1961-03-03

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Second report of standing committee on private bills, in English and French-Mr. McCleave.
(Text):


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked me yesterday whether I would have a word to say with reference to the commonwealth prime ministers' conference and the Canadian representation at that meeting. I would advise that I shall be leaving this afternoon and, as already announced, I shall visit Belfast on the way at the invitation of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. On the 5th and 6th of March I shall be in Dublin as a guest of the Irish government for discussions with the Prime Minister of Ireland, Mr. Lemass.
I can assure hon. members that I shall take with me the warm wishes of this house and of Canadians generally, and I shall pay tribute to those of Irish blood who have made so great a contribution to Canada.
Sir, in regard to the prime ministers' meeting, it will commence, as hon. members know, on March 8 and continue until March 16. I shall be accompanied by the Secretary of State, and next week the Minister of Justice will also proceed to London in connection with the meetings.
These meetings of prime ministers are indispensable in commonwealth affairs. They exemplify the process of consultation which lies at the heart of the commonwealth relationship. They represent and are a recurrent symbol of the partnership and diversity of the commonwealth. They provide each national leader with an opportunity to understand the problems and the hopes of the other member nations.
As the Leader of the Opposition knows from personal experience, there is a candour in these meetings which ensures that they are profitable for all who participate. In the past 15 years since the war the commonwealth
has undergone a transformation in membership which has not only increased its usefulness and its opportunities in world affairs, but which has at the same time brought about new complexities and problems into the association.
This meeting of prime ministers will face problems of far-reaching significance, the most conspicuous of these being the continued membership of South Africa. I take it that in general the views of the parties in the house were set out in detail last March and April during the discussions that took place here. Since then the leader of the C.C.F. has given the views of his party. I take it that the Leader of the Opposition holds, because he has said nothing to the contrary, much the same views that he expressed during the debates nine or ten months ago. However, if there is any alteration in that viewpoint I would welcome hearing the hon. gentleman express his views in this regard at this time.
The essence of these meetings is that there shall be serious discussion without predetermined positions being taken. I can only express my conviction that the prime ministers will be inspired by a determination that in what they do the commonwealth will be preserved and strengthened and will be made an association even more effective as a vehicle of international partnership than ever before.
We sometimes fail to realize the tremendous diversity of opinion because of geography, size, culture, race and colour that is convened in these conferences. No one attending them can but have a greater knowledge of the problems faced everywhere in the world because of these diversities. Indeed I repeat what I have said on other occasions, that this body, transcending as it does the boundaries that ordinarily separate peoples of various races and colours, has a message for all mankind.
It is a practice in these meetings that the prime ministers should discuss the most urgent international issues of the day. I expect that there will be a very full review of the Congo situation and that in Laos, which are of concern to nations everywhere. Then there is the question of disarmament, which demands the attention of peoples everywhere. In this connection I shall naturally be bringing before the meeting the strong conviction of the Canadian government that there should be no relaxation- of the effort to achieve

Commonwealth Conference progress in disarmament, and will emphasize, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has done so effectively, that the middle and smaller nations have a definitive role to play in this process, a role which cannot be discharged by the greater powers by themselves.
There will be before the conference the question of the admission of Sierra Leone. There will be an application for membership from the republic of Cyprus. Beyond that I know the house would not expect me to go. However, immediately on my return I will report the progress made at the conference and, in general, outline and discuss the attitudes taken by the conference as a whole without, of course, revealing the discussions which in the interest of frankness are regarded as confidential.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure all hon. members will have listened with great interest to the Prime Minister's statement on the forthcoming commonwealth prime ministers' conference. There is no doubt that in the long list of such conferences this will be one of the most important because the problems it will face are difficult and complex and will require all that flexibility of approach, wisdom and understanding which, I think it can be said, have been displayed at prime ministers' meetings in the past.
It was intriguing to me, Mr. Speaker, to read in the London Times this morning a dispatch from its diplomatic correspondent which I think should be given all the authority usually attached to such dispatches, giving the agenda of the forthcoming meeting, not in exact terms but as subjects which would be discussed. It was interesting to learn from that dispatch-and I am sure the Prime Minister's words this morning confirm it-that among the most important subjects of discussion will be disarmament so that if possible the commonwealth, can, at discussions at the United Nations, present a united front on this subject. Particular reference was made to the atomic test ban. In addition, the limitation of membership in the nuclear club is something the commonwealth prime ministers should discuss, especially in view of the fact that when a resolution on this subject was introduced at the United Nations by the Irish delegation last December the commonwealth delegations were badly split, Canada joining, I believe, with some of the Asian and African members in accepting that resolution limiting the nuclear club to countries now in possession of that weapon, while other members of the commonwealth abstained on it. This is one of the things in respect of which the commonwealth could bring about at least a greater measure of unity in its members.

According to the Times correspondent there will also be up for consideration the admission of communist China to the United Nations. Indeed, I am sure that the whole future of the United Nations will be discussed in London again to see if the commonwealth can present a united front in constructive proposals that will strengthen our world organization.
Our Prime Minister has mentioned the question of membership in the commonwealth. I have no doubt, of course, that this will be not only among the most important but also among the most difficult subjects up for consideration in view of the necessity of agreement being reached within this conference in regard to new members; or in regard to a member which has changed its status to a republic, seeking membership in the commonwealth. I, of course, refer in the last category to South Africa.
The position of the official opposition in regard to race discrimination and the policy of apartheid as practised in South Africa remains as described by myself in this house when this matter was discussed previously. I have no doubt that the effect of policies of racial and other forms of discrimination on membership in the commonwealth will have to be discussed at this meeting. I do not propose to go any further than that at this time.
The admission of Cyprus is another problem which the Prime Minister has mentioned. It is interesting and encouraging to realize that not very long ago many of the people of Cyprus were in arms against the United Kingdom. At this conference, after a tremendous majority in the legislature, Cyprus will be asking for admission to the commonwealth, and it may well be that Archbishop Makarios himself may turn up at a meeting of commonwealth leaders. Nothing could better express the flexibility, vitality and enduring strength of our commonwealth than that kind of situation.
The problems of increased membership in the commonwealth, however, are also complex. Perhaps at this meeting some consideration will have to be given to the question of whether institutional arrangements are now required in a commonwealth which is growing so fast and which will soon comprise 16, 18 or 20 members of varying degrees of size, strength and responsibility.
I have no doubt that the prime ministers will be devoting all the attention they can and bringing to bear all the wisdom and energies they possess to the question of commonwealth action in the direction of increasing the strength, co-operation and unity of this association in the search for international peace and security; and that they will do

everything they can to ensure the freedom, without discrimination of any kind, of all peoples within the boundaries of the member nations.
In so far as any progress can be made in that direction-and I am sure our own Prime Minister will do what he can to contribute to that progress-the conference and the Prime Minister will, I know, receive the support of all Canadians, as he will certainly receive and deserve the good wishes of the official opposition.
We wish the Prime Minister a pleasant journey. It is starting off well in that he is going to visit Ireland first. Perhaps he will be able to do something to help realize the vision of a united Ireland. Perhaps also he will visit Blarney castle. We wish the Prime Minister a pleasant journey and a most useful sojourn in London, and a safe return to Canada.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the prime ministers' commonwealth conference will be discussing many important questions. One of the most important in my opinion will be the economic well-being of member nations of the commonwealth. This will mean a discussion of trade and ways and means of expanding trade, and I would hope as well a discussion of a more far-reaching program to provide economic assistance to the underdeveloped nations in the commonwealth.
Canada should take a lead in this field. I suggest that in recent months there have been indications that Canada is falling back in this role. Instead of increasing, our economic assistance is decreasing at this time. I would hope-


Mr. Green:: On a point of order, this is an inaccurate statement and really should not be made. No doubt the hon. member Tead it in some newspaper article, but the statement is not correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: A further supplementary estimate will have to be brought down to make it an inaccurate statement. I hope the government will take action to show that the minister's statement is correct. There is certainly room for a vast expansion in economic assistance, and whether we are falling slightly behind or going slightly ahead I suggest the Canadian people feel that the government should be taking an active lead in this field.
Second, I suggest that in international affairs the government should continue a firm stand in opposing any expansion of the nuclear club. It would be a great mistake for more nations to have nuclear weapons. I would hope also that the commonwealth would take a firm stand in opposition to further nuclear tests. At this time, when there are
Columbia River Power Development reports that France is considering a fourth nuclear explosion, I would hope that this subject would be on the agenda for discussion by the commonwealth prime ministers, and that the weight of the commonwealth should be in opposition to further nuclear tests.
The Prime Minister has made special reference to the South African situation. I think the position of this group is rather clear. We have been and are very much opposed to discrimination in any form. We feel that Canada should speak out and the Prime Minister should speak out for Canadians in expressing that opposition. South Africa has had a vote and has decided to become a republic. She will perhaps be asking for admission to the commonwealth as a republic. I suggest that it should be made clear to South Africa that her policies must be changed before sympathetic consideration can be given to bringing her into the commonwealth of nations. I suggest that such an attitude and such a policy would increase the chances of discrimination in this nation being reduced.
We all wish the Prime Minister a successful journey. We hope the conference will be successful, and we shall be looking forward to the report he makes to parliament on his return.


John George Diefenbaker: May I be allowed to say to the Leader of the Opposition how very deeply I appreciate his gracious words, and may I express my thanks to the leader of the C.C.F. for his good wishes.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the constitutional developments that are taking place. This question is one that will naturally exercise the minds and thoughts of those in attendance. As he pointed out, membership in the commonwealth is increasing so rapidly that it may in effect deny that intimacy and closeness of relationship in discussion which has been characteristic of the past. At what point do you or do you not draw the line? Shall a member nation have a given population or more? These are problems that face the commonwealth. In the light of the developments that are taking place, the commonwealth will have to decide whether it would not be appropriate for the meetings, while held generally in the centre of the commonwealth, might, not on a rotational basis but from time to time, take place in other capitals of the commonwealth.
Again I express my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leader of the C.C.F.



COLUMBIA RIVER


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: should like to make a statement with regard

Columbia River Power Development to the Columbia river treaty, and with particular reference to the report of the British Columbia energy board. I do so in response to requests from many members, including in particular the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, as well as in response to the request which was made yesterday.
The government has now secured the text of interim report No. 1 of the British Columbia energy board, and has had an opportunity to analyse it. I can say at once that there is no point raised in the report that did not receive exhaustive consideration in the course of Canada-British Columbia discussions and in the course of the negotiation of the treaty. I should like also to emphasize that the British Columbia government were directly represented and participated fully at every stage of these discussions and negotiations. They participated fully in the working out of all provisions, and accepted every section and word of the treaty. Their engineers and technical advisers, including two of the members of the British Columbia energy board, participated fully in the determination of all figures and estimates on the basis of which the treaty was recommended. The British Columbia government accepted the conclusions reflected in the treaty on every one of the points now raised by the British Columbia energy board's report.
The energy board's report suggests that the treaty should not be ratified "without prior consideration" of certain factors. The essential point I want to make is that all these factors have received exhaustive prior consideration over a period of 17 years. Among other things the board suggests that discussions "have not yet proceeded to a point where any precise estimate can be obtained of the actual nature and quantity of power which will reach the B.C. load centres". This is a quotation from the board's report. A reference to the treaty and the annexes will show that the utmost precision possible at this stage has been introduced for the determination of precisely these matters at the only time they can be determined with complete certainty, when the treaty is in effect and operation has begun.
These are the kinds of matter that can only be determined finally when actual operation commences. To suggest that ratification and thus commencement of construction be delayed until a precise determination is obtained on all these points would mean therefore that nothing would ever start. The advance information and estimates on the Columbia project are at least as full and detailed as those available at the stage when other major programs were committed for construction; for instance, the St. Lawrence seaway.


In general, the British Columbia energy board's report asks that everything be determined precisely in advance, whereas in the nature of this kind of development some things can only be finally determined at a later stage. The treaty provides especially rigorous principles and procedures for making this determination.
The British Columbia energy board's report also seems to suggest that storage projects should only be brought in at the theoretically ideal time. This might be an engineer's dream, but it is simply not possible to ensure in a negotiated arrangement of this magnitude where commitments and plans have necessarily to be made far in advance. The British Columbia government is well aware of the reasons for the timetable for the Canadian projects included in the treaty. They know that any difference sequence or timetable would detract from the great value secured for all these Canadian projects.
What matters now is what the British Columbia government intends to do about this report. The real question is whether or not British Columbia and Canada are going ahead with the Columbia development. If it is to go ahead, ratification must take place without any unnecessary delay, and a start on the projects must be made just as soon as possible. Surely nothing should be allowed to jeopardize not only the power benefits but also the many millions of man hours of employment and the general economic stimulus waiting to be realized through the treaty project. If the British Columbia government is going to impose further delay on the basis of some of the points that have been raised again by the board's report, there is grave danger that this will imperil the treaty and the entire Columbia river development, not only for this year but perhaps forever.
The United States Senate will commence its consideration of this treaty as early as March 8. Let there be no doubt that the government of Canada stands ready to proceed with ratification at once.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made what I think is a very important statement on this matter. We on this side were of the impression, having regard to what the Prime Minister said some weeks ago, that consideration of this treaty by this house and by the committee to which it would presumably be submitted, and action by this parliament, would not be taken until suitable arrangements had been made with the provincial government concerned.

Having said that, I should add that yesterday in reply to a question I put the Prime Minister did say that no decision had yet been taken as to whether the agreement would be brought forward before the event to which the hon. gentleman made reference.
Now, Mr. Speaker, of course the negotiation and ratification of treaties is the responsibility of the federal government. Although in accordance with a convention of our constitution treaties are submitted to parliament for consideration and approval, once a treaty is ratified, the federal government has an international obligation in respect of that treaty vis-a-vis the other signatory country or countries. While that is true of the implementation of the treaty, nevertheless in so far as that implementation deals with matters under provincial jurisdiction it is the responsibility also of the provincial government concerned. If we proceeded in this house with consideration of this treaty, and with action in regard to it, before those matters had been concluded with the provincial government which are essential to the implementation of the treaty, we might find ourselves in very grave difficulties indeed. I do not want to be dogmatic or final about the matter, but I do want to point out one of the implications in the minister's statement, as I understood it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank my hon. friend for drawing to my attention the implication he has taken, because I do think this should be cleared up. My statement is a statement of the position of the Canadian government; that is that the Canadian government has confidence the treaty represents the best advantage to Canada, and stands ready to proceed with ratification. This statement is quite consistent with what the Prime Minister said because, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, it is important to know exactly what the position of British Columbia is and that, of course, will have to be determined before a final decision is made by the government of Canada. My statement is a statement of the position of the Canadian government, a position about which there should be no doubt. We stand ready to ratify this treaty at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: We
wish to thank the minister for his statement in respect to report No. 1 of the provincial energy board. I have no hesitation in saying that events have proven that the member for Kootenay West was right when he said this government was naive in signing this treaty before reaching an agreement with the government of British Columbia.
Revised Mining Regulations
I received a copy of this report this morning, and I have read it carefully. When I see the names of prominent engineering firms from the United Kingdom attached to opinions indicating that further information is required on the physical aspects, the engineering aspects and the economic aspects of the question before anyone can make a satisfactory decision, I am more than ever convinced that the government acted with haste and without full knowledge of the facts.
I am not alone in that belief. This matter is causing a great deal of concern among the many people I have the honour to represent. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that this delay and this reconsideration will cause a modification in this treaty which will make it possible for Canada to enjoy the greatest power potential without the unnecessary flooding, as General McNaughton said in his evidence before the external affairs committee, of the territory along the Arrow lakes, and the environs of Revelstoke.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to announce the promulgation of revised Canada mining regulations which apply to the Northwest Territories and certain other federal lands.
The regulations for the disposition of mining rights in the Northwest Territories and on other federal lands outside the provinces and the Yukon have been completely revised and modernized. Formerly known as the quartz mining regulations, they had not been basically revised since the early thirties. In the interim, changes have taken place in exploration and production techniques and in other facets of the industry which required recognition in new regulations.
About two years ago my department began a basic revision of this mineral disposition law. Wide consultation was held with industry while the revisions were being studied. Public meetings were held on two occasions in Yellowknife, Edmonton and Toronto, with large numbers of the mining fraternity attending. Three separate sets of drafts were distributed for comment and over one hundred briefs were received from associations, companies and individuals. This active co-operation from industry has been of great help to us in drawing up suitable regulations.
The revised regulations rest on two principles; first, to encourage exploration, development and production, and second, to protect

Revised Mining Regulations the interest of the people of Canada in the valuable resources which are administered under these regulations.
I would like to outline a few of the main changes brought about by the new regulations. There are, of course, a great many other revisions in the regulations which are of a technical or administrative nature which I will not mention at this time.
It is the policy of this government to ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to participate in the ownership and development of our resources. This policy is made effective in these regulations by providing for Canadian participation requirements at the lease stage, just as in the Canada oil and gas regulations. A lease to hold or produce minerals will only be issued to Canadian citizens or corporations incorporated in Canada in which at least 50 per cent of the issued shares are owned by Canadians, or whose shares are listed on a Canadian stock exchange, and in whose financing and ownership Canadians have an opportunity to participate.
The maximum claim tenure period for new claims is set at ten years to avoid the problems inherent in long claim tenure without activity. If the ground is to be held beyond ten years, claims must be converted into leases and, as I have said, leasing is mandatory whenever production starts. Leases are for a 21 year period with a privilege of renewal, and lease rentals may be offset by exploratory work.
In place of the rather unwieldy reservation system in our former regulations, we have introduced a prospecting permit system. These permits are for a maximum three year period and require minimum fixed exploratory expenditures each year, guaranteed by deposits. There will be no special arrangements with individual companies or payments or rentals to the crown. They will be issued on a "first come, first served" basis and only in the winter season, in order that everyone may know the areas granted well before the beginning of the prospecting season.
A large area around Great Slave lake where prospecting is active will be exempted from issuance of permits and, in fact, permits will not be issued in any areas which are being actively explored. They are designed for the more remote areas which have not been actively explored and where exploration over a larger spread of acreage for a short time, using modern methods, is justified. It is confidently expected that this permit system will encourage exploration in remote areas.
Areas not actively under permit will, of course, be open to normal staking and in no event can more than 12 per cent of the permit area be retained in claims by the permit holder.

The new regulations contain transitional clauses framed with the utmost care to protect and confirm rights given under former regulations, to assure that they are not abrogated.
There are a great many other changes which will cut red tape and reduce costs to the prospector and developer.
I am confident that the new Canada mining regulations will provide a sound basis for investment in the exploration and production of federal mineral resources, and will also protect the rights of the Canadian public, the owners of these resources, in line with the government's policy of northern development. (Translation):


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, that very important statement made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) will certainly please the whole population of the Northwest Territories.
However, before being in a position to commit ourselves definitely on the contents of those amendments to the act, I think it would be wise to consider them in fuller detail.
I wish to congratulate the minister for that initiative, and to assure him that the measure will indeed be welcomed by the people concerned.
(Text):



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement concerning a new type of Colombo plan assistance which has been arranged with Malaya and Singapore. At the request of the government of the federation of Malaya and of the government of the state of Singapore, the government of Canada has approved a project whereby the University of British Columbia will establish and develop, in the Kuala Lumpur and Singapore divisions of the University of Malaya, courses in accounting and business administration. The University of British Columbia will also undertake the necessary research in business and industry in the federation of Malaya and in the state of Singapore with a view to adapting these research findings for teaching purposes.
This is the first occasion when a Canadian university has undertaken a program of technical assistance as the agent of the government of Canada. The project, subject to annual review, will continue over a period of five years, and will involve sending out to Malaya and Singapore members of the faculty of the University of British Columbia for research and teaching duties.

When the program is well launched in the two universities abroad, it is proposed to bring to Canada selected students from the universities at Kuala Lumpur and at Singapore for training at the University of British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. Upon completion of their training these students will return home to replace successively the teaching and research staff of the University of British Columbia in the University of Malaya. When this program is in full progress there will be six faculty members of the University of British Columbia at the Kuala Lumpur and Singapore divisions of the University of Malaya, and six students from the University of Malaya who will be pursuing their studies in Canada.
The costs of this program, including salaries of the professors of the University of British Columbia abroad, the training of these students from Malaya and Singapore in Canada, travel, and the necessary equipment including library books, business machines and other supplies, will be met from funds voted to finance Canada's participation in the Colombo plan.
It is thought that this project undertaken by the University of British Columbia on behalf of the government of Canada may be the first of a series of such arrangements whereby a Canadian university or other institution would undertake a specific program of technical assistance on behalf of the Canadian government. There are obvious advantages in concentrating Canada's aid programs upon specific and demonstrable needs abroad-there is a great lack of accountants and business administrators in Malaya and in Singapore-and it is clearly an efficient procedure to entrust such a project to a university in Canada well equipped to plan and carry it out with its own specialized research and teaching staff.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, this announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be received by the house and the country, I am sure, with great interest. It is noteworthy that the minister should have made this statement today in view of the interest that was shown yesterday by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) when he suggested that consideration might be given to emulat-ting the plan now being established in the United States in establishing a peace corps in undeveloped lands.
This, of course, is not precisely the same concept, but it has many similar features. The arrangements made for assistance to Singapore and the federation of Malaya as announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs continue arrangements that
Colombo Plan
were first established, I think, in 1956. It is important that this aid to these two states, Singapore and the federation of Malaya, should be of a generous character because of the need for assistance.
It is interesting that the great University of British Columbia, on the Pacific coast, should be the first university to participate in this interesting and, I am sure, useful venture. It must have been a matter of great pride to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, coming as he does from Vancouver and British Columbia, to make this announcement in so far as the University of British Columbia's participation is concerned.
However, the minister will not mind my saying to him, as one University of Toronto man to another, that it is to be hoped that in the pursuit of this plan that university, as well as the university in Windsor, Assumption University, and other universities in Canada, which are devoted to Asian studies, will be given an opportunity to contribute at some future date.
In this particular one should not forget that the first Asian study department to be set up in Canada was at McGill, under Professor Smith. If anyone doubts the catholicity of my university interests, this statement will clearly remove that doubt.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we all understand the envy and jealousy of the hon. member for Essex East. However, may I say that we in British Columbia take a different attitude from the hon. member. Anything from Canada is good and we are proud of it, irrespective of the province or the university participating. However, you will of course understand the great interest with which I listened to the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because I also come from Vancouver and British Columbia. We are exceedingly proud, of course, that there has been an arrangement made on this most important matter of assistance to other states and countries whereby the University of British Columbia is able to be of help.
I am in particular very happy about the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs because, although I take no credit for it, it is in line with a speech I made in this house during the last session as a result of information given to me in Singapore and Malaya on the occasion of the visit of the official Canadian delegation to those countries. It was impressed upon us by the people of Singapore and Malaya, Indonesia, Thailand, Iran and other countries that they felt the greatest help Canada could give would be to have our technicians and university people go to their countries, understand them, help them in their countries in

Colombo Plan
educational, administrative and business methods, and then have, on the basis of that understanding and knowledge, the acceptance of students from those countries into our own universities.
I have nothing but the highest commendation for the initiation of this policy whereby Canadian universities first send people to these countries to understand and assist them, and then follow up with their students coming to our country. We are, of course, very happy about the announcement of this policy and, being human, we are very proud that the first university in this field is U.B.C. We hope to see, and we have every hope that this will be so, the policy extended and that the university about which the hon. member for Essex East is so concerned will have an opportunity to learn from the experience of U.B.C.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the catholicity of the hon. member for Essex East when he was referring to the University of British Columbia plan for assistance, he overlooked the fact that a similar plan is already in the process of arrangement at the University of Toronto, in which our own fellow member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) has played an important part. It is going ahead on the same general lines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege may I simply note that fact as being so. I neglected to say that in some of our French Canadian universities progress is being made in this connection also.


POLYMER CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Hen. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production): Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to the house the plans of Polymer Corporation Limited for a new plant at Sarnia for the production of polybutadiene. Construction will commence during the summer of 1961, with a view to being in production before the end of 1962.
This plant is estimated to cost between $8 million and $10 million and will be the first commercial unit in Canada for the production of stereo-specific rubbers, a new family of rubbers made possible by advances in special catalysts developed in the last eight years. These rubbers are of particular interest in heavy duty truck and bus tires. Polymer has already been producing substantial quantities of polybutadiene in its plant located in Sarnia. Large quantities have been used for factory evaluation.

This is the second unit of the expansion program for Polymer which I announced last fall, and emphasizes the continuing growth and diversification of the company's facilities in Sarnia.

Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. It gives me a good deal of pleasure to draw the attention of the house to the presence in Ottawa of four very charming, gracious and beautiful ladies from Saskatoon, distinguished beyond all others in Canada in that they have won the Canadian ladies' curling championship. I might say that in their sportsmanship these ladies, Miss McKee, Miss Fedoruk, Mrs. McNiven and Mrs. McFee, are a credit to Canada and especially to that most famous of cities, Saskatoon.


Harold Edward Winch: Also the runners-up from
British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether there are other questions of privilege in connection with other contenders. Undoubtedly it is a question of privilege, and a privilege which the hon. member for Saskatoon very much enjoys.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called 1 ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the inadequate and restrictive character of the criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of depressed areas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to say a word on this-


Mr. Chevrier:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: -the Department of
Labour estimates will be called next week-


Lionel Chevrier: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman would maintain silence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister is quite in order in speaking to the question of urgency of debate, which is the matter involved in the leave which the Leader of the Opposition has requested.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not customary to give the member who moves the motion a chance to explain why he considers it important to raise the matter at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, and in due course the Leader of the Opposition will have his opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the hon. gentleman is somewhat frightened that my intervention may end any argument in that connection on his part. I was simply pointing out that the question of urgency has to be determined by you, Mr. Speaker, and aside from every other consideration, next week when the estimates of the Department of Labour are called an opportunity will be given for the fullest discussion of this question. Hon. members opposite have been asking for the labour estimates to be called, and that is the reason I rise now, to say that within a very few days they are going to have the fullest opportunity to discuss in most ample measure a subject which has been dealt with over and over again, this particular aspect being, however, a phase of the subject discussed earlier in the month of December.
For these reasons I suggest there is no urgency such as must necessarily be established in order to permit a motion to be moved for the adjournment of this house.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order. I think when a member rises in accordance with standing order 26, wherein the practice is clearly established that the member desiring to make the motion for adjournment rises in his place and asks for permission to do so, Mr. Speaker deals with the matter before anyone else is allowed to intervene and give reasons why in his opinion there will be opportunity for discussion at a later date.
Subsection 3 of standing order 26 reads as follows:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than 20 members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
This was not allowed to be done. The Leader of the Opposition asked for leave to move his motion and I think he should have been allowed to complete his statement.


Some hon. Members:: He sat down.


Lionel Chevrier: He did not. He rose several times. I say, with respect, that he rose several times but the Prime Minister was on his feet and Your Honour saw the Prime Minister.
Labour Conditions
I am not objecting to the statement made by the Prime Minister, but it should not have been allowed at that time in accordance with the rule as I understand it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier
has, I think, misunderstood or perhaps misinterpreted the practice. As I understand it, when a member asks for leave to move the adjournment of the house it is, of course, the responsibility of the Speaker to determine whether it is a matter which comes within the scope of rule 26, and in regard to which the house should be asked whether leave should be given. But before the Speaker makes up his mind, as the hon. member will recall from past instances, it has been his practice to hear members of the house who are prepared to assist him on the question of urgency of debate. It was on that account that when the Prime Minister rose immediately, wishing to speak on that subject, I was pleased to have his views on that question; and I shall be glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition now on the question of the urgency of debate.


Lionel Chevrier: May I draw this point to the attention of Your Honour. It seems to me that the practice has been to allow a statement, as you have allowed it, but only after you have put into effect the provisions of subsection 3 of standing order 26.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: May I speak on that point of order? It seems to me the Leader of the Opposition was so hesitant in his advocacy that instead of proceeding he sat down.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already determined that the point of order is not well taken. I am prepared to hear the Leader of the Opposition in support of the urgency attaching to his request that he be given leave to move the adjournment of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has just been said that I was so hesitant about this motion that I sat down after reading it out. I sat down so that Your Honour would have a chance to read the motion, and in order that the Prime Minister and the leader of the C.C.F. party might have a copy of it. If I did not resume my statement immediately it was through courtesy to the Speaker, to the Prime Minister and to the leader of the other party, not through hesitancy. In doing so I followed the normal practice of this house for years.
The Prime Minister has already indicated that he does not consider this matter to be one of urgency. There can be no question, of course, about its importance. It deals with a concrete proposal which has at last been

Labour Conditions
advanced by the government in order to alleviate unemployment. But this proposal, as we have understood and studied it, is in such uncertain terms that it is already causing uncertainty and uneasiness in the country with regard to its application. Surely, therefore, it is necessary to clear up at once the nature of this proposal, the manner of its operation and the effect it will have on the economy.
We did our best last evening to have a discussion on this matter but it was ruled by the Chair to be out of order. I am not complaining about that, but there was no possibility of our continuing the discussion of it on the budget resolutions before the house which, according to the Minister of Finance, had nothing whatever to do with this matter. Therefore we had to find some other way of discussing the subject at once.
When the house rose last night my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who asked what the business was to be for the next day, suggested that perhaps we could discuss this matter today on the estimates of the Department of Labour; or, if that was not possible-and the leader of the house said it was not possible-possibly we could discuss it on Monday on a supply motion. That has not been found possible, either-and I am not complaining about that-but in view of the immediate urgency of getting this question cleared up so the country may know what these regulations mean and how they can be applied at once to the unemployment situation, surely it is not necessary to wait until some time next week when the government brings forward the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: It seems to me Your Honour has to make a ruling which is difficult because of its qualitative nature. Because of that, it seems to me that what you really want is an honest opinion as to the question of urgent public importance. I can only say for the C.C.F. party that we have been stunned by the haziness and inadequacy of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Labour. Speaking for my constituents and my party I certainly feel this is urgently important. We know something about the criteria mentioned in this motion, and for this reason we would urge Your Honour to allow it.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of urgency I think you have to take into account that a request such as this asks the house to set aside the business arranged for the day in question. Now, the business which it is intended to bring before the house today is consideration of the estimates

of the Department of Agriculture, and I do not think anyone would wish to argue that this does not constitute urgent and essential business to be considered by this house because of the economic factors which will be determined by the acceptance or otherwise of the government's program for agriculture for the year.
The second point to be considered is this. This question was discussed last night. In our opinion the hon. member for Essex East was out of order, but we permitted him to go ahead without interruption for a full 30 minutes discussing this particular subject. We could easily have interrupted the hon. member and asked him to refrain from comment but we did not do so, and so the matter was considered by the house last night. The hon. member for Port Arthur similarly without interruption followed on the same subject for about 15 minutes. Therefore we have heard the views of the opposition with regard to this important problem.
Hon. members on the opposition side asked that this matter be taken up on Monday and Tuesday. Consequently they were of the opinion last night that it was not of such urgency that it had to be discussed today. It so happens that Monday, under our rules, is a private members' day and is so set out. We are consequently going ahead with that.
Finally, the Prime Minister has pointed out that the estimates of the Department of Labour will be up for consideration next week. They will be called, and I think I can safely give the assurance now that they will come before the house on Thursday, which will give ample opportunity for full debate on this particular problem on Thursday and on Friday if necessary. Hon. members of the opposition were prepared to discuss this question on Monday and Tuesday of next week, so it is only a matter of our making the suggestion that these matters be discussed on Thursday.
I would conclude by saying that I think it would be wrong to interrupt the business of the day to discuss this particular problem when there will be an early opportunity to debate it.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the practice that has been established in the house is, I think, clearly set out, as Your Honour knows, in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100. Before Your Honour entertains a motion of this character he must be assured that there are four elements present.
The first is that the matter is one of the administrative responsibility of the government, and I believe there is no doubt about that.

The next is that it is a matter of definite, urgent public importance, and I think that has been admitted by the statement which the Prime Minister has made.
The third and perhaps the most important element of them all is that of the urgency of debate upon which Your Honour, generally speaking, seeks advice from both sides of the house. It is to this point that the house leader addressed himself, namely that it would not be wise in his opinion and that of the government to adjourn the business of the house which is going to be under consideration shortly to discuss this matter.
That reference to urgency of debate is the basis upon which we on this side of the house differ completely from the house leader. The reasons are that when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit of the subject matter being brought up early enough, then there is urgency of debate. It is all right for the Prime Minister and the house leader to say that the estimates of the Department of Labour will be called, but for the last two weeks we have been asking that these estimates be called and have received no satisfactory reply to that request. If our request had been complied with earlier perhaps there would have been an opportunity of discussing some of these matters, but we were not given that opportunity.
Another thing we ask is that we be given the opportunity of discussing the matter on an amendment to the motion to go into supply. We are told that Monday is a private members' day and that therefore we cannot discuss this matter on Monday. Why should we have to wait until Thursday, when even then we do not know whether some other matter of importance will come to the attention of the government and it may decide then not to call the estimates of the Department of Labour.
It is not the statement by the house leader that this will be done on Thursday that determines the urgency of the debate. It is the question which is before the house, namely the statement made by the Minister of Labour yesterday. It is no answer for the house leader and those who sit on the other side of the house to say that we had an opportunity of discussing this last night. That is not so. There was no opportunity of discussing this last night-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: The hon. member was not here. The discussion lasted for three quarters of an hour.


Lionel Chevrier: -because when there is an opportunity for discussing a matter, I presume that means there is a responsibility on the other side to at least reply to some of the statements made. There was no opportunity
Labour Conditions
to discuss it in that sense because the Deputy Speaker determined that it was a matter which should not be discussed within the rules of the house, and perhaps he was right.


John George Diefenbaker: I invite the hon. member to read the discussion commencing at page 2600 and following of yesterday's Hansard.


Lionel Chevrier: I have read the debate very carefully and there is no doubt in my mind, I say with respect to the Prime Minister, that there was not last night an opportunity of discussion afforded within the meaning of the words "urgency of debate" as is meant under the rules.
The fourth criteria that determines this matter is that of opportunity. There will be no opportunity to deal with this matter before Thursday at the earliest, if one accepts the statement made by the house leader. In view of the importance of this question and in view of the uneasiness and anxiety in the country because of the application of this criteria, I submit with deference that we should now be given the opportunity we seek and that the motion should be accepted so that we may discuss these matters of urgent public importance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be glad to hear from the hon. member on this point if he thinks it is necessary after I have concluded. One difficulty-and it is one to which the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) could perhaps address himself-is the possibility that if the motion is permitted it might anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the house. I do not see that this matter has been appointed for consideration.
The subject matter of the request, namely "the inadequate and restrictive character of the criteria to be used as the basis of the designation of depressed areas" arises out of the statement of policy made yesterday by the Minister of Labour, which is found at page 2569 of Hansard. I take it that it was purely a statement of government policy, an administrative decision, and I do not see that it necessarily comes before the house for debate under any of the orders now on the order paper. It is true that it might be discussed on the labour estimates.
With respect to the suggestion that it could have been or was discussed last night, I do not accept that proposition because it is agreed that if it had been discussed last night the discussion would have been out of order, and I do not think opportunity for debate which would be out of order can be considered opportunity for debate.

Labour Conditions
The matter having arisen yesterday and it being a matter of national significance and importance, it seems to me that as far as I have gone with the assistance which I have had from hon. members, and for which I thank them, if this is not a matter which has been appointed for debate so that we would be anticipating a debate which will necessarily occur in the course of this session, I might very well accept the proposition.
If the hon. member for Essex East wishes to say anything on that point or if any other hon. member can assist me on that point, I would be glad to hear him now.


Mr, Chevrier:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of advice to the contrary I think I cannot consider that if this motion were permitted it would be anticipating a debate on the matter which the Leader of the Opposition wishes to have discussed. Therefore I feel I must put the request before the house in the terms of standing order 26, and so that all hon. members will understand it I shall read it in so far as it has not yet been read. Subsection 3 of section 26 reads:
-Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than 20 members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
Accordingly I shall read the request which has been presented.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I just ask a question with regard to your earlier remarks, sir? I understood you to say that this matter has not been appointed for discussion in the house, but surely it is not the practice of the house to provide immediately an opportunity for a discussion of matters of urgent public importance. The statement of the Minister of Labour was made just yesterday afternoon, and it is not normal for the government, following a statement, to immediately name the period at which that statement may be taken up for debate. I think it is rather pressing things a little far and will establish a difficult precedent if, whenever an announcement of government policy is made in this house, someone from the government side must state when it will be available for debate.
I might draw your attention to the fact that this morning we had, I think, five statements, some of which concern government policy. Am I now obliged to name the date on which those will be taken up for debate? These concern the Department of External

Affairs, the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. They are all important matters, and it would be extraordinarily awkward to have to immediately name the date and the hour when those matters would come up for consideration.
I suggest that we are in the same position here. The Minister of Labour made a statement yesterday declaring government policy, and I have now suggested that the opportunity for debating it will occur early next week. I doubt very much whether I should be called upon to do more than that. I think you could argue urgency of debate with regard to the other matters that were announced as government policy this morning, and we might then continue day after day, at the wish of the opposition debating those matters. Yet in the ordinary course of the organization of business there is always ample opportunity to debate important matters in the house. In this particular instance it is only a deferment of, say, 48 hours beyond what the opposition suggested as the time for debate. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that further consideration might be given to this particular problem.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May
I follow up what the leader of the house has said by referring to May's Parliamentary Practice, 16th edition. This particular point is discussed at page 374, where we find the following:
Matter must conform to general rules of order.
The text continues:
Permission to move a motion under S.O. No. 9-
Which is the corresponding British order to our standing order:
*-has also been refused on the following grounds.
I refer to ground (c):
That another occasion for raising the matter is provided for under practice and the standing orders.
Then illustrations are given, such as that it may be raised by way of complaint of a breach of privilege, or it may be raised under paragraph (ii):
Arrangement of government business.
Therefore you have in May, where the rule being discussed is virtually the same as ours, the statement that the motion has been refused where the matter sought to be raised can be discussed on another occasion which would be provided for in practice under the standing order.
I said this was in support of the position of the leader of the house. He has pointed out that these matters of government policy which are announced from time to time can all be discussed on the estimates of the appropriate departments, and that is the normal

way to do it, both under the practice and under the standing orders, because the estimates of the departments have to come before the committee and the matters may be discussed there.
As I understood the minister, he said that the estimates of the Department of Labour will be up for discussion next week-


Lionel Chevrier: Next Thursday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the appropriate time at which to discuss this matter. I submit to you on the basis of the authority of May that this motion should be declared out of order, since there is another occasion for raising the matter provided for under the practice and in the standing orders.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I say a brief word on the point to which the leader of the house has referred, and which was inadequately dealt with by the Minister of Justice. On the question of anticipation, I think one should seek to understand the authority under which this announcement of policy will be carried out. If the government chooses, this matter need not be discussed in this house in the future, because under the Income Tax Act the government now has the authority, subject to a decision of the governor in council, to proceed with this plan of double depreciation. Therefore, on the question of anticipation, nothing will be before the house unless the opposition seeks to raise the matter on the estimates of the Department of Labour, or in some other way. That is the situation. There is no question of anticipation of this matter in the sense envisaged by rule 26.
On the question of urgency, it is true that last night I did discuss this matter, but at the end of my time, when I was proceeding with my argument, which had only really begun, I was precluded from doing so by a ruling of the Chair that I was out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member need not deal with that point, because I have no doubts in my mind that the discussion of last night is in no way an answer to the opportunity for debate which is now being sought. If he has anything further to add I should like to hear him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was simply going to point out that the reason I mentioned what took place last night is that there were certain questions put to the government which dealt with this matter of anticipation and to which it has not replied. There is no way by which we could get answers if the government did not choose to bring before the house the legislative authority under which it has acted. It has that authority now. Therefore the question of anticipation does not really arise.
Labour Conditions


Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicitor General):: In
his previous statement to the one he just made, the hon. member who just sat down gave the answer to that. He said "unless the opposition seek to raise the matter in a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Labour". According to the leader of the house, they are to come up on Thursday, and that should satisfy him. But what I want to draw to your attention, sir, are two statements in particular which are to be found in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, at page 91. Paragraph 8 reads:
Standing order 10 of the United Kingdom house, in force since 1882, also provides that a member may propose the adjournment of the house "for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance".
This is similar to our own rule. Half way down the paragraph we find this:
-the Speaker said: "I do not think that, under the standing order of 1882, a motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated, was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or in foreign affairs."
This is a matter which has been under consideration for a long time; it can hardly be regarded as an emergency. Then, sir, I take you back to the preceding paragraph which says:
In doubtful cases, the question of urgency and of importance are left for the house to decide, by giving or withholding its support.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: May I point out one thing in connection with the matter of urgency which has not yet been mentioned. This is a motion in connection with double depreciation under the Income Tax Act which, when implemented, is intended to attract industry into areas of surplus manpower. I feel it is quite obvious that industries are not going to move into these communities tomorrow, the next day or next week. This movement will take some time, so I cannot see how there is much urgency to debate this matter at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: If I am correct in my understanding of the matter desired to be discussed, it is the method proposed by the government under which areas will become entitled to the benefits of double depreciation under the income tax regulations. Is that the significance of the matter? The matter to be discussed is the declared formula or criteria for determining what are depressed areas.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, will you oblige by reading the words of the motion?


Mr. Speaker:: The proposed matter of urgent public importance is the inadequate and

Labour Conditions
restrictive character of the criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of depressed areas.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that this motion hinges on what are referred to as government measures or criteria for the designation of depressed areas.


Mr. Speaker:: The criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of depressed areas.


Michael Starr: The motion in its present form deals with something which does not exist. The government has issued no criteria, devised no measures, to deal with depressed areas. There is no mention in the statement I made yesterday of depressed areas. I do not see anything in the statement that relates to that phrase or any similar phrase. My statement sets out very clearly that double depreciation for taxation purposes would be considered for industries establishing in areas where unemployment is a chronic problem.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that particular point, may I say it is quite true that the Minister of Labour in his announcement yesterday did say, as he has indicated, that the regulations were to deal with the selection of areas eligible for double depreciation under the program announced in the supplementary budget on December 20, 1960. What was that program announced in the supplementary budget of that date? The Minister of Finance said, in referring to these areas, as reported at page 1007 of Hansard for December 20, 1960:
In some areas changing economic conditions have created a degree of chronic unemployment which requires special action.
An area which has such chronic unemployment as to require special treatment surely must be considered as a depressed area, and that is the meaning attached to it in our motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the force of what was said by the house leader, that merely because a matter of government policy is declared and there is no immediate opportunity for debating it, rule 26 must necessarily be invoked. As the house is aware, in my interpretation of rule 26 I have not seen very many matters which I considered warranted the use of the rule. This case, which has been discussed at considerable length this morning, seems to me to be a definite matter in that there was a declaration of criteria. If I understood the announcement of the Minister of Labour yesterday, it concerned criteria for determining what areas may come under certain tax provisions, which are still before the house for consideration, it is true. These criteria are said to be inadequate, insufficient or improper, and as they are the basis for action
[Mr. Speaker.)
by the areas themselves at a time when there is unemployment, it seems to me I must accept the view that this is urgent.
I have not seen that there is necessarily any debate on this matter which will come before the house. It is true that it would be in order, I think, to raise the question of policy on the labour estimates, and perhaps it could be more completely discussed at that time. However, it does not seem to me that that would preclude the use of rule 26 at this time for an immediate discussion of the matter which would come before the house at a future date in the course of the discussion of the estimates, even though the co-operation of the government has been assured in the calling of the labour estimates for Thursday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I interrupt just for one moment, Mr. Speaker? I regret having interrupted you, but does this resolution not fail because of a fatal weakness in its terms? The motion refers to the character of the criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of depressed areas. There was no mention whatever in the minister's statement of government policy for the designation of depressed areas. This is a different topic which the opposition is attempting to introduce. Consequently there is a fatal weakness in the motion which should make it invalid.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the minister's point to be that the statement made by the Minister of Labour yesterday did not relate to the matter which is sought to be discussed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is my point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may refer to the statement of the Minister of Labour, which is to be found at page 2569 of Hansard for March 2, 1961, I find that he refers to areas in which there has been a substantial degree of unemployment over the years. Then he says:
Areas which meet the following criteria may qualify under this program.
If I am not mistaken, that is the program for double depreciation under the budget proposals of the Minister of Finance. Then the Minister of Labour said:
They are broken down into two categories; areas with a labour force of 10,000 and over-
And so on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, sir, I never announced or foreshadowed any program that corresponds to this description. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the terms I used on December 20-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Shame.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in relation to this proposal tor double depreciation. The expression "depressed areas" never entered into this matter at all. Consistently certain members of the opposition have tried, in their questions in the house, to introduce this expression. They want to tag it on to somebody. It has never had relevancy to the government's proposals.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be highly out of order if you, in your place, were asked now to make an identification of the two subject matters, one that has been referred to in a government statement and one that has been used by the opposition. I do not believe it is proper under the rules of the house, if I may say so with great respect, to expect the Chair to make that identification. If hon. members seek to bring forward a motion and make it in order in relation to something that has come from the government by way of a statement, then they must not leave it to the Chair to make that identification. The identification must be made in the terms of the motion itself.
Look at the effect of this, Mr. Speaker. If you, in the chair, are asked to make this identification you are, in effect, being put by the opposition in a position of placing an interpretation on a statement of government policy, an interpretation that the government has consistently rejected.


Lionel Chevrier: Order. I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is speaking to a point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: I think this statement made by the Minister of Finance is entirely out of order. He has been lecturing you, Mr. Speaker, and telling you what you should do under these circumstances, and I object to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Finance has been indicating that, as a consequence of putting this matter before the house, I am accepting the term "depressed area" and thereby giving the authority of the Chair to that. That is only an argument and one which I do not think I have to accept. I do not think there is a point of order there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that far from my thoughts was any intention of lecturing the Chair. I was seeking to put certain considerations before you, and to say that the Chair should not be put in the position of making an identification, which has been the object of the efforts of the opposition, which have been properly resisted by the government.
Labour Conditions


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt by the Minister of Finance to create a distinction between the motion which has been made and the statement made by the Minister of Labour. I submit with all due deference, sir, that there is none. There is only one difference; the Leader of the Opposition used the term "depressed areas" and the Minister of Labour stated "areas of chronic unemployment". Are we going to discuss the difference between the two when there is a substantive motion before the Chair? This is a technical objection taken by the Minister of Finance which should be dealt with on its merits, a technical objection which tries to divert the attention of the house from a matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Minister of Finance has a point, and I would like to be sure of what will be debated if this matter is proceeded with. The wording is "inadequate and restrictive character of criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of depressed areas". I take it from what has been said- and the Leader of the Opposition who asked for leave will be able to clear up this matter so there is a definite matter before the house -that by "the designation of depressed areas" he refers to the designations under the statement made by the Minister of Labour yesterday. If I am not correct in that the whole basis of my thinking on this matter will have to be revised. I assume that what he is asking the house to discuss is the criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of what the Minister of Labour referred to yesterday as areas eligible for double depreciation under the program announced in the supplementary budget of December 20, 1960. Is that right?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, your assumption is quite correct. I used the expression "depressed areas" in relation to the minister's statement yesterday that these are areas which would be eligible for double depreciation under the program announced in the supplementary budget of December 20, 1960. The minister went on then to explain his own interpretation of these areas by referring to them as areas where there has been a substantial degree of continued unemployment over the years. He laid down certain criteria to cover that definition.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the budget speech of December 20, by the Minister of Finance, which he seemed to have repudiated this morning, refers to these areas as areas where economic conditions have created a degree of chronic unemployment which requires special action. This was said by the Minister of Finance. These areas that are covered by

Labour Conditions
that definition are depressed areas, and we are talking about depressed areas within the meaning of this statement made by a representative of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I have taken undue time of the house, I am afraid, in making up my mind about this, but it is partly due to the wording of the request itself. I have no hesitation in saying that as I understood it, and as it has been explained now, it relates solely to the criteria announced by the Minister of Labour yesterday, and in processing this matter for consideration of the house I am not in any sense adopting the expression "depressed areas'' or giving any significance to it. I put the matter before the house on the clear understanding that what will be debated will only be the criteria announced in the minister's statement yesterday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I intervene again. I appreciate your explanation in regard to the words stated by the Leader of the Opposition, and that you are not interpreting them as expressed in the motion before us; but unfortunately, sir, this motion goes down in the Journals and proceedings of the House of Commons and stands there in exactly the wording which has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, without any necessary explanation following thereto. This will stand there as a motion accepted by the house using words which, as X and others have mentioned, are completely not in accordance with the statement made by the Minister of Labour yesterday. This raises an entirely new subject.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is some significance in that point. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would be willing to use the words of the Minister of Labour, "areas eligible for double depreciation under the program announced in the supplementary estimates", instead of "depressed areas"; if so, it would remove the objection which has been made.


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with respect I do not think it is the function of the Speaker to bring into order an amendment that is out of order by making a suitable suggestion. I would also draw to your attention the fact that when this announcement was made yesterday and members of the opposition spoke in regard to the matter, not one of them used the words "depressed area" or referred to the areas as such. I would therefore suggest that by their very comments at that time they are estopped from bringing it before the house now. I think it is most invidious to suggest that after drafting a very loose, rambling reference they can ask you, sir, to bring it into order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we on this side have confidence in you as to what should or should not appear in the Journals of the house. I do not think you need any advice from government or opposition spokesmen on that score.
Your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to bring the wording technically and literally in accordance with the words used by the Minister of Labour yesterday is, of course, quite agreeable to me as the mover of this motion, and the motion can be changed in that way. But, Mr. Speaker, I must of course reserve the right, in the discussion of this matter, to refer to these areas as what I think they are, areas of chronic unemployment over the years and therefore depressed areas.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition, is of course, free to use the language he likes in debate, but I do not want this matter to come before the house in any air of uncertainty. Therefore I shall not put the matter unless it is worded to correspond with the words used by the Minister of Labour. There is no question in my mind as to what the Leader of the Opposition is asking the house to do. The words I have suggested are "areas eligible for double depreciation under the program announced by the supplementary budget of December 20, 1960". I take it the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to accept those words.
I have heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, but as the matter has not yet been put before the house it is quite open to the member who proposes it, and to the Chair, to accept a change. Accordingly I read out the following request-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion-


Mr. Speaker:: -of the Leader of the Opposition, that he be given leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the inadequate and restrictive character of the criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of areas eligible for double depreciation under the program announced in the supplementary budget of December 20, 1960.
Is the house prepared to grant the hon. member leave?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, an issue has now been raised which goes beyond the terms of this present motion. It concerns the authority of the Chair, without any leave from the house, to accept an amendment of a motion that has been introduced.
What is being proposed by you, Mr. Speaker, as I understand your remarks, is

that the Speaker has authority, with the leave of the mover of the motion, to amend the motion. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that no such authority is reposed, under our rules and practice, in the Speaker of the house. Once this amendment has been presented to the house and read-and it was read-it is then in the custody of the house. While the house, by unanimous consent, can permit an amendment, the only other way an amendment can be disposed of, if it is in order, is by decision of the house on vote.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I say that the course which you proposed, if I correctly understood it, is one that goes beyond the authority which the house has conferred upon the Chair. This motion, having been introduced in the form which the mover of the motion chose, has been presented to you and you have presented it to the house. The motion is then in the custody of the house and cannot be amended in the way you propose, simply by direction of the Chair with the leave of the mover.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on this point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I need not hear the Leader of the Opposition on the point, because I am satisfied the point is not well taken. There is no motion before the house. If the Minister of Finance will recall what took place, the Leader of the Opposition rose and asked for leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house, under standing order 26. He asked for leave, and that is all that the house has before it so far. It does not even have that request for leave before it, because I have not yet read it from the Chair.
It was proposed in terms of a written request which I have before me, and prior to dealing with the request, as I have to deal with it under standing order 26, I heard argument as to whether the rule was satisfied. In my view the rule was satisfied, except that the wording of the request which was proposed lent itself to some misinterpretation. I therefore propose to reject the statement which the Leader of the Opposition has introduced and to go no further on my own initiative. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to proceed from there, he is at liberty to do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the Leader of the Opposition realizes the significance of what I have said. It is that I do not accept the statement in the wording in which he has submitted it, but as I have indicated to him, I am prepared to accept it in the terms which 90205-6-167
Labour Conditions
I took the liberty of suggesting would be sufficient to clarify the matter before the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for having brought this discussion on the point of order to an end, and for having accepted this motion in the terms in which you have now put it forward to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition will have to put it forward in the terms which I suggested, before it can be moved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I now ask leave,
in accordance with your suggestion, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the inadequate and restrictive character of the criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of areas eligible for double depreciation under the program announced in the supplementary budget of December 20, 1960.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition asks for leave to move the adjournment of the house, under standing order 26, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the inadequate and restrictive character of the criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of areas eligible for double depreciation under the program announced in the supplementary budget of December 20, 1960.
Has the hon. member leave to make his motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule is satisfied. Mr. Pearson, seconded by Mr. Chevrier, moves the adjournment of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this motion we have made to adjourn the house was put forward for the purpose of dealing with a matter which is, we think, not only of very great importance but also of immediate urgency because it deals with a proposal put

Labour Conditions
forward by the government in the hope that it will alleviate the unemployment situation in certain areas. We all know the seriousness of that situation generally, but it is of particular seriousness in particular areas. Presumably, to deal with that aspect of the situation, the government brought forward yesterday certain regulations laying down criteria to be used-and I am quoting from the motion-as a basis for the designation of areas eligible for double depreciation under the proposals of the budget of December 20.
When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) introduced these resolutions yesterday he stated that these areas eligible for double depreciation under that program would be areas where there had been a substantial degree of continued unemployment over the years, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his budget statement of December 20 referred to those areas as areas of chronic unemployment. The budget about which the Minister of Finance was speaking when he made that statement was that which included the policy referred to by the Minister of Labour yesterday in announcing these regulations and putting forward these proposals.
We think it is quite reasonable to refer to those areas not only as areas of chronic unemployment, as the government has done, but as depressed areas. An area of chronic unemployment within the meaning of the terms used by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance is, in our view, a depressed area. We do not see why there should be any squeamishness attached to the use of this expression. It is a word commonly used to characterize certain unfortunate areas. It has been used in the hearings before the Senate committee on manpower and unemployment. Indeed, it was used in the statement made before that committee by Professor Judek of the University of Ottawa on February 2. Professor Judek is no doubt well known to the Minister of Labour and, in fact, I believe his services have been used by the Department of Labour. In his own report to that committee the professor uses as a heading to one of his subparagraphs the phrase "full employment and depressed areas". So we think it is not improper to use that expression.
But it is not the expression itself that matters or how we designate these areas; it is what we are going to do in order to take them out of this condition of employment depression. For that purpose the government, at long last, yesterday produced some regulations. The purpose of these regulations and the policy behind them were announced as far back as December 20, 1960 when the Minister of Finance in that statement to
which I have already referred had this to say as reported on page 1007 of Hansard:
As a powerful Incentive-
I say at once that we do not think these regulations constitute a very powerful incentive. But the minister said:
As a powerful incentive to these ends-
The ends mentioned were the encouragement of initiative and enterprise and employment.
-X am pleased to announce measures to fulfil three major purposes: first, to assist new industries in areas where there is a substantial degree of continued unemployment over the years; second, to aid the development of new products from processing operations not hitherto carried on in Canada; and, third, to encourage the production of new types of goods. Double depreciation will, at the option of the taxpayer, be allowed in respect of capital expenditures incurred in the first year for these purposes but may be applied in any of the first three years.
Then the hon. gentleman went on, and these are the words I have already referred to:
In some areas changing economic conditions have created a degree of chronic unemployment which requires special action.
Presumably the regulations introduced into the house yesterday by the Minister of Labour are designed to constitute that special action. It may be special, but it is not likely to be effective in the light of the problem with which it is meant to deal. Furthermore, at any time since December 20, or indeed before that date, this action could have been taken by the government. I know that the Minister of Finance, when we urged the designation of these areas and when we urged that action of this kind should be taken, replied by saying: we have to deal with the budget resolutions first. He abandoned that position last evening when he said as reported on page 2611 of Hansard:
-the matter is one for executive action within the terms of the existing legislation.
If that means anything at all it means that this kind of action could have been taken as executive action at any time since December 20 last by the government. If the government on December 20 or even previously, had an appreciation of the seriousness of the situation, as we on this side have had, surely it would have taken that action before now.
We did our best at that time to prod the government into action. We asked question after question as to when these areas were to be designated, how they were to be designated and which minister was to be responsible for implementing the policy in the statement of the Minister of Finance on December 20.

We asked if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) was to be responsible and we could not get an answer. We asked if the Minister of Labour was to be responsible and we could not get an answer. We then asked if the Minister of Finance was to be responsible and we could not get an answer. I think it was on Tuesday of this week when we asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and that hon. gentleman said, finally, that the Minister of Labour would be responsible for this matter and yesterday the regulations themselves were introduced and put on Hansard by the minister.
This kind of laboured, indecisive and late action is in startling contrast to that which has been taken quickly, decisively and effectively in Washington by the new president of the United States. This could have been done by the government at any time within the last three years. It was done in Washington within a few weeks of the accession to office of the new president who almost at once submitted to congress a measure not only dealing with general principles of assistance to depressed areas but designating 99 areas of the United States as depressed areas, taking the responsibility for them and asking congress to deal with them in legislative terms.
That is how action could have been taken in this country under existing legislation at any time since this serious unemployment problem confronted us. However, yesterday we did get the regulations. It is our contention that the regulations as they were put forward by the minister are inadequate and indefinite. To the extent that we can understand them they seem in some cases to be entirely unworkable and they are, in the light of the problem that faces the needy areas, surely quite unsatisfactory. They apply double depreciation to the specified areas established by the criteria laid down, but double depreciation is to be applied for one year and one year only. That year is to begin from any one of the first three years when the industry moves in.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of incentive is that for an industry to move into an area which is already depressed? The government proposes to extend double depreciation for one year only. But the regulations as we have them before us are not likely to accomplish the purpose that I know the minister has in mind in putting them forward. They appear in dramatic contrast to the stand that this party has taken more than once in the last three years that this weapon of tax depreciation, if it is to be used against unemployment, should be used vigorously, quickly and decisively and that its application 90205-6-1674
Labour Conditions
should be more comprehensive than is indicated in the proposal introduced yesterday and now before us.
Before leaving the regulations themselves let me say that we expect during the course of the afternoon to hear from the Minister of Labour what the regulations actually mean in terms of application. We hope that the hon. gentleman will be able to clear up some of these difficulties of uncertainty that have already begun to make themselves felt throughout the country and to remove at least some of the disappointment that is being experienced concerning the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of these regulations.
Not only are the regulations inadequate but the procedure for their application to accomplish the purpose the government presumably has in mind is very difficult to understand and surely it represents a further abdication of responsibility by this government.
Who takes the initiative in this matter? Who starts the ball rolling, even this ball? It is not the federal government which does so, but the municipalities; they take the initiative. "Do it yourself," says the government to the municipalities. "If you feel you are a depressed area, tell us you think you are a depressed area and then we will see whether you fall under the criteria which we have laid down in the regulations. Ask us to investigate," says the government.
The government has this responsibility now. As I said a few moments ago, the government at any time in the last three years could have taken the initiative by order in council in accordance with the criteria which it has laid down in designating depressed areas and taking the necessary action to get them out of that category of depressed areas. The government has not done that. So far as we know, no order in council has been passed.
We pressed the Minister of Finance yesterday to find out whether any orders in council had already been passed under the income tax legislation which is now in effect. We have the right to deduce from the minister's silence that no action of any kind has been taken. We ask the minister now, how is action going to be taken under these regulations? Is there going to be a general order in council covering all applications which would simplify matters or is there to be required a separate order in council for every municipal request for assistance of this nature which has been found acceptable under these regulations?
We would like to get an answer from the government to that very important question and I am sure the municipalities would like

Labour Conditions
to know that at once. That is one of the reasons we have pressed for discussion of this matter this afternoon.
In explaining these regulations yesterday, as reported at page 2569 of Hansard, the Minister of Labour had this to say:
Hon. members of this house will recall that one objective of this program is to assist new industries in areas where there has been a substantial degree of continued unemployment over the years.
We will find out in a minute what "over the years" means and how this will limit the applications of some of the areas of this country which need help most. The minister continued:
Areas which meet the following criteria may qualify under this program.
Presumably if an area does not meet these criteria it cannot qualify under this program. The minister then proceeded to set out the criteria. He said:
They are broken down into two categories; areas with a labour force of 10,000 and over, and areas with a labour force of less than 10,000. In those areas where the labour force is 10,000 and over the criteria are first, the area must have been classified by the Department of Labour in a surplus labour market category-
A surplus labour market category is a category that has already been established over the years by the Department of Labour and presumably that would be the category that would be used now. The minister continued:
-the area must have been classified by the Department of Labour in a surplus labour market category for 75 per cent or more of the 48 summer months-
Those are months when unemployment is lowest. I continue:
-from May to October, 1953-1960. Second, industrial employment must have declined over the period 1953-1960.
That is presumably over a period of eight summers.
Then, he went on:
Areas with a labour force of less than 10,000 must have been classified by the Department of Labour as in a surplus labour market category-
Again, we know what that means.
-for 50 per cent or more of the 48 summer months May to October, 1953-1960.
It is interesting to note the distinction made in these words. The words used are not:
Second, industrial employment conditions must have declined over the period 1953-1960.
That is what was stated to be necessary in the case of areas of 10,000 and over. The words used here are:
Second, industrial employment conditions must have generally deteriorated over the years.

Let me interpret in more specific terms and in accordance with the practice of the Department of Labour, Mr. Speaker, what these words apparently mean. First, the ratio of applications for employment on file with the national employment service to be paid workers including those looking for work must have exceeded 7 per cent for 24 or more summer months from May to October, 1953-1960. I ask the minister to inform the house how the Department of Labour is going to calculate that ratio in relation to areas below the 10,000 population? How is the Department of Labour going to do that? Is there any method now by which that can be done under the procedures already followed by the Department of Labour?
I call attention also to the fact-and it was mentioned last night by my hon. friend from Essex East-that the calculation is presumably to be made in relation to the applications for employment on file in the national employment service. This is a calculation that has been rejected by the government in relation to unemployment discussions in this house. They will have none of it. The bureau of statistics random sampling is to be the calculation accepted, and we in this house have accepted it as the basis of our discussion of unemployment and we use it as the statistical evidence of unemployment. But it is not used in these regulations. For some reason or other the government goes back to that calculation which it had rejected and uses now the applications for employment on file with the national employment service.
The second calculation is that industrial employment must have generally deteriorated over the years. I ask the minister once again what does he mean by that? How is that calculation to be applied to municipalities under 10,000 and then, again, in the areas of 10,000 or more? The principles enunciated by the minister seem to mean that the ratio of applications for employment on file with the national employment service to be paid workers including those looking for work must have exceeded, according to the Department of Labour, (a) 6 per cent in industrial areas of 25,000 or more for 36 or more months from May to October, 1953-60; or (b) 7 per cent in areas below 25,000 and above 10,000 for 36 or more months from May to October, 1953-60, and industrial employment must have declined over the period 1953-1960.
Let us take the latter criterion first. To qualify for this kind of help, inadequate though it will be, in depressed areas as an incentive to getting new industries in those areas, industrial employment must have declined over the period 1953-60.

When the minister was putting these regulations forward yesterday he gave two examples of communities which in his opinion would qualify under the regulations. He mentioned Elliot Lake and Springhill, Nova Scotia. I should like him to explain to the house how under this criterion Elliot Lake could possibly qualify for this kind of assistance, although goodness knows no community in Canada, as an area of depressed conditions and unemployment, needs more assistance than Elliot Lake does at this time. Elliot Lake did not exist as a community in 1953, and yet to qualify for help Elliot Lake will have to prove that industrial employment declined during the period 1953-60. It is going to be very hard to prove decline from zero, because there was no employment in Elliot Lake in 1953.
I ask the minister how Springhill qualifies under these regulations when the disasters which have attacked Springhill in recent years began, not in 1953 but in 1956? I remember, also, Mr. Speaker, that in the application of this criterion the government has taken a period of eight summers. Four of those were good summers of high employment and prosperous conditions. They took four peak summers and four not so good. If they are to use the years after 1956, they have to qualify by averaging out the employment in those earlier years with the years of recession. I ask the minister how he is going to reconcile that kind of criterion with communities like Elliot Lake and Springhill?
These preliminary observations show how inadequate, how ineffective and how indecisive these regulations are. They have all the earmarks of something having been thrown together in a hurry because something had to be produced in this house. After three and half years of unemployment conditions and of recession, the government finally comes to this house and says, yes, we will do something about the depressed areas; we will do something by regulations that are now introduced this week, in March 1961. They are regulations which are entirely inadequate to meet the problem before us and which indeed are very difficult for any person to understand, let alone the municipalities which are given the responsibility of initiating action, a responsibility which should be that of this government.


Mr. Brunsden:: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: He has referred to Elliot Lake. Will he admit that the Elliot Lake program was initiated by the government of which he was a member?
Labour Conditions


Lester Bowles Pearson: Indeed, I will admit it, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad the hon. member has reminded me of it. He has brought the subject up and I will be glad to deal with it.


Edwin William Brunsden: May I finish my question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will he admit that part of the Elliot Lake trouble today is owing to the fact that there was not a definite long term contract for the marketing of uranium?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to explain that to my hon. friend. Elliot Lake as a community originated because of the initiative and enterprise of the preceding government in working out a contract with the United States for five years, a contract which was criticized in this house by the opposition of that day because it covered too long a period.


An hon. Member:: For five years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: For five years, and the leader of the opposition of those days criticized us because we were tying up our uranium for such a long period. I recall that very well, and I have Mr. Drew's observation very clearly in my mind.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member who initiated the questions and the hon. member in replying are getting away from the point of the matter in debate. It is true that the present condition of Elliot Lake is in issue, but not the negotiation of the uranium contract and subsequent events.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely if the question is in order, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to answer it. The only thing I wish to say to my hon. friend is that the responsibility for the situation in Elliot Lake today rests entirely on the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the question really led away from the proper subject of debate. It was not properly in order. Because the question was asked I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition a reasonable time to deal with it, but it would not be in order to go further into the matter.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order may I say this. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Elliot Lake as a specific example. I felt I had a perfect right to ask a question with respect to the initiation of that community.


Mr. Speaker:: It is true that Elliot Lake has a connection with the matter under discussion, namely the qualification of areas for

Labour Conditions
double depreciation. That is the context in which it is relevant to the discussion to mention Elliot Lake.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would it be permissible to discuss the question of why Elliot Lake is a depressed area today and is in need of this assistance?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think not; that is why I rose.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Over the past number of years, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has been given a certain modicum of respect and admiration because of his geniality and his obvious sincerity in dealing with the matters that come under his department. I am afraid there will be a detraction from that stature to which he rose by reason of the fact he has obviously become a pawn of the cabinet in the game of trying to mislead-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member's argument is directed entirely to the person of the minister and not to the subject under consideration. The geniality of the minister is not in issue.


Frank Howard: I was attempting to lead into a discussion of the responsibility of the government and the responsibility of the Department of Labour. Inasmuch as he is the minister, genial though he may be, who introduced this particular item yesterday, I felt it was necessary to relate the functions of the department and the minister's role in the cabinet to the cabinet as a whole. Over the past few years we have seen an increase in the role the Department of Labour is apparently playing in economic matters. This department was given increased authority and was supposed to be a new powerhouse in so far as the economy was concerned. The announcement made yesterday, I think, was an indication of the inability of the Department of Labour to meet this increased responsibility that has fallen upon its shoulders. I am of the opinion that there is practically no one in the department who is able to assess the effect of all the forces upon the economy and come up with any sensible approach to these problems. The announcement made yesterday in connection with this double depreciation factor is an indication of this.
The director of economics and research, I believe it is, of the Department of Labour, Mr. Dymond, appeared before the Senate committee on manpower and employment. He presented a well worded brief dealing with the economy of the nation. However, he made no conclusions, or no recommendations and the brief was not of an analytical

nature. Almost any grade 12 high school student could have written this type of brief about the economy.
The announcement concerning this double depreciation that will be allowed indicates also that we have a government that has a great love of the past but relatively little understanding of what might take place in the future. The setting of the period 1953-60 as the base period for determining whether or not an area will be eligible for double depreciation may be quite all right, but there is not one iota of sense in forgetting about the growth and expansion factors in the economy or those people who will be in the working force of our nation in 1961, 1962, 1963, and later years.
I feel that it is extremely unfortunate that the government has brought this matter forward in this form. It is extremely unfortunate for the areas that might be involved, and for the economy as a whole. It is an indication I believe of insufficient concern- I will not say lack of concern-or insufficient knowledge of the factors at play in the economy. It is an indication of insufficient concern for the welfare of the working force of the nation in those areas to which this double depreciation system may apply. The result of this provision will be to place those few areas in which it might apply in a sort of economic strait-jacket. I do not believe any straight statistical formula can be devised which would enable one to say: if you meet this test you may get some assistance; if you do not meet it, then you will not. I think it is unfair and discriminatory in that it seems to apply a mechanical and arbitrary test to depressed areas which did not become depressed areas as a result of any mechanical or arbitrary methods in the first place.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has dealt with the question of the government's selection of the months over the past eight years in which employment was high. I should like, then, only to mention it briefly in passing in order to emphasize that the months of June, July, August and September, the four months referred to, are the ones in which we have the lowest number of unemployed. What the minister is saying is that the government feels it will assist those areas which meet these tests that are based on a period when unemployment was the lowest, and it was only during the last four of those years that a high degree of unemployment actually emerged. With respect to some areas, the minister is saying that the four last years have to meet the test, and I think he is a little closer to the truth in that test because

those were the years during which this government was in office. I am not implying that the Liberals were any better.
In any event the minister is saying, in effect, that this proposal which purports to be a solution to the problem is repealed before it is enacted because it will not matter that much, the snap of a finger, in many places. As a matter of fact, the statistical requirement is coupled with a demand that there be a general decline in employment over the years. This assumption is entirely contrary to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said during the budget debate last year. He told us then that the problem of unemployment was solved. When we question them about unemployment, the answer which we regularly receive from this government, because they have not the intestinal courage to face up to the facts, is that the number of those employed has risen. We are told that there has been a regular increase in the number of people employed. If this is the case, then why tie these statistical criteria to a decline in employment in these particular areas? Either the hon. gentlemen were not being forthright in the years past and in the months past when they said there was an increase in the number employed-this was the answer to those who were accused of harping and carping about the number of unemployed-or else the indication in this plan that there must be a decline is not going to be an effective test at all.
In my opinion, this is just another mess of Tory garbage which means nothing. This announcement is designed to hoodwink the workers of this nation into thinking that this government has finally, after four years, come up with a solution to the problem of unemployment. Here is a government which has said over the past three or four years that there was no unemployment problem, but now it has finally come up with a solution to this problem. When the workers of this nation study the proposal, they will find there is nothing in it; it will prove to be just as empty as are the promises this government made before it got into office.
The only practical way in which this question of depressed or chronic unemployment areas can be dealt with is by making an assessment of the essential causes of the unemployment in these areas. This must be done before anything positive can take place. We must make a detailed examination to find out the original causes, because there are a variety of causes in different parts of the country. In one area the unemployment may result from one thing and in another it may
Labour Conditions
result from something else. There are a variety of factors responsible for this increasingly difficult situation.
The plan announced by the minister does not take into account the fact that unemployment is caused by different factors. His announcement suggests that Canada is equal in so far as concerns its chronic unemployment areas. Each area in Canada must meet the same set of circumstances before it can qualify for relief from its distressed condition. The government in its announcement has not taken into account any of these varying factors and the plan is only to be instituted for an interim period of time.
Has any thought been given to technological changes? Is this fact reflected in the statement made by the minister? Displaced workers who require new skills in order to secure employment have not been considered. Has any consideration been given to the decline of industry in certain areas? Is that something which should be taken into the picture? Some areas have experienced migration of industry because of a disappearance of resources, transportation difficulties and other similar changes. As reflected by the announcement of the minister, no account has been taken in this regard. Certainly there has been a depletion or exhaustion of certain natural resources in some areas, and this situation should be considered in order to arrive at equitable relief. Has any consideration been given to these various conditions as reflected in the minister's announcement? No, Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given. Has the government considered the change in imports and exportations and the effect these changes have upon certain areas? This again is not reflected in the statement of the minister. Has any consideration been given by the government to the lay-offs that have taken place in the last year? No, this has not been taken into account. We have in this country certain areas that rely on the establishment of one industry, such as the oil industry, the steel industry, or in my own area of Kitimat. the aluminum industry. Has any account been taken of the situation that exists in this regard? No account has been taken of these factors at all. Has any consideration been given to population shifts, higher wages, social capital, decline in revenue, the existence or non-existence of local community facilities such as roads, streets, electricity, sewage and water facilities? The minister's statement does not reflect any consideration in this regard. Has the effect of the government's fumble bumble fiscal policy been taken into account? No, Mr. Speaker, it has not.

Labour Conditions
These items I have enumerated represent basic causes for the existence of the many depressed areas. In his statement the minister is proposing to disregard all of the factors. He says in effect: let us come up with a formula that will sound nice and read well in the newspapers and hope it will be acceptable to the country before it finds out that we have hoodwinked it, and before it finds out that we do not have much concern for the difficulties which exist.
The economic decay that has existed in some communities as a result of chronic unemployment will certainly not lead to the attraction of industry to those communities regardless of the double depreciation of which the minister speaks. This is a malignant social sickness that exists in some areas of chronic unemployment resulting from the factors I have mentioned. Some industries will not locate in areas regardless of the chronic unemployment and regardless of the incentive of a depreciation nature put forward on behalf of the government. Industry will always look for a community or area in the light of existing facilities such as transportation, communication, closeness to markets and natural resources, living and social conditions, roads, bridges, electricity, sewerage systems and the like. Those are the factors which influence the location of industry rather than this double-talk about double depreciation. The double depreciation will have much less ininfluence on the location of industry than will the existence of the facilities I have outlined.
This announcement is a great disappointment which has been foisted upon parliament and the people of Canada. Apart from the fact that his department is obviously unable to cope with the economic situation, and apart from the fact that it may help in some small way, this stingy policy of the Minister of Finance is a great disappointment. Double depreciation on a set formula varying only as between 75 per cent and 50 per cent in regard to the over-10,000 population areas and under-10,000 population areas is based on the assumption that every depressed area in Canada is equal in so far as concerns the conditions resulting in chronic depression, but this is not a fair approach. It is true that these areas are equal in so far as the depression is concerned, but it is not true that they are equal in so far as the cause of the depression are concerned except for the fact that the people in the areas are living under a Conservative government.


Mr. Speakman:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Frank Howard: I will not permit a question at the moment in view of the shortage of

time. If the hon. member will wait until I have finished my remarks I shall be pleased to listen to his questions, provided he agrees not to distort my answers in the way he usually does.


An hon. Member:: You cannot take it.


Frank Howard: We are getting side comments from my divorce partner down at the end, Mr. Speaker. He is from an area falling perhaps in this category and he of all people should be concerned with its problem. My hon. friend from Cape Breton should also be concerned in regard to these areas of depression.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I will have a question to ask when you are finished.


Frank Howard: It is obvious that my friend from Cape Breton has only questions and no answers.


Edwin William Brunsden: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member referred to my colleague as his divorce partner. His divorce partner is his own party.


Frank Howard: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I have more independence in my party than the hon. member has in his. We do not operate in any political strait-jacket as do the Tories. Mr. Speaker, these interjections are obviously contrary to the rules and are leading me away from the point I was dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, in order to deal with this question we must have a full and complete investigation in regard to the various areas which are depressed. An announcement such as that which the Minister of Labour made yesterday will have relatively little effect on this problem. Surely there exist somewhere in a government agency or in the Department of Labour itself, individuals who are capable of dealing with this question. We must have an assessment of the causes of unemployment which lead to the chronic depressed areas. We need an assessment and investigation of the causes for these areas becoming chronic depressed areas. We must find an answer based on the elements of the unemployment, not an answer directed to creating incentive. The second suggestion I would make, and we have been advocating this for many years, is the creation of a national development council with money and authority at its disposal which could base its actions upon the results of inquiries, which are necessary in order to improve the situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. As I understand the motion now before us, it is to discuss, in the words

of the opposition, the inadequate and restrictive character of the criteria to be used as a basis for the designation of certain areas. It does not follow along the lines that the hon. member is now pursuing, advocating some other method of dealing with problems in the country. The debate should be restricted to criticizing, if necessary, the criteria that have been proposed and suggesting alternative criteria. It should not go any further than that.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I may speak on the point of order before you deal with it, Mr. Speaker. Those of us in the C.C.F. party are by past practice and guidance inclined to think in positive terms rather than in negative terms. So we must then look toward alternate systems.
The criterion that is established is a statistical one. The criteria that should be established should perhaps be partially statistical, but should also reflect these other factors. The criteria should be, government policy dealing with the question of lending money, grants to local authorities to improve their facilities, loans to industry, transporting workers from one area to another, acquiring sites and the establishment of crown corporations if necessary.
These are alternative criteria for dealing with the question of chronic unemployment, and there should be an announcement of government policy on this important matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are not alternative criteria; they are alternative methods.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The subject of debate is really much narrower than the hon. member for Skeena is now defining. The point of order having been taken, I give the hon. member my opinion that it is limited to the basis for the designation of areas which are eligible for certain tax treatment; that is, the criterion by which those areas may be ascertained or named.
It does not include the remedies for unemployment in those areas or anything of that kind, but only the method by which the areas which are to receive this special treatment may be ascertained. In discussing the national productivity council, which was a very limited diversion, on his part the hon. member was entering some outside field. I did not consider it worthy of intervention; but since the point has been taken, I have defined the limit, as I see the debate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong about this, but I thought you assumed that I had mentioned the national productivity council. I did not do so. In any event, as you yourself said-and I agree with you here- 90205-6-168
Labour Conditions
the motion before us cannot deal with remedies for unemployment. This is obviously so, because the plan announced yesterday does not deal with remedies either. I agree wholeheartedly with that suggestion.
Inasmuch as I am prevented from going into the positive field because of the objection of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who obviously does not wish positive suggestions to be made because they are embarrassing to a government that has none of its own, I will deal very briefly with the criteria themselves.
I mentioned that the reason they are restrictive is that they assume that in all cases the reasons are the same. They take the months of the year in which there is likely to be the lowest level of unemployment. They take a sufficient period of time so that the bad years under the Tories, when we had high unemployment in the summer, will be counterbalanced by the years preceding them when there was less unemployment in the summer
If you are going to use a statistical system,
I suggest this should happen. Perhaps I could make reference to the announcement of the minister yesterday. He said that the second requirement, in so far as areas over 10,000 are concerned, is that industrial employment must have declined over the period 1953-60. I say that condition should be eliminated. I say that because it is one of those conditions which will very seldom be met, if there is any truth in the remarks made previously by the minister that employment has been increasing. I say this condition should be eliminated and should not be part of the statistical requirement.
In so far as areas of less than 10,000 are concerned, I do not know what the difference is between these two references, but one refers to the fact that industrial employment conditions must have generally deteriorated over the years. I do not know whether that means over the eight years mentioned, over the years to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred, or to what years it does refer. But in any event this should not be part of the statistical requirement. It is restrictive and will prevent many areas from participating.
In so far as the 75 per cent and 50 per cent are concerned, this government would be much closer to dealing with the problem and would be much more able to gloat about what it does if it were to take a straight percentage figure of the total labour force in the area as compared, perhaps, with the national figure. The government should take a total figure of, say, 4 per cent or 5 per cent as a yearly figure and then deal with it on

Labour Conditions
that basis, rather than, as I said earlier, practically repealing the plan before it even comes into effect.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member who has just resumed his seat permit a question? Since he has made reference to the bungling of this government, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he now places himself on the side of a company which has refused further government aid in order to alleviate the unemployment problem in my area.
The hon. member has a choice here; he either supports what the government tries to do, or he supports this company. I ask him what his choice is.


An hon. Member:: There are a number of things wrong with this sort of question.
Another hon. Member: These is nothing wrong with the question.


Frank Howard: There is something wrong with the person who asks it.


An hon. Member:: Personalities do not enter into this.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has said there is something wrong with the hon. member who asked the question. It seems to me that casts a slight on the hon. member referred to, and surely the hon. member for Skeena appreciates that this is unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is unnecessary for another hon. member to deal with the point of order. I would think one would have to be very susceptible indeed to take objection to a generality of that kind. If the wrongness were specifically designated, there might be a question to be considered.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, for the edification of my friend from Bow River, may I say that it was a political wrong.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will ask another question that is more civil.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question and the only thing that would be in order at the moment would be an answer from the hon. member for Skeena, if he wishes to answer. Otherwise I will see the next hon. member who wishes to speak.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the question is that it does not elucidate anything; it does not tell me what the company is, what the arrangements were, or

anything else. Apart from that, the hon. member should know that the rules-as you, Mr. Speaker, have previously told the house- are such that if I were led into answering a question which was out of order, I would get halfway through the answer and would be stopped. The answer would be incomplete, and this would not be desirable.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend at this time to make any remarks on this particular question, but I should like to say this for the benefit of my friend who has just resumed his seat. Considering the problem with which we in Cape Breton are faced, it very surprising to me to find someone from the C.C.F. party standing up in this house and saying that they are not aware of this problem.


Frank Howard: That is not what I said, and you know it.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have asked a question. I have stated my point. They have on occasions tried to place themselves on a pedestal as far as the miners of Cape Breton are concerned, and now we have a member of that party telling the people of Cape Breton that they are not aware of what the problem is.
To the hon. member in the far corner, who implied in his speech that I was the fellow with all the questions but none of the answers, I might also say that I put forward my solution to this problem and I contacted members from all parties of this house. I might also add that the members from his party, who persist in saying that they are interested in the Cape Breton coal miner, did not even have enough courtesy or enough interest in the miners to answer this correspondence.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Malcolm MacInnis: This is the party which so freely admitted here that they are not aware of what our problem is. I have made many efforts in this house to put that problem before them-


Frank Howard: I should like to raise a point of order, if I may. May I say that if the hon. member directed a communication to me he did not address it correctly or he did not send it, because I received no communication whatsoever.


Malcolm MacInnis: I never indicated at any time that I had addressed any communication to the hon. member for Skeena. I value my time a little more than that. However, from the members of the hon. member's party to whom

Labour Conditions
I did direct this correspondence I have re- Mr. Maclnnis: -that the hon. member has ceived no co-operation of any kind.	eliminated it.


Frank Howard: Name the members.


Malcolm MacInnis: That would not be in accordance with the rules of this house, either.


Hazen Robert Argue: There was no correspondence.


Malcolm MacInnis: I think there was, and I would respectfully advise the leader of that so-called group in the corner to consult with his colleagues. He will find that there has been correspondence directed to several of them. I should like to see every one of them get to his feet and deny that he received such correspondence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member is straying from the resolution before the house. There is nothing in the resolution about correspondence between various parties.


Malcolm MacInnis: As I said when I rose, I did not intend to take a very active part in this debate, but I should like to refer for a moment to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposiiton. While the hon. gentleman was speaking he indicated that the Minister of Labour had implied that Elliot Lake would be one of the areas which would qualify. I should like to point out here and now that the Minister of Labour said no such thing. He cited examples of areas which might qualify but at no time did he indicate that Elliot Lake was one of the areas which would come under consideration. That is as far as I intend to go at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the hon. member a question? In view of the high level of unemployment prevailing in Cape Breton and particularly in the hon. member's own constituency does he not think that area should be included within the terms of this proposed policy? Is he not aware that Cape Breton and the hon. member's constituency are not included and cannot qualify?


Malcolm MacInnis: If I were to take the statistics of the hon. member for Essex East and refer for a moment to the accusation he made with respect to the city of Sydney in this house some months ago, the hon. gentleman would recall that he was very emphatic on that occasion and tried to drive home the point that Sydney was a depressed area-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It certainly is.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member says it is. He had much to say last night about which areas were depressed, and I notice from the account in Hansard-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not qualify.
90205-6-168J


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government has eliminated it.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member insisted it was a depressed area, yet last night he left it out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member not realize that if I did not include his constituency it was because the policy announced by the government which he supports does not include it?


Malcolm MacInnis: From that statement am I to take it that the hon. member for Essex East is now withdrawing the statement he made in this house several months ago?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I withdraw nothing. You should be looking after your unemployed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Coming as I do from the constituency of Bow River, I am interested in this motion because of a particular situation which exists in that area. May I say, first of all, that I am well aware of the terms and conditions of the present debate. I know this is a motion which, in effect, criticizes the conditions set out by the Minister of Labour on November 2 last with regard to the application of double depreciation allowances to certain localities. I can speak with some feeling on this subject because I come from an area where there has been unemployment in the coal mines for between ten and 15 years. I am referring to the Drumheller area.
These coal miners are engaged in mining what is known as soft domestic coal and because of competition from natural gas and petroleum fuels they have been thrown out of work and kept out of work for a number of years. So it is not my intention, as far as that situation is concerned, to blame anyone for what has occurred. Surely, what all of us should be asking is this: what can we do to help in a situation of this kind? Let us make no mistake about it. The situation as far as unemployment is concerned existed when this government took office; and I am sure as I stand in my place today that the workers of this country whether they live in western Canada or in the rest of Canada have confidence in the Minister of Labour and in this government.


An hon. Member:: Call an election and let us find out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have heard that cry about calling an election before. The opposition asked us to call an election in 1958 and

Labour Conditions
the C.C.F. almost got wiped out. It is only by the grace of God that a few of them are left.
Returning to the terms of the motion, I think this would be a good time to review exactly what the Minister of Labour said in reference to the criteria which have to be established in connection with this double depreciation allowance. He said this as reported in Hansard on page 2569:
Hon. members will recall that one objective of this program is to assist new industries in areas where there has been a substantial degree of continued unemployment over the years.
That is the first point I wish to make. There has been substantial unemployment over the years in the area of Drumheller where the coal miners have been mining soft domestic fuel. The Minister of Labour has come to grips with the situation and set criteria defining those areas to which we intend that industry should be attracted. No one is going to say in this house today that there are no areas in which serious unemployment exists. There was serious unemployment in 1955 and in 1957 and there is serious unemployment in 1961. There is, too, serious unemployment in the United States, as the hon. member for Essex East mentioned last night when we were discussing this subject.
The areas affected are broken down into two categories: areas with a labour force of 10,000 and over, and areas with a labour force of less than 10,000. In the minister's statement we find the following:
In those areas where the labour force is 10,000 and over the criteria are, first, the area must have been classified by the Department of Labour in a surplus labour market category for 75 per cent or more of the summer months from May to October, 1953-60.
That is the first criterion applying to the first group. Here is the second one:
Second, industrial employment must have declined over the period 1953-60.
Those are the criteria in the first category set out by the minister on March 2. Let us take the second category, that of areas with a labour force of less than 10,000. In the first place, these must have been classified by the Department of Labour as in a surplus labour market category for 50 per cent or more of the 48 summer months May to October, 195360. In the second place, industrial employment conditions must have generally deteriorated over the years.
Last, but not least, applications may be made by the municipal authorities. That is the part of the statement with which I want to deal for a few minutes. If we set out in law those areas to which this formula should apply, it would be too rigid and there would be no flexibility. That is the very thing about

which some of my hon. friends in the corner spoke with respect to another matter. They thought it was not flexible enough.
If you attempt to set out in law specific, designated areas there is no question but that it would be highly improbable that you could designate all the areas without missing one or two or more and would make bad exceptions. That is the point.
Under the present proposals the question will be handled in a democratic way with the initiative and suggestions flowing from the municipal level to the federal level. After all, in the democratic system it is important that all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, co-operate for the common good. Who knows local conditions better than do those at the municipal level? The municipalities can and may make application on the basis of their knowledge of the local conditions.
Let us take the municipality of Drumheller as an example. They have already written me as their member expressing the hope that the application will be placed with the appropriate officials as soon as possible so they can comply with the stated criteria. That, to me, seems to be a point that argues strongly in favour of the criteria as set out by the Minister of Labour. If the measure is approved by parliament it will make a significant contribution in attracting industry to depressed centres and in creating additional employment opportunities.
There is, however, a second point which I feel is very important. The introduction of this measure illustrates that the government demonstrates its belief in the freedom of enterprise. The government believes in the ability of free enterprise to solve the problems of unemployment. It has demonstrated this belief by giving an advantage to industry. Through the advantage of double depreciation industry can enlarge and expand their capital. Industry will be attracted to various areas and that in itself will create employment in those areas that need it. I do not think we should lose sight of those two facts to which I have referred.
The subject which is being debated this afternoon is one which was dealt with last night by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and if it is in order to talk about it at all, it is surely in order for me to comment on what the hon. gentleman said. In so doing, in all likelihood I will be dealing with the subject he touched upon.
The hon. member's criticism of this measure was that the criteria do not go far enough. The hon. gentleman suggested that we should have followed the course followed by President Kennedy in designating specific areas

as depressed areas. I remind hon. gentlemen of the Liberal party of the fact that there will be greater flexibility as a result of the manner in which the Minister of Labour has handled this matter. The criteria introduced by the minister will make the formula flexible and workable.
I observed that the hon. member for Essex East pounded his desk when I made mention of the course followed by President Kennedy. I suppose that the hon. gentleman likes the victory of President Kennedy. We all like to see people successful in politics and particularly we Conservatives because we were successful in 1957 and again in 1958. Just as President Kennedy was successful in the recent United States election so our national leader was successful in 1957 and 1958.
Of course, it is an old trick of the Liberals to applaud success. They were happy to climb on the coat tails of Roosevelt so they could get back in power in 1935. Of course, this is not a new trick and the reason why hon. gentlemen opposite refer in terms of praise to the proposal of President Kennedy is that my hon. friends have nothing new to offer. With respect to the unemployment problem my hon. friends have nothing to offer at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. Once again, I must ask the hon. member to relate his remarks to the motion now before the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; when you hear me out, you will see I am in order. What I am saying is that my hon. friends in the Liberal party have no alternative to the criteria suggested by the Minister of Labour and therefore they naturally want to climb on the coat tails of president Kennedy in the hope that in the future they may become victorious in an election in Canada and form the government. My hon. friends are not interested in solving the unemployment problem or in suggesting constructive proposals or altenatives.
Are my hon. friends absolutely and flatly opposed to the criteria suggested by the Minister of Labour? Do they say this formula will not solve the problems in those areas where there is serious unemployment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I heard the comment of the hon. member for Essex East and it is important because as I understood the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon, he did not criticize the purport of this measure but said we were wrong in the fact that we did not designate certain areas. The hon. gentleman did not really find fault
Labour conditions
with the criteria but said that we should have designated areas and not placed the onus on the municipalities.
My answer to that occupation-and I will repeat it-is that we believe that the local levels of government are important in democracy. For the federal government to designate areas would be imposing dictatorship from the top level down to the bottom level. Suggestions should come from the bottom to the top and so we have in this proposal a true example of democracy in operation in this country.
I now return to my argument. It seems to me the crux of the situation is that the hon. gentlemen opposite do not argue that the criteria are inadequate but that they protest the way in which the proposal is going to be administered. Let us examine how it will be administered.
In my opening remarks I said that I felt the workers in this country have confidence in the Minister of Labour. I believe the minister, as he has in the past, will prove his ability to administer this proposal accurately and justly. After all, in dealing with a scheme of this nature and magnitude, we have to have expert administrators to administer the laws and that is why the formula should be flexible. If the depressed areas were categorically set out in law the formula would not be as flexible as it otherwise would be; in that way bad exceptions and bad examples would creep in and problems would be created.
Let me return to my own area of Drum-heller about which I spoke earlier. The municipality can make an application. If the application of that area is approved, industry will be attracted to that centre and the coal miners who have been out of work over the years can find employment in another industry and live with their families in dignity.
I should like to cite this as an example. When I went to that area in 1955-1956 I saw large numbers of houses of the miners boarded up and the mines closed down. There was and is a surplus labour pool in that area. That surplus labour pool is looking for new industries in that area. It is for that reason that I rose this afternoon to speak in support of this remedy for unemployment and in support of the criteria that have been set out by the Minister of Labour. The result of the passage of this measure will closely affect the people I represent in the community of Drumheller and those in Canmore, Alberta.


Miss Judy LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in the debate on this subject, but that was before the announcement was made by the

Labour Conditions
minister to deal with areas which he has the new industries which we have attracted styled as areas of surplus manpower. How- employ only five or six people. Weekly and ever, I am required to rise to protest the monthly the figures mount. The government definition of the criteria which have been listens not to the cries from this and similar
placed before us as anything which is indicative of an acceptance by the government of its responsibility in answer to those in need in various communities in Canada.
On a previous occasion I have styled as a depressed area the riding which I have the honour to represent. This has met with incredulity on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and with indifference on the part of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).
We have before us not a formula to assist depressed areas but, at the very best, a formula to assist in disaster areas. If any area can qualify under the criteria presented to this house yesterday, it must be an area so badly hit already that this crumb which the government offers can in no way assist in its economic recovery.
There are many areas such as those I represent, and particularly the two larger areas of Fort Erie and Niagara Falls. They are, or were, largely industrial. One of their industries, of course, is the tourist industry which is most important in the summer months. Were my area in a position to qualify under the government's criteria, the fact that we have an influx of tourist dollars coming into the country in the summertime for a period of two or three months every year removes them from what the government will now be describing as an area of surplus manpower.
Nevertheless, over the past three or four years the number of unemployed has continued to rise. I refer to the chronically unemployed. The Minister of Labour visited my riding as recently as October of last year. I have already placed on Hansard the minister's remarks at that time and the fact that he said he intended to do something for the people in that area. Apparently the sort of thing which he intends to do in this riding and indeed in that represented by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) is, at times of election, to throw in one contract but otherwise disregard the people of the area.
I would suggest that this government has indicated no way of assisting particular areas such as mine where a certain industry is in serious trouble. In my riding the silver industry, the workers on the railroads and in the aircraft industry in particular are suffering and increasingly so. It is true that we have attracted some industries, are still attracting them. However, we have plants which have been employing as many as 2,500 people and which are now down to 250 employees; and

areas. I think this is another indication that this government and in particular the Minister of Labour have neglected and forgotten that which they are so proud of, namely their humble origin. Perhaps nothing in the world has been seen to equal the arrogance of this government and its indifference to the people since Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake".
I suggest to the government that if, as was indicated in the speech that was made on December 20 last, this government has a real interest in the people and in assisting particularly areas which have been affected by a number of economic factors, what is now offered is just not enough. In fact, I would suggest to the government that there is not one area in Canada which can qualify under this criterion. I would further suggest that it is interesting to know that the government has taken the period from the year 1953. If the government v/ill amend its criterion in order to take it back only to the summer of 1957, it will be in a better position to tell how many depressed areas there are in this country under this administration.
I have little to say, Mr. Speaker, nor can I expect any consideration for the people I represent or indeed the people of Canada. However, I would entreat the Minister of Labour to rise in his place and give us his views rather than to leave it to the fringe area of his party to speak on this most important issue. I would ask the Minister of Labour to detail to us the areas in Ontario and in each of the provinces his experts in the Department of Labour have told him this formula will apply to, if any. I challenge the government to indicate that there is any area which will qualify under this criterion. I ask the government to consider the fact that the municipality-for it is the municipality which must apply-must call itself a depressed area. I ask the minister also to consider that when it calls itself a depressed area it is likely to drive away prospective new business, new industries and new residents. It is likely to frighten away any sort of industry. When that area feels that it needs special assistance it throws itself upon the government and says, "We are depressed; assist us", and then finds that it is not only necessary to be depressed but to be destroyed in order for the regulations to take effect.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that in this particular parliament there is a coherent attempt, which I think is praiseworthy, on the part of the

government to give to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and his department a larger role in the economy. I have been complimentary before, and I may still be complimentary to the minister for making positive public statements in the past that this government accepted the responsibility for unemployment in this country and was prepared to face that responsibility. But this acceptance of responsibility, it seems to me, indicates a need to have some procedure by which the problem can be met.
It seems to me that the two main sources of power and influence in our economic pattern in this country in the federal government have been in the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance. Therefore I, like I am sure a number of other hon. members, have been waiting to see a shift to the Department of Labour that will enable it to give the leadership in facing the unemployment problem that the Minister of Labour has conceded. All I can say about these regulations, following the statement of the Minister of Finance, is that it is very apparent that the shift of power to the Department of Labour is not taking place in any effective way. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) or the Department of Finance is still holding the course.
My first point about these regulations is that they are a very minor concession. This has already been underlined by the Leader of the Opposition, but what kind of concession is it to give double depreciation for one year out of any three years? In essence, it is a pittance when compared with the concession that the mining companies have in Canada. I think it does work as an incentive to give the concession and to have no income tax or corporation tax on the first three years of operation. It seems to me that kind of incentive, because it is both general and generous, has had some real effect as compared with this very narrow concession.
One of the other factors about this concession, it seems to me, is that it ignores the places in Canada where capital accumulates and from which it is controlled. If the area of Sydney qualifies for this assistance-and according to the statistics I have been able to find, it might qualify; it is right on the boundary line-where is the corporate structure in Canada that has the capital that is going to take advantage of the situation in Sydney to get the double depreciation? I insist that that capital is in the main controlled in and the exploitation takes place from the large metropolitan centres such as Montreal and Toronto.
If one takes a map something like the one I hold in my hand, which sets out the labour surplus problem and clearly marks the labour
Labour Conditions
areas, 1953 to 1959, one has to speculate on large organizations such as Abitibi or Mc-Intyre-Porcupine, looking at this map and saying, "Oh, there is a dark area; surely the one marked is the one where we can get double depreciation; that is where we will go and set up a plant". I think this is incredibly naive when I think of my own area and all of the persistent attempts that have been made by the northwestern Ontario development association, the integrated chambers of commerce, both of Port Arthur and Fort William, and of northwestern Ontario to get industries to come in. These people have made movies and shown them all over Europe and the United States. They have sent off representatives at their own expense, paid for with money that they raised themselves. They have sent them all over the United States and Europe in order to make contacts and to get industry to come into their area; yet in the main, as far as I can discover, despite all this tremendous effort, in the last five years, we have had almost no new industries. I know that in 1960 we obtained at the head of the lakes one new industry, a concrete culvert plant that employs four people. My point in this is that we have had a region that is marked off roughly by the Department of Labour as a certain area, Port Arthur and Fort William, that has had a tremendous need for initiative and drive. I am not a man to suggest-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. Interesting as the hon. member's remarks are, the debate here is on the criteria mentioned by the Minister of Labour. The motion refers to the inadequate and restrictive character of the criteria to be used as the basis for the designation of depressed areas. In the interest of orderly debate I think the hon. member should limit himself to dealing with the inadequate features and the restrictive nature of the criteria, if that is his opinion, and suggest alternatives. I believe that a description of the hon. member's own area or a discussion of corporate matters is beyond the scope of the motion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the point of order, may I ask who it is that is going to take advantage of the double depreciation provision? Will it be Port Arthur or Fort William? It is nonsense to suggest that. It will be the corporation that will take advantage of it. I have tried to explain that our region has gone out after industry and has not been able to get it to come in. We have asked the province of Ontario and this government repeatedly to give us some incentive to bring industry into the area. I am suggesting that the incentive

Labour Conditions
contained in this provision does not come close to meeting the need. It is largely a useless one.
I am suggesting that the corporate structure of our country is such, with power concentrated in certain places and in certain organizations, that you have to offer something much more attractive than this provision in order to get corporations to move into these areas.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order. We are not here discussing the incentive of double depreciation. We are supposed to be discussing the criteria, and whether or not they are adequate for the purposes outlined by the Minister of Labour. The subject of the debate is not related to incentives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The point of order taken by the house leader is quite in order. I am sure the hon. member for Port Arthur realizes that. This is quite a restrictive amendment which is before the house, and the debate is strictly on the criteria for double depreciation. I wish the hon. member would come back to that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have gone through the statistics in connection with labour and the information which has been filed before the Senate committee, and I find that my particular region will not qualify under these particular criteria. My point is, Mr. Speaker, that here is an area that knows it is in deep trouble. It has tried to do something on its own initiative. It has requested incentives but the criteria that have been introduced by the Minister of Labour really do not mean very much to this area.
Aside from the fact that the incentive itself is insufficient, one must consider that we are dealing with percentages that vary up and down and that they must be related to the past. It seems to me that you have to have a most marked trend, an almost completely hopeless situation, before you can hope to get any advantage from the criteria that have been established in this provision. I insist that we have in Canada today a number of regions that are right on the edge of this test, and ours is one that could not qualify under this 1953-1960 standard. We have an annual average of 10 per cent of the registrants for employment who are unemployed; that is the average. The percentage over this particular period is not quite high enough to qualify us as a surplus labour area. The reason this area cannot qualify during the summer months is the change that has taken place in the woods industry. In former years employment in the woods was concentrated

in the wintertime, but within the last few years that period has changed to the summertime.
The other thing about these criteria, Mr. Speaker, is that they make no allowance for what are universally acknowledged to be the new reasons that we are having labour surplus areas. This is what is known as structural unemployment, and it comes upon a region fairly quickly. The power saw, in effect, has been the greatest revolutionizer in our industry, but in 1953 the power saw was not an important factor. However, since 1956 and 1957 it has changed the whole bush employment picture in our area. There have been other developments such as the carry-lift loader, drop loaders and what we call slashmobiles which have been introduced within the last few years and have cut the need for workers. However, the effects of these developments will not be reflected in the criteria we have here.
I was talking the other day to the head of one of our iarge labour unions, the northwestern Ontario lumber and sawmill workers union. He was saying that a few years ago they had 17,000 members. This is a tough mill and trade union which is feared, respected and hated in various sections of our part of the country. It is not a trade union that allows the membership to get away very easily. No one has come in and taken away any of the members; there have been no raids or jurisdictional squabbles. However, during the last four years the membership has dropped from 17,000 to about 11,000 today. I am not saying that they are protesting the changes that have taken place in the woods industry in our area, but their membership is going to go even lower. They are not squawking about this particular situation. What happens to the men who are uprooted and put in a difficult position? As a result of this our whole economy in northwestern Ontario has been affected by these changes in the woods operations in the last few years as well as the dieselization that has taken place on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific.
The Minister of Labour knows very well that dieselization has only become a crippling factor in employment terms within the last two or three years. In my constituency there are eight different railway divisional points, so the magnitude of the effect of dieselization upon employment is very apparent there. However, this factor, again, will not be reflected in the period 1953-1960 with any great effectiveness. This particular region is considered to be, then, from what I can

gather, a normal labour market area. However, we know that it is not. This is the difficulty when you set up criteria that go away back into the past.
I recall how critical I felt when listening to some of the farmers who were criticizing the agricultural prices stabilization board setup and the fact that prices were going to be set on the basis of a 10-year period. Some hon. members were pointing out the inequity of this, but that provision related to inanimate objects, farm products. The problem with which we are faced here relates to human beings. You have to deal with it with much more compassion than you do with such things as butter and eggs. I suggest that the measure is just not good enough; but if that is out of order, I suggest the criteria are much too severe to be useful to us. I know, Mr. Speaker, that much feeling will be aroused over this in our part of the country.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the fact that Cornwall qualifies under these criteria. I hope this does Cornwall some good. But what about all the other places in Canada that are going to be just below Cornwall and will not qualify? The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) was talking about flexibility and how much flexibility we have here. All I can say about the marvelous criteria is that they delimit the provision and make it so narrow that an area has to be in an almost helpless position before it can receive any assistance from the proposal of the Minister of Labour.
There is one last point I want to touch on, Mr. Chairman, and that is the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). He has mentioned the fact that he has received no response from members of this party in relation to the specific unemployment problem that exists in Cape Breton. 1 might say to the member that I have received his correspondence but have not as yet answered because-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I do not think that subject is a proper one to discuss on the motion that is before the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just mention this because the hon. member brought the subject to my attention this afternoon. 1 had no intention of interrupting the hon. member at the time but wanted to mention why I had not written to him. I took the matter into consideration, discussed it with the manager of a local thermal plant and was informed by the manager that the suggestion of importing coal from Cape Breton to Port Arthur was a fantastic one in view of the fact that the source of United States coal is much closer. I have no influence with the Hon.
Labour Conditions
Leopold Macauley or Premier Frost and would assume, party ties being what they are, that the hon. member for Cape Breton South would be much more able to accomplish something in this regard through his own party structure than through me.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised to find that the opposition posed today and presented a motion to the effect that the criteria set up for double depreciation in certain areas in this country are inadequate and of a restrictive character. This is something that we as a government expected. We have been endeavouring to do everything possible to put forward measures and legislation in this house since November 17, 1959, to help alleviate the situation. We find every time that members of the opposition rise as one with the cry that this is not enough and is restrictive. They have done this on some twenty five occasions since November 17th. When there is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for the opposition to approve or disapprove they rise as one and say, yes, it is a good measure but it is not enough. I am not surprised of course in this regard; that is the job of the opposition. It does not matter what the government brings forward, the cry is always the same: it is not enough, it does not go far enough, it does not include enough area, even though we must bring in measure after measure to deal with the situation.
The measure that was announced yesterday is designed to help certain areas in this country. The criteria may be criticized. There could be 1,001 different criteria. This is not criticism in regard to the criteria put forward by the government alone; this criticism will be put forward in any case. We are criticized in regard to this criteria being wrong. It is suggested that we should use some other criteria instead. This is the type of criticism we have heard today. I gave three examples of localities in Canada which I said-stressing very emphatically-that they might qualify under this criteria. Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) says that already he has received communications from right across this country to the effect that the writers do not understand these criteria. Mr. Speaker, I have not received any communication from any area or municipality to that effect at all. I believe that this statement in regard to the receipt of letters is made in order that something critical of this measure is brought forward.
I feel that the Leader of the Opposition is doing an injustice to Elliot Lake in saying that in his opinion Elliot Lake cannot qualify under these criteria. Surely, the Leader of the Opposition should not undermine the thinking

Labour Conditions
of the municipal authorities by saying they cannot qualify under these criteria. I think this is an injustice. Certainly the municipality of Elliot Lake has every right, as any other municipal area in this country has, to make an application to the Department of Labour which will investigate, along with the officials of the national employment service very rapidly, the situation in order to ascertain whether the applicant area qualifies for double depreciation, as set forth, for industries which locate in the area.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) has also stated that she does not feel that Niagara Falls would qualify. I would suggest that if it does not qualify, that is all to the good. Why should an area such as Niagara Falls qualify when it has experienced the expansion of industry that many other municipalities have not experienced for some years? Just a few moments ago we had figures produced in regard to the industrial development in that area. We heard about the encouragements put forward in an attempt to attract new industry, with a fair amount of success. We are very happy that Niagara Falls is an area that is progressing, and that industry feels it can locate in the area.
We have heard criticism in regard to the summer months limitation. The reason for this requirement, Mr. Speaker, is obvious. The seasonal unemployment in winter months would have a great effect on the situation. If we intend to get a true picture in regard to unemployment declining generally we must consider the employment situation during months when the seasonal aspect is not evident.
Before I go on I might say a few words in regard to the statement respecting the measures announced by President Kennedy in the United States. All the credit in the world should be given to him for implementing the proposals he has made. I am sure I would be out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I dwelt and enlarged upon a comparison of the measures taken by the two countries; but if I were to make such a comparison it would be interesting to note that of the 12 immediate measures proposed by the President of the United States we would find, Mr. Speaker, that here in Canada 11 have already been put forward. As I say, I will not go further with that comparison because I feel I certainly would be out of order. However, I would certainly enjoy the opportunity at this time of making a comparison of each and every one of those measures.
The motion before us today is a peculiar one. The opposition has moved the adjournment of the house because of the exception they have taken, Mr. Speaker, to certain criteria set up by the government in its

announcement of the policy for permitting double depreciation in certain areas that request it. What lies behind this motion, Mr. Speaker, is the opposition's desire and determination that the government shall in this Canada of ours set up certain areas as depressed or distressed areas; and from their point of view, the more depressed and distressed they are, the better.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has just said that it is our view and position that the more depressed and distressed an area is, the better. These words are entirely false and I ask the minister to withdraw them.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition assures me that that is not their intention, and that is not what is behind this motion, then I certainly do withdraw those remarks. Certainly that was the inference I drew from what was said yesterday, which was out of order, and again today. It certainly gave me that impression.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A false impression.


Michael Starr: However, if the Leader of the Opposition says that is not true, then of course I withdraw that charge. But the opposition seems to be determined to take this undemocratic approach to the problem. It is certainly not the approach that has been prevalent in this country, whereby there is a certain amount of respect for those governments which are not at the high level of the federal government. The opposition says that we, as the federal government, should tell municipalities and areas, "Here you are. We put a stigma upon you, whether you want it or not, and designate you as a depressed area". That word was used by the opposition.
I have been connected with municipal affairs for nine years, and I know that other hon. members presently in this house have been connected with that level of government. I know they will agree with me that this is a matter for consideration by the municipal authorities. It is a matter for the municipal authorities and the elected members of those municipalities to determine. When they have determined that in their opinion they qualify to have industry brought into their areas, then the way is open to them to apply to the Department of Labour. At that time representatives from the Department of Labour and the national employment service will make a thorough examination. If they qualify, they will be so designated by order in council, and only then. I think that is a fair approach to this problem.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister a question. He has mentioned one

point which I raised. Is the minister now saying that there will be a separate order in council for each municipality designated as an area of surplus labour?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the area or locality will be designated by order in council.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Each one?


Michael Starr: Whether it will be a separate order in council or whether two or three areas might be included in one order in council is a matter that will depend on the circumstances. If we receive a report simultaneously from two or three areas that qualify, then I think we could cut down on our orders in council by designating them in one order in council.
There must be a basis upon which to set criteria. How were these criteria arrived at? Since January, 1953, every month the Department of Labour has classified labour market areas according to the degree of manpower utilization in various areas across this country. Because the labour market classifications of the Department of Labour have been published since 1953, it was felt they would be more acceptable than any other approach which might be devised for this purpose.
Since 1953 labour market areas have been classified into four groups: substantial surplus, moderate surplus, balance, and labour shortage. In the criteria used for classifying surplus manpower areas, the term "surplus labour market" refers to both the substantial surplus and the moderate surplus classifications.
I submit that this motion has been brought about in order to say once again that the measure is no good. That has been the case with other measures that this government has brought forward, as it has promised to do, and it will continue to bring forward measures to alleviate the situation. That is why the opposition says these are not the proper criteria. They say, "If we had been asked, we would have given your criteria". It does not matter whether we have 1,001 criteria; there will always be something wrong with them. This government is trying to deal with the situation for the good of this country and for the good of the working man and woman of this country.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) began his remarks by stating that he was not surprised at the criticism levelled at the government for the policy which he announced yesterday. I must say to him now that I am extremely surprised at the reply he has made to the questions, suggestions and criticisms concerning that policy.
Labour Conditions


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member used the word "suggestions". I have yet to hear any suggestions as to the type of criteria that should have been adopted.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour could not have been listening, because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) put on record a suggestion in connection with this matter. If the minister had been listening he would not have interrupted me a moment ago.
Coming back to this statement made by the Minister of Labour, I am indeed surprised that the minister did not take the opportunity to explain in greater detail and at greater length the so-called criteria to which he referred yesterday.
A number of members on the government side of the house have risen in support of this resolution, but has any member of the house, including the Minister of Labour, told us this afternoon what these criteria mean? The Minister of Labour had an opportunity to deal with this matter in the few minutes at his disposal. He could have taken the requisite time to tell us the meaning of this order in council, and he spoke for barely 12 minutes. Why did he not, as the minister responsible for this policy, explain in detail to the House of Commons what is meant by the criteria and by the division of the two categories?


Michael Starr: If I had done so, would that have satisfied you?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is your job.


Lionel Chevrier: We would at least have known what is in the mind of the government. As it is now, we certainly do not know what is in the mind of the government, because it is as clear as mud.
In the discussion of this motion of the Leader of the Opposition to adjourn the house reference was made to a statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) during the course of his supplementary budget speech on December 20, 1960. As found at page 1,007 of Hansard the Minister of Finance said at that time:
As a powerful incentive to these ends I am pleased to announce measures to fulfil three major purposes.
The Leader of the Opposition has put this on the record and I shall not repeat it. That was a positive statement by the Minister of Finance that powerful measures would be announced, and we had every right to believe that those powerful measures would soon be introduced in the House of Commons. But it took over two months for that to be done; and then it was done by this puny little measure,

Labour Conditions
this timid measure announced yesterday by the Minister of Labour. Not only were there very substantial and serious delays, but there was confusion because it was impossible for a long time to know which of three departments would be concerned with this matter.
That is why the Minister of Labour is so timid about the whole thing. The reason is quite clear. When this announcement was made on December 20 the government had not determined its policy. It was only later, I suggest, perhaps a day or two ago, that it was decided to follow this method which was announced in the house. That is why the matter has been thrown into the hands of the Minister of Labour, who should have been able to rise in his place this afternoon and explain to the people of Canada what is meant by these criteria. I say to the Minister of Labour that these criteria are unsatisfactory and that he should have explained to the house what was meant by them.
Who is going to designate the areas? The Minister of Labour in reply to criticism which was directed at him, when he stated that we had an undemocratic approach to the problem, asked: why should the municipalities not have the responsibility of making application? During the budget speech and during the course of debate on a number of occasions we had clear-cut statements by representatives of the government that they intended to assist those who were suffering from unemployment and that they were ready, also, to assist the depressed areas or areas of so-called chronic underunemployment. Why were not those undertakings carried out? Why was the stand taken in the budget speech and by other ministers in the course of debate not carried out save and except in the words of the Minister of Labour who so mildly attempted to reply to some of the criticisms which were made?
I believe the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) was quite right when she referred to a statement made by a former queen of France, "Let them have cake". I add to that a statement made by one of the ministers of the government, "Let them have bread or games, bread or circuses". That statement was made on more than one occasion and that is exactly what is happening in this situation. It seems to me that it is up to the Minister of Labour to take the initiative in designating areas which are entitled to these double depreciation allowances.
It has been said here that in order to assist industry to locate in a community certain advantages must be offered; and one of the advantages which the government proposes is a double depreciation allowance for a period of one year extending over a period of three years. How can an industry 
establish itself in a community when it does not know whether it will be entitled to the double depreciation allowance and cannot know until a decision has been confirmed by order in council? How long is it going to take before this information is available? How long will it take the municipalities to convince the Department of Labour or the governor in council that they qualify under these criteria? Moreover, the criteria are such that it is almost impossible for them to know what the position is.
The minister made great play about the fact that he had not stated that Elliot Lake and Springhill could qualify but had said they might qualify. Why should the minister not tell us whether they do qualify or not? If he or the officials of his department do not know, then how in the world can the municipalities of Elliot Lake, Springhill or Cornwall for that matter, which is in a difficult situation as the minister is aware, be expected to know?
The government and the Department of Labour have had three months in which to find out what the circumstances should be in the application of this formula, yet it is only yesterday that we had the announcement concerning it. I say to the minister that this formula is so restrictive that it leaves many communities in the lurch and outside the benefits, if there are any, which flow from the terms of this policy.
I think the Minister of Labour cannot avoid telling the house either now or at a later date what these areas are in order to avoid the delays which must otherwise attend the application of this policy. Where are these areas of chronic unemployment? Certainly the Minister of Finance during the course of his speech on the budget, in the course of answers to questions we asked in the house and in the course of other debates led us to believe that we should be given this information. There was no one on this side of the house who for a moment did not believe that this information would be forthcoming in clear and definite terms. As it is now, I challenge the minister to tell us what this thing means. Although, as I said earlier, two members who support the government have risen to tell us something about this proposal, to tell us they are in favour of it, no one, including the Minister of Labour himself, has told us in clear and definite language what these criteria mean and how they can be applied.
There is another matter about which I think the house should be informed and it concerns the manner in which this proposal is going to operate. I urge the minister and the government to change and improve these criteria which are faulty. We believe that

the figures of total population instead of paid workers should be used to calculate the percentage of unemployment, because our population statistics on a regional basis are much better than the figures on the paid workers basis. Moreover, the period selected is certainly unsatisfactory because it includes four summers of prosperity and four summers of recession. The period to be used should be the last three years because chronic unemployment really started at the end of 1957.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It certainly did. Look at the figures.


Lionel Chevrier: During this debate the question has been asked: what can we do to solve this problem? We are all in support of what measures may be taken to solve this problem but I tell the government and its supporters that they will not solve it by this puny method. They will not solve anything by refusing to define what is meant by an area of chronic unemployment.
Another statement which has been made in the course of the debate is that the former administration is responsible for the present unemployment situation. Let me tell the house that the present government has now been in office for almost four years; and if the situation has reached the point which it has reached today, they and they alone are responsible for the conditions. They should be able to stand on their own feet and cease blaming an administration which has been out of office since 1957. But no; they are not prepared to do so. I notice that the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) who does not say very much in this house was down in the province of Quebec the other day saying that the high degree of unemployment in this country was the responsibility of the former government. I am telling members opposite that they will not solve the problem of unemployment by statements like this. They must do it by policies. They must do it by bringing in measures which they themselves said they were going to bring in. We waited for nearly three months for a definition of these areas and we had it only yesterday.
I was saying that the period to be used should be the last three years, because chronic unemployment actually started at the end of 1957. If you look at the figures, Mr. Speaker, you will see that unemployment in this country then was very little over 3 per cent. Areas may have enjoyed prosperity and boom conditions between 1953 and 1957 but after 1957 they may have experienced heavy unemployment. In that case they would not qualify under the government's program. That
Labour Conditions
is another fault which we on this side have to find with the summer months definition. It is well known to every member in this house that during the period 1953-56 if not, 195357, there were boom conditions in certain areas of this country. That certainly was the case, in large part, in the city of Cornwall because of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, but after that because of the closing down of several cotton industries no less than 2,000 people were put out of work. Reading this definition as carefully as I can I am still unable to say whether or not that community will be able to qualify. I am also sure the minister is unable to say and certainly he has thrown no light on it today.
I submit that the definition of the two categories, the one having to do with an area with a labour force of 10,000 and over, and the other having to do with one with a labour force of 10,000 and under, should be more clearly set out by the government. On the basis of the statement put on the record by the Leader of the Opposition I think it is clear that it is going to be almost impossible to determine how a community with a labour force of under 10,000 will be able to apply. In the case of the category of a labour force of 10,000 and under the situation will be unworkable as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition and by others who have spoken.
In his remarks the Minister of Labour said that the government is bringing in measure after measure to deal with the unemployment situation. I am not free, any more than was the minister, to deal with those measures because of the restriction in the debate but I have yet to see brought in by the government since the session opened in 1960 a measure that will deal with the unemployment situation during the course of the present winter. Surely the present measure is not one which will be of much use during the course of the present winter season, because after an application is made time will be required to consider and study it and the industry in the community which will be waiting will want to be given some advance notice of whether or not it will be entitled to double depreciation.
I ask the Minister of Labour and hon. members of the government what industry is going to be tremendously enticed to come into a community if it will receive only one year of double depreciation during a period of three years, unless it is already there and wants to add to its facilities. That is what the Minister of Finance called a powerful incentive. If it is a powerful incentive, it was weakly and inadequately defended by the Minister of Labour.

Labour Conditions
I say to the minister that even now he should tell the house what the areas are; and unless and until the hon. gentleman does that I submit to him with deference that it will be practically impossible for those municipalities who want to make an application to know where they stand.
It seems to me it is the responsibility of the government in office to take action and instead of exercising that responsibility it has shifted it on the municipality. The government is saying in effect to each municipality: "You tell us whether or not you are a depressed area; we do not know. But having regard to the two criteria that were placed on Hansard you tell us whether or not you are a depressed area and, if you qualify under our criteria, then we will perhaps act under the circumstances."
In his statement yesterday, as reported at page 2569 of Hansard, the Minister of Labour stated the criteria as being these:
-first, the area must have been classified by the Department of Labour in a surplus labour market category for 75 per cent or more of the 48 summer months from May to October, 1953-1960. Second, industrial employment must have declined over the period 1953-1960.
Who is going to satisfy the government that industrial employment has declined if during four of the years there is a boom of employment, then suddenly it disappears and there are serious conditions which indicate a substantial deterioration in the community? Who is going to make that determination? Is the onus on the municipality? Must the municipality prove a prima facie case before it can be qualified under these criteria or are the officials of the Department of Labour to determine that matter?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just asked me a question. In reply let me say I think I set that out very clearly in my statement yesterday and again in my remarks this afternoon. I said that upon receipt of an application the officials of the Department of Labour and of the national employment service will go to that municipality, make assessments at first hand and ascertain very quickly whether the municipality qualifies under the criteria.


Lionel Chevrier: But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is satisfactory.


Michael Starr: The hon. member is free to hold that view. I attempted only to answer the hon. gentleman's question. What does the hon. member want?


Lionel Chevrier: I am being asked what I want and I will tell the minister. The minister has the figures right here in the Department of Labour. The minister need not tell me that he does not know what the position is

in every Canadian community as far as labour is concerned. If the minister does not know, he certainly should know. The hon. gentleman has those figures. Those figures are in the possession of the minister and he should be the one to take the responsibility instead of shifting on the municipality the onus of proving a prima facie case as to whether or not industry has deteriorated in that area. I certainly do not accept that explanation from the minister.
If the Minister of Labour does not have the figures he certainly can obtain some of them from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), some from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) and still others from the Minister of Finance. The figures are all here in various departments of government.
If the government had wanted to do so it could, of its own volition have determined all these questions beforehand; but instead of doing that the government is going to waste a lot of time and has shifted the responsibility to the municipalities in asking them to tell the government whether or not they are depressed areas. That is why we repeat now what we have said so often: It is too little and too late. You have been talking now about all the great things you were going to do-


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Address the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: You were talking about them in the speech from the throne. Hon. members of the government during the course of various debates repeated ad nauseum what the government was going to do to meet the unemployment problem. This is another step in that program and from what has been said I presume it is the last step for the time being at least. All these items are supposed to assist in meeting the unemployment problem.
I repeat what I said a moment ago. Again I urge two things upon the minister. I urge that he clarify still further either by a statement in this house or outside what is meant by the criteria and that he take into consideration the other suggestions I made a moment ago.


Grant Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed astonished and surprised that hon. members opposite should take the position that the criteria announced by the minister will actually deprive those communities which need it most, such as Cornwall which I have the honour to represent, of the maximum benefits of this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I am sorry, but I did not realize that the hon.

member was not in his seat. If the hon. gentleman wants to be heard in the house, will he please return to his seat?


Grant Campbell: This is only typical of what I would expect from some of those opposition members, some of those centralizers, who would impose on municipalities even without their consent the stigma of depressed areas. It is important that the municipalities themselves, which are in a position to know best their needs, have the onus to determine whether it is more to their benefit to have this double depreciation as an inducement to attract new industries or whether it may be counterbalanced by the adverse publicity attracted to the area. I have personal experience of this particular problem. Some weeks ago a Toronto paper published what I would say was a lengthy prejudicial article on my home town of Cornwall with the headline, "Cornwall, City of Idle Men". I must say that many people in my area took great and violent exception to this adverse and to some extent unwarranted publicity, although far be it from me to underestimate the degree of the consequent damage of unemployment either in my area or in others. However, I think that point must be clear.
This government is not going to impose any stigma on municipalities. They themselves must decide what is in their best interest and act accordingly. They are the ones who must initiate this aspect of the matter. If they decide that it is to their benefit to do so, I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour will give them every assistance in providing the necessary statistics to substantiate their case; but the onus must be where it should be, namely on those independent units of government, which are the root and base of the democratic organization of government.
Finally, if every community is going to be entitled to double depreciation, if every community has this additional inducement to attract industry, then those areas which require it most will not derive any special advantage. As I understand it, the chief reason for this legislation is that those whose need is greatest derive the maximum advantage; in other words, they derive some special advantage to attract industries into areas where they are most needed.
This whole process of decentralization of industry is long overdue and very necessary for the over-all health and balance of the national economy. There should be a large measure of decentralization, and this is one measure directed toward that end. I repeat, if every community is entitled to this special attraction, those who deserve it most will
Labour Conditions
not derive any special benefit from it and the whole purpose of the legislation will be defeated. Presumably, from the facetious criticism of this legislation, it would appear that this is what the opposition is demanding, either inadvertently or by design.
I repeat, those areas which need these special inducements most are the ones which should receive full benefit from them. Obviously, if everybody gets them there is no special advantage to any area. I insist that this government had this matter obviously very much at heart when it devised this criterion having to do with the special benefit of double depreciation. Also, the thing that this government would never adopt is a dictatorial centralizing policy of imposing, if you want to call it that, the stigma or designation of depressed area on any community without that community's consent, or without that community knowing and saying that it is in its best interests that such be done and initiating action for the government to follow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a question of the hon. member who has just taken his seat? Does he not realize that governments now and for years past have been stating that certain communities in this country are labour surplus market areas? That is what we are talking about. That designation is being given by the government every day of the week to certain areas.


Grant Campbell: It is a different thing entirely. Furthermore, in reply to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, does he not realize that there is a very valid distinction between a depressed area and an area of chronic unemployment?


Douglas Mason Fisher: What is it?


Grant Campbell: There are some areas such as the maritimes where the general level of income might not correspond as compared with an area such as western Ontario and therefore they might be considered to be relatively depressed; but in certain areas that may be considered relatively depressed in that sense there may or may not be chronic unemployment. There is obviously a very real difference between the two.


Mr. Speaker:: May I call it five o'clock? It being five o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt this debate in accordance with the standing order so that the house may proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to standing order 15, section 3.

Industrial Relations INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


APPLICATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO CROWN AND EMPLOYEES
Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-14, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (application to civil service).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is getting to be a sort of perennial bill of mine. Its primary design has been explained in other years; it is to make the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act applicable to employees in the public service, with certain exceptions which I will enumerate in a moment.
The provisions of the act would apply to the employees in the public service in so far as certification of a bargaining agent is concerned. It would make applicable also the provisions relating to the negotiation of collective agreements, the conciliation procedures and the like except in so far as the operation of the conciliation board is concerned, and except in so far as strike action is concerned. I will explain all this in a moment.
The current procedure, which has been in existence for many years for that matter, is for the various organizations representing the employees in the public service to prepare demands, as it were, or requests, to the government in office for adjustments in their salary structure, hours of work, holidays and the like, and then to wait in attendance, with cap in hand, usually upon the minister of finance or the cabinet itself to make up his or its mind.
Last year we saw what I considered to be a most unfortunate system of establishing the salary structures of civil servants in that certain groups were selected for particular increases which were at variance with increases granted to other groups of employees, and in certain instances no adjustments whatever were made. This leads to a situation in which charges could be made of favouritism or of lack of knowledge on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) or somebody else in attempting to bring the various salary structures of the various groups and types of employees in the public service into equity. In my opinion, it is the fundamental right of employees of any employer in this nation to be able to form into a union or an association, whatever they might call it, and to find through that union or association a means of solving the problems that arise as a result of their working conditions.
I do not believe we should draw too much distinction, although apparently in some instances it is desirous or necessary to do so,

between employees who work in the public service of Canada, or what is classified as the civil service, and employees who work in industry or for crown corporations. However, a distinction is made. The employees of crown corporations and of private industry are able to band together and form a collective unit, apply for certification and sit down with their employers to negotiate collectively the terms of an agreement or contract covering their wages, hours, working conditions and the like. Employees in the public service do not have this right.
The employees in the public service are and have been considered by the government as being in a sort of second class position. They do not have the rights, privileges and responsibilities of other employees in society, namely those working in private industry or those working for crown corporations. This situation does not apply to wages alone, although I suppose in a material society this would be the first consideration of employees. There are other matters to be considered such as grievances, conditions of employment, hours of work, holidays, vacations with pay, sick leave, seniority rights and so on. All of these things form part of an employee's working conditions.
Apart from the fact this is a contradiction of our concept of that phrase made famous by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), "human rights and fundamental freedoms". I think it is bad psychology for a group of employees to have no outlet for their feelings in so far as management is concerned, nc method of redress for their grievances, nc manner of attaining what they consider tc be correct hours, wages and working conditions. I suggest it is bad for a small group of employees to have their final destiny rest in the hands of a political figure who can tailor these working conditions to suit what he considers to be either budgetary measures or some political purpose. I feel that this outlet should be given to these people in order to draw them more directly into equity with the employees who are not working in the public service of Canada.
During the last session I introduced a similar bill and there was a great leal of discussion on it. It seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) participated in the debate, as did a number of other hon. members including the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Creaghan) At that time I do not believe there was much objection to the basic desire of providing the people in the public service of Canada with bargaining rights, but it was felt there was some infringement of the rights of parliament. The bill I introduced last session contained a provision that the report of the

conciliation board established under the act would, in fact, be an arbitration board the decision of which would be final and binding both upon the government and the employees in the public service. The major objection to the measure revolved around the point that parliament was supreme and should remain supreme in its authority to control the expenditures of this nation. Yesterday, of course, we had an example of how this parliamentary authority had deteriorated a little bit when the resolution of the Minister of Finance on tariff matters gave the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) authority to vary taxes without any appeal.
However, the bill introduced during the last session contained a provision that the conciliation board report would be final and binding and objection was taken because it was felt parliament should have the final say in the expenditure of public moneys. Since I felt that the argument had some merit, I altered the bill this year in that respect. Otherwise, this bill is the same as the one introduced last year. When a conciliation board is established, and it completes its hearings and writes its report, that report shall be tabled by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) in the House of Commons either forthwith or, if the house is not sitting, within 10 days after the sittings commence. The House of Commons would be in a position then, in keeping with parliament's right to spend the money, either to accept or reject, amend or do as they liked with this report of the conciliation board.
One other matter was raised last session in connection with this proposal to establish a conciliation board. It was said that the appointment of a conciliation board under the circumstances envisaged in this bill would be weighted in favour of the government because, presumably the Minister of Finance would appoint one member of the board, the union of public service employees would appoint another, and if they could not agree upon a chairman then the Minister of Labour would appoint the chairman. As a result, two members of the board would be government appointees. However, I might say that, in this instance, I wanted to keep as much as possible within the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and I would not want to malign the Minister of Labour in that way by suggesting that he would select a chairman of the conciliation board who would be favourable to the government's point of view.
In any event the report of that conciliation board would eventually be the document tabled in parliament, debated in parliament and decided in parliament, so that parliament would retain its hold on the purse strings of
Industrial Relations
the nation so far as expenditures are concerned, and would also be, by the same token and at the same time, an arbitration board in respect of negotiations among the employees of the public service of Canada and the crown.
The bill is designed to bring justice, equality, fairness and decency into play in the relationships between employees in the federal services and the crown itself, and to assure as much as possible that employees in the public service are not looked upon and treated as second class citizens. The bill is designed to prevent decisions in regard to incomes and working conditions from being made on a political basis, which would continue their existence in a half state of being partly employees and partly not employees.
I feel that the people of Canada, and particularly those employed in the public service, at the time of the passage of the bill of rights looked forward to the day when there would be equality of rights and opportunities. I feel that this bill is designed primarily to bring about just that situation.


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 1960, we had a similar debate in regard to Bill C-9 introduced last year by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). That bill was a little different in form although it had the same title. There was very little opportunity at that time for debate and, unfortunately, we are now in similar circumstances today.
I had the opportunity at that time of speaking for approximately two or three minutes during which time I mentioned that the bill would conflict with section 28 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I am afraid we are faced with the same problem in regard to the bill being discussed today. The hon. member for Skeena mentioned the difficulties in regard to section 28 and I feel that he is correct in his statement. The present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act provides that before a conciliation board can be appointed management-in this case the government-must appoint a member; the employees association must appoint a member and, in the event they cannot agree within a period of five days, the Minister of Labour must appoint a third member as chairman.
Unlike the hon. member for Skeena I cannot assume or believe that such a board recommended by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) would be necessarily fair to the civil service association. In order to overcome that difficulty in this bill it will be necessary to add to part II of the act, a new section setting up a board of conciliation specifically designed

Industrial Relations
to consider disputes between employees and the government, as apart from those between employees and private industry. I believe an amendment such as that which I have described should apply in regard to crown corporations as well as to the civil service association because it is possible that wage earners, particularly C.N.R. employees, could find themselves in the same position as do civil servants.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the government introduced a bill to increase superannuation payments to civil servants. That bill was then referred to a sessional committee of the house. I would suggest that when a similar committee is formed this year the bill now under discussion should be referred to a committee in order that it can be considered by civil service associations and members of parliament.
On March 2, 1961, the Minister of Finance moved first reading to Bill C-71 which is entitled "An act respecting the civil service of Canada". Bill C-71 is a complete revision of the Civil Service Act. I understand it contains a proposal closely related to collective bargaining. I should like to refer hon. members to the March 1 edition of the Ottawa Journal which contains reference to this new step. The main article was written by Richard Jackson, and the opening paragraph is as follows:
An important step in the direction of collective bargaining for Civil servants is being taken in the revised Civil Service Act, the Journal learned today.
The article continues as follows:
This is a concession that staff associations for years have sought and has been included in a brief filed by one of the big civil service organizations with the Glassco Royal Commission on government organization.
In the same newspaper at page 4 there appears an extract from interviews with some of the heads of the civil service asso-cations. Mr. Fred Whitehouse is quoted as follows:
"-if the report is correct, it is certainly a step forward."
Hon. members will realize that Mr. White-house is president of the Civil Service Federation of Canada.
Mr. J. C. Best, president of the Civil Service Association of Canada was also interviewed and is reported as follows:
"If the report is correct I am very happy to learn the government has recognized the weakness in the previous bill".
Because of the length of the session last year, it was impossible to have a further debate on Bill No. C-9. I understand that Bill C-71 provides that the civil service commissioners shall consult with civil service

employees associations with respect to pay and conditions of employment. If this is a provision of the new bill it will mean that meetings will soon take place at the request of the civil service association rather than only at the direction of the minister or the civil service commission. This is a step towards collective bargaining, and I believe it is a welcome one. There seems to be a trend towards collective bargaining for all employees in Canada. Whether or not there will be full collective bargaining in the civil service in the immediate future remains to be seen, but much progress has been made in this direction during the past three years.
The annual report of the civil service commission for the year 1959 shows that during that year there were ten meetings of the advisory committee on pay research. When one realizes that this committee is composed of one of the commissioners and representatives of the staff associations and treasury board, one can see that not only have the Minister of Finance and the civil service commission an opportunity to bring forward recommendations, but this opportunity also exists for the employees.
I do not think the bill introduced by the hon. member for Skeena would be operative, but I wish to state that I am in complete agreement with that part of it which deals with collective bargaining. However, I do not think it would be possible for a conciliation board to solve the problem. Unless the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) extended the provisions of the act, it would be necessary for the conciliation board, when handling a federal employees' wage dispute, to submit a report within 14 days. That would be an impossibility when one realizes that there are approximately 1,900 staff classifications.
If the bill were passed in its present form it would mean that members of parliament would become bargaining agents for the civil service. We would be charged with the responsibility of negotiation in connection with the salaries of the civil service. Clause 1 of the bill provides that this house would have the responsibility, after the report had been submitted, to accept, reject or amend it. This is a complete change from what I understand to be the type of government we have under our constitution.
Hon. members realize that we have an executive and a legislative type of government. If the responsibility rested with the House of Commons, there would be taken away from the executive its responsibility of determining what was a decent wage. I feel that when the sessional committee is set up to review the Civil Service Act introduced on March 2, the subject matter contained in this bill will be fully studied by the committee, and the

staff associations will once again insist upon some sort of collective bargaining.
In conclusion I should like to quote from the magazine Saturday Night of December 5, 1959, which contains an article on the civil service. The article is entitled:
The civil service: Pay it well or cut its numbers.
In that article the author quotes the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) as follows:
"For many years it has been generally accepted that two main principles should guide the determination of salaries in the service. First the salaries must be enough to do the job, that is to attract enough of the right kind of men and women into the service and keep them in it; second, they must be fair as between civil servants and people outside the service, the taxpayers if you will, which means that the salaries we pay for any class of work should be comparable with those paid by private employers for similar classes of work, taking into account the other terms of employment that are necessary to make a fair comparison."
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the civil service commission, the pay research bureau, the advisory committee, treasury board, the staff associations and the members of this house will always recognize those two principles as fair and proper in all wage negotiations.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I believe the time has come when some sort of collective bargaining for the civil service should be seriously considered. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred to the bill introduced yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I secured a copy of this bill from the table, but I think it would be out of order at this time to discuss it. In the first place it would be anticipating debate on second reading and discussion in committee, and in the second place it would raise some doubt as to whether we should be discussing the bill now under consideration.
The civil servant is in a unique position because as an employee of the crown he is actually a part of the crown and is entitled to the many rights and privileges which the crown enjoys, particularly as to salary exemptions. Furthermore, under the Civil Service Act the civil servant has reasonable security of tenure, which people in other branches of the labour force would very much like to have, particularly in this present age of shifting employment opportunities in this country and throughout the North American continent.
On the other hand, I do not think the position of the civil servant is properly understood by the general public. The general public sees him as a person who is sure of his job and salary, and who will be paid regardless of the duties he may have to
Industrial Relations
perform from time to time. Another disadvantage that the civil servant has is that he must take the consequences of policy decisions and must try to carry them out in dealing with the general public.
I think the civil servant suffers more than does any other person from the inefficiency of persons higher up in his particular department. In ordinary commerce and business, if a person is not doing a job satisfactorily he is transferred or dismissed and someone else is put in his place. In the set-up of the civil service at the present time it is most difficult to do this. If you have one person in the chain of command who is inefficient, it brings about inefficiency and dissatisfaction on the part of those who are beneath him in that particular department, and civil servants become disgruntled and discouraged with their position.
In other lines of employment in the commercial world dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions, or with persons who are supervisors, results in strike action if the situation is not remedied. However, by tradition strike action is not taken by civil servants; it is against the policy of the service. In this connection I should like to quote from a leaflet put out by the National Defence Employees Association in connection with this very problem. This magazine was issued in August, 1960, and it contains on page 2 an article by a member of the executive committee saying that the association has assured the government that civil servants will never consider strike action come what may. This puts the association and its employees in a difficult position because they have very little bargaining power when their ability to strike is completely impaired. Yet this embargo on strike action is imposed not by any outside authority but by the voluntary action of the association itself. I should like to quote from the article on page 2:
Let me say this, and I speak as a past president of a union and a member of the CLC, I have opposed strike action by the NDEA and for the following reasons:
We civilians who work for DND in teamwork with servicemen in uniform, have a responsibility to the defence and security of our great nation. We should never forget this.
We have civilians guarding our frontiers alongside service people in technical capacities in remote areas of our land.
We have cipher clerks, typists and mechanics working at alert stations of Navy, Army and Air Force, prepared at a moment's notice to defend our country. Whether they are administration, messing staffs or tradesmen, each by their responsibilities, from the cleaner to the Minister of the Department, are making a contribution to the whole picture of defence.
The enemies of a free and democratic society would be pleased to see a strike against Canada's defensive structure. It could be an invitation.

Industrial Relations
Thus we And that this restriction has been placed on civil servants generally by their own action and by their own association. Therefore, we must consider what outlet these people have when they have a complaint to make in connection with their treatment by their employers.
Regardless of what might be said by various people or organizations, I believe that the government has been most fair in its treatment of its civil servants as to salaries. There are those who would not agree. There are those in categories which did not qualify for an increase who would not agree at all. Yet looking at the over-all picture we find that this government has brought about increases fairly generally across the board. In order to back up this assertion I looked into some figures on the labour force employed by the federal government and the latest information I can find is contained in the December 9 issue of the weekly bulletin put out by the dominion bureau of statistics. I am quoting from the article on page 6 under the heading "Labour".
Federal government employees in September this year numbered 346,084 and their earnings totalled $121,983,000, according to advance DBS figures that will be contained in the September issue of "Federal Government Employment". Excluding staff employed outside Canada by agency and proprietary corporations and other agencies, the total for the month was 337,643 employees versus 342,621 a year earlier and earnings were $118,137,000 against $113,444,000.
I note from the figures that there were fewer employees of the federal government in September, but that they earned more money. The figures indicate an average of $350 in salary per month for government employees. I continue the quotation:
Employees in departmental branches, services and corporations numbered 199,884 in September this year as against 197,743 in the corresponding month last year and had earnings of $67,822,000 versus $60,967,000. Earnings for the half year April 1 to September 30 increased by $23,900,727 to $391,021,388 as compared to a year earlier owing largely to salary increases announced at various dates during this year. Most of the salaried employees in the federal service had received increases by September 30.
Those quotations from the dominion bureau of statistics show, I believe, that reasonable increases have been granted almost across the board to persons in the government services. However, that is not the point at issue. The principle is not whether this government treats its employees well or whether some future government will do so, or whether some past government did so. The point is whether the civil service is to be completely subject to the whim of any government without any opportunity for consultation or any

opportunity of putting forward its view on salaries or working conditions to a body such as an arbitration board.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill No. C-71 in the house. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not think I should discuss that bill but I may, perhaps, mention that there is in it clause 7 which seems to go some way along the line I have indicated. However, that bill will be discussed at some later time and maybe it will be found suitable to the situation. It may be that some amendment will be brought in to make it more suitable, or that other action may be taken by the house and the committees of the house.
In the meantime, to deal with the bill presented by the hon. member, I should like to say that the idea behind it is, in my opinion, to be commended. I think it goes too far in relating the civil service to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and in making civil servants subject to it. I believe that any question of working conditions and salaries ought to come under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. For this reason I think a final decision on the bill before us, Bill No. C-14, should not be made until after the house has had an opportunity of examining and discussing the bill relating to the civil service commission which was introduced yesterday.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Oitawa East):: For many years civil servants have been seeking a greater voice in deciding the problems which affect their working conditions and their salaries. The bill which is now before us is a repeater and members of this house who have been here for some years are familiar with its content.
As the last speaker said, I think we all find the purpose of the bill to be commendable in that it would give a greater voice to the civil service in deciding matters which affect them. However, at this stage it would be a little premature to agree entirely with the provisions contained in the bill. In the first place I am not at all impressed with the idea of making use of the House of Commons as a final court of justice in deciding all the problems of civil servants because I think we could have sessions which would last a full year in which the time of the house would be employed doing only that.
If I were to draft a bill according to my own views I would rather stop right there and say that once the report had been made it would be final. In that way there would be at least some finality. There would never be any finality if the report were subject to debate in the House of Commons. I am sure there would be large sectors of the house

that would never want the question to come to a vote or to make their own views known with any finality on some of the problems that would be brought before the house.
I do not agree that the House of Commons should be the final court of judgment as stated in the bill. I do agree, however, that the time has come when there will have to be not only consultation but some provision under which civil servants and the government could agree to have a board or some meeting place where there will be an opportunity to make their representations and to have some finality in the decisions.
I would speak to greater length on this subject were it not for the fact that we have on the order paper Bill No. C-71 which we cannot discuss here today but which I hope in a short while will be considered not only in the house but in a committee. At that time we will have the views of the various civil service organizations in Canada and we will be able to express our own views.
To my friend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) I say that I agree with the principle of the bill but in view of the fact that we will be discussing Bill No. C-71, perhaps at an early date, there will be ample opportunity then to make known our views and to find out exactly what means the different organizations of civil servants in Canada are able to suggest to remedy a situation which must be corrected.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the house has expressed general agreement with the purpose of the bill through previous speakers. I feel that the views expressed by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) come close to what we all think with regard to this matter.
I want to give credit to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for amending his bill this year in an effort to answer some of the criticisms which were made of it last year. I feel, however, that his effort to make these changes has led him into even more trouble. I simply point out the fact that the hon. member has chosen the wrong way in which to deal with this problem.
I disagree with some of the expressions the hon. member used in his opening remarks when he spoke of members of the civil service and their representatives waiting on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) usually with cap in hand and when he used the expressions "inequality in pay schedules result in favouritism" and "the lack of knowledge on the part of some political figure" meaning, of course, the Minister of Finance.
The hon. member knows very well that pay schedules are recommended through the
Industrial Relations
pay research bureau of the civil service commission and that the commission is in charge of setting up classifications and minimum and maximum wages which will apply to each classification and is supposed to be in the position of reviewing these classifications.
Referring to the debate of last year I find that at page 801 of Hansard of February 5, 1960 the hon. member for Skeena used expressions which do not help the cause he is championing. He said, for instance, as reported at that page:
This government In its dealings with its employees, is just about as cheap and chiselling as any private industry I have run into.
He spoke about the employees being treated with scorn and disdain. He described them as second-class citizens. In his remarks today the hon. member said that the civil servants were in second-class positions and were second-class citizens and that their income and working conditions were decided upon by a political figure for whom one can only assume the hon. member has not much respect. That is certainly not the climate in which to present a bill the object of which is felt to be good in its intention. The bill itself, however, is a poor measure.
In dealing with that portion of the bill relating to a conciliation board the hon. member pointed out that the board would be composed of one member nominated by the Minister of Finance and one nominated by the employee association or union. If the nominees could not agree upon a chairman, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) would nominate the chairman. As I read the bill the report brought in by this board would be binding upon the employees but not upon the employer.
In his remarks last year the hon. member indicated that the intent of this bill was to cover civil service employees and the employees of crown corporations. As reported at page 801 of Hansard of February 5, 1960 the hon. member said:
If there are rights and principles to be established so that justice will be equitably applied, these rights and principles should apply across the board to all employees whether they work for the Department of Labour under the direction of the Minister of Labour or whether they work for Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines or any of the other crown corporations.
We know that at least the employees of the C.N.R. are served by some of the soundest unions in Canada. As I read this bill the hon. member is now saying to those employees and unions, in effect, "You shall now have compulsory arbitration which will be binding on you, the employees, but which will not be binding on your employers."
I wonder how anyone who claims to have been a union official and who claims to speak on behalf of the unions can put forward a

Industrial Relations
proposition of that nature which takes all rights away from the employees and vests them in a board which, according to the hon. member's statement, in respect of the government nominees would be composed of a member and perhaps a chairman nominated by people on whom the hon. member seems to have no reliance and in whom he has no trust or faith.
The report of that board must be binding on the employees if it is accepted by parliament under the terms of this bill. What if parliament wants to amend the report? What if there were any increases or changes to reduce any benefits that might be given? Parliament could make those changes and those changes would be binding on the employee.
I remember that in the estimates committee we reviewed the workings of the civil service commission. It does seem to me that within the civil service there are many areas where employees have just grievances, and there is no opportunity for them to air their grievances and to bring them out into the open or to get corrective action. I would refer to one instance only and that is in regard to rating cards for civil service employees. There should be uniformity throughout the service, but we find that one department will have a supervisor rate an employee and show the rating to the employee. In another department an employee is rated and he can never see the card, or find out what his superiors said about him. He has no idea what his rating is in that department. There is the right of appeal, of course. But, as we heard, in many instances the right of appeal did not mean very much. In any service as large as the civil service of Canada, you are bound to run into cases of favouritism, bias and discrimination. It is those areas of working conditions which hurt just as much as does the matter of take-home pay.
As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) has pointed out, on March 2, Bill No. C-71 respecting the civil service of Canada was introduced. This is in keeping with the speech from the throne which said that a bill to revise the Civil Service Act would again be submitted to parliament. The bill is now before us. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka indicated, we cannot discuss the details of the bill but it contains provisions which will give us opportunity for a full discussion of how there shall be consultation and meetings between representatives of staff organizations and the civil service commission or such persons as may be appointed by the Minister of Finance to take care of those problems which concern the various service

organizations. When that bill is up for discussion there will be ample opportunity to debate this section and others which have to do with the setting up of pay scales. There will be opportunity for full debate on second reading, and when the bill is referred to the special committee, as the hon. member for Ottawa East said, there will be opportunity for the civil service associations to appear and make their views known. There will be equal opportunity for hon. members to find out what are the facts and then in their judgment to decide how the house should deal with those particular problems. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is really no particular point in discussing this bill at this time.
I can remember the time a year ago when the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McLennan), other British Columbia members and I met with the joint action committee. There we met with the chairman of that committee, Mr. Stan Stonier, one of the finest civil servants it has been my pleasure to meet. I can truthfully say that when tempers ran highest these were reasonable men who had a spirit of give and take and with whose aspirations I have the fullest sympathy.
I regret that we should be discussing a bill such as this and that the remarks made on its introduction should be so out of keeping with the spirit of the bill. We have a bill before us and we shall have a committee which will give it full consideration. In addition we have a royal commission which is to make recommendations for better operation of the civil service and perhaps within their recommendations many of the points covered by the hon. member will be taken into account.
I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


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


Frank Howard: On division.
On motion of Mr. Broome the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I have an indication from the house leader of what the business will be for next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Monday will be private members' day. On Tuesday we will commence with item No. 11 on today's order paper, which is a resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the tariff board.
The second item on Tuesday is No. 1 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-47, to amend the Fire Losses Replacement

Account Act. The third and fourth items on Tuesday will be items No. 5 and No. 6 on today's order paper dealing with certain insurance companies acts, and these will be referred to the banking and commerce committee, so I expect that there would not be a prolonged debate on those two items. That is a firm arrangement for Tuesday.
For Wednesday I am not able to be as specific. This is subject to change, but on Wednesday we will likely be considering the Civil Service Act, which in its turn will go to a special committee as it did last year.
Next is the agricultural development resolution which we were dealing with the other day-it is No. 16 on today's order paper-and the income tax bill, which is No. C-73. Members should be prepared for these items next
Business of the House
week, but I will know more definitely on Monday night whether these are the items and, if so, in what order they will come. If we make any progress with the legislation on Tuesday and Wednesday, then on Thursday, either at the beginning of the day or shortly thereafter, we will carry on with the estimates of the Department of Labour, unless the opposition wants to change to something else. We will carry on with these estimates on Friday. In view of the fact that the opposition changed the order of business today, I hope they will not mind if I change the order of business next week.


Lionel Chevrier: We may want to change it again.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 6, 1961

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Second report of standing committee on private bills, in English and French-Mr. McCleave.
(Text):