1961-09-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to protest against the way-in which certain matters have been handled in this house. I refer to Bill No. C-129, which was dealt with on Monday, the number of which is written in on my copy by pen.
I was able to secure a copy of this measure only after the bill was passed. I happened to be five minutes late at the sitting which commenced at 7.30 on Monday evening. At the resolution stage I was the only one who questioned the transfer of the school lands by the federal government to the province of Manitoba. Under the British North America Act of 1930 public lands were transferred to the province of Manitoba, but school lands were reserved. If we look at the Dominion Lands Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, chapter 113, we find that section 40 reads as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege relating to some proceeding of the house which took place on Monday. This is Thursday. I am not sure what the hon. member's complaint is. Certainly it is not clear yet that he is entitled to discuss substantive matters of debate on a question of privilege. If there was some proceeding that the hon. member felt was irregular of course he should have drawn attention to it at the time. If he was not here and could not do so I shall be glad to hear him now, but I think he should come to the point of what is his objection to the proceeding.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Very well; I shall be glad to elucidate this point as well. It was only by reading La Presse of Montreal yesterday afternoon that I found that the bill had been passed. I had been looking at the order paper every day and checking. I have been attentive to my duties in the house. I was five minutes late on Monday, and during those five minutes the bill was read three times. Here is what La Presse said about the manner in which the bill went through:
(Translation):
In less than 10 minutes, the house had approved the preliminary resolution and read the bill three times. Usually, only the first reading is done the same day.
90205-6-545
(Text):
Here is what the Free Press said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I am interested only in what the hon. member says, not in what the papers say about our proceedings. In fact it is irregular to read criticisms from the press of what members do in the house.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Well, Mr. Speaker, my objection is first that the bill never appeared on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I challenge anyone to bring me an order paper which has any reference to the bill in it. The resolution appeared on the order paper; the bill did not. I have been checking it. Second, according to the chairman of the committee of the whole to whom I complained and who made a note of the time, the three readings were given in 3 minutes and 30 seconds.


An hon. Member:: Co-operation.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Speaker, this was done on Monday evening. Usually it takes at least five minutes to get a quorum of 20 members together. I believe I was in the chamber within the five minutes, and it never dawned on me that this bill had been discussed and read three times. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and asked him if the agreement had been tabled. He said, "Yes, but I think you can get a copy". I called for a copy and obtained one in French, but the parliamentary secretary never put me wise to the fact that the matter had been disposed of.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: I thought the hon. gentleman knew.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: When I came into the house, Mr. Speaker, I saw an expression on the faces of certain hon. members which seemed to indicate that I might be carrying a bomb in my pocket. This is not only a criticism of the government but a criticism especially of the official opposition, whose duty it is to protect the rights of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I have every sympathy with the hon. member, who apparently intended to take part in a debate which occurred while he was absent, but I have the record of the proceedings before me and while it is true that the house moved very fast in this case, it moved by unanimous consent and in the regular way according to our procedure. One can

Inquiries of the Ministry only hope that the hon. member will find another opportunity to expound the views which he was not able to express on that occasion.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: With deference, I should like to say that I had served notice on the chairman of the committee that I was interested in the agreement and was going to deal with it. I criticized the agreement without knowing what the agreement was, and I happened to be right. In addition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the absence of any irregularity in our proceedings, I think the hon. member will have to await another opportunity to express his views.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the reply he made yesterday to the hon. member for Kootenay West when asked a question regarding the admission to the United Nations of the communist Chinese People's Republic. In view of the reply made by the Prime Minister, are we to assume that it is no longer government policy, as stated by the Prime Minister in the house on November 1, 1957, that there can be no recognition of communist China until the communist government of China expiates its wrongdoing under international law?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is somewhat mixed up; I put it in that way. I was referring to the question of admission to the United Nations or what action might be taken by the United Nations, which is quite a different matter, as he knows, from the question of recognition.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I might answer the question raised by the hon. member for Essex East yesterday as found at page 8590 of Hansard and which was in these words:
Is either hen. gentleman in a position to say whether or not all nations in the United Nations are now co-operating in the world wide attempt

to provide an adequate and accurate system of sampling radioactivity as a result of these explosions?
At the 14th session of the general assembly in 1959 an international program for the cooperative study of fall-out levels around the world was initiated as a result of Canadian leadership. Under that program countries which had the technical experience and the laboratory experience to carry out analyses of radioactive fall-out levels were asked to offer to countries not similarly equipped to undertake the analysis of samples collected in the territories of the latter in accordance with the program of work of UNSCEAR, the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation, of which Canada is an active member.
In addition to its active sponsorship of the resolution, Canada made an offer to carry out analyses of soil, food and bone samples collected in other countries. The governments of at least 14 other countries-I can name them if the hon. gentleman desires-as well as the international atomic energy agency and the world health organization have made similar offers. Accordingly, it is now possible for all countries in the world to obtain scientific data on the levels of radioactivity within their territories. Moreover, since 1959 there has been a marked increase in the number of member countries supplying UNSCEAR with data on radioactive levels.
Four countries, Burma, Malaya, Ghana and Pakistan, have so far indicated a desire to avail themselves of the Canadian offer, and the first samples collected m these countries are expected to be received in Canada shortly.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and ask him if the British government has yet given its approval to the new air route from western Canada to London announced by the minister on behalf of C.P.A., and whether the consultations to which the minister referred some time ago when I asked him a similar question have been concluded.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, and the answer to the second part is that discussions are still continuing.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: May I ask the Minister of
Northern Affairs and National Resources whether the government has yet been able to reach agreement with the government of Manitoba on Red river flood control?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: We are
proceeding very happily in our negotiations, and when there is anything to announce we shall make the announcement in the house.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: May I
inquire of the parliamentary secretary, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, whether he is in a position to answer a question I asked on September 13 and again on the 14th, in connection with the erection of a satellite station to serve Madawaska and Victoria counties?
Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National
Revenue): Yes, Mr. Speaker. That recommendation, along with others, is being processed and an announcement will be made in due course.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
178. Departmental administration including a grant of $10,000 to Frontier College and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,373,104.
Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose yesterday at six o'clock I had referred to the seriousness of the unemployment problem and had proceeded to deal with certain ideas that had been put forward to solve it.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am having a little difficulty in hearing the hon. member because there is some undercurrent of conversation in the committee. I wonder if we could quieten down so the hon. member can receive a proper hearing.


Chesley William Carter: I had pointed out that there are some who hold that the responsibility for providing jobs rests solely with the government, and with nobody else. I maintained
90205-6-545J
Supply-Labour
that this concept of making people employees of the state was not compatible with the concept of individual freedom, and that history had proven on more than one occasion that such a course leads only to dictatorship and tyranny.
There are some who feel that productivity is the answer. If we are going to examine this question I think we must ask ourselves exactly what we mean by productivity. If we mean an increase in over-all production, there is then some validity in this proposal. However, I think we must realize that its effectiveness will in large measure depend upon having markets for the increased production. We must also remember that productivity is synonymous with efficiency. We think of it in terms of more output per man hour. While this might improve our trading position and also the unemployment situation indirectly by enabling us to compete with foreign countries, both in our domestic markets and abroad, yet from this standpoint productivity is not likely to create many new jobs.
There are others who say that the answer to unemployment lies in greater emphasis on manufacturing, and particularly in expansion in the manufacturing of our primary products. I am sure this proposal will find a great deal of sympathy not only in this committee but throughout Canada, as manufacturing is lagging too far behind other industries in Canada. But here again we must realize the limitations of this proposal. It overlooks the handicap that we in Canada are under because our population is far too small to enable us to have the benefits of mass production. Hence an expansion in manufacturing can take place only behind a huge wall of tariff protection. This proposal also disregards our trading position. We produce many primary products which we cannot consume at home and which we must sell abroad. In order to sell abroad we must buy from other countries. This proposal also disregards the necessity for expanding the development of those areas which are dependent upon resource industries.
Still others have put forward the idea that the answer to our unemployment problem is increased capital investment, and probably this affords the best answer. But here also we must take account of the fact that if Canadians have the necessary capital, they are unwilling or reluctant to risk it in the development of our country. If Canadians will not provide the extra capital we require, we must be prepared to accept foreign capital and even to encourage it.
The truth is that there is no single cause of unemployment; therefore there is no single

Supply-Labour
cure. We must explore every avenue and exploit every opportunity to the fullest possible degree. While I said that government does not have all the responsibility for curing unemployment, that does not mean that government has not some responsibility. In fact government has a great deal of responsibility in this field, as many hon. members have pointed out. The chief responsibility of government to my mind is to create the kind of climate in which our free enterprise system can fulfil its normal functions. In order to do this the government has to provide proper incentives through sound fiscal and monetary policy. The government also has responsibility for providing wise and courageous leadership so as to inspire confidence at home and abroad; because while confidence may be something intangible it is nevertheless an important factor in helping to solve our unemployment problem.
The present government have already taken some measures to deal with our unemployment difficulties, and I wish to commend them most of all on their program of vocational training. I think we all realize that this is a long term program and that it cannot be expected to produce any immediate results. However, it is a necessary program, and no doubt it will bear fruit in due course. The government's retraining program will, perhaps, be less effective, because here we are dealing with people of an age where they are handicapped by mental attitudes which are not conducive to training of this kind. In many cases the men concerned are anchored to specific localities; everything they have is there, and they are unable to pull up their stakes and move elsewhere.
As far as the monetary policies of the government are concerned, the incentives so far have not proved effective in dealing with the problem in the underdeveloped areas of Canada. The figures for the Atlantic region referred to yesterday bear out this contention. Programs of public works are perhaps among the least effective measures which governments can undertake in order to alleviate unemployment. Only a few days ago I read an article in which it was pointed out that the Canso causeway cost around $23 million in public investment, yet provided jobs for only 150 to 200 persons. So much of our work today is done by mechanical means that this is the pattern we must expect. We shall not create the same ratio of jobs for public moneys out of public works projects as we might in other ways. This observation applies also to some extent to the winter works program. I very often feel that the winter works program looks better on paper than it really is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Mr. Starr:: Did you say "hooray"?


Chesley William Carter: It reduces the number of unemployed for a specific period and makes the unemployment picture look better, but I feel that very often this is done at the expense of using up jobs which would become available later in the year in the normal course of events, when the work could be done more effectively and at lower cost to the taxpayer.
I think we should realize also that not only the government but industry has its share of responsibility with respect to unemployment. It seems to me that Canadian industry is too concerned with protecting capital investment and maintaining profits to play an effective role in solving this problem. I feel that Canadian industry is too prone to take the line of least resistance, to pass responsibility on to the government or to run to the government for protection whenever the going gets a bit hard. Industry in Canada must realize that freedom is only one side of the coin; the other side is responsibility. If freedom is lost, the capital investment and the dividends will go along with it. I think that contention has been borne out by what we have seen happening in Cuba, which is practically in our back yard.
Not only government and industry but labour as well must bear a full share of responsibility for seeking to solve this problem. In particular, labour has the responsibility of giving the maximum return for the wage dollar and for putting forward, whenever possible, ideas concerning ways in which management can effect savings and increase efficiency. In addition, labour has the responsibility for not making demands without having regard to the effect of such demands on other sectors of the population and on the economy as a whole. Certainly, both labour and management must realize that the welfare of each is bound up with the welfare of the other. They must learn to co-operate, because our country cannot afford a conflict between capital and labour. They must work together not only to prosper but to survive.
I think we all realize that we cannot solve this problem by pointing the finger at each other or by trying to fix the blame on each other. We must recognize that unemployment presents us with a tremendous problem and that "the fault is not in our stars" but in ourselves. No matter what measures are taken by the government, by industry or by labour, they will not work unless a determined effort is put forward to make them work. The human factor is all important, and we must

make a definite and determined effort to improve human relationships at all levels. Anyone who exploits difficulties in human relationships in order to cause friction is not only an enemy of Canada but an enemy of freedom.
Before I close I want to bring to the minister's attention once again a problem which I have already mentioned in this house on several occasions. If I remember correctly the minister promised that he would look into this, but my latest inquiries show that nothing has been done to date. I refer to the system by which government employees in the various maritime provinces are paid. I know that the minister's department maintains an office in St. John's where there is an employee who collects figures as to prevailing rates in different parts of the province. The rates paid by the government are based largely on the figures gathered by this employee on the advice he gets from the sources he consults.
I want to point out to the minister once again that the samples which this office collects are taken from too small an area. In fact I think we should not have differences of pay as between the maritime provinces, but that we should regard them as one single area and make the same rates of pay for government employees prevail throughout the whole Atlantic region. It seems to me preposterous that a person working on a ship, doing the same work as his colleagues and working in the same area, should receive less pay because, for example, he was recruited in Newfoundland. Yet men recruited in Newfoundland get one rate of pay, those recruited in Nova Scotia get another, and those recruited in Quebec get still another.
That situation prevails on the boats oper-rated by the hydrographic survey branch, on the icebreakers operated by the Department of Transport, and on other ships. These ships are doing the same work, are interchangeable and move from one area to the other. I feel there is a great injustice-one could almost call it discrimination-resulting from the system of prevailing rates which the government uses in calculating the wages of these employees. I urge the minister to take action with respect to this problem. I suggest that the only equitable way of dealing with it is to establish a standard scale of wages to apply throughout the whole maritime area.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member takes his seat I think it right that I should point out for the record that the problem of the rates of pay for Newfoundland seamen on Canadian government ships is now receiving active study and consideration, at least in the Department of Transport, with a view to having the rates
Supply-Labour
adjusted to put these men on a more equitable basis with their counterparts in the other maritime provinces.


Chesley William Carter: I am glad to have that information from my hon. friend, but I wish to point out that in addition to the Department of Transport being involved the problem extends to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Fisheries and even to the customs branch, which operates some ships. The problem is not confined only to people employed on the ships, but applies also to those who work in other fields. We should have a general policy for the maritime area with regard to government employees, under which we would give them equal pay for equal work.


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Chairman, during the course of his remarks on an earlier occasion in the discussion of this item the hon. member for Skeena introduced questions arising out of the wages paid prevailing rates employees in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax. It is well known that hon. members are occasionally required to be away from the chamber and that was my position when the hon. gentleman was speaking of these matters. I note that the hon. member who raised the subject has himself just been called from the chamber. It is ironic that while the hon. member was presenting the situation to the committee with something less than accuracy I was meeting with representatives of the Department of National Defence on the question. Because it is a matter that relates to the area represented in this chamber by the taller hon. member for Halifax and myself, I feel perhaps I should say a few words concerning it.
The question of the wages paid prevailing rates employees in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, I suggest is not one which should be exacerbated by inaccuracies on the part of people who are not acquainted with the area nor fully knowledgeable with respect to the matter and, indeed, whose motivation might appear to be more related to a partisan attitude than one of true interest in the welfare of the workmen involved. There were major inaccuracies in the statement offered to the committee by the hon. member for Skeena.
I do not wish at any time to confine myself to a simple denial of inaccuracies emanating from an hon. gentleman who it perhaps would not be realistic to expect to be accurate.
I cannot refrain from commenting that it was a source of amazement to me that the hon. member for Skeena, British Columbia, should find it desirable to speak in this chamber about a problem that obtains at the other end of the country, when surely there are problems in the area from which he

Supply-Labour
comes to which he might more usefully attend. However, this is happily a free country, and it is wholly within the prerogative of any hon. member to raise in this chamber a matter of consequence to any constituency in Canada.
I do not deny the seriousness of the situation in the dockyard, but I feel I owe it to my constituents to place on the record a more accurate version of the situation, and perhaps hon. members of the committee will consider it useful that I do so. I might say that these facts are all known to the Minister of Labour whose estimates are now before us. Only 72 hours have elapsed since I last spoke to him about this question. The minister is personally familiar with the inaccurate references in which the hon. member for Skeena indulged.
For instance, the hon. gentleman said there have been occasional walkouts at the dockyard in Halifax. If this were true, and I hasten to say it is not, it would be a matter of concern to all hon. members, because the dockyard there is now the abode of two thirds of the ships, officers and men of the Eoyal Canadian Navy. At a time when hon. members of all parties have acknowledged the gravity of the international situation it would be a matter of consequence if workmen in this area were engaging in itinerant walkouts. There has been none at the dockyard.
1 am not suggesting that the workmen at the dockyard should be denied or should deny themselves any rights to which they feel entitled, but when a misstatement of fact has been made it requires immediate correction. The men have not walked out. Occasional union meetings have been held, but the men have not walked off the job in the dockyard. I for one, and my colleague from Halifax for another, are doing everything in our power to bring about a situation in which the men there will find it not in their interest to take steps of the kind referred to.
Among other things, the hon. gentleman said yesterday that there used to be an arrangement for starred rate differentials for extra skills. That arrangement still exists. Dockyard employees in certain trades and skills receive a starred differential of 5 cents an hour over shipyard rates.
The hon. member suggested that the interdepartmental committee meets in secret. The committee occasionally meets in Ottawa and has done so with increasing frequency in the last few weeks. It has to meet here in an effort to settle the employees' demands. Men are available to come to Ottawa at any time. Last evening I was speaking by long distance telephone to one of the representatives of the

employees. I have done this practically every day for the last ten days. They are available to come here and are anxious to co-operate in settling the matter. They were here three weeks ago and are eager to come again to any meeting which might be useful. The interdepartmental committee did not meet in secret when it met in Halifax. It met with representatives of the men and heard their wage demands.
What is the background of the current request of prevailing rates trades in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, for an increase in wages? It was in the apparent interest of dockyard prevailing rates employees in the past to be identified for pay purposes with comparable trades in the private shipbuilding and repair industry. Although we have great confidence that the recent shipbuilding construction assistance program announced by the Minister of Transport will bring about a useful change in this area, over recent years it has been possible for contracting companies and their representatives to negotiate wage agreements with their employees that have been more favourable than those that have been negotiated by shipyards workers' representatives. So that historically in the past dockyard employees found it apparently in their interest to be identified with shipyard wages.
Now they do not. When it was in their interest they wanted to be identified with shipyard rates. Now that it is not in their apparent interest they do not want to be identified with shipyard rates. We can all understand this; we can all understand they would want to move to a higher wage level with which they could compare their wages. There is no secret about the prevailing rates policy. Essentially it means that prevailing rates employees in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, are identified with comparable shipyards trades.
Well, as I have said, over a period of years in the past they found this in their interest. Now they do not; therefore they want to move away from it, but the government policy is to identify dockyard employees with shipyard rates. I point out that it does this not only in the Halifax dockyard but also in Esquimalt; therefore any change in this policy must be one that affects both Halifax and Esquimalt. It is understandable that the prevailing rates trades in H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, would want to move away from what they consider to be lower comparable shipyards rates. What they are asking for is a fundamental change in government policy.
The hon. member who spoke yesterday, the itinerant British Columbian who came in here with his inaccuracies, asserted that simply because the government has not immediately accepted the whole demand of the prevailing

rates employees it is procrastinating, nefarious, or doing something that is against the workers' interest. I venture the opinion that I am at least as well informed about the dockyard employees in the Halifax area as is the hon. member for Skeena. I had better be. 1 have met with them at times when they were drafting reports to government. I have talked to them on regular occasions in the dockyard, and I am in constant and daily communication with their representatives in the present circumstances.
The hon. member for Skeena did not find it possible yesterday to mention that the dockyard prevailing rate employees were just granted a 6 cents an hour increase, 3 cents of which was retroactive for a full 12 months. This 6 cents an hour increase did not satisfy the dockyard workers in Halifax. It did not satisfy them because it simply retained the adhesion of dockyard rates to shipyards rates. I understand that, but they have had a 6 cents increase as a way toward full justice. It is asserted that there is no apparent solution to the problem. The hon. gentleman said at page 8610 of Hansard:
No action has been taken toward a solution, nor is there any indication that a solution will be arrived at.
After the meeting with the workmen in Halifax, the interdepartmental committee reported last April to treasury board, and treasury board decided against the application of dockyard employees in Halifax for increased wages. This was disappointing to the workmen; in many instances it was inflammatory to them. That is not unreasonable with respect to men who apply for wage increases when they do not get them immediately, and do not get all of them. This does not mean that a workman can reasonably go out and accuse the man who refuses it of being a blackguard or a procrastinator. What happened was that the men did not satisfy treasury board of the adequacy of their case. There was no secrecy about the treasury board ruling in this matter.
I invited the representatives of the seven prevailing rates locals in H.M.C. Dockyard to come to Ottawa. They said they were prepared to do that and are now prepared to do it with responsible and reasonable action. I invited them to come to Ottawa and I personally told them of the treasury board decision and the reasons for it, in a room in this very House of Commons. As one of their two members I would have been glad to give them happier information; we would all be glad to see our people get wages higher than they are now getting. No member of parliament is going to turn it down. But they wanted an answer, and they received one. It was not
Supply-Labour
the one they wanted, but it was not procrastination. It was a judgment that they had not made their case, and they were given explicit reasons why treasury board had reached that decision.
The very next day, in my presence, those seven representatives of H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, were given a personal assurance by the Associate Minister of National Defence that when they appealed that ruling he would see that their appeal was reconsidered. They went away from here unsatisfied with the result of the treasury board hearing. They were disappointed with the result, but they were assured that they had access to appeal procedure.
What is unfair about that? They went back to Halifax and drafted an appeal and sent it to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Then two of them, Mr. Hayter and Mr. Lyons, came here from the N.D.E.A. conference in Montreal. Again they had a meeting with the Associate Minister of National Defence, which I arranged for them at their request. They were told by the minister that in his judgment this appeal would require at least until September 30 for full consideration by treasury board. There was no procrastination; there was no delay, and no deception was practised. There was an honourable statement by an honourable minister that it would take some time to handle the appeal, because it was a request to upset a ruling and to change a fundamental labour policy.
Well, it is not September 30 yet. In their wisdom the men have issued a statement that this is not the time to threaten the government; that the government will not act faster if it is under an ultimatum. In any event, the deadline of at least September 30 has not arrived. I am not the spokesman for treasury board. Treasury board did advise me, as it would advise any member of the house if he sought the information, which apparently the hon. member who spoke yesterday did not bother to do. They had a meeting last Thursday and gave initial consideration as a body to this wage appeal. They are still considering the matter and searching for a formula, perhaps not one that will satisfy all the demands of the workmen but one that will at least go part way toward doing so.
The workmen at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax, work in an area which is at the very heart of Canada's connection with the sea and with the men who sail the sea. Halifax was founded as a naval fortress. Its dockyard has been in existence for more than 200 years. When parts of this country were bald prairie, men worked on ships in the Halifax dockyard. These men, the descendants of Nova Scotia seamen and ship workers, in my opinion are not going to

Supply-Labour
allow unreasonable, unreasoning or misguided representation of their case in this house by others to deter them from their advocacy of higher wages in a reasonable, just and fair way.
We have all sought higher wages. In my private life I have often sought higher wages which I thought I deserved but did not get. We have all done that. You do not always get everything you go after, but you do get fairness, you do get justice and certainly you do get a fair hearing. Here in a critical defence installation, and having in mind that in any ultimate war Canada's commitment within NATO will nowhere be more intensive than it will be at sea, two thirds of the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are based. Here in this dockyard in the fortress city of Halifax may lie the last hope we have within the NATO infrastructure to preserve our commitment to NATO; and to leave the inference that the dockyard workers are about to fling down their tools and leave their jobs is something to which I cannot subscribe. I say that as one of their representatives, as one who has been in closer contact with them than the member who sought to be their self appointed champion yesterday.
I do not deny that it is the right of any member to speak about any public issue anywhere in Canada, but I have been told that the dockyard workers did not want that speech to be made. I have been told that their international representatives have been talking to representatives of the New Democratic party, C.C.F. party of whatever it is. As the representative of my people I am not here to lecture them on how they should do their business. I am not here to tell them things which will cause divisiveness between the locals in Halifax and their international representatives. But I do want to say this on my full responsibility as one of the members for Halifax. No international representative of the dockyard locals has been in touch with either of the Halifax members, but they have been in touch in an inaccurate way with the C.C.F. members.
I say that the issues involved in seeking to do justice to H.M.C. Dockyard employees and to keep the fleet in being and at sea at a more critical time than any in recent years are difficult and complex. These workmen in Halifax know that they live in a prime target area, that they will have to endure things which other Canadians may not be called upon to endure but would if they had to, and their duty and desire now is to keep the fleet in being and at sea.
I am not going to get away from cogency and relevancy so far as this item is concerned, but the other day we heard a spokesman for the Liberal party say that the ships of the

Royal Canadian Navy are not capable of dealing with anything. That was an insult to the Royal Canadian Navy and the workmen who keep the ships at sea. I know something about the matter, because I have served with the Royal Canadian Navy. I know its competency. I am not going to stand here and say how many workmen are involved at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax. If somebody wants to get the information they can try, but I regard the number as a security figure. The number has increased in the last four or five years, and other things have been done to help labour. Only this week a $753,000 contract for a new building at the dockyard was announced, one of many to provide more jobs for more workmen in order to keep our increasingly complex ships at sea.
We are faced with a grave situation requiring that our ships be kept at sea. At the same time the men must not be denied their rights and must be treated with justice so far as their wage demands are concerned. As one who meets daily with the Associate Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Labour and officials of the Department of National Defence, and who is in touch with the men's representatives in Halifax by telephone and by letter, I am aware of the willingness and the desire of their representatives to come here whenever they can be of help. I am also aware of the assurance that they are welcome to come here and talk to us. It was asserted yesterday that nobody in authority would talk to them. The commodore superintendent of H.M.C. Dockyard came here only ten days ago to meet an interdepartmental committee on behalf of the men.
Having in mind our NATO commitments and the necessity of keeping the ships at sea and in good condition on behalf of Canada and Canadians, everything fair, reasonable and just is being done to extend justice and fairness to the men in solving these complex problems. To have the suspicion cast yesterday that there was a playing of politics with regard to this matter harms, I suggest, every individual tradesman in the dockyard. While I said earlier and say again that it is no function of a member to lecture his constituents but only to serve them and keep in constant communication with them, and while they are at liberty to consult any member of the house they wish, I say that they did not consult the member who spoke yesterday. Somebody else did, and did so in an inaccurate way. I say to them in a quiet voice that if they seek other champions that is their right, but for goodness sake seek them among members who at least have some esteem and reputation in the house,

(Translation):


Mr. Deschalelels:: Mr. Chairman, the study of the labour department's estimates is extremely important, because they have to do with the major domestic problem of Canada, namely unemployment which affects not only the man or the woman concerned, but also and to the same extent, the children.
At the very outset of my remarks, I want to address a criticism to the government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). Last winter, we had one of the worst unemployment problems since the years 1930-35. There are figures to support that fact.
If the government and the Minister of Labour had really applied themselves to seek at least a short term solution to this serious problem, they would have then put before the house this department's estimates which were of the utmost importance at that time.
It will be remembered that these estimates have already been considered on one particular day; this study is now being resumed. The reasons for this delay in considering the department's estimates are very obvious; the Conservative government is always reluctant to deal openly with this problem. It has always attempted to minimize its full significance, if not to prevent any discussion of the matter.
I can easily prove this statement. The standing committee on industrial relations held practically no sittings since 1958. It is actually the committee that has held fewer sittings that any other committee of the house, and again, the figures are there to prove it.
Whenever this committee sits, as it used to do before 1958, under the previous administration-I was one of its members, so I know what I am talking about-the Minister of Labour attends the sittings with his officers and it is possible to consider matters of concern to the great majority of Canadians.
Most interesting studies could have been carried out in 1958, 1959 and 1960 by this committee on industrial relations, such as the study of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to make the regulations more flexible and effective in case of serious unemployment, the consideration of means to replenish the unemployment insurance fund, the examination of short term measures to bring the speediest possible relief to the districts most heavily hit by unemployment.
It will be recalled that immediately after he took over the presidency of the United
Supply-Labour
States, Mr. Kennedy ordered investigations to be carried out on the spot in order to remedy unemployment in the districts where it was most prevalent.
We could have taken more adequate steps regarding several aspects of unemployment. We could, for instance, have found out the approximate number of unemployed and compiled the trades and occupations most heavily hit. There is no doubt that it was the responsibility of the members of this House of Commons to do that but they were not allowed to discharge that responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, those are problems which the industrial relations committee had not only the power but the duty to examine. It did nothing of the sort, it did not even sit except once a year to determine its organization. We must then ask ourselves: Who is responsible for that? Who has constantly prevented the members of the house from coming to grips with this problem of employment and unemployment?
There is no use to ask that question to the government and to the minister himself, who is an ex officio member of the committee, both of whom must bear the responsibility not only of their negligence but also for this insult to the house.
It will be recalled that the Liberal opposition tried on several occasions since 1958- here in the house and in the industrial relations committee, which sat only a few times -to force the government to undertake a thorough study of the unemployment question but on each occasion the Conservative majority prevented any discussion of that problem.
When one speaks of unemployment today, one must consider the problem over a number of years, naturally since 1958; that is the government's responsibility.
I am sure that when the day of reckoning comes around, the government will have some explaining to do to the electors of this country concerning this inertia of the industrial relations committee where members were prevented from discussing unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, I mentioned a few minutes ago the figures provided monthly by the dominion bureau of statistics. These figures must be accepted, but they give a very incomplete picture of the actual situation. That leads me to a strange discovery. During the period from 1953 to 1957, while unemploy-

Supply-Labour
ment on a yearly basis never exceeded 2.8 per cent of the labour force, which means full employment, our friends of the Conservative party, including the Minister of Labour-I have reread several of his speeches -were rejecting the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, claiming that they were not representative of the true situation. Moreover the present Minister of Labour himself was contending tooth and nail that the figures submitted by the national employment service were the only true and significant ones.
We, in the Liberal party, at least had the decency to issue each month both sets of figures, those of the national employment service and of the dominion bureau of statistics. Well, for a year now, thanks to the decision of the Minister of Labour, figures of the national employment service have not been released to the public. That service which, month after month, compiles the number of applications for benefits and applications for jobs is still submitting monthly figures to the minister, but we do not know what these figures are, because they are not included in the reports given us. Therefore we are now unable to obtain the figures compiled by the various offices of the service, unless a question is put on the orders of the day.
Mr. Chairman, the minister, in his preliminary remarks on the estimates of his department, and also the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) stated with great satisfaction that during August, 1961, according to figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, the unemployed totalled 323,000 while there were 352,000 in August, 1960, a decrease of 29,000. The Associate Minister of National Defence needed no more to declare that today we had full prosperity.
I should like to point out to the Associate Minister of National Defence that the figures for August, 1960, were the highest for that month since the 1930-35 depression and that the figures just released for August, 1961 are the second highest since the 1960 recession.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) spoke of the seriousness of unemployment in this country and compared this situation to the one existing in several (European countries. He mentioned some and I wish to add a few more. According to the international labour office, from 1957 to 1960 inclusive, the Federal Republic of Western Germany experienced an average unemployment level of 2.6 per cent, the Netherlands, 1.6 per cent, Norway, 1.9 per cent and Sweden, 2 per cent.
IMr. Deschatelets.]
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the situation is still quite serious and the figures will keep going up. I say, without preaching doom and gloom, that what happened in 1958 will happen again because this government has not taken steps to improve the situation. I might recall what took place since 1958 to show why I say that we shall see again this year what happened at that time.
It will be remembered that in 1958, the Minister of Labour and the government considered the matter lightly, since it was mentioned in the speech from the throne of that year that unemployment was a seasonal problem. At that time, the government did not see how serious that problem was and, of course, they could not take the necessary steps. In 1959, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) announced that the economy had surged forward and that we had emerged from the recession. Once again, he missed the boat and events proved him wrong.
In his budget speech of 1960, the Minister of Finance forecast an upswing, that is an increase of 6 per cent in the gross national product for a surplus of $12 million. Everyone knows how wrong he was and you will recall that in the same 1960 budget speech the Minister of Finance uttered these historic words:
I am confident that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities.
Those words are quite typical of the government's approach to the unemployment problem. The government's record as far as unemployment is concerned is here for all to see and flighty speeches like those of the Associate Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Yalade) cannot change the situation. When the time comes for the people to pass judgment, sooner or later, we shall reveal this record in detail and we ask the Canadian voters to judge objectively this government which has refused to give serious consideration to those problems, with the result that for the last three years, thousands of our fellow countrymen to whom had been given the solemn pledge "No one will suffer", have endured undeserved hardship.
The Associate Minister of National Defence tried yesterday to excuse his government's disinterest in the matter of unemployment by claiming, quite wrongly, that the heritage we had left them in 1957 was the true cause of the present situation.
I should like to put once again on record the figures that have been there since

March 2, 1960 at least, when the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) quoted them, in order to recall them to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) and to those who would like to try, as lightly and erroneously, to put the blame on the previous government.
On March 2, 1960, the hon. member for Laurier, during the course of his remarks, quoted the following figures from the supplement to the Statistical Review of Canada, 1957. He had first given, for the years 1946 to 1949, the percentage of unemployed workers, based on a full year. So, here they are:
In 1946, 2.9 per cent. In 1947, 2 per cent. In 1948, 2 per cent. In 1949, 2.6 per cent. In 1950, 3.2 per cent. In 1951, 2 per cent. In 1952, 2.4 per cent. In 1953, 2.5 per cent In 1954, 4.2 per cent. In 1955, 4.1 per cent. In 1956, 3.1 per cent. In 1957, 4.3 per cent. In 1958, 6.6 per cent; and in 1959, 5.6 per cent.
Those are facts that no one can deny. However, I will add another proof which appears to me even more convincing, because the Associate Minister of National Defence is not the only one, there is also the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion). The latter, in several speeches he has made within the last year, across the country, has attempted to have the people believe that the present situation was inherited from the previous government.
Well, there is one standard we can admit, and which makes it possible to compare the responsibility of the previous government with that of this government in regard to unemployment. When we left the administration in June 1957, the unemployment fund amounted to more than $900 million. In 1956, when I was a member of the industrial relations committee which had examined this matter, the fund amounted to $926 million, if my memory serves me right. The expert we questioned at the time had stated that, if the fund sank below $500 million, it would be in jeopardy. Now, when we left the administration, there were $926 million in the fund. If, all those years until 1957, unemployment had been as serious as it is today, there would not have been $926 million left in the fund; anyone in good faith will admit that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: When this government came into power the unemployment insurance fund, as I said, contained $926 million. Well, three years later, in 1961, this amount has practically dwindled into nothing, in spite of the sums which were paid into the fund.
Supply-Labour
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the unemployment insurance fund is the best yardstick to measure the responsibility of the former administration and that of this administration. No speech can change this yardstick, and I would even invite the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to comment upon the matter.
Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of dealing with that subject. The question of responsibility with regard to the present situation is purely academic and of no interest to the jobless. What the Canadian citizen is interested in today, is to know whether those who have jobs are going to keep them and whether those who are out of work are going to find work.
I made that review only because, after the speeches of the Associate Minister of National Defence, someone had to put the record straight.
Since 1958 the Liberal party has made suggestions which were all ignored by this government. Only yesterday the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) put on the record suggestions which, in some form or other, had been made since 1958.
I remember that on March 2, 1960, the hon. member for Laurier (Hon. Mr. Chevrier) made 25 suggestions and recommendations in this house, but they were never seriously considered by the government. I therefore submit that the responsibility for the present unemployment situation can be easily established. In 1958, when the Prime Minister, for reasons well known to himself flourished the secret report on economic prospects, I submit he was flourishing then a boomerang which will come back and strike him at the next election.
When, in 1958, the Prime Minister discussed the secret report on economic prospects, he publicly acknowledged the forecast of the government economic experts who warned him of a threatening recession. The government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour ignored those warnings, except when they made use of them to the end we all know.
Mr. Chairman, I come now to a matter discussed yesterday by the Associate Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), the problem of unemployment in the province of Quebec. There is nothing new in the fact that the number of unemployed is proportionately higher in Quebec than in any other Canadian province. I am most surprised that the Associate Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for St. Mary have just found that out. As a matter of fact, it has always been so since 1944. Because of yesterday's speeches, I will now have to

Supply-Labour
mention what I consider to be the causes of that situation in the province of Quebec.
Here are a few. Hon. members will recall that from 1944 until his death, Mr. Duplessis did not stop saying:	"Unemployment is
Ottawa's business. Quebec has no responsibility as far as unemployment is concerned." I dare the government members from Quebec to deny that well-known fact.
Mr. Duplessis was not at all interested in unemployment; it was no concern of his. He passed the buck to the federal government and never bothered giving excuses for having done nothing. He said: "I do not do a thing, this is not my business". And that situation lasted from 1944 until his death.
Another reason is Mr. Duplessis' refusal to participate in the joint plans and to accept his share of the amounts which rightly belonged to the citizens of the province of Quebec as to those of all the provinces. The specialists who examined that question of Quebec's refusal to accept her due share of those amounts estimated to about $100 million the unwarranted loss suffered by the people of Quebec.
A third reason is the neglect of the government of the province of Quebec in the field of education. And we know the courageous reforms of the present Liberal administration, embarked upon to make education accessible to all and to reduce by such steps the possibilities of unemployment, because in my opinion there is in Quebec a direct relationship between the current unemployment situation and the neglect we witnessed in the field of education.
A fourth reason is that Quebec had refused in the last few years to participate in the winter works program and everyone knows that when Mr. Lesage assumed the direction of the province of Quebec, he accepted to take part in this program because he deemed it necessary and in the interest of the citizens of Quebec.
As a matter of fact, he did more than accept to participate, because Quebec was the first province to grant a supplementary subsidy of 40 per cent towards the cost of labour over and above the 50 per cent paid by the federal government, and that example was fortunately followed by several other provinces.
Mr. Chairman, we know that on October 5 next Quebec will open a trade bureau in Paris, and then another one in London, in 1962, to promote the sale of its products and to enable industrialists to export, and this will create a much more favourable atmosphere for employment in Quebec.
We also know that a steel complex will soon be developed in the province of Quebec and

if sometimes we easily forget all the steps taken by the Liberal government of the province of Quebec, I feel that the people of Quebec will never forget the courageous attitude of its premier when he said: "I recognize that the province has a responsibility as far as the unemployment problem is concerned". It is most obvious that there is a provincial and municipal responsibility as well as a federal responsibility, but when he did that, his stand was a courageous one.
Mr. Chairman, I have wanted to set forth those facts in order to reply to the rather childish remarks made by the Associate Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for St. Mary.
Since 1958, the situation has become unbearable for thousands of Canadians, and I repeat that the present federal government must take upon itself the responsibility for this serious situation which is due to its own carelessness in face of the unemployment problem, and which is also the direct result of its fiscal and monetary policy.
When you consider all these points, you no longer wonder that the Prime Minister has not dared to put into effect his threat of an election, for the record of this government, with regard to unemployment is a very doubtful one to bring forward before the Canadian people. Sooner or later, there will be an election. The Prime Minister cannot unduly set it back, even if he dreads it. Then we will objectively put forward to the Canadian people the failure of this government with regard to unemployment, and then we will explain with confidence our policy of full employment, which is well known.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, I should like to quote a few words by His Excellency Cardinal Leger who stated as reported in Le Droit of September 18 1958:
The right to work is a natural right. It corresponds to the duty to work in order to meet one's own needs. And Cardinal Leger recalled the statements made on December 24, 1952 by Pope Pius XII on this matter:
"Human solidarity requires, not only in the name of brotherly love but even also for the mutual benefits derived thereof, the use of all possible means to preserve employment and to create new jobs".
This, Mr. Chairman, is our approach to the problem, and I might add that we are the only political party with a record in this regard.
(Text):
And now if my hon. friend has a question I shall be pleased to accept it.
(Translation):


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a question to the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont. Following the plea he has

just made for the Liberal government in the province of Quebec, would the hon. member tell me if the Hon. Rene Hamel has approved the Liberal policy advocated during the provincial election campaign in 1960 as to unemployment, when Mr. Lesage admitted the existence of a provincial responsibility?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the question put by the hon. member.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member if the Hon. Rene Hamel, a colleague of Mr. Lesage's in the legislative assembly, shares the views of Mr. Lesage on the responsibility of the provincial government as far as unemployment is concerned.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot give an answer to this question.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, since the house is in committee, I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the hon. member who just resumed his seat that, on Saturday, July 9, 1960, during a televised program from Montreal, the following question was put to Hon. Rene Hamel, minister of labour in the Quebec Liberal cabinet:
What do you intend to do about unemployment, Mr. Hamel?
Here is what Mr. Hamel answered:
Unemployment is not our problem; that concerns the federal government.
That statement was made by Mr. Hamel on the television network.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of that statement, but I know very well that the Quebec premier took a courageous stand.


Mr. English:: Which one?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: After Mr. Duplessis had stated that unemployment was no concern of his, he was the first one to say: "1 recognize that the Quebec government has a responsibility concerning unemployment". At that time, Mr. Lesage was speaking not only as a great Liberal leader, but as a Canadian who considers that the unemployment problem should be a matter of interest to all those whose responsibility it is to see that all Canadians find work in order to provide for their families.
(Text):


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Chairman, on April 26, 1957 in a major address the Conservative leader promised full employment and high living standards as a primary goal toward which the Conservative government would work. A similar statement has been made by the Prime Minister in different addresses at various times, but the key phrase has changed in the interval that has elapsed. We are familiar with the expression that no Canadian
Supply-Labour
would suffer as a result of unemployment, and with the further extension which crept in at a later date when the right hon. gentleman said that no Canadian would suffer as a result of unemployment "so long as public works and that type of thing will provide them the immediate assistance they require".
We know that on June 22, 1957, the day after this administration took office, there were 162,000 persons without jobs and seeking work, and we have learned that as of August, 1961 the number was 323,000. The Daily News of March 10, 1960, with respect to the unemployment debate held at that time had this to say:
About all that came out of the debate was the admission of the labour minister, Mr. Starr, that while opposition proposals might have long range possibilities, they could not provide more jobs right away.
More than a year has elapsed since that date. The Leader of the Opposition in speaking on this subject has pointed out the urgent importance of the crash program. In examining what has been said and done on the part of the government up to this point it would appear that the only crash program envisaged by the government in the foreseeable future is some proposal that is to come up relating to shelters, and training soldiers without adequate weapons and equipment.
I put it to this committee that there was a time when the Department of Labour was a dynamic, creative department. We remember that it was set up in the first instance by a student of economics and social studies who believed that there was something creative, something seminal, in this department which would spread out its good works into almost every other phase of government.
It seems inconceivable that the Department of Labour can continue in any really effective way without the closest co-operation with the Department of Finance, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Public Works and, in days as critical as these, surely with the Department of National Defence. We on this side wonder at times whether there is that close interchange of ideas among experts in the various departments of government, and perhaps particularly between the departments of finance and labour. We know that each department employs some extremely able people. Are these talking back and forth? Are they exchanging ideas and co-operating in working out ways and means of lifting the economy of this country from the slump it has sustained? Is there close intimate co-operation among the Department of Labour and the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Public Works?
A few days ago we listened while at considerable length the Minister of Public Works

Supply-Labour
outlined the program of his department. We could not fail to compare his program with some of the major projects that have emanated from that department as recently as a few years ago. I recall that when this administration took office it hastened to accept full credit for the work done at Ripple Rock. From everything we have been able to discover the project was well under way at the time the Conservatives took over, and indeed had reached the final stage.
This administration was very happy to enter into all the ceremonies and take all the honours that went with the opening of the seaway, but has it been responsible for one measure of any importance which will serve the purpose that the hon. member for Essex East referred to, namely a crash program, something to lift the economy? My own constituency is considered to be very wealthy, comparatively speaking; from an insurance standpoint it is one of the best places in the dominion in which to do business. In the neighbourhood in which we live we have people of fine technical training who have been unable to find work in the past two years. Men with children are going through very real hardship. I know of two families that have left for New Zealand. In both instances the husbands were veterans. One of them had served in the army and the other in the navy. They had acquired skills and had come to the point where they did not have much in the way of a future in my home town.
We read a few days ago about Canada day being celebrated in California. At this celebration there were something in excess of 2,500 former employees of the Avro plant in Toronto. We wonder about these things. We wonder why it is that 500 Canadians are needed so urgently by Loblaws in London. We wonder why it is that Canadians are so eager and anxious to rush off to England. We are now suffering from a major emigration problem. We look at our universities and see the work that is being done there training people in the professions and in the highly developed fields of graduate work in science, and so on. Many of these people who are actually getting this training will have a bright future in the United States or indeed in Europe. We wonder why this is.
A number of things have been suggested but I am wondering whether this department has really gone to sleep and become crystallized. Has it simply become functional only? Has the Minister of Finance been talking to the Minister of Labour as little as he obviously did to the former governor of the Bank of Canada? Is there any real integration between the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Works? Are conversations going on between the Minister of Labour

and the Minister of National Defence, who now talks in terms of expanding our army in some rather substantial way? Thank goodness; otherwise those people would be in the position of receiving unemployment insurance benefits along with the discouragement that go with them.
Has the Minister of Labour in any real way said to the Minister of National Defence, "Look here, you have an opportunity to train young Canadians in uniform". Is this training harmonized in any way with their future opportunities in civil life? We know that even during the terrible days of world war II it was a constant consideration of the government that the men who were in uniform should be doing work which eventually would serve some useful purpose, if such were possible. We had the nucleus of a merchant service. I am speaking now in terms of the navy. We had the possibilities of expansion in our air industry.
All these things seem to have gone by the board. When we look at the statistics before us I question seriously whether this type of broad, generous, harmonized program is taking place at all. Are our departments simply functioning because there is no impetus, steam, drive or imagination left in them at all?
One of the things that encouraged me most in recent months as a Canadian was the suggestion that in this country we were going to do something to upgrade our skills and technical resources. Is it preposterous to think that portable pensions would improve the opportunities of a person with technical and scientific skill so that he could move from one place to another and continually improve himself? He could move from the shop to the school, to the university and back again. Therefore a man with perhaps no high school training but with a high degree of technical training might end up in a very high income bracket. If this were done it would be an encouragement to many people. We recall that many of the most creative people have been without university training and without even any advanced mathematical training at all. Is it possible that Canada could move into this league, where a person who has imagination and creative abilities and is willing to work would have unlimited possibilities? In the Windsor Star of November 8, 1960 there is a story under the heading:
Jobless to receive training.
All provinces taking part in program.
It reads in part as follows:
Hon. Michael Starr told the meeting "a number" of provinces have indicated they are doubling the programs and that one province plans to increase its training by 400 per cent.

We shall be listening with very keen interest to a report of the progress that has been made within one month after the announcement. This is rather important. An article appeared in Saturday Night of March 4, 1961 in a different vein. I wonder what are the true facts when after all this talk of upgrading skills and after all this urgent consideration we find that Canada is lagging seriously behind other countries in so far as technical training is concerned. This article was written by Frank Drea, and is headed, "Nibbling At the Edge of Unemployment". I should like to read three short paragraphs, as follows:
However, the retraining program is already too little and may be too late to save the nation from being dragged down to a second rate industrial power by the weight of its misery class-the jobless whose lack of skills threaten to keep them on the dole for the rest of their lives.
Ontario, with at least 127,000 persons out of work last November, was then busy retraining nine workers-six of them in commercial courses and three of them as welders.
From April to November of last year, Ontario retrained either 43 or 65 workers, depending on which set of figures is used. Whether the nine in November were being retrained under the controversial schedule M of the vocational training act is a controversy in itself.
In Toronto, where unemployment insurance benefits alone amount to more than $1 million a week and more than 60,000 are jobless, there is not one place where the idle may seek retraining

unless they use most of their meagre jobless benefits to pay for such training.
I am a person from a small town and I know this is true in the smaller cities and towns of the province.
Will you call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Chairman, the shocking figure of 323,000 unemployed during the month of August is not attributable solely, of course, to failure on the part of the Department of Labour, and I hope my remarks did not suggest that. What I have been attempting to suggest is that there is always a need in this country for a flexible policy with relation to economics which involves the closest and most intimate harmony among finance, trade and commerce, public works, defence production and no doubt defence as well as labour.
Before the recess I was speaking about the matter of technical education, to which a great deal of attention has been given in every country in the world. We are aware of the interest of the department by reason of commonwealth technical training week, which took place from May 29 to June 4, 1961. The material
Supply-Labour
that has been prepared with respect to this subject poses the problem but seems to supply none of the answers. I will be interested to learn during the course of discussion of these estimates what answers have been discovered, because there are many people in Canada who know something about this problem. I refer the minister to the excellent compilation of articles by Mr. J. Bascom St. John, which appeared in the Globe and Mail beginning on May 7, 1958. They have been published under the heading "Technical Education". I should like to read the foreword to that publication. The editor says:
In almost all western countries, the startling technological achievements of Soviet Russia have inspired a renewed interest in the quality and types of education available to our young people, especially in the technical field. Some controversy exists as to whether technical education in Ontario is fulfilling the expectations held forth when a need for it was first recognized about 60 years ago.
The concluding article in the series refers to the fact that this is a matter that has been given close attention in almost all modern European countries and in Great Britain following the Russian example. Under the chapter headed "Ontario Program Needs Reform" there is the following:
That something ought to be done is evident from the cost of technical education.
Many other excellent studies have been developed on this subject, and in this regard Britain leads the way. I have here a publication issued by the federation of British industries entitled "Further Education for Those in Industry and Commerce", which deals with this problem in some detail. We are familiar with the book "Technical Education and Social Change", published in Britain, and I quote the following from page 205:
Yet this study indicates the need for a radical rethinking of the system of further education in its relations to the social structure if the demands for trained manpower are to be met... Rapid change will require political action ...
We know there has been rapid change. Has there been any real political action? In the booklet-


Mr. Graffley:: What booklet are you holding? What do you call it?


John Ross Matheson: I am holding a booklet- I am answering the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi-which is entitled "The Record Speaks".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Ross Matheson: This is a booklet which has a portrait of the Prime Minister on the front page over the name "Canada". Under the chapter headed "Labour" there is a paragraph which reads:
Canada is living in the midst of an automation revolution. While it will be beneficial in the long

Supply-Labour
run, nevertheless this revolution has caused part of the Canadian labour force to be unemployed.
We are well aware of this fact. I should like to touch on the record, and the way the record speaks, in so far as this administration is concerned. As I develop my thoughts with respect to the productivity council may I say this. Although we do not have the technical facilities that they have in Germany or western Europe, in Japan or in the United States, in Russia or in Great Britain, nevertheless we do have something with which to start namely people who care a great deal about this problem. In the town in which I live we have a man named Ardell Wilson who has done a great deal for technical training. If he received some encouragement at the official level this man could do a great deal for the young men who	have been	walking	our	streets
wishing that the plants would take on more employees. The people who are out of work have been longing for some kind of training in the interim period, and it has not been forthcoming.
In a part of Smiths Falls just north of my riding there is a technical school, called the trades	college of	Canada.	We	can beproud of this institution which is operated by Commander Clarence W. Warner. In talking to	Mr. Warner about	the	coursesthis college offers I discovered it offered courses in	television	electronics, industrial
electronics, refrigeration and air conditioning and automotive mechanics. Smiths Falls is a small place, and if it is possible to operate such a college there it is possible to do so elsewhere.
Commander Warner was in charge of operations of our radar school during world war II, one of the important electronic installations on the allied side. The commander is presenting a course of study which is available to men between the ages of 16 and 65. He is serving people who reside in Smiths Falls, and serving those outside of Smiths Falls by mail. You may be interested to learn, Mr. Chairman, that we have navy personnel in the Queen Charlotte islands, in Fort Churchill and elsewhere in Canada who are taking technical training at considerable expense to themselves, running between $400 and $500, in order that they will be better equipped to enter the employment field in Canada. Surely this sort of thing could be done under more spirited leadership than that which has been shown in the past few months.
Another matter I think I should mention is that we must be prepared to courageously, fearlessly, and in a non-political way review the Unemployment Insurance Act. There was

an address delivered on this subject by the member for Kingston prior to the summer adjournment and I am sure the contents of that speech are worthy of examination. There are many things that could be done here. We might separate one type of employee from another, always keeping in mind the proposition that people are our most important asset. There is nothing in Canada, capital, ores, lands, transportation, that is as important as the people we have here. This is our real source of wealth.
During the question period on September 20 last I ventured to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, as reported at page 8594 of Hansard for that date. I asked how many times the productivity council had met since its appointment on February 28, 1961, and had the government received any recommendations from the council. I was interrupted during the course of this question period and no answer was given. A number of members shouted, so there was no answer.
I hope there will be an answer to this rather important question, that is whether the productivity council, which was set up so long ago, has had any meetings that have been productive. If so, what has the result been in so far as this government is concerned? It would seem to me that although this council comes under the purview of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, it is of vital significance to any consideration of the labour department estimates. Let the minister at this time tell us in a fairly expansive fashion what the situation is in this regard. I hope this question will not be cut off.
Canadians were reading for many months addresses given by the governor of the Bank of Canada to various audiences he was invited to address. Questions were directed to the Minister of Finance in respect of the policy of the government in relation to the governor, and finally we had the fiasco that took place in the early part of this summer. I ask now if the minister would be kind enough to address himself to this question of the extent to which this ministry is in sympathy with the various addresses that have been given by representatives of this productivity council. There is an article in the Hamilton Spectator of June 7, 1961 in which Mr. H. George De Young is quoted as follows:
Most of our people have no conception of the seriousness of Canada's position.
Until we get a change in attitude we will continue to have those who wish to change the productivity council to gain factional goals.
He went on to say that Canada's gross national product per person has decreased since 1956 while that of most competing countries has gone ahead. Taking 1950 as 100 Mr. De

Young gave the following estimated figures for 1960, with those for 1956 in brackets. Canada 111 (116); the United Kingdom 124 (115); France 142 (125); Germany 185 (152); Italy 175 (135); the Netherlands 140 (127); Sweden 128 (115); Japan 190 (147). I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is an extremely serious matter and should be of concern to every member in this committee.
The same speaker, Mr. H. George De Young, gave an address on May 29, 1961 in which he said:
-Canadians will have to accept change if they are to help Canada move into the organized big league of world trade.
The other day I read into the record of Hansard a reference in the London Times to the arguments that have been advanced by our Minister of Finance and Minister of Trade and Commerce, in which those arguments were referred to as "negative" and "sterile". I would be curious to know what policy, if any, this Department of Labour has with respect to growth, with respect to economic policy. Has this government any economic policy at all?


William Heward Grafftey: If you have eyes to see and ears to hear, yes.


John Ross Matheson: I am sorry; I missed the interruption by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


An hon. Member:: You did not miss anything.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: He is just talking to himself.


John Ross Matheson: The editor of the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph, which is a fairly wise newspaper that has been sensitive to trade and industry in general, and whose editor knows a great deal about commercial conditions both in Great Britain and northwest Europe, had this to say:
Canada's Industrial might cannot remain prosperous if the market is restricted to 18 million people residing within our borders.
Is it the policy of this minister, as it appears to be the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance, to be satisfied with things the way they are? We are not satisfied, Mr. Chairman, with the way things are at all. We enthusiastically support any steps this government may take with respect to putting young men in uniform and teaching them to dig shelters, and all that sort of thing, but conditions in the world are such that we feel this government is overlooking the real problem we have here. I refer to the problem of how this country is going to grow and assume its proper place in the wealth of nations.
Supply-Labour


Michael Starr: I made a full and comprehensive statement on the function of the Department of Labour when the estimates of this department were up for consideration by the committee of supply of this House of Commons some time in March, when discussions on the estimates of this department were carried on for a full two days. On rising today it is not my intention to be belligerent in any way or to be critical of the remarks that have been made so far in this debate, but rather to put on the record certain pertinent facts with respect to the unemployment situation in Canada.
Controversy has arisen as to when the present unemployment situation actually started. I am not going to enter into the argument about that aspect of the matter, but I should like to read from the report of the special committee of the Senate on manpower and employment, at page 21. There we find the following statement:
With the wisdom of hindsight one can see in the statistical record evidence of weakness emerging gradually over a period of many years.
Here they were discussing the unemployment situation. I will deal with unemployment and indicate some of the measures that have been taken by the government to correct the situation.


An hon. Member:: Deal with them all.


Michael Starr: I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that unemployment has taken a dramatic downturn in recent months. My opinion that the figures were considerably improved was confirmed when hon. members opposite failed to ask me any questions when the dominion bureau of statistics release was made the other day. This situation is quite understandable, but how different the attitude is when the figures show an increase in unemployment in this country. As a matter of fact, a decrease of 31,000 between the month of July and the month of August is not only greater than seasonal but is a record for all the years in which figures have been collected, and they have been collected since 1944. It is a record since 1944.
The hon. member for Essex East, in speaking on the estimates yesterday, said that in the report of the special committee of the Senate on manpower and employment it is stated that we must provide one million jobs in the next four or five years. I wish to bring to the attention of this committee the fact that this government is in the process of doing just that. Since 1957 during the term of office of this government more than half a million new jobs have been created in Canada.
In August unemployment represented 4.8 per cent of the labour force. This figure

Supply-Labour
trunk collector sewers, and agreed to write off 25 per cent of the loans covering work put into place before March 31, 1963. By September 5, loans amounting to $35.4 million had been approved for a total of 106 projects. I remind the committee that on September 7 last the Minister of Public Works introduced a resolution, now approved by the house, to amend the National Housing Act of 1954 in order to increase the amount of money available for all the undertakings I have mentioned.
In the field of industrial development, in order to encourage industries to locate in certain areas in Canada where unemployment has been chronic over the years we are allowing double depreciation for income tax purposes for such industries. The hon. member for Essex East made mention of this program, and minimized it. As hon. members of this committee are probably aware, it is the responsibility of the Department of Labour to receive applications from municipal authorities, to review the record of employment and unemployment in those localities, and to make recommendations to the government with respect to the designation of surplus manpower areas.
Applications for accelerated depreciation certificates from individual firms are dealt with by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This program is in two parts. If an industry wishes to produce a new product that has not as yet been produced in Canada it can locate in any area in Canada and be eligible for this double depreciation allowance. If an area makes application to be designated as a surplus manpower area and following the survey is so designated and qualifies under the formula, an industry locating in that area or municipality also qualifies for the allowance. Since publication in March of the regulations relating to the plan, applications have been received by the Department of Trade and Commerce covering a wide variety of products including chemicals, steel, textiles, electronics, plastics, food and other products. The value of the assets covered by these applications is approximately $85 million. It would appear that a representative cross section of Canadian secondary industry is taking advantage of the program, with some firms establishing new plants while others are enlarging their present facilities in order to manufacture new products and thus diversify their output.
The municipal authorities have shown a great deal of interest in this plan. They have become aware of the advantages attendant upon attracting new industries. By mid September of this year 49 applications had been received from various municipal and county authorities requesting designation under the

program. The government as at this stage has designated for the purposes of the program eight local areas administered by the national employment service. These areas included in their boundaries 16 of the municipalities and counties that applied for designation. In addition, 11 specific localities have been designated. The Department of Labour after investigation found that 17 of the areas that applied for designation could not qualify under the program at the present time. Investigation is presently continuing with respect to a further five applications.
I think it will be of interest to note that of the applications for accelerated depreciation that have been received by the Department of Trade and Commerce from individual firms, applications covering assets valued at $42 million were from firms intending to locate in surplus manpower areas. I submit that this program is working effectively and has brought about results. We have also provided an easement in the corporation tax for smaller firms. Canadian manufacturing will be further assisted through anti-dumping legislation in relation to "class or kind" goods made in Canada.
A national productivity council has been established by this government, and has been held up for ridicule by some people. The council has already met three times. I anticipate that the council will assist in the establishment of new industry, the development of a larger skilled labour force and the coordination of activities to increase productivity. I feel it will serve as a clearing house for information and ideas reaching down through the regional committees and committees which already exist in the industry.
Yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for Leeds asked a question in respect to this matter. Upon checking Hansard I find that in the first part of his question the hon. gentleman inquired how many times the productivity council has met since its appointment and whether it reported to the government. The productivity council will implement its own program. However, it may advise on the implementation of programs relating to productivity. At the next meeting, which is going to be held in Ottawa on Monday and Tuesday, September 25 and 26, I understand they will be considering labour-management co-operation services.
I must point out, Mr. Chairman, that the government has no control over the activities of the productivity council. We have established this council, and its membership consists of some outstanding Canadians representing every segment of our economy. They are on their own, and we expect they will be

bringing a great deal of benefit to industry and the economy as a whole in the months and the years to come.
One of the most significant programs administered in my department has been the municipal winter works incentive program, a program that the hon. member for Essex East refers to as a bagatelle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Anaemic, I said.


Michael Starr: The municipal winter works program has proved an effective method of stimulating employment at the local level during the time when seasonal unemployment is at its peak.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under ordinary circumstances the committee would want the minister to go on; especially is this so because of his generous treatment of the member for Essex East yesterday. I hope he will continue to be generous in his references to the member for Essex East, rather than severe in his indictment as he is being now.


Michael Starr: I want to thank the hon. member for Essex East and the members of the committee for this opportunity to carry on. I wish to assure the hon. member for Essex East that I have no intention of being severe with him, or of being critical. What I am trying to do is to set the record straight.
This program has been in operation now for three winters. During the three winters of its operation a total of 12,127 applications has been approved by the provinces and accepted by the government of Canada. The total cost of work put in motion during the three winters is estimated to be over $500 million, of which it is estimated over $350 million was expanded during the period covered by the three programs. An estimated 214,440 jobs have been provided over the three winters. The number of man days of work provided is estimated to be 8,812,394.
This program for the coming winter has been broadened to quite an extent to include almost any municipal undertaking of a capital nature, and it is expected that next winter's program will be even larger than that of last winter. Under the public works sector we have had an ambitious program of public works, and this has been pushed forward during the past three years. As an example, the Department of Public Works has in progress at various points across this country some 19 architectural projects each valued at more than $1 million. There are many who maintain that the government
Supply-Labour
should launch upon a very large public works program. That is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Chairman.
In addition to this, six architectural projects valued at between $500,000 and $1 million are under contract. There are also 16 engineering projects, each valued at more than $500,000, in progress at this time. The expanded program of public works had in 1958, 50 architectural projects under way each with a value of more than $1 million, and 33 engineering projects with a value of more than $500,000 each.
We are now carrying out a program of engineering and maintenance projects which are worth well over $400 million. These include a $13 million harbour improvement at St. John's, Newfoundland; construction of the new $22 million aeroquay at Malton airport in Toronto; construction of a $60 million power reactor at Kincardine, Ontario; the $35 million Champlain bridge at Montreal; defence construction contracts with a total value of $100 million; and projects with a total value of nearly $30 million being carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for other governmental departments and agencies.
I come now to the trans-Canada highway system. This program has been an encouraging one. In 1960 the Trans-Canada Highway Act was amended to provide an additional $50 million for construction and to extend the act until December 31, 1963. A great deal of work has been provided in this area.
In the resources development area the federal government, during the past four winters, has contributed half the cost of the $13 million program for the construction of camp grounds and picnic areas, and this work has provided some 650,000 man days of employment. Approximately $6 million is being spent this year-that is, in the fiscal year 1961-62-on national parks and historic sites. Another $2 million is being contributed over a period of four or five years toward the cost of camp sites and picnic grounds along the route of the trans-Canada highway, with the provinces matching this expenditure.
We are contributing half the cost of constructing roads that will open new areas for development, to a maximum of $7.5 million per province. When fully implemented this program will produce some 4,500 miles of roads to resources. Some 3,500 miles are under construction, and expenditures to date in all provinces total some $55 million, of which the federal government contributes 50 per cent.

Supply-Labour
The Columbia river power treaty, which was recently signed in Washington, provides, I submit to you, sir, the basis tor a very large expansion in that area also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is nonexistent. This is an amazing statement.


Michael Starr: I said the treaty had been signed in Washington.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Signing a treaty does not give men work.


Michael Starr: The Pine Point railway project, designed to tap new resources of mineral wealth, will involve a capital expenditure of at least $65 million on the new line alone, plus additional expenditures on line improvements south of Grimshaw. A new northern Quebec railway to Mattagami lake will open the way to further resources in this part of the province. Work on the South Saskatchewan dam is well ahead of schedule and is providing an important stimulus to this part of the west.
During the past four years this government has provided a $29.5 million loan to New Brunswick for the Beechwood hydroelectric development, and has made payments totalling $14.7 million to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for terminal stations and 562 miles of transmission lines used in the interprovincial power grid system.
Some 2,300 miles of development roads are being constructed in Canada's northern territories, and 458 miles of low standard roads are being reconstructed to the development road standard at a total cost of $106 million. Development road construction has been completed on 574 miles, with 790 miles of right of way cleared. Some 800 miles remain to be surveyed. The forest access roads and trails agreement provided many jobs and expenditures in that area.
As far as small businesses are concerned, on January 19 of this year the Small Business Loans Act came into effect. By way of a guarantee of loans made by banks, it provides intermediate and short term credit to proprietors of small enterprises for the improvement and modernization of equipment and premises. The government is now authorized to guarantee loans up to $25,000 and for periods up to 10 years. Up to the end of June 1, there were approved 394 loans with a total value of $10,484,275. However, small business organizations have estimated that the value of renovation and extension work waiting to be carried out under this act amounts to $75 million. The government has also provided an easement of corporation taxes.
As far as trade stimulation is concerned, this is very vital to our economy from the

point of view of supplying jobs. In the automobile industry, for example, the excise tax on cars was abolished.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thanks to our efforts.


Michael Starr: I promised the hon. member that I would not enter into any controversy with him so I am not going to make any attempt to reply to what he has just said. We have also taken action with respect to the discount on imported motor vehicles and parts through reduction of the discount allowed. We have taken steps to make foreign automobile manufacturers compete on more equal terms with Canadian manufacturers. Meanwhile the recommendations of the royal commission on the automobile industry are being considered.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Would the minister permit me to ask him one question for clarification? He talked about foreign cars competing more equally with Canadian cars. Among foreign cars does he include British cars?


Michael Starr: All cars that are imported into Canada are designated as foreign cars, and I think the hon. member for Essex East will agree with me on that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You and I can
agree on that subject.


Michael Starr: Our merchandise trade deficit, which has been a source of great concern to all of us, was reduced in 1960 to $97 million from $369 million in 1959. In 1956, for example, our trade deficit was $713 million and I repeat that in 1960 it was reduced to $97 million. I feel that this gives reason for satisfaction. The employment benefits from this reduction are going to be significant, and a further reduction in our trade deficit is being attempted.
We have endeavoured to help and give leadership to Canadian businessmen interested in developing further trade abroad. Recently we arranged to bring the trade commissioners to Ottawa so that they might meet those who are in business in this country. The conference proved to be very successful and some 1,400 business executives took advanage of it. It was significant to find at that time that about 20 per cent of the businessmen attending these meetings were for the first time considering the development of an export market for their goods.
To enable Canadian business to compete on better terms in foreign markets, the government provides assistance through the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. This assistance has been expanded and the results are gratifying because we are able to ship more goods made in Canada through the facilities

oi this corporation as well as through the Export Finance Corporation of Canada Limited.
I turn now to the field of training which has been a source of interest to a great many people including members of the government party, the government itself and members of the opposition. I want to remind the committee that as a result of the act passed by the house before Christmas a new federal-provincial agreement became effective on April 1, 1961. This agreement provides for a greatly increased technical and vocational program in Canada. The objective of the new agreement is to provide a means whereby Canada's manpower training requirements may be met. In the new agreement emphasis is placed on upgrading and retraining those now employed as well as on pre-employment training for those entering the work force.
The number of unemployed persons receiving training has increased each year and a substantial increase is expected during the coming winter. In his remarks yesterday the hon. member for Essex East referred to this act and said that it was not meeting the need for training the unemployed because grade 10 education was required and also because the act does not provide for training in academic subjects. He also said that the act requires amendment to correct this situation. Neither the act nor the agreements require grade 10 education for entry into the unemployed training courses. The normal entrance requirements have been waived for most courses except where a knowledge of advanced mathematics is necessary for successful mastery of the courses.
The vast majority of the numbers of unemployed being trained have formal education much below grade 10 level. Basic training in mathematics, science and communication skills necessary to obtain and hold employment has become an integral part of the training program for the unemployed in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and New Brunswick. Plans are now being made to operate such courses in all provinces during the present fiscal year. However, the act does not require amendment to meet the problem referred to by the hon. member for Essex East.
In his remarks a few moments ago the hon. member for Leeds mentioned the inadequacy of training in the technical field. I am unable to recollect the figures he used but for his information I wish to advise him that in the year 1960-61 training in technical and vocational classes in institutions throughout the country was given on a continuing basis to some 368,347 Canadians so the fact is that there are people being trained on a continuing basis in institutions established for this purpose. The hon. member may have had in
Supply-Labour
mind the short courses that are established for some specific purpose and for a limited time, with the federal government paying 75 per cent of the cost. When these people are trained these courses are, of course, discontinued, but the fact is that some 368,347 people were being trained across Canada in the year 1960-61. We have not got the figures for 1961-62.
The hon. member also mentioned that technical people are leaving this country in increasing numbers. I was interested in reading an article published in the Montreal Gazette today. It is headed, "Skilled Personnel Return". I think it is important enough that I should read a portion of what is said here because all of us are very much interested in this matter. The article reads in part as follows:
A small but growing return to Canada of Canadian professional and technical personnel has been remarked by the technical service council, an industry sponsored placement agency which has opened an office in Montreal. The annual exodus of Canadian trained scientists and engineers still greatly exceeds the numbers who are returning, and no doubt will continue to do so for some time yet. Still, it is encouraging to know that the traffic is no longer so obviously one way.
The causes for a return to Canada are several. They arise, for the most part, from a dissatisfaction with the American way of life. A related consideration is the readiness with which many American employers will lay off even skilled personnel when times are bad. Canadian firms, in the experience of the council, tend to hold on to their men; American firms do not.
The council does not appear to have experienced much difficulty in placing the returnees. An encouraging demand is developing for professional personnel in anticipation of improved business activity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman tell us the source of this information?


Michael Starr: The Montreal Gazette of Thursday, September 21, an article on page 12 written by John Meyer, the financial editor. I continue the quotation:
The demand for production engineers, time study and cost experts is particularly significant. It suggests to the council further evidence of Canadian producers' sharpening awareness of the need to wring out cost consuming slack in their operations.
There may be another reason for the reported views of a number of these technical people, and that may be that they have found out this government has taken action and that the economy of Canada is on the upward swing, that opportunities are here again.
Now, I should like to make a statement on the training program in so far as facilities and the equipment of those facilities are concerned. As a result of the stimulus of increased federal contributions to training provided in the new technical and vocational

Supply-Labour
training bill passed earlier this session, additional expenditures on new and enlarged training facilities are now planned by the provincial governments amounting to $164,808,000 up to March 31, 1963. This is the program that provincial governments have indicated in so far as these facilities are concerned. The federal government will contribute 75 per cent of this total expenditure, and we have already approved an amount of $98,312,000 as our share.
The province of Quebec signed the training agreement last Friday afternoon, following similar action by all the other provinces earlier. Applications for approval from Quebec are expected1 shortly. All the provinces have signed the necessary agreements. The Quebec program will add to the totals I have given.
Of the $98 million which the federal government has already approved for capital expenditures, it is expected that $62 million will be claimed during the present fiscal year. There will probably be another $4 million or $5 million from Quebec. Provision is made in the present estimates for capital expenditures by the federal government of $29,500,000, of which sum $15 million is in the main estimates and the balance in the supplementary estimates. I anticipate, Mr. Chairman, that there will be need for an additional amount to be provided in a later supplementary estimate to cover the remainder.
Included in the new facilities that have already been approved are nine institutes of technology, 11 trade schools, 69 vocational high schools, making a total of 89 new technical and vocational training institutes across this country. Now, these facilities and the enlargement of the existing schools will, it is estimated, provide accommodation for an additional 30,000 students. I submit this is a very worth-while program which has been given life by the federal government and which provides an incentive to the provinces to undertake these worth-while projects.
In the field of transportation, I would recall to hon. members that during the past three years over $45 million were spent in providing new and modern ships for the Department of Transport. Other ships have been built by the federal government to be operated by other bodies such as the Canadian National Railways, and this work brings the total expenditure in the field to $57 million. The ship construction assistance regulations went into effect on September 12. These regulations provide for a subsidy in respect of construction in Canada of self-propelled vessels of 100 tons or over, tugs of 50 tons or over and other vessels of 200 tons or over. This, too, Mr. Chairman, I submit will give the

necessary boost to the shipbuilding industry of our country which has suffered in the past.
In the field of winter employment, the federal government has taken an active interest in trying to stimulate co-operation between all Canadians across this country to provide more employment during the months in which it is most needed. All of these programs, and these are only some of the programs I have time to bring to the attention of this committee, were brought forward by this government for the purpose of stimulating planned investment, to create new jobs and guarantee old jobs and to maintain a healthy degree of expansion of the economy. These things are now taking place.
What has been the result of this action by the government? The gross national product was up 3 per cent in the second quarter of 1961 over the second quarter of 1960; personal expenditures on goods and services were up 3.8 per cent. Government expenditures on goods and services were up 7.9 per cent. Exports of goods and services were up 9.7 per cent. Wages and salaries were up by 3.5 per cent. In the field of employment, total employment, at 6,381,000, was up 110,000 from August, 1960. There were 59,000 more men and 51,000 more women employed in August, 1961 than a year ago. There were
5.578.000	employed in non-farm industries,
127.000	more than in August, 1960. There were 803,000 employed on farms, and this figure dropped by 17,000 as compared with a year ago. Manufacturing employment was up 41,000 from August, 1960; wholesale, retail trade employment was up 24,000; finance, insurance and real estate employment was up 14,000; and there were 68,000 more people working in the service industries than there were a year ago.
I should give the committee the regional picture in so far as employment is concerned. On a regional basis, employment in the Atlantic region was up by 32,000; the Quebec region was down 29,000; the Ontario region up 59,000; the prairie region up 26,000; the Pacific region up 22,000. In so far as the percentage of unemployment is concerned as related to the labour force of these regions, the Atlantic region, 6.8 per cent as against 6.9 per cent in August, 1960; in Quebec it is now 6.3 as against 6.2 per cent; in Ontario it is 3.9 per cent as compared with 5.1 per cent last year at this time. In the prairies, it is 2.7 per cent as compared with 2.4 per cent last year and in the Pacific region it is 6.3 per cent as compared with 7.5 per cent last year. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of this committee, Mr. Chairman, but I felt that some of these things had to be brought to the attention of this

committee, in order that all of us may realize that no effort has been spared by this government to deal with this unemployment situation in Canada. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the members of the committee and the people of Canada that this government will continue to exert all possible effort on behalf of the Canadian economy and the Canadian people as a whole.


Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: 1
recognize the hon. member for Peterborough.


Lionel Chevrier: I understood that, following a government member, it is normally the turn of some member of the opposition. I do not wish to dispute the right of the hon. member for Peterborough, of course, if that has been the practice.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I am
informed that the hon. member for Leeds spoke prior to the minister and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont prior to him. I therefore believe it is in order for one of the members of the C.C.F. party to have the floor. I recognize the hon. member for Laurier next.


Walter George Pitman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we have seen happen here this afternoon is, I think, rather extraordinary. We have had virtually a speech from the throne in reverse. We have had the citation at the end of the session of all the actions of the government over the last seven or eight months, and this is quite an innovation I am sure. However, I feel there are one or two things which were stated by the Minister of Labour which should not pass unnoticed. One of the things which always interests me is the rather interesting logic behind such statements. I can remember last December and January, when we saw these figures rising dramatically, the reason given for unemployment was loss of trade, the fact that the devastation in Europe had been repaired, that there was no longer any war scare and the fact that so many young people had entered the labour market and that the government had little part in it at all. But now that the figures are beginning to go down, suddenly the government's achievements are the main reason for it.
I was a little bit worried about the rationale which the Minister of Labour used in indicating that now 5 per cent is going to be looked upon as an acceptable proportion of unemployed. I can remember when, 10 or 15 years ago, a figure of 3 per cent was looked upon with concern and 4 per cent 90205-6-546
Supply-Labour
with great alarm. However, I believe now we are going to be expected to recognize 5 per cent.


Michael Starr: No.


Walter George Pitman: I would suggest that slight inflation can easily be looked after by an entirely planned economy and there will be no need to worry about that matter in terms of 5 per cent. Indeed, we must bring this unemployment figure further down than such a level.
One suggestion which I found somewhat surprising was the suggestion of the Minister of Labour that the hon. member for Essex East had misled this committee because he asserted that Canada had the highest unemployment rate of any country in the western world. The minister used the figures of June, July and August in order to prove this statement. I think that is a rather unfair example as Canada, of course, has a much greater fluctuation from winter to summer than has the United States. Surely the only fair way in which to decide this question would be to use both winter and summer figures in order to make any kind of acceptable comparison.
So far as the use of housing is concerned, I would think there may well be a serpent in the basket in the use of housing as a means of bringing down unemployment in this manner because, to my way of thinking, at a time when we are bringing down the income needed to buy a home, and when we are making mortgages with longer terms and payments much higher, if there is a slight recession there is going to be a tremendous number of houses which are going to be in the hands of the government. The government will be really in the housing business. What we need is direct action by the government in subsidizing low cost housing. One critic has suggested that the number of housing units is outpacing family formation in the middle income area and that this is going to be a real problem in the future.
Finally, the Minister of Labour indicated that the hon. member for Essex East had minimized the government's double depreciation measure. I would suggest that he could not possibly minimize it or it would disappear altogether, certainly in one aspect at least. So far as areas designated as surplus manpower are concerned, the minister did not prove that one single job was created by this particular piece of legislation. So far as areas being designated are concerned, this may look to be very strange at the moment, but certainly in the past we did not get any great run on this particular kind of help. In fact, it took from December until March before we could find out what the system was

Supply-Labour
going to be. Then, of course, by the time we finally found out what the system was going to be, we found that the measure was not strong enough to cure even the mildest form of unemployment. It was coming too late. There was no knowledge of it until March
2.	It was too late to do anything about the level of unemployment we had last winter, and of course, many knew nothing about it. I would suggest that the way in which this particular aspect of the government's policy has been handled has been the most complete negation of government responsibility which I think could possibly be examined.
The criteria were made fully public on March 2, but cities throughout the country had no idea whatsoever whether or not they were covered by these criteria. For example, in April or May I went down to the library to discover just exactly what the situation was in many areas of Canada. I found that so far as the metropolitan area of Windsor-Leamington was concerned, the figure was 80.9 per cent of the months between May and November between 1953 and 1960 and this city had applied. But when we turn to major industrial areas of 10,000 or more, which required 75 per cent, we find Rouyn-Val d'Or with a figure of 76.2 per cent had not applied; Shawinigan Falls with 90.5 per cent had not applied; Cornwall with a figure of 80.9 per cent had applied; Lac St. Jean with a figure of 76.2 per cent had not applied; Trois Rivieres with a figure of 90.5 per cent had not applied; Brantford with a figure of 90.5 per cent had not applied. Surely it would have been very simple for this government to inform the municipalities throughout this country at least to what extent they apply, in one of the areas which could come under this scheme.
I realize that, in order to find out whether the number leaving the industrial force was the reason for the number becoming less, certainly there was needed some kind of local investigation. I know of one community where the mayor came all the way down to Ottawa -and perhaps there were many others-when there was no possibility that that city could be given this designation of a surplus manpower area under this piece of legislation. This is government irresponsibility at its worst. If you go into most industrial areas of
10,000	and less what do you find? In those nine major industrial areas, eight had not applied. The minor industrial areas required 50 per cent. In St. Stephen the figure was 73.8 and it had not applied; Gaspe with 66.7 per cent had not applied; Rimouski with 61.9 per cent had not applied. Similarly I could go on down the list. This measure was supposedly to deal with unemployment at the time when there was unemployment which was, of

course, last winter. Now with employment rising the whole manner of government appreciation now with the very little effect it will have, almost becomes irrelevant. I think this is certainly a damaging indictment of a so-called method by which this government was going to deal with unemployment.
I am not going to comment on the mass of statistics which we have just been given. I am sure that all of us want to sit down for a few hours in order to read that speech before we can decide really what has been said. However, I wish to say this, at any rate, about this whole area of employment. Today, with all the seriousness of the international situation and with the bureau of statistics giving us at least a little bit more hope than it has given us in the past, perhaps unemployment does not seem to be quite so overwhelmingly significant. Perhaps this provides an opportunity to sit back more coolly and impassively and to discuss the problem of unemployment without the white heat of urgency we felt last March. We in the New Democratic party look upon this problem as the most serious of all the internal difficulties facing the people of Canada. The Senate committee put it very well when they indicated the extent of the material loss involved in unemployment. I am reading from page 1 of the report of the special committee of the Senate on manpower and employment wherein it is stated:
The failure of the economy to utilize fully its labour resources involves a loss of production. Nor can this production be later recovered-it is gone forever. Unemployment implies, then, both the inability of certain members of the society to share equitably in the national output and a reduction of the national output itself. Furthermore, the mere awareness that a significant number of people are out of work-and with the modern development of statistics and the means of communicating them widespread awareness is never long delayed-has an adverse effect on social morale and the climate of enterprise. In fact, the number of people without jobs is one of the most common and most important standards used to evaluate the performance of a free society and in the present world of ideological conflict it is hardly an overstatement to say that a high level of employment is a goal deserving of the utmost priority.
These are the material losses. Now we all hope that the cold war will soon be something of the past, but let us not forget that we shall have another war, though a different kind of war, on our hands, and the way in which we deal with unemployment will be a very real part of that war.
I should like to mention here the spiritual significance of unemployment. Lord Beveridge in his book entitled "Full Employment in a Free Society" says:
The greatest evil of unemployment is not physical but moral, not the want which it may bring but the hatred and fear which it breeds.

We on this side fully recognize that this is an extremely complex problem and that it has as many facets to its solution as there are to its causes. But there are two approaches. One is simply to stand back and say: we can do virtually nothing about it-at least in those circumstances the Canadian citizen knows just what to expect-and the other is to refuse blindly to accept the extent of the problem. This certainly was the policy of the present government through November, December and January of last year. Their philosophy was: we can spend a little money, take the minimum of action accompanied by the maximum of publicity, and hope that the Canadian people will be hoodwinked into believing that we have a policy of full employment. We in the New Democratic party have decided to hit this problem head on, much to the consternation of certain organizations. We say that a government must guarantee employment, using as its methods a wide range of fiscal, monetary and economic policies. This could be done, and we say it has to be done. We believe that we, in Canada, are the ones who are out of step with our slogans of "free enterprise". Let us look at what some of the other nations have done. I should like to quote from an address given by Mr. T. Carlsson, a Swedish labour attache to Canada and the United States in which he said:
Sweden controls its economy by exercising overall planning and integration of all phases of industry. No move is made in any one sector of the economy without regard to the effect on the country as a whole. When a recession threatens, the machinery to avert it is ready to swing into action immediately.
This, of course, is very different from the philosophy here where we wait until a man falls flat on his face and then pick him up, as distinct from doing something to bolster him before he falls.
Mr. Carlsson continued:
As a result of advance planning, the government and municipalities have public works projects ready to roll in an emergency to provide more jobs and stimulate the economy.
Private investment is encouraged in a recession by making it tax free for a limited period, thus developing new industry and expansion of existing facilities when it is most vitally needed.
And here, I think, is the important statement.
We don't tolerate unemployment in Sweden. A full employment policy is in the bedrock of our national economic system.
How do they maintain jobs for all in Sweden? The answer, again, lies in planning. To quote Mr. Carlsson again:
The workers in Sweden, including the white collar workers, are 95 per cent organized, and the employers are also fully organized. This makes it possible for the leaders of both unions and management to negotiate "economy-wide" contracts, governing every company and every 90205-6-546*
Supply-Labour
worker in the country. The profits of all companies are published periodically, and wages are geared scientifically to productivity.
Our employers have accepted their social responsibility. They acknowledge the right of the workers to share in their profits.
Then, later:
Labour mobility-the shifting of workers from one region to another and one trade to another- is a big factor in the Swedish success story. The government provides very generous travel allowances for families changing jobs, and offers vocational retraining courses of up to two years' duration-families being supported by government funds while the breadwinners learn a new trade.


William Heward Grafftey: You are a bore.


Walter George Pitman: I am afraid the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is in jocular mood this afternoon. I did not hear what the question was.


An hon. Member:: He is talking to himself.


Walter George Pitman: I put it to the committee that another country has done something about unemployment. I have here a clipping from the Globe and Mail on June 9, 1961 headed: "West German Jobless Dues Suspended". Instead of the bankruptcy which virtually faces our own fund, Germany is in effect having to give a rebate to the workers who are being asked not to contribute further to the fund because it is already far too large.
The French economist, Andre Philip, speaking at a conference in August, 1961, said that in France "If we had 2 per cent unemployment we would have a revolution". Mr. Philip is further reported as saying:
In the European community we are changing our economic and social structure. In the United States and Canada you must also make a change because if you don't you will lose and you will make us lose, which I don't like.
We might well consider the position of New Zealand. Perhaps I could illustrate it by quoting from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 26 of this year.
New Zealand in fact seems a Fabian paradise, an almost classless society with full employment and high living standards. This little country of 2,300,000 has virtually no unemployment. Of a total labour force of 885,000, only 276 are registered as jobless. And at least 17,000 jobs are vacant.
Thus, governments abroad have realized that full employment is the only solution- full employment not merely as the subject of election speeches, but full employment in reality. We face the realization that we have today what is known as cyclical unemployment and that the cycle has changed. I am sure that is part of the reason for some of the more hopeful statistics we have heard from the minister. While we know that after a certain time cyclical unemployment seems to disappear, we should also recognize that it leaves behind a hard core

Supply-Labour
of men and women who do not re-enter the labour force. This hard core will cost the Canadian taxpayer a great deal more in the future. I am thinking of a piece of research which was done by the Catholic Service Bureau in my constituency. They examined the histories of people who are known as "down and outs"- those who sit on park benches and have lost all interest and participation in competitive living. The bureau's investigators found that nearly every one of those was a man who had had a job in his early thirties or forties, had lost that job and failed to re-enter the labour force. This constitutes a serious social problem and one which will cost even more than we are paying now in unemployment relief.
We realize that automation offers us an opportunity to increase the prosperity and living standards of the people of Canada, yet we stand wondering who is going to pay for this technical change-and we cannot help asking ourselves whether it is not going to be the workers who find themselves faced directly with the prospect of losing their jobs in an economy where they would find it difficult to find any other employment. We wonder, also, what would happen if the dream of total disarmament did come true. Could we reorganize our economy sufficiently to take up the slack and provide new employment for those now employed in the defence industries? I suggest that the government would have to take a far more conscientious view of its activities and responsibilities before there would be any hope that such a thing could happen. We believe there is a need for government responsibility. We were shocked by the lackadaisical attitude in dealing with the situation. We believe that the twentieth century makes great demands that call for some faith in democratic government action. I am sure that future historians in looking back at our age will not be so much impressed by our cars or even our missiles as by the fact that with the height of technological and scientific advance we have achieved our society was unable to give jobs to those Canadians who last winter were looking for employment, and will be even more impressed by our utter callousness in dealing with the situation.
Yesterday the hon. member for Essex East placed before the committee the program of the Liberal party for dealing with unemployment. We are able to agree entirely with many and indeed most of the points he raised. There was, however, one fatal flaw, almost Shakespearean in its depth.


William Heward Grafftey: Oh, the hon. member reads Shakespeare too.


Walter George Pitman: The hon. member appeared to fail to realize that such activity, if it is to be co-ordinated and purposeful, demands a level of government participation and direction beyond that acceptable by the members and supporters of the Liberal party. We feel that success is impossible without a planned course, that all these principles would result in utter chaos. We are unhappy to see the word "planning" being dropped from the vocabulary of hon. members of the Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I used it yesterday, but in the right context.


Walter George Pitman: It is evident that the hon. gentleman and I disagree as to the meaning of the word and the proper context in which it should be used.
Without planning, many of these courses of action could lead to total chaos and confusion. We feel that the programs which appear so acceptable on the floor of the convention when the Liberals meet lose all shape and meaning once they are taken over by the party leadership.
We in this group also wish to present to the committee a program for dealing with unemployment. We believe that there must be a planned approach at every level. It will not be regimented and will be acceptable to the Canadian people. A planned approach is today used by captains of industry but without the full view being taken into consideration, without sufficient research and information, and all too often it entails planned profits and planned obsolescence. We wish to create a pattern within our economy which will provide a full employment society. By whom would it be planned? Certainly there would be an inner council of the cabinet. This is not a matter that should be the full responsibility of the Minister of Labour. Both the hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for Essex East commented on this point as well. We envisage an inner council of the cabinet which council would be composed of the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and perhaps other appropriate ministers who would hammer out policies destined to bring about full employment in our society.
We would require a planned approach at the provincial level as well. We shudder at the course of this government at the present time. It is losing fiscal control in the new taxation arrangements with the provincial governments. We have a situation in which one province can negate the influence of the federal government. We had a classic example of that recently. The federal government

removed the tax on automobiles and the Ontario government introduced a 3 per cent sales tax.


Mr. More:: What about the tax in Saskatchewan? We have had it for 20 years under a socialist government.


Walter George Pitman: I suggest it was not levied in a manner similar to that in the instance to which I refer, nor by the existing government.


Mr. Jones:: It was increased by the C.C.F.


Walter George Pitman: I am not attempting to discuss the irrelevant situation in Saskatchewan.


Henry Frank Jones: The hon. member had better talk about something he knows something about, if there be such a subject.


Walter George Pitman: We require a planning and development council to dovetail plans and programs at every level. There must also be planning by different economic groups including industry, labour, agriculture, the extractive industries and others. These should be given a genuine role to play and not just sent away immediately after being constituted. They should have a genuine opportunity of participation, a sense of responsibility, an opportunity of following through and of making a vital contribution. They should not simply hold conferences. It is only through planning at the federal and provincial levels and at the level of all economic groups that we can possibly solve the problems with which we are confronted.
We wish to institute a program to give Canada the opportunity for the economic growth that is necessary to ensure her prosperity. This is the touchstone, as was mentioned by other hon. members who have participated in this debate. We must ensure that all sectors, regions and groups share in this growth and it must be a purposeful growth. It is all very well to talk about training the unemployed which is of course a necessary and important thing but if jobs were available industry would train men to fill the jobs. I have been told by industrial leaders that that is true. Certainly we need vocational training but it will not solve the problem. To achieve the purposeful sense of growth to which I refer we must come to appreciate that if one region is depressed and is not receiving a fair share of the national income we are all at fault, we all lose and that this is a measure of our failure to cope with our problem. If one group, whether it be old age pensioners, farmers or fishermen, is not receiving a just share of the national prosperity, we are all the losers and again we share responsibility for this failure.
We require a national investment board capable of implementing a dynamic investment policy and of planning and regulating
Supply-Labour
investment. It must direct this investment in a way that will create employment. Let us put a sense of purpose in our war on unemployment just as in times of emergency we have put a sense of purpose in our war against enemies when they have beset us. If we had that sense of purpose the Canadian people would rise to the occasion and invest their money in Canadian enterprise but lacking that sense of purpose there is no great desire to do so.
We need greater control over anti-cyclical financing as was mentioned in earlier discussions on the budget. This government has failed to adopt methods by which we can prevent recessions through the use of fiscal and monetary policy. This is a very real failure. There must be a recognition of the public sector, so long neglected. It must be appreciated that we can stop unemployment by building the schools, universities, recreational centres and other things we need. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Labour stress the importance of construction in relation to employment. The Minister of Public Works denounced us as being unrealistic when we said that public works could provide employment. There appears to be a difference of opinion on this matter within the ranks of the cabinet.
We require a new approach to secondary industry. We need a minister of industry. We have ministers for such departments as fisheries and mining and technical surveys. Secondary industry employs more people than any other segment of the economy and requires the establishment of a department with a minister to look after the many needs, obtaining there.
There are many other areas where a new approach must be adopted including that of area redevelopment. Redevelopment projects would aid in giving the Canadian people a sense of national purpose especially in areas where the economy loses its strength by reason of the relocation of industry or changes in technology. I refer to communities such as mining and industrial communities who have recently lost their source of income.
We feel that the program we have outlined can be put into effect but we must have a full scale war on unemployment. This is the only answer to the problem. It may very well be that this winter we shall have less unemployment than we had last winter and I certainly hope that is the case. The Canadian economy may be dragged up by world economic conditions and particularly by the United States economy, but this will not mean the end of the problem. I hope this government will seize the challenge that confronts it to come to grips with the problem of un-

Supply-Labour
employment by introducing long term measures that will ensure that we will never have in Canada again the levels of unemployment we had last winter.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully today to most of the speeches made on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Labour and I must say nearly all were constructive speeches. I thought particularly constructive the speech made by my colleague the hon. member for Essex East with which the minister did not disagree too much, I think, although he did take issue with some of the statistics submitted to him by the hon. member.
The hon. member for Essex East has been our spokesman on this subject for a number of years now. Not only did he give the position of the opposition and of the party but he also spoke with the same authority on this subject as he does on many other subjects.
I should like also to refer particularly to the contribution made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont who dealt I believe more particularly with the Quebec aspect of the situation, although he did speak in general terms as well.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Leeds who, I think all hon. members will agree, is making a serious and substantial impact upon the house by the manner in which he prepares himself for these debates.
The hon. member for Peterborough has just completed a constructive speech. With .many of the things he said I, and I am sure those who sit on this side of the house, [DOT]agree. I was pleased to see him put on the Tecord some of the things that his party would be prepared to do in case of an emergency, having particular reference to the situation in which we find ourselves today. Many of those things were advocated by the Liberal party quite some time ago.
The minister made a long speech. I am glad the committee permitted him to speak at length so that he could put on the record the whole program, as he wished to, of the government in reference to the unemployment situation.


Michael Starr: Just some of it.


Lionel Chevrier: I listened to him carefully and I believe in an impartial way. Judging by the glowing statement he made on behalf of the government, suggesting all that had been done by the government, I would have thought he would have come to the conclusion that something substantial, something consequential, had materialized from what had been done. But that was not the case. If you look at the cold facts of the matter you will find that the situation in Canada in the

month of August was still twice as bad as it was when the present government took office in 1957. If you look at the figures of
323,000	in August 1961, and compare them with the situation in 1957 when 162,000 were unemployed when we left office, notwithstanding the glowing picture painted by the minister, you can draw your own conclusions as to the effect of the program which has been put into operation.
Notwithstanding the rosy picture painted by the minister of the program adopted by the government in many fields there is still one cold fact which no one in this committee can contradict, and it is this. When we left office the unemployment insurance fund was close to $1 billion. Today it is down to $100 million or less. These are cold facts and they give some idea to the committee and the country how it was depleted and of what is happening now.
The minister read from a paragraph of the report of the special committee of the Senate on manpower and employment. I cannot understand why he did not read the whole of the paragraph. At page 21 the minister read these words:
With the wisdom of hindsight one can see in the statistical record evidence of weakness emerging gradually over a period of many years.
He stopped there. I should like to go on. Here is what the report said:
In a sense, though, the 1957-58 recession was a major turning point. The recovery from this recession was relatively moderate and conspicuously short-lived. Widely held expectations about the increase in national output soon turned out to be over-optimistic, and the economy proved incapable of providing the number of new jobs necessary simultaneously to absorb the increases in the labour force and to reduce unemployment to pre-recession levels. The volume of immigration had declined sharply from its 1957 peak and the rate of family formation had fallen off. Overcapacity had developed in many parts of the economy and this situation, which persisted throughout the period of recovery, had a serious effect on investment expenditures. Early in 1960 the economy entered another recession without ever having recovered fully from the preceding one.
From this report on manpower and employment it will appear very clearly that a serious situation began following the 1957 recession. The minister took the figures for the month of August and he was very happy with the result. Let me tell him at once that I, too and we on this side of the house as well, are happy to see a betterment of the situation; notwithstanding the betterment of the situation there are a number of facts which were pointed out by the hon. member for Essex East which I will not, nor do I feel I should, repeat. One of those facts is that there are still 323,000 unemployed in this country. This is a serious matter. Whether it be 5 per

cent of the labour force or 4.3 per cent, it is still a serious matter and the country will want to know what is the position of the government with reference to it. It has been said by the minister that this is a decrease of
31,000	in the month of August as compared with the month of July. That is good. I am pleased; we are happy with that; but in the other sentence in the labour force statistics issued by the Department of Labour the following appears:
The labour force decreased by 39,000, which is more than usual for this period.
This is a sentence which should be read in conjunction with the other statement.
1 do not want to deal at length with any particular part of Canada but I would be remiss if in passing I did not make some reference to the province of Quebec. The minister said very little about it. The unemployment situation in that province in August was 6.3 per cent of the labour force compared with 6.2 per cent a year earlier. In fact, the situation there is worse than it is in any other part of Canada save the maritimes. We have this situation, sir, notwithstanding the fact that the present administration in Quebec-and I do not want to get into a political argument; these are facts which I believe are accurate-has accepted contributions from the federal government with reference to unemployment assistance, which it did not do in previous years. It contributes 40 per cent to the winter works program as compared with absolutely nothing by the administration prior to the present one coming into office in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Lionel Chevrier: You will have to ask your friends to answer that question.
As I say, we have the situation notwithstanding the fact that the Lesage government have accepted contributions under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, which unquestionably helped the unemployment situation in that province and notwithstanding the fact that government has accepted contributions with reference to access roads to forests and other natural resources areas. The fact is that prior to the advent of the new administration in the province of Quebec only 174 municipalities in that province had applied for and obtained the benefits of the winter works program- these figures are from returns to the house -compared with 1,286 projects under the present Quebec administration as reported on December 14, 1960, and almost 2,000 as of this date. I conclude this part of my remarks by making the statement that the government certainly cannot complain about the co-operation it is receiving in the field of employment and with respect to its so-called
Supply-Labour
program to relieve unemployment so far as the province of Quebec is concerned. Yet notwithstanding the government's program and notwithstanding the contribution by the province, 6.3 per cent of the labour force in the province of Quebec were still out of work in the month of August.


An hon. Member:: Since the new Liberal regime.


Lionel Chevrier: I say that is a serious matter and it is serious because in my opinion the government is not doing nearly enough in that area. The minister has referred to certain projects in the province of Quebec. He has referred to the Champlain bridge which was approved by the former administration. He has referred to the Mattagami railway line which was approved by the house, of course, and which I hope is helping to relieve the situation in that area of the province. Those are the only two projects in the province of Quebec to which he referred. I suggest to him that not nearly enough public projects have been instituted by the government of Canada in that province.
The minister dealt at great length with the program of the government and he put on the record a long list of things which had been done by the government to meet the unemployment situation. But all of the things he put on the record had to do with one aspect of unemployment only, unemployment in the construction field. He suggested absolutely nothing to deal with cyclical unemployment or structural unemployment. He did refer to assistance to depressed areas, about which I will have more to say in a moment. I say to him and to those who sit behind him that 75 per cent-I was going to say 90 per cent but perhaps I would be mistaken-are projects which, if they are of assistance, are of assistance only in one sector of the economy, namely, in the field of building and the allied trades.
There are other areas of the economy which are suffering and for which little is being done. The minister has said nothing about emigration. He did put on record a statement by Mr. Meyer of the Gazette toward the end of his speech but there are other aspects of this matter which I think also deserve to be put on the record. I should like to refer to a newsletter prepared by the department of economic development of the Canadian chamber of commerce, and I quote from the last page thereof:
Stuart Armour, economic adviser, the Steel Company of Canada Limited, speaking to the annual meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, commented: "Can it be that we are attempting to solve our unemployment problem by losing population? Let us hope not, for in 1957, when we

Supply-Labour
had the second highest net migration in the past decade we had a very much higher level of business activity than we are now experiencing".
A little farther on in the letter is this paragraph:
Of particular concern in this connection is the steady flow of emigrants to the United States. In the 12 months ending June 30, 1960, there were 46,668 immigrants to the United States whose country of last permanent residence was Canada. Of this number, 30,132 were born in this country.
Because it is of tremendous importance I repeat that last statement.
Of this number, 30,132 were born in this country. During this period, Canada lost to the United States more than 5,700 professional, technical and kindred workers including professors and instructors, draftsmen, engineers, physicians and surgeons, teachers, technicians, and 1,372 badly needed professional nurses. We lost more than 1,100 managers, officials and proprietors and more than 4,500 craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers, including brick-masons, stonemasons, carpenters, machinists, mechanics, plumbers, plasterers and toolmakers.
I could go on. The decrease in the number of unemployed amounted to 31,000 in the month of August but, as this newsletter indicates, 46,668 persons, of whom 30,132 were born in Canada, emigrated to the United States in the period mentioned. The question arises in our minds at once: Are we to understand that we have to solve our unemployment problem by emigration to the United States?


Michael Starr: In one month?


Lionel Chevrier: It does not matter whether it is in one month or in 12 months. I am dealing with the 12-month figure, and it is a serious matter that over 46,000 people should have gone to the United States, 30,000 of whom were born in this country. I pose the question because it is one of serious importance for all of us.
The minister dealt with the encouragement the government has given to depressed areas. Perhaps I am not using the right term. I believe another expression has been used by the minister from time to time but I will use "depressed area" for lack of a better phrase. The minister made a great deal of the applications that had been received which he said represented a value of approximately $85 million. So far so good, but how many of those applications have been approved by the government? I think the house has a right to know that. As hon. members know, the purpose of assistance by way of double depreciation is double-barrelled, as the minister has stated. First, it is to come to the assistance of an industry which might develop a new product anywhere in Canada. Double depreciation will be granted to such an industry. Second, if an industry decides to establish itself in an

area so designated by the government it will receive double depreciation for one year.
I want to know how many applications for double depreciation have been accepted by the government and, second, I want to know how many men have been put to work as a result of this program. I doubt very much whether one man has been put to work by virtue of the action taken by the government in this field. The next question is, what areas of Canada have been declared by the government to be depressed areas? The minister stated that the municipal authorities were interested in this program, that by early September 49 applications had been made and eight local areas and 11 specific locations had been designated. We said at the time that this was not the way to do it, that is the method whereby the municipalities should make application to one or the other of the departments of government. We said the government should itself take the initiative because it would know from what information it had, be it in labour, be it in trade and commerce, be it in public works or in finance or any other department, which areas were the depressed areas. I say with respect, of course, that when the minister dealt with that part of his program, in so far as meeting the unemployment situation was concerned in my opinion that was the weakest part of his contribution to this debate.
Even under the best of conditions of full employment at the national level, certain sectors of the Canadian economy have experienced stagnation. There is no doubt about that, it is admitted by all of us. This is due, in part, to the geographical dispersion of industries and the tendency towards regional concentration of single industries. When there are any shifts in consumer preference, changes in technology, depletion of resources or a resurgence of world competition, the local industry's market position is constricted, but the severest impact is on the locality that is totally dependent upon the industry. The disappearance of such an industry, although it leaves a vacuum gives no assurance that the vacuum will be filled by a new industry.
There are certain economic factors which contribute to labour immobility, so there is no outflow of workers to bring the supply and demand of labour into equilibrium. Under conditions of less than full employment or severe unemployment such as existed in Canada since 1957, the problems of the distressed areas are greatly aggravated. As the house knows, the average unemployment for the year 1958 was 7.1 per cent; 1959, 6 per cent and 1960, 7 per cent. The Canadian government is pledged to a national goal of

lull employment. The white paper on unemployment which was tabled in this house many years ago by the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe stated unequivocally that full employment was the major goal of government policy. Here was a policy to deal with the post-war transitional period laid down clearly. There were 11 points which dealt with the situation, not as we found it then, but as we anticipated it might be. First, the employment problem was dealt with; next, the sources of employment and income were described; then export trade was dealt with, private investment in Canada, consumption, public investment, scientific and industrial research, placement and training of workers, wartime controls, government financing, the beginning of the transition. Anyone reading this short pamphlet can come to no other conclusion but that here was a program which had been thought out; here was a program that had been brought about by the meeting of many of the best minds in our country. It was this program that helped Canada go through the post-war period from 1945 to 1957 in a manner which resulted in no more than three per cent on the average of the labour force being out of work at any time, and 3 per cent was considered by economists as full employment.


Georges-J. Valade: That is false.


Lionel Chevrier: My friend behind me says that is false. I have put on the record on many occasions the statistics and they are there for whoever wants to see them.
In order to accomplish full employment, these regional pockets to which I have been referring of chronic unemployment must be eliminated. They must be eradicated since they have reached such proportions as to become an effective brake on the economic capacity of the nation to attain and sustain an adequate rate of growth. If any further justification is needed for an all-out federal attack on the problem of distressed areas, one has only to refer to the report of the Senate committee on manpower and employment. At this point, I should like to quote from page 69, as follows:
This is not to suggest that technological change and the provision of cheaper goods by foreign suppliers are without benefit. Their benefits are obvious. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that they sometimes create serious problems for particular industries and, in so far as these industries are geographically concentrated rather than spread uniformly across the country, the problems may manifest themselves in particular areas. In other words, while the benefits of technological advance and cheaper imports may be widely distributed the unfavourable effects may be geographically confined.
This quotation substantiates the statement which I have just made. There are, as the
90205-6-547
Supply-Labour
minister knows, specific distressed areas in the Canadian economy that endure, at the present time, one and a half to two times the national average in amount of unemployment. The duration of the unemployment is just as important as the rate. Long term unemployment, that is unemployment over 15 weeks during the year is prevalent in these areas. A long period of unsuccessful job seeking usually represents a real crisis in the personal life of the individual and an irrecoverable loss both to the individual and to the economy of his productive capacity which goes unused during this time. An excess of supply over demand in labour for long periods of time in distressed areas, coupled with the immobility of the labour supply, due to such things as home ownership or lack of information on alternative job opportunities outside of the region leads to a lack of hope and despair on the part of the individual involved. The loss of income on the personal level results in communities being unable to provide essential services. This deficiency in essential services, when coupled with problems of providing welfare, constitutes an impossible financial burden on the stricken community.
How is this problem being met? The minister has indicated in his earlier remarks what the government has done. But I say to him with respect that that part of his program is inadequate to meet the situation as we find it today in the depressed areas across Canada. Here, I should like to quote what Professor Stanislaw Judek of the University of Ottawa had to say in his submission to the Senate committee on manpower, and which was in a large part adopted. He said:
The attempt to ease unemployment on a seasonal
basis-
I ask the committee to listen to this carefully.
-through an inadequate winter works program and on an industry basis, mainly through housing and other construction projects, is not sufficient in the long run because it does not recognize the condition of persistent local unemployment. Other more acceptable alternatives and long term measures must be devised to deal with structural unemployment and localized unemployment.
Here is a person who has given a great deal of thought to this aspect of unemployment and these are his views.
What is needed is a systematic study of our economic regions which will form the basis for the national employment policy. To overcome this problem, the federal government must provide technical aid for regional areas and supplement a region-wide plan by means of grants and low interest loans, and by means of tax incentives to promote the location of industries in distressed areas. What

Supply-Labour
we need to do is to return to the philosophy of the white paper on employment, as submitted to the house in 1945, which states, and I quote:
-that the dominion (government) will undertake its own deferred projects in those localities in which decline of war contracts or other circumstances have made available labour which can be included on such projects and for which the localities give promise of permanent employment.
It was this philosophy that enabled Canadians to demobilize with a minimum of dislocation and to generate a rate of growth from 1945 to 1957, which was the envy of every country in the world. That is not the condition in Canada today. I have already put on the record some of the statements made by persons in the common market countries. When they were told what to do by members of this government they replied, "You should be minding your own business and not telling us what to do, because your own economic situation is in a bad way".
Such a national employment policy as that which I have been attempting to lead up to would, of course, necessitate co-ordination. It would necessitate co-ordinated government activity at all levels. It should have as its first goal the upgrading of the skills of the unemployed in distressed areas so that they will be able to find alternative employment; second, to increase the number of jobs available in the distressed areas; third, to slow down or prevent the development of new areas of chronic unemployment.
I should like to put on the record now the steps which we on this side of the chamber or a Liberal administration would look to in order to eradicate unemployment in distressed areas.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, I must advise the committee that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give unanimous consent to allowing the hon. gentleman to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, The steps to which I refer are as follows:
1.	Establishment of a national advisory board on economic development, automation and employment, that would work in coordination with local development agencies, co-ordinating their efforts and providing technical assistance at the local level.
2.	Detailed economic regional development plans based on adequate research for each distressed area.

3.	Tax exemptions to encourage enterprise to locate in distressed areas.
4.	Accelerated depreciation over the whole term of investment.
5.	Special treatment of retained earnings that are specially needed in distressed areas.
6.	Massive vocational and retraining programs to prepare people for jobs in the regional or national labour market, worked out in conjunction with provincial authorities so as not to infringe on provincial rights.
7.	Supplementary unemployment benefits paid to those willing to undergo instructive training.
8.	Federal assistance in the preparation of local development programs. Contributions towards urban renewal both for labour and capital costs to the end of restoring lands to effective commercial and industrial use in distressed areas.
9.	Expansion of the terms of reference of the industrial development bank so as to supplement the regions' financial capacity, to seek effective action against unemployment.
10.	Co-ordinate monetary and fiscal policy in order to promote the proper atmosphere for general growth in the economy, thus relieving the local incidence of unemployment and providing alternative sources of employment outside the region for those willing and able to move out of surplus labour areas.
The committee has been good enough to give its consent to allowing me extra time and I am not going to abuse the privilege. However, before I take my seat, I wish to say a word about some of the things to which the minister referred, but I shall do it briefly.
The minister referred at some length to the public works projects that were being put into effect by this government. He referred to the Columbia river project. The committee, of course, knows that no one has been employed because of this project, although the treaty between Canada and the United States was signed many months ago; and it was signed notwithstanding the fact that no assurance had been obtained from the provincial government involved, namely the government of British Columbia, that it would be willing to go along with the project.
The minister referred to the Pine Point railway. We have just this morning approved this project in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. We have the word of the minister that the survey will not be completed until the end of the year. Hence there is certainly no ground for making the

statement that benefits will flow from this project at least before it gets started, and I doubt whether that will be prior to 1962.
Then the minister referred to the Beech-wood project. This project was finished before the loan was given. How could it provide any jobs? I have dealt with three of the five projects to which the minister referred.
Then the minister had a great deal to say about the national productivity council. However, he did not say much about what the chairman of the national productivity council was saying. Does the government and the minister approve the statements and speeches made by Mr. De Young? Can the minister state whether or not be he approves of the pronouncements that have been made by the Mr. De Young? A moment ago he said the government had no control over the productivity council. However, the government also had no control over the Bank of Canada. The government also did not like the speeches made by the then governor of the Bank of Canada. Are we again in a position similar to that in which we were with reference to the government going one way with its economic policy and the Minister of Finance being dissatisfied with the other arm of government the Bank of Canada? Is that the position with reference to the minister and the national productivity council? I wish he had said more about that matter.
Then he spoke at some length about the winter works program. I put on the record a statement made by a professor from the University of Ottawa before the manpower committee of the Senate. The minister himself referred to it and I need not repeat what he said. As to the winter works program, however, let it not be forgotten by the committee that, although the government calls it its program, only one third of the funds are provided by the federal government. The rest of the funds come either from the municipalities or the provincial governments. Notwithstanding that fact, the figures I have been given are that this employed about 85,000 people, many of whom would have been put to work under any circumstances.
The minister went far afield of his department in dealing with other extraneous conditions and circumstances that have helped the position of employment in Canada. For instance, he told us about the anti-dumping legislation. How could the anti-dumping legislation enter into the matter, when it has never been used by the government, unless I am mistaken, except perhaps once or twice. Notwithstanding the fact that we protested against this legislation and were condemned for protesting against it, the very reasons we 90205-6-547J
Supply-Labour
put forward for not passing it are some of the reasons the government is now using for not putting it into effect.
I have dealt with the national productivity council as briefly as I could. The minister spoke about trade. I do not want to get into an argument about what happened at Accra. I will keep away from that matter as there will be an opportunity to deal with it later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know about that. The Minister of Finance is not coming back until Christmas.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is having a second honeymoon.


Lionel Chevrier: However, let it not be forgotten that this government had the opportunity to assist in the promotion of jobs by accepting the free trade offer from the United Kingdom. However, it turned its back on that offer. To use an expression which the Minister of Finance likes to use in the house from time to time, the government ran away from this free trade offer just as fast as its legs could carry it. There is no doubt about that. Now the government is critical of the United Kingdom because it is about to make application to join the common market. I do not intend to talk about the tendency of this government toward protection, a tendency which certainly does not help employment. Proof of that can be found in the period of time which elapsed from 1930 to 1935. We do not want to go back to those conditions when we "blasted our country into the markets of the world". When we adopt that kind of language rather than attempt to make a deal with the tremendous potential market of the E.C.M. containing some 220 million people, we are certainly not acting in our best interests. I think the method which seems to have been adopted by the ministers, as well as by the government up till now does not seem to be one conducive to the promotion or expansion of jobs, but rather to the restriction of jobs.
All I need to say in conclusion is that I have attempted to deal with a specific aspect of this question, namely unemployment in distressed areas. I do not think-and I say this again to the minister with respect-that he has dealt effectively with this problem. I have tried also to put on record in Hansard some thoughts which I believe may be helpful. If we were to follow those suggestions I am hopeful that in the distressed areas-and there are far more of them in Canada than the minister would seem to indicate-a much larger dent in unemployment in Canada would be effected than is being made at the present time.

Supply-Labour


Mr. Winch:: I believe nearly every member of this committee understands that I represent an urban constituency in the east of the city of Vancouver. I think I am safe in saying that almost 100 per cent of my riding is a working class residential area. It is therefore understandable that in this constituency of Vancouver East we have had a very serious problem arising from unemployment and it would be almost axiomatic that in rising to speak on this, the first item, of the estimates of the Minister of Labour, I should have an emphatic speech to make on unemployment, its cause and its cure. It is not my intention to do that. I may be criticized for this, but I do not believe in political expediency or in useless repetition. I believe that since the discussion opened on this item just about everything that could be said has been said with regard to the seriousness of unemployment, its causes and the means by which it might be cured. So why should I take up the time of this committee by repetition? I do not intend to do so.
My purpose in rising to speak on this item is to raise one question with regard to which I should like to have an answer from the Minister of Labour. The question is this: what attitude does the minister take toward the I.L.O.? The international labour organization is a body which in my view has been ignored by this government for far too long, as it has been by previous governments. As I am sure you know, Mr. Chairman, the international labour organization is the oldest of the major specialized agencies which function today as part of the United Nations family. I am sure that many of us forget that the organization came into being as far back as April, 1919, under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. It was, and still is, a tripartite international agency. Its policy-a wonderful one-has been accepted, namely that there should be government, employer and worker representation from all parts of the world.
According to the last report in June of this year there were 100 nations in the organization. I do not think it is generally recognized that Canada was a founding member in April of 1919. Here we have on an international basis an organization whose policy and principles could with advantage be further advanced in the domestic field in Canada. I should like to hear from the minister his views on the international aspect of Canada's representation on the I.L.O. I shall put it this way: the international labour organization promotes the voluntary co-operation of industrial nations in an effort to improve labour conditions and to raise living standards. I think that the instrument through which the I.L.O. is making the greatest contribution to the welfare of the workers and

the farmers of the world is through what is known as the international labour code. This code is based on what are termed conventions, and since the first meeting of the I.L.O. in 1919,	115 conventions have been passed.
Canada, with government, industry and workers represented, has taken part in the passing in Geneva of those 115 conventions.
What is the purpose behind the I.L.O.? Hon. members will find it in the constitution of the organization. As stated in that constitution, the I.L.O. was founded on the fundamental tenet that universal and lasting peace could best be established only if it were based on social justice. I did not know until recently that the I.L.O. had a motto. Its motto is: Poverty anywhere is a danger to prosperity everywhere. Canada was a founding member of the international labour organization in 1919. I am informed that 115 conventions have been passed by the I.L.O. in Geneva since that date with Canada supporting most of them. However, out of that number Canada has ratified only 19, most of which deal with the welfare of seamen, their standards of food, etc. Canada's record is one of the poorest of all the states and nations that make up the I.L.O. I shall place on the record figures relating to the number of conventions ratified by other countries in order that hon. members of the committee may appreciate what a rotten record Canada has:
No. of Conventions Ratified since
Country	1919
Belgium	 60
Italy	 59
United Kingdom	 58
Uruguay	 57
Norway	 52
New Zealand	 41
Sweden	  38
Canada	 19
This is an important matter. I feel that we are entitled to ask the Minister of Labour what the position of the government is with respect to the I.L.O.
I received last week from the I.L.O. a chart dated June 1, 1961 outlining all the conventions adopted by the I.L.O. since 1919. In the four years during which the present minister has held office Canada ratified only one convention, No. 105. To what did it refer? The abolition of forced labour.


Mr. Chambers:: Is the hon. member against that?


Harold Edward Winch: Of course we support the ratification of this convention. We have in Canada what I wish to describe for the purposes of these remarks as a constitutional, democratic, parliamentary federalism. Strict lines of demarcation are drawn between the

jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments and perhaps the minister will take refuge in that argument. However, 1 emphasize that it is a damnable disgrace that no action has been taken to improve Canada's record with respect to the ratification of I.L.O. conventions. We should be ashamed of our record; but, taking pride in the fact that we were a founding member in 1919, action should be taken to ratify, in the respective jurisdictions, the I.L.O. conventions which are of a constructive nature.
I do not think this matter has been raised in the chamber before and so, because the points I would have made concerning unemployment were all covered I chose not to repeat them but to bring this matter to the attention of the committee. I urge the minister and the government to take action to improve Canada's record with respect to the ratification of I.L.O. conventions so that if Canada is not at the top of the list it will at least be close to the top in terms of the number of conventions ratified.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) to ask the minister to tell us what he thinks about the Canadian government's attitude towards international labour agreements.
I believe that the hon. member for Vancouver East has raised a point which interests not only labour unions in this country, but also management, as well as every Canadian and especially all members of this house.
If some of the unemployed have read the speech of my hon. colleague from St. Mary (Mr. Valade), they must have derived much comfort from learning that they belong to the category of frictional, cyclic, seasonal or finally technical unemployment. It must be for them a cause of great satisfaction to know to what class of unemployed they belong.
As recorded on page 8628 of the Hansard of September 20, the hon. member for St. Mary had this to say while speaking about the responsibility for unemployment:
In this respect, I should like to quote the statement made by the ephemeral leader, Hon. Jean Lesage, head of the Liberal party in Quebec.
In the language I tried hard to learn, to quote someone means to repeat literally and faithfully what that person said. The hon. member for St. Mary however did give but a paraphrase of what the Hon. Mr. Lesage had said in the province, and if this is not true, I want the hon. member to call me to order.
The Hon. Mr. Lesage never stated that unemployment was exclusively a provincial
Supply-Labour
responsibility as far as Quebec is concerned. He said that the province of Quebec had also to assume some responsibility for the unemployment problem, since it concerns the citizens of that province.
I think that by such a statement, the leader of the province, proved not only realistic but also courageous, since he repeated it after he had been elected to the position he now holds.
If the hon. member for St. Mary has reported with as much accuracy the speech delivered by Mr. Hamel on television, I think it is not necessary to carry on a controversy with him on that matter.
However, all I should like to add is that the government of the province of Quebec has already started taking action in that field.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier), on the other hand, has mentioned some action that has been taken since the election of the Liberal government in the province of Quebec.
In the field of winter works only, I think, the government has done a lot and the province of Quebec comes first as far as federal government proposals are concerned. Incidentally, I would be dishonest if I failed to recognize that the winter works program initiated by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) means something to this country in the matter of employment. But, as my colleagues who spoke before me said, the program is not adequate and too many people still cannot earn a living in this country.
The number of Quebec municipalities which submitted projects to the federal government in 1958-59 was 67; for the 1959-60 fiscal year, 93; for the 1960-61 fiscal year, 535.
The projects approved by the federal administration in 1958-59 numbered 289; in the fiscal year 1959-60, 336 and in 1960-61, 2,027, out of a total of 7,095 for the ten provinces.
The total expenditures involved by the various projects submitted by the provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as well as by the Indian reservations, amounted to $289,911,087, in the fiscal year 1960-61. The province of Quebec alone submitted projects amounting to approximately $125,732,715. I think that the province of Quebec has tried to do something, and that it has really taken concrete steps to alleviate the unemployment problem, in the quickest way possible; but immediate steps are not the only thing required to alleviate the unemployment problem. Since 1957, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and some others of my colleagues have been submitting

Supply-Labour
to the house all kinds of projects designed to provide a long term solution to the unemployment problem.
I am not interested in knowing who is responsible for unemployment. I am interested in the fate of those who are jobless and want to work.
Whenever we make a suggestion implying long term legislation to the government, we are accused of never submitting anything realistic which might immediately relieve unemployment.
To quote only one instance, in Quebec-and the federal administration recently took similar action-we set up, as I said, an economic guidance council for the province. One of the principal aims of the council is to decentralize industries and to see to it that some are established in those communities which suffer more particularly from the blight of unemployment.
A start was also made on plans to set up a steel industry in Quebec. Indeed, an investment fund of $1 hundred million will be available to industrialists who want to establish such an industry in the province.
At this time, the prime minister of the province of Quebec is in Europe, where he very actively is trying to obtain capital with a view to setting up that industry.
Other suggestions were made by my colleagues and others, and I shall not linger on the subject.
Yet, before sitting down again, I want to reiterate a suggestion which I have frequently made in this house. I am sure that it has much merit, as it was made by the Prime Minister of my country (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he addressed the citizens of Canada in 1957. Indeed, in a talk at the Montreal chamber of commerce, on February 19, 1957, he said:
(Text):
Every encouragement must be given to the processing of domestic raw materials in Canada to a much greater degree than prevails, in order that our resources may he utilized to the maximum advantage of the Canadian people.
(Translation):
In the opening speech of his electoral campaign, in Toronto, on April 25, 1957, the Prime Minister made the following statement: (Text):
We believe that the welfare of Canada demands the adoption of such a policy which will encourage more processing of Canada's resources in Canada.
(Translation):
This is what the Prime Minister said in Campbellton, New Brunswick, on May 4, 1957:

(Text):
If we are to build a country and provide jobs it cannot be done by exporting employment to the United States in the form of raw materials.
(Translation):
In the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 1, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying in New Glasgow, on April 30, 1957:
(Text):
If the majority of the 10 million tons of ore exported raw from Canada yearly were processed here it would help solve the problem of keeping Canadians at home.
(Translation):
Here is what he said in his own riding of Prince Albert, on May 27 of the same year, as reported in the Prince Albert Herald of May 28, 1957:
(Text):
Mr. Diefenbaker's point by point policy included "more processing of natural resources in Canada".
(Translation):
To quote a last statement made by the Prime Minister, here is what he said in Parry Sound, on May 10, 1957, as reported in a Canadian Press dispatch published in the daily Standard Freeholder of May 11:
(Text):
In his Parry Sound speech he (the Prime Minister) called for a firm stand on export of raw materials to the United States. A Conservative government would do its best to assure that a larger share of irreplaceable raw materials was processed in Canada "for the benefit of Canadians and to ensure employment".
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I agree that the establishment of industries like those is not possible overnight, but those statements were made more than four years ago by the Prime Minister and he then promised the nation that he would do something in that field. If, at least, he had established a committee and requested some experts to examine the possibilities and means to implement what he preached during his campaign. Even if that had not been implemented, I would say that at least he wanted to do something in that field, which he considers one of the most important of our economy, I mean the processing of raw materials in our country. In fact, the Prime Minister even stated that when we shipped our raw materials to the United States, we were exporting our labour force, when we had unemployed in this country.
If the Prime Minister was sincere when he made such a promise-and I do not doubt his sincerity-it is time that something be done in that field because the situation is very serious.
That is a long term measure which he could have caused to be examined, so that it could have been implemented at least four or five years after his coming to power.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, what is lacking in some government members, at the present time, is a deeper sense of responsibility towards the common weal of Canadian citizens.
I do not want to resume my seat without telling again the Minister of Labour that I am personally convinced that he made some efforts to correct the situation. But he should consult more with his cabinet colleagues and greater efforts should be made by the government as demanded by the hon. members for Laurier and Essex East (Messrs. Chevrier and Martin), and even the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman).
Mr. Chairman, everyone knows-and I said so unequivocally-that I am a bitter opponent of socialism, but I feel that western democratic governments must control unoccupied areas or sectors of our economy in order to strengthen it and to provide work for as many Canadians as possible.
It is not enough to speak highly of the democratic system. That system must prove that it is the best. Indeed, it would be useless for us to crow over the fact that it is the best, if too many Canadians had to wait till spring or summer in order to earn their livelihood and that of their families.


Mr. Morissetle:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Lapointe allow me a question?


Augustin Brassard: Certainly.


Émilien Morissette: The hon. member has
argued at great length about the steps taken by the government of the province of Quebec in order to fight unemployment. I should like him to tell me why it is that, contrary to a tendency shown in the other nine provinces, the level of employment has gone down in the province of Quebec during 1961 as compared to 1960?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, unlike the reply that our friends usually make when they are being asked a question concerning the present administration, I shall not say that we have inherited it. I will say that we have, in the province of Quebec, a prime minister who has shown leadership by the measures he has taken. Most of them are long term measures and they will have a great effect on employment in the province of Quebec.
But what I find most funny with my Quebec friends who are in the house-


Émilien Morissette: Answer my question.


Augustin Brassard: -is the fact that for seven or eight years, the province of Quebec was under an oxygen tent. It
Supply-Labour
has only been released from it a year ago, and some already want it to go running in the streets.


Émilien Morissette: You have not answered my question.
(Text):


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for a few minutes about one aspect of conditions in Newfoundland which has a direct bearing on the minister's department. I refer to the almost complete failure of the codfishery in many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador during the past season. As the minister is very likely aware, in southern Labrador and the northeast coast of Newfoundland and other parts as well-I speak particularly of my own riding which I know best-the codfishery was almost a complete failure.
Last year the fishery was very poor but this year it was even worse and many fishermen will not have sufficient fish this year to qualify for fishermen's unemployment insurance. This second bad season has caused and is causing acute need in many communities. I wish the minister would consider the possibility of including some of these small fishing communities in his winter works program. I have in mind in particular a community stage building program similar to the one now about to be completed. I think the last community stage in the present program is being built at the present time.
I might add that such a program stands on its own merits as a worth-while contribution toward increasing the efficiency of the fishing industry but it would be doubly important if a community stage building program could be considered at this time in connection with the need for work. This in fact would mean a good program being put to an even better use.
I would ask the minister to consider immediately the advisability of another community stage program to be initiated as soon as possible so that the fishermen in these communities where community stages might be built will have the opportunity of working during the winter to procure the necessary materials. As you know, winter work in Newfoundland, particularly in the northern areas, means late fall or early spring work, but materials for community stages could be procured during the winter.
There is one other point I should like to mention, the desirability of making Newfoundland a separate region in so far as the administration of unemployment insurance is concerned. This matter has been mentioned before. When disputed claims have to be referred to Moncton it means further delay.

Supply-Labour
I should like to suggest that Newfoundland be made a separate region and that it should not be considered as merely a part of the larger Atlantic region. I should also like to suggest that Gander might be a central place from which such a region could be administered.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak in this debate. I think those who have been in the house since I have been a member know that I do not rise on many occasions. I do not seek newspaper headlines or rise merely to repeat many of the things that have already been said in a debate. I have listened carefully to the debate on these estimates and I should like to say that the interest shown by hon. members in this problem is no greater than my own. Any individual who tries to wear a particularly bright and shining halo around his head in expressing his concern about these matters is only trying to fool the public and seek publicity.
I think all members who have spoken in this debate have done so because of their serious concern and genuine interest. However, there were many inaccuracies in some of the speeches that were made and I can see only one reason for the continued repetition of these inaccuracies, namely, that there are certain members in the house whose interest in their political future is such that on every occasion they rise to speak they have to conduct a baby election campaign on a provincial or federal basis. I think that those who do these things are much less effective in their presentations to the house. Much has been said at times about interruptions but when some hon. members do these things I suggest that they invite interruptions. I am not given to interruption. I exploded once during the speech of the hon. member for Peterborough and I would apologize to him if I disrupted the tenor of his thought. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members that I am credited with a couple of interruptions yesterday in this debate. They were not mine. I did not make them and I hope that the member who did will take the opportunity tomorrow to have them credited to himself.
I want to commend the Minister of Labour upon the realistic, proper and responsible manner in which he placed before the committee a factual report of the government program, after the many needles that had been thrust at him in a very polished manner. He gave us a statement of the results and the hopes for the future. He outlined these in a fashion that I think everyone should understand and I want to commend him for it. This was not done in a partisan manner and I believe hon. members of the house who know

the minister, know his background and know his interest in this problem, know that his attitude is one of genuine concern and his method is that of co-operation.
The hon. member for Leeds made what I thought was, in many respects, an interesting speech. However, he made some remarks which I am afraid indicate that he has already become infected by the environment of these former cabinet ministers who will not accept the verdict of the Canadian people and realize that the policies they had, for which they claim such glory and greatness, were rejected by these people. The arguments placed before the committee by the hon. member for Leeds were less effective because of this fact.
The hon. member for Trinity raised a matter which bothers me a good deal. It lies on my heart in a heavy manner. I refer to the decision taken by the government, because of the world situation, to recruit for the army and the militia. These steps were taken with only one thought in mind, to provide for the survival of our way of life, our country and our people. The innuendo that this step was taken for the purpose of lessening the impact of unemployment this winter and so that the true unemployment picture would be covered up, is one for which I believe the hon. member should apologize. This suggestion was echoed by the hon. member for Leeds in his speech. I took down his words, and here is what he said: The government is expanding our army, and thank God; that will reduce unemployment. I just cannot understand any responsible citizen of this country, for any purpose whatever suggesting that the government took this step in order to cover up the true unemployment picture. I do not believe the Canadian public will think very much of hon. members who make such suggestions.
I have heard a great deal about the great 22 years of Liberalism and the greatness of those men, some of whom are sitting here now. The only happy warrior amongst them is the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate. He is the only one sitting in this house who has said, "The people of Canada kicked us out and I will accept their verdict. I am an opposition man now, but I will be getting back over there some day." There are many hon. members who are unable to make a constructive speech. They introduce extraneous matters, such as provincial elections.


Lionel Chevrier: Your members are experts at bringing in provincial matters.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Some of our members do that perhaps, but I wish they would not follow

the example of some of your members as often as they do. However, I do not intend to do so.
It would seem from the criticism that has been offered in the speeches made since the minister spoke that some members cannot appreciate the information he gave in a factual manner because hon. members have continued to use their narrow arguments purely for the benefit of their political parties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will be back in soon.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I say to the committee that as long as there is one person in this country who is unemployed and who really wants to work, I am concerned. I, too, would say to the government your measures have not done enough. I have had some very good experiences in this connection because I have lived in the one community for over 30 years. On occasion I have been in the position that caused people to come to me. I can recall one boy who came to me on many occasions seeking work. I checked his background, checked his employment picture and tried to help him. I tried to find out what his own efforts had been to find work. On the last occassion I saw him he had another young fellow with him. He introduced me to this young fellow, who was his cousin. I said, where are you from, and ascertained he came from a farm 120 miles from Regina. The boy with whom I had been dealing had been out of work for six months, but his cousin from the farm came into town and found a job within four days. The government cannot do everything. People who try to help cannot do everything. There must be within the individual a real desire and a real effort to find work.
The hon. member can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was the hon. member for Laurier who said that at no time before 1957 had the unemployment average in Canada been greater than 3 per cent. On page 59 of the French version of the Senate committee report on manpower I notice that in 1950 it was 3.6 per cent; in 1954, 4.6 per cent and in 1955, 4.4 per cent. Those are figures taken from this report. I wanted to make this correction because this is one of those inaccuracies which has been repeated and repeated and I felt I must correct it.
However, I do not believe it has much to do with the problem. We know we have unemployment today. We all want to solve the problem. I want to commend the government for the action they have taken. I believe that towards the end of the remarks of the
Supply-Labour
hon. member for Peterborough, if I understood him correctly, he said that the government planned in the long term. I agree with that. I say to him that some of the measures the government has adopted are long term measures. We heard a remark to the effect that as soon as we removed the tax on automobiles, the Ontario Conservative government imposed a 3 per cent tax. Well, I have lived under your socialist policies, I have lived under your great authoritarian planning and I recall that over 20 years ago the Liberals imposed a sales tax. Your party, who are so honest and keep all their promises, said they would remove this iniquitous tax completely. They took office, but they did not take any action. Then, another election came along and they reduced the tax by 1 per cent, saying that as soon as other sources of revenue were available they would abolish it.
The year before this government took office the province had an income from federal sources, grants and so on of $34 million. Last year this income amounted to some $76 million, but we have not had any reduction in taxation, not a nickel. Before they got the 50-50 deal for hospitalization-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I take
advantage of the pause on the part of the hon. member in order to remind him that we are on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Labour. He seems to be straying a little bit away from that topic.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Many of the other members who preceded me in speaking also strayed from the topic. I am only answering, in the only way in which I can do so, some of the arguments they advanced. I say that we have had over 20 years of socialist rule in Saskatchewan. Those people or that little group of them with all the brains in the country, want to sit in a room and tell you, me and everyone else in the country what we should do. They should look at what is happening in Saskatchewan and find out how futile it is. Democratic free people do not want that sort of planning done for them. In a democracy the people want an opportunity to exercise their skill and to get the benefit for so doing and to expand the economy. That sort of planning does not do it.
We are supposed to have had Utopia in Saskatchewan for almost a quarter of a century, or it is getting on to that length of time. It will not reach that stage, however, because the next election will fix the situation. Nevertheless we have the lowest rate of growth in Canada. Our population has never got back to the figure at which it stood when the socialists came into power. Our people are still going to places where they do not have all these great benefits of these fine planners.

Supply-Labour
They find it better to go there. Perhaps at the moment they are not well off but they have opportunity. I do not want to see this thing happen at the federal level as then we would really have stagnation of the economy.


An hon. Member:: A planned economy.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: It has been said that we ran away from the free trade offer at the conference. That reference was made by someone. I do not know whether or not he is a free trader. When he is out west he is quite a free trader and at times I have had occasion to hear him expound his views. But when he is down east and when he is in this House of Commons and is trying to make sure that he comes back here again, it seems to me that he is anything but a free trader inasmuch as he would bar from coming into Canada every foreign automobile that some of our people like to buy and to drive, thereby providing money so that we can have twoway trade.
I heard remarks made about this government's seeking to have more material processed in Canada; I refer to raw material. Yet every time they take some action that would assist in the matter, they are accused of having a high tariff policy.
I think I have said enough. I just say, in closing, that I have not had to speak in the house in order to put my views before a government whose concern is second to none- it is certainly as great as that of any group in this House of Commons-and whose actions indicate that they work closely together, that the program of each department is concentrated and coagulated in order to gain results-


An hon. Member:: Coagulated?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: The hon. member can pick me up if I use some wrong words. However, I think hon. members know what I mean. I did not prepare a speech and come here with a great deal of material. I am speaking as I feel. When, because he is frustrated and is sitting where he does not want to sit at the moment because of the judgment of the Canadian people, anyone tries to destroy, by insinuations and inaccuracies, the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, may I say to that person that the next time the people have an opportunity to express themselves by their vote, he will find out that such a policy is futile.
I look forward to the government expanding its projects. I know they are digging fully and completely into these matters and are expanding their projects with a view to reducing this problem. I would not say that I would be complacent, satisfied and happy when the figure reaches 3 per cent, by diligently seeking and looking for improvements, we can

reduce it below that figure. The unemployment problem will never be gone, however because there are people who are not built in such a way that they want to work steadily. There are people who would like to relax at the expense of the taxpayers. We shall always have them. However, the lower we can get the figure of those that are unemployed, the happier we should all be, whether or not it redounds to our benefit politically.


Mr. Herridge:: I am sure the committee listened with great interest to the speech of the handsome, well-fed and well groomed member for Regina who has had to live under a C.C.F. government for something over 16 years. From the tenor of his speech I presume it is his valedictory address in the House of Commons.


Henry Frank Jones: He is not quite as well fed as is Clarence Fines.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: His approach to the problem of unemployment on the estimates under discussion was somewhat different from that which has prevailed in this debate today. I thought it struck a rather depressing note when dealing with a serious question which we should approach in a non partisan spirit although we may differ in our suggestions as to objectives and proposals.
I listened with great interest to the minister's outline of the government's actions to date and its efforts to meet the unemployment situation. However I must say this. While we welcome and support all the efforts that this or any other government has made to meet this serious problem which confronts members of this House of Commons and a great number of Canadians, I think it is quite fair to say that the minister painted a somewhat rosy picture. In the first instance, we all know that the federal government pays only one-third of the cost of the winter works program. Therefore they must not take credit for more than one third of the expenditure in that connection. In the second place, the government shares with provincial governments the cost of a good many other projects. That is all to the good. Then he mentioned the Pine Point railway. We all know that, if the surveys are not now completed, with winter coming on it is not likely that there will be any employment on that railroad, owing to the geographical location of the road, until some time early next summer.
Then I was rather interested to hear him mention the Columbia river project as a possibility of providing employment. May I say this. In my opinion to mention the Columbia river project is to treat a vision as a reality.

However, that procedure has become rather a habit in these later days in this house.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not criticizing the minister as an individual. I am speaking through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is a victim.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He is a victim of the system under which we live. He is Minister of Labour in a capitalist society. I speak to him as a member of the working class, expounding their views.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman. Some hon. members are rather anxious for me to conclude.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In order to facilitate the passage of the estimates I will say on some other item the few things I had intended to say on this one. I do not intend to be long. I do not want to hold up the estimates. However I have one or two gems of wisdom I wish to bring to the minister's attention.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 178 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
179. Economics and research branch including research grants and related expenses, $821,935.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 179 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No. It is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I note that in vote 179 there is an increase of $82,008 provided for the economics and research branch this year. I believe there was considerable discussion last year when this item came up. Questions were put to the minister with regard to the kind of reports which are made to him from time to time, estimates for quarter periods ahead or even for 12 month periods ahead, the idea being that as a result of these assessments one might be able to draw some conclusion as to what could be expected in the way of growth of employment or a further increase in unemployment.
Supply-Laoour
We are, naturally, all interested in the unemployment figures as well as in the employment figures. The advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission has indicated that it believes that in the 1961-62 period there will be unemployment comparable to that which we experienced last winter. Of course, this would be unfortunate and it would have serious economic and social consequences. We all hope this will not be the case. But in the light of the vote provided here, the minister ought to be served with these prognostications as to future levels of manpower and employment.
I think the economics and research branch formerly presided over by the distinguished deputy minister ought to be in a position to inform the committee what we may expect for the next ten or 12 months. I should like to know what the anticipations are for the period until the end of December and for the period from January to, let us say, the middle of June. I have a suspicion that the branch devotes much of its activity to manpower studies. If that is the case the minister should be in a position to give some assessment from the information supplied to him as to the probabilities of employment in the immediate future.
We do know that in the Department of Trade and Commerce in other years a confidential and private economic survey was prepared from which the government could draw conclusions in this regard. We also know that the Bank of Canada prepares summaries, half yearly, I think, as well as yearly. It would be interesting to know, particularly in the light of last year's discussion, what the minister has available in this regard. I made the statement yesterday that the practice has been to issue quarterly statements. This was certainly the practice when I was familiar with the department. These statements were, of course, privileged. They were the minister's prerogative and the hon. gentleman may so regard them now. If that is the case, perhaps within those limits, the minister could, nevertheless, give the committee some indication of what he anticipates would be the employment situation in Canada in the next ten or 12 months.


Michael Starr: The hon. gentleman answered his own question at the end of what he had to say with respect to the reports. He has had experience as parliamentary assistant to the minister of labour and he must certainly know that these reports are available to the minister. They are compiled by the economics branch from whatever information the branch is able to gather. They make guesses as to what may happen in the immediate future, and only in the immediate

Supply-Labour
future. These reports are, naturally, available to the minister but, as the hon. gentleman himself pointed out, they are confidential. They have remained confidential and are so at the present time.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you will permit me to say a word about the international labour organization. The hon. member for Vancouver East asked certain questions with respect to the ratification of the conventions which have been adopted by the organization since its inception in 1919. Although that was raised under the first item may I be permitted at this stage to give the information to the hon. member for Vancouver East. I personally look upon the I.L.O. as an important organization. The fact that it has a membership of some 100 countries lends credence to the fact that it is highly regarded by practically all countries in the world.
The Department of Labour has a special section that devotes its time to the functions and activities of the I.L.O. Although it is a matter of regret to me, I personally have not had the opportunity of attending as many of these sessions as I should have liked. My only opportunity was in 1958 at which time I appreciated very much the opportunity to learn of the work of the I.L.O. during my visit. During that short period I observed that the Canadian representatives of workers and employers were treated with great respect. Many of our representatives serve as chairmen of committees and in other responsible positions in the work of the I.L.O. This pleases me very much and I take pride in the fact that the contribution of Canadians is recognized in this way.
Without casting a reflection on the hon. member for Vancouver East may I say in passing that I think he was one who criticized me for being absent from the house at the time of my visit and I have not visited again since then.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry to interrupt but I challenge the minister to produce from the records a statement attributed to me in which I criticized the minister for being absent on official business.


Mr. Thrasher:: Read Hansard.


Michael Starr: I believe I returned on the evening of the same day the hon. member questioned my whereabouts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I remember an occasion when the minister was precluded from attending because his estimates were not completed.


Michael Starr: Due in part to the efforts of the hon. member for Essex East I was precluded from attending the 1959 session.


Mr. Benidickson:: Unemployment levels were very high at that time.


Michael Starr: I regard the work of the house as being of primary importance, coming before all else. Since its inception the I.L.O. has adopted 115 conventions. I am not too familiar with what happened in the past with respect to the ratification by Canada of these various conventions but since 1957 11 conventions have been adopted by the I.L.O. Conventions Nos. 108, 109, 112, 113 and 114 were adopted in 1958 and 1959. In the main they related to the maritimes and fisheries. Consultations with respect to these five conventions are now being considered by this department and the departments of transport and fisheries with respect to the possibility of ratifying all or some of them. No decision has yet been arrived at and the five conventions are still in process of study.


Harold Edward Winch: Only one has been ratified since the minister took office.


Michael Starr: In 1958 we ratified a convention adopted in 1957 with respect to the abolition of forced labour. Convention No. 106 having to do with weekly rest in commerce and offices, No. 107 concerning indigenous and tribal populations, No. Ill concerning discrimination and No. 115 relating to radiation protection, lead us into jurisdictional difficulties. Under our federal system we encounter a snag because these conventions relate to fields which partly come under provincial jurisdiction and thus, under our system, the federal government is prevented from ratifying them.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask what steps are being taken to reach an understanding on the matter with the provinces?


Michael Starr: This is one area where an attempt could be made to rectify the situation through consultation with the provinces and perhaps we could look into this matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the department doing so?


Michael Starr: I said that we could explore the possibility of achieving some understanding with the provinces in determining whether they would be agreeable to the ratification of these conventions.
Convention No. 110 has to do with the employment of plantation workers and is not applicable in Canada. I feel there is no sense in ratifying a convention that does not apply here.
We are awaiting a legal opinion from the Minister of Justice with respect to convention No. 116 concerning the partial revision of the conventions adopted by the general conference of I.L.O. in 1961.


Harold Edward Winch: Is that an important convention?


Michael Starr: We in the department look upon all the conventions as important because we regard the work of I.L.O. as important. If we do not agree that they are important we feel the time to say so is when they are being adopted. Canada has played an important part in many of these conventions, whether or not they are applicable to Canada.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this is one of the most important items that comes under the jurisdiction of the minister and so I should like to make some comments and ask some questions at this point. In my view we desperately need concentration on the entire problem of job training and should look for changing patterns of employment for the next 20 or 30 years. I hope to obtain some information in this regard under this item.
In support of my contention I wish to quote from the report of the special committee of the Senate on manpower and employment. At page 7 we find this statement:
It is essential that we keep the closest watch on changing patterns of employment, on the requirements for the various skills, on developments in foreign and domestic markets, on the effects of technological change, on the implications of changing levels of investment and changing patterns of government expenditure, on the impact of population growth, changing rates of family formation, and changing levels of immigration.
I realize that many of these areas of activity do not come within the purview of this branch of the department but certainly some of them do. The report goes on to say:
More specifically, steps should be taken immediately to initiate a continuous and comprehensive program designed to provide periodic analyses and forecasts of the size and composition of the labour force and the demand for workers in different industries, areas, occupations, and with different skills.
I note with some consternation that there are only five economists in the employ of this branch. This is a nation of some 18 million people with a labour force of several million persons. I am led to wonder if sufficient research is being conducted in the branch. I am aware that the people dealing with vocational training were very much concerned about the courses that were being set up. They want to know whether there is any point in training a welder. What will the employment opportunities be in five, six or 10 years from now? Is there any point in training a certain kind of pipefitter? Will this particular job disappear? I realize that in a sense this has all the appearance of star gazing and crystal ball gazing as well. Surely we have some bases on which we can operate. Surely we can send questionnaires to
Supply-Labour
employers and industrialists who to some extent know what the pattern of industry is going to be.
It seems to me that economists in the department might well spend their time looking at tables in the Labour Gazette and writing a few speeches and preparing reports to which the hon. member for Essex East has referred. I should like to know whether there are any long range research projects going on in the department having to do with this particular area and seeking out the labour problems over the next 10 to 20 years. If so, to what extent are they being carried out?


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Peterborough quoted from page 7 of the report on manpower and employment. If he had looked at the paragraph immediately preceding the one he quoted he would have seen that the committee said:
The committee is impressed with the work being carried out in various branches of the federal government.
This of course included the Department of Labour, because the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour made a number of comprehensive submissions to this committee which helped it a great deal in the study it was carrying on.
As far as the recommendations in paragraph 2 are concerned, to which the hon. member has drawn our attention, I can assure him that we are going to do everything possible to live up to the request that has been made in this recommendation.


Walter George Pitman: I am glad to hear that. Is any research project being carried out right now to try to give the employment picture of the future? I have in mind those who are setting up vocational courses for the unemployed in the various municipalities. Is there any possibility of carrying on these studies within the research branch? This is a question which I have thrown at me quite often by those who are operating in this area.


Michael Starr: They are making this study continually, Mr. Chairman. In the particular field mentioned by the hon. member it would be of some help to those people who are engaged in the training if they knew what type of course they should undertake, and so forth. They can get all the help they possibly need and all the information they require as to the requirements of the labour force for certain skilled workers from our national employment service which has an up to date record in each and every district and area.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
182.	Industrial relations activities including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $643,798.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that in the speech from the throne two years ago, or some time since then, information was given of the government's intention to bring in amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Certainly if that is not so, the minister did during the course of the present parliament indicate the government's intention to bring forward other amendments to the act or a substitution therefor. We have not heard anything more about this intention. It seems to have suffered the fate of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and other well expressed intentions of this government such as providing a system of contributory pensions based on the United States experience. There is such a gap between good intention and realization that the minister will not mind if I inquire tonight what has happened to the proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Michael Starr: My nature is tenacious and I like to finish whatever I am trying to do, in the best way I can possibly do so. My intentions with respect to this matter were certainly sincere and I asked labour and management to submit their recommendations and ideas as to what type of amendment should be made to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. This was done in 1958. It took quite some time before the various organizations, labour, industry, industrial organizations and business organizations were able to submit their suggestions. I will be quite frank with the hon. gentleman. I do not know what other course the hon. gentleman would have followed, but I found that management did offer many drastic suggestions affecting labour. On the other hand, labour had very few suggestions. They felt well satisfied with the present act. Under those circumstances I felt that since I did not have a balanced number of suggestions, one offsetting the other, I would not proceed with any changes in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act because one segment of the people who are affected by this act seem to be quite satisfied with the act as it stands now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister's statement is an interesting one. I do not suppose there has ever been a finer tribute paid to the perspicacity and the vision of

Mr. Mackenzie King than the statement we have just had from the Minister of Labour. Mr. King was the first Canadian deputy minister of labour and then minister of labour. He played a significant role in labour-management relations. He was the author of this act. That it has withstood the chill blasts of cold winters subsequent to its introduction, is I think an effective and deserving tribute to a man who played such a great part in our national life.


Michael Starr: May I just make a comment in answer to that. Those amendments are still under consideration and the time may arrive when we might amend this act. In view of what the hon. member said, namely that a great deal of credit must go to Mr. King, I must remind the hon. member that the original act has been amended many times so that it is in its perfect form now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By a Liberal government. I should like to ask the minister a speculative question on this subject. The minister said he was still considering the possibilities of certain amendments. Does the minister think he is apt in this slow motion race to reach the post before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does with the famous revisions of the Immigration Act?


Michael Starr: I realize the humour that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is endowed with and that he must display it at times; otherwise he might burst at the seams. I have given the reasons why. It is not on account of lack of activity on my part but because of the legitimate reasons I have given, and I was quite frank about them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad the minister recognizes that there is a difference between the legitimate reasons he has given and the reasons his colleagues give.


Michael Starr: I do not make that comparison at all.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to say one word. May I perhaps be so impudent or imprudent as to say that Mackenzie King and R. B. Bennett have been dead for a long while and all honour to their names, but let us now discuss and decide the problems of Canada in the light of conditions in 1961.


William Moore Benidickson: I feel sure that the government in its planning, although we have heard little about it since last December, had in mind some connection between the Department of Labour and the productivity council. When we are considering vote No. 182 having to do with fair wages, hours of labour and so on, I would think that there is a relationship, and perhaps the minister might tell us what

is happening with respect to the productivity-council which was talked about last December.


Michael Starr: I said this afternoon that the productivity council will be meeting on Monday and Tuesday, September 25 and 26, to discuss subjects related to the matter which the hon. member has brought up.


William Moore Benidickson: Which would include hours of work.


Michael Starr: Labour-management co-operation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce be back to meet the productivity council?


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that what I wish to say is essentially related to the national employment service but I feel the matter is also of particular concern in connection with the progress that has been made in Canada under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and other labour legislation. I have reference to the possibility of employers using the national employment service to break strikes. An employer goes to the national employment service to get persons whom he wishes to employ in place of those who are on strike. The minister is quite right that the form which the prospective employee receives has the notation stamped on it that he is going to a strikebound plant or to a hotel such as the Royal York, but when a person has been unemployed for many months it is very hard for him to put the labour situation in Canada ahead of the welfare of his own family.
I think this has become a very dangerous precedent and a strikebreaking technique which has all kinds of implications. In my view the whole idea of a strike is that both sides suffer. The employer suffers through not being able to make a profit and the employee suffers through not having his wages. I think the unfortunate practice to which I have just referred has been aggravated as a result of the great unemployment in the last year. I should like to know whether the minister does not feel that some method should be devised whereby a plant where the workers are on strike could be considered as being out of bounds and isolated from normal labour procedures so that the national employment service would not be put in the position of sending people to a strikebound plant to the detriment of the striking employees. I would hope the minister might consider that as a possibility.


Michael Starr: The hon. member realizes, I am sure, as he has admitted, that the national employment service has been set up to serve the public of Canada and that includes employers and employees. We cannot take sides
Supply-Labour
in these matters. The service has to perform the function for which it was established. If an employer presents an order for a number of men, we do not question the fact that his plant may be strikebound, but in referring men we tell them that we have an order for so many men for a strikebound plant, that a strike is now in progress and that it is entirely up to them to decide whether they want to be referred to the job in question. In addition, the fact that there is a strike in progress is noted on the referral slip. If the person is on unemployment insurance and drawing benefits and refuses to go, he is not penalized. We remain neutral in this situation. If the person refuses to go to the job he can still draw his unemployment insurance benefits whereas if he is referred to a job falling within the classification in which he is listed in a plant which is not strikebound and refuses to go he is disqualified so far as benefits are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
183.	Civilian rehabilitation branch including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $270,655.
William Moore Benidickson: To what extent, if at all, is the department involved with the provinces in rehabilitation that might be necessary as a result of injury in a nuclear war? Is the labour department negotiating with the provinces with respect to rehabilitation that might be made necessary by reason of a nuclear war?


Michael Starr: As the committee knows, parliament approved and passed a bill consolidating the work in the field of rehabilitation of civilians. Until that time we only participated with the provinces and other agencies through agreements. Now we have a bill under which agreements are being negotiated with the various provinces. Only last week the deputy ministers of the various departments interested in civilian rehabilitation attended a conference in Ottawa in order to discuss the terms of the proposed agreements. The act has not yet been proclaimed. Nevertheless, we see no obstacles in the way of agreements being signed shortly so that the whole plan will become effective as of April 1, 1962.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special services-
184.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor In council, $498,860.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we heard speeches about the assistance given to the province of Quebec in order to help remedy the situation as far as unemployment is concerned. Would it be possible for the minister to give us a breakdown under this vote which is for the promotion of a program to combat seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council? Would it be possible for the minister to give us all the schemes that come under this vote and the amount of money paid by the federal government to the province of Quebec since the inception of every scheme included in the vote?
In order to make some kind of comparison would it be possible to have a table which would also show the money paid to the province of Ontario? I suppose that unemployment assistance and seasonal unemployment come under this vote. Some schemes were started two years ago and others three years ago, and I think it would be very interesting to the committee and also to the Canadian people to know how much money the federal government has provided in order to help the seasonally unemployed or those who cannot receive unemployment insurance benefits. We would be interested in knowing the total amount of money provided by the federal government for these schemes under agreements with the provinces. I suppose the cost is divided 50-50. If I am wrong, the minister will correct me, but I take it that the provinces supply 50 per cent of the money and the federal government pays 50 per cent. Is it possible for the minister to give us a breakdown of the amount of money given by the federal government to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec since the inception of the scheme?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, there are no agreements with the provinces in respect of this particular vote. This vote provides for the continuation of the publicity program to assist in the promotion of employment in Canada during the winter months. This is done through the newspapers, the radio, films and other media of publicity. The purpose is to bring to the attention of the people the "Do it now" program with which I think the hon. member is acquainted. Some of the provinces have participated in this scheme at their own expense and much in the same way as we do. Private enterprise is doing the same thing across Canada. This is all the vote provides for. There are no agreements

with any of the provinces because it is strictly a publicity program.


Azellus Denis: Does the government give
money directly to the provinces in order to have this promotional work done?


Michael Starr: No, we undertake this publicity on our own.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
185.	Administration, $146,905.
James Aloysius McGrath: I wonder if the minister could indicate to the committee, under this vote, what projects have been submitted by the government of Newfoundland for the technical and vocational training assistance for approval, and what projects have been approved as well as those projects which are currently under consideration?


Michael Starr: In Newfoundland the following projects, Mr. Chairman, have been approved: Burin district vocational trade school; Corner Brook vocational trade school; Gander district vocational trade school; Grand Falls district vocational trade school; St. John's college of trade and technical training; Itinerant fishing school district.


James Aloysius McGrath: Could the minister give the total cost of this program and what projects, if any, are still under consideration?


Michael Starr: The total cost of the projects approved in Newfoundland under this program, $12,081,591, and the federal share of that is $9,060,093. I know the province of Newfoundland is contemplating other schools but they have not submitted their plans or specifications for approval, consequently I am unable to give any details.


William Moore Benidickson: I should like to ask the
minister if this is the vote under which the minister approved a co-operative grant with the province of Ontario for the vocational training enlargement at Fort Frances, Ontario?


Michael Starr: Yes.


William Moore Benidickson: I thank the minister for his approval of that scheme.


Mr. Rogers:: I wonder if the minister would give the same information for Alberta as he did for Newfoundland?


Michael Starr: Projects approved in Alberta, Mr. Chairman, are, in Calgary, the southern Alberta institute of technology, $1,176,338.80, of which the federal share is $882,254.10; in Edmonton, the C.V.T. commercial school at an estimated cost of $1,920, of which the federal share is $1,440; in Edmonton again, the northern Alberta institute of technology,

$11,791,800 of which the federal share is $8,843,850; in Edmonton, vocational school, $2,300,000, the federal share is $1,552,500. In Lethbridge, there is the junior collegiate and vocational school, $590,000, and the federal share is $398,250. In Red Deer, there is the vocational high school at an estimated cost of $1,365,000, and the federal share is $921,375.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
186.	To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total of $27,108,700-payments to the provinces, $26,600,000.
Walter George Pitman: This particular vote, I think, is of a great deal of importance. It is one of the most important items put forward by the Minister of Labour, but one which I am afraid has caused a great deal of consternation in many parts of this country. It involves, as well as the building of technical institutes and so on, the training of the unemployed. I cannot help but feel that this plan has been less than successful over the last number of months. It seems there has been no pattern set up whereby the local municipality really has any sense of confidence in what it is doing.
On June 9, I asked the Department of Labour just how many municipalities in Ontario had instituted programs for the training of unemployed persons under schedule M. I was informed that only five in the whole of Ontario had done so since April 1, 1961, namely, Brantford, Cornwall, Toronto, St. Catharines and Windsor. When one looks at the courses that are given in each of these centres, one cannot but notice the absence of any kind of pattern. Perhaps this is what I was trying to get at when I was referring to the department of research. I do not feel these people on the local level really know what jobs are going to be available in the future and therefore they are rather reticent about dealing with the problem. The hon. member for Essex East brought up the whole problem of academic training which must go along with this.
The municipality which I represent made a magnificent effort to retrain the unemployed, but this problem came up again and again. Another problem which arose, of course, was that of getting the unemployed into these courses. It seems to me that after the last war we developed a very worth-while system intended to help the veteran find the slot in which he could be placed after he was taken out of the service. I am not sure but what the Department of Veterans Affairs could be of great use in this particular area. It seems to me that surely there could be some counselling service in the national employment
Supply-Labour
office in these municipalities to bring about this kind of program. In Peterborough, they sent out questionnaires to all the unemployed, but then they faced the problem of getting the questionnaires back. The unemployed person has no knowledge of his abilities or the direction in which he should be going. You have, therefore, as many courses as you have people asking for them.
I realize that to a large extent this is a provincial problem but I feel that perhaps the federal government needs to take more responsibility by giving some aid to the municipality which is trying to provide this kind of retraining. One of the questions which I should like to ask is, have municipalities within all the provinces set up retraining schemes for the unemployed since the schedule came into effect in April, 1961?


Michael Starr: The hon. member said that this problem lies within provincial jurisdiction, and it is one which is more jealously guarded by the provinces than any other. Consequently, it is not our intention to move in on this jurisdiction in any way whatever. All we are trying to do is to help the provinces advance an area of education for the training of certain types of people for whom we feel there is a need in Canada. We have agreements with all the provinces, the whole ten, in respect of this matter.
As an incentive to undertake these courses we raised these contributions from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the total cost. That includes equipment that is necessary for these courses. This is as far as we go with respect to the direction. There is no direction from us at all. We extend help to these local people- boards of education or whoever they may be- who might be setting up these courses; and in guiding people as to the type of courses through our national employment service offices. That is where the employers put in their orders and that is where they are able to say, "In this area we can place immediately 12 welders", or five barbers, or three hairdressers, or whatever it may be. There is no sense in training people if there is no call for that type of trade in that area. If there is a call in another area, then we will most certainly direct them to that job after the training course is over.
I do not want to take up the time of the committee to explain this. However, last fall we were advised by the pipe line contractors that they had plans for the construction of many miles of gas lines in the province of Alberta, that this work would require specialized welders in this field and that we did not have that type of skill here in Canada in sufficient numbers to fill these jobs. We immediately contacted the three prairie provinces and with their co-operation and that of

Supply-Labour
the pipe line contractors who supplied the equipment, we were able to train sufficient specialized welders to fill the needs of these pipe line contractors for this year. Consequently, this is planning not in the socialistic way as the hon. member would have it instituted in Canada but it is planning to take care of situations. This is what we are doing and this is what we have done with good results.


Mr. Pascoe:: Under this item I should like to commend the minister and the government for what is being done in technical and vocational training assistance. This financial assistance can very readily be seen in the details of payments to the provinces as listed at pages 264 and 265 of the blue book. I will just read two or three of the items:
Assistance to trade and vocational schools, technical institutes, and technical and vocational high schools: Capital assistance, $14,775,000.
Assistance towards operational costs of trade and vocational schools and technical institutes, $3,125,000.
Assistance towards operational costs of technical and vocational high schools, $1,965,000.
Under the heading of "Assistance for Training Programs" we find the following:
Training for unemployed workers, $4,000,000.
That is under schedule M which was referred to a while ago.
I think this indicates very well how much the federal government is paying towards the technical institutes. In the terms of the technical and vocational training assistance bill that was passed earlier this session, the federal government pays 75 per cent of the capital costs of these technical institutes and also of the equipment needed in these institutes. This is a very generous federal offer. As has been pointed out, it is inspired by Ottawa's conviction that much of our unemployment results from lack of training for many in Canada's labour force.
The city of Moose Jaw in my constituency has a fine technical institute built with federal financial assistance. The Minister of Labour was the guest speaker out there in January at the official opening of the institute. He was invited in recognition of the big part the federal government played in making the institute possible. The minister made a tour of inspection of the building. He knows that it was planned to accommodate technical and vocational classes until 1965 at least. He will be interested to know that the institute is already being used to capacity. In fact, it might now almost be described as being overcrowded. I have here figures in regard to training for schedule M, the special winter training for the unemployed. It indicates that more are being enrolled now than it had been

anticipated would be taking these classes, in 1965. On the grounds on which the institute is built there is room to double the size of the building. I suggest that this expansion should be undertaken as soon as possible, by next year at the very latest.
In his statement in the house last December the minister said that the success of any vocational or training program depends upon the supply of qualified instructors. I am sure that all in this committee will agree with this statement. The Moose Jaw institute has qualified instructors. What the institute needs is greater space for classrooms and workshops. I am drawing this matter to the minister's attention, although I know the initiative with regard to expansion must come from the provincial government in Regina. The Saskatchewan government has indicated that it is considering enlarging the Moose Jaw institute. I hope the minister will encourage the provincial government to undertake this needed expansion as soon as possible.


Azellus Denis: May I ask the minister whether he will be good enough to give us a breakdown by provinces of the money spent under this item during the last five years. At the same time I should like to know under what item we would get information with regard to the winter works program and unemployment assistance. In 1960 I asked in the house a question about the winter works program and I was answered by the Department of Labour. I later asked some questions about unemployment assistance and the answer came back from the Department of Labour. I have been looking everywhere in these estimates but I do not find anything that relates to this winter works program or to unemployment assistance. I should be greatly interested in knowing the amounts paid to each province during the last five years so that we could get a clear picture of how much money has been given away by the government to each province, in order to prove that since 1960 when the Liberal regime came into power in Quebec, they did much more to help with the problem of unemployment in the province of Quebec than did the previous government which declared that unemployment was not any part of its responsibility. The new regime in Quebec decided that it was a responsibility not only of the federal government and of the provincial government but of the municipal governments and of every person who wants to see his neighbour have some work in Canada.


Michael Starr: I cannot read all these figures but I shall be glad to table them for the information of the hon. member. They go

back to 1957. These tables give the capital and operating costs for each province for vocational training.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Has the minister leave to table the statistical table which he has just produced?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is understood that these tables will be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has been the usual practice.
Supply-Labour


Gordon Campbell Chown: I would ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to reflect upon the amount of statistical material that is here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This has been done over and over again, Mr. Chairman. I can assure you there is no precedent created here.


Michael Starr: I have no objection.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give its unanimous consent to the printing of these tables.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING AGREEMENT NO. 2 Capital Expenditures (Federal Share)
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	$	$	$	$Newfoundland	.. 1,971.65	4,490.44	6,104.07	37,933.99	50,500.15Prince Edward Island	.. 18,030.26	56,932.04	95,467.03	4,459.56	174,888.89Nova Scotia	. . -	19,737.58	686.50	1,556.46	21,980.54New Brunswick	.. 18,555.25	20,149.90	72,871.09	567,413.52	678,989.76Ontario	. . -	1,200,430.00	1,530,145.49	1,496,174.48	4,226,749.97Manitoba	.. 13,547.74	10,874.16	33,379.13	60,718.76	118,519.79Saskatchewan	.. 15,660.66	73,285.13	830,371.64	366,195.08	1,285,512.51Alberta	.. 732,130.54	941,923.71	12,618.27	22,920.37	1,709,592.89British Columbia	.. 108,975.15	271,113.51	553,493.42	299,220.92	1,232,803.00Northwest Territories	-	35,982.99	-	-	35,982.99Yukon	[DOT]. -	23,000.00	-	-	23,000.00Total	.. 908,871.25	2,657,919.46	3,135,136.64	2,856,593.14	9,558,520.49OPERATING	COSTS OF ALL PROGRAMS	(Federal Share)	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	$	$	$	$V.T.T.A.-2	.. 936,345.32	2,137,803.02	2,004,344.57	2,309,787.03	7,388,279.94Apprenticeship	.. 1,331,747.59	1,674,591.44	1,790,496.80	1,638,046.79	6,434,882.62Unemployed Workers	.. 397,474.82	510,479.99	545,450.91	995,942.16	2,449,347.88Disabled Persons	.. 270,362.62	265,924.74	283,286.45	329,566.98	1,149,140.79Armed Service Tradesmen	.. 37,683.56	33,281.70	30,024.65	18,500.00	119,489.91Correspondence Courses	.. 2,142.57	2,293.16	769.29	1,794.23	6,999.25Supervisory Training	.. 9,316.63	7,789.68	8,524.75	13,766.02	39,397.08Other Government Depts	.. 2,139.54	-	-	665.76	2,805.30Student Aid	.. 201,003.25	230,882.50	215,845.00	187,171.05	834,901.80Youth Training and Primary	Industries	.. 111,444.34	132,700.54	117,590.24	100,877.03	462,612.153,299,660.24	4,995,746.77	4,996,332.66	5,596,117.05	18,887,856.72
Suvvlv-Labour
OPERATING COSTS-V.T.T.A.-2 (Federal Share)
Vocational Schools and Institutes, Vocational High Schools
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	$	$	$	SNewfoundland	... 71,048.74	87,954.35	82,424.36	77,359.80	318,787.25Prince Edward Island	... 35,281.53	42,992.09	28,089.68	13,576.08	119,939.38Nova Scotia	... 127,453,76	139,796.19	158,444.61	181,226.95	606,921.51New Brunswick	... 117,400.00	117,400.00	137,700.00	158,000.00	530,500.00Ontario	1,113,577.53	807,324.00	953,442.00	2,874,343.53Manitoba	... 136,368.71	132,025.84	165,906.33	189,848.47	624,149.35Saskatchewan	... 98,933.55	126,447.38	167,504.85	201,708.78	594,594.56Alberta	... 177,000.25	177,037.00	211,031.00	245,225.25	810,293.50British Columbia	... 171,187.10	190,600.00	227,800.00	264,900.00	854,487.10Northwest Territories	... 1,671.68	3,463.73	15,429.86	10,754.91	31,320.18Yukon	... -	6,508.91	2,689.88	13,744.79	22,943.58Total	... 936,345.32	2,137,803.02	2,004,344.57	2,309,787.03	7,388,279.94
APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING (Federal Share)
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	$	$	S	$Newfoundland	.... 45,534.81	46,053.80	64,241.14	34,637.35	190,467.10Prince Edward Island	.... -	-	-	-	-Nova Scotia	.... 77,897.10	82,331.62	88,895.69	96,458.40	345,582.81New Brunswick	.... 60,838.08	71,927.46	94,253.92	98,832.67	325,852.13Quebec	.... -	-	-	-	-Ontario	.... 306,175.21	519,512.24	498,686.83	564,634.20	1,889,008.48Manitoba	.... 91,004.50	76,346.81	88,491.22	80,786.09	336,628,62Saskatchewan	.... 120,949,47	124,945.80	142,642.32	152,696.85	541,234.44Alberta	.... 355,051.86	391,005.00	471,096.55	445,465.13	1,662,618.54British Columbia	.... 273,934.06	362,164.90	341,924.79	164,194.60	1,142,218.35Northwest Territories	.... 362.50	303.81	264.34	341.50	1,272.15Yukon	.... -	-	-	-	-Total	.... 1,331,747.59	1,674,591.44	1,790,496.80	1,638,046.79	6,434,882.62
[The Deputy Chairman.]

Supply-Labour



OPERATING COSTS-TRAINING OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS (FEDERAL SHARE)

[Stage Direction]
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	6	$	$	$Newfoundland	. . . -	-	-	49,103.19	49,103.19Prince Edward Island	... -	-	-	-	-Nova Scotia	... 174,741.75	164,991.06	141,856.46	234,071.61	715,660.88New Brunswick	... 16,449.44	39,431.43	30,824.26	75,045.12	161,750.25Quebec	... -	-	-	40,295.97	40,295.97Ontario	... 20,440.16	29,369.91	9,025.82	17,516.95	76,352.84Manitoba	... 45,926.31	53,666.08	88,775.25	163,692.71	352,060.35Saskatchewan	... 37,145.72	54,889.93	53,420.51	119,024.09	264,480.25Alberta	... 51,185.74	78,801.35	104,077.48	157,636.81	391,701.38British Columbia	... 51,462.20	89,088.60	117,096.70	139,055.71	396,703.21Northwest Territories	... 123.50	241.63	374.43	500.00	1,239.56Yukon	... -	-	-	-	-397,474.82	510,479.99	545,450.91	995,942.16	2,449,347.88
OPERATING COSTS-DISABLED PERSONS (Federal Share)
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	$	$	$	$Newfoundland	... 11,310.79	12,500.00	12,500.00	10,325.67	46,636.46Prince Edward Island	... 3,500.00	3,565.52	1,744.32	967.31	9,777.15Nova Scotia	... 32,582.81	40,176.97	35,074.01	45,322.05	153,155.84New Brunswick	... 50,846.46	44,896.22	43,443.63	49,594.10	188,780.41Quebec	... -	-	-	-	-Ontario	... 101,691.42	98,830.71	112,352.69	153,048.62	465,923.44Manitoba	... 26,869.42	19,134.10	27,945.03	22,604.79	96,553.34Saskatchewan	... 18,015.46	17,928.27	22,527.26	23,663.57	82,134.56Alberta	... 10,246.97	15,198.50	15,709.51	17,161.99	58,316.97British Columbia	... 15,299.29	13,694.45	11,990.00	6,878.88	47,862.62Northwest Territories	... -	-	-	-	-Yukon	... -	-	-	-	-Total	... 270,362.62	265,924.74	283,286.45	329,566.98	1,149,140.79
Supply-Labour
[Stage Direction]
STUDENT AID (Federal Share)
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	$	$	$	SNewfoundland	... 8,000.00	8,000.00	8,000.00	8,000.00	32,000.00Prince Edward Island	... 5,500.00	5,500.00	5,500.00	5,500.00	22,000.00Nova Scotia	... 10,000.00	9,995.00	9,970.00	9,965.00	39,930.00New Brunswick	... -	30,000.00	15,000.00	14,975.00	59,975.00Quebec	... -	-	-	-	-Ontario	... 100,000.00	100,000.00	100,000.00	100,000.00	400,000.00Manitoba	... 8,315.75	7,450.00	4,700.00	7,500.00	30,665.75Saskatchewan	... 30,000.00	30,000.00	29,975.00	30,000.00	119,975.00Alberta	... 10,462.50	10,000.00	10,000.00	10,000.00	40,462.50British Columbia	... 28,725.00	29,937.50	30,000.00	-	88,662.50Northwest Territories	... -	-	-	631.05	631.05Y ukon	... -	-	-	600.00	600.00Total	... 201,003.25	230,882.50	215,845.00	187,171.05	834,901.80OPERATING COSTS (Federal Share)	Province	Youth Training (less Student Aid)	Primary Industries	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61$	$	$	$Newfoundland	
20,227.59	23,865.29	19,872.76	17,300.48Prince Edward Island	
243.75	1,302.07	2,394.29	-Nova Scotia	
23,260.36	30,718.15	26,416.09	25,811.84New Brunswick	
13,165.76	35,457.83	28,882.25	28,416.47Quebec	-	-	-Ontario	
-	-	-	-Manitoba	
7,653.51	5,820.77	6,726.60	8,105.60Saskatchewan	
17,034.70	17,816.42	16,834.96	16,117.14Alberta	
9,551.93	6,231.46	10,627.39	4,107.49British Columbia	
19,919.74	11,333.55	5,835.90	418.01Northwest Territories	
387.00	155.00	-	600.00Total	
111,444.34	132,700.54	117,590.24	100,877.03
[The Deputy Chairman.]

Supply-Labour
OPERATING COSTS-ARMED SERVICE TRADESMEN (Federal Share)
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	$	$	$	$Quebec...,	-	-	-	2,848.84Manitoba.	8,846.17	1,045.07	-	21,002.98Alberta	
23,722.98	24,435.53	28,979.58	18,500.00	95,638.09Total.	33,281.70	30,024.65	18,500.00	119,489.91OPERATING COSTS-SUPERVISORY TRAINING	(Federal Share)	Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total$	$	$	$	$Ontario	
4,136.29	4,316.14	4,607.77	5,193.44	18,253.64Manitoba..	-	122.75	-	347.75Alberta	981.87	847.52	850.79	3,491.92British Columbia	
4,143.60	2,491.67	2,946.71	7,721.79	17,303.779,316.63	7,789.68	8,524.75	13,766.02	39,397.08
OPERATING COSTS-CORRESPONDENCE COURSES (Federal Share)
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60
[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland	
-	__ _____________Prince Edward Island	
-	-	_Nova Scotia	
-	__ 375.00New Brunswick	
-	__ 394.29Quebec	
-	__ _____________Ontario	
2,142.57	__ _____________Manitoba	
-	__ _____________Saskatchewan	
-	__ _____________Alberta	
-	__ _____________British Columbia	
-	2,293.16	_Northwest Territories	
-	__ ______________Yukon	
-	__ ______________2,142.57	2,293.16	769.291960-61	Total
1,794.23
1,794.23
375.00
394.29
3,936.80
2,293.16
6,999.25
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour

[Stage Direction]
Province	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total
$	$
Ontario	 2,139.54	-
Quebec	 -
2,139.54	-
Mr, Badanai:: During my remarks on the first item yesterday I endeavoured to point out the deplorable condition of the unemployment insurance office at Fort William. Today I received a report from the manager of the office which I requested a few days ago-


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Fort William will find that this subject might more properly be discussed on item 188 which is coming up shortly.


Walter George Pitman: The remarks made by the Minister of Labour only serve to illustrate the point which is being raised. This is a national problem, but we are trying to deal with it on a municipal scale. I can assure the minister that the local authorities are in complete confusion about what to do. For example, in June, 1960, there were 200,000 unemployed in Ontario. There were 103 who graduated from this course. In all the courses of Ontario, including St. Catharines, the number was 687 at a time when the unemployment figure was as high as 200,000.
I think this is an indictment of a program which the minister himself told us was going to deal with this problem in a realistic way. I realize the provinces are jealous of their rights with regard to education, but we are speaking now not of education as it is generally understood but of vocational training. This does not involve a language or a culture. I should like to know the extent of this program. This summer hundreds of vocational schools were empty. How many were engaged in training unemployed persons? I should like to know how many unemployed were being trained during July and August.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the minister replies may I speak briefly on this subject? I think that what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was saying has great validity. One of the problems facing us with regard to unemployment is, according to the government's own spokesmen, that many of those who are now unemployed do not possess the necessary skills to enable them to be assigned to certain jobs which are
[The Deputy Chairman.]

-	-	2,139.54-	665.76	665.76-	665.76	2,805.30
available. While what has been done is commendable, it will be recalled that when the amendments to the Vocational Training Act were brought before us last fall, we pointed out that this program did not go far enough in meeting the problem.
I mentioned yesterday the inadequacy of the program-a program, by the way, which represents an amendment to an act which has been in existence for a long time. The present government did not introduce this act. What this government introduced were amendments to an act, which, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate reminds me, came into being in 1910.


Egan Chambers: You should have done it in the fifties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member always says: you should have done this, or you should have done that. Hon. gentlemen opposite including the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence who intervened a moment ago, should know the answer in advance. The fact is that his colleagues are in office. It is they who are confronted with this terrific problem of unemployment. One of the ways of meeting that problem is to provide people with the necessary training so that they can assume jobs for which they are not at present fitted. But to demonstrate the inadequacy of the program, and in support of what has been said by the hon. member for Peterborough, let me recall what I said yesterday, namely that more than 2,600 applicants representing 70 per cent of the total applicants for vocational training in Toronto were rejected, because they did not have the necessary foundation to take the training which was being made available under this arrangement between the federal and provincial governments. How can a scheme be said to be meeting the problem, when more than 70 per cent of the applicants are said not to possess the qualifications necessary before the training can be undertaken? That is what the hon. member was seeking to establish. We are not going to make a real contribution toward the solution of the unemployment problem until we recognize the necessity of providing those

who lack these skills with the opportunity to acquire them. It is true that the administration of this program is something which comes within the authority of the provinces, but it is the federal government which provides 75 per cent of the capital cost, and surely in any agreement this government makes with the provinces it ought to be possible for the government at least to use its persuasive powers-its good offices-to see that the administration in the provinces is carried on in such a way as to meet the objective which the federal government and, I am sure, the provinces themselves have in mind.
This is what the hon. member is seeking to establish. I am sure that from my own interest in this problem-and I am not speaking now, politically, because this is too important a matter for that-I would welcome anything that could be done to make this program work more effectively. We cannot sit back and pretend we have solved the problem merely by voting money to the provinces to enable them to carry on certain projects. That is an important contribution, it is true, but we must go further and see that our people are provided with the facilities for training in all sorts of jobs-jobs in television and in many branches of electronics, for example. They must not only be given a basic training, let us say, in electronics, but training must be given to them so that they can appreciate the nature of the more advanced training they are to be given. There are all kinds of private schools in this country engaged in teaching people electronics. That is all to the good, but there is a responsibility which rests on this government and on provincial governments. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to solve this problem of unemployment this is one of the ways by which it could be done.
Supply-Labour


Azellus Denis: I thank the minister for tabling details of the training scheme and of the payments made to the provinces during the last five years. But I also asked the minister to let us have a list of the money spent in every province since the inception of the respective acts concerning unemployment assistance, and upon the winter works program.
As I said, I do not see anything in this vote that relates to it. When I ask questions in the chamber I do not understand why they are answered by the Department of Labour. I suppose the minister is aware of the expenditure of money by the federal government to assist those unemployed who do not qualify for unemployment insurance. I wish to know what amount of money has been expended by the federal government to each province since the inception of the municipal winter works program.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, of course, will have an opportunity to ask for that information when the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare are before us because this matter comes under the jurisdiction of that department.
The hon. member also requested the amount paid to each province since the inception of the municipal winter works program. I ask the unanimous consent of the committee to have this information in table form printed in Hansard at this point.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed that the tables presented by the minister be printed at this point in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
90205-6-548

Supply-Labour
MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM Payments to Provinces Program 1958-59
		Expenditure	
Province	1958-59	1959-60	Total$	8	$24,770	24,770Prince Edward Island	
-	1,019	1,019338,208	338,208New Brunswick	
60,651	174,294	234,9451,426,170	1,426,1701,995,588	1,995,588
50,604	351,582	402,186
33,689	225,672	259,3611,069,161	1,069,161
103,919	602,923	706,842Northwest Territories	
-	6,456	6,456Total	
248,863	6,215,843	6,464,706
MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM Payments to Provinces Program 1959
Province
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia....
Northwest Territories
Yukon	
Indian Bands	
Totals__
	Expenditure	
1959-60	1960-61	Total
	(To Mar. 31/61)	
. -	38,581.94	38,581.94. 288.51	-	288.51. -	213,049.69	213,049.69. 136,518.29	54,400.15	190,918.44. -	1,685,739.40	1,685,739.40. -	2,447,483.54	2,447,483.54. 30,896.21	251,245.38	282,141.59. 96,455.11	607,724.34	704,179.45. -	1,544,863.99	1,544,863.99. 110,477.18	1,206,989.85	1,317,467.03. -	367.05	367.05. -	2,263.40	2,263.40. -	5,329.48	5,329.48. 374,635.30	8,058,038.21	8,432,673.51
[The Deputy Chairman,]

Supply-Labour
MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS INCENTIVE PROGRAM 1961 Program
British Columbia...
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
Ontario	
Quebec	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island
Newfoundland	
Yukon	
Northwest Territory.. Indian Bands	
Paid 1960-61	Paid 1961-62 to Sept. 18,1961	Total	Being Processed$	$	$	$519,789.31	2,273,499.93	2,793,289.24	122,212.82-	2,396,890.66	2,396,890.66	130,492.28181,595.62	636,154.37	816,749.99	270,933.457,918.59	410,880.55	418,799.14	137,353.71-	1,283,301.59	1,283,301.59	283,790.50-	6,289,750.35	6,289,750.35	1,711,406.19141,342.45	165,847.80	307,190.25	33,830.817,288.69	227,889.32	235,178.01	-406.04	534.24	940.28	--	143,933.89	143,933.89	14,530.17535.20	86.62	621.82	--	2,500.45	2,500.45	441.004,500.00	59,679.34	64,179.34	19,800.18863,375.90	13,890,949.11	14,753,325.01	2,724,791.11


Azellus Denis: I have another request Mr. Chairman. Our good friend who is a Conservative member from the province of Quebec always says that spending this money under a joint agreement with the federal government is a crime against the economy, and I should therefore like to have the yeas and nays called in order to see how the hon. gentleman would vote.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you call the yeas and nays, Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a question to the minister. I take it that under this vote expenditures of three types are made. One is for capital works, one is for a share of the cost of the administration of schools in so far as they are attended by young people who are not yet in the employment stream, and the third is for assistance to persons who are in the employment stream but are unemployed for the time being. Could the minister tell us how much of the total vote is for the third purpose? That is to say, could the minister advise how much of the total is for assisting unemployed persons to obtain technical or vocational training?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, that question is also of interest to me. I have examined the details as found at page 264 of the estimates. There is, of course, a large sum for capital assistance which I think relates to the kind of thing about which I asked the minister earlier such as assistance for the vocational 90205-6-548J
school at Fort Frances. There is a breakdown on page 264 of this large amount. I believe my deskmate is concerned, as I am, about assistance for training unemployed workers. It is suggested that $4 million is required for the fiscal year 1961-62. I would imagine this is without regard to age or any other restriction. We are concerned about unemployed persons.
We have reached the half year point in our 1961-62 program. I should like the minister to indicate to the committee to what extent there has been activity in co-operation with the provinces under this $4 million vote. Having heard from the provinces at almost the half year point is the minister able to say whether the $4 million will be fully expended in the current fiscal year and, if so, on what type of project concerning which he has been in touch with the provinces?


Michael Starr: I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River answered the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate when he said there is an appropriation of $4 million which I think is the information the hon. member required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I wished to know was elaborated much better by my colleague. I could read the figure of $4 million. Obviously this was just a figure more or less plucked out of the air.


Michael Starr: It is an estimate.

Supply-Labour


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I was interested in was how much had already been spent on unemployed persons, which is the information my hon. friend also sought.


Michael Starr: We do not know what expenditures the provinces will make in respect of this type of training and $4 million is the figure we put in the estimates. We are continually encouraging the provinces and have offered them an incentive in that we will pay 75 per cent of the cost. Up to August 31, 1961 our payments to the provinces in this respect have amounted to $507,000-odd, from March 31 to August 31. Our information is not complete but the provinces advise us there will be a more vigorous program during the fiscal year in the training of unemployed than has been undertaken before. There is no discrimination as to age with respect to the training of these people. As at March 31, 1961, there were more than 5,000 persons in training in the provinces across Canada. From April 1 to July 30 there were in excess of 2,000, making a total of more than 7,000. In 1960-61 in excess of 10,000 were trained. I realize that much more should be done in this field but I wish to make clear that we are not wedded to the figure of $4 million and if a larger sum were required we could return to parliament with a supplementary estimate which I am sure would be approved.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not think any hon. member of the committee will quarrel with the statement the minister just made. The minister indicated that at the end of the last fiscal year there were approximately 5,000 persons undergoing training under this vote.


Michael Starr: Yes, at that time.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, at the end of the
last fiscal year. We are asked today to consider a vote of $4 million for a similar program for the year that will end on March 31, 1962. With all due respect to the minister and having regard to the total unemployed,
the figure the minister gave is not very impressive. Neither, perhaps, is the amount of the vote. But accepting it as it is, we have almost come to the half way point in the fiscal year 1961-62. The minister indicated that commitments made to the provinces under this $4 million appropriation amount to slightly more than half a million dollars.


Michael Starr: Actual payments.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. Perhaps the minister will indicate to us what actually is in hand. What are the provinces doing for those people who should be at the top of our consideration these days? We make massive expenditures in other directions, but surely there is nothing more important than trying to do something to train, as this grant says, the unemployed workers. I do not want statistics; I do not want details. I simply want a few examples from the minister of what the provinces are doing in the present fiscal year to account for the expenditure of our 75 per cent share of $507,000.


Michael Starr: I am informed that in Ontario and Quebec we expect to have people in training under this program to the total of about 10,000. This is in those two provinces alone.


William Moore Benidickson: I think the minister will appreciate the fact that I was directing my thoughts to him in a way that would indicate I was interested in the kind of training, the skills, and so forth that are in contemplation.


Michael Starr: There is a very wide variety of skills. They are listed here alphabetically. I am sure the hon. member would not want me to take up the time of the committee to read them. If he wants the list printed in Hansard I shall be glad to have it done.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the printing of these lists in the record at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]

Number	GIVEN	SEPTEMBER 21, 1961 Supply-Labour Training from April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1961	8693Course	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B. Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.Agriculture	5	Auto Body	11	12	37	29	3Barbering	7	18	2	4	6Cabinet Making	9	Carpentry	7	6	62	89	1	17Boatbuilding	1Commercial	8	184	6	87	245	3	139	428Cooking	61	48	7	30Drafting	9	1	51	76	11Diesel	11	5	27	51	105	9Dressmaking	22	Electricity	5	2	14	19	79	22	12Bulldozing	4Hairdressing	40	2	68	148Handicrafts	1	Machine Shop	5	62	45	19	9Pipeline Welding	29	23	124	6Motor Mechanics	10	5	54	155	17Nurses Aides	103	CO 00	280	382	150Oilburner Servicing	13	1	Plumbing and Pipe Fitting	7	2	16	42	Power Sewing	19	29Radio and Electronics	51	3	2	98	143	1	28Refrigeration	18	Shoe Repair	3	5Sheet Metal	41	12	1	18	Stationary Engineering	7	26	11Television	44	Upholstering	21	Watch Repair	15	Welding	24	4	133	14	130	156	30	5	64Waitress	19	Woodworking	18	Miscellaneous	6	4Various* **	61	92	68	124	180	170Total	155	94	508	375	494	1417	819	937	1162
* See over.
** Part-time 643.
8694	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Labour
VARIOUS *
Number	given Training from April 1,	1960 to March 31, 1961	Course	Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B.	Que. Ont. Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.Accounting	33	14	Advanced Technology	1Aeronautics	2Art	4Bricklaying	7 10	6	Fisherman's Seamanship	23	Flakeboard	34	Gen. Vocational Training	136Heavy Duty Mechanics	1Heavy Equipment Operator	4Loom Fixers	9	Machine Drawing	35	Machine Operating	Medical Technology	1Metis	47	Navigation	. 31	Painting and Decorating	36	Plastering	6	Printing	5	Timekeeper and First Aid	21Upgrading	34	15	Vocational Preparatory	180	Total	. 61 92	68	124	180	170
[The Deputy Chairman.]

Supply-Labour
PART-TIME**
Number given Training from April 1, 1960 to March 31, 1961.
Course Nfld. P.E.I. N.S.	N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C.
Automotives		100
Baking		1
Basic English		29
Blueprint Reading		40
Bookkeeping		59
Bricklaying		1
Drafting		80
Electrieity		46
Gasfitting		1
Plumbing		20
Retail Cashiering		20
Steamfitting		22
Trade Mathematics		17
Typing		86
Welding		121
Total		643


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister one question before we have the vote. Can he tell us just precisely what assistance, if any, is given to the unemployed persons while they are taking this training? I realize	or if they were not receiving any unemployment insurance, then the living allowance equivalent to it. To all this the federal government contributes 75 per cent.
of course that the federal government is paying a substantial share-in my opinion it should be 100 per cent-of the cost of the training of the unemployed persons. I do not say that for the people who are not in the employment stream. What I am trying to get at is, what assistance is given to unemployed persons so they will be in a position to take those courses? In many instances those unemployed persons have not enough income to look after themselves and attend those courses. This is particularly true with respect to unemployed persons who are no longer in receipt of unemployment insurance and may be on relief. Is any special allowance given to those people? Is it given directly by the federal government or is there any assistance at all? Mr. Starr: Every province has its own specific allowance for the people who are in training except the province of Manitoba. It varies but in most cases it is equivalent to and in some instances more than the unemployment insurance they may be receiving at the time,	Mr. Pitman: Judging by the minister's remarks, we have to conclude that this program has certainly not been a roaring success. I think it is particularly upsetting to dump money on the provinces, particularly on the percentage basis, because it costs them money to accept it. In addition it seems to me that the provinces simply are not directed. They simply do not know where they are going in this whole business. I asked a question a few minutes ago and I should very much like to get an answer to it. As I said, there were thousands of vocational schools across this nation which were not too busy in the months of July and August. Here was an opportunity to give six weeks training to a great many of the unemployed throughout this nation. I should like to know how many were being trained during July and August? Even if the provinces do not send reports, I should like some indication, if it is at all possible to give it, of how many people are being retrained? The minister mentioned 10,000 in Ontario and Quebec. Can he give us the numbers for the rest of

Supply-Labour
Canada, possibly up to the end of December? The only way we can judge the success of this program is by knowing what percentage of the total unemployed are actually receiving this kind of training.


Michael Starr: I might say to the hon. member that this represents only a segment of those people who are undergoing training in technical skills in various institutions across this country that educate people in technical schools. Some 368,000 are under training now; but under this program, where we give the incentive to the provinces to undertake special courses for training the unemployed, as of April 1-I said this a few moments ago-or from April 1 to July 30 there were 2,173; but these courses are going to be continued during the winter months. I said a few minutes ago that in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec 10,000 people will be under training under this scheduled grant to which the federal government contributes 75 per cent.
The hon. member was engaged in school teaching in Peterborough. Surely he knows the jurisdiction in these matters. He knows that the provinces do not condone any infringement by the federal government of their rights in the field of education. I am sure that if the hon. member approaches the provincial governments and helps us to persuade them to undertake more of this training plan it would be very helpful.


Walter George Pitman: I can assure the minister that I will do everything I possibly can to assist.
While I am on my feet I should like to thank the minister for the assistance which was given toward buying machinery in one of the schools for the retraining program. But what bothers most of us is this. In my particular constituency there was an organization of unemployed workers. Their hopes were raised on high because they felt they were going to be retrained, not just a few, not just 2,000. There was going to be a vast training of unemployed people. That was certainly the impression received from the publicity which emanated from this chamber. Certainly the feeling I get, as I am approached by these people, is that we let them down. They have not received this training. Some of them have received training, of course, and are concerned because they are not receiving jobs. However, this is another problem.
What I am suggesting is that it is a monstrous problem and we have to make a response to it which is in keeping with the problem.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I do not think any impression was given in this House of Commons at any time that a particular

municipality would have a training school established by the provincial government.
If the hon. member has not been of any help to the unemployed in his area in trying to establish a school I shall be glad to undertake it and take it up with the minister of education of the province of Ontario and urge him to set up a training school in Peterborough for the unemployed because the hon. member did not know when to approach.


Walter George Pitman: I can assure the minister that one of the most successful areas where training for the unemployed was carried on was in Peterborough. In fact, I was told more people were being trained in Peterborough last summer than in the whole city of Toronto.
I can assure the minister that they have been very active in that particular area.


Michael Starr: The hon. member has been giving the wrong impression up to now.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre asked a question when he spoke last in respect to the provincial government's intention to enlarge the technical institute at Moose Jaw. I am sorry I did not reply. I can assure him that if it is along the same lines as the one that is in existence now, undertaking the same type of course, there will be no problem in approving federal grants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is one comment I cannot resist making after what the minister said to the hon. member for Peterborough when the minister talked about the jealousy of the provincial governments with respect to their jurisdiction over education. I do not believe there is any provincial government in this country that considers that education means the training of the unemployed. I think every provincial government would welcome the day when the minister, as he probably will just before the next election, gets around to announcing the fact that the federal government will pay 100 per cent of the cost of training the unemployed, as it should have done from the beginning. We on this side of the house have advocated this from the day that the hon. member for Trinity, who is not here this evening, first proposed it two years before the government got around to doing anything substantial about it. To hide behind a phony argument like that is no answer at all. If it were applied, of course, to the training of the young there might be something in it, but in the case of people who have already gone into the labour force and have then become unemployed, to suggest that to pay the shot for these people will be considered by the provinces as an invasion of their jurisdiction over education is the

most Alice in Wonderlandish argument that has ever been produced in the house.


Michael Starr: The silliness we have just heard from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate is in line with what we hear all the time. His arguments have no foundation at all. All he says is that it should be more. I venture to say that if the federal government did say "we will pay 100 per cent" he would jump up on his feet and ask for 110.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Anybody who has paid any attention to my career in public life in this house, either on the other side or on this side, knows that there is no hon. member more concerned about saving the taxpayers' money than I am. I have not advocated extravagant courses, but we in the Liberal party think it is not extravagant to train the unemployed so they can earn their livings. It is a great deal cheaper to do that than it is to be paying relief and unemployment insurance when these men might better be working and adding to the productive wealth of the country. That is why I say in this particular instance that the greatest incentive you can give to the provincial governments and municipalities to do a good job in this field is to pay the whole cost in respect of those persons who are unemployed and being trained under this scheme.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The question is on vote 186.
Item agreed to: Yeas, 52; nays, nil. Government employees compensation-
187. Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $121,391.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, before we pass this item, I should like to point out that all the hon. members from the province of Quebec who object to it are never here to vote, but come in immediately after the vote.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Chairman, it is out of order to comment on the vote of the hon. members.
(Text):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for St. Denis was looking at me when he made the remark he did. I came in just after the vote and I must explain why I missed the vote. After looking at the face of the hon. member for St. Denis for about ten minutes I had to have a little bowel movement and I excused myself for that purpose.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I do not think the hon. member would want to leave that on the record.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, since I was accused I have to give the reason why I
90205-6-549
Supply-Labour
was absent. The hon. member for St. Denis has cast doubt on the reason for my absence and I have no other answer to give the hon. member than this purely physiological reason.


Azellus Denis: I did not mention the hon. member for St. Mary but if the hat fits him let him wear it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment insurance commission-
188. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act, $45,542,980.
Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, during my remarks on the first item yesterday I endeavoured to point out the deplorable condition of the unemployment insurance building in Fort William. Today I received a report from the manager of the office.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to bring to the attention of the chairman of the committee that we have two supplementary votes under labour which have nothing to do with the unemployment insurance commission and perhaps the committee would be good enough to consider those two supplementary votes at this time.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The votes referred to by the minister are Nos. 533 and 534.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: We will now return to vote 188.


Hubert Badanai: I wish to point out to the committee for the third time that conditions in the unemployment office at Fort William are deplorable. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to a brief but very eloquent statement of the manager of the local unemployment insurance commission office at Fort William which I received today in a letter dated July 20, 1961. He points out that they had a heavy downpour of rain the day before which flooded the entire basement to a depth of four inches. He says that they are worried about their stock room and that the floor there has heaved and looks like it may cave in. He goes on to say that the manager's office had water running over the floor because the overflow pipe could not carry the excess water away fast enough. He points out that staff members are worried that an accident may result from someone going through the first floor. He says that the officials of the Department of Public Works have been notified, that they will carry on as best they can

Supply-Labour
under the circumstances, that they will do everything in their power to prevent any accidents and that the staff are being warned accordingly. He says that he felt I should have this information in view of their immediate request that consideration be given to providing them with new premises.
The question is, has the minister any information to give the committee about the prospects for a new building to accommodate the unemployment insurance commission office at Fort William? This question is not a new one. It has been talked about over the past two or three years at least and the minister is well aware of the situation. I hope he has something concrete to say.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, we realize, as the hon. member for Fort William does, how necessary a new unemployment insurance commission building is in Fort William and in our planning we have been most anxious to have one built for us by the Department of Public Works. However, certain matters have stood in the way and certain complications have developed as a result of a change of plans by the Department of Public Works in one instance because they felt that they would like to house all the federal government departments there in one building. We, of course, would like to have a separate building. At the moment, there is a full investigation being conducted by the Department of Public Works as to the possibilities of either a new building or some better type of building than that in which we are housed at the moment. This is the extent of the information I can give the hon. member at the moment.


Hubert Badanai: Would the minister see to it, then, that an investigation is made and furnish me with a report or furnish the people of Fort William with a report about the possibility of some immediate action?


Michael Starr: It is difficult to do that when no decision has been arrived at, but the hon. member can be assured we will be pressing at all times for immediate action in this connection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This item provides also for the national employment offices, which are included in the offices of the unemployment insurance commission, so I should like to speak on the subject for a few minutes. I intended to speak on item 1, but I did not want to delay the estimates. I point out that while governments at the federal, provincial and municipal level do what is within their capacity financially to meet the unemployment situation, private business fails to accept its responsibility in many aspects in this country. I have seen numerous illustrations of this. They reap the profits and then leave the

governments to bind up the wounds of the industrial unemployment casualties, without accepting any responsibility whatever. Their decisions as to their operations are not related to the national interest or to needs of the employees but are, generally speaking, related to the rate of profit, the development of automation and also, because they are under the control of international cartels, are related to various monopolies in various fields. On the whole, they accept no responsibility to the state or to the workers concerned.
If I may illustrate, Mr. Chairman, I would say I received a letter today from the unemployed workers of Windsor. It points out that the automobile companies are laying off workers and at the same time going in for overtime. I am not going to deal with that because I know the hon. member for Essex East is very interested in that problem and intends to deal with it. Then, we have the illustration of the Canadian Pacific Railway on many branch lines in Canada, particularly the Kettle Valley Railway, reducing the service to the area from which they get their greatest profit without any regard for the employees or the circumstances that exist or the welfare of the district concerned. The government also knows that prominent coal mining interests in the maritimes have not played the game, not accepted their responsibilities so far as meeting the present circumstances are concerned. They have failed to co-operate with this government to do what they could to continue employing persons who are at the present time being laid off for the reasons I have mentioned.
Then, I come to the question of Algoma Steel. I want to mention this as an illustration particularly of how international cartels are frustrating government intentions. You get this under a capitalist society. I want to quote briefly from a book entitled, "The Power and the Money", by F. W. Park. I should like to quote particularly from the chapter headed "Shifting Patterns of Power".
Dosco, the other major steel producer acquired by the Roe group, has had a long and enormously complicated history. Inefficient management, bitter opposition to the demands of labour have characterized its past. Since the war it expanded under the presidency of L. A. Forsythe, Montreal lawyer. Forsythe died on January 1, 1957, and soon thereafter rumours began to circulate that other interests were seeking control. Dosco owns "almost unlimited" iron ore reserves at Wabana, Newfoundland, and Cape Breton coal; its Sydney steel mill is strategically situated for export markets.
The first stage in the bringing together of this new steel alliance was the purchase of Algoma through an intricate series of operations that show how quickly international groups of financiers and industrialists can combine for common profit and how little attention is paid in this process to any concept of national interest.

Some $60 million in cash was needed to buy a substantial block of Algoma shares from the Dunn estate. Here two new groups enter the scene in alliance with A. V. Roe of Canada. First is the West German firm of Mannesmann A. G. headed by Wilhelm Zangen, the other is the group controlling the McIntyre Porcupine gold mining interests. Mannesmann, as will appear, put up some $24 million, and McIntyre Porcupine between $12 and $13 million. The balance was supplied by the Roe interests and the Royal Bank of Canada.
Then, they go on to deal with the international investments of these various companies in countries in Europe, South America and other places.
The Mannesmann firm was established in 1885. By 1938 it employed 50,000 workers and owned coal mines, iron mines, smelter and rolling mills, with a distribution network that extended from Germany to Argentina .. .
Zangen, head of Mannesmann since 1934, was one of the executive council of WASAG, the Nazi munitions trust, along with Krupp, Stinnes, Vogler and Poenagen. A member of the Nazi party and of the SS, he was one of the group of big German industrialists who financed the Nazi rise to power and provided the armaments for Hitler's conquests.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order; I think the quotation is getting a bit long and I would have to have the consent of the committee if it is to continue.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just concluded, but I have two comments to make, Mr. Chairman. I will conclude at that point and accept your chastisement, Mr. Chairman. In any event, while this McIntyre Porcupine group were piling up profits and investments, they have been receiving substantial sums from the federal government under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, $808,942 in 1955 and $688,081 in 1954.
Then, dealing with the fact that this company is investing millions and millions in other countries, not in Canada, after receiving subsidies from the Canadian government under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, the article goes on to state that the company is investing tremendous sums of money in South America and other countries.


Egan Chambers: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we are not discussing the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, Mr. Chairman, but I am allowed to discuss the fact that a company receiving assistance from this government in order to enable it to carry on in one field, takes its profits from operations in that field and invests them in another country while workers in Canada are unemployed.


Egan Chambers: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the relevance is to the item under consideration?
90205-6-549J
Supply*-Labour


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Unemployment, because these offices related to this vote try to place Canadians in employment. I think the hon. member is a bit unfair. I have been rather restrained during this discussion.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I might speak on behalf of the hon. member who has the floor to indicate that he previously forfeited his time to some extent on item 1 in order to get the estimates under way. I think, therefore, the Chair should allow him fair and reasonable latitude.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank you very much for your consideration, Mr. Chairman, but I did want to bring this point out. We criticize the government, whether it is the federal, provincial or municipal government, but under our present system the government is not entirely in control of this particular situation. Here are these large monopolies and corporations receiving the benefit of Canadian funds and reinvesting their profits in other countries while we have natural resources undeveloped and workers unemployed. I just want to make this point. The point of view of the party to which I belong is that the only remedy is in some effort at planning by the persons who are responsible either directly to the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of the provinces. We are told there has to be planning to provide control of natural resources and their development, for the manufacture of a greater proportion of our raw materials in Canada instead of shipping them out of the country to such an extent as is done today. If you control the sources of energy, such as electrical power, then add to that the control of the raw material, then you can get federal-provincial co-operation to give the impetus to get this country moving in the direction where the governments elected by the people are going to do something to meet the unemployment situation.
I just rise to make these few observations because I am confident that, regardless of the best intentions of the government, under the present circumstances we must grasp this nettle with both hands and ensure that the parliament of Canada governs for the people of Canada and is not going to continue to govern for those interests who have no respect for the national interests or the people of this country under these circumstances.


Mr. Rapp:: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether consideration has been given to bringing farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The minister will recall that I have brought this problem of our farmers to his attention on previous occasions. I am sure this problem of ours will get worse before it gets better. With the

Supply-Labour
advent of automation on the farm, the farmer finds it difficult to find labour skilful enough to operate the highly mechanized implements he needs at the present time. Unless attention is given to this problem and a solution is arrived at, namely that of bringing farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, it is my opinion that the farmer will suffer severely.
From past experience I know that when harvest time comes along, farmers are not able to get operators who are able to run these implements. They are able to obtain employment somewhere else where skilled labour is required and where, when they are not employed the whole year around, they are under the Unemployment Insurance Act. This is not the case with the farm labour. I would seriously request the minister to take this matter into consideration when the Unemployment Insurance Act is revised or amended.


Mr. McMillan:: I wish to raise a matter which the hon. member for Niagara Falls and
I	have brought to the attention of the minister on two or three occasions. On April 24 last, a number of unemployed came here to Ottawa in order to present a brief to the government. Those in our area-and I cannot give the exact number although I think it is
II	or 12-were disqualified as to unemployment insurance benefits while they were here in Ottawa. They were disqualified by a local official of the unemployment insurance commission. The reason given was that they were unavailable for work on that day. An appeal was taken to the board of referees which met in St. Catharines, and there was a split decision. Two members of the board voted to disallow the appeal and one voted to allow it. Those voting to disallow the appeal asserted that the men should not have their appeal allowed because they were not available for work on that day. The one who gave the minority report asserted that he thought they had fulfilled their obligation by reporting to the office that they were going to be away and gave the reason therefor. When that appeal failed, the men appealed to the umpire and the case was scheduled to be heard last Monday, but up until now I have not heard what decision there has been. I think it should be the inalienable right of all citizens to come here and make a presentation to the government without penalty. I think this is the very basis of our democracy. In reading over the evidence, I think I can say it was agreed that these men were honest, that they said openly in the office in Welland why they were coming to Ottawa and that they did not try to hide the facts in any way. Unfortunately for them, however, April 24 was the date on which they were obliged to report to the office and, according to them, sign in at the office. I do not

know exactly what that means. I know of a number of other unemployed who were here and probably they did not have to sign in on that day. I know that a number of unemployed were here from Windsor, Hamilton, Toronto, Oshawa and Peterborough; and to my knowledge not one of the other unemployed from those centres has had a disallowance of his unemployment insurance benefits. If I may give my lay opinion, I would say that the government is labouring too much the argument with regard to these men being unavailable for work when, in fact, there was no work for them. I do not find any criticism of the board of referees because they were giving their decision within the context and the ambit of the regulations. Injustice can result, however, because of lack of foresight and because of lack of ingenuity on the part of man to anticipate all the complexities for which he must provide in the regulations and in the statutes. Since we have been here in Ottawa, I think we have seen examples with respect to the statutes. In fact, it is said that the fathers of confederation could not foresee everything that has happened in order to include it in the British North America Act. If we cannot include everything in the statutes how can we include everything in the regulations when we do not pay as much attention to the regulations?
In my opinion there has been injustice here. I think too much emphasis has been given to the consideration of whether or not these men were available for work. The unemployment insurance commission in Welland did not call their homes or did not try to get in touch with them on that particular day. I think that the department here should be a little more humane and should use common sense. Had they done so, I think this matter could have been cleared up a long time ago.


Chesley William Carter: I just want to take one minute of the committee's time. First I want to support the request made by my colleague from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador that Newfoundland be made a separate region as far as the administration of unemployment insurance is concerned. I do not wish to expand on that request. In his remarks he has given all the reasons for it and there is no need to repeat them here.
The other reason why I am on the floor is to ask the Minister of Labour or the unemployment insurance commission to make a special exception for dragger fishermen. I have in my riding a number of fishermen who leave Newfoundland and join a dragger fishing out of Nova Scotia. These people leave their homes in early January and are away practically the whole year. The vessel will go on refit perhaps in the summer months when the fishing is perhaps not so good, but

it is not possible for them to go to the expense of going home at that time. They therefore find other work or get on some other boat which is still fishing. But after being away for nine or ten months, around Christmas time they do feel an urge to join their families, like the rest of us. If they do they are penalized for leaving work voluntarily-they are disqualified under present regulations from coming home to see their families, and if some other operator happens to offer them another job on another dragger while they are home they are further disqualified. These people are not protected. They are not given any holidays under any legislation we have on the statute books, and the only chance they have of getting a holiday is to take one in this way. I think they should be entitled to special consideration and that some way should be found to avoid having to disqualify these people if they return to see their families after seven or eight months. I should like to see some system worked out so that they could rejoin their families after working for a certain period without being disqualified from receipt of unemployment benefits.


Mr. McFarlane:: I have a problem here which I should like to bring to the minister's attention. It concerns the payment of agents for making out unemployment insurance claims. At the present time, in many of the smaller townships and more remote areas the commission has appointed agents to handle the work rather than go to the expense of setting up offices. At times it has been very difficult to obtain suitable men to do this work and the difficulty has been accentuated by the fact that the department will only pay $1 per application. The agent in the area is required to return all correspondence and, nine times out of ten, to return the unemployment insurance book to the regional office, in respect of which he has to pay postage. Thus the agent makes approximately 75 cents per application. In many of the offices in the larger centres where accommodation is provided I am sure the cost per application would work out at a great deal more than $1.
I am unable to find out exactly how this figure of $1 has been arrived at. I presume the applications have been handled in some of the larger offices where everything is convenient and where the claimant is an English speaking person and the costs have been based on that. But in many of these rural areas it is a problem even to understand some of the applicants who come into the offices or homes of the agents. I feel all this should be taken into consideration and that in the circumstances the payment of $1 is not sufficient.
Supply-Labour
We have allocated over $33 million under this vote, and I feel that an increase in the payment made to agents is desirable. I have here a certain amount of correspondence, some of which relates in particular to the appointment of an agent in Golden, British Columbia. I would point out that if a man applied for benefit in Golden and if his application could not be dealt with locally he would have to make a return trip to the regional office which is 380 miles away. The round trip would cost approximately $19 and applicants for unemployment insurance are not in a position to pay out travelling expenses of this kind. So I say that some consideration should be given to increasing this payment. The department, in the correspondence I have received from them, simply says "no" and that is supposed to be final, but I think the question should be given further consideration at this time. The agents are doing a good job in the smaller centres and rendering a valuable service to the public, especially to those who are in the unfortunate position of being unemployed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned that I had received some representations from a Windsor unemployed organization, and that I proposed to say something about them. He had spoken to me earlier about this matter. I indicated that I had received these representations and that I intended to bring them to the attention of parliament and the Minister of Labour.
These are representations made by this organization of unemployed in the city of Windsor. These representations have been addressed to the Minister of Labour in this government, to the minister of labour in the province of Ontario and to the federal and provincial members from the county of Essex. The representations include an allegation that in certain automobile plants, not only in Windsor, lay-offs have taken place in large numbers; that some of those lay-offs include skilled tradesmen and that they have taken place at a time when there has been a scheduling of an overtime program covering as much as from 16 to 30 hours and more a week, though many are unemployed. This is a matter which concerns the hon. gentleman not only in his capacity as minister, because it applies as well, to the General Motors plant in Oshawa. I am sure he would want this matter looked into. I bring this matter forward as a representative from the city concerned with this problem. I have no hesitation in saying that at a time when there is a high level of unemployment, although responsibility for meeting that situation rests

Supply-Labour
primarily, I believe, on governments a responsibility likewise rests on employers to see that they in turn are doing everything in their power, having in mind all the problems which confront them, to see that men and women are not unemployed. I think the Minister of Labour would want to be satisfied that people were not being left idle at a time when they could be put to work, particularly if there is a heavy scheduled program of overtime work.
I do believe a more conscious effort, on the part of some employers as well as by governments, could rectify this problem.
I hope the minister will take a look at this memorandum which I propose to discuss with him at the earliest possible moment in order to see what correction can be made in this situation.
Yesterday I put before the committee and, particularly, before the minister, what I believe is one of our major grievances on these estimates at this time. The minister spoke this afternoon. I missed a few moments of the early part of his statement. If he covered this matter then, I do, of course, acknowledge that I may be in error in repeating the matter tonight. But in the absence of an explanation, I want to reiterate that I believe this government treated this parliament with contempt when it announced the appointment of a royal commission to enquire into the Unemployment Insurance Act, shortly after we adjourned in the month of July.
I have no objection to the fullest examination being made of the Unemployment Insurance Act by those who are competent to make recommendations as to what changes should be made to make that act more effective; nor have I any objection to anyone outside of this house indicating to us and to the government how the perilous state of the unemployment insurance fund could be dealt with. I believe this problem is a responsibility of parliament, but primarily it is the responsibility of this government. I believe when the government turns over to a royal commission a matter of this sort, and particularly when it does so under the circumstances attending this situation, it leaves itself open to the indictment that it is transferring to a royal commission the examination of this problem, to escape its own responsibility, especially when we realize how long this problem has been before the government.
We have had recently tabled the latest report of the unemployment insurance advisory committee for the year ending March 31, 1961. This report bears close examination by hon. members of this committee. At page 1 the committee reports that the balance in the unemployment insurance fund as at March 31, 1961 was $184,685,000. The report goes
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
on to point out that by May, 1962 there will be nothing left in the fund if the present levels of unemployment or levels comparable thereto persist in the ensuing period. This is a very serious situation.
We have continually reminded the government, during the course of this session in particular, but also in other sessions, of the dangerous state of the fund. All hon. members know that in 1956 the fund stood at over $900 million. We are now told that at the end of the last fiscal year the fund was down to $184 million. The report points out that by May next there will be nothing left in the fund unless something is done to bolster it. We have repeatedly asked the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance what the government was going to do. We asked if the government was going to bolster the fund by increasing the contributions. We indicated that if this course were followed we, in the Liberal party, would consider it an unconscionable thing to do particularly in the light of the action taken by the government two years ago, when it increased the contributions from 25 per cent to 55 per cent, imposing this added burden on the employees and employers of our country at a time when there was no change in the pattern of benefits.
If the government proposes to resort to that formula once again it will certainly meet with very strong response from those in the Liberal party who opposed this remedy so vigorously two years ago. As we all well recall, it was the Liberal party and none other that took that course in the house when we levelled criticism against the government at that time.
The government has now referred this matter to a royal commission. The Prime Minister does not call it that; he said it was a committee. The reason the Prime Minister does not use the phrase "royal commission" is because he has understandably become somewhat sensitive to the criticism directed at his government, that it is a government of royal commissions. The fact is, as I indicated yesterday, this government has appointed no less than fourteen different royal commissions to deal with matters which could have been dealt with by the government. During its appeal to the people in 1957 and 1958 the government promised it would resolve the questions which were covered in the references to these royal commissions.
This is one question the government said it would resolve. It has now turned over to a royal commission the responsibility for investigating the problem. We do not know when a report will be made. The commission has

not yet begun its public hearings, which I believe are to begin some time in October. We have had no indication from the Minister of Labour as to when this commission will report. He will have an opportunity to give an indication with respect to that question this evening. We also have had no indication as to whether the report will be received early enough to permit the government to bring down legislation before we go to the people in a general election.
The government owes it to parliament and to the people of Canada, to state what its position is with regard to amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and with regard to what the government proposes to do to bolster the fund, particularly in view of the fact that in the previous session of 1959-60- not in the session that adjourned in the month of July-it asserted that it had definite views as to what amendments should be brought forward. The government indicated at that time that those amendments would be brought forward in legislation at the earliest possible moment.
When we met last November at the beginning of this session we were solemnly told in the speech from the throne by Her Majesty's representative that the government was going to bring down amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. During the course of this session various members of this party have asked the Minister of Labour to say when the legislation foreshadowed in the speech from the throne would be presented. The minister said these matters were under careful consideration and would be presented in due course.
I believe it was on March 9, during the course of debate that I suggested that the government had then had in its possession for some eight months a special study presented to it by the unemployment insurance commission, containing a whole series of recommended amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The minister did not deny that that was the case. The minister cannot say he did not have before him a carefully considered body of recommendations presented by the unemployment insurance commission, composed of experienced people specially endowed to deal with this problem.
As late as May 9 last the minister said in the house as reported at page 4555 of Hansard of that date:
-a careful study of the report of the advisory committee leads to only one conclusion, namely that the situation cannot be met simply by merely appropriating money through parliament to meet the payments from the fund. It is evident that what is required is a careful review of the act, something which we are undertaking with the
Supply-Labour
officials of the unemployment insurance commission and with others, with a view to incorporating amendments that will restore the full effectiveness of the scheme.
When asked if the amendments would be introduced this session he said "of course, they would." He acknowledged that this had been mentioned in the speech from the throne. Two days before we adjourned, I asked the minister when we were going to receive the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The minister's reply was that the matter was under study and that the government's policy would be announced in due course. There was no suggestion then that we were going to have a royal commission, that the government was going to shelve its responsibility, that the announcements in the speech from the throne were going to be thrown aside or that the government was going to ask someone vicariously to give consideration to a matter about which the government told us it had definite views. There was nothing of that sort at all. We were again told the policy of the government would be "announced in due course." We had the right to expect when we returned, as we have returned, that we would have those amendments before us, and that a committee of this house would be established for the purpose of studying the amendments.
It cannot be argued that the amendments are so complicated, so difficult, that they defy consideration by the House of Commons, because the whole Unemployment Insurance Act, introduced by Mackenzie King as the leader of the Liberal party in the dark days of the war was not referred to a royal commission. It was referred to a committee of this house. It was a committee of this house which considered the legislation and put it into such form as to make it properly presentable to the committee of the whole and later to the house itself for approval. This is the course that should now be followed. Instead, we adjourned on July 13; we went to our respective constituencies and on July 27 the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a royal commission, to do something which this government said it was ready to do in the month of January.
I say, Mr. Chairman, the course taken by the government and by the Prime Minister on July 27 amounts to nothing less than contemptuous treatment of parliament. This is not the first time this has been done. It was done by this government on several other occasions. We tried to get the report of the advisory committee to the unemployment insurance commission in June 1960. As I indicated yesterday, and I repeat now, because

Supply-Labour
the minister has not commented on this important phase of administration in his department, on the very last day of the session, when we asked whether there would be a tabling of the report of the advisory committee, we were told by the minister that it was not ready. And yet, before six o'clock, before we had prorogued, the report was clandestinely tabled under our procedures with the Clerk. Only late that night, and after we had prorogued, did we learn of the existence of the report and of its terms. That was also holding parliament in contempt. Now we have had a repetition of this by the reference of this matter to a royal commission, composed of worthy gentlemen, who have no electoral responsibility to the workers of this country, as we their elected representatives have. I say this government has dodged this issue.


Mr. Speakman:: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "nonsense". This is his conventional repartee to any indictment made against a government which he so blindly supports.
The fact is that, along with other members, the hon. gentleman was elected to consider measures of this kind. He was not elected to transfer that responsibility to others, who were not elected.
This government has appointed 14 royal commissions. It has reported on only two of them. I suspect we shall have no report on this one, until long after a federal election and then it will be the responsibility of a Liberal government to deal with the recommendations made to it by this commission.
This is a vital matter, Mr. Chairman, one which affects thousands of people in this country who have a financial stake in the unemployment insurance fund. This fund does not belong to this government. It does not belong to the people of Canada. In the main the unemployment insurance fund belongs to two classes of our people. In law or in any other way this government has no right-


Mr. Spencer:: The hon. member believes that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course he believes it and so does the hon. member for Essex West. This is a matter that vitally affects thousands of people in the city of Windsor, as it does in other sections of Canada.
My hon. friend and others may laugh. This is an important matter to the workers of our country. This government has treated this matter in a shameful way. I can hardly believe that the Minister of Labour was in any way a party to this devious practice. I

can hardly believe that the minister who looks at me so sympathetically now-


Michael Starr: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -approves of this device. I am sure that in the month of January the minister wanted to bring forward a bill providing for amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, but I suspect that some of his colleagues, perhaps the Minister of Finance who is now in Vienna, did not agree. Nevertheless, when Her Majesty speaks as she was made to speak in the speech from the throne last January-


William Moore Benidickson: November.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Last November,-
she spoke for the government of Canada.


Norman Leonard Spencer: Corrected again.


Murdo William Martin: Hon. gentlemen may think that an undertaking given through the mouth of Her Majesty's representative may not be important, but under our system of government it is important. This government has disregarded this fact; it has thrown parliament aside. What does parliament matter? "As soon as the session is over we will relieve ourselves of this embarrassment; we will turn the matter over to a royal commission", said the government. The commission will not report until after the election. The government will be saved the embarrassment of doing something which it should have assumed. The government believes it got away with it in the Clark report. It hopes it will get away with it so far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned.
If this is the policy of this government, then I am sure the Minister of Labour will conclude his estimates tonight on a very sour note. This government has failed to discharge a responsibility about which it made a commitment two years ago to the country. This parliament, the employers and the workers are no wiser now as to what kind of changes are going to be made to an act the benefit of which we all recognize, particularly at this time of unprecedented unemployment in our country.
Surely the minister cannot fail to reply, to give us the reasons for this devious course taken by a government that is not inexperienced in the art of device.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, once again I am going to occupy only a limited number of minutes of the time of this committee. I should like to remind the committee-and I am speaking now to both Liberal and Conservative members of the committee-that half a dozen or so years ago I noticed that there were over $900 million in the unemployment insurance fund and I said at that time

that if ever an. economic recession hit the nation what then appeared to be an immense amount of money might disappear overnight and the fund would be in danger or on the verge of bankruptcy. I can still hear, almost as if it were yesterday, the hoots and the catcalls that I received from both the Liberal and Conservative members of the house on ;hat occasion.
Now the Liberals are blaming the Conservatives because the fund has been depleted and is facing bankruptcy. However, by their lack of foresight the Liberals even yet are responsible for the economic difficulties facing this nation today. I regret that, despite the election promises, the Conservatives have been unable to remedy the situation. We have had supplementary budgets, baby budgets and regular budgets and I do not know how many new names we will invent for budgets, but I noted with pleasure the announcement of the Minister of Finance in his latest budget speech indicating a willingness on the part of the Conservative government of the day to make a loan to the unemployment insurance commission in order to ensure that the unemployed will be able to obtain their legitimate benefits as prescribed by the act.


James Stanley Speakman: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he define their legitimate requirements?


Erhart Regier: I would define the legitimate requirements of a man who is willing and able to work as being a minimum basic standard of living in this day and age.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Erhart Regier: You know, Mr. Chairman, when my grandfather first came to this country-


James Stanley Speakman: Why?


Erhart Regier: -he was able to take a gun over one shoulder and an axe over the other and go out and make his livelihood from the raw resources of Canada. Today a man who is unemployed is no longer able to go out with a gun or an axe over his shoulder because the so-called free enterprise system is now denying him the right to make his own livelihood. He now has only one alternative and that is to go to some employer, some corporation that may have its head office in Accra, London or New Delhi and say, "All I have are my two hands, my brains and my brawn; I offer them to you", and the employer has the power to say whether these brains and brawn are going to be usefully employed.


An hon. Member:: Ridiculous.


Erhart Regier: I regret that I was unable to precede the hon. member for Essex East because I would have made the same plea for the unemployed of Windsor. I believe the
Supply-Labour
situation is regrettable and must be corrected in view of the fact that many people are being paid for overtime work while at the same time others who should be employed and who were employed in the same industry remain unemployed.
I want to mention a matter in connection with the unemployment insurance commission. I can remember the time when the Liberal government introduced a plan to pay pensions to the physically handicapped. The hon. member for Essex East, and I give him marks for it, was the man who introduced that measure in the house. At that time I pleaded with the government of the day that in implementing this most desirable plan they should not superimpose new administrative machinery throughout Canada. The hon. member may have forgotten my plea at that time. I said that the administration ought to be tied in with the existing machinery.
What concerns me is that a man who is unemployed today is entitled to so many weeks of unemployment insurance benefits but at the expiry of that time he then has to go into an entirely new world if he has been unable to find employment. He has to go to the municipal office and apply for what we have now decided to call social security but which we used to call relief. Once again he has to go through all the red tape, all the administrative procedures, in order to qualify for relief. We have welfare plans and pension plans in Canada that astound me. They run into the dozens. We have pensions for the blind, pensions for the handicapped, unemployment insurance, pensions for this, pensions for that, welfare for this and welfare for that, each scheme with its own hierarchy of officialdom, administration and red tape.
It is time that we adopted a comprehensive, all-inclusive social security system. I see no reason why we should not. I notice that a number of our civil servants are looking askance at me. If we were able to extend the number of weeks during which an unemployed man is eligible for benefits, I see no reason why we should not be able to extend our unemployment insurance system to the point where a man and his dependents will be looked after until work is again found and he will not have to be kicked out and have to go to the city hall and beg for relief or social welfare.
I know that the minister may say immediately that this is an anti-union attitude. I know that for many years the unions of Canada insisted that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be an insurance act, and therefore the proposals I am now making would be in violation of that intent. But the Unemployment Insurance Act as it is now

Supply-Labour
administered no longer has much of an insurance feature about it. It is in effect a welfare measure and we should not allow the unemployed of Canada to be kicked out of one welfare agency into another.
I am very pleased to note that the Canadian labour congress and the major unions of Canada are now pleading with the federal government to recognize that any costs over and above reasonable unemployment insurance benefits should be met out of the consolidated revenue fund and that adequate amounts of money should be paid into the unemployment insurance fund to meet needs in excess of reasonable demands upon that fund. The day has arrived when we can no longer laugh about this matter because the people of Canada are becoming very cynical. A lot of Tories are laughing behind the curtains. That is fine and I accept it, but I forecast to the house at least half a dozen years ago that if an economic recession came the unemployment insurance fund would go broke, and it has gone broke. The government does not want to do anything about the matter except to lend the fund $125 million in order to tide over the evil day for one more year. In the budget speech the Minister of Finance announced that the government was making provision to that end.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But at 5 per cent.


Erhart Regier: There may be an interest rate attached to it as the hon. member for Essex East points out. What this government must realize is that unemployment, beyond that which can be reasonably expected, is the responsibility of the government and that responsibility should not be put on the Minister of Labour or the unemployment insurance fund. If they are going to make a welfare instrument out of the unemployment insurance fund, then they ought to go all the way and pay benefits to the man who is without a job until a job is again found for him.


Mr. Crouse:: It was not my intention to speak on these items but I listened with great interest a little earlier this evening to the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I believe they are worthy of some comment. He suggested that we extend the payment of seasonal benefits only to fishermen from Newfoundland, and I must take exception to that. I would be the last one in this house to speak out against unemployment insurance or seasonal benefits for fishermen, especially those in Nova Scotia or those fishermen from Newfoundland. Some of our best fishermen and sea captains in Lunenburg come from Newfoundland. We hope to secure even more men from that source.

However, we must be realistic. Under the present system, these men come to Nova Scotia early in March or April and join our ships in that port. They remain until September or October and then return to their homes. Now, to extend their seasonal benefits would work a further hardship on the men who are left to man the ships. After all, we are speaking about unemployment and about methods of curing it. The extension of these seasonal benefits would not improve this situation. You cannot run a fishing vessel or a dragger without a full crew and when these men return to their homes, of necessity the ship must be tied up to the dock. This situation creates some unemployment.
I should like to suggest, therefore, that the minister give careful consideration to the proposal made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo before taking any action. We do not want to create unemployment; we want to do everything possible to keep everyone physically capable of working employed in Canada.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Lunenburg has misunderstood what I requested. I did not request that they be granted seasonal benefits in September or at any other time. Under the law, they cannot get seasonal benefits until December 1. What I did say was that these fishermen leave their homes in Newfoundland early in the year, some time in February or March. They go to the mainland and are employed there on fishing vessels until nearly Christmas time. Having been away from their families for almost a year, and being human like everyone else, they want to spend some time with their families at Christmas. They get no holidays, and the only way they can get a holiday is to take one. They leave these ships voluntarily to go to Newfoundland to spend Christmas with their families. When they leave these ships voluntarily, they are disqualified from receiving benefits.
All I asked the minister was to find some way of avoiding the imposition of a penalty on these people because they have been absent from their families for such a long period, and this fact should be taken into account. They should not be penalized because they are forced to resort to this method in order to spend time with their families. I feel they deserve special recognition and they should not be disqualified when they apply for benefits in December.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Campbell Chown: This completes the estimates for the Department of Labour.

Supply-Health and Welfare Mr. Siam Through you, Mr. Chairman, tial degree? If so, under what terms are pay-I wish to thank the members of the com- ments made to private doctors? mittee for the very fine co-operation I re-	Mr. Monieiih (Perth): Yes. Actually the deceived in the passing of these estimates.	partment has full time medical practitioners


Gordon Campbell Chown: We now turn to on the payroll as salaried employees. Then, the estimates of the Department of National of course, in certain areas there are some Health and Welfare.	part time doctors who are paid on a fee for
service basis.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Indian and northern health services-
261.	Operation and maintenance, $22,882,898.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is under vote 261 that Indian and northern health services come. Can the minister tell us whether, under this vote, there is any assistance given in respect to the Indians in the province of Newfoundland? I recognize that the only part of Newfoundland in which there are Indians, of course, is Labrador.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would prefer to wait until my officials arrive, Mr. Chairman, to give me some assistance with this. We do not have Indian hospitals or nursing stations in Newfoundland to the same degree we do across the rest of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Having been the superintendent general, perhaps I could assist the minister a little on this subject. I recognize that the Indians in Labrador are not Indians under the Indian Act and therefore strictly speaking the federal government, under the terms of union, has no responsibility at all except such responsibility as it has to all other citizens in Canada. I do not recall the details, but some special arrangement was made to provide a certain measure of compensation. Perhaps this arrangement was not made by the minister's department and, quite frankly, I do not remember the details. I simply wanted to find out if there had been any recent change in that or if the minister could throw any light on it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be pleased to inform the hon. member, and I understand that full medical care was to be given for ten years. The agreement still has three years to run. Is this the agreement to which the hon. member refers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the scheme for the eradication of tuberculosis?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is for full medical care carried out through the Grenfell mission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
263. Medical advisory, diagnostic and treatment services, $4,201,995.
William Moore Benidickson: Does this item include payments to private doctors in any substan-


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
265.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $276,810.
William Moore Benidickson: Does this item include payments to local agents for prosecutions with respect to the narcotic drugs act or would a vote for that purpose be under the estimates of the Department of Justice?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No. This would be in our vote No. 265.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-family allowances and old age
security-
266.	Administration, $3,341,497.
Murdo William Martin: The minister has had a rather successful inning. I am sure he would expect now to be given an opportunity to catch his breath.
In the remaining few moments of tonight's sitting, the minister should tell us what progress he has been able to make, since he last addressed himself to this question. That is the study he has now been making for over three years of the Clark report. The minister may recall that the Clark report was a document, which had been prepared by a professor of one of our universities at the instance of the government. That professor had been engaged to make an inquiry into the operation of the old age survivors scheme in the United States, which operates on a contributory basis. The provocation for that report arose out of a statement made in this House of Commons by the Prime Minister of Canada. As the minister may recall if he will search his memory with diligence, prior to the election of 1958 the Prime Minister solemnly told the House of Commons that he thought we should have a system of contributory old age security, modelled on the principles of the system in existence in the United States. In order to meet that objective he said that he had appointed a Professor Huson of the University of Western Ontario, and that the report was to be completed within four months. At the time great publicity was given to this announcement of the Prime Minister. However Professor Huson decided that he could not possibly make the report in four months and, as a result, he resigned from the assignment.

Supply-Health and Welfare


William Moore Benidickson: He was fired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In his stead Professor Clark was appointed. He took some eight or nine months and then presented a rather monumental document, in two volumes. The minister was questioned about this document a year and a half ago in the estimates committee. He then gave evidence of great comprehension and understanding of the report. No one was convinced that he had not fully studied it. At the end of the presentation of his evidence before the committee, we were somewhat surprised to find that he was not in a position to announce government policy. However, as I say, he clearly established in our minds the impression that he had carefully studied this report and that there was no paragraph in the complicated recommendations and factual statements made by Professor Clark, that the minister did not understand. But since that time we have been told repeatedly in this house by the minister that he has not yet completed his study.
With great respect and having in mind the minister's heavy responsibilities, may I ask him this question. I realize that he suffers a particular disability latterly, when he has not been able to walk the streets in his own clothes. However, that fact should in no way be regarded as an excuse for his not having completed the study. May I therefore ask him now whether the study has been completed. Has he made any recommendations to his colleagues? Does the government have any idea of implementing that report in part or otherwise? If it proposes to implement the report, is it the government's intention to establish a parliamentary committee, so that we may consider the report and the government's recommendations, or is this simply another stall on the part of this government, one that has devised more impressive ways of stalling than has any of its predecessors?
We have shown great forbearance tonight. We have progressed in the passage of the minister's estimates largely because we wanted to deal with this problem. We sympathize with the minister. We realize that he is the most studious Minister of National Health and Welfare in the history of our country. He is one of the most studious ministers, but he is not one of those who acts with the greatest rapidity. We ask him to tell us tonight what the government is going to do about this report. Is it something that we should forget?


Jay Waldo Monteith: First of all, I should like to express my appreciation of the hon. member's concern about my clothes. As a matter of fact, at one time I had every intention of asking him for the loan of a suit.


However, I suddenly realized that probably too many seams would have to be taken in and too many alterations made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is quite right there.


Jay Waldo Monteith: However, I appreciate the kind gesture. The hon. member for Essex East has given the complete history of the Clark report and therefore I do not think that I need to go into it. I should like to assure him that I am an extremely slow but thorough reader. After I have read an article I sometimes must go back and study the more difficult points, those with depth and meaning. I admit that process takes me some time. However, I can assure the hon. member that I am giving deep study to this report. An interdepartmental committee has been studying it. I should not be too greatly surprised if before too long he were informed of the government's action.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At this instructive point, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as I have some further observations to make, may we call it 10.30?


Mr. Churchill:: Can we not go on for
another 10 minutes and complete the estimates of this department?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that would be rather difficult.


Murdo William Martin: We could not possibly finish them.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the house leader could give us as much indication as possible of what the government is planning for the rest of this week and whether he could even project his mind forward to next week. If he could do so, I think it might be very helpful to all hon. members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are within sight of the end of this session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the hope I express.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government must be forthcoming or we are not going to agree.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have left just four items in the Department of National Health and Welfare; we have the privy council items to pass-these were commenced the other day when the Prime Minister was speaking. We

have also the estimates under the heading of legislation which Mr. Speaker himself deals with, and these do not normally occupy much of the time of the committee. We have also the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance and 20 items left in the Department of Transport, estimates of which were before the committee earlier, besides the Department of Veterans Affairs. Those are the estimates we have to complete.
On the legislative side we have the resolution stage with regard to the sports council, followed by the bill; the bill in connection with the Pine Point Railway which will be back for consideration in committee of the whole house and for third reading, and the debate on the dominion-provincial tax collection arrangements. For tomorrow, by arrangement, we shall take the resolution stage of the fitness and amateur sport proposal. On its completion, if we do not take all day on it-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We won't.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -I think we shall take the estimates of the privy council, followed then by those four items in health and welfare, and, depending on the time available, we might make a start, or perhaps even complete, the estimates of the Department of National Revenue.
Business of the House


An hon. Member:: Some positive thinking there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Whether or not we sit
Saturday I think we shall determine by noon tomorrow. We shall confer and see what the house would like to do. If we sit Saturday we might then find it possible to complete the business of the house by Thursday of next week. If we do not sit Saturday we might still finish by Thursday of next week. I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the leader of the house would permit one question. It is true that an order of the house was made that the government could be assured of going into supply on Monday and Tuesday. Is it the intention of the government to complete the legislation at the beginning of next week before going on to estimates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a very good question. But I should like to make an announcement concerning Monday tomorrow because, as I say, we are so close to the end it is a matter of adjustment and I shall be in a better position tomorrow to give that information.
It being 10.35 p.m., the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Question



ANSWER TO QUESTION

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

Mr. Fortin: 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
178.	Departmental administration including a grant of $10,000 to frontier college and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,373,104.
179.	Economics and research branch including research grants and related expenses, $821,935.
Annuities Act-
180.	Administration, $1,240,305.
181.	To authorize the governor in council to make regulations establishing a pension plan (hereinafter called the "plan") for agents of the Minister of Labour engaged pursuant to the government annuities regulations and for former agents now employed in the government annuities branch, providing for, inter alia, rates of contributions and benefits under the plan, establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund for the plan, compulsory contributions by agents, payment out of the account of pensions and other benefits to or in respect of members of the plan and payment of interest on the outstanding balance of the account; government's contribution, $46,000.
182.	Industrial relations activities including the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, the Annual Vacations Act, and regulations, and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $643,798.
183.	Civilian rehabilitation branch including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $270,655.
Special services-
184.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combatting seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council. $498,860.
Technical and vocational training assistance-
185.	Administration, $146,905.
186.	To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total of $27,108,700-payments to the provinces, $26,600,000.
Government employees compensation-
187.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $121,391.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
188.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act including expenditures incurred in connection with other duties and responsibilities
Supply-Items Passed
assumed and carried out as required by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 4 of the act, $45,542,980.
189.	Transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $75,000.
A-Department-
General Administration-
532.	Civilian rehabilitation branch including payments to the provinces to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $18,500. Technical and vocational training assistance-
533.	Administration-further amount required. $36,670.
534.	To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder, including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year in an amount of $508,700 in excess of the total amount voted in this fiscal year-payments to the provinces-further amount required $20,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
255.	Departmental administration, $1,821,267. National health branch-
Health services, including assistance to the
provinces-
256.	Administration, $459,645.
257.	Consultant and advisory services, $835,749.
258.	Laboratory and advisory services, $2,402,074.
259.	To authorize general health grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $37,954,391, $30,000,000.
260.	To authorize hospital construction grants to the provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $29,660,152, $17,000,000.
Indian and northern health services-
261.	Operation and maintenance, $22,882,898.
262.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including payments to hospitals and other institutions which care for Indians and Eskimos as contributions toward the construction of hospitals and related facilities, $2,087,800.
263.	Medical advisory, diagnostic and treatment services, $4,201,995.
264.	Administration of the Food and Drugs and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Acts, $2,276,235.
265.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $276,810.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, September 22, 1961