation of Mr. Gordon at that time in 1957 as a normal percentage of the labour content that might be unemployed?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Gordon went on to say that there are some people who think it ought to be 3 per cent of the working force, though many people thought the ratio is closer to 5 per cent. Now it is 6 per cent. The fact is that he went on to express the view of the possibility of influencing the economic level of a country is a new art and one which is relatively untried. There was nothing certain or foolproof about it.
All this is reasonable. Instead of that, we are getting loquacity posturing as expertising.


William Moore Benidickson: What is that word?


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am sorry if the hon. gentleman is not able this evening to understand the English I use, but that is unfortunate.


William Moore Benidickson: I acknowledge you as a specialist.


Edmund Leverett Morris: We have brought down at this time Bill No. C-52 to which the official opposition now seeks to introduce an amendment on third reading. We seek to set up a national productivity council. What is the purpose of this? The purpose is to bring together people

of representative views who could bring their best information and their best judgment to bear upon the problems of productivity in relation to increased employment and trade.
The other evening we heard a very fine speech from the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) and this was followed by a guided missive from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). On rereading their speeches I find in them a lingering, archaic economic belief-I do not wish to do the hon. lady any disservice and, if I should do so, I will immediately correct it-


William Moore Benidickson: You do not know the future of the next election.


Edmund Leverett Morris: I can only say to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) that if it does as well by me in the future as it has in the past I shall be quite satisfied. The theory implicit in this argument put up by the hon. lady and by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is that an increase in productivity at this time will reduce employment. The hon. lady nods her head in agreement, and I am glad that I did her no disservice. But, surely, the result of improving our productivity is to put ourselves in a position where the product of Canadian industry is saleable in world markets, and thereby to increase employment. How else is it to be done? You must improve productivity first of all.
What has the government said? It has said: we shall bring together broadly representative members of industry and commerce, organized labour, agriculture and members of the general public to give the body a leavening of broad interest. We want to bring about a condition in which productivity is improved in order to add to employment in Canada. In this respect it is in line with other measures which have been brought before us during the present session. Consider the National Housing Act. The hon. member for Assiniboia says it is not sufficient. That act has provided a great deal of employment in Canada through a mixture of public and private action by a government which is not fearful of entering into new fields, but will not go down the path of socialist embrace in which all freedom is destroyed.
I see the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) nod his head. I had some things to say about his philosophy during the last session. He nods his head. I was not at Calgary last week, so I do not know where he stood last week, but, surely, we have seen some amazing gyrations in which the far left is suddenly trying to embrace private enterprise. The hon. member for Assiniboia was talking about chickens going to Cuba, and

interest rates, a sort of socialist funny money proposition, but he did not say a word about loans to small business. Wait till some people hear about that, because for the last long while he has been trying to repair that oversight. This arrangement for loans to be made to small business is something for which the small business community in Canada has been asking for a long period of years. The hon. member for Essex East probably thinks that at least the intention of that particular legislation was good. It would, probably, indeed certainly, produce new and vital employment. Then we had a bill-


William Moore Benidickson: On a point of order. I think all of us have our frailties when it comes to addressing this house on points which perhaps are not pertinent to the question at issue, but I wish to say that at the moment I think the hon. member is departing from the principle of the measure under discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member has drawn attention to the fact, it is true that the hon. member who has the floor is discussing a bill which this house passed a few days ago, but-


Edmund Leverett Morris: My intention was not to discuss it at all but to point to it as an example of legislation which the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Essex East asked us to establish. Some time ago the hon. member for Assiniboia was dilating on the desirability of exporting small chickens to Cuba.
Well, we have brought into the employment picture a bill providing for the setting up of vocational and technical training institutes. One might ask: what is this going to do for employment? In my city of Halifax we desperately need more vocational training facilities. No less than 77 per cent of the unplaced applicants for employment in Halifax have received education only up to grade eight or less. We desperately need these facilities, and as a member representing that constituency I am grateful to this government for doing something to provide them in order to overcome this serious problem. The distinguished premier of my province was in this city yesterday and announced that a $1,500,000 vocational and technical training institute is to be set up. This will meet a really important need because it will be the means of meeting the challenge of the decade ahead. The situation today is almost ironic, almost an economic contradiction-we have a growing labour force, and more people at work at the same time as we have a growing number of those temporarily disemployed. That is the area which
Productivity Council
this bill seeks to challenge by bringing together the best opinions in the nation under a productivity council to deal with the problem of unemployment.
I believe I have spoken at much less length than hon. gentlemen who preceded me. It seems to me that if hon. members of the opposition who have announced they are against this bill but are going to vote for it- it is a bad bill but a good bill-share my concern as I know all hon. members in this house do for those who are temporarily unemployed they will agree that we could do a great deal for those in that unfortunate position if we were to stop talking and vote on this measure the way we say we are going to.
(Translation):


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the house will not charge me with having taken up too much of its time during the discussion of the four pieces of legislation which have been introduced since the beginning of this session.
However, there is something I want to say about this amendment. In this amendment it is requested that the bill be referred back to the committee so that it might be improved by clearly stating the object of the legislation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: So as to delay it.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I just heard an hon. member say: "So as to delay it". May I tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that, if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) knew how to keep silent more often, he might less frequently suffer embarrassment.
On several occasions during the discussion the bill now before us was said not to deal with the unemployed. On the other hand, we were told that the house would be called upon to discuss four measures, of which three have been already passed. This one is therefore the fourth.
A few moments ago, the minister gave us a list of those measures. He told us that those four measures would increase employment in Canada, and thus decrease the number of the jobless. I must say that it is most confusing to listen to the speeches of hon. members on the government benches. They are indeed so confused in their explanations with regard to legislation introduced in this house, that the average man is unable to perceive what they are driving at.
However, the minister has said that these four bills were the basis for the settlement of the present economic problem. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the unemployed cannot eat statistics. They also cannot pay

Productivity Council
their rent with statistics, nor dress their children for school, nor, when they are ill, be treated by means of mere statistics.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that the government take action, not by merely introducing legislation which will serve as a basis for the settlement of the economic problem, but rather by taking the necessary steps to settle that problem once and for all.
We convened last fall to enact a program which according to the Prime Minister himself, has been ready since September 21. Well, let him submit it to this parliament right now. We have been here since November 17, and all we have seen of this program are the four bills introduced so far as a basis for the solution of the problem which is our concern. That is all. In fact, the fourth is now before the house for approval. However, none of those four pieces of legislation will settle the problem.
The minister, a moment ago, referred to the housing legislation. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did indicate this afternoon that that legislation may prove useful in certain areas, but that it will not settle the unemployment problem. Nor will it improve the present plight of the unemployed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am prepared to answer any question you may wish to ask.


Azellus Denis: Let the hon. member write to Antonio Barrette.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we have been taunted from the very moment this bill was placed before the house, whether on second reading, or in committee, in other words constantly. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and other ministers, and even certain hon. members have said to us: "And you will support the bill".
Well, my reply is quite simple. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to the legislature in 1934, in the darkest days of the depression, when the Conservative government was in power in Ottawa, from 1930 to 1935. I have seen what unemployment means. I perfectly remember the time when people, in groups of 25 to 50, would gather on my verandah in the morning waiting to ask their member for help to buy food, or to be given blankets for their children. I distinctly remember those days and I also know that no Canadian would

want to go through them again. However, I fear that unless the government reaches an early decision on means of correcting the present situation, we will soon be faced with a situation similar to the thirties.
Some will ask why we will support the bill if we think it does not include the provisions needed to settle the problem. To those people I say this: when a jobless man has nothing to eat and is offered hardtack instead of bread, he will take the hardtack. If he is offered treacle instead of maple syrup, he will [DOT]accept the treacle.
Mr. Speaker, let it be understood that if we support these measures, it is because we want to help the government find an answer to the problem. We want to let the government lay the foundation of its program, because that is what the government calls it, a foundation. However, we want more action.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) has referred to the Gordon report. He managed to find bombastic statements to fill in an empty speech.
While the Gordon report states that under a democratic system, with private industry, there will always be unemployment, that is not what the present Prime Minister stated in 1957 and 1958 during the two election campaigns.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Speakman)-this is rather difficult to pronounce-it must be a savage word-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What an insult. The hon. member has just insulted the Indians of Canada.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: My dear friend-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) was rising on a point of order or a question of privilege but if not I would remind him that the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) has the floor.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: To the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) I would reply that I have in my riding many of them and many of them seem much more intelligent than he is.


William Moore Benidickson: There is nothing the
matter with that; that is natural.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: To the hon. member who implied many times tonight that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) never promised he would solve unemployment I would recall that in February, 1958, he said:

As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman is going to suffer from unemployment as long as public works will provide the assistance they require.
What is he doing about it? In a telecast from Montreal on February 18, 1958, the Prime Minister said:
As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada, everything that can be done-everything without regard to limit-will be done to the end that no one will suffer.


An hon. Member:: He can do nothing, though.
Another hon. Member: We are suffering right now.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: In Charlottetown on February 27, 1958, he said:
I make this promise. We acted. My pledge is to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed1-so long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation.
I am not going to read all the promises that he made on that score, but the thing is this. Owing to the fact that the government called a session to deal with the urgent problems facing this nation we gave up the right to debate the throne speech, with the intention of having those measures before the house as soon as possible and have them enacted to try to ease the situation in Canada. I do not see how any one of those four acts will help the unemployment situation in any way. What we see now is this. The government seems to be building up a great spate of propaganda on these four measures, trying to lead the people of this country to believe that they have found a solution, that they have solved the problem.


William Heward Grafftey: Is the hon. member trying to break down confidence?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I would say to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that a new word has been found in the dictionary. It is called "diefentruth".


An hon. Member:: Come again.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am coming to believe the fact that the Prime Minister will get to be known by the people of this country as the man who could play on words better than anyone else. He will be known in this country as the man who could promise heaven and earth but who could not even deliver earth.


William Heward Grafftey: Have you ever met Jean Lesage?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I must tell the hon. member who made that interjection that I have certainly met the Hon. Jean Lesage, and when
Productivity Council
I met him I got to know a much greater man than the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


William Heward Grafftey: He just increased taxes in Quebec.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I should say that in the last few months the Prime Minister has been complaining about the facts that his government had done a lot to solve all of these problems but did not have enough advertising. Taking the words of another, I would say that:
The Prime Minister's complaint that his party has failed to advertise does something less than justice to himself and to that highly talented advertising man, Allister Grosart. Mr. Grosart has done wonders with the poor material supplied him in the government and party record'.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What is the citation from which he is reading?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: From Mr. John Bird's Ottawa Notebook, and it would be interesting if the hon. member read it. In other words, it is the truth; it is not a "diefentruth".


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is the biggest joke of all.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I continue:
Some of the Conservative's present trouble derive, not from too little advertising, but from too much. Advertising slogans helped them to win two elections but you can't govern a country with slogans alone.
At this point, I am going to conclude by saying, Mr. Prime Minister, let me tell you, through you, Mr. Speaker, that you will have to act, and act very soon, because empty stomachs will not wait very long now.
(Translation):


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


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What kind of molasses did he serve the unemployed when there were
500,000	of them in Canada, under a Liberal administration?


An hon. Member:: In what month was that?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure tc answer the hon. member. I was expecting such a question from the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, so I have the answer ready.
First, may I say that from 1930 to 1935, under the Conservative government, no one could get anything to eat but molasses and salted pork.


An hon. Member:: The moratorium.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Second, they only got $6 a month as relief-


Azellus Denis: Relief.

Division


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Third, may I remind him that unemployment was never as high under a Liberal government as under a Conservative one, and especially from 1930 to 1935. Statistics show-


An hon. Member:: Did you have unemployed
people?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I had unemployed people in my constituency, but as I was representing Cochrane North in the Ontario legislature at the time and as I come from a poor family myself I know what poverty is and I am glad to report to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montealm that two years after my election there was no more unemployment in my constituency-Bennett relief had been replaced by work.


William Moore Benidickson: That is why you were elected.
(Text):


Mr.. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question? The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin).


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the third reading of this Bill No. C-52, I should like to assure the house it is my intention to do so with much more brevity, clarity and relevance than has been the practice for the last while. However-


An hon. Member:: Sit down, and you will make sure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: However, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did redeem himself by moving a very good amendment. One thing that puzzled me, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) spoke of Mr. Khrushchev's visit to London is that he forgot to mention that Mr. Khrushchev said if he lived in England he would vote Tory rather than Labour.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be trite to say that I am rather unhappy with this bill. I

must go further and say that the situation has not improved as the debate on the bill has progressed. We have seen complete contradictions by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) even contradicted himself. We have seen vigorous resistance by the government to every attempt to improve this bill. In fact I might say that if the government of the day would attack the problems of the day with the same vigour with which they resist any improvements in their legislation, then we might not be faced with the problems we have today.
We have been told that if we fail to find anything in the bill all we have to do is look in the preamble and we will find it there. As we know, the preamble to any bill is a sort of catchall. In fact, it reminds me very much of some words written by Mr. Wilson MacDonald, when he made reference to the speaker at a service club meeting and went on in these words:
And if the interest seemed to lag He praised the clergy and the flag,
He lauded surgeons and their knives,
He blessed all mothers and all wives.
His talk was like a soothing drug That made men want to kiss and hug;
Or give one hundred thousand bucks To under-privileged woodchucks,
Who got this way, now here's the rub, Because the motto of this club Was ever this-the thought quite missed 'em- That no one must destroy the System.
We have also seen introduced in this bill a brand new principle about which I am certainly not very happy. Under quite close interrogation the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) finally admitted that it is a brand new principle and that it was the first time it had ever been tried in this country. I refer to the system of double taxation on the general taxpayers. That is certainly a novel system of taxation and I do not think it is a good one.
As has been mentioned by innumerable members on the government side, there are in this bill some good measures-I will make that admission-and over a long period of time some good may come out of this bill that is before us today. However, we cannot escape the facts. One of the facts that we cannot get around is that in the United States and Canada at the present time we have the highest productivity of any place in the world; but at the same time that we have the highest productivity we are the only two countries in the western world with an unemployment problem. The reason that we have this problem in these two countries of highest productivity is that we have not given any consideration to the problems that arise through having the highest productivity.
Productivity Council
I do not see in this bill anything that is going to change this situation in the future. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while there may be some good in the long term view I am afraid that as the system is practised in this country the short term harm is going to far outweigh the long term good.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of discussion earlier this evening and previously about the reason why we in the official opposition are going to vote for the third reading of this bill just as we voted for the second reading of it and as we have voted for each of the other measures in the government program-I refer to these four bills-to deal with the unemployment situation. Notwithstanding our disappointment at the refusal of the government to accept either the amendment I moved in committee or the amendment that my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) moved to go back to committee to accomplish the same purpose I had sought to accomplish earlier I want to put on record quite clearly why it is our intention to vote for this measure. I am not going to complicate what I have to say now by going back over any of the other arguments that have been made about the pros and cons of the bill any more than is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, to make this position clear.
In the first place I want to say this. I am unlike the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), whose views in this matter I respect but do not share. No one in this party has at any time said there was anything positively harmful about this bill. That is a point that I should like to make absolutely clear.


William Heward Grafftey: What about the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh)?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. member will find that any member of the Liberal opposition has said there was anything positively harmful in the bill. What we have said is that it is deficient, that it was malnourished, that it was anaemic, that it was a sickly child, that it bore little resemblance to its alleged parent. It is true that we have said all those things. We have said that this measure was ushered in by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) after that one day conference as one of the cures for unemployment, and that when we tried to find out how it is going to do anything about immediate unemployment we were told, as we were told this afternoon by the-

Productivity Council


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, certainly.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The views being expressed by the hon. member right now are most interesting especially when one considers that yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not entitled to interrupt in order to put forward his own point of view but rather to ask a question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: My question is as follows. How can the hon. member justify voting in favour of the measure now when yesterday he described it as a farce?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I described it in another term than that and one that is greatly beloved now by the Prime Minister. I described it as a fiction and I repeat my description of it as a fiction. It was represented to the public of Canada in the headlines last October as a measure to deal with the unemployment problem. When it is brought in here we find that that representation of it was a fiction and that in fact it is a measure which, if it has any purpose at all-and of that I think there may be some questions since the three co-sponsors, if one may so describe
them, of the bill had confused ideas about what it is supposed to accomplish-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it has any clear purpose at all, it is to improve productivity in industry. As I pointed out this afternoon to the hon. member for BromeJMissisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who raised a question about this matter, in our view improvements in productivity are in many cases the immediate effect of increasing unemployment rather than reducing it. Perhaps it might be convenient to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I see it is ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: May I ask the house leader what the business is for tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue this debate. On its completion we will proceed with supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the house leader indicate the business for Monday also?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for Monday will depend on the progress we make tomorrow.


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

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

Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Was the national industrial design centre transferred from the national gallery of Canada to the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	If so, on what date?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):
Questions
1.	Yes.
2.	December 14, 1960.


ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BRANCH
Mr. Mcllrailh: 1.	Was the economic and technical assistance branch transferred1 from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of External Affairs?
2.	If so, on what date?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):
1.	Yes.
2.	November 1, 1960.
865

Friday, December 16, 1960