1961-03-21

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the great interest that has been aroused by statements of the governor of the Bank of Canada I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can see any reason why the governor should not be asked to appear before the banking and commerce committee which is now in session.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, questions like that are for the determination of the appropriate committee and decision by such committee.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. In the event that the banking and commerce committee should decide to summon the governor of the bank, would the Minister of Finance, because of his relationship with the governor, provide any obstacle to acceptance on the part of the governor?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: The Minister of Finance does not create obstacles at any time in the way of doing anything that is proper-


Paul Joseph James Martin: This minister does.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and he commends that example to the obstructionist member for Essex East.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to give the House of Commons any information on the alarming statement in this morning's Globe and Mail attributed to Dr. Keenleyside that there is a regional bomb
now on the drawing boards capable of scourging and sucking into a cloud the whole of Ontario from Ottawa to Windsor if detonated from a height of 200 to 300 miles?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister wants to undertake to answer a question of that kind he may do so, but I take it there is no suggestion that it is on the drawing boards in Canada or that it is the responsibility of any Canadian minister of the crown.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no reference as to whose drawing board it is on. In my view this is a question of great national importance, and in the light of our international relations and the fact that this matter has to do with defence and external affairs I think it is appropriate to ask the government whether they have any knowledge of a regional bomb now on anybody's drawing board that could destroy most of the province of Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not really brought out any fact which indicates responsibility on the part of any member of the ministry sitting in this house, but if he wishes to ask a specific minister whether he has such an instrument on his drawing board I think the question would be permitted.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will ask the question in this way. Has the minister any comment to make on the statement that there is on the drawing boards, either in Canada or any other place-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot accept the question in that form. If the hon. member is prepared to ask whether or not some such activity is the responsibility of the minister, then I suggest he ask the minister that question in order to establish his right to pursue the matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest that this question is something about which this government must have some concern. I should think it would have an opinion, and if the question is not appropriate for the Minister of National Defence then perhaps it could be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would ask whether this government has any knowledge of a bomb of this kind being on the drawing boards any place in the world.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I would accept that question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any bomb of this sort being on the drawing boards any place. I might say, in connection with this general report of the speech made by Mr. Keenleyside, that there are a lot of other statements in it which I think are subject to very grave doubts.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this may be considered a question supplementary to that asked by my leader a few minutes ago. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he would confirm or comment on the claim made in Toronto last night by Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, who is the president of the Canadian national committee for the control of radiation hazards, that, to use his words, "Russia has about 70,000 bombs available". If the minister confirms this statement, does he continue-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hnn. member is going outside our practice in asking for confirmation of a factual statement for which the minister has no responsibility, on a subject for which he has no responsibility.


Erhart Regier: Perhaps I might rephrase my question. Is the government aware of the claim that Russia has 70,000 bombs available, and if so is the present policy of the government on civil defence really a contribution to world peace and security?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I may say that Mr. Keenleyside, I think, has no-


Erhart Regier: Dr. Keenleyside.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -more knowledge of how many bombs are available in Russia than have most people in this chamber. Any estimate as to the number of bombs which may be held by Russia is of course only an estimate, and I have no intention in the world of saying what our estimate is.
However, I would suggest that the mention by Dr. Keenleyside of 70,000 as though this were a definite fact is pure guesswork on his part without any foundation in fact whatsoever. Furthermore, if the Russians have 70,000 bombs, that is not the material thing. The material thing is how many of those bombs they might be able to deliver in an attack on this continent and on the countries of western Europe, and that depends not on the number of bombs they have but on the carriers they have for the delivery of those bombs.



INQUIRY AS TO RESUMPTION OF TALKS CONCERNING TESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask if he is in a position to give the house any information regarding the resumption of nuclear test talks. I ask this question because of the minister's well known interest in the restriction of nuclear weapons in this country.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the house is fully aware, this government remains firmly opposed to the testing of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. Agreement among the nuclear powers on a definitive cessation of such tests under effective international control would give a welcome assurance that the world would be safeguarded against the hazards they entail. Therefore we are greatly encouraged by the many indications there are that the United States will put forward new and far reaching proposals in a sincere attempt to bridge the remaining differences that separate them from the U.S.S.R. in this field.
This development brings fresh hope to governments and peoples in all countries, large and small, whose interests are so intimately caught up in the success or failure of the Geneva talks. I understand that it will take some days for the new United States position to be outlined in its entirety to the Soviet side. Of course during that period we will be watching with interest and concern to see how the U.S.S.R. will respond to these advances.
As the hon. member for Essex East knows, these talks were commenced in October, 1958, I think it was, and during that time there has been a moratorium on further nuclear tests by the three nations engaged in the talks. This moratorium continues today. We are very hopeful that there will be beneficial results when the talks are resumed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the hon. gentleman's well known position, as well as that of the government, that there should be a cessation of nuclear tests, may I ask the hon. gentleman if it is the policy of the government to continue to oppose any extension of the countries that might become possessors of nuclear weapons?


Howard Charles Green: Well, now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, as he quite often does, laid a foundation and then asked a question that was not related to that foundation at all but

to an entirely different subject. This government, as I say, has been against any further nuclear tests and that continues to be the policy.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether, in view of the report in this morning's Globe and Mail, he is able to deny or confirm the allegation that the department is making special efforts at this time to look over the books of Roman Catholic presbyteries in order to compare their revenues with the receipts for charity donations presented by taxpayers for income tax purposes.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to telephone me a few moments ago, but he did not give me a copy of his question. I did read the article, and all I can say in answer to his question is that the same practice is being carried out in the city of Quebec as elsewhere in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada. It has always been the practice of this department to check on charitable donations from time to time, and when they are excessively large they are checked very carefully.


Erhart Regier: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the public charge made in this newspaper that $75 million has been lost to the federal government because of fraudulent receipts, will the government make a public announcement at an early date that will completely clear the reputation of the Quebec clergy of this serious accusation?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the reputation of the clergy of Quebec is not involved in this matter. The clergy of the province of Quebec have naturally as high a standard of integrity and honesty as any clergy in Canada. There is no suspicion, no suggestion and no allegation of anything in this matter. What the Department of National Revenue is doing in this case is carrying on a practice which has been carried on for years, in checking, particularly at this time of the year, on charitable donations and other factors which arise in checking income tax returns.


Erhart Regier: May I ask another supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monimagny-L'Islel):: should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the press has been using quite blunt language, speaking of a tax Gestapo with regard to those who are now making inquiries in the province of Quebec about receipts for charitable donations, could the minister tell the house whether he has received, either officially or unofficially, complaints from anyone about that matter?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any official complaints. Several members of parliament spoke to me yesterday about this matter in view of letters which I believe they had received. I was informed that a letter was coming to me from some of the clergy asking for clarification of certain practices of the department but to the best of my knowledge there has been nothing of that kind received up to this time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pratt (Jacques Carlier-Lasalle):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister inform the house whether any protests have been received by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in regard to a television program entitled "Here lies Mrs. Moriarty", written by Richard Morris and Michael Leighton, produced by Mel Breen and presented by General Motors Corporation, in which a story set in Ireland portrays every single one of a dozen so-called Irish characters as either liars, idiots, thieves, drunkards, corrupt officials or corrupt clergymen, murderers, or as possessing various combinations of these rather undesirable characteristics? In view of the fact that not one single decent character was to be found anywhere among the Irish characters, and in order to protect the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation staff from possible mayhem, could the minister use whatever influence he may have to persuade the C.B.C. to avoid such studied insults to a friendly people, at least during the week of their national celebration?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I can assure this house that I have no influence for the protection of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation officials against anything, not even attacks by Conservative members of parliament or anyone else. I

Inquiries of the Ministry have been informed that there have been six telephone calls received in Ottawa and four in the city of Montreal, and that is the extent of the complaints. Mr. Blackburn, a columnist of some reputation in Canada, has said that this was the finest example of wit and humour he has ever seen the C.B.C. put on television. I have spoken to several people of Irish descent, who have not been so far removed from the "ould sod" that they have lost their sense of humour, who also appreciated it, as I did myself.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received any complaints from smaller municipalities to the effect that they find the regulations in respect to loans for the construction of sewage disposal plants somewhat too restrictive, as they only provide for front line sewers and things of that sort, and also that in their opinion they to some extent lack definition?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, no matter what the government does and no matter how noteworthy it is, we always get complaints. In this instance we have received a few complaints because municipalities both large and small would like us to further extend this sewage plant legislation. However, the hon. member, who is an authority on this subject, will appreciate that we have limited funds. We are anxious to have the municipalities instal sewage disposal plants and we would like to go just as far as possible, but in putting through all sorts of piping our money would run out and we would not get the desired result. I hope that answers the question.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell us whether the plans for the Champlain bridge and its junctions have been drawn up and, if so, at what location will this bridge connect with Montreal island?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did not get any notice of this
[Mr. Nowlan.)
question. As far as I am concerned, the Champlain bridge plans are certainly completed. With regard to the exact location where that bridge will connect with Montreal island, discussions were held with the city of Montreal in this regard and the matter is being looked into at present.
(Text):



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Following a statement by the general manager of the retail merchants association that their brief for a clear-cut ban on trading stamps has had a sympathetic reception by the government, can we expect any legislation on trading stamps this session?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this is of course a matter which can only be answered in the usual way, that if and when a decision is reached to proceed on the matter, it will be announced in due course.


Mr. Pickersgill:: 



&quot;If&quot;. SHIPPING NEWFOUNDLAND    REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE TO SEALING SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received requests for assistance from masters and crews of sealing ships off the east coast of Newfoundland and, if so, what action has been taken?


Léon Balcer: I was handed notice of this question as I was walking up to the house. However, I am able to inform the hon. member that we have in effect received requests from masters of sealing vessels, and the attention of my department has been brought to this matter many times in the last few days by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
I have investigated the matter. Our icebreakers around Newfoundland at the present time are extremely busy on account of the very heavy ice season. They are all engaged at the present time in their priority work in that area, which is clearing cargo vessels. Nevertheless I can assure the house that every consideration is being given to this request from the masters of sealing vessels. We shall do our best to help them, but unfortunately many of those vessels are more than two or three days away from the icebreakers. I assure the hon. member that the

matter is under constant study and every step that could be helpful will be taken.



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. On March 1 the minister informed the house, in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, that there would be a conference held between the government of Nova Scotia, the united mine workers and the government of Canada to deal with the coal situation, and that some tentative arrangements had been made to hold such a conference during the week of March 20. My question is, has such a conference been arranged, and has the government any proposals to put before that conference which will provide alternative employment to Nova Scotia coal miners when the mines are shut down?


George Clyde Nowlan: That question, of course, was asked yesterday by another hon. member, the hon. member for Gloucester, of my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and he answered it at that time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I checked the record and I did not find a question in the terms in which I put it. Could the minister inform the house whether such a conference is going to be held this week?


George Clyde Nowlan: The conference was held yesterday.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked the following question:
Can the minister indicate whether an aircraft, which I understand has the designation C-5, flew to London last week as a stand-by aircraft in order to ensure that the Prime Minister and other members of the delegation to the commonwealth prime ministers' conference could be back home at a particular time?
In reply I should like first of all to point out that the Royal Canadian Air Force sends regular flights of aircraft every week from Canada to Europe and back in order to transport reinforcements for the air division and the brigade which are over there, and to
Inquiries of the Ministry bring back people who are coming back home on reposting to Canada, to ferry supplies and so forth.
As one of these regular flights, which go on at all times, a C-5 trans-Atlantic flight was scheduled for March 14 from Ottawa to London and return. This flight was scheduled to coincide with the Prime Minister's return so it could be used as an alternative aircraft in the event that any difficulty was experienced with the Comet in which the Prime Minister was due to fly back to Canada. The flight was scheduled to carry a normal load of service passengers both eastbound and westbound. It is normal practice to reschedule a transport operation to provide a back-up for an aircraft carrying a head of state. In all such cases the aircraft is employed on a required transportation task.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs may recall, I asked what action the Canadian government proposed to take to carry out the United Nations resolution, which Canada supported, to the effect that influence should be brought to bear on South Africa to change its policy in the trust territory of South West Africa. The hon. gentleman said that he was not in a position to reply on Friday. I wonder whether he is in a position to reply today.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member will look at the latter part of my answer he will notice that I said that this resolution was designed to influence the commonwealth conference which, by that time, had ended.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY MONTREAL-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN COST OF METROPOLITAN BOULEVARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Fortin: The
premier of Quebec having stated recently that the metropolitan boulevard in Montreal will be considered as part of the trans-Canada highway, will the Minister of Public Works tell the house whether the federal government will be required to pay part of the cost of this boulevard?


David James Walker: The hon. member has not given me notice of this question, but I think it is public

317G
Inquiries of the Ministry knowledge that under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, which was enacted in 1949, contributions by the federal government to any part of a highway used in any province and built before 1949 are allowed; but with respect to any part of a highway subsequently used by a province as part of the trans-Canada highway which was built after the act came into force but before that province came into the scheme as a member under contract to build the trans-Canada highway, that part of the highway, of course, cannot qualify for payments from the dominion government. This has been so in British Columbia and in Nova Scotia, which were late in coming into the trans-Canada highway scheme. The result was that any part of the highway built by them before the date they came in but after 1949 was not included as a part of the highway to which the dominion government could make a contribution.
Therefore, carrying the analogy to the province of Quebec-I have not studied the particular highway to which my hon. friend refers-the same principle would apply. If the highway was built between the time the legislation was first enacted and the time that Quebec came into the scheme, it would not qualify for participation under the terms of the act.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Can the Minister of Labour indicate to the house when it is expected that the most recent set of unemployment figures will be made public?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Fairly soon.


Hazen Robert Argue: Too soon for the government.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question based upon the eager anticipation expressed by Premier Frost in the Ontario legislative assembly about the joint survey report on the requirements needed to make Moosonee a seaport. Will this report be available soon? If so, will it be a public document?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, up to the present time I have not received any report. Therefore it

would not be possible for me to give a positive answer to a question which at the present time is in the realm of possibility. As and when we get a report we will make a decision on that matter and also make an announcement in the house.

The house resumed, from Monday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associaie Minisfer of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last night at ten o'clock I had given the reasons which, in my opinion, have caused a slow-down in our economy and provoked unemployment. I should like for a moment to comment on this very question of unemployment and to give my opinion on the seriousness of this problem.
There is no doubt that the present number of unemployed is far too great; in fact any unemployment at all is undesirable in a wealthy country such as Canada. It is obvious, however, that the present figures do not indicate the real nature of the problem, and are so made up as to exaggerate its importance. In a well documented speech made in this house on March 9 last the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) gave us a breakdown of the unemployment figure which is worthy of note. The statistical figures to which he referred indicate that about 20 per cent of the jobless are young people still in their teens. It is obvious that the labour market is unusually crowded by thousands of young people who normally should be in school in order to prepare themselves for the tasks of life. These statistics also show that the proportion of unemployed is much higher among non-specialized workers than among those who have trades. This is why many advantages will result from the technical and vocational training program which is now in force.
It is obvious also, in view of the fact that the number of farm workers has been reduced by 300,000 over the last 10 years, that automation on the farm has taken its toll of farm workers, who now must look to the cities in order to find work. It is therefore urgent to educate those young people and give them trades in order to give them the chance they deserve to find a place for themselves in the nation's industries.
It also seems that the labour market is employing a greater number of women and the rate of unemployment among women is

less than the rate among men. While the female population has provided almost half the labour force in the last few years, it has suffered much less than the male population from economic fluctuations. The number of married women drawing unemployment insurance under present conditions is abnormally high, and the increase of female labour in the labour market presents a sociological problem which those who analyse the employment situation should study very closely.
In the light of the above facts it is not unreasonable to state that although we deplore bitterly the presence of unemployment in Canada, the situation is not as critical as the members of the opposition would like it to be, and the measures adopted by the Conservative party should serve to bring about a solution both from the short term point of view and the long term outlook.
(Translation) :
Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Leader of the Opposition said in a most sarcastic tone that very few statements had been made about unemployment during the recent Conservative convention held last week.
That does not mean that the leaders of the Conservative government are not concerned about this unemployment problem which unfortunately affects certain areas of this country. On the contrary, I do not hesitate to say that the government's main care has been to apply itself to improve the lot of the unemployed, and I can state that all the ministers made every effort to seek solutions that would maintain the level of our economy and ease the sad plight of the jobless.
We, on this side of the house, do not believe that there is much to be gained by going around with dismal and sad faces where conventions are held and speaking constantly of doom and gloom, as the Liberals do. On the contrary, we believe it is more advisable to spread a little joy and hope around us. And, with all due deference to hon. members in the opposition, especially to my good friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), those who came here last week to take part in the convention of the Conservative party wanted, by their good humour and their support, to congratulate us for a job well done and to encourage us to continue in the course that we have chosen to follow.
Of course, our Liberal friends do not share this view and we can well expect them to
Labour Conditions
continue to go around with long faces, spreading fear, gloom, despair and panic everywhere, always with the aim of making political capital. While following such a course, the Liberals now and then offer suggestions which, I must say, are not without merit. In those cases, we are eager to study them and occasionally to adopt them. Sometimes their suggestions concern things which have already been accomplished. For example, in the six-point program mentioned yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech, we find commonplaces, measures which are already in force and which are already a part of our own program. Let us take for example, the first point of his speech, where he suggests that a study be undertaken in cooperation with provincial and municipal authorities in order to determine the seriousness of the situation in areas where there is a manpower surplus. I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that this study has been going on for many years. In fact it is as a result of such a survey that the government decided to bring forward a winter works program which, though bitterly attacked in the beginning by the members of the opposition, is now recognized in all the different circles interested in labour problems as a dynamic program which has provided employment for thousands of our citizens, I would even say for hundreds of thousands of our citizens since its inception.
It is also because we must consider this matter of co-operation with provincial authorities that we have initiated this program of technical training for Canada's labourers, in order to provide unskilled workers with a trade that will enable them to fit in the nation's economy.
We also note that in other points of their program, the Liberals suggest that studies be made with a view to providing the country with a more flexible fiscal policy. The Liberals know full well that a degree of flexibility already exists in the financial policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and that improvements have already been made, such as the reduction in corporation income tax which was brought about by raising from $25,000 to $35,000 the taxable income of Canadian corporations.
Is it not also true that to make it easier for small manufacturers to borrow money, we have asked chartered banks to grant long term loans to such small manufacturers and businessmen who wish to improve their plant or industry? According to the latest statistics, that measure should increase the flow of money in Canada by an additional amount of $300 million, and perhaps more.

Labour Conditions
Is it not also true that as a result of the imaginative public works program applied by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), over $54 million are being put into circulation?
In the housing field, one of the main sources of employment for our people, we find that thanks to the measures put forward by the Minister of Public Works, the number of housing starts in the current year has reached 7,000, as compared to less than 1,000 for a similar period last year.
Mr. Speaker, those are only a few of the solutions devised and put into force by the present government to correct the present economic problems in Canada and, once more, to provide employment for the unemployed.
The Conservative government has also put forward other measures, such as water purification, which should soon enable municipalities to carry out plants they have long been dreaming about.
Mr. Speaker, the list of the Conservative government's accomplishments is a long one, and I have mentioned only a few examples because of the limited time at my disposal. I should now like to go on to another subject.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Agreed. (Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I see that my friends on the other side make fun of my remarks. I hope they will listen closely to what comes next; it should be a lesson to them and should perhaps be of some influence on their program of action.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has recognized that Canada's economic prospects for the future are already much brighter. That statement on his part is to his credit, and I commend him for it. However, his statement would have carried much more weight if the Leader of the Opposition had recognized that this improvement in the Canadian economy was due, in part, to the action by the Conservative government. However, that would be difficult in view of the policy of gloom and doom which the Liberal party has been using as the main plank of its program.
There is no doubt that we shall go on hearing members of the Liberal opposition preach gloom and doom in all their speeches and whenever they have an opportunity to speak.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We shall do our duty.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that for three very specific reasons, such a policy on the part of what was once the great Liberal party poses a serious threat to Canada's economic life.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it not true that when doubt is consistently spread in the hearts and minds of the Canadian people with regard to the value of this country's economy, while exaggerating the importance of unemployment in Canada, the Liberals succeed in producing panic and fear so that anyone wanting to enlarge his business and develop it to some extent, or perhaps create a new industry, will think twice about it and put off his projects?
Is it not a fact that by constantly hearing about imminent distress, people in Canada hesitate before buying certain goods they need, and that that decreases purchasing power and business turnover?
Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to tell Liberal members that by always speaking of unemployment and disaster, they are, themselves, creating unemployment and disaster. And the main promoters of the economic uneasiness now prevailing in this country are the Leader of the Opposition, and hon. members for Essex East, Laurier, Bonavista-Twillingate, and all the members of the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, I am now coming to a second and very important part of my remarks. By endlessly dwelling on doom and gloom as the Liberals have been doing, and getting the press to fill its columns with tales about an apparently deplorable situation in this country-


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Ricard:: That hurts.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Associate Minister of National Defence is letting himself be carried away by his own enthusiasm, which is expressed mainly in this house, but not at public meetings. However, I want to say, in connection with the point of order, that we, in the Liberal party have never forced-
(Text):


Mr. Thrasher:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: You do not even understand what I am saying.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to state that members of the Liberal party, particularly the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Levis to state his point of order.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, if I were only given time to state my point. May I be given time to explain?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Levis knows that, when speaking on a point of order, the point raised must immediately be stated, so that the Chair may determine whether the point of order is rightly taken or not.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, in order to show the nature of the point of order, I wanted to comment on some remarks which the minister has just made. He said the members of the Liberal party were forcing the press to spread the news he mentioned a moment ago; he said that everything was going wrong. In no circumstances have we ever asked the press to publish such things-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That hurts you too much.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Levis is not a point of order; it is merely a difference of opinion which may normally be expressed when an hon. member has obtained the floor, or at the end of a speech, if an hon. member has misinterpreted the remarks of another member of this house.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member that he is quite right; no doubt I did not express myself clearly. Certainly I would not like to say that the hon. members of the opposition have imposed their views on the press. What I wanted to say, rather, was that the newspapermen report the remarks they hear. That is certainly not the result of some undue influence on the part of hon. members of the opposition. I apologize if I have hurt the susceptibility of my hon. friend.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but in view of the lengthy discussion on that point of order, I would ask to be allowed additional time in order that I may complete my remarks.
90205-6-201
Labour Conditions
I now resume what I was saying about that second point to which I was referring before being interrupted. What I wanted to say is that by talking as they do, our Liberal friends are creating abroad a bad reputation for Canada. Nothing may be more detrimental to the good reputation of Canada and the welfare of its people than that policy of doom and gloom by which the opposition keeps on suggesting that the existing economic conditions here are deplorable, because that is liable to deter all those who wish to establish themselves here. That is so true that, by talking the way they do, the hon. members of the opposition are making a very bad name for Canada, so that in London, in several newspapers, there are articles, even at present, to the effect that the situation is terrible in Canada-


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -and that everything is going wrong. Those articles even bear sensational headlines which are certainly not likely to help our country. So, I would suggest that my friends of the opposition take a look at the Globe and Mail of this morning; they will see an article by Sandy Westhall entitled: "Image of Canada", "A bad press in Britain", "This is Canada today", "Even children join breadlines". That article states that those are the headlines appearing in the press-
(Text):


Mr. Hellyer:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I call your attention to the ruling of the Chair made yesterday afternoon in respect of this debate. As reported on page 3148 of Hansard for yesterday, Mr. Speaker ruled, after mentioning the discursive opening of the Leader of the Opposition:
I have endeavoured to limit hon. members, including the hon. member for Peterborough, and the hon. member for Fort William, who were inclined to debate anything which in their view affected unemployment. I feel that the hon. member for Kootenay West must also bring his remarks into order by referring to the amendment which is before the house.
The minister is now beginning to discuss the effect that the opposition is having on Canada's prestige abroad and in the foreign press. With deference, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this line or argument is well beyond the terms of the amendment now before us.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: In reply to the point of order may I respectfully mention the following. I was going to refer to the effects that these articles have on the unemployment and economic situation in Canada because they do not encourage people to invest in Canada, thereby creating employment opportunities

Labour Conditions
tor our people. I was going to say that this bad press is having distressing results. The article to which I refer reads in part as follows:
This could not have happened at a worse time-* when prosperous British enterprises are looking for other fields and are welcomed eagerly by European and other commonwealth nations. These are the companies Canada needs to pull itself out of the current recession.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you still on the point of order?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I say respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that this point of order should not apply at the moment because I was going to relate what is said in these newspaper articles by the foreign press to our own unemployment situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity has referred to the ruling made yesterday by Mr. Speaker. The amendment which is before the house deals with the inefficiency of double depreciation in dealing with problems of depressed areas and, as indicated by Mr. Speaker yesterday, the scope of debate on such an amendment is rather limited. Although I believe some reference may be made to the general situation of unemployment, I would be inclined to the view that the minister has been doing something else than laying the foundation for dealing with the amendment which is before the house. I think he should now relate his remarks to the subject matter of the amendment, otherwise he will be dealing with the general problem of employment which is not, strictly speaking, before the house on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Chambers:: May I point out to Your Honour that on page 3131 of Hansard of yesterday the Leader of the Opposition dealt with this point. He is reported as follows:
Whose fault is it that the magazine Economist is worried; that the London Times has expressed worry . . .
Whose fault is it that this worry has extended across the Atlantic?
This point was dealt with at some length by the Leader of the Opposition in preparing the ground for his amendment. Surely if this material is relevant in the moving of an amendment, it is relevant in opposing the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The ruling yesterday indicated that it was in order to reply to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition before he moved the amendment. If that is what the minister is now doing I am prepared to allow him to continue. I must say that he has not indicated as yet that he is specifically replying to this argument.

(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to stick as much as possible to the matter under discussion. With respect, I submit we are now talking about unemployment in general, and in this connection, I am merely following the example so often given to me by my hon. friends opposite.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be very long and I simply wish to say in closing my remarks on that second point, that spectacular headlines such as those found in the Globe and Mail of this morning-"This is Canada" are not likely to create a very good reputation for a country like ours. It certainly deserves better. For, even if we admit that there is unemployment in Canada-which all of us regret-we still think that our country is the greatest in the world. We think that if ever a country has had a promising future, it is indeed this Canada of ours and not some other countries less profusely endowed by Providence.
Mr. Speaker, we have been referring to underdeveloped areas and I think it is probably wrong to refer to such areas in this country. There are areas where employment conditions are not quite satisfactory, at least for the moment. But, in a country like ours, abundantly provided with natural resources and particularly rich potentially, it is wrong to say that there actually are sections where misery and distress are prevalent. Mr. Speaker, I think that we should simply say that there is some uneasiness in certain places, but with a little goodwill and co-operation from all sides, the situation will improve.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this does not serve the purpose of the Liberal opposition. For reasons known only to themselves, members of the Liberal opposition have decided to take an extremely leftist stand, which makes them unofficially today the Canadian social party.


An hon. Member:: What a dream.
Another hon. Member: Duplessist.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: That attitude is perhaps based on the desire to copy the policy adopted by the British labour party which, under Mr. Attlee and his chief colleagues, was successful to a certain extent in 1945. In fact that attitude is probably due to blindness brought on by political ambition.
The Liberals tend to forget what was once the great Liberal party under Sir Wilfrid Laurier. They are prepared to resort to any tactics if it can put them into office.

I could not say why, but one thing is sure, the Liberal party today is farther left than the C.C.F. whose members sit to your far left, Mr. Speaker.
If the Liberal party wants to lean towards socialism, it is quite free to do so, but the unfortunate thing-and that is the third point I should like to discuss-is that in its constant complaints, it makes use of human distress, suffering and poverty. The Liberals give free rein to the spreading of subversive ideas among the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Maurice Bourget: Would the minister allow a question?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: With pleasure.


Maurice Bourget: Several times the minister has referred to the Liberals as being socialists. Could he give us an example to prove his assertion that we are socialists?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Certainly. You need only look at the Liberal platform that was drawn up at the January convention, and you will find a whole series of socialist measures whose implementation would drive the country to bankruptcy, because they would involve a total expenditure of over a billion dollars.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order.


Maurice Bourget: You have proved nothing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but his speaking time is over.


An hon. Member:: He should be allowed to go on.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question. I did wish to wait until he completed his remarks, but in view of this interruption perhaps I could ask it now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, you may ask
your question if the house is prepared to give unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Translation):


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get the point of the hon. member for Port Arthur. Was he rising on a point of order?
90205-6-201J
Labour Conditions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Arthur was asking for permission to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny). The house did not give its consent, therefore I have given the floor to the hon. member for Lapointe.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting to follow the remarks of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny). During his speech, I noticed that when he repeated the statement made recently at L'Assomption by the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), namely that the people responsible for unemployment in Canada are those wolves, the Liberals, he expressed himself like the Secretary of State usually does.
Mr. Speaker, I have looked up yesterday's Hansard to refresh my memory on the great statements of the Associate Minister of National Defence. Here is what I found on page 3166:
One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker-there is too much unemployment.
A little further down, he added:
-the situation is the result of events shaped by the second world war and the period which followed the victory in 1945.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in my remarks, let me say to the leader of the government, his ministers and supporters in this house, that they started off by denying this matter of unemployment.
Last September, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) finally admitted in one of his great T.V. performances that he was beginning to worry about unemployment. Later, some said there were some big bad wolves who were responsible for the unemployment situation. Yesterday, the Associate Minister of National Defence indicated that the situation was the result of events during world war II.
When I examine those statements, I cannot help but say that all the members of the cabinet have a logic that kills.
If we analyse the period after world war II we find that there were only two years at the most where the percentage of unemployed was in excess of 3 per cent, and I mean 1954 and 1955.
Recalling the letter sent about a year or a year and a half ago to the Montreal Gazette by Mr. Forsyth of the Canadian Labour Congress and admitting that he is an expert in the matter, we can say that a country enjoys full employment when unemployment does not exceed 3 per cent.

Labour Conditions
The remarks I intend to make this afternoon do not particularly concern the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) whom I hold in great esteem. I think he is quite a sensible man.
My remarks are directed to his colleagues in the cabinet-the cabinet as a whole. I know that the Minister of Labour has a better grasp of the unemployment problem. If he did not put to use all the ideas he had for solving this problem, it was not his fault.
I can admit with my colleagues that the government did make certain attempts to cope with this situation which we consider regrettably contrary to what certain ministers and members have said.
I do not mind-as a certain well-spoken member would say-sitting on this side of the house. Our common duty is to serve our country well.
It is with that in mind that we rise to discuss problems which affect or should affect us all.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Minister of Labour have brought forward a resolution, a program that would extend accelerated depreciation to industries being set up in certain areas. I shall not call them distressed areas; this is something else and I shall say a few words about it, because the Associate Minister of National Defence accused us of referring to distressed areas, when those terms are the very ones used in the resolution submitted to us. I have been in Ottawa nearly eight years and I have never heard anyone here speak about distressed areas. This is the first time I have seen this expression in any legislation introduced by the government and it is the government that is suggesting it. The Financial Post, to which my leader referred yesterday, has expressed its views on the government measure now submitted. As a matter of fact, in an article published on March 18, Mr. J. G. MacDonald stated this:
(Text):
We find it difficult to believe that the government could seriously consider the new regulation as a genuine tax incentive.
Because the prospect to inducing the commencement of a new manufacturing enterprise in a depressed area would be bleak even to those companies already established, it is unlikely that any outsider will be induced by the new regulation to risk his capital when local businessmen are not prepared to do so.
The regulation would probably make sense if it enabled established manufacturers in depressed areas to qualify for additional capital cost allowances in respect of new product development of their own.
The department directive, however, makes it clear that capital equipment acquired to produce new products resulting from change, redesign or innovation will not be qualified under the new regulation.

Change, redesign and innovation are, of course, the principal methods by which existing manufacturers in depressed areas improve their products and increase their production and sales.
(Translation):
As I was saying a moment ago, we admit that the government made some efforts but this is not enough in view of the seriousness of the problem that has been with us for some months.
This reminds me of an appalling thought expressed by John Stuart Mills:
When the welfare of a whole country is at stake, half-measures do not produce partial results; they produce no results whatsoever.
Even though the government has made certain attempts to solve the unemployment problem, not only is the situation not improving, it is getting worse.
We are told from time to time that unemployment is only seasonal; let us wait for spring, let us wait for the crows. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest abettors of socialism and communism in our country, and in other western countries, are those men who are in power but who only sit back on government benches waiting until the return of the crows or of spring to remedy a situation such as this.
We are asked to make proposals from time to time. Well, I have two suggestions to submit to the government. I am sure they will be welcome because they are not my own. The first was made by the Prime Minister himself. We all remember the year 1957 because that year we, from the Liberal party, were shifted to this side so we could think things over. However, we have made good use of the period elapsed since June 10. The Prime Minister then went all over the country telling us that not enough of our raw materials were being processed in Canada. I might quote for instance what he said in Parry Sound-Muskoka on May 10, 1957:
(Text):
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):
It was the same thing throughout Canada. And finally, in Saskatoon, he made the following statement, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 28:
(Text):
Raw materials taken to the United States for processing-with large quantities of the ultimate products being returned for sale in Canada- supplied employment to thousands of Americans, jobs which through a policy to encourage more processing in Canada would be held by Canadians.

(Translation):
I agree with the Prime Minister. I am sure that if the government supports the establishment of industries so that more of our raw materials are processed at home, not only will it reduce our trade imbalance with our neighbours to the south, as he himself stated during the election campaign of 1957, but it will also provide jobs for thousands of Canadians.
I should like to make another suggestion concerning my own area. But first I wish to pay tribute to my colleague from Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard), and also to the mayor of Chicoutimi who have both made similar statements on the deepening of the Saguenay river. The Saguenay, my own area, is now hard hit by unemployment. We are having a hard time trying to convince new industries to settle in our area because we are quite a ways from large centres. Then too, there is the matter of freight rates. Recently, we met with the president of a company who immediately brought up the matter.
If the government would accept the suggestion made by one of its own members, seconded by the humble member for the neighbouring riding, to deepen the Saguenay river, we would not be put in a more favourable situation than elsewhere, but we would simply be raised to the level of all the other areas in the country. We would then have a chance attract industries, which would help us to fight the distressing situation in which we find ourselves today. It will be said that the deepening of the Saguenay river will be very costly. We will be told: "You Liberals are against deficit budgeting; each time a deficit budget is brought down, you criticize us." Let me say that neither my leader, nor my colleagues, nor anybody else is opposed to a deficit when such a deficit helps give new impetus to the national economy. We are not against deficits when they are designed to alleviate unemployment or to strengthen our national economy.
In the speech he delivered yesterday, our leader put forward proposals which are sensible and practical. He mentioned the establishment of a bank which would provide the municipalities with better credit facilities. I think his program was quite to the point. Laugh if you will and say: "You could have done that when you were here." To my mind, the situation is not the same, far from it. I wonder why positive and practical suggestions such as these are never accepted. We have been criticized for offering only long term suggestions. But for the last four years now, we have been making long term
Labour Conditions
suggestions to remedy unemployment. Had they been accepted at the time, we could have seen how they worked out. Long term suggestions are described as nonsense, it is said that they will not do any good until 15 years hence. But we ought to start looking beyond the year just ahead. It must begin to dawn on us that, in a free economy, in a free enterprise country, the government has a part to play in helping to create a favourable climate for enterprise.
Like everyone else, I also favour private enterprise. But I would also like the government to step into such areas where private industry cannot contribute to the prosperity of the country. In such a case, I think that the government should intervene and create a favourable climate and, if necessary, use the taxpayer's money to help revive our economy.
Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) invited us to attend the new party convention. I was deeply touched by that invitation. I hope he has already read the comments of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) on the convention held in January. The hon. member for Peterborough said that, after the convention of the new party, we would have a real leftist party in Canada.
I am frankly fed up with all this talk about the right, the left, or the right or left of centre. Those purely academic discussions are futile and do not get us anywhere. Those phrases, imported from Europe, can mean a thousand different things to Canadians. I, for one, feel that men in responsible public office, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level, should be abreast of the times and era. If that is what is meant by the word leftist, then I am one. If being a leftist means being able to understand the problems of our times and era, I will never be ashamed to say that I favour the left.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: I do not mind saying that I am a leftist. To be able to understand my times and era, that has some meaning for me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: If we are in an era
requiring a measure of government control, in our western democracies, that is where private enterprise has failed, it is the responsibility of the government as soon as it becomes aware of such a need-and let us hope

Labour Conditions
the government is not too blind for that-it is the responsibility of the government in the public interest to resort to government control in the field of economy. This control may not be the one my hon. friends on my right have in mind, but it must apply to those areas where private enterprise is either incapable or unwilling to do its full duty. In such a case I would have no objection, because such a control would give fresh impetus to the economy of the provinces and of Canada in general.
The worst reproach that can be addressed to the present government-and I am not referring to the Minister of Labour-is that it is neither right nor left of centre, nor even in the centre, but nowhere at all. Its head and even both its feet are up in the clouds. Not that we care much where the head is; at least the party could try to keep its feet, which characterize it, on the ground.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, against socialism and communism. Long speeches are made about it. I heard one recently, at the Chateau Frontenac, about free enterprise. Let us fight shy of sluggishness, apathy and carelessness; they are leading straight and fast to dangers we are all trying to ward off, outright socialism and communism. It is useless and childish to make long speeches in praise of liberty, moral and spiritual values and private enterprise, in front of three quarters of a million people who are unable to earn their living. Our system will prove its superiority over other systems, thanks to its ability of getting effectively rid of the social evils which threaten it. I am not referring only to Canada but to many western nations. Unless the situation improves-and it will not unless the government resorts to measures quite more drastic and bold than the ones it has already introduced-there is the danger, as a writer has said, that the people who suffer will soon consider it is better to be a slave and not to work than to be free and have to work.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the government and those responsible for the administration of the country, to take a closer look at our problems. I know that they understand them, but if they understand them well, they must find bolder solutions than those already offered; I mean solutions that would actually improve the situation that has prevailed in recent months.
I do not wish to resume my seat without again urging the Minister of Labour to ask to

his appropriate colleague to consider the deepening of the Saguenay river, which will greatly help bring industries into our area and thus provide some relief for the unemployed. In addition, I wish to remind him- this might cause him to smile-of one of the promises made time and again by his leader during the 1957 campaign, concerning the establishment of plants for the processing of our raw materials here in Canada.
Nobody can accuse me of merely criticizing. The only two intelligent suggestions I put forward were not my own, and I do not claim them as mine. I hope the government will at least consider them important enough to be acted upon.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question before he resumes his seat?


Augustin Brassard: Certainly.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member referred a moment ago to the necessity of setting up plants to process our raw materials; could he give one example of a company which might have been denied assistance, or of a company reported to have applied for assistance from this government to establish a plant for the processing of raw materials and which has been denied such assistance?


Augustin Brassard: I am pleased to see that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) is concerned about that matter.
I do not have to indicate whether the government turned down any request, but the Prime Minister himself promised to foster the establishment of plants to process our raw materials; it is therefore his responsibility to take action. He did not say that he would contribute to their establishment, but he said that he would introduce measures to help establish plants for the processing of our raw materials. But those are things of the past, like so many of the promises he has made.


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the speech delivered yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. He spoke for over an hour but, strangely enough, he talked only few minutes on his own amendment concerning double depreciation.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, he referred to the resolutions adopted by the Conservative convention. He gave us his impressions of that convention and dealt at length with his favourite subject, unemployment.
I therefore intend, in my remarks, to reply to him, but only to refute the very points he

raised in the course of his speech; I shall thus respect the rules of the house, as the Leader of the Opposition seems to have done, thanks to his long parliamentary experience.
Mr. Speaker, after hearing the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, I wondered if, during the week end, he has not been losing sleep over the success of the Conservative convention. Never had we seen so many delegates at a convention. Never had we seen so many people gathered for the dinner in honour of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who addressed-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Roland Léo English: Mr. Speaker, those delegates had come from everywhere and, above all, they did not fail, by their applause, to show how proud they were to welcome back the man who had just represented our government with so much dignity at the conference of prime ministers of the commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was astonished at the text of the resolution on the Canadian flag. He pointed out that at the Liberal rally his party had committed itself to give our country a strictly Canadian flag within the two years following its coming into office.
(Text):


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: On a point of
order, I do not want to detract from the importance of a distinctive flag, but I cannot see how it comes within the terms of the debate.
(Translation):


Roland Léo English: Mr. Speaker, if you look up yesterday's Hansard, you will see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition dealt in his speech with the question of a flag, and as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, before dealing with the subject matter of my speech I am entitled to reply to the statements he has made.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think this point was raised yesterday and, if I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker ruled that he would not prevent any hon. member from replying to any comment made in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. However, I might go a little further and say that of course I would think it would be against the rules to make a whole speech only to reply to a certain point. I would suggest that in commenting on some of the specific remarks of the Leader of the Opposition hon. members should make their remarks brief and not deal at length with a point which was really
Labour Conditions
out of order when it was raised. Replying to a point and making a speech are two different things, and I trust the hon. member can appreciate the difference.
(Translation):


Roland Léo English: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have discussed those different points at too great length, and if you read yesterday's Hansard, you will realize that the Leader of the Opposition dwelt on these different subjects at much greater length than I have.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was not telling the hon. member that he was out of order up to now; I was merely indicating the course I thought he should follow.
(Translation):


Roland Léo English: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In any case, it was the Leader of the Opposition himself who said that his party had committed itself to give our country a national flag within two years after its coming to office.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, his government was in office for 22 years. Then too, Canada has had a prime minister from the province of Quebec, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who, however, did not give the people of Canada a distinctive flag. In fact, Canada could be without a distinctive flag for 24 years, since the Liberal administration was in office 22 years, and they now ask for a further two years before they adopt a Canadian flag.
Mr. Speaker, I hear laughter from my hon. friends opposite when I say those things. I wonder then why the Leader of the Opposition brought this matter up yesterday. Our hon. friends do not seem to want us to reply to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and they seem annoyed at the fact that we intend to do just that.


An hon. Member:: We are pleased that it annoys you.


Roland Léo English: Keep it up and I shall go on with my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I was also saying that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition dealt at length with the unemployment situation. He referred to the years 1955 and 1956, and again to the years 1960 and 1961.
In 1955 and 1956, we had an unemployment problem, yet our friends opposite were then in office. In 1955, 1956 and 1957, the Liberal administration had a chance to do something to remedy the situation, but they did nothing.

Labour Conditions
Mr. Speaker, to confirm that there was an unemployment situation in 1955 and 1956, I only have to refer to statistics published in the Canada Labour Gazette. As a matter of fact, as reported in volume LVII of that publication, for 1957, there were 89,800 unemployed in the Atlantic area as at February 14. This was an increase of 14.8 per cent over the previous month, and 16.3 per cent over the previous year. During the same period, in the Quebec area, there were 176,900 unemployed, an increase of 10.4 per cent over the previous month and of 13.7 per cent over the previous year. The prairies with 78,100 unemployed, had an increase of 6.3 per cent over the previous month and a decrease of 0.6 per cent from the previous year; the Pacific region, with an unemployed population of 71,400, had an increase of 39.2 per cent over the previous month and 7.5 per cent over the previous year. On February 14, 1957, the total unemployed population numbered 574,700 an increase of 9.2 per cent over the previous month and 11.5 per cent over the previous year. Furthermore, on February 1, 1957, the number of claimants for unemployment benefits was 545,981, or an increase of 37.1 per cent over the previous month and 14.5 per cent over the previous year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those figures indicate that an unemployment crisis prevailed in the years 1955, 1956 and 1957, and that the government of the day not only failed to act as it ought to have done to remedy the situation, but that it merely misled the people, by not pointing out prevailing conditions and more particularly by failing to reveal to the Canadian people the economic report prepared at the time.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition admitted yesterday that things were picking up. Speaking of the economic recession, he said that it had a tendancy to ebb away, and I entirely agree with him. As a matter of fact, he mentioned it before when speaking in London, Ontario. This is what I read in the newspaper Dimanche Matin, March 12, 1961:
If Mr. Pearson says that things are picking up, the recession must be at an end.
Mr. Pearson, leader of the Liberal party stated during the week end, in London Ont., that the number one problem which Canada has to face at this time, is that of economic recovery. However, there are some indications that the recession is about to end.
Always in connection with this matter, this is what Le Soleil of Saturday, March 11, 1961, had to say:
Canadian business recovery is expected in mid-1961.

"The slump which started about the middle of 1960, will probably keep on during the first months of 1961, but some improvement can be expected towards the middle of the year," stated Mr. E. S. Morse, president of the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada on a visit here.
It is expected that capital demand will be as strong in 1961 as in 1960. Federal government borrowing more particularly, will reach a much higher level. Mr. Morse expressed the view that there would be no new increase in interest rates for long term loans, but rather a trend to lower rates during the year.
Mentioning the trade situation, Mr. Morse stated that our export trade was rather encouraging, though some countries affected by the war have now completed their reconstruction and become major competitors on the world market. "In the future we will have a large measure of success in this field as long as we apply the latest methods and use the latest equipment, while controlling costs. Obviously, we will be helped by the reduction of the Canadian dollar premium," he added.
The Canadian dollar premium, which has been in existence for such a long time mainly resulted from provincial and municipal borrowing abroad, and of foreign capital investments in Canada made attractive by our high interest rates and development advantages. In the baby budget of last December, the federal government removed some tax exemptions formerly granted in order to attract foreign capital investment to this country. That decision had an immediate impact on the demand for Canadian dollars resulting in a sharp decrease of the premium. In time, our industry as well as our export trade will benefit from it.
Those are flattering words for the policy of this government.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the recession had started under the administration of our hon. friends opposite. To prove it, I will quote from Le Devoir of Saturday, October 22, 1960:
The economic depression started in 1949.
"The resolution to unemployment is quite simple: save!"-Mr. Coyne.
Mr. James Coyne, governor of the Bank of Canada, has just published his annual report for 1960. It is an explosive document that will be discussed for a long time. In fact. Mr. Coyne has smashed the myth of the rosy years of the last decade. Mr. C. D. Howe must have turned in his grave on hearing the iconoclast raze to the ground the monument of infallibility erected to him by propaganda.
Mr. Speaker, we can see that the recession did not start with the coming into office of this government. And the Leader of the Opposition said that this government has done nothing, has adopted no measure to meet the situation.
As for the hon. member who spoke just before me, he pointed out that this government has done something but not enough.
Yet no government has ever done more to meet the situation than the present one. May I mention a few of those measures, so that this house and all the people in Canada may fully realize what this government has done to cope with the present situation.

Let us start with the housing situation. A down payment of $500 on a $10,000 house, as compared to $1,000 before. A down payment of $550 on an $11,000 house, as compared to $1,100 before. A down payment of $600 on a $12,000 house, compared to $1,200 before. The maximum loan has been raised from $12,800 to $14,200 and $14,900. One and a half million dollars have been provided for new housing. The federal government will pay 75 per cent of the costs of urban redevelopment and slum clearance. The government is providing $50 million for this purpose. House improvement loans are guaranteed up to $500 million, as compared to $200 million last year. Loans authorized for rental housing are increased from 80 to 85 per cent of value.
A second measure, against pollution: loans to municipalities for sewage plants; the government is making $100 million available for this.
In, the automobile industry: a reduction of the preferential tariff on imported automobiles and parts.
For small businesses. Loans up to $25,000 to enterprises with a gross annual income of $250,000. An amount of $300 million is provided for a three-year period to help small businesses in Canada, and especially the tourist industry.
As regards winter works in municipalities, the federal government will pay an amount of $30 million in the course of this winter. Works totalling over $200 million were approved in early December. In early December, employment was assured for more than 75,000 workers.
With regard to the training of the unemployed, the federal government will pay 75 per cent, that is to say it has paid 75 per cent of the cost of such training.
On vocational and technical training, there is a 50 per cent increase in training facilities in Canada. The federal government is paying 75 per cent of the cost of new schools up to 1963, and 50 per cent thereafter. Twenty six million dollars have been voted for vocational training this year, an increase of $9 million. Fifteen million dollars will be spent on new school construction.
On public works, there is a $100 million construction program.
On export credits, there is an immediate credit of up to $110 million to help finance Canadian exports abroad; an ultimate credit of $750 million.
90205-6-202
Labour Conditions
The national productivity council aims at increasing productivity in Canada through labour-management co-operation, so that the country may keep up with competition.
On small businesses: There is a reduction in the corporation tax, in the case of small businesses, by raising from $25,000 to $35,000 the minimum above which the excess profit rate applies. The tax will be 21 per cent up to $35,000, whereas the rate on excess profits used to be 50 per cent on $25,000 and over.
On new industries, double depreciation is applicable in the case of goods not previously made in Canada. Double depreciation is applicable in the case of businesses locating in areas of greatest unemployment.
On foreign investments, there is a 15 per cent tax on profits of Canadian subsidiaries of non-resident corporations. By 1963, investment firms will have to get 75 per cent of their income from dividends of Canadian firms.
On investments in Canada: There is the removal of the 4 per cent extra tax as a means of stimulating investment in Canada.
On education, university students are allowed to deduct tuition fees from their taxable income.
On veterans' pensions, there is a 20 per cent increase.
There is also a return to parity of the Canadian dollar.


Maurice Bourget: You have forgotten something, there is also the rise in population.


Roland Léo English: The population has risen, but contrary to the assertions of the Leader of the Opposition, Canada's entire population is satisfied that the government has not turned a deaf ear to its demands, but has seriously tackled its job and has acted to improve conditions as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, and to reduce the recession in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think Canada's whole population recognizes that the double depreciation measure put forward by the government will help attract new industries to our various areas and reduce unemployment.
The Leader of the Opposition, in his amendment, suggests the creation of a regional rehabilitation agency. In co-operation with the provinces and with local authorities, it would assist in the implementation of a program of aid in the less prosperous areas.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members of the opposition have taken the government to task

Labour Conditions
for being slow to act. And now that the measures put forward by the government have been adopted, the Liberals and all opposition members are suggesting a different administrative procedure.
We are asked not to bring in the municipalities.
However, I think the municipalities are the public bodies which are best qualified to make recommendations for fighting unemployment, in view of the fact that they are quite aware of their own economic situation.
I am confident that the municipalities will be able to supply correct information to the satisfaction of the government and of all hon. members.
If we were to start considering a different procedure, this would only delay the implementation of a most useful and desired measure.
For all those reasons, I am against the amendment which, if passed, would prevent a large number of manufacturers from setting up new plants in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe the original measure has the approval of every Canadian citizen. Manufacturers have expressed their satisfaction to me by telephone. They have indicated their intention to establish new industries in my area.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
An hon. Member:: Another spiritual source.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The mayor of Toronto is reported in this paper as saying:
There's Real Despair in city-Mr. Phillips.
I would say there is real despair in this country. There are 700,000 people out of work. We do not know what these figures are now but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has indicated he will have them soon. One need only ask the officials of the Salvation Army, or of any organization such as the St. Vincent de Paul society in order to see if there is real despair today in many sections of Canada. Because we point to the overshadowing problem of unemployment we are criticized in this free parliament because we criticize the government for the inadequate policies that it brings forward.
This particular program of double depreciation for depressed areas in principle, when it was first enunciated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), did give many people reason to believe that at long last the government had embarked on a substantially positive program to deal with unemployment, particularly in chronically unemployed areas, 90205-6-202J
Labour Conditions
as the Minister of Finance calls them or distressed areas as I call them. In principle, this program of double depreciation is sound. It was recommended by the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on behalf of this party, many months ago and it was reaffirmed at our national rally. It has been practised in the United Kingdom and in the United States, and in that latter country it has now become much stronger and more substantive in form. The Leader of the Opposition did not overstate the situation yesterday, when he pointed out the inadequacy of the particular program of double depreciation brought in by this government.
I read the speech of the Minister of Labour last night and I must say that when I criticized those who criticized us for talking about this problem I was not including the Minister of Labour. I was referring particularly to the Associate Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), that experienced parliamentarian who, within a very short time, has established himself in this house as one of its most beloved figures. I was, however, disappointed in the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) because he did not address himself to the real criticisms of this program offered by the Leader of the Opposition.
The background of this situation is simply this. On December 20 the Minister of Finance, in the only reference to unemployment in the budget speech, said that he was going to bring forward a program of accelerated depreciation to assist in the relocation of industries in depressed areas and to encourage industries to stay in those depressed areas. It was not until March 2, some two and a half months later, in spite of questions repeatedly put to the minister that we were in a position to gather what the details of this policy were going to be.
I say without fear of contradiction that any government that delays for two and a half months in outlining a program announced before Christmas in an emergency session designed to deal with unemployment is a government that deserves to be indicted for its failure to deal with unemployment courageously and effectively.
Compare that failure with the action taken in the United States. We have been asking this government for three years to study the problem of depressed areas. We have been asking the government to set up a committee in this house so we could examine into this problem. The only committee that was set up was one set up in the other place, where very important work is being carried out.

Labour Conditions
This work which is being initiated by Liberal senators, should have been undertaken by this government and it might well have been carried on in this House of Commons by a parliamentary committee.
I hold in my hand the area development act, report on hearings before a subcommittee of the committee on banking and currency in the United States senate. This committee went all over the United States during the past two and one half years studying the problem of the chronically distressed areas of the United States.
We pointed out to the government what was being done in that country. We asked the government of this country to embark upon a similar program. We were told that this was an impractical suggestion. Then in the month of December we found that the Minister of Finance was going to bring forward some kind of a proposal along these very lines, although the government apparently did not have in the Department of Labour or in other departments the necessary material upon which to found a properly conceived policy, as will be found if one examines the record carefully.
The inadequacy of the program is not the only thing about which we are complaining. It is clear that the government itself has been so lacking in any careful preparation-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise at this moment, but I do not think the hon. member for Essex East would wish any wrong impression to stay in the house as a result of what he said a few moments ago when he quoted from today's Toronto Daily Star and said-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is another of those diversions to use up other people's time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is that I was handed that newspaper and the headline is there for everyone to see. The minister is not going to divert me from my remarks because I have some very important things to tell him today.
Not only did the government not have a policy-


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


David James Walker: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is your point of privilege?


An hon. Member:: Wait and you will find out.


Michael Starr: Don't get tough.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East has misled the house. He has said that the mayor of Toronto despaired. There is no such statement in the newspaper. A girl called Dinah Kerr wrote an article entitled-


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is any misunderstanding or misinterpretation arising out of the article in the newspaper to which the minister has referred, after the hon. member for Essex East has resumed his seat I will recognize the hon. member who wishes to make a correction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Daily Star headline is as I read it-


Michael Starr: No, it is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and I challenge hon. members from Toronto to deny now that there are cases of unemployment-


David James Walker: That is not the point-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Michael Starr: Closure by the Liberals again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister has risen on a question of privilege.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, that is another misrepresentation. The hon. member for Essex East succinctly stated in this house that the mayor of Toronto said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David James Walker: -he despaired about this problem. He made no such statement. This is my question of privilege, and I claim the right to make it.


An hon. Member:: There is no question of privilege.


David James Walker: The mayor of Toronto made no such statement, whatever the reporter for the Toronto Daily Star, Dinah Kerr, said and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David James Walker: I can wait as long as you can. Don't you want the truth?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am stating my question of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I-

Labour Conditions


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. '


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A question of privilege is being dealt with. The hon. member has no right to stand up now.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I indicate to the Minister of Public Works that if he wishes to put the headline or the report in the Toronto Daily Star on the record he will have the occasion later to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of privilege. The hon. member has-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sit down when the Speaker is standing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I point out that if the hon. member for Essex East, who has the floor now, has not read in its entirety the newspaper, to which the hon. Minister of Public Works has referred, this is not in itself a question of privilege because it does not affect any hon. member in particular or the hon. members of the house generally. This is a question of controversy or a question of correcting facts, which can be dealt with in the ordinary course of debate.
Therefore if it was the intention of the hon. minister to make this factual correction, I would point out to him that this is not a question of privilege, nor is it sufficient ground on which to raise a point of order. I would therefore ask hon. members to allow the hon. member for Essex East to continue his speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will allow the time which has been wasted to be added to the time I have left. This is a deliberate effort on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite who do not want to hear the truth-
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the parliamentary secretary rises on a point of order?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He is challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Pallell:: Mr. Speaker, on the question that has been raised, may I say this. Since the hon. member for Essex East has referred to a document, perhaps it would simplify things, if he would table that document.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is not allowed to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope you have taken note of these interruptions so that I will be allowed the time that has been taken up obviously by hon. gentlemen-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are having a dose of your own medicine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -being deliberately obstructive. I was saying that not only has the government an uncertain policy, but from the Prime Minister's answer to a question of mine a few days before the order in council was passed dealing with double depreciation, it is clear that the Prime Minister did not clearly understand which minister was to be in charge of this program, because he said that the Minister of Labour was to be in complete charge-


John Cameron Pallett: No, he did not. Read the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and then later we found out that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was to have some responsibility in this matter. We had been led to believe by the Minister of Finance that we could not have the details of the government's program of double depreciation until the budget resolutions had been disposed of, although the necessary authority resides with the governor in council. The necessary measures could have been effectively completed on December 18, and this program, inadequate as it is, could have become effective from that date on.
Now what do we get? We have a program which is a facade and which will no more resolve this problem of unemployment than would a mere declaration of intention to introduce such a program. Reference has been made to an analysis of this program by Mr. J. G. McDonald who has written:
In our opinion, it is unlikely that any responsible manufacturer will consider expansion of his business into a new community under the regulation merely because of the minor tax benefits he may receive through accelerated depreciation.
He goes on:
We find it difficult to believe that the government could seriously consider the new regulation as a genuine tax incentive.
Later, after discussing the requirements,
he says:
All this for one year's accelerated depreciation for additional depreciable property which probably will not amount to more than 1 per cent of the

Labour Conditions
total undepreciated capital cost of most Industries capable of having any effect upon the employment picture.
As the Leader of the Opposition reminded us yesterday Mr. McDonald goes on to observe:
We will not be surprised if the new regulation provides more employment in the civil service in Ottawa than it does in the depressed areas of the country.


Mr. Speakman:: Would the hon. gentleman mind telling us what he is reading from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Financial Post of March 18.
Let us face this problem seriously. We are legislators. We are dealing with an important national problem. Let us ask ourselves what industry would move, for instance, from the relatively prosperous area of Hamilton in order to settle in an acknowledged depressed or distressed area, or area of chronic unemployment, on the basis of this particular program which is to be in operation for not more than one year. Does anyone seriously think that this is a substantial program? Does the Minister of Labour not feel he has been considerably embarrassed by having to present this anaemic child born of this lethargic, inactive and tired administration?
This program of tax incentives, of accelerated depreciation, is a program which, if it were carefully conceived, could likely provide a substantial partial solution to the problem of unemployment in depressed areas. In my own area I can see where a program of real tax incentives, of real accelerated depreciation extended over a long period, could provide encouragement for the relocation of industry and for industry to stay in that area. Incidentally-and the minister did not refer to it last night-the community which I represent has made an application for the kind of limited assistance available under this program. As I say, if it were executed with sufficient boldness and scope, such a program could be of considerable use. But the program as now presented to us will not bring one industry to one community in this country. The government in offering such a program will be able to do only one thing, and that is to go out in public meetings, where there will not be full opportunity to examine the program, and say: look what we have done; we have brought in this program of tax incentives, of double depreciation, along with the scheme for productivity councils, the legislation to assist small business, and so on. Yet those men in the opposition have done nothing to help us solve this problem of unemployment. I say to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Trade and Commerce,

the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that it is a disgrace for the government to have brought forward a program of this kind when everyone knows it is completely insufficient and lacking in any real substance.
The first major weakness is that it attempts to foist on to the local authorities responsibility for the determination of what is a labour surplus area. Imagine imposing upon the local authorities of our country the responsibility for determining whether or not they are distressed areas. What is being done in England? What is being done in the United States by governments courageous enough to face this problem and acknowledge its seriousness? Of course, in England they have only about 1 per cent of their work force out of employment while in Canada we have almost 12 per cent of our work force out of work. President Kennedy did not hesitate to suggest the designation of distressed areas and to provide, within a few weeks of taking office, a program designed to assist the unemployed in those areas. I suggest that the real reason why this limited program is brought forward is that this government was embarrassed by not having brought forward a program in principle like this long ago, particularly when there was such discussion concerning lack of action in the United States at the time.
The second major weakness is, of course, the restrictive character of the criteria which are to be used to define a depressed area. Imagine places such as Elliot Lake, Spring-hill and Peterborough not being able to qualify for this kind of limited assistance. The requirement that one should go back to 1953 is a most ridiculous requirement. The only requirement which should have been put into this measure is: what is the level of unemployment and distress in these particular areas at the present time, not what the situation was in 1953. Is Elliot Lake a distressed area? Is there much unemployment in Peterborough? Why not apply the standards applied in Britain? Where 4 per cent of the work force is out of work for a certain definite period, then the area becomes a depressed area capable of qualifying for the benefit of accelerated depreciation. In the United States another standard has been put forward; 6 per cent of the work force out of work for a stated period qualifies the area as one which may take advantage of the proposals for tax relief or accelerated depreciation.
I suggest to the government that they are fooling no one with this program. They are not going to fool the municipalities. They are not going to fool corporations which would like to take advantage of such a

scheme. Every paper in Canada which has commented on this program has criticized it because of its restricted character. It has been criticized in the Halifax Herald, the Windsor Star, the Toronto Globe and Mail, and in papers all over the country, added to which there is the criticism I have read from the Financial Post. This is a facade which is another attempt on the part of this government to give the impression that it is doing something substantial to relieve the most serious single domestic problem facing the people of Canada today.
Something must be done about this situation. We cannot allow this government to continue in its leisurely, laissez faire way because if we do so we shall run into very serious situations. The recession may lift, but unemployment will persist and with it will come those influences which will bring about a kind of society which the Associate Minister of National Defence deplores no less than does everyone in this house.
The governor of the Bank of Canada has some views on unemployment and we ask the government to address itself to the solutions which he advances and to say whether they are right or not. Mr. Coyne, according to his report, said:
Economic developments have not been of such a character as to raise employment in step with the increase in the labour force.
Does the government agree with this statement? Does it confront the situation? Does it say the governor of the Bank of Canada is doing a disservice to this nation by pointing out what he believes to be the facts?
Then, the governor of the Bank of Canada says:
Analysis of Canada's situation seems to me to indicate that the approach to higher employment and output should be through measures designed to reduce the large deficit in our current account balance of payments and through increases in spending of a selective character likely to increase production in Canada, rather than through measures designed to raise the level of total spending by Canadians.
Does the government agree with this statement? There is a proposal by the governor of the Bank of Canada for a solution of this problem, and yet ministers sit in their seats day after day refusing to say whether they agree with the governor of the bank or not.
Then, the governor of the Bank of Canada goes on to say:
We should not allow exaggerated ideas about the influence of monetary policy to distract us from pursuing outside the monetary field the most practical and effective measures to ensure the restoration of a high level of employment and the reduction of unemployment to the minimum level.
Labour Conditions
Mr. Coyne says that the problem of unemployment belongs to the government; but, while that is the case, he nevertheless proposes his solutions for dealing with it. The governor of the Bank of Canada is a responsible, distinguished public servant in our country. I am not now commenting on whether I agree with his detailed analysis and his proposed solution. What I am pointing out is that the governor of the Bank of Canada may have exceeded his normal function, perhaps in the national interest, as he sees it, and has pointed out to the Canadian people and to the government the general lines of an attack on unemployment. He says that monetary policy is his responsibility. That is true. By that he does not mean to imply that the government has no responsibility in the final analysis, but he makes that remark so that it will be clear that with regard to debt management, fiscal and financial policy, in so far these have anything to do with the maintenance of our standard of living, they are a responsibility which belongs in the first instance to the government.
I say that if the government is serious about trying to resolve this problem of unemployment it cannot leave untouched and unnoticed these declarations of the governor of the Bank of Canada. It cannot simply hope that parliament will prorogue and that there will be no debate on the merits of the proposals put forward by the governor of the Bank of Canada.
An attempt to resolve this problem of unemployment should involve the careful consideration and study of the recommendations of the governor of the Bank of Canada. I raise this matter of the bank and unemployment at this time because I think it is basic and because, from all that one can hear, I believe the government is about to take this matter out of the hands of parliament. The government is about to resort to its well known technique of appointing a royal commission to examine into the whole question of monetary policy. If it takes that course, then to outsiders, to those members of the royal commission designated by the government alone, will be afforded the opportunity of interrogating the governor of the Bank of Canada on monetary policy and presumably on matters related to it, and arising out of the report presented to parliament a few days ago. If such technique is employed we shall be denied the right and opportunity to determine whether or not the governor of the Bank of Canada is diametrically opposed to the policy of the government-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the purpose of it.

Labour Conditions


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition says that may be the purpose of appointing a royal commission. If this royal commission is appointed, then we shall be denied the opportunity of determining whether the proposals themselves deserve to be embodied in government programs to resolve this problem.
I say no government can discharge its function to the unemployed of our country, or in this particular context can deal with the very important problems facing Canadian industry, Canadian agriculture, our labour force, and the nation generally unless we are put in a position to ascertain what are the details of the solutions proposed by the governor of the Bank of Canada. In the face of the intransigent position taken by the Minister of Finance, the only way in which we can be given this opportunity is for this government, and particularly the chairman of the banking and commerce committee, without any interference by the Minister of Finance, to allow the governor of the Bank of Canada to appear before that committee and enunciate the reasons for his proposals.


Mr. Marlineau:: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: For the last several minutes the hon. member has been discussing monetary policy and the opportunity for the governor of the Bank of Canada to appear before a certain committee. I respectfully submit to Your Honour that this is not pertinent to the debate before this house. The hon. member who is always rising on points of order should be the first one to observe the rules of this house, as Your Lordship so well pointed out just a few minutes ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are no lords here; this is a democratic house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: First, Your Honour knows very well that you are not Your Lordship. Second, the point of order taken was obviously another device on the part of the government to prevent one from continuing with one's point of view, namely the development of monetary policy. What I said about debt management and fiscal and financial policy are fundamental factors in the state of our economy and in any attempt to deal with the problem of unemployment.
In conclusion, I say that the government now faces-


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I have a ruling on the point of order which I raised, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was about to say that it was useless to rule on the problem of relevancy, which is always rather difficult, after the hon. member for Essex East had 
indicated that he was about to conclude. If this is the case I will not rule, but if the hon. member wishes to pursue the subject of monetary policy I shall have to rule.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal with it. The point has been made as an obstruction and was intended for that purpose.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has any cause to state that when a point of order has been upheld by the Speaker it was raised as an obstruction. Either this house has rules or it has not. If it has rules, I think the hon. member for Essex East should observe them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Whatever we may say, this problem is before us. Whether we sit in the opposition, in the ministry or behind the ministry, we cannot escape the fact that we have a serious problem before us. In our judgment the government has not brought forward a program which is capable of biting into this problem. The various measures which have been proposed such as the winter works programs and the like, only indicate the severity of the problem. The government says that it has put 100,000 men to work under that program. If that program had not been brought in, instead of 700,000 we would have 800,000 out of work. The fact is we have at least 700,000 unemployed. Under our parliamentary system this is a problem that rests primarily on the shoulders of the government of the day. It cannot shift that responsibility on to labour, management or oppositions. We in the opposition have sought to deal with it; we have put forward our proposals. The government has not accepted them. One of the proposals we have put forward is that about which I have been speaking today, namely an examination of the publicly declared program for resolving unemployment put forward by the governor of the Bank of Canada, that important institution established by parliament. If parliament is the master of the Bank of Canada as the Minister of Finance indicates, and quite correctly in a constitutional sense, then it is our responsibility as members of parliament to see that we ascertain from the governor of the bank what his proposals are so that we can examine and compare them with the program of the government, make the necessary judgment and give the people of Canada the opportunity of making the necessary jugment. The failure of the government to act on this proposal will only add to the growing record of the government's utter incapacity to deal with this problem.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) read the amendment presented to the house yesterday. No doubt his intention was to draw the attention of the house to the fact that he was going to speak on the subject of the amendment, limited as it is, but nevertheless he did find an opportunity to bring in a few other things which are not in the amendment. At the request of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) I should like to draw the attention of the house to a statement made by the hon. member for Essex East to the effect that there was real despair in Toronto. The statement referred to by the hon. member appeared to be a statement by Mayor Phillips of Toronto. The article in question in the Toronto Star of today is written by Dinah Kerr and in it she is addressing herself to Mayor Phillips and telling him that there is real despair. The article was misrepresented to the house by the hon. member for Essex East.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) endeavoured to bring the word McCarthyism into his speech. How far are they going to go in the making of such representations in the house with the intention, though I would not say it was deliberate, of misleading the house? While I am on the subject of McCarthyism, which was mentioned yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, I wonder whether he is aware of the speech made in Brantford by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) in which she said that the young Liberals should be the radicals of the party. Accompanying her on that trip was the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who apparently aspires to the leadership of the Liberal party and possibly is trying to create dissension in the Liberal ranks. Moreover, does the Leader of the Opposition not know of the statement made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) that in the C.B.C. there are subversive elements? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where is the McCarthy in the House of Commons?
I should now like to deal with the amendment. There is an attempt on the part of the opposition to segregate each piece of legislation which has been presented to the house. It seems that they do not realize that the legislation whereby double depreciation will be granted to those establishing plants in depressed areas is part of an over-all plan. We cannot look upon the amendment strictly from the point of view of the effects that double depreciation will have on the economy but rather we should regard the provision of double depreciation as another well advised and well planned move. To use the words of
Labour Conditions
the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke yesterday, it is another form of the massive attack upon the problems with which the government is confronted.
We are not going to be swayed by desperation as the opposition was during their last days in office nor are we going to approach the solution of these problems in other than a well moderated way in accordance with normal business procedure. The government is not going to be swayed by the woeful, sad and pitiful cries of the opposition, or by their exaggerated and often irresponsible statements. Rather, Mr. Speaker, the challenge to rectify the ills of the economy is accepted by the government and the problems will be dealt with with moderation and from the point of view of real expediency and not in a wasteful way through desperation.
The first measure introduced during the present session of parliament dealt with loans to small business. The effects are good. Then there was the creation of a productivity council. These two measures will enable the production of more and better goods and ultimately will mean more people on the payroll. Then there is the extension to $35,000 of the amount on which the minimum 21 per cent corporation tax applies, which is an additional tax concession to small industries and businesses. We also have the new incentives to industries to locate in depressed areas. Are not all these measures taken together an indication of sound planning and of the fact that the government is looking toward the solution of the problem not for a day, a month or a year but rather to the provision of steady employment and a stable economy in the future?
The government is to be congratulated for its well conceived plans and actions to bring an end to the ills that effect our economy not just for a few months but in the foreseeable future. If the former government in the days when it gloated over its large surpluses had only had the required vision it would have implemented the measures which are being introduced into the house during this session. It is not at times like the present when such measures should be taken but rather when the country has a surplus and we want to make sure that we will have a growing economy. The trouble today, and everyone knows it, lies in the fact that the gross national product has not been rising annually to a satisfactory level. The time for such actions to be taken is when governments have surpluses, because if such actions are taken then the gross national product of our country would not fall in the following years. This is one area of the economy, Mr. Speaker, in which the former

Labour Conditions
government should have taken action. However, they were satisfied that nothing would happen in the next year. The former administration should have introduced those measures which have been lately introduced, and then today we would be happy to hail them for their generous actions.
There has been some talk about tax cuts. Is this double depreciation not a form of tax cut? Is the measure raising the level at which corporations would be liable for the minimum tax of 21 per cent from $25,000 to $35,000 not a tax cut? These, Mr. Speaker, are the incentives and the means by which industry will expand and enable us to attain our ultimate goal which is full employment. I can think of many areas in the country which would be very happy if this double depreciation applied to them. I can think of plants which have been closed; and if an extra 10 per cent or 15 per cent of their depreciation fund were made available to them in the form of working capital, I am sure they would welcome it. I can think of other industries that have settled in one area, and if this legislation were applicable to them they would give new thought to expansion. I can picture them looking for a place in which primary products would be available, where transportation would be cheaper and where they could find a labour force sufficient for their needs. How serious can a person be when he says that such measures are not good? It is true, Mr. Speaker, that there are many people who believe that the well designed plan this government has introduced will bring our economy up to the standard at which it should be. In the years to come we shall be able to look back at these measures as the greatest pieces of legislation that have been introduced into our Canadian parliament.
I should like to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) in which he stated that double depreciation was not adequate for the needs of the maritime provinces. Does he not recall that for some time APEC has requested that double depreciation be made applicable to the maritimes? Does he believe that this organization will hesitate to make the necessary applications under this legislation? I believe that the maritime area will derive a great deal of satisfaction from this measure.
I want to refer for a moment to the criticism levelled by the opposition at the fact that the municipalities themselves must make application. This type of criticism reminds me of the days when the Liberal party were centralizing everything in Ottawa. They do not want the municipalities, in conjunction with their boards of trade or other economic bodies, to decide whether or not they are depressed areas and in need of new industries.

The Liberal party is satisfied that these local governing bodies should stay at home and let the central government at Ottawa tell them what they should or should not have. The danger in this philosophy, Mr. Speaker, is that it tends to destroy personal initiative and the wills of local governments. We should beware of ever going back to the time when we would have a central government at Ottawa which would tell the local governments how they should operate.
The hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) did produce one statement by someone who was not favourable to the legislation that has been introduced. However, he omitted to read other statements which have been favourable. I should like to refer to one statement by John Meyer, the financial editor of the Montreal Gazette. He says:
The measures taken by the federal government to relieve unemployment fall into two general categories-the obvious, like housing funds and railway construction, and the not so obvious, like doubled depreciation and long term export credit financing. Of the two, the latter will have the greatest effect over the long run. Their common purpose is to encourage the increase in production upon which the increase in employment depends.
When we encourage secondary industries to establish in depressed areas, Mr. Speaker, we are not only increasing the employment opportunities in that area but we are making available to the other parts of Canada the benefits to be derived from the purchase of heavy equipment, building material and other products. This measure, therefore, affects not only a sector, but Canada as a whole. I believe this has been a very commendable move on the part of the government.
Reference has been made also to the programs adopted in Great Britain, the United States, France and other countries for dealing with this problem. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) no doubt had a lapse of memory when he referred to these programs because, until these remarks were made, he led us to believe that Canada had a monopoly on this problem.
Before concluding my remarks I should like to stress the fact that the opposition should take a positive approach to these problems and endeavour to bring forward some solutions. Reference has been made to a press release issued yesterday by the Liberal party in which that party set out, not the 23-point program referred to by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) last nigh, but a six-point program. All I can say about this program is that it seems to emphasize the fact that the government should extend or increase contributions or renew certain measures. The Liberals seem to be sterile

of ideas because they have not brought forward one new solution. I do not know the reason for this but it seems that the only policy the opposition has is to demand more of whatever the government brings forward. They have not brought forward one concrete proposal, but still they stand up and criticize this government, from one side to the other, and endeavour to make the people of Canada believe that without the Liberals there will be doom and gloom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he believe that this program of double depreciation for a period of one year will materially or at all significantly assist in resolving the problem of unemployment in depressed areas?


James Russell Keays: I am sure that an industry moving into an area acquiring $1 million in equipment to set up would welcome the $100,000 to $150,000 it would be allowed to retain in the form of depreciation and could use it to great advantage during the difficult period of commencing operations, usually over five years. I am sure that no company would turn down the opportunity to retain that $100,000 to $150,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the hon. member another question because I know he would like to be fair. Does my hon. friend seriously think a company is going to move into a depressed area on the basis of the offer contained in this program? Does my hon. friend think there is any industry that would move into an area unless it was assured accelerated depreciation over a long period of at least 12 years?


James Russell Keays: Is the opposition trying to make us believe that this government or any government should pay for all the capital expenditures for any project? Has the opposition become so socialistically minded that it believes we should destroy private enterprise by asking the government to pay for every company's capital operation? I would suggest that we try to retain rather than destroy that initiative which is left in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member does not wish to answer my question, that is fine.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I feel we have just seen a very good example of a Conservative definition of socialism.
The amendment under consideration is based, although we may not have been able to notice it during the last two days, on three points. The first is that double depreciation will prove ineffective as a solution to the problems of unemployment in depressed areas. The second point was the exception
Labour Conditions
taken to the fact that the responsibility for declaring an area depressed has been placed upon the municipality. The third point, of course, is that the definition of the areas themselves is too restrictive. I should like to deal briefly with each one of these three points.
We witnessed today an example of the government's approach to this problem when the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) explained away, at least to his own satisfaction, the unemployment problem. He suggested it was just a matter of statistics which did not really show the true picture at all. He may have explained this problem to his satisfaction but he certainly did not explain it to the satisfaction of myself or the unemployed people across this country or the people whose jobs are hanging by threads in the face of this great new unemployment created by the relentless march of automation.
This one program the government has brought forward seems to fit into the program outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) in his speech on television last Friday to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) referred yesterday. The Prime Minister suggested at that time that we must take a stand now on whether there will be free enterprise or socialism in this country. I should like to state on behalf of the C.C.F.-New Party that we are very pleased to accept that challenge. I suggest that this is excellent ground on which to fight an election campaign. I should like to have one hon. member in this house point out to me one social problem that has been solved through free enterprise. The Prime Minister has said that we must declare war on socialism. I would suggest that in order to do so we must first abolish our post office, the socialist water we get when we turn a tap on, the socialist light we get when we press a light switch, the socialist highways we drive our cars on, the socialist fire department we call when our house is on fire, the socialist police departments, which protect us, and we would have to abolish our public works departments. We would not be able to travel through our national parks because they are socialistic parks, and we would have to abolish our socialist hospital insurance plan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Henderson:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. From where are you going to bring all these policies? Are you going to bring them from jail?


Murdo William Martin: I am afraid I do not understand the significance of that question. I was speaking merely about the socialistic

Labour Conditions
things we have today upon which the Prime Minister is declaring war, if we are to believe his speech of the other night.
What will we do about unemployment insurance, old age pensions, children's allowance, the civil service, the army, navy and air force? Are we going to abolish them as well as the twenty nine corporations which are outlined at page 54 of the Auditor General's report? I would suggest that this subject would provide an excellent platform for us to fight an election on.
I was very delighted with the Prime Minister's speech on television Friday night for two very good reasons. One reason was that I did not see the telecast. The second is that when I returned to my home on the week end I received a telephone call from two individuals who said they had worked very hard for the Conservative party in the past and suggested that his speech was the straw that broke the camel's back. They were so disgusted with his announced program that they came down and joined the C.C.F. party, and I have their membership cards before me now. I hope the Prime Minister makes a similar speech every night.
There was not very long ago a much more effective telecast which brought the problem of unemployment to the attention of the majority of Canadian people. Most of the time television viewers hear references made to statistical figures of unemployment but, after perhaps commenting that it is unfortunate, they return to their bridge games or whatever else they may have been doing. The majority of individuals seeing a film or television program depicting a depressed area are not particularly impressed because they themselves do not live in that kind of place. For this reason it is not of significance to them for very long. The program of which I speak brought home to those individuals what it is to live in a home such as their own after losing their income. They realized what it meant to lose their jobs suddenly and began to wonder how they would manage under similar circumstances.
Because of the way in which the majority of people live in our country today there exist monthly fixed expenses through mortgages and time purchases. We no longer exist at a time when an individual can cut wood for fuel because we are using coal, oil or gas and these things have to be paid for. We have heard complaints about individuals who refuse jobs that pay $40 per week, not realizing they have fixed weekly expenses of $50 or over. However if they stay on unemployment insurance they would at least have an excuse for not paying these bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member began very encouragingly by saying he was going to discuss the three parts of the resolution.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that when I get on to this subject I tend to be carried away at times. I should like to go back and deal with the first point that was mentioned, namely the ineffectiveness of this measure. What does this measure really mean? It means a one-year break for an industry if it will go into one of these depressed areas. It means a one-year break for an industry to set up in an area which has had this problem in the past, but it can only be regarded as a problem if it is eight years old.
Why we went back to 1953 is more than I will ever understand, because in 1953 we had the Korean war, did we not? A period of war is the only time that free enterprise has ever been able to solve the unemployment problem. It did it then because the government stepped in and took direct action that provided employment. It was not due to private enterprise at all.
The greatest failure of this particular program as an unemployment relief measure is in the fact that only if industry does step in will there be even one single, solitary job provided. I disagree with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) on most things, but he said something with which I agree. He pointed out very clearly that not too many industries are going to be lured into any of these areas by this particular measure. As I mentioned before, this is in line with the announced policy of this government which says that we can solve these problems only through private enterprise. This again is to be a private enterprise measure to try to meet this social problem, and it will fail as utterly and completely as did similar measures which have been tried in the past.
I wish to speak now on the second point. The responsibility is being passed to the municipalities themselves. This is another shining example of this government's policy which we have seen unfolding before us for the past number of years. This is the government's idea of leadership by abdication. The winter works program was passed to the municipalities. The vocational training program is passed to the provinces.
The government is abdicating the policy of orderly taxation. I do not know why the federal government should collect taxes at all, if they are to pass off all the responsibility and all the costs to the municipalities and provinces.


Richard Devere Thrasher: What costs?


Murdo William Martin: I believe some hon. member said, "What costs?" A good example is the 97 per cent of the costs of the winter works program which has been passed to the shoulders of the municipalities.


Richard Devere Thrasher: What has that to do with the costs of collecting taxes?


Murdo William Martin: We see these empty gestures which have been unfolded in particular during this session. These are examples of taking a good idea, blowing it up like a great big balloon and then applying rules so it cannot be effective at all. I wonder why this government does not just admit defeat and put a padlock on the door.
We have had a good example of what is happening to the support of this government. We had an excellent example last summer in the swing of 9,000 votes from the conservatives in the city of Peterborough. This government seems to forget that the only reason they got their chance in 1957 and 1958 was that the people were fed up with the Liberals; and unfortunately people have found they are out of the frying pan and into the fire. If measures like this are the best this government can put into effect, I predict that there are going to be many more Peterboroughs across the country.
Then lastly we have the fact that the definition is too restrictive. I certainly agree that it is too restricted. We have here a measure that does not take into consideration at all what the situation is in any given area at the present time. Under this measure we could have 100 per cent unemployment in an area, a complete shut-down of industry, and still it could not qualify under this measure. What kind of a solution is that? This is the so-called solution of leading into this problem and trying to do something about it.
I think it is time this government really headed into this problem. I do not think they are fooling anybody but themselves. I think the people across the country are becoming more and more aware of the fact that either there is no ability or there is no desire on the part of the present government to try to head into this problem and do something about it.
As I said, this is just another one of the empty gestures that are presented to this house to meet a problem that apparently, in spite of the gestures that have been made, is increasing month by month at a terrifying rate in this country.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-
Labour Conditions


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: -yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East has risen on a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter that affects the privileges of every hon. member of this house. Today the hon. member for Skeena asked the Minister of Labour when we would be given the latest available figures on unemployment which are released by the government every month. The minister's reply was somewhat vague, but certainly he did not convey the impression that those figures would be given to us today or that they would be available to us tomorrow.
I have had these figures sent to me. These are figures reeased by he dominion bureau of statistics, and on this document is marked "8 a.m. release March 22, 1961". This document was sent to me and was put on my desk. It contains the latest figures in connection with unemployment. At a time when we are discussing unemployment, it is a violation of our privileges to be denied this information.
I have just concluded a speech on this question. If I had been in possession of these figures I would have been able, as would other hon. members, to deal with the situation even more cogently than I did. But it is wrong-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member indicate what the document is which he has in his possession.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is from the dominion bureau of statistics, Ottawa, Canada, the labour force for February, 1961; and then in red ink through a stamp, obviously, it says "8 a.m. release March 22, 1961".


Mr. Churchill:: How did you get it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This was sent to me right here-


Gordon Minto Churchill: By whom?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -as it is sent every month-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already risen on a question of privilege. I say that the government, having distributed these figures, should not have withheld this document-which was obviously intended to reach us tomorrow morning, because it says it is to be released on March 22, 1961-when we are debating the very problem to which these figures have application. I say this is-

Labour Conditions


An hon. Member:: You are just catching headlines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says I am just catching headlines. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that when we are discussing the question of unemployment in this house we are entitled to have the latest available figures. These figures were denied in the house today in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Skeena, and they were sent to me and put on my desk. I say that this is a violation of privilege for the Minister of Labour or the government to have caused this distribution to take place and then to preclude us from using these figures in this particular debate at this time. That is my question of privilege.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You had better tell us how you got it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just told the hon. member how I got it. It was sent to me.


Gordon Minto Churchill: By whom?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know by whom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the dominion
bureau of statistics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the dominion bureau of statistics, or perhaps some other hon. member, but it was handed to me at my desk by one of the page boys.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the Minister of Labour.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Skeena as to when these figures would be released, I said, "Fairly soon". There had been no release, to my knowledge, of these dominion bureau of statistics' figures. The hon. member says he has received them and that they are stamped with a red stamp. That sort of release is never made on this basis. Then I think the hon. member got it in a way that is not proper. Officially, these figures have as yet not been released and they will be released, as marked on them, tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. I think the hon. member for Essex East should be asked to give a full explanation as to what method he used in obtaining this release.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour, obviously finding himself in a very embarrassing position, now seeks to extricate himself by making this charge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless there is a motion before the house there cannot be a debate on this question. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has made his

point that what has happened is some breach of the privileges of the house. The Minister of Labour indicates that as far as he knows there has been no release of the document in question. I cannot permit a debate on the question which has been raised by the hon. member for Essex East. He has made his point, and the minister has made what explanation he wishes to give. I therefore think that, unless there is some new element the discussion must be considered closed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with Your Honour that with regard to the question I have raised the matter is settled, but the Minister of Labour said I owed the house an explanation as to how I got this document.


Michael Starr: What method you used.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the Minister of Labour say that, but there is no question of privilege arising there. There is no allegation of impropriety which would entitle the hon. member for Essex East to accept the invitation to explain how he got the document. That is not the matter before the house. The question before the house is the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very well; I will let it stop there.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: When I was interrupted by the hon. member for Essex East on his question of privilege I had just completed saying that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was speaking we waited-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know how the reporter is going to report the hon. member for Charlotte from the far end of the room when there are three members talking from their seats in the centre of the chamber. I trust they will hold their peace.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: I, along with other members, waited for what we thought would be words of wisdom from the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. I thought his opening remarks, which took approximately ten minutes, were just preliminary to getting the ship of state in motion and that we would eventually hear from the hon. gentleman something worthy of a man who at one time occupied a very prominent place in the Liberal party and in this country as a whole. We expected great things of the Leader of the Opposition. However, after he had finished bemoaning the fact that he had not been allowed as much time on television as had the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) he came out with an amendment which, if it was not still-born, was at least anaemic and had apparently no chance of surviving.

The Leader of the Opposition together with others on the opposition side persists in viewing the problems of this country piecemeal. The proposal for double depreciation advanced by this government is not the only proposal designed to cure or to assist in curing unemployment. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you laid down the boundaries of this debate and I hope I shall be able to keep within those boundaries, but I suggest that we cannot discuss this proposal for double depreciation intelligently or satisfactorily without considering unemployment, together with some of its causes and some of its remedies. Then, too, we must consider the proposals advanced by this government, the steps already taken and the steps to be taken in the future. We must view this problem in its true and proper perspective. We must consider this as part of a great national development.
The Leader of the Opposition advanced six basic proposals. I do not intend to refer to these at great length as I think they have been admirably and sufficiently dealt with by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Phillips). I should like to confine my remarks principally to the words of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). However, before I do so I should like to refer to the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) who referred to a possible split in the Conservative ranks. Apparently the hon. member overlooked what happened in the town of New Glasgow and I would refer him to a headline which appeared in the paper published in that area. It reads: "More C.C.F.'ers Quit in Executive Fight." If the hon. member would like to see that article I will send it to him.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Mr. Speaker, before six
o'clock I had referred briefly to the hon. member for Gloucester who was not then in his seat, nor is he in it at the present time. In this debate the hon. member for Gloucester referred in very general terms to the development of the Atlantic area, to capital assistance, and read at considerable length from the speech made by Mr. Johnson, president of the Atlantic provinces economic council. He talked about coal mining and general development in the area, including secondary industry. In the few minutes available to me I should like to examine some of those projects and some of the statements made by the hon. member and point out how erroneous some of his observations were.
Labour Conditions
I am afraid that the people of New Brunswick will feel that the hon. member has done a great disservice to his native province. I would refer this house to some approaches made to the government by the government of New Brunswick that the hon. member supported at the time. When the province of New Brunswick came to Ottawa in 1953 for assistance in the development of Beechwood, which was one of the capital projects similar to those mentioned by the hon. member in his speech, what did it receive from the Liberal administration of that day? It received absolutely nothing. I said "nothing"; I should correct that. At the opening of the Beechwood project we received a speech from the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe. We were told at the time that we were able to finance Beechwood, and if we were not we had no industries that needed additional power.
The hon. member for Gloucester talked about secondary industries, and the observations made by Professor Cairncross in his recent survey of the maritime area. When we in New Brunswick approached the late C. D. Howe for industries during the second world war we were told that we had no surplus power for industries, and when we asked for power we were told that we had no industries needing power. It was a case of being damned if we did and being damned if we did not.
During the first world war, under a Conservative administration, New Brunswick had war industries. We had two munitions plants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the way in which the rules have been enforced on a number of members of the opposition who spoke in this debate, I wonder how the history of New Brunswick and the first world war can be related to the motion before the house?


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: In reply to the point of order raised by the hon. member may I say that we are talking about double depreciation in depressed areas and about depressed areas arising from the lack of industry. I was going to point out that had we established industries in the second world war we would not have the unemployment that exists at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: In the light of the earlier discussion about the Atlantic area as one of those which might be considered as an area under this amendment, the Cairncross report, and the definition of what is an area entitled to this tax consideration, the hon. member is really not far off the point.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can find nowhere in the record any indication

Labour Conditions
that at any time the province of New Brunswick came to the Liberal administration prior to 1957 it received any support.
The Liberal administration appointed the Gordon commission. I point out to my hon. friend that one of the submissions to that commission by the province of New Brunswick was-and I am dealing now with agriculture because that was dealt with by my hon. friend from Gloucester-that "capital requirements of the industry will be substantial". We received no capital assistance at that time.
The hon. member also referred to harbour developments and inmprovements as contributing to the economy of the area. I suggest to him that his constituency has received more help since 1957 than at any time during the 22 years of Liberal administration; it has received many millions of dollars more.
During 1944 and 1945 it was my privilege to visit every wharf and every breakwater in the province of New Brunswick, including the breakwaters and wharves in the constituency of Gloucester. At that time the town of Bathurst was crying for harbour developments and received none. Under the present Conservative government millions of dollars have been spent in developments. I want to refer briefly to my own constituency. In 1958 approximately 3,200 people were unemployed. This area includes part of York-Sunbury, or the town of McAdam. That was in January, 1958. In January, 1961, we had fewer than 1,200 unemployed, and at the present time there are approximately 600. I suggest that this reduction has been brought about through the national development policy of this government, through the guidance and assistance of energetic people desirous of aiding their local areas and through some assistance rendered by myself. I say it is the duty of every hon. member to enlist the right thinking people of his or her area so that together we can bring this country back to a sound and boisterous economy.
The hon. member for Timmins referred to the recent Conservative convention. I am afraid that in this instance, as in that of the Leader of the Opposition, it was a case of sour grapes. They did not want to see the expression of national unity and the support that have been given to our present Prime Minister, in his efforts directed toward national development and prosperity. We are not a divided race nor a divided nation. I defy hon. members who talk about depression to come down to the maritime provinces. We are not depressed; we are not divided. We have given the brains so that the rest of the country could develop in years past and we can do it in the future.

The hon. member for Gloucester referred to capital development in the Atlantic area. I ask him in all sincerity to name one major capital development which was established in the Atlantic area by the Liberal administration in its 22 years of office. I suggest that the record does not disclose one single solitary item. To hear the hon. member for Gloucester you would think that the Chignecto canal has developed since 1957 or that the Campobello-Lubec bridge, which is now under construction, just developed overnight. These are major capital developments and I can refer to others. There is the trans-Canada highway bridge at Hartland built under the auspices of the present Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) and this government. The same is true of the bridge at Fredericton. Surely these are capital projects which were designed to help and did help the economy of the Atlantic area. I could refer to others in the Atlantic provinces.
Then there are the special adjustment grants. We heard nothing of any such grants while the Liberal administration was in power. The phrase "adjustment grants" was unknown to them. These grants were made to help the Atlantic area overcome the inequalities arising as a result of population and as a result of distance. Never before has the Atlantic area received the support and help it is receiving at the present time. We are confident that under the leadership of our present Prime Minister we can go forward as part of a united nation and so fulfil our course and our national development program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 8.15 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(d) of standing order 56 as provisionally amended, to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith the question on any amendment before the house.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I understand that at a quarter to six tonight the hon. member for Essex East rose to make what he seemed to consider the exceptional announcement that the dominion bureau of statistics labour force figures had fallen into his hands sometime this afternoon. He seemed to think, as hon. members of the opposition do these days, that people are trying to deceive them and are saying things about them which are not true. What has happened, I might explain-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not rising on a question of privilege but to make an explanation which, to my mind, is out of order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: As the minister responsible for the dominion bureau of statistics I might explain how the release came about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Essex East. There was a discussion in that regard in which the Minister of Labour took part, but I refused to allow further discussion on the matter and it was closed at that time. Except with the leave of the house, I think the minister would be out of order.


George Harris Hees: Then, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the minister leave to make an explanation?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if I have not leave to do so then I have a perfect right, as every member of this house has, to rise on a grievance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but the minister obtained the floor to raise a

Deportation Order
matter of privilege, and in order to state a grievance now, he will have to obtain the floor again.


An hon. Member:: We will do it again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course, if the hon. minister had a question of privilege of his own to raise, he would be entitled to rise and raise it; but from what he had said to this point I assumed that it was an explanation concerning the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Essex East.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I was on my feet before the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Don't believe the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on a point of order.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that I am rising on a matter of grievance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Too late.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I have recognized the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Canadian papers carried a report which should make this Monday, March 20, 1961 a very gloomy day indeed for all Canadians who want the fundamental rights and liberties of the individual to be respected in Canada, according to natural la\v, whatever the colour, race, sex and racial origin of the person concerned.
The grievance I want to raise is the unfair treatment meted out in the pathetic case of Mrs. Louis Yuet Sun, a 30-year old Chinese woman whose father is a businessman in Ottawa and who was expelled from this country and separated from her 29-month old son who is Canadian by birth.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that such a deportation order was contrary to all concepts of natural, moral and common law. I shall not go into details as they are already known to hon. members, but let me just quote a few lines of essential information published in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen dated March 20, 1961. I quote:
(Text):
Mrs. Louie who arrived in Canada December 12, 1957, to visit her father, entered Canada on a non-immigrant visa.

Her son was born in Ottawa August 18, 1958, making him a Canadian citizen. Mrs. Louie sought to have herself declared a landed immigrant in order to remain here with her child. Her application was turned down by the immigration department.
Justice J. M. King of the Ontario supreme court twice ruled that "under the natural, moral, common law," Mrs. Louie should not be deported.
"Her Canadian citizen son", he said, "is entitled to the loving care of his mother, at least in his tender years."
Justice King's first favourable decision was ruled out on purely technical, procedural grounds by the Ontario appeal court and the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if Your Honour has considered whether the hon. member is in order in calling into question a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I respectfully submit that such is not within the province of hon. members of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I should be glad to hear the hon. member's answer to the point of order which has been taken.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada or any court of the land. My grievance is based mainly on the order of deportation which I think should not have been issued in this case. This is the basis of my grievance. I read the report of the supreme court judgment only as a detail of my grievance. It has nothing whatsoever to do-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would answer the question as to whether or not the order of deportation was confirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: There is no doubt that under the Immigration Act no person can be deported without an order of deportation issued by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the answer to my question is in the affirmative, and that the Supreme Court of Canada did confirm the order of deportation.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Even if the Supreme Court of Canada did confirm the order of deportation, my grievance is based on the discretion of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, I submit, failed to exercise her right of discretion in this case. The minister failed to exercise the humanitarian right which she should have exercised.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not satisfied-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could I say a word on the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but perhaps I might state the problem that is troubling me. The order of the Supreme Court of Canada superseded the action of the minister in making the order of deportation, by confirming it. What is now in question is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
As I understand grievance procedure, it is to raise any matter that is within the jurisdiction and competence of the government of Canada. If it were sought to complain about an order of the minister for deportation with regard to some individual, simpliciter, I can see that would be within the proper scope of discussion at this stage. However, I am doubtful about the matter that has been raised. As the matter now stands, what is in effect involved is the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand Your Honour is willing to hear argument on this point. It is true that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the validity of the deportation order, but a deportation order-and I speak from some experience in this matter, sir-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A deportation order may be quashed by the minister at any time, quite as legally after the courts have ruled upon it as before. Notwithstanding the fact that there was a decision of the Supreme Court, that decision did not supersede the order; it merely confirmed the minister's right to exercise an order in this case. But under the law a deportation order may be quashed at any time.
As I understand it, my hon. friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont is arguing that the hon. lady should have quashed the order and not allowed it to be carried out. It seems to me that is a perfectly proper grievance against the government, and there is no other opportunity for discussing it because the estimates of the hon. lady's department have been disposed of.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend seems to have overlooked the judgment of Mr. Justice Norris in the supreme court of British Columbia, in which that learned judge made some rather revealing comments on the point just raised by my hon. friend. The learned judge suggested that the jurisdiction of the minister was limited in a way quite contrary to that suggested by my hon. friend, namely that when the Immigration Act and its provisions make clear what should be the disposition of a certain case, the minister has but very limited authority to interfere with the operation of the act.
Deportation Order
As I recall it, my hon. friend used to make fast and loose with the provisions of the Immigration Act, but we are endeavouring to comply with them and with the orders of the courts.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The point having been disposed of, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would mind giving me a minute to consider this matter?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This is the last reference I shall be making to the courts. My grievance is based on the racial discrimination which has been used in connection with this matter. From now on I shall not even mention any judgment which might have been given in reference to this case.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not satisfied that the hon. member can do what he says he proposes to do. If his grievance is the exercise of discretion by the minister in this particular case then he has to face the fact that what he is criticizing in effect, is a confirmatory judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada which confirms the action taken by the minister. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate makes the point that the minister, notwithstanding the judgment of the supreme court, could consider the matter again and withdraw or quash the deportation order. But that would reduce the grievance to a discussion of a hypothetical case, because that has not been done. It is rather like questioning the exercise of clemency after a decision of the court has been made. I may be wrong about this, but I do not see that the hon. member can raise a grievance against the government which really is based on a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I with the greatest possible respect submit to Your Honour that on many occasions when I was minister of citizenship and immigration criticism of the part played by the government was permitted after cases had been disposed of by the courts; and, indeed, in respect of this very case which my hon. friend is now seeking to discuss Your Honour permitted me only three days ago to ask the hon. lady whether she intended to persist in the deportation of this person. I asked that question because I knew she had a perfect right to quash the order at any time.
I suggest again with the greatest respect that the word "confirm" in this instance is not the correct term. What was argued before the supreme court was whether the minister had the power to make a deportation order which was valid, and the court decided that the minister did have the power to make such an order. But the court did not substitute itself for the minister who has under the

Deportation Order
law exclusive responsibility (a) tor making the order and (b) for quashing it. Surely it can be just as much a grievance that the minister did not use a discretion which the opposition thinks ought to have been used as it could be argued that the minister did wrong in exercising a power of discretion.
I submit with the greatest deference that it would be an undue restriction of the rights of the opposition and of the historic right of raising grievances if, when a discretion is given by parliament to a particular minister, as it is by the Immigration Act, the way in which that discretion may be exercised, either positively or negatively, cannot in the mind of any hon. member constitute a grievance. That is the issue which I think the hon. member is arguing.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister of Justice any comment on the point just made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that what, in effect, is under review in the proposed grievance is the initial exercise by the minister of a discretion given by a statute, and that the subsequent proceedings did not replace or alter that initial exercise of discretion which was an administrative act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Your Honour. May I say that this discussion comes very close to being a discussion of a point of law in that it involves the question of the authority of the minister under the act. I recall clearly that a recent judgment given by the court of appeal in British Columbia confirmed the judgment of Mr. Justice Norris in a case in the trial court where considerations arose similar to those which are now at issue.
Mr. Justice Norris upheld that when an inquiry is made and a conclusion is reached by a special inquiry officer that a person is not admissible, there is a limit placed upon the discretion of the minister. The Immigration Act lays down certain conditions under which people may be admitted or refused, and the learned judge went so far as to say, if my memory is correct, that where the act speaks clearly the minister has no discretion in such a case. For example, the minister has no power to say, of her own motion: I think there is something about this case which warrants my departing from the provisions of the Immigration Act and therefore I am going to allow this person into Canada notwithstanding the fact that the act says such a person is inadmissible. Mr. Justice Norris stated clearly that the minister has no such discretion, and therefore the first point made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is disposed of. The minister has no discretion to make orders of that kind but has to apply the terms of the Immigration Act.
fMr. Pickersgill.]
Here, apparently, an action was brought in the trial court and taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging that the minister had incorrectly applied the provisions of the act in confirming the order which was made. The result of this action, I submit, in relation to the second branch of the hon. member's second contention, clearly establishes that the minister correctly applied the provisions of the act, so what hon. members opposite are really doing is attacking a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Either they are doing that or they are saying that the minister has authority to override the act itself, which is contrary to the view taken by Mr. Justice Norris. For this reason, if I may say so with propriety, Your Honour's point is perfectly properly taken. What the hon. member is seeking to do here is to bring into question a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I was looking quickly through Beauchesne's fourth edition and I find that at page 127 it is stated:
-a member, while speaking, must not: . ..
(a) cast reflections upon the conduct of judges of superior courts, unless such conduct is based upon a substantive motion;
I think that is all I have to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I just say a word in response to the points raised by the Minister of Justice? The point which the Minister of Justice did not deal with, and which is the only relevant one, is whether the minister has or has she not the power to quash this deportation order? Has that power been removed by the supreme court? I say without fear of contradiction that it has not been removed, and I say that, as a former minister who has exercised that power after a decision had been made by the courts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: An ex-minister.


An hon. Member:: And broke the law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I did not break the law because the law says that a minister may do it. It was not a statute at all that was involved in this case; it was an order in council setting out certain classes of admissible persons. But the real point is whether or not the minister has the power to quash an order. The Minister of Justice has not asserted that he has not that power. With respect to the judgment of the supreme court, this is not in issue. My hon. friend is not seeking to discuss that, and therefore there can be no question of any respect or disrespect for the courts.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Speaker, may I offer an opinion on the point of order. Let us assume that the supreme court did quash that deportation order. If it did so, I respectfully submit

that the grievance itself is the fact that the minister did not properly exercise a discretion. Even if the supreme court did quash the order, we still would have had a proper grievance in that the minister did not properly exercise a discretion. I respectfully submit that that is the real basis of the grievance, court or no court.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A court found that she did.


Leon David Crestohl: Did the minister exercise that discretion? If she did not, we have a grievance.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two points involved in the discussion as it has developed. The first is that the minister has acted in accordance with an act of this parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An order in council.


Mr. Speaker:: She has acted in accordance with the Immigration Act, and that has been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, rightly or wrongly, it does not seem to me that this is a matter which can be proceeded with in the way proposed. I do not want to be unduly restrictive about grievances because the whole realm of public administration is open to the house on grievance procedure. It is my best judgment at the moment, without attempting to limit discussion in the future. Until I have had more opportunity to satisfy myself, I do take that view and I therefore have to ask the hon. member who has the floor not to proceed along the lines which he proposes, namely to discuss the exercise of the discretion confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have a grievance.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mai-sonneuve-Rosemont has not yet resumed his seat.
(Translation) :


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the whole press of this country is now referring to that matter, and is giving it the importance it deserves. Of course, the object of newspapers is to alert public opinion in a country where political propaganda has been subjecting us, for more than a year, to brainwashing in the field of fundamental rights and freedoms.
When a government is taking attitudes like that taken in the case of Mrs. Louie, it is time, I believe, to stop for a while and examine our conscience.
What is the use of having in our statutes a law on fundamental freedoms and racial equality if, on the other hand, we tolerate treatments like the one imposed on-
Deportation Order
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member indicate to me what he intends to pursue? He, it seems to me, is going directly contrary to the ruling I made.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) has her share of responsibility in this matter, but I submit that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker)-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Twice you have ruled that the hon. member could neither discuss this matter nor raise a grievance arising from a decision confirmed by the supreme court. Nevertheless, the hon. member goes on discussing the same grievance.
I respectfully submit that under the orders of this house and under your decision, he is out of order.
(Text) :


Mr. Speaker:: That is so. I did not interfere with the right of the hon. member who had the floor to exercise his privilege of raising a grievance, but not on the one which I had excluded rightly or wrongly. It appeared to me he was proceeding with the old one. Unless he can move on to an acceptable grievance I will have to ask him to resume his seat.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A 29-month old Canadian citizen has just been separated from his mother, despite his natural right.
I say that the minister of immigration-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I say that the minister of immigration has her share of responsibility in what I regard as an injustice, and I think-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt that the hon. member has misunderstood me and is proceeding in direct contravention of my ruling. I must ask him to resume his seat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a grievance and my grievance, sir, is that the government did not see fit by order in council, which it would have the power to do under the Immigration Act-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I propose-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought the hon. member was rising perhaps in connection with the decision I had made. If he wants to rise on a matter of grievance he will have to take his turn.

Bureau of Statistics Document


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir, surely if my hon. friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont is not to be allowed to proceed, the right of a member of the opposition to rise on a grievance is being-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that no point of order can be taken with respect to the right to the floor. I recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, is there not something in what has been suggested? Is it open to a member supporting the government-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member is rising on a point of order. I think he is entitled to be heard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it open to a member of the government party to rise in the house and raise a grievance against the administration? That is the question. Is it open to a private member supporting the government to rise and raise a grievance against the government?


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I presume that is what the hon. gentleman is now going to do.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rose earlier-


Mr. Peters:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not yet said anything. I do not see how a point of order could have arisen. If the hon. member feels he has a point of order, of course I must hear him.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to inquire from you whether the previous grievance has been disposed of? If so, is it possible to speak on the same grievance?


Mr. Speaker:: No proper previous grievance has been advanced tonight in accordance with my view expressed when the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont had the floor.



DOMINION BUREAU OP STATISTICS DOCUMENT

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, when I rose earlier I said it was my definite intention to raise a matter of grievance and I feel I am now merely taking my place in the order of debate. My grievance is that at 5.45 p.m. this afternoon the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) rose in his place and indicated to the house that he had an advance copy of a dominion bureau of statistics document not to be released until 8.00 a.m. tomorrow. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, no other member of the house had this release in his

possession at that time and as far as I know no other member of the house yet has a copy of this release. If this D.B.S. release had been given in advance to the Leader of the Opposition-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


David James Walker: Sit down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, is it in accordance with our rules for a member on the government side to raise a grievance against the opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: All hon. members of parliament are entitled to raise grievances against the ministry and from that point of view there is no such a thing as a party, an opposition or a government. There is just a ministry and members of parliament. I am not sure that a minister could raise a grievance against the government but apart from that it is a basic privilege of parliament to withhold supply until its objections, comments or grievances having to do with the public administration have been satisfied.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If there is a grievance, Mr. Speaker, I think it is against the government or someone within the government service. I want to know how a government publication prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce came into the hands of the hon. member for Essex East before it should have done so. That is my grievance. I was about to say when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) rose that if this advance copy had been given to the Leader of the Opposition I would think there would be no objection. I understand, however, that the release came into the hands of the hon. member for Essex East. If he is taking the place of the Leader of the Opposition for such a purpose, there again I have no objection. However, he is a private member of the house, the same as most of us are, despite the fact that he was a member of the former government. I feel that this is a matter of grievance and one that should be explained. How did one hon. member of the house come into possession of a document which is not to be released until tomorrow morning when no other member has it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is wide awake. That is why.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the same grievance.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to answer the grievance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is customary to recognize the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wishes to speak on the same grievance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right. I can explain to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) without much difficulty the problem with respect to which he wants an explanation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want the answer from the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One thing is clear. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka can only speak once on his grievance.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rose to answer the grievance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister will resume his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will have to take his turn. I have recognized the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might explain how this came about.


Gordon Minto Churchill: State your grievance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is just preliminary to stating my grievance. I will explain how this document came into the hands of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It came into his hands from my hands-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I will also explain precisely how it came into my hands. I went up to my room to make a telephone call about five o'clock and this document was lying on my desk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Delivered by the minister's office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked my secretary how it had got there and she said it was brought in by a messenger from the Department of Trade and Commerce, from which I could only conclude that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) had "boobed" again, and that does seem to have been the fact.
But the real grievance, of course, is not that. There is no evidence as to when this document was printed but it was certainly printed by today and nobody can deny that. The real grievance is why it was rubber-stamped with words saying that it was not to be released until tomorrow morning, although there is nothing confidential in it whatsoever. It is information prepared for
Bureau of Statistics Document publication and yet it was stamped that it was not to be released until 8 a.m. tomorrow at which time the debate in which it would have been relevant would be over. That is the grievance. If this document had been delivered to the hon. member for Essex East in the house at the time it was delivered to my office he would have had it to use in any way he wished in the debate as he was entitled to do.
This is simply further evidence of the way in which the government is determined, in every possible manner, to keep information away from the opposition and prevent its use in debate in the house. The plain fact is that the moment this document was printed, the moment this information was available, it should have been made available to hon. members who had been asking for it for days and who had a suspicion, which appears more and more clearly to have been justified, that it was deliberately held up because of the Tory convention. It would have been a kind of fly in that ointment, though it was pretty poor ointment anyway.
I say, sir, that nobody had any warrant for rubber-stamping this document in this way. If the minister's officials did it without his consent, it just shows how little attention he pays to his department; but if, as we are entitled to assume since he is responsible for his department, it was done with his consent and approval it shows the minister's attitude to parliament. It betrays that teenage mentality with respect to which the minister is such an authority.


An hon. Member:: Very weak.
Another hon. Member: Forget the personalities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very grateful to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for having raised this grievance, which is of a type which it is not usual for Tory backbenchers to raise. We are grateful that there was one member on the government side sufficiently independent, sufficiently anxious to uphold the rights of parliament, sufficiently concerned about our liberties, and sufficiently concerned about the responsibility of the executive to parliament, to bring this matter before us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why did you try so hard to stop him?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have noted this teenage, arbitrary attitude to parliament; the attitude that it does not matter about parliament; the groaning, jeering and giggling about these things. These are the things for which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is so famous in the house. As to his actions outside the house, I am really sorry I do not have the

Bureau of Statistics Document clipping at hand which contains a wonderful account of a speech by the hon. gentleman with the story being headed, "Kiss 'em Hees". That is, of course, a new kind of politics in this country-


David James Walker: How silly can you get?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the osculatory salesman of the "bill of goods." I suppose that is what they call those teenage years before maturity.


George Harris Hees: You should know. You never got out of them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Political puberty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me, sir, that if it is impossible for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to avoid these constantly repeated "boobs", if it is impossible for him to show that respect for parliament to which parliament is entitled, then it is about time the minister took himself off to some more appropriate field for teenagers and left a man's job to a man.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, having seen this latest performance I think we will all agree that vaudeville lost a great performer when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) decided to go into politics.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It still has one.


George Harris Hees: These days, Mr. Speaker, the opposition will do anything for sensationalism. I understand that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) rose at a quarter to six tonight and, in his usual flamboyant, dramatic style, accused the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) of somehow deceiving the house or doing some terrible thing that was aimed at the dignity of parliament. I should like to explain exactly what happened in this case. A certain procedure was initiated by the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe when he was minister of trade and commerce, and this procedure has been followed since. The dominion bureau of statistics, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, prints two documents. The first document is a joint release by the dominion bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour, and the second is a document produced by the dominion bureau of statistics entitled, "The Labour Force Survey".
On the day before these documents are released to the press, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am advised by the dominion statistician they are delivered, as they have been in the years since the Right Hon. C. D. Howe was minister, on the regular delivery at 4.30 in the afternoon-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Never.


George Harris Hees: -of the day before the release is made. Then, I understand these documents are delivered from the dominion bureau of statistics on the eight o'clock delivery to the press gallery, to the Canadian Press, to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Prime Minister. This is the normal procedure.
Today, by mistake, a messenger brought these documents, I am advised by the assistant dominion statistician, on the 4.30 delivery and delivered them to those to whom they would be delivered normally at eight o'clock tomorrow morning. This was a mistake made by an employee of the dominion bureau of statistics. All people sometimes make mistakes. Of course, it is difficult for the members of the opposition to understand how people can make mistakes. I understand from the members of the opposition that they never do make them. People are human. This messenger made a mistake today, and he would be the first to admit it. He brought these documents by mistake and delivered them to the regular list of people to whom he would normally bring them at eight o'clock tomorrow morning.
There was no attempt to deceive parliament. There was no attempt to fool anybody. There was no attempt on the part of anybody to commit some horrible crime-


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were still withheld from parliament.


George Harris Hees: -as the hon. member for Essex East tried to intimate. The Minister of Labour, as always, did exactly what was correct. He said that these documents would be produced soon. They were normally going to be produced tomorrow morning in the regular way, just as the Right Hon. C. D. Howe did and as all ministers of trade and commerce have done in the intervening years. Just what is so extraordinary about this is rather difficult to understand. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and the Leader of the Opposition, trying to make something out of nothing. This time their effort did not go over any better than it has gone over on many occasions before.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition speaking on the same grievance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. I am speaking on the same grievance as that which the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) was good enough to bring to the attention

*


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition has already spoken in this debate and is precluded from speaking again. He was the first member to speak on the motion and he cannot have the floor twice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that perhaps you will recall during last session or the session before I moved an amendment to the supply motion and then spoke on a grievance which concerned uranium production and Elliot Lake. I believe at that time is was quite in order for me to speak on a grievance after the amendment had been disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not recall the incident to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. There is no doubt at all that under the practice a member cannot speak twice. The hon. Leader of the Opposition did make his first intervention in moving the amendment and for my authority on this point I refer to Beauchesne, citation 204.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that the house listened with-


George Harris Hees: The hon. member has already spoken.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not speak on the motion; I spoke on the amendment. I should be glad to give the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) a private lesson in house procedure sometime, but not at the moment. I am sure we are all very grateful to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for this very interesting explanation. Of course, it was regrettable that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) did not have this explanation this afternoon.
When I rose on a question of privilege, the Minister of Labour at once suggested that the document had been received by me improperly, and the record of Hansard is there to show how serene he was when he made these charges. It is rather interesting that, as a member of the government, he would not have been aware of the procedures which the Minister of Trade and Commerce so objectively pointed out a few moments ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All a mistake.


Michael Starr: You were not on the list.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is interesting to note that the document was delivered to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill). I have no less an interest in unemployment than they have, but it was not delivered to me.


An hon. Member:: A real grievance.


David James Walker: You are passe.
90205-6-203
Bureau of Statistics Document


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), who has become an authority on these matters, whose witticisms we greatly appreciate, gives evidence of his political maturity. His sophistication endears him to everyone in this house, as well as his great maturity and understanding of the problems of government, housing, parliamentary practice and, if I may say so, his ordinary civility.


David James Walker: What about sewage disposal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then, turning to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I say that this document is something for which he has a joint responsibility with the Minister of Labour. This is a document that is issued by the dominion bureau of statistics under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce but in connection with which the Minister of Labour has a more knowledgeable and, I may say, authoritative sponsorship. The fact is that today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked the Minister of Labour when these new figures on unemployment would be revealed. It would seem that on the second day of a debate which was initiated by the Leader of the Opposition and which encompassed the question of unemployment, the Minister of Labour could easily have replied, if this government was one that was willing to give information, that these statistics will be given out today.
The Minister of Labour knew that as did the Minister of Trade and Commerce and; every other minister sitting before us as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). It would have been proper, at a time when we were discussing a motion to go into supply on unemployment, for the government to advise the hon. members of the house that those figures were available and that they were going to be presented tomorrow. But no, this government would not do that. This government withheld this document from parliament at a time when we were discussing unemployment.


George Harris Hees: Do not take yourself too
seriously.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says "Do not take yourself too seriously". Let me tell my hon. friend that after his exhibition of Friday no one takes him very seriously.
The regrettable fact is that when this document finally is revealed to the Canadian public we realize that unemployment in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman should not take advantage of the grievance that is before the house to go into some other matter.

Unemployment Insurance Benefits


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was only the presence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that, for the moment, excited me. The fact is we are grateful to the minister for telling us what happened, and we understand how a messenger in the minister's department could make this mistake. It is regrettable, however, that the government knew this information was in its possession but did not make it known today so that this matter of the present statistics could have been before us as we discussed the most challenging problem which this government faces and which it ignores.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a grievance which is different from those which have been raised so far. My grievance has to do with the application of the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Act as it concerns individual workers. During the winter months for a number of years it has been the practice of the government through the Department of Labour to advertise the slogan "Do It Now". This practice has invited the general public to have certain jobs done during winter months when labour is available. In the majority of cases this work consists of repairs or interior alterations to homes. I realize that the government is concerned about the situation of the unemployment insurance fund and that it is taking every means possible to protect that fund. I also realize that there have been abuses in this regard and suggest that those abuses should be stopped but feel that they should not be stopped in a way detrimental to those individual workers who, when out of work, have a right to receive unemployment insurance benefits, because they have been working on jobs which qualify them for such benefits.
I have in mind certain carpenters who have been employed for week after week on jobs of this particular kind. I know of a case involving a carpenter who was employed for a period of 14 weeks practically re-building a house. He was carrying out this construction with the assistance of two other carpenters. That man was disqualified under the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Act because there was no supervisor in attendance at the time he performed this work.
I would suggest that in my own area most winter work involves repair jobs of this type, done by individual carpenters working on their own. I suggest that the owner of the property purchases all the material-such as lumber, paint and nails-which is needed for


the job, and then hires an individual carpenter to do it. If the man is not supervised by a contractor he is denied unemployment insurance benefits.
I suggest that this government, which claims to have introduced the bill of rights in order to protect the rights of individuals in this country, is not giving to those workers the protection which they are entitled to receive. As an example of this, I must say that I know of an individual employed driving a truck for an oil company. This man required certain repairs to his house and he hired a carpenter to make these repairs over a period of six weeks. That carpenter was denied the benefits of unemployment insurance and the privilege of having unemployment insurance stamps posted in his book covering the period of six weeks because the owner of the house, working for this oil company, did not leave his job to stay alongside the carpenter to supervise him. I would suggest that this is nothing else but gross injustice and discrimination.
I will cite another example, and I might say that I have at least one hundred of them which have been brought to my attention by my constituents in the county of Gloucester. A man whose family lived in New Brunswick was working in the province of Ontario. He decided to follow the suggestion of this government regarding winter work by building a new house. When the house was nearly completed he took one week's vacation and returned to New Brunswick to inspect the work which had been done. He realized that the house needed to be painted and that a porch should be added. He accompanied his father to the unemployment insurance office to make sure that if his father did this job at the fixed rate of pay he would qualify for unemployment insurance stamps. With the assurance that he would do so, he returned to his job in Ontario. A few months later when the work was completed his father who was out of work applied for unemployment insurance benefits but was denied those benefits and the six-week period of contribution was withdrawn from his unemployment insurance book because the owner of the house had not remained to supervise the work which was done.


Mr. Brunsden:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is presumably speaking on a grievance. He has been building houses but he has not finished them, and I respectfully submit that he is out of order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been citing typical examples of workers in this country doing jobs which

would normally qualify them for unemployment insurance benefits but who are being deprived of those benefits, and I have given the reason. I suggest that an injustice is being done by the unemployment insurance commission. I have presented this grievance and related several typical examples to support it, and for that reason I submit I am perfectly in order.
I would relate one more example of this type of injustice which involves a widow who decided last summer to build a new home. She hired three carpenters to do the work. They were employed for a period of 14 weeks but again the carpenter in charge was refused unemployment insurance benefits on the ground he had performed the work without supervision. I suggest this is a further example of injustice.
I suggest that the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Act have been applied during the last eight or ten months, following the realization by the government that the unemployment insurance fund was being depleted, in an effort to protect this fund. Since that time hundreds and hundreds of cases similar to the one I have brought to the attention of the house have occurred in my own constituency of Gloucester.
I agree that abuses must be stopped. I admit that there have been abuses. However, the method employed to stop these abuses should not be to the detriment of those workers who are doing the type of work which would normally qualify them to receive unemployment insurance benefits. If this principle is to be maintained, it means that these workers will be affected. It means that any home owner who wishes some repairs or alternations carried out to his house must go to a contractor and pay the extra cost incurred in having the job supervised.
Is this consistent with the "Do It Now'' program which the government is sponsoring at this time? Is it consistent with that program that people who have been doing this type of work for years, who have families to support and who have been depending upon unemployment insurance benefits during a certain period of the winter months, are now to be deprived of this privilege? This applies with even greater force to those who work in the summer months at a period of time when there is more employment. They may be employed for a period of 14 weeks or more, as in the case I mentioned, and in the winter, when there is no work to be found, they go to the unemployment insurance office and are denied these benefits. They then have to obtain social assistance in order to provide for their families.
I urge the minister to take the necessary steps to amend the act or the regulations 90205-6-2034
Unemployment Insurance Benefits where necessary in order to protect these workers who are doing exactly the type of work which the government is sponsoring in the "Do It Now" program.


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to endorse everything that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robi-chaud) has said and I would enlarge further on the same matter. These hardships are being forced upon the so-called casual labourers, but I think there are also other aspects of this matter which illustrate another discrepancy in the implementation of the law as it is being applied today. I refer to the farmers of this country and the law as it is applied to them.
I know of cases last summer where farmers hired casual workers to carry out some repair work on their buildings or to have new barns built. In years past these casual labourers enjoyed the benefits of unemployment insurance. Last season, however, these workers applied for unemployment insurance and were denied these benefits. My question is this. What will happen to the farmers of the country if they are not allowed to secure the services of these casual carpenters and labourers?
It is bad enough that farmers should now be penalized by not enjoying the benefits of unemployment insurance for the hired help which they need on their farms. However, they are going to be further penalized by being unable to hire carpenters to do the work that must be done on their farms. I say that this situation is very serious indeed.
There is another interpretation of this measure which works against the farming population of the country. I refer to those people who volunteer to stay within the community in order to perform this kind of work and who will not in the future be permitted to do so. I think this will mean a serious blow to the social structure of rural communities. These people will now be forced to leave this field of activity; they will have to abandon this type of casual work, which is essential to the social structure of the community. These workers will have to hire out their services to registered contractors, and such contractors do not exist in rural communities.
I wish again to emphasize that the situation will simply play havoc in the organization of rural communities. Therefore I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Gloucester. I also wish to mention another aspect of this matter which concerns those people who are being disqualified. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am in order. I ask for your guidance in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is entitled to discuss only the one grievance which has been raised.
3214	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Benefits


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the grievance raised by the hon. member tor Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) I should like to make a few comments. As my constituency is very close to the constituencies of the two hon. members from eastern New Brunswick who spoke previously, I think it is only proper for me to try to give some explanation in order that there will be no misunderstanding regarding what is actually taking place.
From time to time, of course, very grave injustices are committed in the administration of the unemployment insurance fund. I receive complaints in this connection, as does every hon. member of the house, but when these complaints are investigated, quite often it is found they are not entirely justified.
A great many of the workmen involved are related by blood or marriage to the property owners in question. Invariably there is no relationship of master and servant, no contract of employment, and no fixed hourly or weekly wage, or alternatively there are no fixed working hours even on a daily rate. Supervision is not necessarily all-important. There must be a contract, expressed or implied, of servant and master or employee and employer.
The same situation is found in eastern New Brunswick as is found in many other sections of the country concerning the operation of highway trucks. In some cases the driver is the owner of the vehicle but the vehicle has been reregistered in the name of an uncle, aunt, father or mother. The driver attempts to become an employee when in fact the contractor's cheque goes to him and then in many cases is turned over to a finance company.
Mr. Speaker, those are my comments in reference to the grievance which has been raised. I would emphasize that mistakes do occur. Fortunately these mistakes are not too numerous, but we members of parliament, particularly members of the opposition, take advantage of any irregularity and in some cases are not entirely justified.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to very briefly endorse the plea made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). In support of his plea for a change in the regulations concerning the unemployment insurance administration I think he gave some excellent illustrations. I could give similar illustrations from my experience in my own constituency, but I shall not take up the time of the house by doing so now because possibly some other members may have a word to say on this grievance. I do wish to join, however, with other members who have spoken in urging the minister


to give favourable consideration to these representations. The grievance advanced by the hon. member for Gloucester was supported by what in my opinion was excellent evidence from his own constituency, and similar evidence could, I believe, be obtained from other constituencies all across Canada.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I want to support the representations made by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) and the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Michaud). The way in which certain sections of the Unemployment Insurance Act are being interpreted seems to be much more rigid at the present time than it was formerly and as a result, as several hon. members have pointed out, hardship is being caused to tradesmen in small rural communities.
The hon. member for Gloucester illustrated his point by giving details of a number of cases and I want to tell the house that exactly the same position arises in my own province. A number of cases have been brought to my attention from the smaller communities in my own riding where circumstances have arisen identical to those described by the hon. member for Gloucester.
There also seems to be some difference in the interpretation of what constitutes a contract of service. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat pointed out that if a man who owns a truck employs his son to drive that truck, the son is not entitled to insurance stamps. If the owner of the truck wishes to hire it to another he has to put in a driver other than a member of his own family if the driver is to be able to qualify for unemployment benefit. In my area there are many small shopkeepers who have to operate trucks in connection with their businesses, to bring freight from the public wharves or to deliver purchases to homes some distance from their stores. These shopkeepers, too, are not able to employ their children for these services unless those children are to be deprived of the benefit of insurance. It seems very strange to these people that they should have to give jobs to strangers rather than to their own sons and daughters if the right to collect stamps is to be preserved.
Returning to the question of the contract of service I may perhaps speak from my own experience. As hon. members know, most of my riding is a coastal region and in order to get about it I have to use a boat. The most economical way of providing boat transportation is to own a boat. Last fall I had to make a decision to have done to my boat some fairly extensive repairs which would provide at least two months' work for two carpenters. However, I was not able

to have this work done because I was not in a position to give stamps to the men while they were so employed. I took the trouble to discuss this problem with the officials of the unemployment insurance commission in the local office at St. John's. I thought I could get around the difficulty. It was clear that I could not be on the spot to supervise the work, but I thought it might be possible to employ an agent to do that on my behalf and to put the stamps in these men's books. After some deliberation and I believe, consultation with the head office in Ottawa I was told that an arrangement of this kind could not be allowed. On that account eight months' work for some carpenter has been lost and I, for my part, have been unable to get work done which is of importance to me.
It does not seem sensible to put on a big drive to encourage people to employ men during the winter months on odd jobs, and to pay such great attention to a winter works program, and then to say: these people cannot be employed and collect stamps unless you are prepared to give up your job and watch what they are doing. It seems to me that a situation of that sort is illogical and I hope the minister will do something about it at the earliest date.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member has just made mention of men working on his boat and the difficulty experienced if workers are unable to get stamps. Is the hon. member implying that people are turning down offers of work in Newfoundland because they are not qualified for unemployment insurance on the particular job offered to them?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Say, no.


Chesley William Carter: No.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 (f) of standing order 26 as provisionally amended, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the motion now before the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 131. Departmental administration, $473,500.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE 272. General administration, $5,278,399.



DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
279. Departmental administration, including Canada's share of the expenses of the "Resources for Tomorrow" conference, $1,105,390.
Proceedings reported.

John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it there is no change in the program for the rest of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No change. I should just like to point out that while we shall be dealing with interim supply tomorrow, that will be followed immediately by the supplementary estimates. The house might consider it wise to pass interim supply with dispatch and then carry on to deal with supplementary estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate the advice.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 22, 1961