1960-02-15

PRIVILEGE


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege involving this house and all hon. members in it. I have in my possession a document which at first glance appears to be an official report of the debates of this house, but upon examination we find that it is a document put out by the Sperry and Hutchinson Company of Canada Limited. This would lead one to believe that this document was put out by this company with the official sanction of this house.
I might refer to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, volume IV, chapter 274, section 14 of the Unfair Competition Act, which reads as follows:
(1)	No person is entitled to adopt for use in connection with his business, as a trade mark or otherwise, any symbol consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for-
(e) the arms or crest adopted and used at any time by Canada or by any province or municipal corporation in Canada-
(j) any symbol adopted and used by any public authority in Canada as an official mark on similar wares.
My question of privilege is that this is a direct violation of the statutes and involves a privilege of this house. It was my intention to move that this be referred to the committee on privileges and elections of this house. As that committee has not yet been constituted I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier):
That the president of the Sperry and Hutchinson Company of Canada Limited be ordered to attend at the bar of this house on the 18th day of February, 1960 at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the motion, does any other hon. member have anything to say as to whether there is a prima facie case of privilege of the house involved?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for us to decide on this question without having seen the pamphlet to which the hon. member has made reference. Perhaps the motion could stand over until tomorrow, so we would have an opportunity to examine it.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the simple course would be to allow hon. members to examine this matter before determining if there is a prima facie case of privilege of the house involved. With the consent of the hon. member for Timmins the matter could stand until tomorrow.


Murdo William Martin: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.
Motion stands.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. J. P. Deschaielels (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Section 206 of the Criminal Code at present provides that an accused found guilty of murder shall be sentenced to death. The purpose of this bill is to provide an alternative. The judge would have a discretion to impose as a penalty either death or imprisonment for life.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Mcllrailh:
For a copy of the report made to the Minister of Finance in the year 1959 by the civil service commission concerning pay increases for civil servants.
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will recall that when this motion came before the house on February 3 a point of order was raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West which I undertook to take into consideration. Upon looking into the matter I found that a point of procedure arose as to the form of motion for obtaining the production of documents, and I thought it better to put down my conclusions in writing, which I shall now give to the house.
When this notice of motion was read on Wednesday, February 3, Hansard pages 684 to 686, the Minister of Finance stated that the report in question was confidential, having been made in pursuance of the Civil Service

Motions for Papers
Act by the civil service commission to the government and to the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Ottawa West raised a point of order, that the right of the minister to object to the tabling of such a document was limited to such documents under his administrative responsibility and did not extend to reports of this kind made by the civil service commission, an independent body answerable to parliament and not to the government of the day. The hon. member for Ottawa West and the house were good enough to allow the motion to stand to give me an opportunity to consider the point which he had raised. The Minister of Justice reminded the house of the provisions of standing order 47 which permits such a motion, if a debate on it is desired, to be transferred by the Clerk to the order of notices of motion, thereby suggesting, as I understood him, that the point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West was a point of debate rather than a point of order.
In view of what I am about to express it is perhaps unnecessary to determine whether the hon. member for Ottawa West properly raised his objection as a point of order. There have been such discussions before. On April 3, 1957, pages 3007 to 3015 of Hansard, there was a long discussion as on points of order on the practice which the house would expect the minister to follow in indicating his unwillingness to accept a motion for papers under his control.
I have come to the conclusion that whatever ruling I might make as to the right of the Minister of Finance to oppose the production of the report in question, the house will have to decide by its vote whether or not the document is to be produced, unless of course the motion is withdrawn, as often happens when production is objected to. I repeat that it is for the house to decide after debate, if desired, whether it will or will not order that the document in question be laid on the table.
This will be so whether or not I uphold the contention of the hon. member for Ottawa West. It would be quite improper for the Speaker to substitute his decision for that of the house, and his jurisdiction does not extend to constitutional questions, questions of law or other matters which are for the determination of the house itself. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 180, citation 71, paragraph 5.
However, it is my responsibility to see that the motion is before the house in the proper form, that is whether or not it is the appropriate motion to do what is sought to be done. As I have come to the conclusion

that it is not, I think 1 should state briefly the principles that apply to such motions for the production of papers.
As it is well known, papers are laid before the house in pursuance of (1) provisions of an act of parliament; (2) an order of the house itself; (3) an address to the crown; (4) the command of the crown; (5) the standing orders of the house. The reference for that statement is Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 176, citation 209.
There are two annual reports which are to be made to parliament under the Civil Service Act. One is under subsection 4 of section 4, which reads as follows:
(4) The commission shall make an annual report and statement of the transactions and affairs of the commission during the year then next preceding, and the report shall he laid before parliament.
The other report to parliament is made pursuant to subsection 2 of section 60, which gives the commission power with the approval of the governor in council to exclude certain positions from the operations of the act and to make regulations dealing with such positions. Subsection 2 of section 60 reads in part as follows:
(2)	The commission shall make an annual report to parliament within thirty days from the commencement of each session setting forth the positions excluded under this section-
And so on. The document asked for in this case is not either of these annual reports to be laid before parliament, but if I understand the motion correctly it is the report referred to in section 11 of the Civil Service Act, which reads as follows:
11. (1) The commission shall, from time to time, as may be necessary, recommend rates of compensation for any new classes that may be established hereunder, and may propose changes in the rates of compensation for existing classes.
(2)	In each class there shall be a minimum and a maximum salary rate and such intermediate rates as may be considered necessary and proper to provide increases between the minimum and maximum.
(3)	Proposed rates of compensation shall become operative only upon their approval by the governor in council, and, where any increased expenditure will result therefrom, when parliament has provided the money required for such increased expenditure.
That is the whole of section 11. If, to use the words of the motion, the "report made to the Minister of Finance in the year 1959 by the civil service commission concerning pay increases for civil servants" is made under this section, how should it be asked for having regard to the fact that the civil service commission is not part of the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Finance or of the department, I may say, over which he presides? In this matter the hon. member for Ottawa West is correct, and the recommended

rates of compensation become operative only upon their approval by the governor in council.
Beauchesne, in citation 209, sets out this procedure, and I think I might take a minute in order to refer to it. He deals with orders for the production of papers, and he says this in citation 209, page 176 of the fourth edition:
(2)	Papers may be directly ordered when they relate to-
And I leave out the intervening words.
-matters under the immediate control and direction of the different departments of the dominion-
That is the case with an order for the production of documents. Then as to addresses as distinguished from orders:
(3)	Addresses are moved for papers and dispatches from the imperial government; for orders in council.. . for petitions and memorials not in the possession of the House but addressed to the governor in council-
A little further down he continues:
The general rule is that information to be obtained from or through any department constituted or regulated by statute, is obtained by means of an order, whilst information to be obtained from or through the privy council, is obtained by means of an address.
May has an explanation in somewhat similar terms of the practice in the parliament of the United Kingdom which I should like to quote briefly. I am quoting from May's sixteenth edition at page 270:
Parliament is invested with the power of ordering all documents to be laid before it, which are necessary for its information. Each house enjoys this authority separately, but not in all cases independently of the crown. Accounts and papers relating to trade, finance, and general or local matters, are ordered directly, and are returned in obedience to the order of the house whence it was issued: but returns of matters connected with the exercise of the royal prerogative, are obtained by means of addresses to the crown.
The distinction between these two classes of returns should be borne in mind: as, on the one hand, it is irregular to order directly that which should be sought for by address; and, on the order, it is a compromise of the authority of parliament to resort to the crown for information which it can obtain by its own order.
It is clear, I think, from these authorities that the information to be obtained from or through the crown is obtained by means of an address. If we agree that the recommendations of the civil service commission pursuant to section 11 of the Civil Service Act are to be submitted to the governor in council and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is only the vehicle, this document is now officially in the possession of the governor in council and should be asked for from that source.
That being so, I am of the opinion that the motion by the hon. member for Ottawa West should not have been drafted as an 79951-0-67
Division
order of the house to issue these documents, but that it should have been drafted in the form of an address which it is usual to prepare in the following terms:
-that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General praying that he will cause to be laid before the house a copy-
Then follows whatever document is desired.
However, this is a matter of form only which it is simple to correct. If the hon. member for Ottawa West will agree to substituting the appropriate motion for an address for the present motion for an order I shall be pleased to make the correction and the matter can be proceeded with. I understand that the hon. member agrees to this.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Having corrected the form of the motion, it remains for the house to make its decision. If a debate is desired on the question of whether or not it should be produced, standing order 47 can be invoked to secure the debate. Then it will be relevant to discuss documents which are considered as confidential matters. On this subject, members of the house who are interested might refer to Hansard for May 27, 1931, pages 2017 to 2019, but it does not appear that I am called upon to deal with that question at the present time.
I have taken the liberty of preparing a corrected form, and with the leave of the hon. member it is as follows:
Mr. Mcllraith moves that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the report made to the governor in council in the year 1959 by the civil service commission concerning pay increases for civil servants.
Does the Minister of Finance desire to say anything on the motion?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I only wish to say this, Mr. Speaker, that having regard to the fact that this type of report is confidential in its nature and has never at any time in the past been produced, I have no alternative but to oppose the motion.


Mr. Winch:: How about 1958?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not produced then, or published.



&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR 1959&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1959."
Gordon Minto Churchill: Stand.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, this motion has been moved twice already. It is exactly similar to one that was moved last year. It seems to me the government should allow it to proceed.


Harold Edward Winch: Are you afraid of anything?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not afraid of anything. I said "Stand", Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am moving my motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Benidickson:: This is a secret report.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the procedure, if the hon. member who moved the motion wishes to proceed it is before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an unusual procedure on the part of my impatient hon. friend across the way. I simply asked for this to stand. It will be dealt with in due course, likely at the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not willing to allow it to stand. It is therefore my duty to put the motion.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was up for consideration last week it was arranged that the hon. member would see me with regard to possibly changing the wording of the motion. He has agreed to the motion in this form, that after "officers of" in the third line "dominion and provincial" will be added so the motion will then read:
79951-0-67J
Motions for Papers
-officers of dominion and provincial farm organizations and provincial governments-
In that form the government is quite prepared to accept the motion with, of course, the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as amended?
Motion as amended agreed to.



WORLD REFUGEE YEAR


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all telegrams, letters and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada, and any other government or person, dealing with the entry to Canada by, and care of, tubercular refugees under Canada's participation in world refugee year.
He said: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain that I have had a discussion, as requested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; and if the house agrees I would ask permission to delete in the third line the words "or person" so it would read "between the government of Canada and any other government dealing with the-"
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: This motion as amended is acceptable, subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister and with the amendment suggested, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion as amended agreed to.



FOREST ACCESS ROADS AND TRAILS PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and each provincial government since June 1, 1957, regarding the forest access roads and trails program.
Hon- Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources): I have no objection to complying with this motion, but in addition to the usual reservations I wonder whether the hon. member would consider the suggestion that was accepted last year by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) when he had a similar motion on the order paper, namely that he come to the department, examine the files and pick out the documents he wishes to be tabled. It would save us a considerable amount of clerical work.
Mr. Argue:: Will you allow this motion to stand, Mr. Speaker, for the time being?
Motion stands.

Motions for Papers



FARM CREDIT ACT OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government, each provincial government, and any farm organization, since January 1, 1959, concerning farm credit, and operations under the Farm Credit Act.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether the hon. member would agree to put in the same change that was put in the previous motion, namely alter "any" in the third line, "dominion and provincial", in the interests both ol the time it takes to get these papers together and the cost of doing so.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is quite agreeable,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Harkness@: With that amendment the motion is quite acceptable, with the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand, then, that the motion will read as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government, each provincial government, and any dominion and provincial farm organization since January 1, 1959-
Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister and as amended, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion as amended agreed to.



CAMP GROUND AND PICNIC AREA PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of each province since June 1, 1957, regarding the camp ground and picnic area development program undertaken by the federal-provincial governments.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I should like to make the same suggestion that I made on the last motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would ask that this motion stand, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time in my own experience that ministers have taken this course of action. I do not think it is one that should be followed, but I am quite agreeable to have the motion stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?
Motion stands.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL FISCAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 39-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and each provincial government since January 28, 1959, concerning the reconvening of a dominion-provincial conference to discuss fiscal matters.

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Subject to the usual reservations, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation
expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of each province since January 30, 1959, concerning the municipal winter works incentive program.
Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member had a similar motion on the order paper last session. If he is agreeable to getting the same type of information that we gave him on a similar motion last session, then we accept the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and each provincial government since January 29, 1958, concerning federal-provincial tax sharing agreements.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Subject to the usual reservations, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government, each provincial government, and any farm organization, regarding crop insurance, and operations under the Crop Insurance Act, since January 1, 1959.
Douglas Scott Harkness: We are quite agreeable to this motion but I wonder whether the hon. member would be agreeable to the same amendment that was made in the other two cases, namely to insert after the word "any" in the third line, "dominion and provincial"?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the amendment suggested by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion as amended agreed to.

Unemployment Insurance
WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, INDIAN bands	UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Motion No. 44


Mr. Howard:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or branch thereof, and any person or organization since January 1, 1959, relative to the participation by Indian bands in the municipal winter works incentive program.


Michael Starr: This motion is accepted.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the governments of the provinces since June, 1957, with respect to a new procedure of amending the constitution in matters relating to the jurisdiction of both the federal and provincial governments.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: May I ask, with the consent of the hon. gentleman, that this motion be allowed to stand. In order to avoid confusion I should like to say that, as requested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), I will be tabling tomorrow copies of correspondence with the provinces dealing with the constitutional amendments relating to the retirement age for judges.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



CAMP GROUND AND PICNIC AREA DEVELOPMENT, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick, in connection with camp ground and picnic area development, for the period January 1, 1959 to date.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to make the same offer to the hon. member for Gloucester that I did to the hon. member for Assiniboia, namely that he examine the files, select the documents he wishes and we will table them.


Mr. Robichaud:: May I ask that the motion stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



PROPOSED EXTENSION OF BENEFITS TO CANADIAN WOODSMEN IN STATE OF MAINE

Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce) moved:: That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of discussing with the appropriate United States authorities the question of unemployment insurance benefits to Canadian woodsmen working in the state of Maine.
(Translation):
He said: Mr. Speaker, I submitted this resolution following numerous requests from bushworkers who go out to work in the United States and complained to me that under those conditions, they were unable to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would pause for a minute to give members leaving the house an opportunity to go, while I ask others to observe silence so we may hear the hon. member for Beauce.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: On March 6 and 12, 1952, the Canadian government and the United States government signed an agreement for the protection, from an unemployment point of view, of Canadian workers in the United States and American labour in Canada. The agreement had favourable results, for indeed, today, workers of both countries enjoy adequate protection anywhere in Canada and with our neighbours to the south, except in the states of Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire and Alabama.
From an economic point of view, the proximity to the United States of a certain area of Quebec and part of New Brunswick makes it possible, each year, for quite a few Canadians to find jobs over there in the lumber industry. In fact because of this proximity to Maine, New Hampshire, and the states of New York and Vermont, permission was obtained from the American immigration department for 9,000 of our fellow citizens to find employment with our neighbours in 1959.
The workers get employment in those states and temporarily immigrate in either of two ways: for instance the worker can enter the United States with a six month pass, and is restricted to specific employment; or else the workers cross the border after obtaining a visa which authorizes them to do so at will

Unemployment Insurance
and to change jobs as they like. The latter group comprises 1,500 people.
According to the reports submitted by the director of unemployment insurance at a meeting held in Boston on December 22, 1959, the monthly average number of Canadians working in American industries during the three years preceding 1959, was as follows: from September 1956 to August 1957, 5,256 men; from September 1957 to August 1958, 2,780 men; from September 1958 to March 1959, 2,343 men.
About 70 per cent of those people go to Maine, and are employed in lumber camps there in a proportion of 70 per cent; the others are engaged in service operations.
We note that in the last few years, the monthly average number of Canadian workers taking jobs in the United States has declined considerably.
The greatest number of jobs available to Canadians is in Maine, and and, of course, in a lesser proportion, in the state of New Hampshire. The proportion is also less significant in the states of New York and Vermont. But, as far as those two states are concerned, there is noting amiss, as mutual agreements have been signed in both cases.
The fact remains that Maine and New Hampshire absorb practically all our bush-workers but as those states have no agreement with Canada, our men are less interested in working in those two states, because they cannot count on adequate protection in case of unemployment when they return to Canada.
Therefore, those Canadians, working in states where there is no mutual agreement, cannot qualify for benefits when they are unemployed. Though the states concerned and Canada have each their own legislation, those men cannot qualify in Canada because they do not pay enough contributions here to qualify under our own legislation.
And in the absence of a reciprocity agreement, they are likewise barred from benefits in the United States, because they live in Canada and are not residents of the state in which they are employed.
In proposing this resolution asking that steps be taken, in order to find some solution to the problem I have no intention of casting blame on anybody.
I know that for several years now discussions have been held between Canadian government authorities and representatives from Maine and New Hampshire.
In addition to those discussions, I know that there has been an exchange of correspondence between unemployment commission officers and members of a similar commission in Maine and New Hampshire.

I would not like this resolution to be interpreted today as a blame-as I said-for its main purpose is to urge the Minister of Labour and commission members to activate their discussions to determine whether it is possible to come to an agreement.
After so many years of discussions, I believe it would be desirable, in the interest of those workers, that we know exactly whether it is possible or not.
I know that those two states raise certain objections to reciprocity, because first of all, they feel that, under the circumstances, Canadians would be getting much more from the state funds than American workers would get out of Canadian funds.
In the report submitted to the meeting of October 23 in Boston, special mention was made of the fact that the balance of requests and applications in the 17 years the reciprocal agreement has been established, had been about the same; but in both states concerned it is readily understood that it is very likely, and even possible, that applications come mostly from Canadians.
In the second place, American employers fear that, in view of the ease with which Canadians are allowed to cross the border, once those workers come back to Canada, U. S. employers would not have the same opportunity of hiring them once the men apply for unemployment insurance. Employers claim they have a better opportunity to rehire American citizens. Furthermore, they fear that since Canadian workers are paid by the U. S. government unemployment commission, they would not perhaps be as eager to take certain jobs for which they would be required in the United States.
As a result of those various reasons, American employers fear that their preferential rates, according to their experience, would be heavily increased.
Third, the authorities of the states concerned and employers fear that Canadians may not be so readily available, that is to say that the law may not be applied in Canada as strictly as it is now in the United States, and that it is rather difficult to establish such availability, through Canadian unemployment insurance offices.
Those are the main reasons given by our American neighbours for not agreeing to the reciprocal agreement.
However, I feel that-even if nothing was said about that during the discussions-what those two states fear most is that Canadian employees get too much out of Maine and New Hampshire funds and that, in return, reciprocity, in the above-mentioned case, would be detrimental to them, since very few Americans have jobs in that part of Quebec and New Brunswick and that, consequently,

they would be called upon to pay much more in benefits than the Canadian unemployment insurance fund would have to pay to American citizens.
Consequently, under the circumstances, it would be necessary to determine whether or not the day will come when an agreement will be possible.
If none is possible, it is the duty of the Canadian government and of the unemployment insurance commission authorities to find solutions in case it would be absolutely impossible to come to a reciprocal agreement such as already exists between Canada and other states of the neighbouring country.
If reciprocal insurability is impossible, Canadian authorities should come up with suggestions to protect those jobs for our citizens in the United States.
Not only must those relations be encouraged, but it is our duty to safeguard them, and also, through appropriate measures, to encourage Canadian citizens to keep those jobs which, in the circumstances, considerably help reduce unemployment in this country.
If our woods workers were to lose interest altogether in the jobs they can get in the United States, as a result of lack of protection in case of unemployment, those people would only swell the already long list of unemployed in Canada, which is quite impressive.
If the discussions between Maine, New Hampshire and Canada have had little success, I think the officials of the Department of Labour, jointly with the unemployment commission authorities should consider other solutions, because much of the responsibility for the welfare of those Canadian workers who earn their living in the United States, and spend their income in Canada, lies in the hands of Canadian authorities.
Besides, that is the opinion entertained, and rightly so, by members of the regional employment advisory committee of my constituency, as recorded in the minutes of their meeting held in St. Georges, on October 29, 1959, and I quote:
Members are of the opinion that it is within the unemployment commission itself that the problem should be solved. One must not overlook the fact that those citizens are 100 per cent Canadians, that they spend up to 99 per cent of their income in Canada, that they pay taxes like all other woods workers employed in Canada. Consequently, it is the duty of the unemployment insurance commission to hasten the solution of that problem. The unemployment insurance commission can, with the agreement of the governor in council, make rules to include under insurable employment, any job partly
Unemployment Insurance or fully done outside Canada, if such job would be insurable if performed in Canada. Let then the commission introduce some regulation, accordingly, for the benefit of Canadian bush workers working in Maine and New Hampshire, restricting, however, the insurability to those who work over there for Canadian contractors, operating in both states concerned. Check ups could be simplified by duplicate statements of salaries paid to those bushworkers, which statements could be kept on file at employers' offices in Canadian territory. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the federal Minister of Labour, to the chief commissioner of the unemployment insurance commission and to the member for Beauce in the House of Commons.
The commission might oppose this resolution. First of all, it will surely be said that the agreement, in the circumstances, would be limited to Canadian employers and contractors having their place of business in Canada; second, it might also be said that such an agreement would be more or less non-compulsory and that some contractors could take part in it or not, since Maine legislation would still apply to those bush-workers.
Furthermore, it will be said that the state of Maine has not the power to withdraw its present tax, and that the Canadian contractor would find himself handicapped compared to his American competitors, in view of his contributions to the U.S. treasury and to the Canadian unemployment insurance fund.
It will also be said that non-compulsory participation might create an anomaly, in view of the fact that some woodsworkers would be protected while others would not, something which might cause a good deal of discontent.
It may also be added that employers, to avoid double taxation, would be inclined to hire American workers rather than Canadians, something which would spoil the employment market for Canadians.
Under the circumstances, it may be said that this resolution would, in the long run, do more harm than good from the particular point of view of employment.
I think that, sooner or later, this motion will have to be given serious consideration, in view of the fact that discussions between Canada and the state of Maine have so far shown little progress. So naturally, the commission, in co-operation with the Department of Labour, will have to give more serious consideration to this proposal in order to reach a compromise aimed at helping and protecting Canadian workers.
If we insist on going on with the discussions with the state of Maine, without taking note

Unemployment Insurance of suggestions from various organizations, I think our workers will have to wait another several years, and even at that, will not be assured of satisfactory results, assuming that an agreement is finally reached after a number of years.
Perhaps the commission should, in cooperation with the Department of Labour, make an objective study of proposals that are being submitted and not only discover their weak points, if any, but it is the responsibility of the Department of Labour and of the unemployment insurance commission to try to find a way out.
I have no wish to criticize the Department of Labour or the unemployment insurance commission authorities, but in view of their lack of success and results so far in reciprocal discussions with the states concerned, I think instead of raising objections against plans that are submitted, they should look for solutions and formulas to protect that employment market, which is one of the most important markets for the area extending from Sherbrooke to New Brunswick. Let them negotiate a solution, if not with the state of Maine, at least with employers who need the services of Canadian workers.
I have every reason to believe that American employers in forestry operations are quite favourably disposed toward Canadian citizens who work for them at certain periods of the year, and I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to get in touch with the largest companies employing Canadians for a good part of the year in their forestry operations.
I have no wish to commit those American employers in any way, but though I am in no position to say officially that they are willing to co-operate, I can at least say it unofficially, because I know they want to keep their Canadian workers for their operations. Therefore, perhaps it might be advisable to have discussions with them, because I think the problem of double taxation might easily be settled. I am certain that American lumbering companies might be, under the circumstances, not only interested but prepared to show their co-operation by assuming, on the one hand, most of the costs with regard to American taxation, as far as the employee and the employer are concerned, I am also convinced that they would not be disinclined to have a representative in Canada to look after the bookkeeping in respect of salaries so that the

unemployment insurance commission might, in due course, check the wages of our Canadian workers employed in the United States. In this way, all our workers would be protected without any exception or discrimination.
Thus, it would be quite easy for unemployment insurance commission auditors to go to the Canadian office of those companies and check the case of such and such employee who applies for unemployment insurance.
As I said just now, the government and the Department of Labour-and I agree with them-have had negotiations with the states of Maine and New Hampshire only. But after all this time we will agree that we take other steps and change our policy, because I am convinced that, before long, if things keep up this way and if we neither come to a better arrangement nor reach more appreciable results with regard to safeguarding our economy on that employment market, and giving our workers some economic and social guarantee, I am certain, that in a not too remote future, we shall have to face the loss of that employment market because our lumbermen and bushworkers will have to face problems which, at this time, they are unable to solve. They will prefer trying to get jobs in Quebec or Ontario, rather than to go out to the United States and have no guarantee of being able to get unemployment insurance benefits on their return to Canada.
In the statistics I mentioned a few moments ago and which were quoted by the unemployment insurance administrators at the Boston meeting, on September 22, 1959, we notice that, since 1956, the number of our Canadian workers engaged in American lumber operations, had decreased by half as of March 1959, and I am afraid that, if the government does not consider the possibility of new negotiations with the employers, the number of men who are now finding jobs in the United States, will decline in the same proportion within a few years and that, in the near future, we will witness the loss of that labour market which I consider most important, because, a few years ago, some
20,000	men from those areas of Quebec and New Brunswick found employment there.
That question has often been raised in the house before, and representations have been made. I remember finding in Hansard that the former member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Blanchette), the former member for Dor-

Chester, the member for Bellechasse, and also my immediate predecessor from Beauce raised the question in many of their speeches.
I remember seeing in Hansard of former years that the matter was also dealt with by the hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Van Horne), whom I am pleased to see in the house today, and who, I am sure, will give us his comments and suggestions about this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to say that this question does not apply exclusively to Beauce constituency, nor to Dorchester and Compton-Frontenac constituencies, but to all the area extending from Sherbrooke to New Brunswick and especially to many local unemployment insurance offices, including, among others, St. Georges, Sherbrooke, Me-gantic, Riviere du Loup, Montmagny, Cau-sapscal, Matane, Campbellton and Fredericton. The offices deal with workers who are now handicapped by this "no agreement restriction" between Maine and New Hampshire and Canada.
Consequently, it is not a matter of purely local interest since it affects two provinces, and I hope that the minister as well as the officials of the unemployment insurance commission will continue to give it special consideration.
Before concluding, may I offer, on behalf of those workers, my most sincere congratulation to the former minister of labour, Mr. Gregg, and to the present minister who have both worked so hard in taking up this matter with the states of Maine and New Hampshire. May I also congratulate the unemployment insurance commission officials who, in many circumstances, spared no effort in trying to bring about an agreement between Maine and New Hampshire. However, the Minister of Labour and the officials of the unemployment insurance commission should not be satisfied with the congratulations I have offered them and I hope that after their involuntary failure to bring about a mutual agreement, they will give consideration to the resolutions that have been suggested to them so that this problem, that I consider most important, may be settled soon.
I hope also that during this debate many solutions will be suggested by the members of the house. In fact, I hope that the members for Compton-Frontenac, Dorchester, Bellechasse and Montmagny-L'Islet, as well as the members from Gaspesia and New Brunswick 79951-0-68
Unemployment Insurance will share in this debate in a constructive way in order to help the Minister of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission find a solution to this problem, and in this way help all our woodsmen who are employed in the United States, and particularly in the two states which do not have an agreement with Canada.
Besides, here is what I find in the insurance coverage manual:
That the commission may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations to include in insurable employment any job outside Canada which, if it were done in Canada, would be insurable employment.
Sections C-301 to C-304 inclusive deal with seamen.
Section C-305 deals with other jobs outside Canada and it read as follows:
(1)	Regulation 66 passed under section 66 (1)
(b)	of the act gives coverage to: employment for the execution of any particular work done by a person who was insured before his departure from Canada, for an employer residing in or having a place of Dusiness in Canada. Unless the com mission decides otherwise in a particular case, this rule normally applies only to the job which must not last more than eight months.
(2)	Ordinary considerations governing the insurability of an occupation apply naturally to occupations outside Canada listed above in paragraph (1), but those occupations must also meet the following requirements:
(a)	the worker must have been insured just before leaving Canada:
(b)	the occupation must involve "the performance of specific duties";
(c)	the insured person must have been employed before leaving Canada or, if this person is already out of Canada, employment or re-employment must uninterruptedly follow a previous employment outside of Canada, for which contributions were required;
(d)	the employer must reside in Canada or have a place of business in this country.
This resolution does not by any means purport to put an end to talks with the states of Maine and New Hampshire. But since talks held up to now have obviously proved unsuccessful, I ask the Minister of Labour to carry them on while opening new negotiations with American employers, who seem very well disposed, because I think this problem should be settled within the unemployment insurance commission.
Therefore, I think a solution to this situation could be found in section 305, if the companies agree to send representatives to Canada, whether they be contractors, subcontractors or others. In this way Canadian woodsmen employed in Maine or New Hampshire could pay unemployment insurance contributions and qualify for benefits during slack
1066	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance periods. This would help to maintain their interest in seeking employment south of the border, thus creating employment for other Canadians who are now out of work.
(Text):


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this resolution interests me very much. I heartily commend the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) for bringing this matter to the attention of parliament and the public in general because it is a matter which I feel is not too well understood.
I congratulate the hon. member on the remarks he made although it was rather difficult for me to hear him at all times and to hear the translation. I believe the hon. gentleman was fair in his presentation but that he strayed somewhat from the subject of the resolution. When I read the resolution I considered it somewhat misleading in that the hon. gentleman appeared to be asking the government to take action. The inference to be drawn from the resolution was that the government had done nothing in this respect and this attitude, of course, is most unfair. In general, however, the hon. member covered the subject fairly thoroughly.
It is not my intention to read the resolution because hon. gentlemen have it before them. I have been interested in the problem dealt with in the resolution for a period of six years. This problem was brought to my attention shortly after I became a member of parliament because there are many people in my constituency and in the area to the north of it as well as in other parts of New Brunswick who like to go to the state of Maine and work in the lumber industry. One reason is because the wages are greater.
The lumber business in the states of Maine, New Hampshire and throughout the eastern United States follows a pattern similar to that prevalent in eastern Canada. The industry has problems and fluctuations. These fluctuations result in many of these workers being laid off for periods extending between two and four months during the year. These men about whom we are speaking wish to maintain their residence in Canada but like to go across the border and work in the lumber industry- chiefly in the paper industry-and then, when laid off, return to Canada. I first took up the matter with the former minister of labour in 1954 who told me there were several hon.


members in that parliament interested in the question.
As a result of the agreement which the hon. member for Beauce mentioned in his remarks which went into effect April 12, 1942 negotiations were entered into between Canada and several states and some were successfully concluded. In 1954 negotiations were undertaken with the state of Maine to see what could be done. It was found that the wood operators who are the employers of these men were not interested and would in no way support the arranging of a reciprocal agreement. That attitude has continued to the present day.
The effect of the agreements entered into in 1942 between Canada and the United States was to permit agencies in either country to undertake reciprocal arrangements. The interpretation of that is that the unemployment insurance commission in Canada has the right and authority to enter into an agreement with the state employment security commission of any state in the United States concerning unemployment benefits. However, no headway could be made with the authorities in the state of Maine.
I shall outline the discussions I had on the matter with the former minister of labour. In 1954, as I said, the government of the day attempted to reach an agreement with the state of Maine but nothing was done. As a result of meetings held at that time the employment security commission authorities of the state of Maine said in effect that their employers were not interested in and would not support a reciprocal arrangement and therefore the state of Maine would not enter into an agreement. They expressed their position in plain cold words.
Nothing further was done until about 1956. I was one of several hon. members of that parliament who discussed this question with the then minister of labour who assured us that his departmental officials would again take up the matter through Washington. If I remember correctly this matter was referred to the labour councillor who discussed it with his opposite number. He came back with the information that there had been efforts made by the labour councillor and the director of the bureau of employment security in Washington to initiate proposals in congress for reciprocal coverage by the states with Canada.
However, there was no success because they immediately ran into political repercussions on state rights. This was in 1956, and we seemed to be up against a stone wall.
Then, when the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), came into office various hon. members of parliament got after him and his

departmental officials and directed him to press the matter much more strenuously and actively. He even took it up with the governors of Maine and New Hampshire. The letters which were produced last year show that he urged the governor of Maine to take action, and they also show that the governor referred the matter to the state employment security commission. Later our minister received information that the state was not interested. The minister also referred the problem to Governor Muskie's successor, who seems to be favourably inclined to do what he can. The matter rests there at the moment.
This question was also referred to Governor Dwinell of New Hampshire. This is something which I believe should be brought to the attention of all hon. members of this house. This is an international matter. The governor of New Hampshire informed our Department of Labour that in so far as the state of New Hampshire was concerned the state employment security commission had no authority to enter into an agreement until their legislature amends this statutory law. Now, as I say, this was discovered late in 1957 by our present Minister of Labour.
I should like to read a paragraph from Governor Dwinell's letter which is pertinent. This letter was among the papers tabled last spring. I am quoting now from a letter written by Lane Dwinell, governor of the state of New Hampshire, to the Hon. Michael Starr, Minister of Labour, dated December 31, 1957.
As to the possibility of entering into a reciprocal agreement, it is my understanding that under the present state of the law relating to employment security in my state no such agreement can be made. The language relating to such arrangements is revised statutes annotated of New Hampshire, chapter 282, section 16-A, "The director of the division of employment security is hereby authorized to enter into reciprocal arrangements with appropriate and duly authorized agencies of other states or of the federal government, or both-[DOT]
The interpretation of the word "state" is this:
-"State" includes, in addition to the states of the United States of America, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.
So far as the state of New Hampshire is concerned, to which a lot of our woodsmen seem to like to go to work, until the legislators of New Hampshire are ready to change the law we just cannot force them to do so.
The minister and his departmental officials did not stop there. During the last three years they have interested the international brotherhood of pulp, sulphite and papermill workers and that organization has taken up the case in New Hampshire and Maine. They have taken up the case on behalf of the Canadian woodsmen. However, even with the assistance of this organization there has been 79951-0-684
Unemployment Insurance no success in getting this statute changed in New Hampshire. There is very little that our Department of Labour can do because these people have no authority whatever to enter into an agreement.
I believe that the solution of this problem lies pretty well within the hands of Canadian labour. As the hon. member who spoke before me said, I believe that Canadian woodsmen are the best. It is my opinion that the pulp and paper operators in both the state of Maine and New Hampshire are anxious to retain these men as employees. It was suggested, I believe in some of the correspondence, by one of the governors of one of the states that Canada might refuse these labourers permission to go to work in the United States. We do not want to do that. I do not believe any member of the house would ask the government to do that. However, if labourers refused to go over there to work, then the operators might take a different attitude.
As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly this matter was thoroughly discussed at a meeting of the pulp and paper operators held in Boston last May. It was suggested at that time that they might run into difficulty in getting Canadian woodsmen unless some provision was made for unemployment insurance coverage by the states of Maine and New Hampshire. Of course, the operators have not come up against this situation as yet, but the problem was serious enough, I am informed, to necessitate a further meeting being called in September. I think the hon. member referred to that matter but I could not catch just what he said there.
Representatives of the state employment security commission in the states of Maine and New Hampshire were there, as were representatives of the operators of the pulp and paper industry and, I believe, on invitation, representatives of the unemployment insurance commission of Canada. The matter was thoroughly discussed but without concrete results. However, as a result of that meeting I think the operators feel that they may have to do something. They would have to do something if the Canadian woodsmen refuse to go there and work.
I agree with the hon. member who spoke ahead of me that we do not want to lose that labour market if we can help it. But when we are dealing with an international matter like this, it is necessary to use pressure. From the information I can gather on this whole subject-and I have followed it closely since 1954-I do not think at any time has the department and the officials of the minister pressed more consistently and more actively in this matter than did our present Minister of Labour and his officials during
1068	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance the last two years. If he had not been putting the pressure on, I do not think we would have had that meeting which was held in September and which, to my mind, is possibly going to bring some results provided the Canadian woodsmen will stick their heels in and refuse to go there and work unless some arrangement is made.
The Canadian government and the Department of Labour cannot make any trade with the lumber operators in either the state of Maine or the state of New Hampshire unless there is an arrangement whereby deposits are made in Canada and they are backed up by these men refusing to go there and work. With the pressure being kept up, with the discussions that have been taking place being continued and with the support of our own Canadian workmen I believe that we could be successful in getting some sort of reciprocal agreement.
As the former hon. member I think said- I am not too sure about this, but I think he did so-these operators have been opposing this reciprocal agreement because it would mean they would be obliged to contribute more tax to the security commission of each state. However, I think they would be willing to do that in order to get our Canadian woodsmen. That is the impression I gather as a result of the meetings that have been held.
I did not like the resolution in the beginning but it has possibly had the effect of bringing to the attention of the public the fact that we have today a Minister of Labour who has been doing everything he can to bring this matter to a head. When I say that I am not making any reflection on the former minister of labour. He was a personal friend of mine. I discussed this matter with him on various occasions; and I was not the only one to do so. However, they never seemed to be successful.
They never seemed to be able to get that union interested in lobbying as they are getting interested now, something which I think is a good thing. They never approached Washington in order to try to have this thing forced through. What was the use? You cannot force a foreign government to do something in a matter like that; you must encourage them. I think we have the matter in our hands. If our Canadian workmen stick in their heels I think we can win the operators over. I think we must insist that our department continue this same pressure they have been putting on. However, I cannot agree at the moment that we should pay.
Maybe I have misunderstood the hon. member on this matter. I cannot see that we should pay these people unemployment insurance out of the Canadian unemployment


insurance fund in any circumstances unless we can get contributions from the state of Maine or from the log operators. On that point I may be wrong. As I say, I may have misunderstood my hon. friend. However, I cannot go along with that argument. I would be against it.
Another thing I should like to point out is this. My impression is that a debate like this in the house is a good thing because it informs the public of what has been done. There are a good many people in my province-and they are not only woodsmen- who think the government has not done anything in the last ten years. They will hardly believe you when you tell them the government has been working on this matter at least since 1954. I think this debate is good for that purpose. At first I felt that a resolution like this should not be debated for the purpose of trying to give the impression the government was not doing anything whereas they were doing all they could. However, I know that was not the intention of the hon. member. As a result of this debate I think the public will become informed of what the government is trying to do and possibly that fact will be of some help.
I think I have said about all I wish to say on this matter. However, in conclusion I should like to say this even at the risk of repeating myself. I think the minister and his officials in the Department of Labour are to be commended for their active and persistent action in this matter. I think it is a good thing to let the public know that they have been forcing this issue through. We may get more support from the public and the people particularly interested.
From what I have read of the correspondence that has been tabled, I think the governors of these two states are sympathetic. I think the trouble in the past has lain in the fact that the operators objected. As a result of this meeting in September I am a little bit more hopeful.
Just in closing I should like to say this. I am sure that we could not get a more dedicated man to follow up this matter than our own Minister of Labour today. I wish him every success as I am sure does every hon. member in the house who is interested in this matter. It is rather hard to compel a foreign government-and that is what we are dealing with, really-to do something unless we have some lever. We have it, of course, if our workmen work with us. I will say this. If the minister does not succeed, it will not be for lack of trying.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tor Beauce (Mr. Racine) has introduced a most interesting and important resolution. In its own wording it is very restrictive because it deals wholly and solely with the matter of woodsmen. However, we feel that the vital importance of the motion is that it brings to the notice of this parliament a factor or a matter that has not been considered too fully in the past and which, without any question of doubt at all, requires the consideration of the federal government and the provincial governments of this country and the national government and the state governments of the country to the south.
We have over 3,000 miles of border between Canada and the United States, and especially on a season basis there is a transfer from south to north, but particularly from north to south, as regards work. It is for that reason we feel that the hon. member has done something to draw to the attention of this government and the hon. members of this house the need for over-all planning and policy and international understanding with regard to transference of workers from one country to the other.
The previous speaker said he was not going to read the motion but, sir, I am, and you will understand in a moment why. The motion is as follows:
That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of discussing with the appropriate United States authorities the question of unemployment insurance benefits to Canadian woodsmen working in the state of Maine.
As I said a moment ago, it is directed toward Canadian woodsmen working in one state of the United States. I have already mentioned the over-all picture internationally, which I feel is the larger aspect which is opened up by this motion, but basically I am afraid that what I have to say is more in the way of seeking information than being by way of comment.
I regret a great deal that neither the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) nor the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is here; because there are very far-reaching implications in even the specific matter mentioned in the motion. We in this party are most interested in the motion and have made some study of the Unemployment Insurance Act to see how it is affected. I listened with a great deal of interest on the simultaneous translation system to the remarks of the mover of the motion. We have also noted points in the existing act with regard to the application of unemployment insurance if a Canadian worker crosses the border and works in the United States.
Unemployment Insurance
Our interpretation of the existing power of the unemployment insurance commission, and that also means the existing power of the Minister of Labour, is that there can only be negotiation, as far as United States employers paying unemployment insurance contributions for a Canadian workman is concerned, if the Canadian workman is employed prior to going to the United States in a certain occupation for a certain employer and he works for that same employer in the United States. If I am wrong about that I most certainly would like some clarification; but it is my understanding that even if this idea were carried through, good as it is, no arrangement could be made because under the Unemployment Insurance Act of Canada the unemployment insurance commission and the Minister of Labour have no authority to make any agreement with a state in the United States, or with Washington itself, for the payment of unemployment insurance on a Canadian basis for a Canadian working wholly and solely for a United States employer in the United States.
It was for that reason that I said that although we are most interested in this motion-we think it is most important and hope something can be worked out-would we not first of all have to have an amendment to our own Unemployment Insurance Act so as to give the authority to make some international agreement, or agreement between a province and a state, whereby a United States employer employing a Canadian worker could pay a contribution for unemployment insurance in Canada? That is the first angle on which I would like some clarification. If my interpretation is wrong, I hope I am very hurriedly corrected.
In addition, Mr. Speaker-perhaps this is even a more important point, although quite honestly I have not yet resolved it myself- the implications of this matter are so vital. We can understand the principle. There must be thousands of Canadians who cross the border to an adjoining state on a seasonal basis to go to work. The hon. member who moved the motion told us of the thousands of woodsmen in his own province and constituency who go down into the state of Maine. From my discussions with other hon. members of all parties in the house, there are thousands more outside of woodsmen, such as those who dig potatoes and pick apples. I understand the figure runs into thousands in the province of Quebec and some of the maritime provinces. Of course, they are not covered by unemployment insurance in Canada, and they could not be covered to any extent in their employment in the United States. There is not much we can do about
1070	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance that until we correct the situation in Canada, but I would like to cover the implications of this principle.
I hope it can be shown as good, but would it not be the fact that if we amended our own Unemployment Insurance Act to give the unemployment insurance commission or the Minister of Labour the authority to try to negotiate with Washington or with the state concerned where a Canadian workman working for a United States employer in the United States for three, four or five months pays unemployment insurance, the employer's payment is then applicable for unemployment in Canada? If that is so, and if that is good, then does it therefore follow that where a United States citizen is working in Canada, or a Mexican or Venezuelan is working in Canada on, say, oil, we would agree to pay to those countries payments of unemployment insurance if they have such a thing, or workmen's compensation, or whatever it is? Or do we maintain what we do at present, and that is that anyone coming into our country is covered by our law? As far as I understand it, they are covered under our law.
Of course, the laws in the United States with regard to compensation are entirely different from ours. If we establish this principle, does that mean that our workmen in the United States^-and I would say that the woodsmen follow a most dangerous occupation-are covered under the compensation laws of the United States, or Canada? If they are covered by unemployment insurance in Canada, then are they covered by workmen's compensation in Canada and, if so, is the employer going to pay the workmen's compensation in Canada? Or is it the case that they stand by what they have? It varies from state to state, I understand. In some places everything is covered by insurance, and not by the kind of system we have in Canada. That is a point very much in my mind, and it is raised because of the principle espoused here.
It is also my understanding that the woodsmen who go from the riding of the hon. member who moved this resolution into the state of Maine have paid for them by their employers the social security tax. They pay the social security tax of the United States. What is the position of the Canadian woodsmen from the hon. member's riding who go to Maine and whose employers are now paying the social security tax which the law of the state says they have to pay? Is there any return to the 'Canadians when they are back in their own home country? I am told that if you work in the United States for so many years you reach a certain point, and then it 

pays you to go to the United States and stay there because of this social security tax payment.
If it is the law that the employer in the United States must pay the social security tax for his employees irrespective of citizenship, are they also going to accept paying the employers unemployment insurance tax of Canada? I am just trying to raise some of these things which are in my mind, and which I feel have to be answered before we can honestly give an answer to the resolution.
The principle, as I said, is of interest. Somehow we must find a way of taking care of these people. However, these ramifications are vital. I hope it will be possible to have some indication from the hon. member for Beauce or from the ministers concerned with the departments of labour and justice respectively as to what exactly would be involved in the acceptance of this motion. It is important to know, should we accept the motion in principle, what action we should have to take in amending our own act and in subsequent negotiations in order to bring about the best possible provisions for the benefit of our Canadian workers who are of necessity employed outside this country in the United States for two, three, four or five months of the year.
That is all I have to say. I think it was well worth while putting down the motion which stands in the name of the hon. member, and I look forward to the day when there will be in existence something which we should have had long ago; that is a form of international understanding or treaty between Canada and the United States providing for full protection of workers on both sides of the line.


Mr. R. D. C. Siewarf (Charlotte):: In rising to speak on this resolution and to support the principle which it contains, I do so with some realization of the constitutional and practical aspects of the problem.
Any agreement involving international bodies raises its own particular difficulties. Although the resolution itself is very limited, the mover enlarged its scope, and I should like at this time to commend him for having done so. As Your Honour knows, the resolution deals only with woodsmen moving between Canada and the state of Maine, but the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) in his remarks extended it to include New Hampshire. I think it should probably be extended further to apply to all Canadian labour enjoying benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act of Canada.
Representing, as I do, the constituency of Charlotte, which contains the port of St. Stephen one of the border crossing points

to the United States, I may point out that we have a definite movement of labour through that port. I am not referring to those people who cross back and forth every day, or to those people who live in St. Stephen and work in Calais or in some other part of Maine. I am referring to movements which are more or less mass movements of labour through the ports of New Brunswick to the states of Maine and New Hampshire for various purposes, and for longer periods.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) talked about the movement of certain classes of labour. He referred particularly to people going to the states of Maine and New Hampshire for the purpose of picking potatoes. I have obtained some figures dealing with this migration and although they are not too definite or too comprehensive I have been advised by government authorities that in 1959 we had 4,179 from the province of Quebec and 2,516 from the province of New Brunswick entering the state of Maine in connection with the potato harvest.
I realize that these people are not now covered by the provisions of the Canadian Unemployment Insurance Act. However, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has pointed out, there should possibly be an extension of the act to include these people. In the same year, 1959, 271 persons from the province of Quebec and 369 from New Brunswick entered the state of Maine for the purpose of harvesting fruit. I have also obtained from the Department of Labour the number of Canadian labourers from the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, and, possibly to a limited extent, from Nova Scotia, who were in the state of Maine at the end of each month during 1959. In January, there were 2,614; in February, 2,670; in March, 600; in April, 306; in May, 3,247; in June, 4,943; in July, 4,149; in August, 3,637; in September, 3,136; in October, 3,703; in November, 3,965; and in December, 3,729. You will see from the figures I have just given that there is a considerable mass movement of labour across the border in each and every month.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) referred to some of the correspondence between this government and the governor of the state of New Hampshire, and pointed out on the basis of that correspondence that the state of New Hampshire does not at the present time have the necessary legislative power to enable it to enter into a reciprocity with the government of Canada. It is clear that enabling legislation must be passed, allowing this to be done. I think hon. members will find that the same situation exists as far as the state of Maine is concerned. The present reciprocal agreement between this
Unemployment Insurance government and the state of New York, dealing with insurance coverage for Canadian labourers provides that this government act only as an agency to collect from the employer in the state of New York the benefits which he should pay to his Canadian workers. I think a similar arrangement could be worked out as far as the state of Maine or the state of New Hampshire are concerned. This is a question of vital importance. Those people who leave our province-the province of New Brunswick-or my constituency in order to go to the state of Maine to obtain employment should receive the same benefits as those to which they would be entitled had they remained in Canada or, alternately, the same benefits as their co-workers on the United States side may receive.
There are things which must be worked out on an international basis, and they can only be worked out by labour, management and government working together. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, this government has done some work in this field. I commend the hon. member for Beauce for having introduced this resolution and join with him in urging the government to try to enter into negotiations for a reciprocal agreement with the state of Maine and the state of New Hampshire not only for the purpose of covering woodsmen but for covering all Canadian labour now covered by our Unemployment Insurance Act and, if necessary, to have that act extended so that those people who go to the United States, especially from my constituency, at seasonal times should be properly covered.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to say a few words on the resolution now before the house. First, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) on introducing this resolution and giving the house and the country an opportunity to have up to date facts on this very important matter of coverage of unemployment insurance benefits for Canadian woodsmen working in the state of Maine.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) said it was a subject which was not too well understood but on which much had been done in the past. I agree with the hon. member, and I also wish to join with him, and with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, in complimenting the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), his department and the officials of the unemployment insurance office for trying to get an agreement with the state of Maine on this important matter.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton stated that the state of New Hampshire had no authority to sign such an agreement with
1072	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Canada. The important part of this motion deals with Canadian woodsmen working in the state of Maine. To emphasize the importance of this I should like to refer to a report presented to the meeting which was referred to, and which was held on September 22, 1959 in Boston, and which was composed of United States and Canadian representatives. In his report Mr. A. J. Corballis, acting deputy regional director, bureau of employment security, gave some very interesting figures for the year 1959. He said that the employment, by months, ranged from 306 in April, 1959 to 4,943 in June, 1959 and that the average employment during the 11-month period was 2,421. What is more interesting is the distribution by states of bonded woodsmen. One to 2 per cent were employed in New York; 5 per cent in Vermont; 5 per cent in New Hampshire; and 88 per cent to 90 per cent in the state of Maine. This shows that the main interest of Canadian woodsmen is definitely directed toward the state of Maine.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), doubting the authority of the Canadian government to cover Canadian workers working on the American side, I would place on record again the statement made by the hon. member for Beauce when he said-and I shall quote in French:
(Translation):
The commission may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations to include in insurable employment any job outside Canada which, if it were done in Canada, would be insurable employment.
(Text):
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this shows that the unemployment insurance commission has authority under its act to make regulations to cover Canadian woodsmen working outside of Canada. Furthermore, agreements have already been signed with all but four American states. This shows that some mutual arrangement could also be made with the state of Maine, if we would only come to a mutual understanding.
Reference was made to the conference on reciprocal agreements with Canada which took place on September 22, 1959. I hold in my hand a report of this conference. It states in part:
The principal objective of the conference was to explore the possibility of the employment security agencies of Maine and New Hampshire entering into reciprocal agreements with Canada to pay unemployment insurance benefits to Canadian workers released from employment in the United States. The meeting was chaired by Arthur C. Gernes, regional director of the bureau of employment security, United States department of labour, who had been asked at a previous meeting of the committee on imports of the American pulpwood industry to call together interested parties, including labour and management, to consider the subject. The Canadian government had on several 

occasions in the past expressed concern that no provision was being made in these two states for the reciprocal payment of unemployment insurance.
The Canadian delegation was represented by Mr. James McGregor, director of unemployment insurance of the unemployment insurance commission in Ottawa who, at the time, gave a detailed explanation of the Canadian commission's experience with unemployed woodsmen, and also by Mr. Alec Ouimet of the national employment service who, on that occasion, summarized the movement of Canadian woodsworkers in the United States.
The labour position was presented by Mr. Cecil Crawford, representative of the international brotherhood of pulp, sulphite and paper mill workers. In his brief he referred to the substantial membership of Canadian woodsworkers in local No. 809 who he said were acutely aware of the situation and joined with him in supporting the undertaking.
I also have the different reports which were presented at the meeting referred to. Mr. Ouimet in his brief said that Canadian workers are employed in the state of Maine for sap peeled wood from mid-May to midAugust, and again in the early fall to late February in other types of work. It shows that if Canada could come to a satisfactory agreement with the state of Maine the employment of a substantial number of Canadian workers would relieve the unemployment situation in Canada. In fact, during 1959 from 150 to 200 men were sent to work in the United States from the Woodstock office of the unemployment insurance commission; 400 were sent from Sherbrooke; 400 from Megantic; and as many as 4,500 to 5,000 from the Beauce area. It is also mentioned that one large Canadian contractor, operating in the state of Maine, has already got in touch with the New Brunswick minister af labour requesting that action be taken to make unemployment insurance benefits available for these men, as we were finding it more and more difficult to hire woodsworkers without having unemployment insurance coverage.
This might be the main reason for finding a solution to this important problem. I believe we have reached the point where the United States operators are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain Canadian woodsmen to work for them because of the lack of unemployment insurance coverage.
Mr. McGregor representing the unemployment insurance commission also gave a detailed report at the meeting to which reference has been made. He stated:
In lumbering and logging there is one economic area embracing parts of Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York.

It is desirable that there should be as much freedom of movement as possible within this labour market area. The two chief legislative impediments are the immigration and unemployment insurance laws.
It was mentioned this afternoon by the mover of the resolution with respect to immigration that there is a standing quota permitted by the United States immigration law of 9,000 at the present time. In my opinion this quota is adequate to allow Canadian workers to obtain employment in the state of Maine. In his brief Mr. McGregor went on to state:
Discussion has been carried on over many years by Canada with both Maine and New Hampshire, by correspondence and also by discussion at the annual interstate benefit conference. In addition to correspondence between officers of the unemployment insurance commission and their opposite numbers in Maine and New Hampshire, there were exchanges in 1954 between labour minister Gregg and the governor of New Hampshire, and in 1958 between labour minister Starr and the governors of New Hampshire and Maine.
I may have understood the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton incorrectly but I thought I heard him say that negotiations were undertaken at the ministerial level only recently. The hon. member is shaking his head and if he did not say that I apologize.
I do not wish to be misunderstood.


Gage Workman Montgomery: It was not my intention to suggest that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will accept the hon. member's word. Many solutions to this problem were suggested at the conference arising out of objections advanced by the representatives of the state of Maine. In my opinion agreement could easily be reached on many of the problems. The brief goes on to say:
Tentative proposals have been suggested along the following lines:
1. In the absence of any reciprocal agreement one suggested solution was that, as the problem is primarily one affecting Canada, the Canadian unemployment insurance provisions might be extended to permit a United States employer to insure Canadian woodsmen under the Canadian act while working in Maine or New Hampshire. This idea has not been seriously considered by Canada because in essence it means an extension of a piece of Canadian legislation to the territory of another country and this is open to objections that: (a) it might be contrary to international law.
In that respect I might say it is my belief that if an agreement could be signed with most of the states some solution acceptable to the state of Maine could be achieved. The brief continues:
(b) it would probably have to be on a voluntary basis at the option of the employer.
This is a possibility which in view of present conditions might satisfy the majority of the Canadian workers especially those employed in the state of Maine because there
Unemployment Insurance is now some question of the shortage of workers. United States operators are finding it difficult to obtain Canadian woodsmen because they cannot qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore there might be a possibility of the Canadian and United States authorities arriving at an agreement under which unemployment insurance contributions could be made on a voluntary basis at the option of the employer. The brief continues:
(d) it would not avoid duplication of contributions as Maine and New Hampshire would no doubt still require the employers to comply with their laws.
It seems to me that some solution could be found for this objection. Another suggestion which was tentatively considered by New Hampshire in 1951 was to have a reciprocal agreement accompanied by certain additional tests of availability.
The brief goes on to state:
It was felt that appropriate regulations within the spirit of article V of the reciprocal agreement between Canada and the United States could be made by Maine or New Hampshire to carry out the idea indicated above; i.e., to disqualify a migratory worker if he has, without good cause, refused an offer of suitable employment in the area of his previous employment in Maine or New Hampshire, distance alone being deemed not to be good cause. However, a change in the claimant's domestic or other circumstances since the time of his previous employment in the United States might constitute good cause for refusing employment so far removed from his home.
In concluding my remarks I wish to bring to the attention of the house an objection raised by the state of Maine to the effect that such a program would cost them a maximum of $1,500,000 a year. This objection does not seem to be borne out by the facts. It is estimated that it would actually cost between $100,000 and $240,000. The state of Vermont was taken as an indication of the cost. It cost that state $20,237 in 1957 for an average duration of benefits of seven and one half weeks.
With respect to possible administrative problems it was the concensus of the meeting that these would not be insurmountable and would not differ materially from those encountered in handling interstate claims with other states. I believe that this reveals that a solution is possible.
It was suggested by the hon. member for Beauce that the United States operators could have a Canadian representative in Canada who would hire the workmen for them and keep records of their employment with respect to salaries, contributions, etc. The Maine commission has indicated that it is extremely important that industry be assured of sufficient wood labour to supply its needs. This statement indicates that the

Unemployment Insurance United States operators are interested in securing Canadian woodsmen tor the industry.
As there are only four states of the union that do not have this reciprocal agreement with Canada now, it is a good indication of the progress that has been made in this field. As the end of the meeting which was held on September 22 last the chairman stated he would not hesitate to call another meeting of this group at any time in fulfilling his responsibilities as regional director of the bureau of employment security if he felt it would be of some value to get together again for a further examination of the situation.
We were given an opportunity of discussing this problem and we were given a chance to express our opinions. I feel that it would be a good suggestion to the Minister of Labour to call a similar conference at the first opportunity.
(Translation):


Mr. Alfred Belzile (Malapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, it is now my privilege to take part in this debate. Your Honour and all hon. members of this house may be assured that I am pleased to do so.
We are now debating motion No. 4 on the order paper, a motion introduced by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) concerning the possibility of arrangements being made as between Canadian and American government authorities.
In introducing this motion, the hon. member for Beauce shows he is consistent, because I understand this to be the second time he has made representations on this subject since his election to the house. As a matter of fact, I note that he raised the matter on January 20, 1959, as shown on page 129 of the French version of Hansard.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I support the principle and soundness of the motion. As representative of a rural constituency, with a majority of working people, I am pleased to support the proposal. Looking into the possibility of applying the basic principles which have been set out, I think the results of such a policy would be beneficial to quite a large number of our forest workers.
It is quite obvious that ever since the Unemployment Insurance Act has been in the statute book all those responsible for administering and enforcing the act have constantly felt the need for amendments and additions.
[Mr. Robichaud.l
However, it was previously established, and again has been shown by hon. members who spoke before me, that this is quite a complex situation, and perhaps more today than ever before we feel a great need to broaden the framework provided by the Unemployment Insurance Act, or to adopt more flexible standards.
I realize this is not a matter that can be dealt with by the Canadian government alone. We must accept the fact that the implementation of our views is also a responsibility of the authorities of the American states concerned.
I think the remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery), and also by hon. members for Charlotte (Mr. Stewart), for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch)i and for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) prove that the principles of this motion are extremely difficult to carry out, in view of the fact that not only American legislative authorities, but also American employers and contractors have a say in the matter.
Having said this, I wonder whether it would not be up to our lumbermen's unions to make some effort, or exert some pressure on the American employers and contractors.
It is my understanding that, in a general way, when legislation is required for the general welfare of the whole nation or part of the nation, it is always auspicious when the basic principles originate at the very bottom.
I think the first ideas might come from the lumber industry unions for the benefit of those workers in Quebec and in other provinces of Canada who, certainly, would have every advantage in crossing the border and go to Maine, New Hampshire or any other state where they would find jobs that pay well enough to enable these men to provide for their families.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would hardly be worth while to dwell any longer on the proposed motion. We have all realized and understood the basic principles. We are all in favour of our Canadian workers who have gone to earn their living on the American side, getting the necessary insurance coverage with regard to their employment.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, as I spoke a few minutes ago of widening the base of our unemployment insurance legislation, even at the risk of not being entirely in order, may I be allowed a few

seconds, Mr. Speaker, in which to mention that a very urgent amendment to the existing unemployment insurance legislation would extend unemployment insurance coverage to farm workers.
We have realized that in the whole country, certain amendments to the unemployment insurance act are generally hoped for and would be extremely useful to the farming class where farm workers are needed and, consequently, would be equally useful to the workers who, during certain periods of the year, would benefit by working on our farms.
You know that there is only one job that is insurable for the farmer, that of professional carpenter.
It so happens that in the summer, some of our farmers realize that they have to do some rather costly construction work. They would not have to hire only expert workers, but they could be satisfied with what I would call, if you allow the expression, handy workers.
They could hire this kind of worker, who could then get the unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you, as well as the house, for having allowed me to make this little departure from the subject.
I hope that we are all convinced that we have to enact, improve and amend laws for the welfare of our Canadian people.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief remarks to make on this resolution about woodsworkers and other Canadian workers who work as seasonal employees in Maine or elsewhere along the American border.
First of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) on having introduced this motion. I congratulate him on his action that will eventually benefit thousands of our Canadian workers.
I understand, after listening to previous speakers, that everyone supports the principle of this motion. This support is evidence that the member for Beauce was justified in introducing this motion, because we have before us today a problem of concern to thousands of woodsmen and other Canadian workers.
At this very moment when, in Canada, nearly three quarters of a million Canadians are seeking jobs, I wish to emphasize that this
Unemployment Insurance motion is all the more important, since its purpose is indeed to provide employment to more Canadians.
Now, if in the fall and winter of each year, thousands of woodsmen find jobs in the states of Maine or New Hampshire, or along the American border, and if, in fact, 9,000 of them found some last year, many more Canadians would have done the same if they had been assured that, on their coming back here, in case of unemployment, they would have got unemployment insurance benefits.
The hon. member for Beauce outlined the difficulties facing those workers, and at the same time he made several suggestions to make unemployment insurance benefits available to those workers. I would refer in particular to the one concerning section C-305 of the U.I.C. manual, and I believe that this suggestion, which might perhaps be the easiest, deserves to be considered by the government. However, whatever method is adopted to arrive at a solution, be it on the initiative of the unemployment insurance commission or of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr)-that is immaterial-what is important, is that we realize that a problem does exist, a problem involving thousands of Canadian workers, and that a solution must be found. If a solution were found, it may be expected that it could facilitate the employment of thousands of other Canadians who are unable to find jobs at present, in Canada, especially during the off season. '
Mr. Speaker, if immediate steps were taken, millions of Canadian citizens would be encouraged to seek employment wherever it can be found, thus reducing the present number of unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now close my remarks, because I only wanted to draw the government's attention to this problem, and urge that proper action be taken to settle it. I do hope this government will find a way of reaching such a settlement soon.
I shall therefore vote in favour of this resolution, and may I once again commend the hon. member for Beauce for taking this welcome initiative.
(Text):


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: I am greatly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this motion has come up for consideration, thus affording an opportunity to us to present some views on the problems that exist in ridings such as mine that lie

Unemployment Insurance along the Maine border as well as other ridings that lie along the border of the state of Vermont. I think it may be well to start off by saying that as to the amounts of benefits, the duration of these benefits and the discriminatory number of stamps needed to draw unemployment insurance, the Unemployment Insurance Act as we have it today does not meet the needs of those people for whom work is unavailable. In many respects it is discriminatory and unjust. It is the result of niggardly thinking on the part of too many Liberal experts when this Unemployment Insurance Act was drawn up and who still run the show in the Department of Labour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will realize that he is not discussing the motion now before the house and I would ask him to come back to the subject matter of it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am leading up to it, Mr. Speaker. Let us consider the definition of woodsmen. Here we are this afternoon wondering and trying to get unemployment benefits for our woodsmen who go and work in the state of Maine. My big problem is also to get unemployment insurance benefits for the woodsmen who work in Restigouche-Madawaska. That is the problem. I assume that you are going to say I am out of order again, Mr. Speaker. I have a most serious problem in my riding. A woodsman who cuts wood by the cord on his own land does not get unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was hoping the hon. member would realize that we are discussing only the possible application of the Unemployment Insurance Act either of Canada or of the state of Maine and the woodsmen from Canada who go to cut wood in Maine. I do not think the problem of the woodsmen of Restigouche-Madawaska working in Resti-gouche-Madawaska would be relevant to the motion under discussion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With all deference to your opinion, Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that this house defined what a woodsman is because, owing to the fact that he does not usually belong to any union, the woodsman in Canada is the most exploited labourer in this country.
With regard to this particular resolution may I say this.
This afternoon while preparing a few notes I took the trouble to call Governor Reed at Augusta, Maine, the state capital, and during a lengthy telephone conversation he explained to me very carefully that although he had just come to the position of governor, following the death of Governor Clauson, he was not aware of any representations having been made, but would be most

anxious to receive a delegation from the Department of Labour, and he had every confidence that an agreement could be worked out.
What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? On November 8, 1957 one letter was sent by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to the then governor, Governor Muskie of the state of Maine. Governor Muskie is now in Washington, of course, and he was succeeded by Governor Clauson. As far as these documents which have been tabled in the house are concerned, no other letter or representation has been sent by anyone in this government to the governor of the state of Maine since November 8, 1957. One letter was sent, one letter. Does anyone in this house mean to tell me that we have made a conscientious effort to obtain an agreement with the state of Maine when only one letter has been sent? I maintain that an agreement could be worked out, should have been worked out, and can easily be worked out if only our government would take the step of going down to Augusta, Maine and negotiating an agreement.
I remember some time ago in the old days when I was in the opposition, I offered to do the job, and said if I could not do it in three months I would resign my seat. But the offer was not taken up, and I am still here, as I would have been. I say I would still have been here as the offer would have been accepted, because I am convinced that an agreement can be worked out. As a matter of fact, I feel it could be worked out by a telephone conversation.
These are not insurmountable problems. I find one of the most discouraging things in political life is that we make the darndest mountains out of the smallest molehills. Problems which could be solved by a telephone conversation, a wire or by letter become objects of resolutions and tie up the time of the house. What is more, if you would care to come with me, Mr. Speaker, or if any other hon. member cares to come with me back to the settlements in my riding which are located off the main highway you would see workers coming back from the state of Maine where certain woods operations have been terminated, and going to the unemployment insurance office, asking for their benefits, and being told they cannot get them because of the security tax. They call it "the cent", because it is one cent in the dollar, or close to that, and the expression they use for the social security tax in regard to unemployment benefits is "the cent". They were obliged to pay that tax while working in Maine, and they come back home and they have no work at the moment. There is no work available for them, which is a most serious thing.

I was speaking the other day to one man with a family of twelve who had been working for the past eight months and was now back in Canada unable to draw benefits. This is an injustice. These people deserve the protection of this government. I am sure- and I was assured this afternoon by none other than the governor of Maine himself- that if an agreement were the only solution to paying these people, it could easily be worked out. But only one letter has been sent. I repeat and repeat again; one little effort has been made. How can we expect to get results from one little letter? I will say this: the letter does expose the problem. An acknowledgement of that letter was received, but that was all that was done.
Until this settlement can be worked out I say this is a very severe situation. It is a crippling situation for hundreds of families, not only in my riding but in all ridings along the eastern border. If we can succeed in obtaining a reciprocity agreement with one state, let no one tell me we cannot obtain similar agreements with others. But if we start with a defeatist attitude and expect one letter written on November 8, 1957 to be still remembered in the state of Maine when two governors have come along since then, then we are mistaken. Results can be obtained, but you have to make some positive effort to attain them.
Governor Reed was surprised to think I should telephone him this afternoon but he was very pleased that I took the trouble. I discussed this problem with Governor Clauson last summer when he was fortunate enough to come to my riding for a day. These people are prepared to negotiate an agreement, I give you that assurance. But we do not seem to have the welfare of these woodsmen at heart to the degree needed to permit us to go down there and negotiate an agreement.
I certainly wish to compliment the speakers who spoke before me in this debate. Many of them have given very valid reasons for action being required to alleviate the plight of these thousands of people. Many of us this afternoon talked about potato diggers, and the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stewart) gave pretty exact figures with regard to potato diggers who work in Maine and cannot draw unemployment benefits. If they cannot draw unemployment benefits in Canada, how can we expect them to draw them in Maine? Let us put our own house in order and then these people will get unemployment benefits from the state of Maine.
If there is one series of injustices hidden in this unemployment insurance, it is this discrimination. Mr. Speaker, do you mean to tell me that because a man has only fourteen stamps and the other fellow fifteen, he
Unemployment Insurance cannot draw one cent while the other man can draw for something like fifteen weeks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is getting away from the subject matter of the motion. I have given him enough leeway, I think, and he should cooperate with the Chair.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I certainly wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my wish is to cooperate. I was merely referring to the other remarks made in the debate, which remarks were apparently very much in order.
I can remember when we were in the opposition that the same efforts were being made then to try and obtain reciprocity agreements with the states of Maine, Vermont and others. I can very well recall going into the matter then and finding the same thing we find now, one letter in two or three years. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the same offer now as I made in the old days in the opposition. I am offering to secure reciprocity agreements with Maine, and if I cannot do it in three months I will resign my seat. That should be fair enough.


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I had made up a few notes in respect to the present debate, but following the remarks which have been made by the previous speaker I am more or less at a loss to make the observations I intended to make. First of all, I intended making the point that everybody this afternoon seemed to be under the impression that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) as well as the previous minister was to be commended for the effort made to bring about a favourable solution to this problem. We have just been told that that effort consisted of one single letter written during the last two years. That is a matter, I think, which had better be cleared up before we carry on any further with this debate.
Mr. Speaker, there was very little I intended to say about this matter at the present time. In the first place, my interest in this motion revolves around the fact that it concerns the question of employment in this country. From the remarks made by the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for Beauee (Mr. Racine), I understand that an agreement was reached for the year 1959 whereby 9,000 workmen from Canada would be permitted to cross over to the United States for employment in the woods, and that of these 9,000 people about half took advantage of the situation.
I think it is regrettable that this should be the case in view of the present unemployment picture in the country. I have no doubt the full number of experienced lumbermen are available in Canada; I know we have

Unemployment Insurance them in the part of the country from which I come, and they would be anxious to accept work in the state of Maine provided they were granted the same opportunities and the same benefits as are available to them when they work in our own country.
I do not think anyone here would be inclined to attach any blame to any Canadian woodsmen who refused to work in the state of Maine under present conditions because, after all, most of these woodsmen are married people with families, a state of affairs which necessitates their being guaranteed a regular income for the whole year. In present circumstances when our woodsmen know that after spending some time working in the woods or logging camps over there they must return to face the situation which has just been detailed by the hon. member who preceded me, the prospect is not encouraging. They return to find themselves without the benefits of unemployment insurance, and this creates an embarrassing situation financially.
I am sure that if ways and means could be devised whereby our Canadian woodsmen could be granted the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act when they came back a lot of them would avail themselves of this new source of employment with United States lumber contractors. It is for this reason I wish to commend the hon. member for Beauce on introducing this measure and to tell the house that I am wholly in agreement with the purpose of his motion.
I do not think there is anything further 1 need say except, perhaps, that while listening to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) I understood him to say that he was under the impression that the United States contractors were not prepared to pay what is required in order to put them in conformity with the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act in Canada. Since that statement was made I have been in consultation with the mover of this motion who informs me that he knows, not in any official way, that those contractors would be prepared to pay the cost involved.


Mr. Regier:: On a point of order, is it proper for parliament to meet without a member of the government in attendance? I notice no member of the government in attendance at this time.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: I do not
know whether the hon. member has been looking in another direction or not, but I have been here all the afternoon.


Erhart Regier: I have always regarded the Minister without Portfolio as being only an honorary member of the government.


John Ferguson Browne: I think the hon. member must withdraw that. Otherwise, he is displaying an ignorance I did not credit him with.


Erhart Regier: Maybe the hon. minister
would outline to this house what his actual responsibility is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think I need listen to further comments from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Hervé J. Michaud: As I was saying, I gathered while listening to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton that he was under the impression that these United States contractors were not prepared to pay what would be required in order to enable these woodsmen to qualify for unemployment insurance. Since that statement was made I have been informed by the mover of the resolution that he knows, in an unofficial manner, that these contractors would be quite prepared to pay the required amount.
I will close my remarks by saying once more that I am wholly in agreement with the motion now before the house and will be quite prepared to vote for it at the proper time.
(Translation):


Mr. Dubois:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
V. Florent Dubois: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) urges the government to negotiate with the United States so that Canadian woodsmen working in the state of Maine may contribute to the unemployment insurance fund and thereby become eligible for unemployment benefits.
It is obvious that the motion could be broader, as there are thousands of woodsmen and bushworkers, not only in the state of Maine, but also in New Hampshire and Vermont. Moreover, this class of workers is almost entirely made up of farmers who cannot get enough income out of their farming operations to support their family, and therefore have to seek employment in the neighbouring American states.
In Richmond-Wolfe riding, there is a high percentage of farmers and farmers' sons, and

many of them go out into bush camps as soon as farming work allows them to do so. Those workers spend many months in the woods of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine in the employ of companies and contractors.
Ever since there have been forestry operations in the American states to the south of Beauce, Compton-Frontenac, Sherbrooke, Stanstead, Richmond-Wolfe ridings and of many other constituencies, many Canadian workers have sought jobs there, and this will be the case for many years to come.
Of the three American states that have undertaken forest development, only the state of Vermont has entered into an agreement with the Canadian government. That was in May 1948.
Under this agreement, woodsmen from the province of Quebec working in that state can qualify for unemployment insurance as soon as they are back home, if they have worked in the woods throughout the fall and winter.
Since workers in Canada are covered by the unemployment insurance when they are out of work; since woodsmen working in Canadian forests for companies or contractors are also covered and may draw insurance benefits when they are unemployed, I support this resolution and I urge the Department of Labour to continue to take the appropriate steps so that an agreement be arrived at between Canada and those American states, enabling our Canadian woodsmen to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund and American employers also to contribute an equal share, so that woodsmen may draw benefits when they are unemployed.
American forestry operators are pleased to have Canadian bushworkers, because they are known as good, strong and robust workers. It is therefore only fair that the governments of those American states also recognize that those bushworkers are entitled to the same protection as the others and that they have a right to a living after the bush camp closes down. As far as we are concerned, there is only one way of recognizing the services rendered by those workers, and that is by letting both the operators and the men contribute to the unemployment fund as is done in the case of Vermont. Those woodsmen will thus be on equal footing with the workers in the Canadian bush and in Vermont. Afterwards, they would be able to work on their farm, harvest the small crop it will yield, and in this way support their family.
Unemployment Insurance
How many farmers have gone to the bush and are still there because they have to. They leave their wife and their children behind all winter, since they are not able to get from their own farm the immediate revenue required to make their annual payments on their farm. And nowadays, more than in previous times, with mechanization of farms, farmers are in need of capital more than ever. That is why, in the constituency of Wolfe only, a great number of farmers left home with one or two of their sons to go to work in the forests of the neighbouring American states in order to earn what they need to make the required payment on their farms or farm machinery.
When those farmers are in a better financial situation, they will be glad to remain on their farms 12 months a year. To provide them with unemployment insurance benefits on their return from the bush is another means of helping farmers. Such benefits will mean, not only for my constituency but for all others where there are lumbermen, betterment of the economic life of our areas.
I am sure that with the diligence we know the government possesses, it will succeed in coming to an agreement which will be satisfactory to that class of workers.


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution will have the effect of correcting the weaknesses of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think it would be in the general interest to take appropriate measures to enable any Canadian citizen holding an insurable employment in another country, especially in the United States, and residing in Canada, to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits on the same basis as other Canadian workers.
Even if talks with Maine and New Hampshire authorities were not successful, I maintain that another solution should be found. For instance, why not allow an employee of the group mentioned to remit his contributions direct to the unemployment insurance commission, after supplying the necessary evidence of his length of employment, and any information that the unemployment insurance commission may require.
If my understanding of the Unemployment Insurance Act is correct, the purpose of the act is to protect from financial hardships resulting from unemployment every wageearning Canadian whose income does not permit him to have any part of it, a subject

Unemployment Insurance so much talked about by so-called sociologists who keep preaching about the virtues of thrift but publish unrealistic reports.
In my opinion, unemployment insurance- and I think that every member in this house will agree with me-is one of the most useful and necessary measures ever passed by the previous government. We must agree that, if we did not have that legislation, many citizens would now be going through very serious hardships. However, when that organization was set up by the previous administration, the government knew that some day unemployment would be more serious. The former administration had enough foresight to follow in the footsteps of our southern neighbours and of some European countries when establishing an unemployment insurance commission which would lessen the burden brought about by recessions, as well as the onus of being blamed for the very unsound conditions which we call an unemployment crisis.
The former administration knew very well that, under a system where supply and demand regulate the economy, when production is at its peak, the day must come when demand declines, production slows down and employment disappears. But what the former government did not foresee, is that the day would come for it to return to the opposition ranks and to criticize all government legislation. No wonder, therefore, that today we see the Liberals using the word unemployment at every possible opportunity in order to rouse ill feeling against this government among the unemployed. However, the greatest irony is to see the opposition members pretending to sympathize with the plight of the unemployed, to see the Liberal party trying to get closer to the small people, while previously it only catered to large corporations and big businessmen. However, it is comforting to see one of the rare members of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine), who has not been affected by the evil of his own party, introduce a resolution whose purpose is the welfare of the workers of his constituency. By his courage, his humility and his good intentions, he would certainly deserve to sit in the front benches of the opposition, and his presence there would greatly reinforce the influence of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, there will always be people who will claim to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, tout who are not actually entitled to them, and who do not understand why. Many times, people go to their member to obtain justice from the unemployment insurance commission. Per-

sonally, I have often met with unemployment insurance officials in an attempt to clear up certain cases that had been referred to me, and every time I found that some mistake had been made in interpreting the commission's regulations. Unemployment insurance commission employees are to be commended, and it gives me pleasure to congratulate them. I hope those employees will keep working in this way.
Judging from certain facts related to me by unemployment insurance commission officials, I can understand why a number of cases, where eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits was doubtful have been settled by political influence and pressure, which is not quite in accordance-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Give us cases.


Marcel Bourbonnais: I can see why U.I.C. employees take such pains to provide us with full information and are, at the same time, so devoted to their work. They at last are free from the dubious practices of the former Liberal members, and can now fully apply themselves to their work, without fear of being oppressed and rebuked by Conservatives.
(Text):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, so far in this debate members on both sides of the house have been reminded to keep to the motion, but the remarks that are being made now are so far away from the motion that I think the hon. member should revert to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: If I am not mistaken, this is the first time that the hon. member has spoken in the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I can scarcely allow him the latitude which I was allowing him and he should return to the motion.
(Translation):


Marcel Bourbonnais: Well, Mr. Speaker, about this resolution again, may I say that there are on the order paper four similar motions all of them designed to improve the lot of the unemployed who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Woodsmen-


Mr. Habel:: No.


Marcel Bourbonnais: This particular one
tends to improve the lot of woodsmen. Besides, it is a good resolution and I have congratulated the hon. member who moved it.

However, the other resolutions that are on the order paper all had the same objective, to improve the situation of the workers.
If I had a wish to make for the unemployment insurance commission-and here I will conclude my remarks-I would like it to disappear because of a total lack of unemployment. In the meantime, I will make a point to support the motion of the hon. member for Beauce, whom I set as an example for all his colleagues in the opposition to follow.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Thank you.


Mr. Rene Letourneau (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take the opportunity to express my humble opinion on this resolution which was introduced by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) who, like myself, represents a riding directly interested in the problem of woodsmen and bush-workers, as both our constituencies have many of those forest workers who are, every year, in great demand in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and others. At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I must add that our workers are very much appreciated by our American neighbours who recognize their efficiency, their devotion to their work and their productivity. The American employers I meet always praise the honesty of our bush-workers and their devotion to their job. I firmly believe that these men should have the sympathy of the government, of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), and of the unemployment insurance commission, who should all make an effort to solve their problem. This situation should be discussed with the authorities of the states concerned, so that these men might benefit from the same privileges as their fellow workers who are employed in the same industry, but in other American states. I also have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that by giving greater security to those men we would, in fact, increase the number of those looking for work in the lumber industry on the other side of the border. This would also contribute to lesser seasonal unemployment, as we must recognize that lumber operations are carried out in periods when other industries are slowing down, like the building industry, for instance, where this is due to the severe climate of our Canadian winter.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Beauce, and I hope that the government will give serious consideration to a problem which should have been settled
Unemployment Insurance by now. I am quite sure that because of the great qualities and the ability of the present Minister of Labour and of the authorities of the unemployment insurance commission, in co-operation with the authorities of the American states concerned, we may look forward, in the near future, to a fair result for the benefit of Canadian woodsmen.


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate on the motion before the house, I do not intend, of course, to repeat all that was said this afternoon and tonight.
I simply want to make a few remarks on what, in my opinion, must be taken into consideration during the study of this motion.
Like the two members who spoke before me, and in particular the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais), I want to congratulate the mover of this resolution and thank him for giving us the opportunity to say a few words on this matter.
Like other members who spoke on this resolution, I also have in my constituency a problem which is of a particular interest to woodsmen, that is the bushworkers.
Of course, my constituency is not as close to the border as the one represented by the mover of this resolution, or other constituencies adjacent to the states of Maine or New Hampshire. But our bushworkers- and I should say our woodsmen in general- certainly deserve all the consideration the government can give their problems. That is why I feel it is my duty to say a few words on this resolution.
According to the information I could gather about unemployment insurance, to the effect that some steps should be taken to provide unemployment insurance benefits to Canadian bushworkers working in the state of Maine, as is the case for Canadian bushworkers working here in Canada, I gathered, this afternoon, during the several outlines given, that agreements had been concluded with certain states adjacent to Canada, but not with Maine and New Hampshire.
I feel the matter should be given fuller consideration.
However, as the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) emphasized this afternoon, Canadian bushworkers working in Canada should be considered first.
He said that the matter had been discussed with the government of Maine on a few oc-
1082	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance casions. I don't know whether he was referring only to the latest steps taken, but I think he was referring to those undertaken some years ago.
I understand some attempts to settle the question had been made by the former Liberal administration, but had been unsuccessful, except perhaps with respect to other states, which as someone has mentioned, have accepted an arrangement. If my memory serves me right, the state of Vermont entered into such a reciprocal arrangement in 1948.
I believe it was in 1951, Mr. Speaker, that Canada adopted the contributory system, or perhaps I should say the joint system of unemployment insurance and employment service.
The unemployment insurance act, of course, had been passed earlier, and that act is now the main protection of workers against the financial risks of unemployment.
The original act was amended a number of times, and according to latest statistics, about 82 per cent of paid workers can enjoy its protection.
Moreover, benefits have been increased and the benefit period has been extended to cover seasonal unemployment.
In 1954, the Canadian welfare council submitted a number of recommendations to the Minister of Labour, suggesting amendments to the unemployment insurance act.
While a number of those recommendations have been carried out, there is room for further improvements such as-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should
remind the hon. member at this time that we are not debating the subject of unemployment insurance in general, but the desirability of making arrangements with United States authorities with respect to Canadian woodsmen working in the state of Maine. It is a very narrow subject, and I do not think the house would expect members to range freely over all unemployment insurance problems.
(Translation):


Jean-Jacques Martel: I thank you very much for your remark, Mr. Speaker. I was just going to mention that several recommendations of the welfare council were put into effect especially last year.
No doubt other improvements could have been effected similar to those suggested by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine).


We could look into the possibility of accepting groups that are not yet eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and into the possibility of improving the regulations and services available through the unemployment insurance commission and the employment service, particularly with regard to the payment of benefits to Canadian woodsmen working in the neighbouring states.
Those benefits should certainly be paid to the group of Canadian workers mentioned in this resolution who are ready to work in the states of Maine and New Hampshire.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Belzile) make a suggestion concerning Canadian workers who take jobs in the United States.
Most of them are farmers or farmers' sons. The hon. member suggested that the coverage be extended to farmers and their sons.
In introducing his motion this afternoon the hon. member for Beauce mentioned the various states that have already signed an agreement. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this problem should be solved immediately so, as mentioned by the sponsor of this resolution, it is important that we try to resume the negotiations with the states of Maine and New Hampshire to find a final and satisfactory solution for our woodsmen who have to go to the United States to earn the extra money they need to adequately meet the needs of their families.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) pointed out that the member for Beauce had been fair

that is the word he used-in his remarks and that he had rectified the impression his resolution created that nothing had been done by the government to find a solution to this problem. I believe that the problem is important and deserves immediate consideration.
Before concluding, I would like to raise a point mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais). He said that the Unemployment Insurance Act was the most necessary and useful measure adopted by the former government. I disagree with him there, because the first Unemployment Insurance Act was enacted by a Conservative government, either 1931 or 1932 if my memory serves me right.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to find difficulty in confining himself to the main issue.

(Translation):


Jean-Jacques Martel: Members of the opposition do not seem pleased with what I have just said, but I shall have the opportunity to take this up again later.
In closing, I express the hope that woodsmen who go to work each year in the states of Maine and New Hampshire may become entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. I also wish we had a better employment service that would offer them more opportunities in this field so that, inasmuch as it is humanly possible and practical, these workers may find work here in Canada, which would enable them to better their circumstances.
Since this legislation is of importance to Canadian woodsmen who go to work across the border, I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that I support it and that I will vote for this resolution.


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monfmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps taken somewhat unaware when rising on the resolution now before the house. The fact is that I have just arrived from the southern part of the county of Montmagny-L'Islet which is precisely adjacent to the state of Maine. During the weekend I had the opportunity of meeting a number of Canadian woodsmen who work in some forest developments on the American side. This resolution precisely meets the requests made to me this weekend and on several occasions before.
There is a very large number of men, more particularly in the counties of the lower St. Lawrence who have to cross the border in order to earn a living on the American side. It happens that in the province of Quebec, mostly on the north shore, farmers in the north-western part of the Abitibi and lake St. John go to work in the woods during the winter, which is the quiet period of the year. It also happens that, close to the constituencies of Montmagny-L'Islet, Kamouraska, Bellechasse, Beauce and a few others, there are very large lumber industries, but on the American side, although owned and operated by Canadian companies.
Now, it can happen that in the same village, for instance, two individuals will go to work in the lumber industry during winter, one in the Abitibi area and the other in Maine. They do the same work, they earn just about the same wages and, consequently, they have the same obligations. Yet, when those workers
Unemployment Insurance come back home, one can get unemployment insurance benefits, while the other gets none.
Let us not forget that the Unemployment Insurance Act is the most human social security measure that is known.
Unfortunately, I know there are people who, by all means possible, good or bad, seek to obtain pensions of all sorts from the government. But when it comes to unemployment insurance the matter is more serious. It is a case there of protecting workers who, for some reason or other, are out of a job during a certain period of the year. In fact, we are dealing with an extremely important social security measure, one which serves a purpose and is worthy of support. Workers, particularly in my constituency, cross over by the hundreds to the state of Maine every winter to work in the bush, and get no employment insurance benefits when the work is completed. Many of them, particularly from the south side parishes such as St. Pam-phile, St. Juste and Lac Frontiere, live very close to the American border. In view of the high cost of living, those people, whose main job is farming and settlement work, have to do forestry work in wintertime.
I think this resolution is quite appropriate and I commend my good friend the hon. member for Beauce for sponsoring it. I can assure him that while we have been at odds at certain times in 1958, we are in agreement as far as his motion is concerned, and it gives me pleasure to support it, because I know it will be beneficial to my constituents generally, and to those of the neighbouring constituencies.
(Text):


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended originally to take part in this interesting debate but I do so for two reasons. First of all I give notice to my noisy friends on my right that at the conclusion of my speech which will be reasonably short I intend to move the adjournment of the debate. Second, my reason for taking part in it is to bring before the house certain information which I do not think has been brought forward in the debate so far simply in order to show some of the problems that must be met and solved by Canada if our woodsmen from the maritimes and Quebec who go to the state of Maine are to have the benefits of unemployment insurance.
First, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) in his thoughtful participation in the debate this afternoon asked

Unemployment Insurance some questions. Perhaps what I am about to relate now, from the information I have gathered, will answer the questions in that gentleman's mind. It concerns the formula for the basis of payment under reciprocal agreements with several of that states in the United States. The basis is this. As to a person who has worked in any one of the states with which we have such a reciprocal agreement and who later resides in Canada, if that person goes to an unemployment insurance commission office in Canada then Canada in effect simply acts as agent for the state in which the earnings were made and the payments go directly from that state to the claimant in Canada and not through the offices of the unemployment insurance commission.
The converse side of the picture is this. Any person who has worked in Canada and made contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act and who goes to the United States will go to the state office and make a claim there which they send back to Canada and the same performance is gone through. This unemployed Canadian in the United States is required to report every two weeks in Canada by mail and a cheque is sent directly to him. I hope that information will afford at least a partial answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I mention the problems that are met by the state of Maine in giving any thought to a reciprocal arrangement with the Dominion of Canada.
As hon. members have so eloquently pointed out this afternoon and this evening, we know it would be a fine thing if thousands of Canadians who went to one of the states and helped build up the economy of that state could receive the benefits which, if they were working in Canada, they would receive. But the matter is not quite as simple as that. Reciprocal agreements where one side does not reciprocally agree, of course, are not simple. There obviously is a lack of quid pro quo. A reciprocal agreement would mean that Canadian workers who went to the state of Maine on a temporary basis would be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits from that state program. Of course the same thing would apply to United States workers coming to Canada. There arises the first anomaly, if I may call it that, since traffic is almost entirely one sided, namely into the state of Maine and not from the state of Maine into Quebec or into the maritime provinces.
The second point which has been mentioned here this afternoon is that the unemployment insurance scheme in Maine differs from the Canadian scheme in that the scheme
in Maine is paid for by employers through a state tax and there is no employee contribution. If Canadians were successfully to be able to claim benefits there it would mean that non-Americans were being paid out of state funds.
In short, it would not be a request but a demand that benefits of United States citizenship and residence in the state of Maine be given to foreign and transient workers. This is, in effect, what it would look like from the standpoint of the citizens of the state. Where Canada does have reciprocal agreements it is with states where the traffic is roughly equated; that is, about the same number of Canadians going to that state to work as United States citizens coming from that side to work in Canada. I am sure we know, or at least some of us do, that such difficulties have been the subject of discussion between United States authorities and state authorities on the one hand, and the Department of Labour in Canada on the other hand.
It has been suggested that one solution to the problem would be to collect from employers in Maine who would contribute to the fund in the same way as do employers in Canada. But there is no way of enforcing such contributions. They would have to be made on a purely voluntary basis. It would be difficult indeed to see a hardheaded business man in Maine making a contribution he was not required to make under any sanction of law at all.
Our problem is that we have nothing or very little with which to bargain. It was suggested this afternoon and this evening that the sizeable numbers of Canadians working in the woods of the state of Maine are a sort of bargaining lever. It might be possible by arrangement with the union whereby through some form of collective action they could enforce agreement on the point we have been debating. I do not think it is possible, but people in the labour movement have for years been exercising their collective intelligence, and perhaps that is the way to solve the problem.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Van Horne) made a remark concerning the letter from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to the governor of Maine. If the record were left only with that statement it would appear to be a very incomplete picture. However, I can assure the house through you, Mr. Speaker, that this letter has been followed by meetings between officials of the state of Maine and representatives of the Canadian Department of Labour. For example, there was a meeting last fall at which there was full discussion of this matter, and perhaps for the first time in many years some evidence of

a softening on the part of the state of Maine and a sign that they were appreciating the problem as it affected people from New Brunswick and the province of Quebec.
Reference has been made throughout the debate today to the correspondence dealing with this subject, and also the question of woodsmen from Canada working in New Hampshire. The sessional return tabled on January 14 of this year, I understand, was to show telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since January 1, 1955 on this subject. It is of rather considerable interest that apparently nothing transpired until March 8, 1957, almost two years after the date of the return.
The first correspondence deals with the Herculean efforts of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska to solve the problem which is very dear to his own heart and the hearts of his constituents. This afternoon in dramatic fashion we saw the energy of this hon. member develop. He picked up the telephone and called the state of Maine to find out the state of the negotiations. I think everyone in all parts of the house would be very glad if he would pick up the telephone again, call the state of Maine and solve the problem that has baffled people in Canada for some number of years.
Mr. Speaker, I said I would move the adjournment of the debate at this time. I do so for two reasons. First, the snowfall over the weekend has prevented some members of the house who wished to take part in this particular debate from being here this evening.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is a good reason.


Mr. Denis:: Cannot you think of another?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Even the hon. members raising a cacophony from the Liberal benches will have to admit that the contributions which have poured out during the course of the day have brought new light and nuances to this particular problem. So I make no apology, Mr. Speaker, for trying to see that all hon. members of the house who wish to speak on this matter have the opportunity to do so.
The second point I make is that if the hon. members of the Liberal party object to the course being followed, surely they have to concede that the very spirit and purport of the resolution is being met. That was very freely conceded. What does the resolution ask?
That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of discussing with the appropriate United States authorities the question of unemployment benefits to Canadian woodsmen working in the state of Maine.
Division
There is not one hon. member who has taken part in the debate today who has said that is not being done. The whole resolution, in effect, was a sort of camouflage to get the matter raised in the House of Commons and then to have a general discussion on the subject. Therefore, no one is being hurt by the motion for adjournment, and seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Campbell) I accordingly move the adjournment of this debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High! Park) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the advisability of appointing a royal commission to examine and make recommendations upon traffic accidents in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the problem of traffic accidents has interested me for some years now. In 1955 I had the privilege of being the chairman of the traffic committee in the city of Toronto and it was from this experience that I developed a great interest in this important subject. I wonder how many people are aware that during the ten years following world war II more Canadians were killed by traffic accidents than in the second world war. The heavy toll of deaths, injuries and property in motor vehicle accidents on streets and highways in Canada is a national problem of increasing importance.
Last year some 3,000 people were killed by motor vehicles, tens of thousands were injured and more than $100 million of property damage was involved. The volume of traffic is increasing steadily and only a sound and thorough approach to the solution of this problem can reduce accidents or prevent an even greater loss of life, limb and property. The everyday inhumanity, the


accustomed brutality in this regard does not seem to shock the minds of our people. We appear to accept it without horror or shame. Death and woundings by motor cars in Canada during 1959 were the highest on record and there is no doubt that each and every one of these accidents could have been avoided as, literally speaking, there is no such thing as an accident.
Canadians as well as others appear to have developed a tolerance for their own peculiar forms of manslaughter and selfdestruction but this attitude must be shattered by a more rigid adherence to the existing laws or by conforming to new and better measures which will have to be taken to preserve the lives of our people.
You have all read from time to time, in newspapers issued prior to a national holiday, the predictions of road fatalities and injuries that can be expected to take place during these few carefree hours as a result of traffic accidents. Should we as Canadians not be ashamed that such a situation should exist whereby this is almost becoming a new kind of sport where the score is envisaged prior to the event in the same manner as we might guess the score of the forthcoming Saturday night hockey game? We consider the early Canadians who saw nothing shocking in the habit of hanging a man for petty thievery as being backward. What would they think of a generation not moved to horror by its own inhumanity in permitting lethal machines to be loose on peaceful roads to slaughter wantonly and injure innocent fellowmen. We express a righteous indignation and forceful protest against cruelties committed or tolerated in other countries or in other times but the cruelties and killings resulting from motorcar accidents incidental to Canadian business or pleasure arouse in us only mild regrets which are often unexpressed for politeness' sake.
The following figures from the "Canada Year Book 1959" represent the number of motor vehicle traffic accidents and deaths resulting therefrom for the year 1957:
Accidents Reported
Total	 220,670
Fatal accidents, resulting in death of one
or more persons	 2,798
Non-fatal, resulting in injuries to one or
more persons	 54,036
Resulting in property damage only	 163,836
Persons Killed
Total	 3,258
Drivers	 793
Passengers	 763
Pedestrians	 692
Bicyclists, motorcyclists and passengers ..	100
Others	 31



I960

[Stage Direction]
Highway Traffic Accidents
Persons Injured
Total	  78,417
Drivers	 19,508
Passengers	 27,012
Pedestrians	 9,243
Bicyclists, motorcyclists and passengers ..	2,972
Others	 180
May I repeat that during 1957 there were 3,258 deaths resulting from traffic accidents in Canada. This figure implies an enormous cost to the productive resources of the country in terms of lost manpower, taking into consideration that accidents are the third leading cause of deaths for Canadians as a whole but that traffic accidents are the main cause of death in the age group one to 24 years and the second cause of death in the age group 25 to 44 years.
The words of the Hon. George Drew on this subject spoken in 1954 are as true today as they were then, and I should like to quote from page 2455 of Hansard for February 25, 1954:
We are dealing with something that can bring the gravest tragedy to families which had every reason to expect a long and happy life together. If a young man is going to drive the engine of a railway train, guide a streetcar or any other fast, heavy vehicle of that kind, it is customary to make sure he is skilled before he gets behind the controls. We are strangely lax in the measure of supervision that is imposed before people can get behind the wheel of an automobile that can move at 100 miles an hour or more, and can carry death and destruction to people who had no reason to be in any doubt that they were going to arrive safely at their destination.
These words are just as true today as they were in 1954 when the hon. gentleman uttered them. Canada, with many of her natural resources still undeveloped and with great potentialities for industry, cannot afford the loss of a single Canadian if it can be avoided. Surely it is the duty of each and every one of us to ensure that young Canadians, your children and mine, have the opportunity to reach maturity and to assume their respective places in our society for the betterment of Canada rather than to be wantonly slaughtered before achieving their birthright.
It seems obvious that we have not adjusted ourselves completely to the motor vehicle even after more than 50 years of acquaintance. If any other machine in the world had such a continued and brutal record of killing and injuring its operators and others would there not be an overwhelming demand that it be made safe to operate?
Driving a car requires more continuous attention on the part of the driver than the operation of any other form of transportation, including the airplane. A person will apply for a licence to drive a car capable of speeds of perhaps 75, 85 or 100 miles an hour. These people may be wearing glasses almost an inch
thick and driving at night in all sorts of weather. Yet they are given drivers' licences without much preliminary examination. Something must be wrong with our system of issuing licences so indiscriminately.
If this problem of accident prevention is ever going to be solved, if the slaughter on the highways is ever going to be brought under effective control, it will be done by adequate education of the public and effective legislation at all levels. To do this, a royal commission, in my opinion, would have to be appointed to investigate the whole problem and to make its recommendations.
I would in no way want to imply that there would be any infringement of provincial authority to grant driving licences. The provinces would continue to do so for their respective jurisdictions, but the possibility of a licensing agency at the federal level should be considered to issue licences to be used by persons when driving in a province other than the one for which the person is licensed or for driving outside the country. Perhaps this is one way in which to control the problem of the indiscriminate issuance of licences to those who should not be licensed to drive at all.
For example, in the case of the inspection of food which goes into interprovincial and export trade, we have federal authorities to assist the local authorities. There are many other examples of this. I might just cite, for example, the licensing in my own profession, medicine. On completing studies a student may choose to write an examination which would entitle him to practise in the province in which the school in which he studied is situated. On the other hand, he may choose to write the so-called medical council of Canada examinations which will permit him to apply for a licence to practise in any province of Canada without any further examination.
Some form of reciprocity with the states of the United States of America might be considered of mutual benefit in so far as errant drivers are concerned who have undesirable records in the field of operating motor vehicles. This problem is so great that it crosses all provincial boundaries and even the international boundary with the United States.
Another aspect which could be considered by a royal commission would be the question of whether or not the present penalties are sufficient. In recent years it seems that the sentences handed out to persons convicted of motor manslaughter have been inadequate. After the expiration of the sentence these persons are once again able to drive, notwithstanding the fact that they have such unfortunate driving records and habits. Surely
[Stage Direction]
Highway Traffic Accidents something more could be done to protect the public from these individuals whose records in the field of driving are anything but satisfactory. A licence to drive a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Every licence, whatever its nature, is a privilege granted under certain conditions and revokable under others. This, I think, is an important fact which must be taught to the general public. The privilege of possessing a licence to operate a motor vehicle is only that, a privilege which can be conferred or withdrawn in accordance with the rules and regulations spelled out in law.
Every person who applies for a licence to operate a beverage room, for example, or a hotel does not necessarily receive the licence. In fact, these licences are very difficult to obtain and are very easy to lose because of the stringent regulations which are applicable. In the case of the professions again, licences are issued when the licensing bodies are satisfied that the individuals concerned are competent. However, if there is cause to believe otherwise these licences, which are privileges in the first place, are rescinded.
It should be no different in so far as motor vehicles are concerned. If a person is not able to fulfil his obligations in connection with this privilege, then he should have no more right to maintain a licence than has any other licensee in any other field who has failed to measure up to the requirements of his particular sphere.
A royal commission might want to consider also the problem of driving while impaired. It is realized that this expression instinctively gives the impression of an automobile being driven by someone under the influence of alcohol. Medical science has shown that the term "impaired driving" covers many other conditions, such as emotional stress, fatigue, nervous tension, excessive eating, smoking and self-medication. It is essential that the driving public be made fully aware of the dangers inherent in driving under these conditions, and of the penalty that will be exacted.
A great many accidents are blamed on the consumption of alcoholic beverages. No doubt this is true, but just as many are caused by negligence when one of the previously mentioned factors is involved. Extensive research made into the cause of traffic accidents has shown that, almost without exception, each and every one of the drivers involved in a fatal accident has had an unstable personality. This is just another way of saying they are not fit persons to operate vehicles. Are we going to allow these people to drive on our roads? It is my opinion that if we take
[Mr. Kucherepa.l
these individuals from behind the wheels of vehicles the number of fatal accidents would be greatly reduced.
In order to achieve this goal, it would be necessary that some form of control be instituted. It is realized that every person in Canada presently holding a driver's licence could not be given that degree of medical and driving examination which is desirable in a short period of time. But it is felt that an agency of government could do much to weed out drivers who, because of their accident records and emotional instability, are unsuitable persons to hold the privilege of operating motor vehicles.
In the future, all holders of licences should be as thoroughly examined from the standpoint of physical and emotional defects as were, say, those who sought admission into the armed forces during the last world war. These tests made it possible to assess not only the degree of physical incapacity but also the degree of emotional instability. The result of this kind of testing was such that those who were lacking in the proper qualifications were weeded out at the beginning so that they were not a danger to their fellowmen in the forces and also were spared the onerous injurious effects which service undoubtedly would have had upon them.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to raise for the consideration of the hon. member and the house the question of whether licensing is not a matter exclusively under the jurisdiction of the provinces and not an appropriate subject for debate or for study by a royal commission appointed by this government.


John William Kucherepa: I thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I was suggesting that as one method which might be considered by a royal commission. As I said in my previous remarks, licences have been issued in other fields which were not only matters of provincial responsibility but also federal responsibility. What I had in mind more than anything else was to cover this aspect of interprovincial and international licences rather than those which fall specifically within the domain of the provinces today.
It would then follow, from what I have said that representations could be made to the manufacturers of automobiles to make them safer to drive. Innovations in our motor vehicles, such as the recent use of tinted glass in windshields, should be thoroughly investigated. It may be that the use of such glass cuts down the driver's vision and constitutes a real hazard in night driving. I believe in California the use of such tinted glass prorates insurance premiums on vehicles



[Stage Direction]
which have such accessories. We might say this about other items which are being introduced from time to time on our vehicles, some of them as ornaments and serving no useful function yet possessing lethal qualities. These are only a few suggestions but a royal commission would undoubtedly delve deeply into many other facets of this particular problem.
I have here an editorial from which I should like to quote a few paragraphs, Mr. Speaker. It is from the Telegram of Saturday, January 17, 1959. In summarizing this matter the editors say this with which I am in full agreement and will accept as my own:
There can be no relaxation in the search for safety on the roads and highways. Traffic accidents kill more people in Ontario than any but the top four groups of diseases, which include cancer and the diseases often associated with advanced age.
Legislators cannot move any faster than public opinion will permit. But public opinion is surely sufficiently aroused about the traffic death toll to accept swift and stringent measures to make the highways safe for travel.
I believe a royal commission would certainly come up with some answers to this enormous problem of traffic accidents.
From time to time in this house I have spoken on the question of elimination of railway-highway crossings in this country. In this regard we have seen progressive legislation introduced by this government by increasing grants to the railway grade crossing fund designed to achieve this purpose. Perhaps a royal commission might suggest greater emphasis in the speed with which we move in this particular field. In other words, perhaps this is a matter requiring a higher priority in our public works program. These answers undoubtedly would come forth from such a royal commission as I propose today.
Reports from Russia indicate that any person found guilty in that country of driving while impaired is summarily executed and his car confiscated by the state. Such a program no doubt gets fast results. This is the way of doing things in a totalitarian state, but we live in a democracy. We do not need to be quite so drastic, but definite measures must be taken to curb this needless injury and loss of life. Otherwise we shall continue to pay an appalling toll in loss of life, permanent disabilities and the loss of many millions of dollars in physical damages and non-production of those who have been involved in motor accidents.
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, by one of those amazing coincidences I happen to have a great deal of material on automobile accidents and welcome this opportunity to make some remarks with regard to the hon. member's motion. I wish there had been more time available. I should like to see 79951-0-69
Highway Traffic Accidents the motion amended so as to have in place of the words "royal commission'' the words "a committee of this House of Commons", in cooperation with some of the groups that at present are now interested in highway safety.
I do not think the hon. member mentioned this fact, at least when I was listening. The federal government at the present time has a certain financial stake in the investigation of highway safety through its contributions to the highway safety conference. As I understand it, the dominion government pays one third of the expenses, one third comes from the provinces while the other third comes from the Canadian good roads association.
The reason why I thought this might be a satisfactory field for a committee of this house rather than a royal commission is that first of all, while it is not the most important point, I think it would be cheaper. In the second place, I have been greatly impressed with the job that has been done by the United States house of representatives in this field. This pile of reports represents their advice in the last three years after investigating this particular field and they have had considerable results.
One of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. member was the relationship with the United States. When so many of our automobiles are manufactured or designed in the United States, that must be the focal point for one of the three parts of the highway safety problem which one needs to approach. As the hon. member said, the three elements are the driver, the vehicle and the road. He put the matter very clearly when he said that there are limits to what we can do with the driver. The driver also happens to be a responsibility in so far as licenses, legal control, and things like that are concerned, of the provincial government.
But in so far as the vehicle and the road are concerned, it seems to me that the part that should be played by the federal government is much larger, especially in connection with road design. There are quite a number of engineering studies that indicate that government standards can play a great part, if the government is subsidizing roads, in improving their worth from this point of view. The American academy of political and social science in their annals for 1958 have a number of very good articles on this theme of highway safety design and improved traffic control. In these the point is very well made that new design techniques are very much to the fore at the present time in engineers' thinking and that the experience that has been gained from the new toll roads, divided highways and the tremendous impetus to travelling and touring of all kinds, puts us in

Highway Traffic Accidents a much better position now than we were a few years ago to study this factor of highway design.
The problem of the vehicle I think is the one that was attacked most seriously by the United States committee and the dreadful thing that came out of their last hearing in 1959-and I use the word "dreadful" advisedly-was that it could be proven that certain safety devices would cut down serious accidents but neither the car manufacturers- or at least the biggest car manufacturer, namely General Motors-nor the people who were buying cars seemed to be particularly interested in those features. The paramount case is the question of the safety belt. I have a few remarks from an excellent article in The Reporter called "Epidemic on the Highways" by Daniel P. Moynihan which makes this point quite well.
Perhaps the clearest illustration of the automobile industry's attitude is the problem of seat belts. General Motors has opposed them from the very beginning. When the American Standards Association, an organization of unimpeachable integrity and conservatism, proposed a project to establish national specifications for seat belts as it has for so many other products, a spokesman for the society of automotive engineers informed it that "if the ASA went ahead with its project, the industry might make one of three moves: first, it might resign as a member of the ASA; second, instead of resigning it might reduce its financial support to ASA to cover only its share of the costs of technical standardization work in which it as an industry was really interested; or third, it might refuse to participate in standardization of projects in its area which might be undertaken over its objection." It is, to say the least, very unusual for an engineering society to object to the establishment of performance standards for equipment, but the G.M.-dominated society of automotive engineers did so publicly.
Since then seat belts have been available as optional equipment on most automobiles, but they can be expensive and difficult to instal. Dealers don't like them and discourage customers from getting them. Garages can instal them, but with considerable expense and trouble, since it is necessary to drill holes in the floor pan and weld special fittings to the frame for each pair of belts. The result is that seat belts are used by fewer than 1 per cent of American drivers: apparently you have to be hipped on the subject before you go to the trouble and expense of having them installed.
That is an example of the inertia of the public that we face in this question of safety. It also pinpoints to me a place where our government has some real control, or some possibilities of real control, in guaranteeing safety features. I do not know the mechanics of it, but I feel the federal government could make some provision so far as automobile imports are concerned which would guarantee that all automobiles coming in would have such safety features as safety belts.
The question, of course, is whether this would be worth while if the resistance or inertia of the people today is as high as some

of us think. This is one of the reasons why I think a committee, or even a royal commission as the hon. member suggests might be useful in publicizing the matter.
In the province of Ontario, since Attorney General Kelso Roberts took over the post there has been co-operation with the provincial minister of transport, Hon. Mr. Yaremko. A great deal of publicity has been given to the driver factor, and there have been promises and exhortations on all sides for police vigilance, tougher penalties in the courts and much stricter licensing in an effort to go to work on this driver factor. Actually, we have not the statistics very clearly as to how these campaigns are going, but there was the example of the United States and the failure of this kind of campaign.
In this connection, the best known effort was tried by Governor Ribicoff of Connecticut. Late in 1955, the year he took office, he announced a crackdown on speeders, including suspension of speeders' licences for thirty days on their first conviction. Speeding suspensions went from 372 in his first year in office to 10,055 in his second year in office. The people of Connecticut backed up their governor's campaign.
But what were the results? After a bad year in 1955 before the program got under way, the number of deaths went down slightly, as it did in the rest of the United States, but it never got down to the level of the year before Governor Ribicoff took office. The death rate declined slightly, but less than in the nation as a whole. Yet the number of accidents and the number of injuries went up despite the crackdown. Most significant of all, the injury rate went up sharply. During Governor Ribicoff's very intensive campaign, the chance of getting seriously injured increased 8 per cent for every mile travelled. This points up much of the futility of these police crackdowns and these attempts to constrict the speed factor.
If you are looking for an explanation as to why the Ribicoff campaign fell down, it just happened to coincide with the years when the horsepower of cars was increasing so much and, of course, more cars were going on the roads. I think the hon. member made the point very well that we have a superb mechanical adventure which gives everyone, I think, who drives a car a sense of power and a feeling of mastery. But I think every one of us is aware that this mastery is a very temporal and temperamental thing.
This question is such a serious one overall that I think the federal government should consider it. But as the Speaker indicated in his interjection, it lies largely



[Stage Direction]
within the provincial field. I had thought that perhaps this might be a matter in which the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines might make a request to find out just where the fields of jurisdiction lie and just how much scope the federal government should have in trying to take the lead in these safety campaigns. I know the provinces are co-operating through the Canadian good roads association and the highway safety conferences which are being held to get an over-all standard both for the design of highways and the general rules of the road. But I am wondering if this kind of leadership is enough.
The figures, as the hon. member pointed out, are staggering. In Ontario you have up to 125,000 people injured in one year in automobile accidents. In the last quarter for which I have the dominion bureau of statistics figures, which was the last quarter of 1958, $22 million in that quarter alone was paid out in costs and automobile damages. This is one of the great drains upon our society, and when you add to it the tremendous amount of money which is tied up in insurance, it is indeed staggering.
It was very interesting earlier on when we had a motion to adjourn the debate of the previous resolution on the ground that a number of hon. members were not here and were kept from getting here. I imagine quite a number of them, perhaps like me, today, were kept from getting here for some hours because of their inability to move on the roads. The way that our whole society gets tied up when we have an unnatural disaster or storm of some kind underlines our great difficulties when we are without the automobile. It is so much a part of our lives that to consider doing without it makes life seem hopeless. Yet we are almost as hopeless as a society in our failures to handle this very serious need to cut down the accident rate.
I would like to think that we could have a longer discussion of the hon. member's motion and that we could get a number of our hon. members who are contributing to the debate to make an attempt to mark off just where we should go, and decide whether the idea of a royal commission is a good one. I reiterate that I think a parliamentary committee, or one of the parliamentary committees we now have, might better go into the subject in a preliminary way before we move along to the rather expensive step of a royal commission. The difficulty with a royal commission, it seems to me, would be that you would have to have representatives from each one of the provinces on the commission, and this almost immediately gives 79951-0-694
Highway Traffic Accidents you a commission of such size and scope that the expenses and the kind of hearings you would have to have become rather fantastic.
At the same time I think the hon. member is perfectly right; the urgency of the matter is very much to the fore. The evidence that has appeared in these United States committee reports indicates that all the medical associations, the motoring associations and almost all the engineering associations wish for very strong leadership in this field. In the main, the United States tendency seems to be to move toward a tougher and tougher regulation.
I might just mention that in the 1959 session of the United States congress there were five safety bills before it. One was a bill to require certain safety devices on motor vehicles sold, shipped or used in interstate commerce, and for other purposes. There was another bill to require certificates of fitness in the sale of automobiles, and for other purposes. There was a bill to amend title 15 of the United States code with respect to the operation of speedometers on motor vehicles, and for other purposes. There was another bill to require passenger-carrying motor vehicles purchased for use by the federal government to meet certain safety standards. Then there was a bill to prohibit the use in commerce of any motor vehicle which discharges substances in amounts which are found by the surgeon general of the public health service to be dangerous to human health.
This subcommittee of the committee on interstate and foreign commerce is obviously taking a very wide interest in this question of motor vehicle safety, and I think it is time we had something of this type in Canada. I would also think that a preliminary step is that we could consider going to the United States, or a select group from the committee could consider going to the United States, and get to know some of the work which has been done already by legislators there and by other people.
Last fall there was a meeting of the American automobile association in Atlantic City and at that time car makers were advised to give safety a priority. One of the speakers was Mr. L. L. Colbert, president of the Chrysler corporation and head of the automobile manufacturers association. A report in the Globe and Mail of September 24, 1959 reads:
Mr. Colbert discussed traffic safety, and put the onus for most accidents on "a handful of careless, bad drivers." He held to the Industry's basic tenet that, consistent with keeping prices down, they were building more and more safety into cars.
He appealed for unity between car makers and motorists to advance traffic safety, contending that the groups had been partners for years. Several
[Stage Direction]
Highway Traffic Accidents automobile club executives took issue with him, saying there has been marked coolness in the past, and that the manufacturers generally saw the light only after prodding by motorist and safety organizations.
In requesting the industry to give high priority to developing better braking systems for heavy trucks, the AAA noted that under the uniform vehicle code-the standard adopted by most states -big trucks must be capable of stopping from a speed of 20 miles an hour within 50 feet with smaller trucks held to 30 or 40 feet. Private cars are required to have brakes that will stop a car within 25 feet.
The AAA also urged manufacturers to provide windsheld wipers that would be effective while cars are accelerating rapidly or when they are climbing steep grades.
The gist of this statement, it appears to me, is that the head of one of these great car manufacturing companies was insisting that more and more safety was being built into cars, while these other people were telling him that the industry had to be prodded.
One of the little pamphlets I encountered shortly after reading this report was put out by the Chrysler corporation, and says: "The Forward Look in Safety-your guide to proven 1959 safety features." For what follows I do not necessarily put the blame on the Chrysler corporation itself; probably the same practice is followed throughout the automobile field, but a number of safety features are fitted as standard equipment on all Chrysler cars. Then there are further safety features which are optional at extra cost. It seems to me that safety is something which should not be optional at extra cost. If seat belts, instrument panel safety padding, power brakes, power steering, windshield defroster, rear window defroster, windshield washer, outside rearview mirror, automatic beam changer, parking brake warning light, backup lights and captive-air tires are good for safety they should be built in to the standard product, and not be available merely as extras.
A royal commission, or a committee, might well inquire into such a field as this. Certainly, the Americans are moving in this field in a fairly effective though scattered way and it seems to me that we should try to do the same. For this reason, as I close, I should like to say that I think the hon. member concerned should be congratulated upon bringing in this motion, and I hope it is the subject of much further discussion.
Mr. Murray Smith (Winnipeg North):: In the
short time which is left, I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Kucherepa) for having introduced this resolution this evening. The hon. member has evidently done a great deal of work in preparation and has had a good deal of experience in the study of these accidents in
[Mr. Fisher.l
the field of civic government. In addition, he has had experience as a medical man, and I feel he is extremely well qualified to speak on this matter in this house.
I should like to deal with the point raised by Your Honour when you mentioned that aspects covered by a royal commission would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and I should like also to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who considered that a committee of this house would be more effective in dealing with this problem of traffic accidents than would be a royal commission.
I should like to offer the suggestion that possibly the resolution could be amended in such a way that a royal commission could be appointed with the consent of the provinces so that the commission could go into all three fields in whose jurisdiction traffic accidents occur; those which are covered by federal jurisdiction, such as offences enumerated in the Criminal Code, the field covered by provincial jurisdiction-provincial highways- and then those aspects under the control of municipal jurisdiction in built up areas.
May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: May I ask what is the business to be for Wednesday and Friday? I understand the business for tomorrow was agreed upon some time last week. I wonder if we could obtain from the leader of the house information as to which items would be discussed on Wednesday and Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just want to say a word with regard to this matter of the business of the house, because there have been some complaints uttered on the other side which seem to indicate that they are not being fairly treated. There was a complaint by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) the other day and on Friday, in my absence, by the hon. member for Laurier who stated there was a clear-cut agreement on Monday that we would have a supply motion. There was no such clear-cut agreement. These things have to be arranged by negotiation.
I am always one who believes that so far as possible the work of the House of Commons should be announced several days in advance in order to give members plenty of time in which to prepare. I have attempted to do that, and on three occasions-January 29, February 5 and again on February 11-I outlined the work for a week. Still there have to be changes and modifications for reasons over which we have no control. The practice which I have followed is, I suggest, not the practice which has been followed in the past and if

hon. gentlemen on the other side are not content with this method of suggesting the order of business I think we might well revert to the long established practice of the House of Commons under which no question was addressed by an hon. member of the opposition to the leader of the house as to the business; the leader of the house rose and announced it at the conclusion of business each day.
I can give hon. members an example from the session of 1956 which lasted seven months. During the course of that session there were only three occasions on which the leader of the house announced the business of the house for three days; there were only half a dozen or so upon which he gave it for two days, and for the rest of the session he announced the business just for one day at a time. If that is what hon. gentlemen opposite would like, I think we might well revert to that practice and just announce the business from day to day.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister allow me a question? Did he not tell me when I asked him last week what we should do on Monday that we would have a motion to go into supply?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said we might have a motion to go into supply, but you cannot determine these things that far in advance and I think it was slightly unfair of the hon. member to suggest that there had been a firm decision with regard to that. The practice of 1956 will be more satisfactory to me if that is the way it is preferred. No matter what happens negotiations have to be carried on. There will be occasions later on when members of the opposition will ask me to defer some debate we are thinking of having because somebody is going to be away. That has happened over all the years I have been here. On some occasions we may inform the opposition that some debate is going to take place, and then have to change it because, perhaps, one of our members is unexpectedly not able to be present. That is precisely what happened with regard to this supply motion I had anticipated taking place on Monday. The date had to be altered because of the Washington conference the date of which, I had expected would be changed but it was set firmly for the 16th and 17th of this month, and three of us were obliged to be away.


Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend not think that if it had to be altered he should at least have told me that such was the case?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that was quite
Business of the House
necessary. It is not that urgent. The opposition is well aware that there will be six supply motions during the course of this year, and that is laid down in the rules. It is important to keep in conference from day to day with regard to those things that cannot be treated as firm when communication is given several days in advance.
I am quite prepared to say at this stage that I hope we shall have a supply motion next Monday and Tuesday; but by Friday something may intervene and I may have to change it so I can only hold it out as a hope. Consequently, the business! for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will be the external affairs debate, as was arranged last week, and the business for Wednesday will, I think, be a continuation of the resolutions that we have had before us; but to be accurate about it, the order of that business will have to be deferred until announcement tomorrow night because I have to consult with some of my colleagues.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can let this statement of the house leader remain just as it is because I certainly had a clear understanding in my own mind when I put the question to the house leader that the business of the house on Monday, that is today, would definitely be a motion to go into supply. I am not contesting the fact that the government has the right to change that as and when it feels like doing so, but what I am saying is that the least that could have been done by the house leader is when that decision was arrived at to so indicate to me. He was under no obligation to do that; I quite agree with that, but it seems to me that if there is to be an agreement of sorts to work in this house, as it has been the custom in the past, there has to be co-operation between both sides and, I take it, with the party to the left of the Speaker as well. Otherwise, we will not get on satisfactorily and we shall be spending a great deal of time arguing about points that do not deserve argument.
The only reason for my rising is that, so far as I am concerned, I had it clearly in my mind that that was the understanding. I told our followers and we got ready for it, and that is what I said the other evening. If I had known that the position was changed I would have gone back and indicated it to our members. This applies not only to the motion to go into supply but to other matters that were under discussion on Thursday last between the house leader and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). However, I have no objection to the government going back to the old days, if it feels it should do that. It is up to the government.

Business of the House
The government has the last word as to what the order of business is going to be, and if the government wants to go back to that practice, then let it go ahead. But we, too, have certain rights on this side of the house; we, too, have certain responsibilities, and the government may find that in the fulfilment of the work of the house it may not get the co-operation that it has always received in the past.
All I say now is that I appeal to the house leader and to all those who sit on the other side to keep in mind that if we are to have an orderly discussion on debates it seems to me that we must know fairly well in advance what the business is to be. I am not complaining about the order of business which was given this evening. But I do bring to the attention of the house leader the fact that in order to have the kind of discussion which we have been used to in the past we should be given a reasonable notice of the subjects that are likely to be discussed from day to day.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Assiniboia speaks, and I expect X should hear his contribution, I think perhaps I should say that a discussion of this kind is quite out of order. I hope it will not be looked upon as a precedent.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the house leader raised this matter of cooperation amongst the parties and how we handle the business of the house; may I say to him that it is a matter of concern to all
parties. I want to tell the house leader that we in this group appreciate very much the notice that is given some days in advance and we find that advance notice most helpful, so we would urge him to continue that practice. It is understandable that from time to time ministers must be away and there must be some modification in the order of business; this we can understand. But I would go along with the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) in expressing the hope that we can be given notice as early as possible of any changes in what are tentative arrangements.
I do feel that the hon. member for Laurier is exaggerating the complaint that he has made, and that he is making a great deal out of something that is not as important as he says it is. I do wish to repeat that I hope the house leader will not take the suggestion of the hon. member for Laurier that we should go back to the long standing practice of announcing the following day's business merely the evening before. I think it is in keeping with the better consideration of the business of this house if there is an advance notice of some few days.


Mr. Speaker:: To reinforce what I said before about being too long on this matter, we have been 10 minutes in hearing the announcement of the business for tomorrow.
It being ten minutes past ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is there forested land on Indian reserves in Canada?
2.	If so, what is the total area in square miles of land on Indian reserves in Canada, by provinces, which is considered by the Indian affairs branch to be forested land to which it is possible to apply forest management plans?
3.	How much of this land is now under forest management?
4.	How many separate management plans are involved at present?
5.	In 1959, how many professional foresters were at the disposal of the branch (either on staff or temporary hire) or by arrangement with the provinces for (a) preparing such plans; or (b) implementing them?
6.	What was the total cost to the Indian affairs branch of such professional service in terms of (a) salaries; (b) expenses?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes.
2.	Approximate area of forested land upon
which some form of forest management is possible:	British Columbia, 900 sq. mi.;
Alberta, 100 sq. mi.; Saskatchewan, unknown; Manitoba, unknown; Ontario, 1,250 sq. mi.; Quebec, 225 sq. mi.; New Brunswick, 40 sq. mi.; Prince Edward Island, none; Nova Scotia, 20 sq. mi.; Newfoundland, none.
3.	Approximately: British Columbia, 400 sq. mi.; Alberta, none; Saskatchewan, none; Manitoba, none; Ontario, 1,000 sq. mi.; Quebec, 100 sq. mi.; New Brunswick, none; Prince Edward Island, none; Nova Scotia, 10 sq. mi.; Newfoundland, none.
4.	289.
5.	(a) 2 professional foresters. 2 forest consultant firms, (b) 2 professional foresters. 1 forest consultant firm.
6.	(a) $16,500. Includes salaries and retaining fees from April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960.
(b) $79,220.06. This figure includes costs of forest surveys and other expenses for fiscal year 1959-60 to January 31, 1960.


R.C.N. SHIPS-REFITS IN DOCKYARDS
Mr. McCleave: During the fiscal year 1959-60 what ships of the Royal Canadian Navy, and at what costs (a) have undergone refits in H.M.C. dockyards; (b) are presently undergoing refits in H.M.C. dockyards; (c) are now allocated for refit in H.M.C. dockyards?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
Questions	
(A) (1) H.M.C. Dockyard Halifax:	
Ship	Cost
Bonaventure 		$133,460.78
Crusader 		21,951.01
Haida 		471,036.72
Sioux 		138,227.38
YFP 311 (harbour ferry)	17,194.93
YTB 502 (harbour tug) .	10,733.72
Mallard 		26,229.26
Refit of miscellaneous ships	
(under $10,000) 		$ 57,393.15
(2) Point Edward Naval Base:	
Ship	Cost
Victoriaville 		$ 54,433.17
Inch Arran 		77,248.95
Wallaceburg 		108,468.96
Refit of miscellaneous ships	
(under $10,000) 		$ 1,148.84
(3) H.M.C. Dockyard Esquimalt:	
Ship	Cost
Cape Breton-conversion	$607,973.00
Cape Breton 		153,881.00
Ottawa 		258,642.00
Saguenay 		355,592.00
Skeena 		211,187.00
New Waterford		16,083.00
YMF 250 (floating derrick)	18,031.00
James Bay 		15,223.00
Refit of miscellaneous ships	
(under $10,000) 		$ 6,614.00
(B)	(1) H.M.C. Dockyard Halifax:
Ship	Estimated	Cost
Crescent	$580,000.00
Algonquin	 492,000.00
YMT 6 (diving tender) ..	11,173.00
Refit of miscellaneous ships
(under $10,000)	$ 17,034.00
(2)	Point Edward Naval Base:
Ship	Estimated	Cost
Buckingham	$205,000.00
(3)	H.M.C. Dockyard Esquimalt:
Ship	Estimated	Cost
Assiniboine	$117,240.00
New Glasgow	 191,015.00
James Bay	 62,433.00
Cowichan	 47,963.00
Whitethroat	 26,030.00
(C)	(1) H.M.C. Dockyard Halifax:
Ship	Estimated	Cost
YFP 300 (harbour ferry) .$ 11,093.00 YMT 8 (diving tender) ..	16,139.00
Refit of miscellaneous ships
(under $10,000)	$	6,481.00
YMF 251 (floating derrick)
Not yet determined. Merrickville	
Not yet determined.

Questions
(2) H.M.C. Dockyard Esquimalt:
Ship	Estimated Cost
Dundurn	$100,000.00


ANTI-TRUST CONSULTATIONS, CANADA-U.S.
Mr. Martin (Essex East): What has been the result of the consultations between the United States government and the Canadian government in the matter of United States anti-trust activities directed at Canadian
exporters, particularly the Canadian Peat Moss Limited?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary
of State for External Affairs):
The United States anti-trust suit which names certain United States companies as defendants and a number of Canadian companies, including Canadian Peat Moss Limited, as co-conspirators is still under discussion between the two governments.

Tuesday, February 16, 1960