1961-05-08

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF U.S. CABINET

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, while under ordinary circumstances no mention is made of those who are in the gallery, because according to tradition there are none who occupy positions other than on the floor of the house, I think hon. members will permit me to refer to the fact that there are in the gallery today two outstanding representatives of the United States of America, members of the cabinet of President Kennedy. I refer to Hon. Orville Freeman, secretary of agriculture, and Hon. Stewart Udall, secretary of the interior.
They are here in pursuance of the course being followed by our two nations whereby there is the widest possible consultation between members of the government of Canada and members of the administration of the United States. They are here to meet their opposite numbers, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and one or two other ministers. I am sure the house will join with me in a warm welcome to them, and at the same time we wish to convey through them to the President that we are looking forward with anticipation to the visit of the President of the United States and Mrs. Kennedy next week.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, on behalf of our party, to associate myself and my friends with the welcome that has been expressed to our distinguished visitors by the Prime Minister. They are, indeed, very welcome and I only hope they feel as much at home in Ottawa as we always do when we go to Washington.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this group wishes to associate itself with the welcoming and kind remarks expressed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition. We trust that these gentlemen will enjoy their stay in Ottawa and learn a great deal.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the house is in a little more amiable mood this afternoon. This motion stands in the name of the chairman of the standing committee on standing orders. I am the vice chairman of that committee. I wish, on behalf of the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), to move:
That the tenth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Thursday, May 4, 1961, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the hon. member to move the motion as suggested?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to withhold consent but to raise a point of order with respect to the motion itself. Your Honour will recall that the hon. member for Essex East attempted to move a motion on Tuesday, May 2, as a private member of this house, and Your Honour made an extended ruling at that time, the effect of which was that these motions that appear on routine proceedings affecting the business of the house can be moved only by the house leader. You pointed out specifically to the hon. member, as reported on page 4210 of Hansard:
The hon. member raises the question of whether a private member can do the same thing.
In other words, he raised the question of whether or not a private member could move a motion with respect to the business of the house. Your Honour went on to say:
I think it is clear that a private member can do so if he can use the notice of motion procedure which is open to private members under our rules.
Your Honour then went on to point out that this would be, at this stage of the session, a completely ineffective procedure because the notices of motion are not even printed. It does seem that so far as the house is concerned, the hon. lady, whatever she may be in the committee, is a private member of the house; yet her notice of motion is printed under "Motions" in the routine proceedings. The point I am raising is whether it is open to one hon. member who is not the leader of the house to move a motion with respect to the business of the house, and not open to another hon. member to do so.

Standing Orders Committee Mr. Spencer: On the point of order raised member for Essex West to move the motion by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin- on behalf of the hon. member for York-Hum-gate, may I say this is a somewhat different ber?
point from that which was raised on Satur- Some hon_ Members; Agreed, day. I feel that in speaking to the point of
order I should bring to your attention, sir, Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member has any-the fact that these motions have been made thing further to say on the point of order customarily by members other than the mem- other than giving instances of similar motions ber in whose name the motion stands.	having been made previously, perhaps he
would complete his statement and I will deal Mr. Pickersgill: That is not the point.	with it.


Norman Leonard Spencer: May I refer to the report of proceedings for February 5, 1954, when Mr. Harrison, who was chairman of the standing orders committee, presented the first report of that committee. He filed a notice of motion in his name for concurrence in that report on February 8, 1954. On February 8, 1954, Mr. Carter, for Mr. Harrison, moved concurrence in that report. This was not done by leave of the house.
In 1955 Mr. Harrison, having presented the first report of the standing orders committee on April 1, 1955, gave notice of motion for concurrence on April 4. However, on April 4 Mr. Hanna, for Mr. Harrison, moved concurrence in the report. Again Mr. Harrison, having presented the second report of the standing orders committee on May 28, 1956, and notice having been given for concurrence therein, Mr. Fairey, for Mr. Harrison, moved concurrence on June 8.
Coming to the present session or this present parliament-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is not the point at issue, Mr. Speaker.


Norman Leonard Spencer: I will come to your point in a moment. On March 6 of this year, as found at page 2667 of Hansard, the motion for concurrence which stood in the name of the hon. member for York-Humber, the chairman of the committee, was moved on that occasion by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb), a member of the standing committee on standing orders. The consent of the house was not asked nor was it required on that occasion. Again on March 27-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I might save the house some time by saying to the hon. member that I think it is clear that the motion for concurrence in the report of a committee has for a good many years customarily been moved in the house by the chairman of the committee. Whether that procedure is in accordance with the rules of the house or is a practice that has grown up in contravention of the rules is really the point at issue, I think. However, before dealing with that matter, may I ask whether I am correct in assuming that the house will permit the hon.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Just on that point, Your Honour, may I say this. As I understood the point raised by the hon. member, it was that these motions should be made by the leader of the house. Am I not correct in that respect?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Norman Leonard Spencer: All I can say, and I think all that need be said, in answer to that point, Your Honour, is that I have already given many illustrations where motions of this kind were not made by the leader of the house; nor has is it ever been the practice or the usage, as far as my research has indicated, that any such motion has ever been required to be made by the leader of the house.
May I say this also. If that were the requirement, then by analogy, motions dealing with late petitions which are to be referred to the standing committee on standing orders would normally then be made by the leader of the house. Yet the practice has been and is that they have not been made by him.
I can give many instances. Here is a motion made on April 21, 1955, with regard to West-coast Transmission Company Limited, which was sponsored by Mr. Fairey. On this occasion Mr. Hunter moved that the late petition be referred to the standing committee on standing orders.
Again, on February 13, 1953, the sponsor of that motion was Mr. Macnaughton, who moved that the late petition be referred to the standing orders committee. In that case it was done by leave of the house, but in any event it was not done by the leader of the government.
On March 2, 1954, Mr. Hunter, who was not chairman of the standing orders committee but was chairman of another committee, moved for another sponsor, Mr. Balcolm, that a late petition relating to the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company be referred to the standing committee on standing orders.
Then we had the same thing happen in this house not very long ago. I cannot give the date, but the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) moved the reference of late petitions with which the standing orders committee dealt. These petitions are dealt with in this report. The motion referring

those petitions to the standing committee on standing orders was made as stated by the hon. member for Davenport and not by the leader of the house.
As you said the other day, sir, when I believe a motion was being made by the whip, a practice and usage that has been well established in this house should not be interfered with or changed without the strongest authority. Here are authorities from 1953 up to the present time where none of those motions was made by the house leader.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all indebted to my hon. friend from Essex West for the precedents he has laid down. It seems to me that all the arguments he has advanced in favour of the course that he proposes in respect of a motion moved by one private member would apply with equal validity to the motion proposed by my hon. friend from Essex East, I think on May 2.
With great respect, the point of order raised by my hon. friend for Bonavista-Twillingate does not deal with that matter at all. Perhaps it might save time if this motion were allowed to stand so that you would have time to consider the very important point of order raised by my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Essex West whether there is any urgency to have this report reviewed?


Norman Leonard Spencer: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the question of urgency. We have standing on the order paper a bill respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway for the construction of a line which will provide employment not only in the construction of the railway but also in the plant or industry this railway is intended to serve. Unless this report is concurred in that legislation now standing on the order paper, which has already been passed by the other place, cannot be dealt with in this house.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out, on the question of urgency, that it cannot be dealt with by this house until a week from tomorrow in any event.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Mr. Speaker, may I say further, apropos the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, that I do not think the two motions are in any way analogous. The motion made by the hon. member for Essex East was an oral motion.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: It was later put in writing.


Norman Leonard Spencer: It was not a motion made on notice. The point in issue there was whether
Standing Orders Committee or not it was within the power or privileges of an ordinary hon. member for the house- which of course hon. members sitting on the other side now are, in as much as they no longer occupy the treasury benches-to make such a motion orally. That was the point, and the only point, in issue. Any comments or observations Your Honour may have made must be interpreted in terms of the fact that the hon. member was attempting to make a motion, founded on oral notice of motion. If the proper procedure had been followed, it would be coming before the house under the order of notices of motions in the names of private members. That is not what this is; it is a motion on routine proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: I think since the question of the propriety of our practice has been raised it might be well if some consideration were given to it. However, we have followed the practice which has been used today for a good many years, and I should not like to interrupt a procedure which is well established without having clear authority to do so. It may be that we have developed a practice which is contrary to the rules, so what I propose to do is to accept the motion as it has been moved, without prejudice to the point being raised again, and I will give consideration myself to whether the house has departed from the rules in accepting a motion of this kind from a private member.
I have no difficulty in distinguishing this motion from the one which was made by the hon. member for Essex East, because there the question was whether his motion could come under routine proceedings. I was disposed to think that was a handicap, an obstacle, which the hon. member had not overcome, in addition to the question of lack of notice and the other question of whether the leader of the house should move such a motion. So I do distinguish the motion which has been referred to from this motion, which can clearly be made under routine proceedings and which has been made after notice. The only question is whether the leader of the house should undertake this responsibility.
I can cite one other instance where the leader of the house does not perform this responsibility. Formal and routine motions to change the personnel of standing committees have regularly been moved in the house by a private member rising and moving that certain names be substituted for others, and the house has accepted that procedure. However, I do not wish to determine the issue finally at this time, and if hon. members wish

Business o} the House to raise the matter further I shall be receptive to argument about it. But in the circumstances I will put the motion which has been moved by the hon. member for Essex West.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Saturday, May 13,	1961, and every
Saturday thereafter until the end of the session the order of business and procedure shall be as for Thursday, a government day.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: This motion would not have been necessary had the government been aware of the rules of the house and had the government not been asleep, as it has accused others of being, several days ago. This motion should have been moved long before Saturday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Laurier proceeds on that line may I say that I do not think it is relevant to fight over again the battles of Saturday on this motion. The question before the house is whether the business next Saturday and on Saturdays after that shall be as stated in the motion. Anything anterior or ancillary to that discussion which is not necessary for the decision of the matter would, it seems to me, be beyond our scope.


Lionel Chevrier: I should first like to read the motion. It says:
That on Saturday, May 13, 1961, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the session the order of business and procedure shall be as for Thursday, a government day.
I submit, with deference, that I have the right to deal with matters that are mentioned in that motion. Any attempt to infringe the right which I claim I have to deal with the matters which are contained therein would be, I submit, an invasion of the rights of a member of parliament.
I would say at the beginning that the necessity for this motion being placed on the order paper arose out of a defect in the amendment which was passed on April 24. When the house decided at that time to hold Saturday sittings, a motion such as this should have been passed. The house then decided to sit on Saturday, but no provision was made in that order for the business to be dealt with on that day. That defect could have been corrected by the government, and only by the government. However, until today and, of course, Friday, no action was taken by the government in this respect. Your Honour's


ruling of May 2 is ample proof of my statement. Therefore I say the neglect of the government resulted in the fiasco which took place on Saturday. We were faced with a blank order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due respect for the hon. member's point of view, as he has expressed it, it seems to me that this motion can have no bearing on what happened on Saturday, and what took place on that day is not relevant to the decision which the house has to make. The other comments which the hon. member is making seem to me to be relevant enough, but to my mind it would not be relevant to deal at length with the events of Saturday morning because this motion does not have any bearing on that particular situation.


Lionel Chevrier: May I respectfully disagree with Your Honour. When Your Honour says that this has no bearing on what happened on Saturday, this motion arises out of what took place on Saturday.


Mr. Churchill:: No.


Lionel Chevrier: Were it not for what took place on Saturday this motion would not now be on the order paper. I submit with deference that I have every right to refer to what took place on Saturday. Your Honour has said that I should not refer to it at great length. I can assure Your Honour at once that I have no intention of so doing, because we intend to move an amendment to the motion to go into supply, and I do not want to take an unnecessary part of the time of the house in dealing with this.
I repeat, I believe that because of what happened on Saturday this motion is now on the order paper. It is evidence of the mismanagement of the business of the house by the government. In order to avoid putting the house in an absurd position Your Honour was obliged to rescue the government, to rescue the situation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -with a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it is at that point that I disagree with the hon. member's view of what is relevant. He is within his rights in discussing the purpose and effect of the motion, but I do not consider him to be within his rights to make, as I have said, an extended review of matters which do not fall to be determined by this motion.


Lionel Chevrier: I repeat, I have no intention of making an extended review of what took place-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, let me tell hon. members who are so sensitive that I will sit down at the request of the Chair and at the request of no one else.
I was going to say, sir, that what happened on Saturday will unquestionably be a precedent for students of parliamentary procedure to study in the future. On several occasions prior to Saturday the government made reference to urgent public business, but on Saturday we saw what the conception of that urgency and expedition was in so far as the government was concerned. We heard 12 speakers on one of the items on the order paper. All those speeches added absolutely nothing either by way of material or in any other way to the proceedings of the house. Actually they considerably delayed the business of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are criticizing one of your own members.


Mr. Argue:: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Laurier has said there were 12 speakers. The figure on actual count is, I think, 17.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for the correction. In any event, sir, on April 24 the Prime Minister certainly led us to believe that would deal with supply. That was clearly established-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry; the hon. member apparently does not agree with my view of what is relevant. The decisions of the house on Saturday and the debates which took place are matters of the past. They are not in issue; they are not affected by this resolution, whether it is passed or not. They may be relevant to an explanation of the effect of what is proposed here. Therefore I would ask the hon. member not to get into any discussion of the events that took place during the debate which led to the decision on Saturday.


Lionel Chevrier: May I call your attention to the fact, sir, that this motion deals with the business on Thursday. The procedure to be established for Saturday is that which is followed on Thursday, a government day. Therefore I submit to you, sir, with deference that I have the right to deal with matters which could be discussed on Thursday, and that is what I was proposing to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is within his rights to discuss the order of business and the precedence of business on a Thursday, but not the business that took place on any particular Thursday in the past.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order you have raised, surely it is in order
Business of the House
on this occasion to discuss the antecedents of this motion, including the Prime Minister's statement on April 24, when he explained to the house that we should sit on Saturday to discuss, as he said then, matters which would not arouse controversy, noncontroversial matters. This particular motion has no limitation of that kind. It merely states that we shall sit on Saturdays, from now on, deal with the business of the house as it is established for Thursday. But on Thursday any number of controversial matters could be discussed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this motion we are contradicting the commitment which the Prime Minister made to the house on April 24.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 did not intend that my ideas of the limits of debate should prevent what the Leader of the Opposition has just now mentioned. What I wished to exclude from this discussion, since it is irrelevant, was a review of the proceedings of Saturday. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is relevant to discuss the genesis of the extended hours and the business to be done during the extended hours.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, without going into an extended review of what took place on Saturday, when this matter was discussed originally, there was, it seemed to me, a clear-cut understanding that we would be dealing with estimates and supply on Saturday. The Prime Minister gave that undertaking on April 24 and it was repeated in the house by the Solicitor General when he rose in his place on May 6 and said, as found on page 4453 of Hansard:
Does the hon. member believe we do not wish to follow the statement made by the Prime Minister?
I continue:


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance said you did not.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: I said that offer still stood.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: The Prime Minister made a very elaborate statement which should assure the members of the opposition that we have no intention of introducing anything of a controversial nature. We intend to go on with supply.
That was not done, notwithstanding the assurance given by the Prime Minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The offer was made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You prevented it.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will follow me I think I can make a clear distinction that is not one which will restrict him. What happened on Saturday with respect to supply is not relevant to this motion, which deals with what will be done on other Saturdays with respect to supply or whatever may be

Business of the House
called. I do not suggest that the hon. member for Laurier should refrain from raising the statement made by the Prime Minister or any other discussion of how our business is to be ordered under the motion we have before us, but I do say that it is irrelevant to discuss what actually was done last Saturday, because that was discussed then at length and disposed of.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall do my best to follow the suggestion made by Your Honour. Notwithstanding the assurance which was given, when the Acting Prime Minister realized from comments made by Your Honour that calling a supply motion would precipitate a debate, resort was then had to the order paper, page 4, and Your Honour knows what happened after that. The failure of the government to appreciate the consequences of calling a supply order on Saturday is further indication in my view of carelessness on the part of the government bordering on contempt in dealing with the business of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: As I look at this motion, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that it is out of order and irregular.


An hon. Member:: Read it again.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, you are smart; why don't you read it? I submit the motion is irregular for two reasons. First, I understand it was filed at 3:50 o'clock on the afternoon of Saturday and therefore, in accordance with the strict observance of the rule, there has not been the 48 hours' notice which is required. Then I ask this question of the government. Since this motion appears in the name of the Prime Minister, was the motion subscribed to by the Prime Minister, as it falls within the responsibility of every member of parliament to do in such instances. The hon. member for Essex East was told what the procedure was, in no uncertain terms, in a similar motion. It is the responsibility of every member of parliament when he places a motion on the order paper to see to it that it appears in his name and is subscribed to in his name. I ask the government, was this motion subscribed to in the name of the Prime Minister when he was not here but was in London, appearing on a political platform with the premier of the province of Ontario discussing the new theme for the next federal election?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Certainly the hon. member is going a bit afield and provoking a response which I shall endeavour to control, but if he will keep the proper line of debate on the motion it will be easier.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I am within my rights in putting these questions to the government. First, did the Prime Minister sign the motion, as he is required to do under the rule of the house? Second, if he did, how was it done when he was not in the city of Ottawa? He told us that Saturday would be a day when non-contentious matters such as supply would be discussed, but notwithstanding the fact that we were here on Saturday to carry on the discussion of noncontentious matters he was out of the house playing politics in the country. So I say that this motion is irregular under these two heads, and I ask Your Honour to give consideration to the two points that make the motion irregular and out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has raised a point of order which goes to the root of the motion and whether it can be made. It has been determined that if the house is sitting on Saturday a notice of motion filed on that day is to be taken up on the following Monday. The point is not novel, as it has been dealt with by Bourinot. In his fourth edition, page 296, dealing with motions and notice he says:
If Saturday is a sitting day the notices handed in on that day will appear on the order paper on Monday.
Therefore I think we might dispose of that point on the basis of the statement by Bourinot. As to the other question, the hon. member has presented no evidence that the requirement has not been complied with, and I think the motion might proceed.


Norman Leonard Spencer: On the point of order
Mr. Speaker, may I assist by referring you to Bourinot, page 300, where I find the following:
Members sometimes send in notices in the names of absent members who have requested them to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Never the head of the government.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Speaker, on that very point, may I say that I can remember other occasions when I and other colleagues of mine have been denied the right to sign our names on notices of other members.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Everybody must be treated alike here.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is nothing further to be said on the two preliminary points of order, I think I should remind the house that when the Prime Minister presents a motion of this kind he does so as leader of the house and not as a private member. I have not been satisfied that the point of order is relevant.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order,
Mr. Speaker, I have made it my business to inquire in whose name-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where?


Lionel Chevrier: In the proper office.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which office?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is nothing secret about these matters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime
Minister was away politicking.


Lionel Chevrier: I have made it my business to look at the original, and it was not signed by the Prime Minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On whose authority?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would hon. members please give their attention to the member who has the floor?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker I was just interrupted by the house leader, who said "On whose authority?" Surely we are in parliament, and under the rules of parliament any member has a right to inquire what the circumstances are. That interruption is ridiculous. Let me assure him that I have made it my business to inquire. The motion appears in the name of the Prime Minister on the order paper today. However, I have ascertained that the notice was not signed by the Prime Minister but rather the initials of the Minister of Veterans Affairs appear on the notice of motion, which I say is irregular.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I think the point is covered in citation 188, paragraph 2, of Beauchesne's fourth edition. I quote:
A member of the government may act in behalf of a colleague in all cases-


Lionel Chevrier: Read the rest of it.


William Joseph Browne: Very well:
-including the proposal of new clauses to a bill, but with this exception, or in the case of an unopposed return, no motion can be moved save by the member in whose name the notice stands.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Robichaud:: Try again.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
know why the hon. member for Laurier should be so hilarious, because what I have said is exactly correct. A member of the government may act on behalf of a colleague in all cases.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I intervene, Mr. Speaker, merely to say that in view of the obvious
Business of the House
discomfiture of the government, and in order to expedite business, we are willing to allow this motion to be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the Clerk advises me that the motion, as presented to him, was in accordance with the custom in respect of motions in the name of the house leader or the acting house leader. He took the responsibility of accepting it and putting it on the order paper. Whether or not there is any anterior irregularity, I shall not explore at the moment, in view of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, and shall proceed with the motion itself.


Frank Howard: I did not think it was possible, after last Saturday, for the government to make any more blunders, but apparently they are progressing along fairly well in that direction. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Laurier dealing with the statement of the Prime Minister to the effect that nothing controversial would be dealt with on Saturday, and so on. I thought the hon. member had been here long enough to know he should not take the Prime Minister's remarks at face value.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Frank Howard: This has happened on too many occasions for hon. members to shout "Shame".
I should like to deal specifically, Mr. Speaker, with the question of the order of business to be followed next Saturday and on subsequent Saturdays. The motion says that it shall be as for Thursday. Now, the house leader and, on one occasion, the Minister of National Revenue, made some rather impassioned comments concerning the rights of private members and the private members' hour. They said there were many hon. members who had notices of motions and bills on the order paper, and those members were entitled to deal with those matters. I draw your attention to the fact that there are some 67 items under public bills and orders, which include public bills in the hands of private members.
While public bills in the hands of private members are not allowed to come to a vote because of the embarrassing circumstances that develop therefrom, nevertheless, as I am sure members of the government would agree, the discussion on these bills affords private members an opportunity of expressing opinions on specific subject matters. Undoubtedly the government is influenced by these expressions of opinion and, undoubtedly, in subsequent years legislation is introduced covering these subjects. In this way a private member, whether he be on the government side or the opposition side, has an opportunity of expressing his point of view and eventually seeing

Division
that point of view come to fruition in legislative form. We have had a number of experiences of this kind.
When it was proposed to sit on Saturday, I think practically every member in the house was in agreement that we should have Saturday sittings. In fact, it was the hon. member for Port Arthur who moved that motion, and I seconded it. We did not hear too much objection from members, other than those who occupy the front benches to my left. Theirs was a sort of weak objection after the event. In view of the contribution that private members can make by discussing public bills, and as a sort of recognition by the government of the fact that the majority of members in this house were agreeable to sitting on Saturday, I move:
That the motion he amended by deleting the word "Thursday" and substituting therefor the word "Friday".
In this way some of the rights and opportunities of private members in this house could be properly recognized.



FISHERIES


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, on April 24 I announced that due to the late season and ice conditions in certain parts of the maritime provinces it was necessary to delay the opening of the lobster fishing season in districts 7-A and 7-B. Due to the persistence of these conditions it is now found necessary to further delay the opening of the season in those two districts from May 10 to May 16.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the Department of Agriculture, the Canadian wheat board, and any individual or company, since January 1, 1961, in connection with the demolition of the old customs building situated at the corner of Main and McDermot avenue in Winnipeg.
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: May I
request that this motion stand.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, I do not complain that it is not in order to ask that the motion should stand, but I would point out that it has been on the order paper now since April 11. Almost a month has gone by, and it would appear to me that it is time the motion was put to the house.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The minister was here to deal with this question, but I am sure the hon. member will realize that with all the visitors the hon. gentleman has there are appointments he must keep.
Motion stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO CANADIAN WOODSMEN IN TJ.S.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 117-Mr. Racine:
For a copy of all correspondence or telegrams exchanged since May 22, 1959, between the authorities of the states of Maine and New Hampshire and the government, with a view to having the unemployment benefits extended to Canadians employed as forestry workers in American territory.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: This motion is acceptable subject to the consent of the states of Maine and New Hampshire.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the motion subject to the limitation expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 120
Mr. Hellyer:: For a copy of all telegrams received by the federal government between July 1, 1960, and April 5, 1961, requesting the continuation of the government's policy to have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation make direct loans to builders.


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: There is no objection to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Pickersgill, seconded by Mr. Carter, for Mr. Hellyer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any objection to the hon. member moving the motion? I am unable to ascertain from the sounds I hear whether there is consent. Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 121-Mr. Regier:
For a copy of all orders in council passed between July 1, 1957, and the present day, for which no statutory authority existed.
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I have no information that any determination of either question has been made.']
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he can give the house his assurance that the budget will be brought down before the date of the forthcoming by-elections?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I forget for the moment the date of the by-elections.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May 29.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think that has any relevance at all to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I think he realizes that himself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then will the Minister of Finance give the house an assurance that the budget will be brought down during the month of May?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whenever it comes down I am sure it will be soon enough for the official opposition.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a news report that the United States is prepared to lend to India $1 billion during the next two years if Canada, the United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan would match a loan of that kind. In view of a further report that India's five year plan is in trouble, is Canada giving any consideration to participating in making this or any other loan to India?


John George Diefenbaker: Canada has been of great assistance to India under her foreign aid plans during the years. In so far as this specific question is concerned, that is a matter of government policy and it will not be announced by reason of a question asked on orders.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question was this. Is the loan under consideration now?


John George Diefenbaker: The same answer applies to the subsequent question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the
Prime Minister say whether or not it is a fact, as reported in the New York Times yesterday, that Canada is being pressed by the government of the United States to increase her assistance to India to help that country in its third five year plan?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I have not read the New York Times article in question, but I am sure the hon. gentleman would be the last to suggest that Canada should act under pressure from any other country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the Prime Minister would be good enough to answer my question.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question was, has Canada been pressed by the government of the United States along the lines I have indicated?


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the answer I gave was so complete that even the hon. gentleman would understand it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister deny reports that the Canadian government has rejected a request to participate in this loan to India?


John George Diefenbaker: That question is like the old, old, hoary one; "Have you stopped beating your wife?"


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he has any information regarding the situation in Laos?
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): I have a statement with regard to Laos, which I think I will make tomorrow rather than today.

Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): The hon. member for Queens asked a question in regard to Laos. I said I would answer it tomorrow. I now seem to have had the full report before me when I was asked the question, naturally expecting that some hon. gentleman opposite would be asking it.
On May 3 the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed the house that the commission had agreed on a report to the cochairmen and was now ready to proceed to Laos to undertake its tasks of verification and supervision. On May 6 a message from the United Kingdom and Soviet governments, in their capacity as co-chairmen, was delivered to the international supervisory commission for Laos in New Delhi. In this message the co-chairmen indicated their agreement with the recommendation of the commission that it should proceed to Laos immediately after the belligerent parties had ceased fire. The

co-chairmen considered that the basic task of the commission at present should be to fix the cease fire in accordance with the understanding reached between the belligerent parties, and to supervise and control it.
I am informed that the commission left New Delhi yesterday en route to Laos, and is expected to arrive shortly. Eleven officers, six non-commissioned officers and two communications technicians from Canada have left for Asia. Additional Canadian military and civilian personnel required in connection with the commission's task will be available if necessary. Those to whom I have referred left Vancouver last night by air on their way to Saigon.
Incidentally, the government has received no intimation that there have been any serious violations of the de facto cease fire which has existed in Laos since Thursday, May 4.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether it has yet been determined what functions other than the termination of the cease fire will be exercised by the international supervisory commission, and has Canada indicated its intention to be confined only to that particular assignment?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information that any determination of either question has been made.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: I
should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Will Canada support the request of Great Britain, made to the United Nations organization, to intervene immediately with the central government of the Congo to secure the release of President Tshombe of Katanga?


John George Diefenbaker: I know of no such request on the part of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. However, I think the question makes it desirable that some reference be made to the alleged arrest of Mr. Tshombe, president of Katanga province. Canada believes that the Congolese must be allowed to organize and regulate their own affairs. If, in fact, criminal charges have been laid against Mr. Tshombe I am sure members on all sides of the house would hope that the trial would be conducted justly, fairly and without undue delay.



INQUIRY AS TO PROTECTION OF CANADIAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he able to bring the house up to date as to the situation with respect to our Canadian forces in the Congo, in view of recent developments whereby other forces in the United Nations command have been slaughtered? I refer, of course, to troops of Ghana and a number of white officers. What are the orders to our Canadian forces, who are there on the authority of the government and the House of Commons, as to what they should do under such circumstances, and what equipment do they have for their own defence?


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the concern of the hon. member and members generally throughout the house with regard to recent events in the Congo. However, this is not a question that can be answered off the cuff, and I will give the hon. member a full and complete answer tomorrow.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Never did I think an occasion would arise when I would consider it my duty to query him in this way; I do so more in sorrow than in anger.
In view of the unprecedented cancellation yesterday of a parade by units of the Royal Canadian Navy to the cenotaph in Ottawa to commemorate the battle of the Atlantic owing to the possibility of showers, which did not occur, would the minister inform the house whether this represents a change of policy and whether, in future, units of the armed forces of Canada will not be permitted to take part in these commemorative parades should inclement weather be threatened?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: There is no change in policy; neither, indeed, is any policy involved in this particular matter. Briefly, the circumstances were these. This parade had been ordered, and a decision had to be made by 7.30 in the morning whether to go ahead with it or not. The parade to the cenotaph was to be followed by a church parade to First Baptist church for the Protestants and to St. Joseph's church, I believe it was, for
90205-6-284
Inquiries of the Ministry the Roman Catholics. If a very heavy storm should come on at the time of the parade it was not thought desirable to have men sit in their wet and cold garments for an hour or more inside the churches involved, and the time which would be involved in this parade.
A decision had to be made by 7.30 in the morning. The naval authorities at that time were advised by the meteorological people that very heavy storms would be taking place in Ottawa between ten and eleven o'clock. On the basis of that meteorological report the decision was made to cancel the part of the parade dealing with the laying of the wreath at the cenotaph, and the wreath was actually laid by myself subsequent to the church service.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the minister not know that under similar threatening weather the command at Halifax did not think of the comfort of the units but considered it their duty for them to be present?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member may, if he wishes, challenge the judgment of the people who were responsible for ordering this parade to take place or not to take place, but it was purely a matter of judgment on their part, taking all the factors into consideration, and I do not think he is in any position really to question it.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the time of the house has been taken up sufficiently with this episode.



INQUIRY AS TO CONTRACTS FOR SUBMARINE CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production arising out of a news report in the Financial Post of May 6. Can the minister inform the house whether there is any truth in the statement that the government has decided to order six conventional submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy? If so, what is the amount of the contract?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: No, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Have representations

Inquiries of the Ministry been made recently by the state department of the United States to the Canadian government with a view to initiating discussions on the possibility of a joint survey of the Richelieu river canal project, as announced by Senator Aiken of the United States Senate a short time ago?


John George Diefenbaker: I will take the hon. member's question as notice.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that which was asked by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. Is the Prime Minister aware that a sum of money has been set aside by the United States authorizing the United States corps of engineers to make a survey of the Champlain-Richelieu cut-off up to the United States boundary line? Does the Canadian government intend to set aside a similar sum of money for a like purpose on the Canadian side?


John George Diefenbaker: As to the first part of the question, I can say I have no such information. As to the second part, I can only add that when and if any decision is made in this regard the house will be made aware thereof. As the hon. gentleman knows, this matter has been asked for by the people concerned for a period of, I think, 70, 80 or 90 years. During the period from 1935 to 1957 there were requests for this, and I hope the hon. gentleman took the same interest in the matter then as he does now.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of that contribution by the Prime Minister I think I should be allowed to say-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but-


Some hon. Members:: Question only.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry; I cannot hear the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to ask the Prime Minister a question, and it is this. Did the Prime Minister know or realize that during the time he mentioned, namely 1935 to 1957, the international joint commission had made a decision that until the St. Lawrence seaway had been completed the Champlain-Richelieu cut-off should not be considered? Is he aware of that?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence seaway did not start until long after 1935. During that period the hon. gentleman and those surrounding him did not show the interest in this project that they are showing today.

(Translation):



SOULANGES CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. On May 3, 1961, I asked him:
May I ask a supplementary question? Since the discussions were started between the two governments, have any industrial corporations approached the government with a view to locating plants in the area set aside by the minister?
The minister replied:
Not directly, Mr. Speaker, but a number of chambers of commerce in the area have made representations to have this federal government property set aside so they may have time to approach various industries with a view to bringing industrial construction into the area.
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the resolutions adopted by every chamber of commerce in Soulanges riding, and I notice that not one of them recommends that any portion of the canal be set aside. On the contrary, they favour the complete transfer of the property to the government of the province of Quebec.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may have been coming to his question but it seemed to me he was entering into a controversy over the statements made in the answer.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I had to lay the premise of my question before putting it, and that is what I have done. I come now to the question. Could the minister tell the house what chamber of commerce of which he spoke has made representations-and here I quote his own words:
To have this federal government property set aside so they may have time to approach various industries with a view to bringing industrial construction into the area?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall check my files and give the names of those chambers of commerce.
(Text):



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is occasioned by the very detailed story in today's Globe and Mail by Stanley Westall

of how the Toronto census takers are picked. I should like to know whether the secretaries of the local Progressive Conservative riding associations outside of Toronto have a task similar to those in Toronto in getting applicants for these census jobs.


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. gentleman's question is based upon the false premise that the details given by Mr. Westall are accurate.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question. Has any consideration been given by the government to enabling many of the unemployed business, professional and clerical workers registered in Toronto to obtain these positions?


Edmund Leverett Morris: This question is not at all different from that asked on several occasions in the past and answered as I answer it now. The commissioners appointed to conduct the 1961 census of Canada are responsible for the appointment of the enumerators. Any person desirous of being retained in that work should get in touch with the commissioners.


Harold Edward Winch: Should they start all over again in Vancouver East?


Mr. Peters:: I will tell you how they pick them in Timiskaming.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the report in Friday's Gazette that the United States plans to close some of its radar sites on the eastern Canadian seaboard, would the minister wish to comment and add further information?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, constant changes and improvements are being made in defence installations, and there have been negotiations going on for some very considerable time between Canada and the United States in regard to relocation of certain radar sites. Until these negotiations have come to a conclusion I will not be in a position to make any further statement.
90205-6-284J
8. 1961	4503
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



CONVEYANCE OF GRAIN IN CANADIAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, and in his absence I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Arising out of the wheat deal with red China, can the minister indicate to the house whether any of the 276 million bushels of wheat and barley will be carried to China in Canadian ships?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I will take the question as notice.



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
RESOLUTIONS REQUESTING BRINGING INTO FORCE OF SECTION 96a OF ACT
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether she is in a position to answer the question which I posed on Friday last dealing with the liquor question as it relates to Indians.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the first part of the hon. member's question is yes, but no objection having been received from the lieutenant governor to the request of the band councils concerned it is being recommended to the governor in council that these referenda be proceeded with to ascertain whether or not the Indians concerned desire to have liquor on their reserves in accordance with the laws of the province. Recent amendments to section 75 of the British Columbia government liquor act are being brought to the attention of the Department of Justice for appropriate study.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. F airclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question put on Thursday, May 4, by the hon. member for Trinity. Any person seeking temporary admission to Canada, unless of course he is a Canadian citizen or a person with Canadian domicile, must satisfy the examining immigration officer at the port of entry that he is a bona fide non-immigrant as defined in section 7 of the Immigration Act. Where doubt exists admission would be refused. The department has no control over admissions to the United States.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry I might add that in 1960 immigration statistics show that almost 60 million persons, mainly United States visitors and returning Canadians, came into Canada across the international boundary. The hon. member will appreciate the impossibility of minutely examining this entire volume of traffic and the possibility that some persons in the categories mentioned may escape detection.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donat Raymond: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia on Thursday last of the right hon. Prime Minister, and which I took as notice at that time, I wish to state that from the month of November last the hon. member for Pictou has been pressing for work for his riding and especially for Ferguson Limited.
On the recommendation of the maritime commission, on December 21 the Royal Canadian Navy looplayer Bluethroat was allocated to Ferguson for refit at a cost of $75,000. It left the yard on May 3 last. One standard diving tender was, on recommendation of the maritime commission, allocated to this yard at a cost of approximately $350,000, and is to be completed by November, 1961. Under tender from the Department of Transport there is one pilot boat to cost $200,000, which is to be completed in the fall of 1961. Under tender from the Department of Public Works there is one eight foot Inch dredge with an approximate cost of $100,000 which is to be completed in the fall of 1961. We are expecting a recommendation from the maritime commission soon for the allocation of another refit job worth about $100,000.



CAPE BRETON-FURTHER MEETINGS OF LABOUR, MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister report to the house whether any further action has been taken by the government to avert the closing of three coal mines in Cape Breton; and can he report to the house whether there have been any further meetings of the federal-provincial-U.M.W. committee dealing with this question?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I understand the premier of Nova 
Scotia is working on a meeting with the government to be held very soon now.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister inform the house whether there has been any postponement in the dates of the scheduled closing down of these mines, particularly the one which is to close down at the end of the month?


Paul Comtois: No, Mr. Speaker.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue is in a position to answer the question I asked Friday about a television application in southwestern Saskatchewan.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I have a report on the matter, but I did not bring it with me. I will answer the question tomorrow.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. Would the minister inform the house whether the Minister of Justice has received any requests for assistance from the provincial government or any municipal authority in dealing with the recent unfortunate incidents in the Kootenays. If so, what has been the government's response to these requests?


William Joseph Browne: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The answer to the first part of his question is no; no requests have been received by the Department of Justice up to the present time. Therefore the second part of the question does not apply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of supply.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-DEPLETION OF FUND AND DENIAL OF BENEFITS

Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, in the early days of the present session, and particularly in the period prior

to the Christmas recess, this government sought to introduce and succeeded in introducing a series of legislative measures which were mentioned in the speech from the throne, and which were directed primarily toward relieving the complex problems which the country is facing in this period of uncertainty and confusion.
The official opposition co-operated fully with the government and went so far as to waive the debate on the speech from the throne in order to enable the house to receive and discuss the government's proposals with a minimum of delay. The co-operation of the opposition was such that the specific proposals introduced by the government to deal with unemployment and the other economic problems were passed with a minimum of discussion. The co-operation was such that on the last sitting day before the adjournment for the Christmas recess, the house leader was in a position to state that the house, in the short period of 25 sitting days, had already dealt with five pieces of legislation, as well as the budget. The nature of this budget is well known to the country, and it has been said that it raised more questions than it answered.
Today, Mr. Speaker, is the 100th sitting day of the present session. One would be inclined to believe that in that period of close to six months, in 100 full sitting days, the government would have been in a position to introduce a piece of legislation which would have been directed toward correcting one of the best examples of maladministration and mismanagement by the government of the day. I realize that some of the members of the government are showing signs of anxiety, signs of uneasiness, which I can well understand, because at this very moment they are asking themselves, what amendment will the opposition present to this supply motion?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Well, Mr. Speaker, some hon. gentlemen opposite are laughing. Perhaps they are relieved. The subject of the amendment to the supply motion is one of grave concern to the entire population of our country. In this period of unprecedented indecision we have a government which has accepted the principle of responsibility, a government whose Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when he sat on the opposition side showed such ardour for responsible government but who now rejects some of the responsibility which he so earnestly attributed to his predecessor. In the course of the present session, we have had numerous illustrations of the Minister
Unemployment Insurance of Finance shrinking away from his responsibility and from his part in responsible government. This is the same hon. member who, only five years ago, gave this house such impassioned lectures on the principles of responsible government, but who is now rejecting categorically any suggestions that he has responsibility for certain policies. He insists that he has no role in the matter at all.
The amendment which I intend to introduce at the conclusion of my remarks will concern not only the Minister of Finance but also another member of the government who, I notice, seems very anxious to be relieved of the anxiety facing him at the moment. I want to state now the subject which I intend to develop in more detail in initiating the debate on the amendment to this supply motion.
The employers and employees of this country are up in arms. They are not satisfied with the present administration's application of the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations. The rapid and continuous depletion of the unemployment insurance fund is-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is always rising on a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With very good reason, too.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the minister is always interrupting members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here is the pot
calling the kettle black, the terrible tempered Mr. Bang from Laurier.
The hon. member who has the floor began by raising as a grievance, apparently, something in relation to the question of responsible government and whatever part the Minister of Finance was thought to have played in that issue. Now he is going on to a second question. It is a rule of this house, Mr. Speaker, that before any member, in such a debate, may pass on to a second grievance all hon. members who wish to be heard on the first grievance are entitled to be heard. The hon. member having chosen to raise this question as a grievance, I claim my right as a member of this house to speak in reply to it. The hon. member is choosing now to run away from that grievance and raise a second question. This has been typical of the tactics of the opposition in these supply motions during the present session.
On the last two supply motions, Mr. Speaker, which were on March 20 and April 24, you had occasion to make a ruling under just such circumstances to try to curb the excesses of the opposition and the way in

Unemployment Insurance which they are seeking to ride roughshod over the rules of this house. The rights of other hon. members are at stake. The hon. member who has the floor on such a motion is not the only member who has rights in such a situation. He having chosen to make an attack in relation to this question of responsible government, and the relationship of at least one member of the government to that issue, I claim the right to discuss that subject before another grievance is raised in the house by anyone.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Minister of Finance, may I say it is true that the hon. member who was initiating a grievance used at first what has been fittingly described in the past as a scattergun. I do not think he came down definitely enough in his aim on any particular subject to say that he was introducing a grievance. It is true that he did connect the Minister of Finance with some issue of responsible government, but what issue I was not able to determine.
As I understood him, he now has raised as a grievance the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Finance sticks his neck out on these subjects.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I thought I made it clear in my remarks that the amendment which I intended to introduce this afternoon had something to do with the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and the responsibility of another member of government. The amendment has to do with the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations.
As I have said, the rapid and continuous depletion of the employment insurance fund is one of the most urgent problems which this government is called upon to face in this session. We understand this problem will require an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The policies of the present government since taking office, and the actions of the government, have resulted in practically wiping out a fund over $920 million built up under a Liberal administration. The unemployment insurance fund, we all know, consists of moneys contributed by the employees, by the employers and by the government. These moneys are held in trust by the government and used for the payment of benefits to the unemployed.
When the act was introduced in 1940 by a Liberal government, it was introduced as an act to establish an unemployment insurance commission, to provide for insurance against unemployment, to establish an employment


service, and for other purposes related thereto. Since its introduction in 1940 this act has been amended on various occasions such as in 1955, 1956, 1957 and more recently, 1959. Notwithstanding the amendments to the act or to these regulations the principle remained the same. It consisted of a fund contributed by employers, employees and the government for the payment of benefits to the unemployed. When the act was introduced in 1940, the mover of the resolution had this to say. As reported at page 1650 of Hansard of July 16, 1940, these are the words of Mr. McLarty, the then minister of labour:
This done, it will be recorded of the present generation that at a time when we were bending every effort and endeavour to overcoming the enemy at our gate we were not unconscious of our duty and our obligation to promote the welfare and happiness of our own people.
On July 19, speaking on the second reading of this bill, the then hon. member for Essex East as reported at page 1779 of Hansard of that year, had this to say about this bill:
I conclude by saying to the Minister of Labour, coming as he does and as I do from an area in which there is unemployment for many months of the year because of the type of industry that predominates in the community, he will have done nothing in his public life greater than to create this measure when he is able to say at the conclusion of this session, as I hope he will be able to say, to his people and to all the people throughout the country that one further great reform for a harassed group of our population has finally been realized.
It was realized, Mr. Speaker, again by a Liberal government.
In 1959, the present government saw fit to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. As a result of the amendments introduced at that time the employees were estimated to derive additional benefits amounting to approximately $20 million per year. At the same time contributions by both employers and employees were increased by approximately 30 per cent. By such a move employers and employees were called upon to contribute yearly an additional $80 million or $90 million while the government's contribution remained at the same level or proportion. As a result of lack of policy by the present government that fund which was built up to $900 million under a Liberal government was being almost completely wiped out in less than four years of Conservative administration.
In addressing this house on April 4 of last year, I warned the government that, at the present rate of Canada's unemployment, the unemployment insurance fund would be just about wiped out by March 31, 1962. Mr. Speaker, I was a good conservative in my estimate at that time. I was accused at the time of being a prophet of doom and gloom. However, the fact remains that a fund which

had been depleted by almost $600 million since the present government took office in 1957 up to April of 1960, has now, a year later, reached an additional sum of $140 million, and to this will be added a further deficit of approximately $40 million when the figures for the month of April are made public. At the present rate the balance in the fund will be in the vicinity of $95 million to $100 million at the end of May and it will be even lower on the last day of June of this year.
While this fund has been going down over the last four years-and we must admit that it will be practically wiped out by this time next year-what action has the government been taking to safeguard this fund which was designed to be stable and self-perpetuating? Sessional paper No. 83 which was tabled on December 21, 1960, the very day on which the house took recess for the Christmas season, reports on the conclusions arrived at by the unemployment insurance advisory committee resulting from their meeting of October 27, 1960. I quote the conclusions arrived at as found at page 6 of sessional paper No. 83, tabled in this house on Wednesday, December 21, 1960:
As hereinbefore stated the fund will probably be reduced at March 31, 1961, to under $150 million and by the end of the seasonal benefit payments, say at May 31st, 1961, will be not more than $85 million.
The committee finds no grounds upon which to modify the recommendations contained in its reports of July 8, 1958, and July 27, 1960 and respectfully and urgently repeats its previous recommendations regarding increasing the government's contribution and also replenishing the fund by a grant as recommended in the July, 1960 report. The committee expressed confidence that the government will take suitable action.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, five months have passed since the government was handed this recommendation and as yet no action has been taken. The government has failed to justify the confidence expressed by members of the advisory committee. What are the main reasons for this constant depletion of the fund which had proved to be so secure and so sound under the previous Liberal administration? I know that some will try to blame the inclusion or the admission of fishermen under the unemployment insurance benefits. May I say that this is not the reason; this is not the case. I want to remind those who are blaming the fishermen for the depletion of the fund that they had better revise their conclusions. In fact, the unemployment insurance advisory committee itself in its report referred to earlier, suggested that the loss to the fund by extending benefits to fishermen should be paid from sources other than regular contributions.
Unemployment Insurance
I will not undertake at this time to review or refute the recommendation made by the advisory committee so far as benefits to fishermen are concerned. However, what I want to make clear is the fact that a fisherman well earns and well deserves his unemployment insurance benefits. The majority of our fishermen on the east coast, with the exception of those in some sections of Nova Scotia and those in very few areas of Newfoundland, are engaged in fishing for a period of six months to seven months per year. During that period the majority of them work from 18 hours to 20 hours per day, and in most cases six days a week. When, as happens in my own constituency of Gloucester, the dragger fishermen leave the wharf after midnight on Sunday and do not return before the following Friday or Saturday, and when during this period their diesel motors have been running for 24 hours a day, when winter comes or when the month of November or December is reached, these men deserve to return to their families and draw their unemployment insurance benefits during the winter months. I challenge any hon. member of this house to get up and deny the right of these brave men to share in the scheme of this insurance against unemployment. When the season of storms is raging, when heavy sheets of ice are covering our harbours and inlets we cannot expect these men to remain at their usual occupations or to carry on with their fishing operations.
At this very late date, May 8, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean), rose in this house and announced a further delay in the opening date of the lobster season. Why? For the very reason which I have just mentioned, because when here in Ottawa tulips are blooming in front of the parliament buildings, our fishermen of northern New Brunswick, of some sections of Prince Bdward Island and the Gaspe coast are waiting anxiously for the ice to move out before they can go to sea and set their fishing gear. Those men deserve to share in the unemployment insurance benefits, and they cannot be blamed for the depletion of the fund which has taken place in the last four years.
It is true-and the reports of the advisory committee make reference to it-that they have contributed to the maximum amount of $10 million in a full year in draining the unemployment insurance fund. In fact in the first three years when the fishermen were drawing benefits, they contributed approximately $23 million to the fund's loss. If other means have to be found to finance the fishermen's share of the benefits, it is the duty of the government to come up with a satisfactory solution.

Unemployment Insurance
Neither am I prepared to accept the interpretation which the unemployment insurance commission today is imposing on certain fishermen with regard to contributions and benefits, particularly for the year 1959. I know of certain fishermen who have contributed to unemployment insurance stamps for the period they were engaged in fishing operations during the summer and fall of 1959. At the close of the season, in October or November, the fish buyer purchased the necessary stamps to be used in payment of contributions, in accordance with instructions received from officials of the commission. The insurance stamps were affixed in the fisherman's unemployment insurance book by the dealer, as the employer of the fisherman, or the buyer of his fish, on the basis of the gross value of his landings less the required 25 per cent to be deducted for expenses.
I know of instances where a number of fishermen were awarded certain benefits during the winter of 1960 based on their earnings during the fishing season of 1959, and only a few months ago, during the winter months of 1961 they were forced to pay back 50 per cent or more of the benefits they had received during the previous winter months.
If a fisherman is idle during the winter months it is because he cannot carry on his fishing operations, because he is prevented from doing so by ice conditions or other factors beyond his control.
The gallantry and courage of our fishermen must be recognized by every hon. member of this house. I am sure that none of us has forgotten the tragedy of the Eseuminac fishermen in June, 1959, or the loss of a number of lives off the southern Nova Scotia coast only a month or so ago.
In fact, on this very day at 9 p.m. an investiture will take place in Fredericton by His Excellency the Governor General for the Eseuminac fishermen. These fishermen will receive the British Empire medal for gallantry and bravery shown toward their fellow fishermen during the storm of June, 1959.
This is why I ask the question at this time, who is responsible for the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund, if not the present government? Who is responsible for a loss of close to $28 million from October, 1958 to September, 1960, a period of two years?
The unemployment insurance fund account consists of the funds contributed by employees, employers and the government. This fund is held in trust and used for the payment of benefits to the unemployed. The governing statute provides that these funds shall be invested in government of Canada direct or guaranteed securities only.

Who is responsible for the investments of the unemployment insurance fund, if not the governor of the Bank of Canada together with two other representatives appointed, one by the Minister of Finance and the other by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr)? The facts are that by the end of March, 1958-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Certainly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of which minister of finance is the hon. member speaking? I think he must be aware that the appointments were made by my predecessors.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That is not the
point. The minister is responsible.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the Minister of Finance again shirking his responsibility? Is he not responsible for the appointments being made and for the job that is being done?


Peter Francis Martin: The minister approached this whole thing with a dreadful display of financial incapacity.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: At the end of March, 1958, approximately $400 million of the money in the fund was invested in government victory bonds. Why was there this surprising transaction in February, 1958, when the fund, which was already jeopardized, was used to purchase $15 million of a new long term bond issued by the Canadian National Railways at a time when this issue was experiencing very serious difficulty in the market?
Then, in July, 1958, came the famous conversion loan. Why did the unemployment insurance fund convert all its victory bond holdings, taking in exchange $89.7 million of the conversion loan maturing in 1961, $63 million of the 1965 issue and $154 million of the 1972 issue?
This fund was being managed not for the welfare and security of its beneficiaries, the unemployed of this country, the workers of this country, but to facilitate government debt management operations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is as untrue as anything could be.


Peter Francis Martin: That is wholly accurate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The facts show it to be true.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Loss after loss accumulated to the unemployment insurance fund. The impact on the fund has been so obvious that from April 1, 1959, a system of advances to the fund had to be adopted by the government in order to avoid further sales of securities at such excessive losses to the fund.

As a result of such transactions, as a result of this mismanagement for which the government must share the responsibility, the unemployment insurance fund, from the time this government took office, has been deprived of close to $70 million, three times as much as was lost through payment of benefits to fishermen.
The Minister of Finance cannot deny this. In the report-


Donald Methuen Fleming: He does.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -tabled on December 21 last we find a table showing month by month the losses to the fund from the sale of securities. I will not put all those figures on the record; there are too many. I mention in particular, however, that in some months losses have reached millions of dollars. I quote from this table, "Unemployment insurance fund selected figures taken from commission's monthly report", to illustrate my point. In 1958, in the month of November, $1,597,000 lost; in December, $3,169,000 lost; in February, 1959, $2,230,000; in March, $4,526,000. Later on, in 1959, in the month of December, $1,465,000. In 1960, in February, $3,209,000; in March, $2,825,000; June, $3,631,000; August, $1,393,000. And so on. The total losses exceed $28 million.
Surely, even if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his colleagues brag about the magnitude of the drain on the fund this does not justify the government in showing a reckless disregard for the resting trust laid upon it to protect the integrity of a fund which is the property of the employers and of the workers of this country.
It may be of some interest to members of this house and to the country to note while the fund is being continuously depleted, its revenues are increasing at the rate of $7 million to $8 million a month. In fact, for the 12 months ending September 30, 1960, revenues were $94 million above the previous year.
I have mentioned two causes which have contributed to some extent to the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund. These, totalling an amount in the vicinity of $100 million, represent but a minor portion of the fantastic reduction of over $700 million in less than four years. The main factor contributing to this depletion is, by far, the ever increasing number of unemployed which factor is responsible for this great drain and for this heavy load of payments during the last four years.
I cannot understand a party or a government which takes pride in increasing unemployment insurance benefits from $231 million to $415 million in one single year. This is, 90205-6-285
Unemployment Insurance however, exactly what the present government is doing today in its pamphlet listing the records and accomplishment of the present administration.
The purpose of this fund is to pay benefits to an insured person when a specified contingency occurs. No insurance fund, no insurance of any kind, can exist under such a pressure as has been exerted on the unemployment insurance fund during the last four years. The plight of the unemployment insurance fund is a serious reminder that a country with 18 million people cannot afford to have three quarters of a million or more of its workers idle, producing nothing and acting only as a drain on the whole economy of the country. The man who draws unemployment insurance benefits of $25 or $30 a week is contributing very little to the gross national product of the country.
Year in and year out, unemployment may have become part of our Canadian way of life, but at no time in our history has it reached the high rate which is becoming an inevitable and established fact under a Conservative administration. How can a fund subsist with
869.000 claimants in February 1958, with
795.000 in the same month of 1959, with
823.000	in March of 1960 and 837,000 in March of this year?
Those same hundreds of thousands of claimants for unemployment insurance benefits are men without work and men seeking work. With very few exceptions, those same men or women would rather earn their living and that of their families by working by the sweat of their brows than remain idle at home with a mere $25 or $30 a week as their only source of revenue.
I agree, and I am the first one to admit, that there have been abuses, that there have been cases of fraud in connection with unemployment insurance benefits. It is the duty of the commission to take necessary steps to prevent such abuses and to take action against those who have been illegally receiving payments for unearned contributions. This does not mean, however, that qualified workers, men who for years have been accepted for benefits, should all at once be disqualified in order to salvage the perilous rate of the unemployment insurance fund.
Why should carpenters, painters and other types of workers be, all at once, automatically disqualified and deprived of benefits formerly awarded to them under similar conditions, as was done in February and March of this year. Why must a carpenter hired for a period of 14 to 18 weeks, to build a new home at a fixed rate of $10 or $12 a day, be deprived of his benefits if he becomes idle for a certain period during the winter months?

Unemployment Insurance
I know the minister will come back and tell the house that the unemployment insurance commission had no alternative in such cases. The minister will tell us that such decisions were reached following a ruling of the umpire appointed under provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act as the final authority for deciding on questions of insurability, and that the commission is obliged to follow his interpretation.
I will ask the minister why has it taken the commission 20 years to obtain a new ruling on section 27 (p) of the act which reads as follows:
-employment of a casual nature otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business;
Why should a widow who wants to have a new house built or her old house repaired or painted be denied the right to purchase unemployment insurance stamps for her employees? Why should a veteran who contracts to have a new home built under the Veterans' Land Act be prevented from giving his employees unemployment insurance stamps when he himself supervises the construction?
The widow in question needs a home to provide shelter for herself and her children, and her main interest or business is to remain in that home to look after her children. The veteran, whether employed as a civil servant or as a clerk, is not interested in hiring employees for his business or trade, but he is keenly interested in providing his wife and family with a new home.
Hundreds of cases have been brought to my attention in the last few months in which carpenters, labourers, and others have been deprived of their unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that they had been engaged in employment of a casual nature otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business. I ask again, why did it take the commission 20 years to arrive at such an arbitrary interpretation of the act?
The same employees who are being deprived for their benefits are being told, "Oh, yes, you can qualify for benefits if you are engaged as a carpenter or a painter, but what you have to do is to work for a building contractor who is licensed with the unemployment insurance commission and who is qualified to purchase stamps".
Is the minister aware of the effect of such a decision in rural areas where in many instances building contractors do not even exist? This means that an individual who wants to repair his house or build a new one must approach an outside contractor to do the job; that is, if he wants his workers to qualify for benefits. In many instances, this contractor will come in with his own men who also will

be outsiders. I ask the minister, is this the kind of fair play promised by the Prime Minister in his bill of rights?
This house has been sitting for over five months, and the minister has known of this new interpretation of the act for some time. If there was no alternative, what has prevented the minister from introducing an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which would have resulted in justice for thousands of workers who are now being deprived of benefits for which they normally would have qualified for a number of years? What did the minister do? Instead of taking action to protect the claimants involved, instead of taking action to prevent such injustice, orders were issued on March 27 to every post office in the country to return immediately form 419C, known as "Application to purchase unemployment insurance stamps as a casual employer".
The Minister of Labour was aware of what was going on, and notwithstanding the fact this house has been sitting for the last five months, we are still waiting for the amendment to the act promised in the speech from the throne. We on this side of the house have been warning the Minister of Labour and the government as to the necessity and urgency of replenishing the unemployment insurance fund. We have also warned the minister that if he hopes to use the same method he used in 1959 he will meet with serious objections from this side of the house, and he will no doubt incur the wrath of Canadian employers and employees.
Instead of acting at once, instead of taking the necessary steps to protect the rights of thousands of workers, the minister and the government have preferred to see this large number of claimants who were being denied unemployment insurance benefits seek new assistance under the social assistance act. In doing this the government had the assurance that 50 per cent of the cost of such assistance had to be borne by the provinces and the municipalities.
If the Prime Minister, as he stated in Prince Albert on February 14, 1958, had succeeded "in defeating the problem of unemployment" the perilous position of the unemployment insurance fund would not exist today. We remember that in Brantford on February 17, 1958, he said that "the humblest of our people will not be forgotten. The people who are unemployed will not be put in the false position of being put on relief". Well, this is actually what is happening today with the new interpretation of the Unemployment Insurance Act under which claimants are being denied unemployment insurance benefits which they have earned. They have had to go and beg for social assistance, 50 per cent
[Mr. Robichaud.l

of which is paid by the provinces and the municipalities. Nobody has forgotten these words of the Prime Minister on a live telecast on February 18, 1958, when he said:
As long as I am Prime Minister of this country I am not going to blame anyone for unemployment.
Again, on February 24 of the same year he said at Cornwall:
We have acted. We are meeting unemployment. We have given young Canadians the hope. We have given them the vision.
The vision of the Prime Minister is very deceptive to the young and old of this country after four years of Conservative administration. It is very deceptive to the three quarters of a million unemployed who are depending on unemployment insurance benefits. For those workers who are without work the vision of 1958 has proved to exist only in the imagination of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Skoreyko:: May I ask the hon. member a question. What is the source of this figure of three quarters of a million?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member must have been asleep. I have said that the claimants for unemployment insurance benefits amounted to 837,000 in March. This is still away above three quarters of a million. The figure was 869,000 three years ago and 823,000 last year.


Mr. Ricard:: You are happy about it, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is the only kind of remark we can expect from the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are very happy about it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The fact remains that the main reason for the present situation of the unemployment insurance fund is the large number of claimants, which figure has increased by at least 75 per cent to 80 per cent since the present government took office. In other words, if the present government had listened to the constructive suggestions made in this house by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and other opposition members, such a situation would not exist today.
The unemployment insurance fund is being depleted; it is being wiped out at an alarming rate and this government sits idle, refusing to take adequate measures to bring it back to the stable and self-perpetuating status it maintained under a Liberal administration. The measures introduced thus far by the government, designed to curb unemployment have proven insufficient and ineffective, and 90205-6-285i
Unemployment Insurance have failed even to bring to a standstill the alarming process of shrinking of the unemployment insurance fund.
Again I ask how can the unemployment insurance fund subsist when in the Atlantic provinces over 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the labour force is without work? How can it subsist when, as in my own constituency of Gloucester, as of mid-March, the number of unemployed totalled 8,150, representing 55 per cent of our labour force? If the hon. member wishes to know where I obtained these figures, may I say I happen to have the Saint John Tele graph-Journal of Friday, May 5, which carries this headline:
8,150 persons unemployed in Gloucester in midMarch-
$3,783,063 paid in unemployment insurance benefits during year.
Oh, I know the minister will say that most of those applicants for unemployment insurance benefits are fishermen. Well, I ask the minister to read the article and he will find out that this figure includes 750 fishermen and 270 peat moss workers. The minister can take a thousand from the 8,150, if he wants to; he can take off the number of fishermen who are claiming benefits, but the fact will still remain that 50 per cent of the labour force of Gloucester county are unemployed today.
In Gloucester county we have vast possibilities. We have our primary industries of agriculture, lumbering and fishing. We also have one of the largest mineral deposits on this continent. If this government has the intention of protecting and expanding our economy I would ask them to take a good look at our possibilities. I would ask the government to divert part of its northern vision to those areas of New Brunswick where we also have the natural resources which, if brought into production, would add substantially to the general economy of the country and would reduce the number of claimants for unemployment insurance benefits.
Such halfway measures as have been introduced so far this session are not the kind of incentives which are needed to stimulate our economy and to bring the economy of the Atlantic provinces into line with that of other areas of the country. Such measures as the double depreciation scheme, which in the first five months of operation has not produced one single new job, cannot be considered as very effective in stimulating new industries in areas worst affected by present conditions of uncertainty, idleness and confusion.
Enacted in 1940 and coming into operation on July 1, 1941, the Unemployment Insurance Act remains one of the major items of social security legislation in Canada. It embraces almost 75 per cent of our labour force representing over 4 million wage and salary earners

Unemployment Insurance to whom has been paid to date well over $3i billion in benefits. It is a compulsory form of insurance established by the state to afford protection against unemployment if and as long as the insured worker can satisfy certain conditions. In recent years the unemployment insurance fund has become a source of temptation for a government ready for expedients but unprepared and unwilling for fundamental action on its part to assume its share of responsibility.
I therefore move, second by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets the failure of the government to ensure sound administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, resulting in the depletion of the financial resources of the fund and new arbitrary administrative procedures which deny benefits to casual employees."


Mr. Speaker:: Unless any hon. member wishes to comment, I shall put the amendment before the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in my view the amendment placed before the house by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) is a very timely one. I think the fact of the matter is that the unemployment insurance fund has been subjected to pilfering almost to the point of being rendered bankrupt and non-existent. The fact of the matter is that the government, because of its failure to adopt a full employment policy, has made use of the fund for a purpose which was never intended when the act was placed before parliament in 1940.
As I understand the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the unemployment insurance fund it is to provide by way of an insurance measure a sum of money, a fund, credited to the account of an individual and available to that person should he become unemployed under certain circumstances in the future. The purpose of the fund was to take care of that period of time which would ordinarily elapse between the worker losing his present employment and acquiring a new job. The purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act was really to take care of frictional unemployment. Its purpose was to take care of a minimum amount of unemployment and it was designed to provide certain income protection in what was by and large an economy of full employment.
The fund and the plan worked very well as long as we had relatively stable employment, but the fund became endangered and suffered tremendous losses the moment the government failed to maintain something approaching full employment. The government

has gone to the country in a couple of elections on a full employment policy. It has pledged to the people of Canada that it would bring about full employment, that it would maintain full employment, but the unemployment insurance fund is a statistical record of the absolute failure of the government.
In December, 1956, the fund stood at $934 million. That amount had dropped to $874 million by March 31, 1957, and it has been on the way down at a very alarming rate ever since. On March 31, 1958, the fund stood at $744 million. On March 31, 1959, the amount was $499 million, on March 31, 1960, $365 million and on March 31, 1961, $185 million. It is very apparent that unless there is a tremendous improvement in employment in Canada or extraordinary steps are taken by the government the fund will be bankrupt and non-existent in a very short while. The state of the fund demonstrates to all the colossal failure of the government to provide anything approaching a full employment policy.
The government has given a number of excuses why it has been unable to provide full employment. In his baby budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said that one of the reasons for so much unemployment was that so many babies were born in Canada during the war. I have said on other occasions that I have never heard the excuse used before that there are too many babies born in Canada from the standpoint of full employment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I took the opposite view.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have never before heard the love life of the Canadian people blamed for widespread unemployment. We used to hear from hon. members opposite that there was too much immigration and that this was the cause of unemployment, that if we could just cut off the flow of immigrants the whole question would be solved. The government has reduced the flow of immigrants into our country and the amount of unemployment has gone up at the very same time.
Apparently hon. gentlemen opposite are now following the philosophy that if they can just make it more difficult for people to get money out of the fund this will save it. If they stop payments out of the fund I suppose they will protect it, but I think hon. gentlemen will be making a mistake if they apply some of the means of saving the fund that have been suggested.
I want to support the protest that has been made relating to the new interpretation of the act so far as paragraph (p) of section 27 * is concerned. Under this new interpretation many carpenters, many artisans, have been

denied unemployment insurance benefits because they have not been working for contractors but for individuals. According to this new interpretation they are not eligible for unemployment insurance benfits, even though stamps have been placed in their books.
The government adopted a winter works program which I think has been of some help. It would seem to me that part and parcel of a winter works program-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Limited help.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) says "limited help". It was not unlimited help, but I think it was of some help. If this program is to work at all, then surely the government should not be allowed to deny, through interpretation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, unemployment insurance benefits to carpenters and others who are engaged in the construction industry but who have not been employed by contractors.
I suggested earlier that what is needed now is not just a winter works program but a summer works program. Apparently there is going to be widespread unemployment during this summer. This particular feature, which has been so rigidly interpreted by this new ruling, is causing very great hardship among carpenters and others. I have received a number of letters protesting this new regulation. I want to tell the minister that in our judgment, if this is to be the interpretation of this particular section of the act, an amendment should be introduced to restore the benefits to persons from whom those benefits have now been taken.


Michael Starr: May I ask a question at this point? Is the hon. member saying that anyone who wishes to buy stamps should be able to do so without being registered as an employer?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not saying that at all.


Michael Starr: That is the only way it could be done.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am saying that the new interpretation is too rigid. It is causing undue hardship and it is discriminatory against people who are bona fide workers and who, in our judgment, should be covered by this act as they have been covered in the past.


Michael Starr: May I ask another question?


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can make his speech-


Michael Starr: I just want to ask a question.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can make his speech at a later time-


Michael Starr: I just want to ask a question.
Unemployment Insurance


Hazen Robert Argue: I know the minister is the fidgety type who finds it difficult to sit still. When he knows he has not a case he jumps up more frequently.


Michael Starr: The hon. member does not have a case; that is his problem.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the case is very good.


Michael Starr: I do not think the hon. member knows what he is talking about in connection with this question.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can make all the statements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order; if we have fewer interruptions we shall get along faster.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am suggesting that the minister should introduce amendments to the act which would make it possible for those who have been denied benefits to receive them in the future. Those benefits have been available to others in the past. The minister can take the attitude, if he likes, that these people should never be paid. We suggest that they should be paid.
The fund is in a bad way largely because the government has failed to provide full employment, not because of certain misuses of the fund which may exist. This is not the main reason the fund has gone down. Surely all the abuses of the fund about which we have heard did not originate during the period of the Conservative government. It is strange in my opinion that the Canadian people, under a former administration, did not appear to be abusing the fund. If one listens to some hon. gentlemen opposite, one hears that the fund is being raided now by countless people who are abusing it, who have no right to benefits. It is strange that under a Conservative government the people of Canada appear to have lost their morality, according to hon. members opposite, and want to pilfer the fund.
In years gone by, what was the complaint? The complaint from a great many insured workers was that the fund was being built up very rapidly, and that steps should be taken to lower the contributions because the fund was going up and up. Under the Conservative government, the fund has been going down very rapidly. Except for the steps taken in 1959 to increase the contributions by some 30 per cent, when the benefits were increased by only 10 per cent, the fund has continued to go down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The benefits were never increased.


Hazen Robert Argue: There was some slight increase.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.

Unemployment Insurance


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Essex East can make his speech when the time comes. The hon. member takes the attitude that the Tories can never do anything right; that they are always wrong in every detail. I think the hon. member for Essex East would make a much stronger case if he were prepared to admit that sometimes hon. gentlemen opposite do introduce certain improvements to certain legislation. The hon. member can deny my statement, but the Canadian Labour Congress made this comparison and said benefits were increased 10 per cent, while contributions from the workers were increased some 30 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian Labour Congress made no such statement; I am surprised.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Essex East is an authority on a lot of things but he is not an authority in this case because he is wrong in the statement he has made.
This is not the only way in which the government has brought about a reduction in the fund. There has been mismanagement of the securities in the fund. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) pointed out that the amount of money that had been lost from this fund by this means totalled some $21 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, over $70 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: Over $70 million; this represents the amount that has been lost from the fund because of the forced sale of government securities at fire sale prices. We know that at the time of the conversion loan the Minister of Finance twisted the arms of those who have something to do with investments by the unemployment insurance commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Hazen Robert Argue: They purchased the reconversion bonds and the fund has been losing money ever since because of the action taken by the government and because of a very depressed bond market at the present time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A shocking misstatement; perversion of the truth.


Hazen Robert Argue: I heard that. I suggest that $70 million is pretty expensive, and the fund is down to less than $200 million at the present time. The basic reason that the fund is almost bankrupt is the complete failure of the government to provide anything approaching a full employment policy. If this government maintains its present policy, if it


continues in its failure to meet the unemployment situation, it will foe only a matter of months until the fund will be completely bankrupt.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been out politicking recently. He was in southwestern Ontario on Saturday when a motion was filed in the government's name but wound up appearing on the order paper in the Prime Minister's name.


Mr. More:: You were in Regina.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was here Saturday, and I made a few speeches. The Prime Minister was in southwestern Ontario and he was launching something. I am not sure what it was but the press suggests that an election may not be far away because Mr. Frost was with him, and if the Prime Minister is to get any support from the country he will have to lean very heavily on the premier of Ontario. However, the Prime Minister told us that the reason Conservative support in the country was not so good was that the story was not being told of all the government's wonderful legislation; according to him the reason was just a failure to get the story across.
May I say this. The Prime Minister had a northern vision in the last election. The public knows what happened as a result of that vision in the last election. We have had more unemployment than we have had at any time since the 1930's and the unemployment insurance fund is almost depleted. Yet the Prime Minister's answer to this sorry state of affairs is another vision.
I have here a newspaper article which states, in part, "P.M. sets election theme of a new Canada." It was not enough that he had one vision that turned into a nightmare; he is going to have another one. The people of the country cannot afford a second dose of the vision. We cannot afford to keep in office any longer a government that fails to provide full employment and bankrupts the unemployment insurance fund.
We have before us an amendment that we are prepared to support but we should like to move a subamendment. In this subamendment I have pleasure in suggesting that the honourable thing for the government to do is to reimburse the unemployment insurance fund to the extent of the drain that has been brought about by reason of abnormal unemployment with this administration in office. This we suggest is a reasonable thing to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the only thing to do.


Hazen Robert Argue: The unemployment insurance fund was established in the first place not

as a substitute for full employment but as part of a full employment policy to take care of the 1 per cent, 2 per cent or up to 3 per cent of the labour force that might happen to be unemployed at any given time. In order to maintain the fund, in order to maintain intact the contributions that have been placed in the fund in good faith, we are suggesting that the government should consider reimbursing the fund from the public treasury by the amount that has been lost from excessive unemployment. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin):
That the amendment be amended by deleting the period after the word "employees" and adding thereto the following words:
"and its failure to give consideration to the reimbursement of the fund from the public treasury for the excessive depletion it has suffered as a consequence of the recent abnormal unemployment".
I point out that the subamendment has been carefully drafted so that it should not be interpreted as being a direction to the government to pay funds from the national treasury, something which a private member cannot move; rather, it expresses an opinion of the house, namely that the government should give consideration to the reimbursement of this fund from the public treasury for the excessive depletion it has suffered as a consequence of the recent abnormal unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless any hon. member wishes to comment on the proposed amendment to the amendment, I shall place it before the house.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks of the last two speakers, speaking as they were for their parties, we have seen once more a demonstration of the complete irresponsibility of the opposition in this house-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


John Ferguson Browne: -and of their absolute failure to do anything -in fact their determination to do absolutely nothing-to assist in the solving of any problems that might be facing this country. Rather, they take their stand, as they have done in the past, in condemning whatever is done without any regard to what might be done to help the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman has said that opposition groups have taken a position this afternoon only for the purpose of expressing their opposition and not of furthering the interests of the country.


An hon. Member:: That is right.
Unemployment Insurance


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what the hon. member has said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that continual interrupter, says "That is true".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those are unparliamentary words on the part of both the hon. member and the minister and this unintelligent laughter only confirms what I have said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) allow me to secure a better hearing of his important point of order? I hope hon. members will not interrupt. I am sure all hon. members want to know what the difficulty is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is contrary to our practice for any hon. member to impute motives. If we in this particular Liberal party take a position and it does not satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite, that does not mean to say that we are not acting in the national interest as we see it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has made a statement that he should withdraw. It was the kind of statement which was made the other day by the Prime Minister and which should have been withdrawn. Hon. gentlemen opposite continually do this sort of thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member indicate specifically the imputation which he feels is objectionable.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Obviously Your Honour was preoccupied at the time it was made. The hon. gentleman said that once again the opposition had indicated its irresponsible attitude toward public matters.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) say "hear, hear". The Secretary of State who is acting responsibly is silent. These gentlemen who hold responsible positions on the government side continue to applaud this remark of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It is not open to any hon. member to make such imputations. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Labour to act as a mature and sophisticated member.


Michael Starr: You make me laugh.

Unemployment Insurance


Mr. Speaker:: It is contrary to the rules of the house to make offensive statements about any hon. member or to impute to any hon. member improper motives. There was a general allegation of irresponsibility directed to the opposite side of politics or the opposite side of the house, as I heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), and of motives which perhaps are not desirable but there was no imputation of any immorality and I do not think the remarks go as far as the hon. member suggests they do.
If the hon. member for Essex East were concerned personally and had been named, I would give the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway an opportunity to modify what he said. However, as it was a general allegation I think it is unnecessary to do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the hon. gentleman did refer to two hon. members. He referred particularly to the last two speakers, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). Then the hon. member made a general comment of an umbrella kind which would include others.
I say to you, sir, with great respect, that those were improper words and should not be allowed to rest without being challenged by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I cannot agree with the hon. member. Will the hon. member continue.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to clear up this matter at once. I was not insinuating that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) or the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) are any more irresponsible than other hon. members of the opposition.
If there were any unintentional slight on those hon. members I would certainly be prepared to modify that.
We have heard a barrage of complaints about the unemployment insurance fund being depleted. I think this is a serious problem facing the country and the government, and the government has recognized that by indicating its intention to bring forward at this session of parliament amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They should have been brought in months ago.


John Ferguson Browne: I
should think the fact that the government has stated its intention well in advance of bringing forward legislation gives the opposition and anybody who is willing to contribute to
[Mr. Starr.)

the solution of the problem an opportunity to bring forward suggestions as to how it should be done.
However, as usual the opposition have failed to take that up; they have failed completely to offer any suggestions except the one suggestion that they make on all problems that face Canada, that we should print some more money and pay it out of the federal treasury. That seems to solve everything in their view. Perhaps if we make a few more printing presses and print money faster we will be able to solve all problems on the basis upon which they want to solve them.
Then they turn around and tell us that the fund is going down very quickly; it is going to be bankrupt and we are going to face very dire consequences. Immediately they get past that point they complain, not that we are paying out too much money but that we are not paying out enough. They tell us that many people are being deprived of their right to draw from the fund and all kinds of people are being deprived of proper benefit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John Ferguson Browne: I am
not suggesting more people should not be covered by the act and should benefit, but I hope I have enough responsibility to offer some suggestion as to how this can be brought about other than by printing more money.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Provide more employment. Give them the work the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) promised.


John Ferguson Browne: Yes, we had some great suggestions for creating employment in this country from the opposition, but-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We had wonderful ones from the Prime Minister in 1958.


John Ferguson Browne: -I
suggest that if all the working people are to be covered by the act, it must be put on a proper, paying basis. Unemployment insurance has been the greatest protection the working man has enjoyed not only in this country but throughout the world.
Many of the people who have studied this subject in great detail have come to the conclusion that unemployment does occur from time to time in all countries of the world, and it has occurred for the past 600 years. We are not likely to stop it overnight.
I notice that in a publication by Louis Pink entitled "Freedom from fear" it is said: After 60 years of experience, Great Britain has decided that their unemployment insurance system must remain the major method of meeting unemployment.

I could go on to quote many other statements in this regard. My very strong feeling is that if the Unemployment Insurance Act is amended along lines which will provide adequate protection for the unemployed of this country, it will at the same time do a great deal to alleviate unemployment.
Some time ago I gave notice of a motion to the house in connection with amendments which I felt should be made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, but because of the business of the house it was not possible to bring that motion forward.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank goodness for that.


John Ferguson Browne: I
should like to suggest to the government that these amendments to the act be considered. The resolution I placed on the order paper under date of January 31 was as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for recognition of the principle that every employable person in the labour force is entitled either to a job or to adequate compensation by including the following provisions:
(a)	The act should be renamed the unemployment compensation act.
(b)	Every person in the labour force who is employed under a contract of service should contribute to the fund regardless of income or occupation.
(c)	Every insured person in the labour force-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member goes any further, while I do not like to circumscribe his contribution to the debate I feel that if he is allowed to present his resolution as relevant it will be relevant to debate the propositions which are contained in it, thereby enlarging the scope of this debate very substantially.
At the present time the grievance expressed in the amendment concerns the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the results of that administration. This has been extended to a complaint about the failure of the government to consider the reimbursement of the fund. So that only in so far as the hon. member's proposals are relevant to the administration and the reimbursement of the fund would I consider it proper for him to continue.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that the government has announced its intention to bring forward amendments to the act indicates that in order to be able to administer the act properly it does require amendment. The situation which has arisen at the present time makes it impossible to administer it properly, and with the paying out within the terms of the act that is being done, nothing could happen to the fund but its depletion.
Unemployment Insurance
It then becomes a question of how the fund should be built up. The opposition have suggested, as I say, that the federal government should simply contribute a large amount of money to reimburse the fund. I am suggesting that if the act is changed in a proper way, that will not be necessary.
I think it is unsound for the federal government to just pay a huge sum of money into the fund. I think this act must be put on a proper, paying basis. If it is ever going to be administered properly by anybody, it has to be on a sound and paying basis. That is the reason I suggest these amendments to the act, because I believe many people now drawing out of the fund should not be drawing out of it, and many people who should be able to qualify to draw out of the fund are not now qualified to draw out of it, nor do they pay into it.
With your concurrence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue putting these suggested amendments before the house. I think you will find they are relevant to what has been suggested by the opposition. They would provide a much better means of administering the act and putting it on a sound basis than has been suggested by the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I am asking the hon. member to use his own discretion about what parts of his own resolution are relevant rather than putting in all of his proposals.
I admit there may be some relevance in some of his proposals, but others would bring about a quite broad extension of this debate, which would be quite unwarranted.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, I have heard suggestions by the hon. member for Gloucester about fishermen. There have been a great many protests throughout the country about fishermen drawing from this fund when they are certain to be unemployed during the winter months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are not certain to be unemployed.


John Ferguson Browne: That
has been a complaint made about many of the seasonal industries, that there really is not a risk of insurance when they are certain to be unemployed. I have not supported that view. I have at all times felt that these benefits should apply to every person in this country who is ready, willing and able to work. They should be covered by the act. This, of course, has not been done up to the present time, for various reasons.
There are some groups, such as civil servants, which are not included under the act. I believe they should be. It is argued that these people are in permanent employment
4518	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance but that has not turned out to be the case on all occasions. I notice that in a television program a couple of months ago it was stated that a number of employees of the city of Ottawa had been laid off. They were not liable for benefit because it had been presumed they were in permanent employment.
In the case of civil servants, both federal and provincial, there are many temporary employees. The provinces can use their discretion as to which of their employees shall be subject to the provisions of the act and, of course, they follow the policy of insuring those people who are temporary employees and who are almost certain to draw benefit at one time or another. I feel, therefore, that these classes of employees are not bearing their share of the cost of unemployment insurance. Either no civil servants should be covered or all of them should be covered. As I have said before, I believe this applies not only to civil servants but to all those employed under contract of service.
I firmly believe that those who are going to benefit from the act should be the ones who are required to contribute to it. That does not appear to be the policy of the opposition. If the federal government is going to contribute huge sums to the unemployment insurance fund, as they suggest, we would be taking the money out of general taxation. Among those contributing to its payment would then be persons in receipt of old age pensions and elderly people who could not possibly receive any benefit from the fund and who therefore, I submit, have no reason to be paying into it. A solution such as is suggested by the opposition would obviously require a higher level of taxation. I submit that we have to amend the act in such a way as to protect those who need protection and provide for them for as long as they need such assistance without regard to the number of contributions they have made to the fund.
There has been a good deal of talk in the country about returning to insurance principles in this act. However, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, everyone has a different idea as to what constitutes insurance principles. I pointed out that in the case of fire insurance, for example, if a person's house burns down he receives the entire amount that is necessary to rebuild the house or to build another. In the case of unemployment insurance, however, this principle does not apply because a person only receives benefit in direct relationship to what he has paid into the fund. I do not believe that the individual in this country is in any position to accept a risk of that sort himself. For these reasons


I believe contributions must be spread over the entire labour force. I disagree with the views which have been expressed by the opposition. If we go beyond spreading the cost among the labour force, we begin to spread it among the entire population of the country. It seems to me that the people who are in a position to pay into the fund are the people who are gainfully employed.
Some suggestion has been made that proper protection has not been provided by the government for the people who are paying contributions. I suggest that this is no fault of the government but that it follows from the terms of the act itself. People are drawing money out of the fund who should not be drawing it out, but although there have been many fraudulent claims, as we would all agree, I do not think this represents the serious problem which some people make it out to be.
However, I do believe there are many married women drawing money out of the fund who have absolutely no need to do so. It is very difficult to establish whether or not married women are actually looking for jobs. This is one of the things which, in my view, is helping to drain the fund. Certainly, it is beyond the ability of government to control this practice by way of administration; an amendment of the act is required in order to deal with things of this nature.
Another cause of huge drains on the fund is the action of people who retire at the age of 65 and who then feel qualified to draw from the fund for 52 weeks. Though they only represent 3 per cent of the claims on the fund they are responsible for 10 per cent of the money paid out.
Then again, because of the unemployment situation, the government decided to extend, for a month at either end, the seasonal benefits. Some might wish to criticize the government for making this decision but personally I feel that it should have been made, that it was properly made, and that the contribution which the government makes to the fund even under the present financial arrangements is more than adequate to cover the administration of the fund and anything paid out in seasonal benefits. For this reason I feel criticism of the government on this ground is unjustified.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock, there being a supply motion today.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I had been dealing in general terms with the amendment and subamendment moved by the two opposition parties condemning the government's administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and indicating I felt that this condemnation was entirely without foundation. I believe there are many reasons why it is without foundation, but I do not think we can find a better authority for this statement than the hon. member for Gloucester who moved the amendment, because, in the course of his own remarks, he indicated that in his view the reason that the unemployment insurance fund had been depleted was that there was a high number of claimants drawing benefits from the fund. With that statement I certainly agree. He did not blame the condition of the fund on the high unemployment particularly, as the subamendment does; he simply blamed it on the high number of claimants drawing from the fund. I think this is an accurate statement and a complete denial of the amendment which he subsequently moved.
I believe, as I had started to indicate before the dinner recess, that there are a number of reasons why there are a high number of claimants under the act. We have the case of married women. It was pointed out by Dr. Warren James that 85 per cent of the married women were at one time or another claimants under the fund, and that in most instances when they did go on unemployment insurance they exhausted the entire amount of their benefits and that it was very difficult indeed to establish whether those women were desirous of finding work or were in fact, ready, willing and able to work. In most instances it was also shown that they had husbands who were working full-time and for that reason there really was not any necessity for their drawing funds under the act.
As I pointed out, those who retired at age 65 and drew benefits for a year were responsible for 3 per cent of the claims under the act but drew 10 per cent of the total benefits paid out under the act. I indicated the action the government had taken to increase the amount of benefit under the act and also to extend the seasonal benefit period. This was done because of the unemployment situation. These are some of the things that have led to the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund. However, it is quite clear from a consideration of those facts that the administration of the act itself has absolutely nothing to do with its depletion. Therefore,
Unemployment Insurance as I have said, on his own words, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gloucester falls to the ground. It is absolutely and completely without any substantiation.
The hon. member did complain about losses suffered by the investment committee, but he did not put that forward as a major cause of the unemployment insurance fund being depleted. He also neglected to point out that while some losses had been incurred in the investments there never at any time was an over-all loss to the fund from investment of the unemployment insurance funds. There never has been a year when there has not been a substantial profit made from the investments in securities made by the unemployment insurance investment committee, and I am sure no one would want to hold the investment committee responsible for an error in judgment in sustaining a loss on one particular transaction. No investment committee in this country is infallible and I do not suppose we are ever likely to have one that is. However, I believe, over all, the investment policy has proved to be a sound one and has worked to the benefit of the fund.
The solution proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia is to condemn the government for failure to give consideration to the reimbursement of the fund from the public treasury. Well, I do not know how he is in a position to say to what the government has or has not given consideration. Perhaps he knows more about what the cabinet considers than the rest of us do, but I have not known the cabinet to make public those things which they are considering or are not considering unless they have made a specific decision on it and have said they have considered it and rejected it, and I know of no such statement being made by the government. Therefore, 1 fail to see how he is in a position to condemn the government for failure to give consideration to this measure.
The hon. member might want to condemn them for not doing it. If that is so, I quite agree with the government if it is their decision not to reimburse the fund from public moneys because I do not believe it should be done. If, as I have said, the depletion of the fund has been brought about by people drawing from it who should not be drawing from it, it is not in a sound position and the pumping of public money into it will do absolutely nothing to correct the situation. It would continue in the same way it has in the past. If we put $100 million into it, it would simply be drawn off by people who should not be drawing benefits from the fund. For this reason I believe there must be far more substantial amendments to the act.
The hon. member for Gloucester raised several points, one of which I started to deal

Unemployment Insurance with earlier, namely the question of seasonal employees drawing benefits from the fund. He was of the view that they should continue to draw from the fund, and I have taken the same view. I believe all people should draw from it but I also take the view that they should all contribute. Of course, this is where the difficulty arises at the present time. I pointed out that in the instance of the civil service, only those who draw from the fund are registered under it. Those who are employed steadily do not pay into the fund. It is perfectly obvious that if this fund is to be sustained at all it has to be done on a proper basis with everybody who is gainfully employed contributing to the fund.
The other question that arises in regard to seasonal employees is that there is no limitation placed on the amount of earnings they can have in a year. Therefore, in actual fact, we may have a seasonal employee who pays into the fund for eight months and then draws benefits for four months although he may have earned in that eight months more than another man who has worked for the entire 12 months and has been forced to pay into the fund for 12 months. I believe this is a very unfair and unsound situation. For this reason I believe some limitation must be placed on the amount of earnings that a person can have in a year and still draw benefits from the fund. I do not suggest this in the form of a means test, because what I consider to be a means test would deal with assets. I do not believe we should take into consideration anything that a man has, such as a house, and so on.
I believe my suggestion would help a great deal those people who are now meeting a means test. It would help to overcome that problem if everybody was covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act and was paid benefits for so long as he was out of work regardless of the amount of contribution he had paid into the fund. Because we already look after these people in one way or another at the present time, I suggest that there would be no greater cost involved in that if a person's benefits expire today he then goes on unemployment assistance or some other form of relief under which he has to meet a means test. I do not believe that should be the case in this country. I believe every person is entitled either to a job or to adequate compensation if he is out of work through no fault of his own and provided he is ready, willing and able to accept a job.
In order to accomplish this end and keep the cost at a reasonable level, I believe there must be certain limitations placed upon the act. I believe that a person who has earned $4,000 or over in a particular year has


no need to draw benefits from the fund in that year although if the same person were out of work in the following year there would be no limitation on the amount he could draw. He would be able to draw for the entire year if he were out of work but I do not think a person who has had an income in excess of $4,000 in a year needs to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act in that year.
Neither do I believe that married women whose husbands are working full-time and are adequately able to support them have any need to draw from the fund. Again, I noticed in the unemployment statistics a short while ago that almost half of the unemployed in the country were between 14 and 19 years of age. I believe adequate provision is made by the federal government for training these people if they are unable to find employment. If they have not got the proper skills to find employment, I believe the place for them is in school and I do not think they should be on the labour market or benefiting under the Unemployment Insurance Act. As long as they are living at home with parents who are adequately able to provide for them, having in mind that the government is making provision for them to take vocational training or whatever other kind of training may be necessary to fit them for a job, I believe that is what they should be doing instead of drawing on the unemployment insurance fund with no action being taken to ensure that they will ever be able to earn a living for themselves.
I also believe the act in general needs to be tightened up because I think there is a good deal of collusion between employers and employees with respect to people quitting their jobs when there is no need to do so and then drawing unemployment insurance. I believe there should be severe penalties imposed on any employee or employer acting separately or in collusion to defraud the fund. Again, I find that when I ask people why they felt they were entitled to do certain things under the Unemployment Insurance Act the answer I often get is that everybody else is doing it and it is all right in their opinion and they feel they would be foolish not to draw benefits, although in my view they are not entitled to draw them. They seem to come within the terms of the act. Those things which constitute fraud upon the fund should be clearly set out and there should be severe penalties imposed on those people who do attempt to defraud the fund.
I see that my time is drawing to a close. I do wish to emphasize that the negative attitude perpetually taken by members of the opposition in the house is not going to solve any of the problems of the country. It is no

use condemning perpetually. They always seem to be against something. I have not heard a helpful suggestion come from them during the whole time I have been here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is ridiculous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is false.


John Ferguson Browne: Now
that the government has announced its intention to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act-


John Whitney Pickersgill: When?


John Ferguson Browne: -I
hope we will hear some helpful contributions from the opposition instead of the torrent of abuse to which we are constantly subjected. I hope they will try in some way to accept their responsibilities as members of the house and will make reasonable and helpful suggestions rather than merely condemning.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the matter now being discussed, and I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), particularly his reference to unemployment insurance for fishermen. From time to time one hears the criticism that unemployment insurance for fishermen is the reason or a reason why the unemployment insurance fund is being depleted. Surprisingly enough, some of these criticisms are made by representatives of commercial interests who in Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces as a whole have a captive market. However, I do not think these opinions are shared by any hon. member of the house.
I certainly do not agree with the speaker who preceded me, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), in his suggestion that hon. members on this side of the house are other than responsible and constructive in their criticism, but I noticed that he too subscribed to the idea of unemployment insurance for fishermen. The fact is that unemployment insurance for fishermen was a very constructive step that was taken in order to assist the fishermen, a class of workers who seriously need and deserve unemployment insurance. It has proved to be a real blessing to the fishermen themselves and I am quite sure that indirectly it has made a contribution to steadying the economy of the Atlantic provinces as well as having made a contribution to the economy of Canada as a whole.
In discussing the matter of the administration of the unemployment insurance fund, I should like to say at the outset that I make a distinction between abuses involving the drawing of unemployment insurance unfairly
Unemployment Insurance and unnecessary hardship caused to a class of workers who suffer under the administration of the act because, rightly or wrongly, there are many instances where workers such as carpenters, handymen, artisans and others who are employed by individuals find that at the end of their working period they do not qualify for unemployment insurance. In that connection I should like to read a letter from a constituent of mine which sets forth his own experience and in doing so tells the story very well as to what has happened to those men who depend upon casual labour for their livelihood and who find that such work is not insurable. The letter is from Roland J. Menchenton of Norris Arm North Side in the constituency of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. The letter was written early in January and reads as follows:
I am going to state what happened to us this past summer. Myself, Bennet White and William Freake, all of Norris Arm North, was employed at Grand Falls this past summer. Myself and Mr. William Freake built a house for Mr. Robert Malloy, No. 9 Station Road, Grand Falls. We received $1.75 per hour and received ten unemployment stamps for this job. We then went to work for Mr. John Malloy, same address, for three weeks. After job was completed we were informed by the unemployment insurance commission that there was a new law in effect which stated that no person outside of a bona fide contractor or employer could buy stamps. Result was we did not get any. We then went to work with Mr. George Peercey and worked with him six weeks with the same result. We also worked with Mr. Robert Piercey (both of Grand Falls) for three weeks and were told that it was not insurable work under the new law. Result was after working since middle of June until December 20 we were unable to qualify for regular insurance and did not have the required stamps for seasonal benefit.
Now, sir, one half of the work done in the town of Grand Falls is done by men like ourselves, two or three men on a job. And now we are denied the privilege of buying stamps. Now what, may I ask, is going to happen to the hundreds of workers like ourselves who find employment in this way? Do we after working steady for 25 or 30 weeks have to spend the few dollars we have managed to save or as in the case of the majority fall back on able bodied relief. To my mind there could have been a law made to offset the illegal claims made on the unemployment insurance commission without taking away the rights and privileges of the honest workers who try to earn a livelihood without being a burden on the government in the form of able bodied relief.
I think the quotations from that letter depict one of the problems which faces workers who depend upon short term employment. It is causing a great deal of unrest and a great deal of hardship in the long run, and is one reason why we are making these criticisms at this time. The hon. member who preceded me charged us on this side of the house with criticizing only and making no constructive suggestions. I, of course, deny that allegation. However, I have yet to find a constructive

Unemployment Insurance suggestion made by those on this side which has been listened to by hon. members on the other side.
The suggestion which I would make now is that an amendment be made to this act which would permit the act to be applied in the way in which it was originally intended to be applied, that is to give assistance where assistance is needed. This act should be insurance against unemployment for all people out of work who want to work, who do not try to avoid work. This was the real motive behind the passing of the act. Apart from being of help in a practical way to those who are out of work, this insurance principle has the additional advantage of cushioning periods of recession and unemployment such as the one through which we are going at the present time. Undoubtedly a tightening up of the act, a restriction in its application, is a denial of the very principles upon which the act was founded.
I do hope the suggestions we are making now that the act be applied fairly to those deserving of assistance, those who are out of work through no fault of their own and who should be insurable, will be given careful consideration by those who sit opposite.


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, once again we find the opposition introducing an amendment to a motion to go into supply under a guise that is purposely designed to permit them to make an attack on government policy with regard to employment in this country. There is little that can be said by way of commendation of this particular amendment. I believe hon. members of the opposition find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. In one breath they criticize and attack the government for its administration of the fund, and the resultant depletion of the fund, and in the next breath they attack the government for taking measures to restrict abuses being made of the fund. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They place themselves in a directly contradictory position.
For three years now, the members of the opposition have been talking in terms of depression and recession. Both in this house and throughout the country, they have decried the fact that we have unemployment. They have used unemployment as the basis for introducing amendment after amendment, and on occasion they have even attempted to adjourn the business of this house to discuss unemployment as a matter of urgent public importance. Time and time again, they have talked in terms of hundreds of thousands being unemployed. As a matter of fact, on one occasion, they even referred to one million. Now they come along and ask what has


happened to the fund. One sometimes wonders, when observing them in action, what they are thinking. They make no suggestions about what we should do or what should be done. They have not suggested the things we have not done. On the one hand, they accuse us of doing nothing in the face of high unemployment, and on the other hand they say the fund should not have been used to alleviate the problems created by unemployment or the hardships that result from unemployment.
They suggest the fund should not be used for the purpose for which we presume it was intended. One wonders how they are going to get out of this dilemma. They refer to $900 million being in the fund in 1957. One wonders, Mr. Speaker, if the establishment of the unemployment insurance fund in this country was nothing more than a piece of Liberal party window dressing. In the first instance, they say unemployment is high. If they say unemployment is high, then they must admit that the fund which was intended to deal with unemployment was used in the way in which it was intended to be used. They do not accuse us of wasting the fund for if they did, they would then definitely be saying that the fund should not be used for any purpose whatever. The one argument destroys the other. If the opposition protests against what I am saying this evening, then they are saying that the passage of the act itself was nothing more than a pure farce, a simple device for window dressing and never intended for anything other than political propaganda.
The action we have taken in respect of the fund, Mr. Speaker, is similar to the action now being taken in the United States under parallel circumstances. At the time of the recession, we extended seasonal benefits. We made the formula more flexible. We brought married women under the act so that there would not be any discrimination and to assist in increasing family income. As the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) pointed out, we brought fishermen under the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Gloucester pointed out nothing of the kind. Everyone in this house ought to know that fishermen were brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act by the previous government.


Michael Starr: That is not so. You were sitting over there when it was done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows that this is not a question of privilege but rather a question of disagreement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister speaks on a matter of which he should know something.


Richard Devere Thrasher: This may be a matter of debate, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not a matter of debate; it is a matter of fact.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Perhaps the hon. member will have an opportunity to speak when I have finished.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that the statement of the hon. gentleman is false.


An hon. Member:: Stand up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will do so. Mr. Speaker, I say that the statement made by the hon. gentleman is false and that it should be withdrawn.


Richard Devere Thrasher: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. The hon. gentleman says I made a statement which was false. I deny that my statement was false and ask that he withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must indicate to the parliamentary secretary that it may not have been the proper time for the hon. member to disagree, but there is nothing unparliamentary in saying that a statement is false unless there is an intimation that the hon. member is deliberately making a false statement, and that was not the case.


Richard Devere Thrasher: I think the record will speak for itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will have to do so.


Richard Devere Thrasher: I am quite prepared to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can he tell the house when legislation relating to unemployment insurance for fishermen was introduced in this house and passed?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question, of course, is a matter of record.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Answer it then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the parliamentary secretary not know?


Richard Devere Thrasher: It was put into effect by this government.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When did the fishermen start paying?


An hon. Member:: Look it up.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You look it up.
Unemployment Insurance


Richard Devere Thrasher: I have done so. We have amended the act since we have come into power. We have increased the contributions as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate now says. We extended the period of benefits, as is being done today in the United States. We have added two new classes. We have used the fund since coming into power for the purpose for which it was intended.
Hon. gentlemen sitting opposite have often stated in this house that unemployment insurance was designed as a cushion against unemployment. Would they now deny us the right to pay out these benefits when we have a period of high unemployment? What single measure taken by this government would they now have us retract? Would they now ask us not to extend the benefits to married women in order, as was done, to avoid discrimination that existed under the act when they were in power? Would hon. gentlemen now ask us to take fishermen out of the act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who asked to have fishermen taken out of the act?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Would they now, Mr. Speaker, ask us to reduce the period of seasonal benefits?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who asked that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, who asked that?


An hon. Member:: The Liberals.


Michael Starr: You have not asked for anything.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are contradicting your own assistant.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Hon. gentlemen opposite have criticized the government on many occasions but never did they criticize the depletion of the fund, nor do they make any recommendation which would have the effect of curtailing benefits. Yet they now rise in their places and in ominous tones ask what has happened to the fund. When you hear them speaking here today, Mr. Speaker, you wonder whether they are aware of the fact that a recession existed in this country, yet on other occasions they talked about nothing else.
In the speech from the throne at the opening of the present session of parliament it was suggested that amendments would be made to the act this session. Amendments will be made to the act at this session. An interdepartmental committee has been studying the act as well as various recommendations of the advisory committee for several months. Recommendations have been made for amendments and they are being studied, Mr. Speaker; but these are matters of government policy and when decisions are made

Unemployment Insurance in respect to them, they will be brought before the house in the form of legislation.
The hon. member for Gloucester reaches the heights of absurdity when he talks about employment and says that this government has done nothing. Let me tell him this. At this session of parliament we lowered the down payment on a $10,000 home from $1,000 to $500. We have lowered the down payment on a $11,000 from $1,100 to $550. We have lowered the down payment on a $12,000 home from $1,200 to $600.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to a point of order. I do not wish in any way to restrain the hon. gentleman from reading his essay, but I trust that Your Honour is noticing that what he is saying has nothing whatever to do with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I merely draw the matter to Your Honour's attention so that we on this side of the house will be assured of the same freedom of debate as that in which the hon. gentleman is now indulging.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. gentleman wishes to speak on the point of order I will hear him.


Richard Devere Thrasher: When the hon. member for Gloucester introduced his amendment he made an attack on the government's employment policy. He made an almost continuous attack on the policies of this government on employment and the action we have taken. As a matter of fact, he said we had done nothing. If we had done nothing, hon. gentlemen should not mind listening to me when I am indicating what we have done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not object.


Mr. Benidickson:: The hon. member is the one who is introducing new matters.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course, the debate is restricted to the subject matter of the amendment and the subamendment. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate objects-[DOT]


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not object.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member must realize that he must restrict his remarks. He may make passing reference to arguments put forward by another hon. member, but I must ask him to make his remarks relevant to the amendment before the house. It will not be sufficient for him to have the permission of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to be irrelevant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not trying to restrict the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Speaker.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, no: we will reply on the new matters.


An hon. Member:: You might restrict yourself.


Richard Devere Thrasher: In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to confine my remarks to the amendment and the subamendment. In answer to the hon. member for Gloucester, suffice it to say that we have at this session taken 23 separate measures to combat the problem of unemployment. We have taken measures in the fields of housing, municipal aid, aid to universities in the construction of residences, measures to double-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member. I am sure this enumeration has nothing to do with the amendment before the house which reads as follows:
This house regrets the failure of the government to ensure sound administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, resulting in the depletion of the financial resources of the fund and new arbitrary administrative procedures which deny benefits to casual employees.
Nor does it have anything to do with the subamendment which is in the following words:
"and its failure to give consideration to the reimbursement of the fund from the public treasury for the excessive depletion it has suffered as a consequence of the recent abnormal unemployment".
I think the parliamentary secretary will realize that the enumeration of the measures to which he is now referring has nothing directly to do with this matter. Unless the parliamentary secretary puts forward an argument which is related to the subject matter of the amendment or the subamendment, it would be out of order.


William Moore Benidickson: But he is sticking to his essay.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in introducing the subject I did introduce was because the hon. member for Gloucester, in speaking in support of his amendment, devoted practically the whole of his speech to making an attack upon the government for its failure to cope properly with the employment situation in this country.


An hon. Member:: He did write the speech himself.


Richard Devere Thrasher: In so doing the hon. member introduced an amendment which in a sense was restrictive. However, in my opinion, in a broader sense it could provide room for a great deal of latitude in the debate on this particular matter.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: May I point out to the
parliamentary secretary who has the floor that it would assist the Chair if he would say whether he intends to reply to argument put

forward by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). If the parliamentary secretary would indicate that this is what he is doing, it would certainly help the Chair to determine whether the answer is in accordance with the argument put forward. If it is only a passing reference, I suggest it would be in order.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, I intended to restrict what I was going to say on this subject to nothing more than a passing reference, in view of the ruling you gave previously, in reply to the hon. member for Gloucester.
Had the members of the opposition, on the occasion when each of these measures was announced by the government, risen and said they were good measures; had the hon. members sitting opposite said on the occasion of the amendments to the National Housing Act, "These are good measures; they will stimulate the construction of housing in this country-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are we now reviving debates which have already been concluded in this house? This is being done by the parliamentary secretary, and members of the opposition are not allowed to do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I made myself clear previously. I must warn the parliamentary secretary that to my mind he is not being relevant in discussing the subject matter of a debate which took place on the occasion of the introduction of amendments to the National Housing Act.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, I will try to abide by your ruling. I do not wish to do anything other than abide by the ruling of the Chair.
Suffice it to say that if hon. gentlemen opposite had acted in a contrary fashion when these measures were introduced to the house; had they encouraged their constituents and constituencies to take advantage of them, we could have said, "They are Canadians; they are interested in the economic problems of this country".


William Moore Benidickson: Which constituencies?


An hon. Member:: You are out of order.


Richard Devere Thrasher: I wish to deal now with the second half of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Gloucester. I have here a draft statement which was prepared by the unemployment insurance commission in connection with the changes that were made. Perhaps in the interests of clarity, and so there will be no misunderstanding, I should read the statement at this time:
Recently there had been complaints regarding the cancellation of stamps purchased by registered
Unemployment Insurance and non-registered employers alike and also regarding the withdrawal of the privilege to certain employers, who are not required to register with the unemployment insurance commission, to purchase unemployment insurance stamps.
These complaints stem from the fact that employers have been insuring persons who are not properly insurable. These persons fall into two main categories. First, those whose employment was not under a contract of service; and second, those who were employed on a casual basis for other than the employer's trade or business.
Referring to the first group, Mr. Speaker, section 25 (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides that employment is insurable when it is:
*-employment in Canada, by one or more employers, under any express or implied contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether the earnings of the employed person are received from the employer or some other person and whether the earnings are reckoned by time or by the piece, or partly by time and partly by the piece, or otherwise.
The statement continues:
The civil code of Quebec does not use the expression "contract of service" but the arrangement is much the same as what the civil code calls "lease and hire of personal services" as distinguished from "work done by estimate and contract".
The contract of service is an agreement, written or oral, under which the relationship between the employer and the employed person is substantially that of master and servant. The essentials in such a contract are that one person engaging the services of another must have the right to:
(a)	tell him not only what result he, the employer, wants produced but also the time when, the place where, and the precise way in which the work is to be done;
(b)	require that the worker do the work personally, unlike an independent contractor who can and often does delegate it to a substitute or employee of his own;
(c)	to terminate the worker's services at any time. Likewise the employee may quit his employment without being compelled to specific performance of his contract.
The significant factor of a contract of service is the right of the hirer to control the hired. It will be seen at once that without such a control an employed person would be more or less his own boss and when it came to the payment of benefit the question of whether he was unemployed or not would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine.
The unemployment insurance commission found that many persons were being insured as employees when in fact they were independent contractors, partners, members of family undertakings, joint entrepreneurs, co-adventurers and such like.
With respect to casual employment the statement reads:
Referring to the second group, section 27 (p) of the Unemployment Insurance Act specifically excludes from insurability "employment of a casual nature otherwise than for the employer's trade or business".
In the early days of its existence the commission, by an administrative ruling, defined casual employment as employment of not more than ten days' duration within a 30-day period. This was later reduced to employment of not more than six days'

Unemployment Insurance
duration in a 30-day period. Thus employment of a duration of more than ten days-and later, more than six days-was determined insurable.
The commission through a regulation authorized employers of such casual help to purchase stamps on making application to the post office, thus waiving the necessity for the employer to first register with the commission.
On February 3, 1961, the umpire, who is the final authority in the interpretation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, ruled that any casual employment of a non-continuing nature, when performed for other than an employer's trade or business, was not insurable. This of course nullified the commission's administrative ruling and at the same time did away with the necessity for providing for the purchase of stamps on application at post offices by non-registered employers.
It should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that this ruling is the same as that which is applied to the workmen's compensation acts of the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, as well as in Great Britain.
The statement continues:
Unfortunately, the facts concerning these two types of employment are not determinable in the vast majority of cases until audits are carried out or claims filed or investigations made. Once the facts come to light the commission has no option but to cancel the contributions erroneously made and adjust any benefits paid on the basis of these contributions.
However, in view of the fact that special instructions to offices of the commission regarding contract of service were issued on September 27,
1960,	and the umpire's decision regarding casual employment was handed down only on February 3,
1961,	no overpayment of benefit will be established in relation to contributions made in cases involving either of these factors prior to the two respective dates mentioned, provided, of course, the commission is satisfied there was no misrepresentation.
I might add, in addition to what the statement contained, that audits and investigations of casual purchases of stamps have revealed that fraud was rampant. Purchases were made where no work was done at all. Stamps were being purchased in excess of the actual employment period and exchanges of labour, whereby A employed B for a period, then B employed A in turn until both had sufficient contributions to qualify for benefit were not uncommon.
In reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) who made some glib references to a full employment policy when speaking in this debate earlier, it is true, of course, that he made full use of his time to attack the government on its employment policies. I do not propose to deal at any length with what he said but I should like to refer to the full employment policy of the socialist group who sit, Mr. Speaker, on your immediate left. Full employment must mean something or it means nothing at all. In the sense in which the group who sit over in that corner mean it, it means nothing less than regimentation. You can guarantee employment in this country through the use of

socialist methods; you can do it if you want to fix wages; you can do it if you want to fix prices.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Would the hon. member not agree that the welfare which the unemployed have to seek now is a form of regimentation which we could well do without?


Richard Devere Thrasher: I am not sure I understand who the hon. member is referring to-


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is talking about the people you have driven on relief.


Richard Devere Thrasher: It is not my hope, and I think it is not the hope of the Canadian people that we in this country shall ever live under a totalitarian system such as hon. members in that party rave so much about. In order to make their system work we are bound to have total regimentation. We are bound to have to tell people where they are to work, how long they are to work and how much they are to receive for their labour. We will be bound to tell industry what products to produce and what prices they are to receive for those products; we will be bound to tell the farmers of this country what to produce on their farms and to tell them what they will receive for the fruits of their labour. I call this totalitarianism.


Murdo William Martin: This is all your idea, so call it what you like.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Despite what the hon. member had to say, I do not want to live, nor do the people of Canada, under a system such as he and his friends expound.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Thrasher). His remarks are similar to those we have been hearing for a long time, from the other side. He accuses us of harping on depression and recession for the last three years. I confess it is something to which we can reasonably refer to from time to time. If the parliamentary secretary does not realize that things are not going too well in this country, I would advise him to pay a visit to his constituency once in a while.
He also indicated that we, on this side of the house, have made no suggestions to find jobs for the unemployed, which, naturally, would have helped bolster, if not to replenish, the unemployment insurance fund.
Well, I remember that, one day, in this house, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), did make several suggestions; so did

the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary was here at the time. It would be a good thing for him, perhaps, to refer to the debates concerned.
He accused us, among other things, of saying that, these last few years the unemployment insurance fund should not have been used for the purposes for which it was set up. We, on this side of the house, have never made any such claim. Naturally, we believe that the unemployed should get benefits, but the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robi-chaud) rather adequately emphasized that, if the unemployed had had jobs, the unemployment insurance fund could have remained at a reasonable level.
Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary said that we came out against the extension of seasonal benefits. I do not recall hearing the hon. member for Gloucester making such a statement. To put it briefly, the parliamentary secretary sought to attribute to his government some merits that we, on this side of the house, do not recognize. I would advise him rather to refer to the booklet entitled Employers Handbook, for Fishermen, 1957, second edition, in which he will read the following, in paragraph 2 of page 1:
(Text):
Effective April 1, 1957, employment in fishing became insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
(Translation):
If the fishermen began to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund as of April 1st, 1957, and if we consider, on the other hand, that the election took place on June 10-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could the hon. member repeat his reference, because the parliamentary secretary still does not understand?


Jean-Paul Racine: Certainly, I shall repeat it for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary. With regard to fishermen, I should like to refer to the publication entitled "The Employer's Handbook for Fishermen", second edition, published in 1957. The second paragraph reads as follows:
(Text):
Effective April 1, 1957, employment in fishing became insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
(Translation):
Now, if the fishermen started paying contributions on the first of April, while the
Unemployment Insurance elections took place on June 10 and the Tory government actually took over on the 22nd, I fail to understand how this government can claim any credit for the fishermen's unemployment insurance.


Mr. Deschaleleis:: I think it should be said all over again, because the parliamentary secretary is still in the dark.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. member for Gloucester for the constructive and brilliant way with which he dealt with unemployment insurance problems. I am sure that he has made it clear to a good many citizens that persons who are concerned over the situation of the unemployment insurance fund can still be found in this house.
He also made it clear to others who are deprived of unemployment benefits as a result of amendments to the act that there are still people here in this house who want to cooperate so that the government may review those amendments that we consider intolerable.
In fact, the hon. member for Gloucester introduced the following amendment:
This house regrets the failure of the government to ensure sound administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, resulting in the depletion of the financial resources of the fund and new arbitrary administrative procedures which deny benefits to casual employees.
I believe that the hon. member for Gloucester has adequately dealt with the position of the fund.
As for me, I would especially like to deal with the arbitrary procedures which deny benefits to casual employees.
Therefore, I should like to refer to Hansard for February 9, 1961, on page 1050. On that occasion I put the following question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr):
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the many complaints voiced by unemployed who are no longer drawing unemployment insurance benefits because of the new interpretation given to the service contract, does the minister intend to issue further instructions in order to remedy a situation that has become impossible?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice that he would ask this question. I immediately contacted the unemployment insurance commission, and they advise me that there is no new interpretation of the regulations with regard to the contract of service. The difference now is, so they tell me, that the regulations are being enforced.
A little later, as it can be seen on the same page, I asked the following supplementary question:

Unemployment Insurance
Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer just given by the Minister of Labour I would like to ask him whether he is aware that the enforcement of the instructions now contained in pamphlet 13, where the commission defines "service contract", is detrimental to the campaign for winter works, particularly in the renovation and home construction field.


Michael Starr: I am not aware that it is having the effect which the hon. member says it is.
Mr. Speaker, those questions and answers were given on February 9, 1961 but if you refer to the L'Action Catholique of January 13, 1961, you will find the following item:
Details given by the unemployment insurance commission.
In order to spare the people of Canada some of the difficulties which now prevail throughout the country, the unemployment insurance commission wishes to caution people regarding the eligibility to insurance benefits of casual and family employment.
In view of recent decisions, the unemployment insurance commission arbitrator, Mr. Justice J. D. Kearney, has issued new interpretations concerning the eligibility of workers holding family and casual jobs.
Family employment: In most family concerns, where some or all the employees are related to the owner, there is no real master-servant relationship. This form of enterprise rather suggests that the family relationship supersedes or annuls the service contract. In many other cases, the several members of the family are working toward a common objective, and the profit is shared according to certain needs or as the owner sees fit.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the part dealing specifically with circular No. 13:
Casual employment: Again in that classification, the majority of employees are not insurable since a service contract does not exist within meaning of the unemployment insurance act.
I am now talking about casual employment.
For a service contract to exist, the casual employer must be in a position to control and supervise the technical performance of the work to be carried out by the employed. Since most of casual employees work alone, the fact that the salary is paid hourly, per unit of work, or according to contract is of no importance, those employees are considered as working for themselves and their employment is not insurable.
Before entering contributions in unemployment insurance stamp books of people holding casual or family employment, employers should inquire at their local office, to prevent possible cancellation of those stamps later on.
Well, the ruling of the U.I.C. arbitrator, Mr. Justice J. D. Kearney, is rather at variance with the answer given by the minister to the question I put to him on February 9, since Mr. Justice Kearney himself agrees that since September 27, the date shown on bulletin No 13, the unemployment insurance commission has issued new interpretations concerning the eligibility of casual employees. Therefore, if the letter of the act was not

changed, its interpretation at least was changed, and that is the important thing in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker, this circular letter No. 13, which was issued September 27, 1960, applies retroactively to the year 1960. The pamphlet deals with the service contract and, among other things, includes the following definition:
Employment in Canada, by one or more employers, under a service or apprenticeship contract, whether explicit or implicit, written or oral, whether the earnings of the employee are received from the employer or someone else, and whether calculated by the hour or by the piece, or partly by the hour and partly by the piece, or otherwise.
But, more interesting still is the type of questions asked by certain officers of unemployment insurance offices in order to determine whether there is a service contract or not between the employer and the employee. Here, for instance, is the series of questions that are asked:
Starting date?
Termination date?
Where was the above-mentioned person employed by you?
Was he paid certain wages or hired on contract?
If wages, state if hourly, daily or weekly?
What salary were you paying him?
Who fixed his salary?
What is your main occupation?
What did he do for you?
What was your reason for hiring him?
In what capacity was he employed?
What experience did you have in the type of work he performed for you?
Were you present on site at the time the work was done?
Were you working yourself?
Who kept his time record?
Have you kept track of his time?
What were the agreed working hours?
Mr. Speaker, all those questions may deprive a worker from qualifying for the contributions provided under the Unemployment Insurance Act. For instance, I have already mentioned in the house that when an individual is hired to build a house, it is ridiculous for unemployment insurance officers to ask him the purpose of his employment. It is obvious that he was employed to build the house.
Another question is: "What knowledge did you have of the type of work he performed for you?" Again I ask, must one be a carpenter to hire carpenters to build a house and to affix the appropriate unemployment insurance stamps in their books?
This is also true of the following question:
Did you remain on the premises while the work was being performed?
That is another question that can lead to confusion and deprive some workers of contributions to which they are entitled. It is

well known that if a person who hires a carpenter is not qualified to supervise his work and knows nothing about carpentry, he will seldom remain on the premises to tell a qualified worker what he should do.
In a number of constituencies, hundreds of unemployed people are deprived of benefits they should receive, merely because officers of the commission have been instructed to give a new interpretation to the term "work contract". Personally, I know of many families which are suffering real hardship and have to depend on relief.
Following that new interpretation, the unemployment insurance commission people are always bringing up the same argument, namely that the employer must have enough authority for giving orders and enough competence for directing the work of one or several employees. That is a false interpretation which is subject to contradiction every day. As a matter of fact, few employers know more than their employees. A contractor is not necessarily a carpenter, bricklayer, electrician, stonemason, etc., but he employs qualified people in those various trades. Yet, those employees are eventually entitled to benefits, because they have been working for a contractor. An industrialist often knows little or nothing about the complex structure of his business. Yet, all his employees are entitled to unemployment insurance.
Many a citizen retains the services of tradesmen for certain casual repairs or extensions to their properties. Working conditions are agreed upon verbally. But, since circular No. 13 has been in force, no such employee or worker qualifies for unemployment insurance benefits.
In my riding, as in many others, all trades people and labourers who work for employers other than registered contractors are struck from the list of those qualified to receive benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Finally, it seems that, in order to replenish the unemployment insurance fund, officials are creating misery and desolation among our working population. That is the greatest shame at this time, and we will certainly not give up fighting for our workers.
If clause 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act under its present form can be so fantastically interpreted, it should be better defined, so as not to deprive an honest worker of unemployment insurance benefits, to which he was formerly entitled.
Unemployment Insurance
To my mind, this is not a question of politics, but a matter of justice, and the workers are now aware of the extent to which they are being slighted.
If it had only been a matter of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act it would not have been so bad. But, on the contrary, the amendment was made retroactive, so that employers, who had honestly and legally affixed unemployment insurance stamps in their workers' books, and the workers themselves, who had legally and honestly paid their contributions, are being deprived of benefits, because of the attitude of the unemployment insurance commission.
Yet, those employers and employees have made those contributions and that is not all. Those employees applied to the unemployment insurance office after September 26, 1960, with the impression that they were entitled to draw benefits, as they were indeed under the act. Today, they find themselves in an impossible situation as a result of the retroactivity decreed in circular No. 13.
As I was saying that amendment may have been introduced in order to protect the unemployment insurance fund, and we have every reason to believe that this was the original purpose. But it seems to me the government or the unemployment insurance commission should have considered the consequences that this new rule might have, not only on the unemployment insurance fund itself but also on the administration of the act in relation to both employees and employers.
In addition to what I have just mentioned, that circular eliminates almost all cases of insurability for casual and seasonal jobs. In the past, unemployment insurance officials used to make rulings on the insurability of jobs, while today they have to enquire whether or not there is a service contract. Employers are dissatisfied with such a procedure, in so far as the supervision of certain jobs is concerned, such as the building of private homes, logging operations, etc.
Of course, the workers too are dissatisfied, particularly the many labourers in rural areas who were formerly employed in housing construction and were paid hourly wages. They are being deprived of their rights and are being discriminated against if you compare their situation to that of employees working for contractors. In fact, those who cannot find a job with a contractor will have no

Unemployment Insurance protection whatsoever in view of the interpretation given to section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Such an interpretation is a serious impediment to the carrying out of certain repair jobs during the summer season, because in the case of repairs to private homes, the employment of workers and carpenters is not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I listened closely to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Gloucester. He mentioned, among other things, that the poor condition of the unemployment insurance fund was due in part to poor management and to speculation on certain bonds. It is unfortunate that the money in the fund, most of which, that is to say 80 per cent, had been contributed by the employers and employees, was endangered through poor investments. The hon. member for Gloucester also emphasized the need to replenish the unemployment insurance fund. He particularly urged the government to provide work for the unemployed. I think that is the best way of avoiding the payment of benefits, and those who find a job will only feel the better for it.
I was reading this afternoon on page 1403 of Hansard for January 25, 1961, a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) in which be quoted the Prime Minister as saying-this was on August 30, 1958-that legislation would be introduced to extend the period of entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits and make such benefits available to certain classes of farm workers.
Mr. Speaker, that is another vision that will have to be set aside, because as long as certain workers and labourers are denied unemployment insurance benefits, it is silly to believe that the Prime Minister would now consider extending them to certain classes of farm workers.
The hon. parliamentary secretary told us a few moments ago that certain provisions had been adopted with regard to unemployment insurance which, in his opinion, were designed to favour the workers. He mentioned, among others, the extension of the unemployment insurance benefits period. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house, cannot blame the government for extending the period of unemployment insurance benefits, especially at a time when there are so many unemployed in this country. But it was not a measure designed to provide work to Canadian workers; it was rather designed


to put a poultice on a peg leg, since all it does is to provide, certain workers for a certain period with the opportunity to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Unfortunately no later than May 15 those who are now favoured by extension of the benefits period will find themselves in the same position as those who cannot get them any more because of the service contract amendment.
It is true that certain amendments have been made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Among others according to the pamphlet published by the unemployment insurance commission and bearing No. UIC 651 E GO-59) we see, for instance, that in 1959, amendments to the act were made concerning woodsmen. Well, these new regulations, I believe, have been quite prejudicial to woodsmen. For instance, the amendment to the regulations causes a more widespread use of power saws, which results in a larger weekly production than before. Among other things, the unemployment insurance commission mentioned in this pamphlet that starting in 1959, woodsmen would have to cut 12 cords of wood instead of eight to be entitled to unemployment insurance weekly benefits. That is an 80 per cent increase. Indeed, this is not, at least in my opinion, an improvement in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Another amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act was the one brought about by Bill No. C-43 which increased employee and employer contributions. Again, that certainly was no way to help workers, since 75 per cent of the 100 odd million dollars we wanted to add to the unemployment insurance fund through contributions from employees and employers remain in the unemployment insurance fund. Therefore the instructions in form 13, as well as the new rules with regard to woodsmen and the rate increase, are certainly not changes in the unemployment insurance act that will be of help to our workers.
About those various laws, I cannot help referring to someone who is no longer in the house; I mean the former member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska, who stated here, last February, that his government had done nothing against unemployment, and had been content to introduce legislation which only contributed to deplete the unemployment insurance fund. As we may see in Le Devoir of February 20, 1960, the former member for Restigouche-Madawaska stated as follows:
I maintain, in all humility, that if we had only done half of what we had promised, there would be no unemployment now in the maritimes he said.

Unemployment Insurance
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the unemployment picture is right now in the county of Restigouche-Madawaska. But I wonder if the former member is making the same type of speeches there now as he used to when he was sitting in this house. I would be very happy to follow it up in the press.


Mr. Tremblay:: Tell us something about Mr. Lesage.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval, who often butts in, is hoping to draw me into discussing a subject which lies entirely outside the scope of this debate. I am certain that standing orders would not allow me to praise the Liberal administration of Quebec in this house. Moreover, I know that you would direct me to go on dealing with the matter now at hand. Therefore, I shall leave the hon. member for Roberval to his own particular dreams.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What you are now reading is a speech written by Mr. Lamontagne.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval has just paid me an undeserved compliment. I do not think-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Read; go ahead, read on.


Jean-Paul Racine: I think the speech I am now giving is not one of which an economist would be glad of. I thank the hon. member; it is perhaps the kindest word he has had on my behalf.
Mr. Speaker, in the various amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act with regard to instructions in form 13, in respect of the new rules for woodsmen and the increase of the unemployment insurance rate, I think we are right when we say that the old Tory spirit is bobbing up again. If we refer to the 1946 debate, at a time when the Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced, we may rightly think, when reading the relevant pages of Hansard, that Conservatives never showed themselves entirely well disposed with regard to the unemployment insurance legislation. That is what leads me to think that today, with all those limitations placed on the Unemployment Insurance Act, that hoary Tory philosophy is bobbing up again. For their own good, but most of all for the good of the unemployed-because I sincerely and honestly believe it is to them that our thoughts should go-the Conservatives should reconsider their policy concerning the Unemployment Insurance Act.
(Text):


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, tonight we have seen something which I could classify as nothing less than a disgusting exhibition. The parliamentary secretary, in his desperation to find some scapegoat to blame for the position in which the government finds itself at the moment, proceeded to build up a straw man, in fact a straw-bogeyman, a pure figment of his own imagination, and then knock it down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, he had it written out.


Murdo William Martin: It was still a product of his imagination or the imagination of someone else. I find it difficult to understand that particular type of exhibition. I feel sure the hon. member does not even believe this attack he made on me and the rest of my party in this corner. If he does believe it, I am afraid that I have given the hon. gentleman far too much credit for intelligence. I feel that, in his search for a whipping boy, he has done a disservice to this house and to the country because he has done exactly what the communists are trying to do throughout the world today. They are trying to make us believe there is only one choice, either the chaos that we are debating here tonight or the regimentation that one finds under communist regimes. We can only choose between the two.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we in the C.C.F. and new party repudiate this idea. We maintain that this problem can be cured while we maintain our political freedom. In order to cure these difficulties we must show more interest in coping with these problems than has been demonstrated by either the present Tory government or the Liberal governments of the past.
What is the situation with which we are faced here tonight? The parliamentary secretary says that the opposition finds itself in a dilemma. I should like to remind him that it is not the opposition that is going to have to answer to the Canadian people for the situation in which we find ourselves now. It is the government that is going to have to answer, and only the government.
What are the facts? They have been placed on the record today, and I think probably we could sum them up. When this government took office there was in the neighbourhood of $950 million in the unemployment insurance fund. Halfway through the government's term of office we find that contributions to the fund have been increased
4532	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance by 30 per cent but still the size of the fund has shrunk to $185 million as of the latest count. The government can accuse the opposition of gloom and doom or this and that, but these are the cold, hard facts. We cannot get around them. During this government's term of office, in spite of this 30 per cent increase in the contributions into the fund, we find that the fund has shrunk from $950 million to $185 million.


Norman Leonard Spencer: What about the increased benefits?


Murdo William Martin: I do not care what the increase is in benefits. These are the facts, and you cannot get around them.
In my opinion, these facts point out one thing which should be clear to each and every member. Surely, this is something hon. members must have realized some place along the way in their daily lives. So long as you pay more out of a fund than you pay into that fund you are eventually going to go broke. This is the very simple situation with which we are faced today. The parliamentary secretary listed three of the measures which the government had introduced, and then he was cut off. He said, however, that there were some 23 measures which this government had adopted during this session to aid employment and provide jobs. This statement still does not meet the point because if there were 23 measures or 63 or 6,300, the fact still remains that the unemployment insurance fund is almost bankrupt.
How did we get into this situation? The parliamentary secretary listed some of the reasons. The unemployment insurance fund was extended to take in new fields. Of course, he very carefully avoided mentioning the fact that no precaution was taken at that time to provide for these new fields. The extension of the benefits has gone over a longer period; they have been extended to 52 weeks. Again no provision was made at the time to put the fund on any kind of actuarial basis. Oh, no; the government could not wait for that. It was too good a vote catcher. They had to use it. At the time that amendment went through I can recall speaking in this house and warning the government then that if this was done and the proper precautions were not taken, in a very short period of time this fund would be completely depleted.
I can still recall the question asked by some hon. member on the government side who said, "Are you against extending unemployment insurance?"
Many other factors are involved. Not the least of these is the situation that has been brought about by the Liberals and then continued by the Tories which has permeated


our whole society on this matter of the unemployment insurance fund. There is no insurance principle about it at all. It is just a great big pork barrel. People see others drawing from it whom they feel are not qualified to do so and they say, "If they can get it, why can't I?". That is the situation that has developed across this country. But in spite of all these factors, including many smaller ones, we still cannot get around the basic problem.
This is a basic problem which the present government very stubbornly refused to recognize for a long time. Now they are very grudgingly starting to admit it. Nevertheless they are still stubbornly trying to refuse to act, and do anything about it. I refer to the fact that in the last three or four years we have had what used to be known in the old days as a depression. Of course, that is a bad word. We do not use it any more. Today it is a recession, a slow down. I do not know how many fancy names I have heard for it. Of course, the facts of the matter are that we have forgotten what the unemployment insurance fund was originally intended for. Back in the old days when the unemployment insurance fund was set up, it was for the purpose of tiding people over when they were temporarily laid off from a job which they had to go back to in the fall or in the spring. That was the purpose of the unemployment insurance fund when it started off. It was to tide people over when they were temporarily unemployed either through climatic conditions or the temporary shut-down of a plant or something of the kind.
But what do we do today with that fund that was designed for this purpose and was set up on this basis? As long as we stuck to this basis it was a very successful project. But no, the government did not do that. Now they are trying to cure this depression with this unemployment insurance fund. They take in people who were never even considered when this fund was set up on an actuarial basis. They extend it over a period of time which was never even considered when this fund was set up on a sensible basis.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that this unemployment insurance fund was never conceived of with the idea of curing a depression. It never can cure a depression and the reason we find ourselves in the present situation is that we have tried to use it for that purpose.
In trying to face this problem with which we are confronted and to do something about it I hope that the steps that this government and this house will take-and believe me the government will be obliged to take some steps and do so very shortly-will be sensible and reasonable steps and that they will not be caused by this hysteria that seems to be

sweeping across this country, that all of a sudden out of the woodwork or from some place where they have been hidden for the last 20 years all these bums are coming back again. It is strange that we did not hear about them in the 40's and 50's. Where were they then? We used to have a good many of them around in the 30's. I refer to bums, people who do not want to work. For 20 years we did not hear anything about them but today they are back with us again.
I do not care where you go, you find this thing building up. I feel that this idea has been very carefully planted. I feel it is another of the attempts of this government to find a whipping boy, as was done by the parliamentary secretary; to find somebody else to blame; to try to shrug off the responsibility that is theirs and theirs alone. They are the ones who are going to be obliged to do something about it. All we hear is about chiselers, people who do not want to work. We hear about married women who work only long enough to get their stamps and so on. We hear this every day on every side.
I want to say that I am quite concerned about this deliberate propaganda campaign. Certainly there are chiselers. There are chiselers in every walk of life. But thank goodness, the percentage is small. There always will be chiselers; I suppose there always were chiselers. But with this problem as it is today, to try to pass it off with a shrug of your shoulders and say that it is only bums and chiselers that are out of work is no solution to it, and this will just get us deeper and deeper into the mess in which we find ourselves at the present time. We hear about people who turn down jobs at $45 a week. It is said that those guys simply do not want to work or they would not turn down a job at $45 a week. Why do they turn these jobs down? Did we ever stop to think of the reasons why they might have done so? The previous answer may be true in some cases, but did we ever stop to realize that maybe these people are the victims of the society in which we live, that they are the victims of the hard-sell policy under which it is unpatriotic if you do not buy what you do not need with money you do not possess in order to impress people you do not like.
Do we stop to realize that almost every normal family in this country has payments to meet which amount to more than $45 a week? They are built-in payments. Back in the 30's if you had no job, at least you could go out to the edge of town, cut yourself a cord of wood and cook yourself a meal. However, you cannot do that today. If you do not pay your gas bill, your gas is cut off. If you do not pay your water bill, your water is cut off. If you do not pay your light bill, 90205-6-286
Unemployment Insurance your electricity is cut off. If you do not meet the payments on your stove or your refrigerator or on all the rest of your furniture, they come in, pick it up and take it out. If you are working for $45 a week, and that sum does not meet your payments, you are in trouble. But if you are unemployed and are on unemployment insurance when they come in, you can say, "I am sorry I cannot pay because I am unemployed"; and at least you can put off the inevitable. Maybe that is the reason why some in this country today are refusing jobs paying $45 a week or less.
I think these things should be taken into consideration. We must realize that our society has changed a great deal in the last 20 or 25 years and that we certainly cannot judge people's conduct today by the yardstick of 25 years ago. In order to get a proper look at the situation today and to try to come up with some sensible and reasonable answers to this problem we must look at these things in the light of today's conditions and then act accordingly.
(Translation):


Mr. Vincent Brassard (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate. I know too well what physical and moral distress can befall the family of an unemployed. I must not evade my duty of making, whenever possible, at least a verbal contribution to the solution of a social problem of vital importance. In fact, I consider that the right to work is a fundamental human right; it is after all a right almost as fundamental as the right to breathe and to speak.
However, the philosophy of the opposition is reflected in the wording of the proposed amendment. It is obvious that this amendment and the subamendment have been introduced for political purposes, and for the purpose of spreading false ideas in the minds of the people.
If we study the wording of the amendment, for instance, we note that no mention is made of the plight of the unemployed and his family. On the contrary, the whole amendment deals with a strictly administrative problem, and merely regrets certain reported losses in the administration of the unemployment insurance fund. The mover of the amendment, in his long speech, talked merely about the important losses suffered by the unemployment insurance fund in some security operations. I was also astounded to hear particularly the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) trying to expose certain of the technical difficulties encountered in the administration of the act and, if I remember

Unemployment Insurance right, doing nothing else but complaining about circular no. 13, concerning the interpretation of the term "service contract".
Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. All in all, I find that the subject matter of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment has nothing to do with the problem. I am surprised that, especially after trying to move the adjournment of the house to discuss the important problem of unemployment, when the first opportunity arises to do so, on a supply motion, problems far removed from the point are being dealt with. I believe that when we tackle the problem of unemployment as such we must ask ourselves what are the causes of the present employment crisis. We should begin by asking ourselves if unemployment was brought about by the Liberals or by the Conservatives. We should not forget the contradictory statements of Mr. Lesage, the new Quebec premier, who, before the election of June 22, was travelling all over the province and publishing ads in the newspapers to state that unemployment was strictly the responsibility of the provincial government.
The unemployment which is now with us, Mr. Speaker, is the result of many factors. I do not claim to be an economist and to be able to explain all the details. But it can be said, at least to simplify the question, that unemployment at present coincides with automation and the growth in population.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier this evening on a similar point of order, no one on this side of the house is in the least anxious to restrict the debate. However, I would draw your attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman is engaging in a debate on unemployment, not on the motion before the house. We would hope to have the right to reply if the debate is to take that turn.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to say anything on the point of order?
(Translation):


Vincent Brassard: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I noticed that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) was allowed this afternoon to explain a resolution which he wanted to put before the house. Unfortunately, he could not proceed with it. In order to explain my suggestions concerning unemployment, I shall now deal with a different angle. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you do not allow me to proceed-

(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should say that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) was presenting his views with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the administration of which is the specific subject of this motion and the amendment. I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is well taken.
As I heard the hon. member-and I was here just a minute before the point was raised-he seemed to be dealing with unemployment in general terms rather than with the question of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the amendment which relates to reimbursement of the fund.
I should not like to see the debate become a general one on unemployment, because that debate has already taken place in this house. With those remarks perhaps the hon. member could confine himself more particularly to the amendment.
(Translation):


Vincent Brassard: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to keep
strictly to the problem under discussion. I only wanted to make those few remarks in order to support any argument that I might bring forward on this subject later on.
However, with regard to the unemployment insurance commission administration, the best way of settling both the unemployment and the unemployment insurance problems would be to substitute employment insurance to unemployment insurance.
Let me explain. Employment insurance would mean that any worker in any field would have to pay a contribution, which, added to federal, provincial and municipal contributions, would help create a fund which would enable us to offer work to a good majority of those who become unemployed. I believe this is the most practical suggestion that we can make to the Minister of Labour in this occasion.
However, before I resume my seat, I want to congratulate him for the extremely progressive though long term measures he has taken up to now. I believe these measures will have a beneficial effect on our nation's economy.
(Text):


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance fund was started as an insurance for workers, to compensate them for periods of unemployment. It seems to me that in the administration of the act the government is departing a great deal from this insurance principle.

They have made it partly a relief fund. Money is taken from this fund to help people over difficult periods, when these people should be helped in other ways by the government. This has been bad administration of the fund, but it has been helpful to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). It has prevented his yearly deficits from being as high as they otherwise would be. The working people of Canada are, therefore, making contributions toward keeping people off relief rolls. In this way they have allowed the Minister of Finance to keep his bad budget showings during the last four years from being worse than they have been.
I saw an announcement some time ago that 44 claim investigators had been appointed to watch for fraudulent claims against the unemployment insurance fund, and I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) say on television that these people had been appointed and that any fraudulent claims made would result in prosecution. I have not yet heard of the results of any prosecutions which have taken place or how much money, if any, has been recovered, but I would say that the amount of money recovered is peanuts compared with the amount of money lost to the fund as a result of the fiscal policy of this government.
On May 3, the Minister of Finance reported that the amount of money to the credit of the fund as of March 31 was $185.4 million. This amount does not take into account the market value of $248.3 million worth of securities held in the portfolio. It means that the unemployment insurance fund is borrowing money against these bonds. It is hypothecating these bonds and borrowing money, so the real value of the unemployment insurance fund does not begin to equal the amount of bonds they hold. Back in 1959 we could not go to the bank and borrow money against these same bonds. The banks would not lend us money at that time. The market value of these bonds is less by $30.3 million in unpledged securities and by about $8.2 million in respect to pledged securities, being $38.5 million in all so that ait the present time the market value of the unemployment insurance fund account is about $38.5 million below the amount of $185.4 million which the minister told us on May 3 was in the account as of March 31 last.
The advisory committee reported that during 1958 and 1959 they had taken a loss through the sale of bonds to the extent of $27.7 million. When one adds this to the depreciation in the present holdings of $38.5 million, the result is a potential loss of $66.2 million through bad investments on the part 90205-6-286J
Unemployment Insurance of those charged with responsibility for the unemployment insurance account.
The Minister of Finance has told us that in discussing this question we are talking from hindsight. I know I criticized the conversion loan at the time. The portfolio of the fund was filled with bonds of the conversion loan. At that time interest rates went up by 50 per cent if the longer term conversion loans were bought. I said that interest rates would go up and that therefore bonds would go down in respect to all maturities at that time. I said this would happen in connection with the provinces and the municipalities.
This whole matter of extra debt and high interest rates is closely associated with the unemployment insurance fund or, indeed, with any other fund which holds government of Canada bonds. Debt has a lot to do with it. The extra interest on our aggregate debt at the end of this current fiscal year will be some $800 million since this government has come into power and not once have they paid the interest on the interest. When the government has to borrow, interest rates move upwards and at the same time the value of the securities held by the unemployment insurance commission goes down. In order to meet this debt the Minister of Finance has borrowed money and he has paid high interest rates. The rates have been getting higher and higher. This has been done at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada and at the expense of such funds as the unemployment insurance fund, the army benevolent fund and other similar funds under the control of this government. After all, these funds are trust funds. They belong to the working people and to the poor people of Canada and I do not think the fiscal policy of the government should be such as to put them in jeopardy. When the bond market goes down, interest rates go up and the value of holdings in the unemployment insurance fund decreases. I know that the Minister of Finance had this to say as reported on page 2267 of Hansard of February 21:
As long as the present government Is in office you may be sure it is not going to pay one cent more interest on the moneys it has to borrow than is strictly necessary.
The Minister of Finance has accused us of talking from hindsight. I say that he certainly has not shown much foresight and, indeed, he has not shown much hindsight, either, because when he has borrowed money he has paid higher interest rates and that has certainly shoved down the value of these bonds.
I see it is almost ten o'clock. I do not wish to take up the time of the house much longer but I do want to say that on July 1, 1957, at about the time this government came into

Unemployment Insurance power, there was $862 million in this fund. Today, with the securities at market value, it amounts to about $146 million. The fund is down by $716 million, and that is a lot of money.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. gentleman call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will be the continuation of this debate.


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