1961-03-20

STANDING ORDERS


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: That the seventh report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Friday, March 17, 1961, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the final communique of the commonwealth prime ministers' conference, as well as the annexes to that communique. If the house thinks it desirable, it might be printed as an appendix to Hansard of today.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree with the suggestion that the documents now tabled be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?
Mr. V/inch: Is there anything in the communique having to do with a decision made on the proposed disarmament conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Annex I covers entirely the question of disarmament and the stands taken.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the house agrees to the suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents above referred to, see appendix.]



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 72-Mr. Regier:
For a listing of names and addresses on a priority basis of all those people who are supposed to be moved out of Ottawa to a supposedly safe place of refuge in case of a nuclear war.
Mr. Speaker:: This notice of motion was stood in the absence of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I dare say he has read this comment on it by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the hon. member prepared to drop the motion?
90205-6-198


Mr. Regier:: I am not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Churchill:: We are opposed to the motion.



DISCONTINUANCE OF STEEL STATISTICS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 73-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the government and any person, organization, or industry since January 1, 1960, regarding the discontinuance of publication of statistical material, relating to steel operating rates and steel producing capacity, by the dominion bureau of statistics.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this request lor the production ol correspondence between the government and others relating to a change in reporting of the statistics of weekly steel production raises an important issue in so far as the dominion bureau of statistics is concerned, because in the final analysis the effective operation of the dominion bureau of statistics must be based on the assumption by business, unions, individuals and all organizations that all information supplied to the dominion bureau of statistics is secret and available only to the bureau.
In this case I have been assured that the correspondence is very limited and is confined to a few letters from Canadian steel companies and the united steel workers of America. These relate only to the technical difficulty of calculating a meaningful rate of operation, and discussion of a change in the period on which to base an index of production. This information was given to the house on February 2, 1961 in answer to a previous question by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
For the protection of the confidence which the public places in the dominion bureau of statistics, I feel that I must take the view that tabling of correspondence of this nature is not in the public interest.

However, if the hon. member so desires, I have no objection to tabling my own correspondence, which is limited to letters between the national director for Canada of the united steel workers of America and myself, subject of course to my obtaining the approval for such action from the national director. I have written him asking for permission to table these documents and upon receipt of an affirmative reply will be pleased to do so.


Mr. Herridge:: In view of the mover's explanation I accept the limitation.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister was referring, I take it, to motion No. 73 standing in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia?


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to accept this motion at the instance of the hon. member for Kootenay West?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 77-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, instructions, and other documents exchanged between the Canadian wheat board and the federal government since January 1, 1960, in regard to feed mills being allowed to purchase grain outside the quota system.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the absence of the mover, would the minister allow this to stand?


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Motion stands.



FEED MILL GRAIN PURCHASE FORMS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of each form which feed mills in western Canada are required to file with the Canadian wheat board relating to purchases of grain from permit holders.
Motion agreed to.
1960 SERVICE AGREEMENT, JASPER PARK LODGE
Motion No. 84-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of the agreement of service between the Canadian National hotels and the employees of Jasper Park lodge in 1960.
Mr. Winch:: Would the government allow this to stand in the absence of the mover?


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of the hon. member for Port Arthur, is the government prepared to allow this motion to stand?


Mr. Balcer:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Motion stands.



EXELBY CASE CORRESPONDENCE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of National Revenue on March 14th, 1961, by Mr. Harold B. Stevens of Shawinigan Falls, Quebec, re the C.B.C. and the Exelby case, together with a copy of the minister's reply to Mr. Stevens.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would ask that this matter be considered privileged. I am not sure whether this came to me as a personal and confidential letter.
I am advised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that he has already received a copy of the letter, so I suspect the confidential character thereof has been largely dispelled. Therefore I am perfectly happy to accept this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 87-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all briefs and submissions presented to the government or any agency or branch thereof since February 17, 1961, dealing with Bill C-70.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual understanding under which documents of a confidential nature or documents which are ordinarily privileged will not be expected to be produced, we are prepared to accept this motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a statement he is reported to have made at the Conservative convention last week to the effect that the Bank of Canada was responsible for monetary policy while the government was concerned with fiscal matters; that, however, since both fields offered an opportunity to deal with economic problems, their policies should be parallel and harmonious. My question is, will the minister assure the house the policies between the bank and the government on these matters are now parallel and harmonious?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government's
policy I think is well known in this regard,
90205-6-198J
Inquiries of the Ministry and the policy of the Bank of Canada in relation to monetary policy has been recently stated by the governor of the bank in his annual report which I tabled last Wednesday.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the discussions at the prime ministers' conference, which I understand went into some detail on matters involving all phases of disarmament, will the Prime Minister assure us that those who are delegates at the United Nations will be briefed on the various motions which have been moved by the Prime Minister's strong left arm, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in order to assist those who serve on the committee which I understand is soon going to meet on the motions moved by Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. gentleman's experience at the United Nations would give him the answer to that question. The Canadian representatives including the parliamentary representatives are always well and fully briefed.



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister advise the house whether a meeting took place in Ottawa this morning between Premier Stanfield and representatives of the federal government to discuss the coal problems of Cape Breton and, if so, is the minister in a position to advise the house on the decisions reached at the meeting?
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Gloucester, I must say that a meeting did take place in the office of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). There were present at this meeting the Nova Scotia premier, Mr. Stanfield, and two of his ministers, Mr. Manson, minister of mines, and Mr. Ferguson, minister of municipal affairs. The miners' union was represented by Mr. Marsh, president, and by Messrs. Delaney, Higgins and Dolhanty. The president of the dominion coal board and I also attended the meeting.

Inquiries of the Ministry During that meeting, ideas and views were first volume of the findings of the royal com-exchanged about the Rand report and the mission on transportation will be available impending shut-down of three Cape Breton early in April, mines.
The various views which were expressed will no doubt lead to further discussions and exchange of ideas, and I have no other statement to make for the time being.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house if the representatives of the companies were invited to that meeting?


Paul Comtois: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



CAPE BRETON-EMPLOYMENT FOR WORKERS NOW EMPLOYED IN MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the minister advise the house whether he has received a telegram from the Cape Breton command of the Canadian Legion demanding that the federal and provincial governments see that no Nova Scotia coal mines are closed until suitable employment is available to all who are now employed in the mines? If so, what was the nature of the reply?


An hon. Member:: Order paper. (Translation):


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I received that telegram a few minutes before coming to the house. I immediately acknowledged receipt of the telegram without making any comment.
(Text):



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Assiniboia, as reported at page 3088 of Hansard, asked me this question:
In view of the fact that so many important questions turn on the studies of the royal commission on transportation I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform the house when he expects to receive either the intermediate or the final report.
I am now advised by the assistant secretary to the royal commission that the chairman, Mr. MacPherson, has stated that the



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
In view of the concern expressed by the Canadian federation of humane societies regarding the brutal and wasteful annual slaughter of some 300,000 seals on our northeast coast, the majority of which are only a few weeks old, and the senseless wounding of thousands of others, many of which are pregnant and nursing females which are left to die; and in view of the possibility that this indiscriminate slaughter may bring about the extinction of the seals very shortly, if allowed to continue, will the minister investigate this reported situation and present a report and proposals for the conservation of these seals to the house when his estimates are under discussion?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. The harp seal is a very important source of edible oils, food and clothing for northern Canadians. I understand that hunting by foreign fishermen as well as native fishermen is allowed off the coast of Newfoundland. Because this matter has international implications, and because the direct management of fisheries comes under my colleague the Minister of Fisheries, I shall be happy to bring this problem to the attention of my colleague.



BEECHWOOD PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government passed an order in council authorizing the export of power from the Beechwood project to the United States?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will check into this and answer the hon. member tomorrow.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I now have an answer for the hon. member for Laurier, who asked whether an order in council had been passed respecting the Beechwood power project. I have just received an answer from the national energy board. No order in council has been passed in this regard. The Beechwood hydroelectric power project is an operation of the New Brunswick electric power commission. That commission holds a licence under the ultimate authority of the national energy board to export interruptible power from its systems, which include Beechwood.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On February 9 last I asked him a question concerning the unauthorized importation of meats into the Yukon from British Columbia, contrary to the Canada Meat Inspection Act, and in his absence his parliamentary secretary replied. Can the minister now say whether any action is being taken formally to enforce the provisions of the Canada Meat Inspection Act?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the time the question was asked my parliamentary secretary indicated that several forms of investigation and action were being considered, and I have not had a report on that matter since. However, I think I can say that one aspect of the investigation has been turned over to the Department of Justice, and when I have anything further to report on this I will let the hon. member know.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, of which I gave him notice this morning. Does public offering C2 appearing as an advertisement on page 4 of today's Globe and Mail represent a new sales policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. A full page
Inquiries of the Ministry advertisement in today's issue of the Globe and Mail does not reflect in any way a change in government lending policy. It was inserted and presumably paid for by a Toronto house building firm without prior discussion with representatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Apart from learning after the fact the identity of the advertiser-[DOT]


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am rising on a point of order.


David James Walker: -neither the government nor the corporation has any knowledge of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your Honour will recall that on two previous occasions the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) raised precisely similar questions about the same kind of advertising, and Your Honour ruled that questions about advertisements by private persons with respect to housing were private matters and not matters for interrogation in the house. I trust that the same rule will apply in this case.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question was whether the advertisement represented a change in government policy. As I understood the answer of the minister it was that the department had no responsibility for the advertisement, which would exclude it from further discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And also from further answer.
(Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alfred Belzile (Maiapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether the Minister of Transport is aware that Quebecair has discontinued its service at the municipal airport of Matane since the 11th of this month?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on February 21 Quebecair applied to the air transport board for permission to suspend its regular service at Matane. Such authorization was granted March 9, 1961.


Alfred Belzile: Another question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer given by the minister, may I ask whether he knows that the only
3128	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry reason put forward by the company to justify its decision is that the landing strips in Matane are not long enough to accommodate the modem aircraft it is now using?


Léon Balcer: In fact, Mr. Speaker, Canadair-


Lionel Chevrier: Quebecair.


Léon Balcer: We have been informed by Quebecair that it had to suspend its service because the landing strip at Matane airport was such that it could not accommodate aircraft like the F-27 and the 540 which the company is now using.
My hon. friend can rest assured that my officials and the Matane municipal council are seeking ways to improve the situation.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I regret not having been able to give him notice. 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?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question without having received notice. I shall be glad to look into the matter and let the hon. member know.



LONGUE POINTE ORDNANCE DEPOT, MONTREAL   PARKING CHARGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. First of all may I point out that it is based on a French newspaper report and all I can say is "Pardon, je ne puis pas parler frangais". In view of the report in Le Devoir of March 16 to the effect that the car parking assessment at the Longue Pointe ordnance depot in Montreal has been increased from 20 to 50 cents so that a curling rink may be built for the use of certain personnel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether the urgency or importance of the matter of
[Mr. Belzile.l

parking cars at the ordnance depot is sufficient to take the time of the house with an oral question. I would request the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue the matter in view of what we know about what has taken place elsewhere. Now something has taken place at another depot.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I am still of
the same view.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Wednesday of next week the House of Commons will rise for the Easter recess. In view of this fact, and in view of the fact that the legislation passed by parliament last fall to maintain the continuity of railway operations will expire in May, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has any policy directed toward bringing the two parties together so there will not be any cessation of railway operations in the country?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): I do not think I can add anything to what was said at the time the bill which is now the law of the country was discussed. That legislation continues in existence until May 15. The hon. gentleman will recall it was anticipated that prior to that date there would be a report from the royal commission on transportation. Today I have advised the house that the chairman of that commission has informed us that the first volume of the report will be available early in April. After that report is received, naturally close consideration will be given to its nature and the government will then be in a position to bring before parliament such legislation or to take such course as may be deemed expedient or proper.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question in the light of the answer just given by the Prime Minister and the statement the Prime Minister made previously that he hoped there would be a resumption of negotiations between the brotherhoods on the one hand and the railways on the other. Can the Prime Minister inform the house what the position is at the present time with respect to these negotiations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, they came together, they saw, they talked and they adjourned.

Labour Conditions


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister give the house an assurance that the first volume of the report of the royal commission on transportation, which is now to be available early in April, will have recommendations having a bearing on the dispute which brought about the threatened strike last November?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally I, in common with all hon. members, will have to wait until that portion of the report is received to be able to give an answer to the hon. gentleman.


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




Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this traditional
motion gives the opposition an opportunity to move a vote of no confidence, if it so desires, in connection with any matter concerning which the house in this session has not come to a decision.
With so much material available it is not easy to choose a particular vote of no confidence. In order to assist myself on this matter I thought it might be helpful if I looked at some of the resolutions and statements made at the recent Conservative convention, but I did not get very much help there. There was a resolution which might have been the subject for such a motion dealing with a distinctive Canadian national flag, on which the party decided that action should be taken as soon as possible, whereas our party has decided in convention that definite action on this matter is to be taken within two years of a general election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When will that be?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I feel that, in view of the discussion of this matter in the house on Friday I thought that observation should draw some reaction from the other side. I had also hoped that perhaps at this interesting meeting we might have got some indication of the date of the forthcoming election. We did not get much enlightenment on that subject. However, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who made some strange statements indeed, according to the press said with regard to an election that "when the election does take place this is when you need workers out to sell a bill of
goods on your behalf". This is an interesting approach to a general election.
If I may, with great respect, mention this Conservative meeting, it was undoubtedly the biggest and most expensive convention ever held by the Progressive Conservative party, but from all accounts it looks as though it was about the dullest as well and the one most completely dominated by those in control of the party.


An hon. Member:: You are a dreamer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In that respect, and to show the contrast between the Conservative party on this side of the water and the Conservative party in Great Britain, may I quote from a reference in the London Observer of February 26 to a convention of the young Conservatives there at which a motion was moved in the following terms:
The young Conservatives deplore the unctuous terms which preface so many of the resolutions submitted to the party annual conference.
In speaking to that resolution a member of the cabinet in the United Kingdom, the secretary of state for colonial affairs, Right Hon. Iain Macleod, had this to say, and I think this certainly applies to the resolutions of this particular meeting in Ottawa so far as we have been able to see them:
The automatic and indiscriminate praise of performances which are often pedestrian is one of the dreariest features of annual conferences.


George Harris Hees: You are not doing badly now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is a very apt reference with respect to the meeting that has just finished. The president of the national Progressive Conservative association of Canada was candid enough to say over the air last night in an interview, when he was questioned about the difficulties of the rank and file of the party making themselves heard, that "we cannot have every Tom, Dick and Harry taking over".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just John.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We were informed by the press that 200 resolutions had been sent in before the convention opened. I thought I would get some help from that with regard to a non-confidence motion, but we were also informed that these 200 resolutions were all to be screened by the brass and only those that passed this scrutiny would get before the convention. According to the press this morning, 76 passed that scrutiny by the party managers and all 76 were passed Saturday morning in 75 minutes.


Mr. Anderson:: They were like you. They ran out of time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That, Mr. Speaker, is Tory action but not democracy in action.

Labour Conditions
While the resolutions were not available, except those that had been screened and passed, we might have hoped that ministerial questions would give us on this side some idea of what was concerning the party and, perhaps, have provided some subjects for debate. There were questions, it is true, asked of the ministers, but again according to the press-and I am quoting now from the Ottawa Journal-the questions were written and screened by the seminar chairman. Oral questions from the floor were not allowed. This is in startling contrast to a convention held in this city in January.
Well, it is rather difficult to get any help from that kind of procedure. It is no wonder that the rank and file members of the party who came from all across Canada to attend this convention asked themselves "what did we come for?" Perhaps they came to talk into a box to the ministers.


George Harris Hees: Are you looking for a job?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Having talked into this little box, then the recordings of the questions addressed to the ministers could have been sent to the national museum or to the archives. Perhaps they came for that purpose, or perhaps they came to have a good time, as was the answer given to this question by the Globe and Mail reporter, Mr. Walter Gray, this morning. He said they had won an election and now they were getting their reward. I quote:
-a trip to Ottawa, to rub shoulders with cabinet ministers and M.P.'s, to shake the hand of the Prime Minister, to be drawn into camaraderie with Tories from across the country. Who gives a darn about unemployment, nuclear weapons? Red China can go to the blazes. We're here to have a good time-
So, Mr. Speaker, the economic problems, unemployment, those things that are troubling the people of Canada today, were skipped except by those members of the government who abused the Liberals in intemperate and childish language because Liberals insisted upon bringing these nasty things before parliament.
Were any remedies to these problems suggested by the convention or by the ministers? No, not one. When they did dwell on these unhappy matters at all they spent their time caricaturing the position of the opposition. Having no remedies themselves, they jeered at the opposition because we dared to put forward some remedies in the House of Commons. They spent their time accusing us, in the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was a little more exuberant than usual at this meeting, of teen-age behaviour because we dared to talk about unemployment in the House of Commons.

Here is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say, and of all the strange things he has said in the last few days this is the strangest. I shall quote from the Globe and Mail because his words are in quotation marks in that article. He refers to me and two of my colleagues by name, and these references were made to the applause of some 300 party supporters. He charged me with a particular kind of behaviour in the house when unemployment was mentioned, and these are the words attributed to him:
"It is something to disgust an honest Canadian," he declared. "They-
That includes me by name.
-are only interested in one thing, greater unemployment, because they think it enhances their chances of getting back into power-"


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister now says "That is right". I can think of a three letter word to describe that kind of statement.


Some hon. Members:: Use it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall content myself now by saying it is a slanderous, contemptible falsehood. If he does not like that reference he can get up and say so.
Mr. Speaker, these are the tactics we can now expect from a government that has no solution to offer; a government that is concealing its inefficiency and its own callous disregard of it. The government takes refuge in sensational, slanderous statements, and false statements as well, to conceal its own weaknesses, its own sins of omission in connection with this matter, by accusing its opponents of selling the country short, even of playing the communist game. There is a word for that kind of tactic which has entered into our language, and that word is "McCarthyism".


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition said I accused him of communist tactics. This is something I have never done. All I did was describe what we on this side of the house see on that side of the house, the obvious joy and satisfaction when the Minister of Labour announces increased unemployment figures. The opposition revel in them because they want more unemployment. They think it will get them back into power.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall read again what the minister said.
It is something to disgust an honest Canadian-


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I continue:
They-

And I was one of those he mentioned.
-are only interested in one thing, greater unemployment-
I say, Mr. Speaker, and I have said it in the house, that is a slanderous, malicious falsehood.


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I might rise once again-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a question of privilege?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is accusing me of slandering him. My suggestion to him is that when these announcements are made in the future the opposition should hide their feelings a little better and not let them be seen so easily.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I say again that when the minister, who should know better since he is a minister of the crown, accuses me of being interested in only one thing, greater unemployment so that I can get back into power, that is a slanderous falsehood. I have repeated it as often as I could. His is the old gimmick of the demagogue.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also had something to say at this convention. He told us that the next election was going to be fought on the issue of free enterprise. The Prime Minister did not return until Friday, so perhaps he was not informed or had forgotten about the fact that a resolution was put forward on Thursday by young Conservatives advocating free enterprise. The resolution could only get 12 votes in this great convention. It was smashingly defeated, and only received 12 votes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Tell the whole story.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is the party that is now going to stand for free enterprise, free enterprise which extends so far that it is going to turn monetary policy over to the Bank of Canada and abdicate all responsibility in that particular field. The Prime Minister spoke for 40 minutes. He was more fortunate than I on a similar occasion. He spoke for over half an hour doing the people of Canada out of a very interesting television program.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister made a good speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. The Prime Minister made reference to Buckingham palace; he made reference to Sir John A. Macdonald, and he made reference to the new frontier which President Kennedy has now stolen from him. We have enough trouble now with the United
Labour Conditions
States, and I hope this plagiarism will not be an additional grievance between our two countries.
The Prime Minister had a great deal to say about the rights of Africans and the rights of Asians, but he had nothing to say about the three quarters of a million men and women out of work in this country. The Prime Minister was able to speak for 40 minutes but the word "unemployment" was mentioned by him once as part of the title of the unemployment insurance fund. He said nothing about the economy, and nothing about unemployment. He mentioned nothing about the problems with which we are faced except to attack the Liberal position in regard to them and to unemployment. I ask the Prime Minister what kind of a report to the nation on domestic affairs is that kind of statement.
We have this situation in the House of Commons now every time we try to raise this question of unemployment. They say they are bad words; unemployment, recession and depressed areas, and they must not be raised. If we raise them we are liable to be accused of playing the communist game or selling the country short. They give the impression that it is far more important to discredit the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and an unemployed participant in a program, and thereby to discredit all efforts to underline the seriousness of this unemployment problem, than to deal with it. This is the type of dreary and cheap tactics they use.
The Prime Minister indulged in them on another front. The Prime Minister stated that when he was in the United Kingdom he was worried to find the people over there concerned about the economic situation in Canada; that is a situation when in January 11 per cent of our labour force were out of work compared to 1.8 per cent of the labour force of the United Kingdom. He said that he found the people of the United Kingdom worried about the situation in Canada, and that the blame for that worry was to be attached to the speeches made by the opposition in this House of Commons.
Whose fault is it that the magazine Economist is worried; that the London Times has expressed worry; that the Financial Times has expressed worry, and that the Manchester Guardian has expressed this worry? Whose fault is it that this worry has extended across the Atlantic? The government says it is the fault of the speeches made by the Liberals in this House of Commons. This is a great tribute to the influence we exercise through our speeches and I suppose we should be grateful to the Prime Minister for it. But it is nonsense to suggest that these citizens in the United Kingdom are worried about the

Labour Conditions
state of affairs in Canada because of the fact that we on this side bring these matters to the attention of the house, as we shall continue to do on every possible occasion.
The Prime Minister went on to say-I cannot quote him exactly because I have been unable to get a text of what he said, but I think he will agree that I am not misrepresenting him-that when they were in opposition they never criticized in the way we are criticizing now; that they never exaggerated for political purposes, the difficulties that faced the country, and that they never sold the country short when they were in opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Finance says "Hear, hear". This is just another example of the tendency of hon. gentlemen opposite to be, if not hostile to the facts, apathetic about them. They say they never criticized, as we on this side do now. Let me just refer you to a few statements made in 1955 and 1956 to indicate the incredible effrontery of those men then in oppositon, now in government, in talking like this.
On March 15, 1955, at page 2035 of Hansard, at a time when the unemployment ratio in this country was just about half of what it is now and at a time when, within a few months, employment went up to normal and unemployment went down to normal, the Prime Minister talked about the "hopeless picture"-those were the words he used-the situation which he viewed with great alarm. He also referred to "the serious situation" for which there was little hope. Those statements were made in 1955 by the gentlemen opposite who say they never talked like that when they were on this side in opposition. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that-
-if we continue to deliberately delude ourselves concerning the unemployment situation, we shall bring about a fear complex in this country which will have serious results in the future.
But who used these words? That statement was made by the present Prime Minister on March 15, 1955. So, I repeat, it is the job of the opposition to try to penetrate the ivory tower atmosphere which it seems keeps the government out of contact with reality and makes them unaware of what is really going on in the country. That is a very sensible observation and I suggest that it must be, because the words were used by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 3, 1955.


George Harris Hees: You are talking about different people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hear the remark "You are talking about different people". We certainly

are talking about different people and about a different level of unemployment, as shown by the comparison of 11 per cent unemployed now to the 6.7 per cent unemployed at the time the statement was made. I wonder what the hon. gentlemen opposite will say tomorrow or the next day when the unemployment figures for February are brought forward. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will be busy looking for a trace of a smile-[DOT]


George Harris Hees: You do not have to look very far for this smile; you need just look across to the faces of the opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Trade and Commerce will then find out what is happening in this country, and will then travel around talking not about it but about the imaginary smiles on the faces of members on this side.
No better proof that this government is indeed blind to the realities of the employment and economic picture in this country can be found than in the proceedings of their recent convention and in the proceedings in this house in the last three years, when they have blamed everybody but themselves for everything that has gone wrong. The Minister of Finance in his contribution to these calculated questions and answers the other day-he had an opportunity to see them because they were all sent in writing, a democratic procedure-talked about the mess that they inherited in 1957, a mess which he referred to on January 6 in Toronto, as at a period of unprecedented economic expansion but which now seems something else in the opinion of hon. members opposite. From a less prejudiced source, the deputy minister of trade and commerce, we have heard it referred to most recently as "the fabulous fifties".
That is the mess that the Minister of Finance inherited from us. That is the mess from 1956, when from 1946 to 1956 the average unemployment in this country over that period was 3.1 per cent, when from 1957 to 1960 the average unemployment was 6.2 per cent, exactly double. That is the mess, when the gross national product per capita in constant dollars from 1949 to 1956 increased 22 per cent, and from 1956 to 1960 went down 5 per cent. That is the mess that the hon. gentleman inherited from us.
The unemployment figures, of course, speak for themselves. The unemployment insurance fund speaks for itself. The budgetary deficits speak for themselves. The maximum level of government expenditures speak for themselves. All these are things that constitute in the mind of the Minister of Finance a happy contrast between the situation of today and the mess of 1946 to 1956.

Labour Conditions
There are, of course, at the present time- and I know this is going to disappoint the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who does not like to have such references made on this side of the house because it takes away some of his thunder-some signs of improvement, The resumption of inventory accumulation will soon begin. It may well be that in the second and third quarter-I have said this outside the house and I am very glad indeed to say it inside the house-we will get out of the trough of this recession in the summer and will begin to move up in the autumn. It may be, and every hon. member on this side hopes that it will be, that by the end of this year we will be out of this particular recession which in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite never existed. How they are going to be able to take credit if that happens I do not know. "We got you out of the recession, but six months ago we said there was not any recession". They are pretty agile, however, at that kind of illogicality. Nevertheless, if and when this particular recession ends, the unemployment problem of this country-I mentioned this the other day and I make no apology for mentioning it again-will not end with it because the hard core of unemployment between recessions, between pauses or whatever you want to call them, is increasing, and each recession and each pause is worse than the one which preceded it.
Why, then, does the government flatly refuse to recognize it? We recognize it. We will continue to bring this danger and this difficulty to the attention of the house. The demagogic outbursts of ministers outside or inside the house are not going to stop us, any more than they are going to impress people outside the house-


George Harris Hees: So there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -except perhaps when the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaks to Conservative ladies. The governor of the Bank of Canada, who is a gentleman with whose views I do not always agree, recognizes the seriousness of the situation and the necessity for strong and co-ordinated action to deal with it. If hon. gentlemen will read-if they have not already read, and perhaps most of them have-pages 22 and 23 of his report-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My motion to resolve the house into committee of supply is, as the Leader of the Opposition has himself recognized, an occasion when hon. members may raise grievances. However, it is a fundamental rule in relation to this type of debate that only one grievance at a time may be raised. When one matter is introduced as a grievance, then before a second one may
be introduced other hon. members who wish to speak on the first one are to be heard before the second one is raised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where did you find that rule?


Donald Methuen Fleming: All we have heard so far has been a sort of blunderbuss attack on everything imaginable. I gather from the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition up to this point that his grievance is what was said by certain persons at the recent annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative party of Canada. If that is a proper subject for grievance then I presume the Leader of the Opposition will have an amendment to introduce on that subject and other hon. members who may wish to speak on it will have the opportunity of doing so. But in my respectful submission it is completely out of order and an abuse of the privilege that the Leader of the Opposition has of leading off in a debate of this kind for him to engage in an omnibus discussion of a dozen or more subjects. This is completely out of order.
We had an example of this attempted by the opposition on a previous occcasion. It was during either the 1960 or the 1959 session of parliament. If I remember correctly, at that time, Mr. Speaker, you pointed out that this kind of omnibus attack on everything is not in order on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. It must rest with the hon. gentleman to indicate his grievance and introduce whatever amendment he chooses in that regard. He must discuss his grievance and not engage in a debate as though this were a budget debate or a debate on the speech from the throne.
I think the rule is quite clear in this respect, and it is perfectly obvious that it is being broken in a most wholesale manner this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Cite the rule.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance for having intervened in this way and given me a chance to get my second wind. There is nothing to his point of order, but I should like to speak to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to hear the Leader of the Opposition on the point of order, because I think there is a point to be answered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to submit a no confidence motion which will deal with one particular aspect of our economic and employment difficulties. I am building up a case to show the seriousness of this particular problem. I am pointing out that a convention of the

Labour Conditions
Conservative party which met last week, which might have thrown some light on this problem, resulted in absolutely nothing being done. I am now pointing out that the governor of the Bank of Canada, in his report which was tabled last week, referred to this particular aspect of our employment problem-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Which aspect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and in due course I will move a motion of no confidence dealing with that particular problem. Surely I am to be permitted some time-and the hon. gentleman ought to know this-before I move my motion. I have been talking about unemployment-


An hon. Member:: And the flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and the seriousness of that unemployment. I propose to move a motion on one aspect of that as soon as I am given the opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: There are some limitations even to debate on a motion to go into committee of supply. As has been pointed out by the Minister of Finance, the customary practice in grievance procedure is to indicate a grievance and then to deal with it. That is one limitation. There is also the limitation against the repetition of previous amendments made on supply or on any other motion on which the house has come to a decision. The Leader of the Opposition recognized this when he opened his remarks.
I have been looking at the decisions taken by the house. The first decision was on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, where this amendment was moved and negatived:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to implement their election promises through refusal to undertake the economic and social planning necessary to provide full employment, a stable and prosperous agricultural community, and an adequate social security system.
I think that was a general debate on the subject of unemployment. Then I recall that one of the amendments on the two previous supply motions dealt with monetary policy, so those two subjects at least have been circumscribed. I have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. While I expected a certain amount of general discussion as he was getting his argument focused on the subject he intended to deal with, it seemed that after he had dealt with the convention of last week he skipped through unemployment in general terms and is now on monetary policy.
I believe that if the Leader of the Opposition has a specific amendment he should come to the point, so as to put some proper

limit on this debate for those who have to follow. If he does not do so there is no limit for any other speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I say this. There is the further point that other hon. members of this house are entitled to make submissions to you if in their judgment the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) trespass on subjects on which the house has already declared itself at this session and some of the matters to which you have already referred. As long as the Leader of the Opposition goes on hiding whatever his grievance is under a mass of verbiage and these general accusations it is impossible to perform that duty.
It is quite clear that this kind of speech can go on and on and then the Leader of the Opposition can introduce an amendment which you might then rule out of order; but the hon. member already has his speech on the record and it has served his purpose. I therefore urge that you call upon the Leader of the Opposition to follow the proper course in this house, to state his grievance and then to address himself to that subject if it is in order under the rules of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have another ruling now.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot very well instruct the Leader of the Opposition how to make his speech but I can and I think I should say this. The hon. member's speech thus far has been, I think, too broadly discursive having regard to the previous discussions. If he is laying a foundation for a specific subject I feel he ought to come to it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to make my observations on this subject a little more limited. I recognize, of course, the authority of the Minister of Finance to give advice on anything that deals with a mass of verbiage and general accusations. I shall try to follow your advice, Mr. Speaker; and I shall begin by telling you, sir, that what I propose to do is to show that in this whole unemployment situation the most difficult and dangerous aspect of it is the development in this country of chronic unemployment, of depressed areas and regional unemployment. I propose to spend the rest of my time dealing with that particular aspect of the problem on which the house has not this session taken any decision; and at the end of my reference to this particular aspect of unemployment I propose to introduce a motion that will cover that problem alone.
The governor of the Bank of Canada in his annual report had something to say on

the subject of chronic unemployment of depressed areas and the regional nature of our unemployment. He showed in that report-as indeed other authorities have shown-an awareness of the seriousness of that particular problem. The governor had this to say as found at pages 22 and 23 of his report, and this has a bearing on this problem:
Monetary expansion may play a part when it occurs in conjunction with a broad sweep of other programs of a more specific kind directed toward solving the problems in question. By itself, however, the creation of more and more money could do little toward achieving the objective.
Unemployment in Canada like economic expansion in Canada, as has so often been said in this house, has an uneven regional aspect. When there is general expansion in the country the regional incidence of unemployment is not too apparent but in years of recession or of pause, it then stands out. Since 1957 we on this side of the house have raised in this chamber this regional problem. We have pleaded for a more flexible and more selective formulation of national policies to deal with it.
The problem about which I am talking, that of chronic unemployment of depressed areas, was brilliantly analysed by Professor Judek for the Senate committee on manpower and employment in a report which he submitted to that committee on February 2 of this year. The report is entitled "Labour Surplus Market Areas". I should like to think that the Prime Minister and other hon. gentlemen opposite have studied it; but the attitude of the government toward this problem would indicate that if hon. gentlemen opposite have indeed studied it they have not accepted any of Professor Judek's recommendations to deal with it.
As a matter of fact, it is known now of course that for several sessions the attitude of the government toward this problem of depressed areas has been to deny its existence and to attack and pillory us on this side because we kept bringing it to their attention as I am attempting to do today. Then, three and half years after the election and three and half months after the announcement by the Minister of Finance last December that the government was going to take some action, they brought in some regulations. We were told that these regulations were designed to meet this particular problem. Presumably they are a part of that massive attack on unemployment to which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) referred to the other day, an attack so massive that there are still 700,000 or more Canadians in this country suffering from unemployment.
However, the government announcement which I believe was made last December and the government regulations brought in by
Labour Conditions
the Minister of Labour a few days ago do indicate at least some recognition that the problem does at least exist. Hon. gentlemen opposite must have not discarded their blinkers but-and we can take some satisfaction out of this

they are beginning at last to look around them. They have stopped denying that there is any chronic unemployment to attack; and so we have these government proposals which could have been brought in by order in council any time since last December, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance has said about this matter. We on this side of the house have already stated our opinion about these regulations. We consider them to be ludicrously inadequate, confused and restrictive.
In these regulations the responsibility for initiating action looking toward assistance has been abdicated by the government-we were told the other day in the name of democracy-and turned over to the municipalities themselves. From what we heard the other day, presumably it was humiliating for the government to designate an area as an area of surplus labour or a depressed area. It was not humiliating for similar action to be taken by the democractic governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Scandinavia and Belgium. In this country presumably we are in this respect more democratic.
Under these regulations the government says to an area or a municipality, in effect: designate yourself, if you so desire, as depressed and then we will decide, by attempting to apply our inadequate criteria, whether you really are depressed and are to receive any special help under these regulations. If not, you are a self-designated depressed area and without help from us. If the municipalities go through this preliminary stage of designating themselves as depressed areas and submitting themselves to the examination of the government in respect of its criteria, what help will they receive under these regulations?
Here is where the labouring mountain really brought forth an abortive mouse. We on this side have already pointed out in this house that the criteria concerned are uncertain, confused and restrictive. They deal with areas having under 10,000 workers and with areas having over 10,000 workers. As far as the first category is concerned the regulations will be quite unworkable because the statistics required over the period in question, which I believe is eight years, are not readily available. If we are wrong in this matter will the Minister of Labour or some other minister-we do not even know which minister will be responsible for this matter- tell us how these regulations will be applied

Labour Conditions
to this particular situation and where and how, if he is trying to apply the regulations, the minister will get the detailed information required for the eight years.
As far as communities of over 10,000 are concerned the regulations are obvious and excessively rigid and inflexible. They cover a period of eight years, four of which were ones of great expansion. To qualify under these circumstances a region must have had 6 per cent or 7 per cent of unemployment during 36 of the 48 summer months and employment must have actually declined during that period. These regulations are startling in their contrast with those adopted in other countries which earlier have recognized and tried to do something about the situation, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States of America, the senate of which passed a very important bill dealing with this matter on Friday of last week, I think. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, these regulations have very little relationship to these criteria suggested by Professor Judek at page 532 of his report, and which we would commend to the government as being much more helpful and effective for depressed areas.
If you do qualify under this criteria what help do you get? You get double depreciation for a new industry moving into a depressed area for one year only, one of the first three years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that on March 3 a motion to adjourn the house was moved for the express purpose of debating the subject which is now being discussed by the Leader of the Opposition. We set aside the business of the house on that occasion, which was to be consideration of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, in order to permit a debate on this very question. Now we are having a repetition of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition on March 3. I suggest that he is completely out of order in the remarks he is now making.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry that I cannot accept that argument because, as the leader of the house will recall, the debate was on a motion to adjourn and no decision of the house was taken. It is not in order to revert to a subject that has been debated provided the house has taken a decision. There is a worse obstacle to the course which the Leader of the Opposition is following in the amendments which have already been moved relating to unemployment; but of course I do not now prejudge the amendment he has in mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, had the house leader been listening at the beginning of my

remarks he would have known that I then pointed out that I would be out of order if I dealt with a matter which had been decided at this session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is repetition and there is a rule against that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter was not decided and it is not against the rules to talk about it. The house leader should have known that instead of interrupting me in this way.
What kind of help do the designated depressed areas in the country get under these regulations? As I pointed out, they get double depreciation for one year only of the first three, this help to apply only if a new industry makes substantial profits over one of the first three years, something which is not likely in that period of time in a depressed area. The tax reductions during that one year are to be offset later by higher taxes. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker, so far as help to the depressed areas of this country is concerned. These minor, uncertain, illusory tax benefits are supposed to be an incentive for manufacturers to move into a depressed area. It is no wonder that on March 18 the Financial Post wrote as follows:
We find it difficult to believe that the government could seriously consider the new regulation as a genuine tax incentive.
Indeed, these new regulations are a farce in so far as they are a part of that massive attack on unemployment that the Minister of Labour talked about. Oh, they may have some use. We hope they may attract some industry into the depressed areas, if those depressed areas can meet these confused and restrictive criteria; but as to being a massive attack on unemployment, they do not make sense. Perhaps the Prime Minister or some member of his cabinet will tell us how much work is likely to be created in this period of high unemployment by this kind of regulation which has been described in these terms by the Financial Post.
I will put another paragraph from the Financial Post on record. It reads:
We will not be surprised if the new regulatiot provides more employment in the civil service ir. Ottawa than it does in the depressed areas of the country.
Let the Minister of Trade and Commerce rub his hands, put on his cheerleader's hat and give us a pep talk on this governmental triumph, this massive attack on unemployment. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is something a little more impressive than this kind of sham attack.
Leaving out general policies created for expansion, which would affect the depressed areas-but I would be out of order if I talked about them, Mr. Speaker-may I mention

what we think are the special measures which should be taken at this time for this special problem? Not all of these matters can be applied in the same way to all areas of surplus labour. At our convention in January, when we dealt with these matters, we said this and I quote from the resolution:
A new Liberal government would co-operate with provinces and municipalities in providing tax incentives to encourage industries to locate in such areas.
This is not the kind of miniscule tax incentive which is in these regulations in their present form.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did the Leader of the Opposition ever define his?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will begin to do that if my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience. I go on to read from our resolution:
It would see that more credit is available to business in these areas. It would help to finance power, transport and other basic economic developments. Through programs for urban and rural rehabilitation, it would see that both credit for private business and money for public improvement are readily available.
On July 29, 1960 I had this to say in the House of Commons, as reported at page 7320 of Hansard:
If we want as a nation to deal effectively with the employment problem and at the same time to minimize the expenditure of public funds, we must arrive at a regional formulation of certain national policies, and in order to arrive at such a formulation we must know in greater detail and much more concretely than we do now the different structures and the peculiar behaviour of our economic regions.
We have made proposals in this house, Mr. Speaker. We made them on May 3, 1960, in 1959 and in 1958 to deal with this question of chronic unemployment in depressed areas. I am going to sum up the position we have taken over recent years in this matter by putting these proposals on Hansard at this time in the form of a six-point program for areas of chronic and serious unemployment:
1. An area rehabilitation agency should be set up within the federal government to implement, in co-operation with provincial and local authorities, an over-all program of economic assistance to the depressed areas of our country. That agency of the federal government should designate under the responsibility of the federal government such areas on the basis of suitable criteria and carry out detailed and concrete studies of their economies. The criteria for this purpose would not be these of the regulations put forward by the Minister of Labour which in our view do not go far enough, but would be much closer to the criteria laid down in the report of Professor Judek.
Labour Conditions
2.	A flexible fiscal policy should be adapted to the specific needs of those areas which may require special encouragement to develop their primary resources, to establish new secondary manufacturing industries, to improve their transportation facilities or to increase their export trade.
To be more specific on this point, Mr. Speaker, such a flexible policy could include
(a)	capital grants for development, such as the Atlantic provinces development fund, which we have advocated for some time;
(b)	tax incentives such as temporary tax exemptions or concessions for distressed areas, to apply not only to new industries moving in, but to the expansion and modernization of industries already in the areas;
(c)	special consideration for distressed areas in public works programs; (d) special consideration for such areas in winter works programs, with the federal share of the cost extended to include cost of materials as well as labour costs.
3.	Easier credit facilities should be made available to depressed areas. For that purpose the industrial development bank should be separated from the Bank of Canada and operated vigorously to provide capital assistance for depressed areas, a proposal which we have made time and time again inside and outside the house.
4.	Special training and retraining programs should be implemented in order to prepare the workers displaced by declining industry for new or expanding industries. These programs should be closely related to the requirements of redevelopment projects and unemployed persons should be given allowances for these retraining programs.
5.	Special urban renewal measures should be implemented to clear blighted areas for new industry or housing, with a municipal development fund set up to facilitate the financing of the municipal share of these measures. The federal government should increase from the present 50 per cent level its share in the cost of clearing blighted areas in depressed regions for any appropriate use, whether it be for housing, commerce, industry, transport or for open spaces. It should extend its contribution to cover the cost of renewing and improving basic services such as water, sewers and streets in the redeveloped areas.
6.	The rural development program proposed by the Senate committee on land use in 1960 should be closely integrated with the over-all national policy for depressed areas.
I believe that this six-point program is desirable, comprehensive and responsible. It recognizes-as other countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries have

Labour Conditions
already recognized-that the problem of depressed areas is a special one and requires special treatment adapted, of course, to Canadian needs and conditions. It is in line with the recommendations made by experts in this field such as Professor Judek whom I have mentioned and Professor Cairncross of the United Kingdom. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it is significant that Professor Cairncross, a well known British economist, who was appointed by the present Minister of Forestry, (Mr. Flemming) and the other premiers of the Atlantic provinces to make a study of the economic problems of that region, has come out in his report with two major proposals which we on this side of the house made over a year ago. The first one has to do with the encouragement of secondary manufacturing industries through tax incentives, which I mentioned again this afternoon, and the other envisages the reorientation of the industrial development bank for regional purposes, which I also mentioned this afternoon. So I hope that during this discussion the Minister of Forestry will tell us what he now thinks of those proposals.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the proposals I have made are supported by the presentation made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to the Senate committee on manpower and employment on February 15 of this year, I believe. It is supported also by the Atlantic provinces economic council. We on this side believe-and we reiterate our belief which we have expressed many times- that such a program as this one is needed in Canada at this present time of unemployment emergency. We also believe that the measures implemented by the government to assist in the solution of this problem, the regulations already brought down by the government as a solution to the problem are unworkable and too restrictive and that they will be ineffective. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai):
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the provision for double depreciation announced last December will prove ineffective in dealing with the problems of depressed areas, and regrets that the government has imposed the responsibility for the designation of such areas on the municipalities, and that the definition of depressed areas is too restrictive."


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of any objection I propose to put the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).


Mr. Waller Pilman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the amendment I should like to refer to the interesting comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) on the meeting that was held in Ottawa last week. What does interest the
group in this corner is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was able to discern so easily a party which he felt was centred at the top.
If I may paraphrase the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), ''You ain't seen nothin' yet". I suggest that next July there will be a real meeting here in Ottawa and that at that meeting you will see the rank and file in action. You will see something new in Canadian politics. Not only will the resolutions come from below but the money will come from below too.


An hon. Member:: Below the border?


Walter George Pitman: The people who paid for the party will be making the resolutions and they will be accepted as policies. There will be no equivocation about whether any resolution represents exactly the policy of the new party. We will take these resolutions as representing our policies. I suggest too that these policies will be decided upon by people who have been sitting in living rooms over the last two years discussing, thinking and reacting to the problems of Canadian politics. The session of the house may not be over in July but I hope that it will be over and that hon. members will remain in Ottawa because we invite all of you to come and watch a real political rally in action here in the city of Ottawa. I can assure you that no matter what the gentlemen of the press have to say about the rally they will not say it is uninteresting.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that some hon. members including the Prime Minister are still talking about free enterprise and doctrinaire socialism. I hope that this will be one of the things we will try to bring into focus before the Canadian people next July. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have need in Canada to talk about these things. I must admit, though, I find it rather difficult to understand what our friends to the left mean by planning with a capital "P". After the convention was over I noticed that somebody was asked if they expected the leaders of business to lose any initiative because of this planning. He said, no. Just how you plan from the bottom, I am not quite sure. Nevertheless, this is evidently to be the plan. May I say that next July you will have a real party of the left; and let me assure you that plenty will be heard from this political sector in the near future.
I was rather concerned, too, about the fact that our friends to the left found themselves in a dilemma in British Columbia, However, I am sure the rules would not allow me to go into that aspect of their policy, as a result of which they divided and supported a bill which negated the political rights of a large section of the people.

The last few months have been an incredible experience for all of us. Last November when we came here we expected this government would make an all-out attack on unemployment. After we arrived we discovered that really there had merely been a change in the timetable and we were only here six weeks earlier because this session was not concerned with unemployment at allin fact, the word "unemployment" was not to be mentioned. We discovered in November that the government was quite willing to put through a number of long term measures. We have congratulated the government upon their measure connected with loans to small businesses and upon their housing policy. However, what we on this side of the house expected was an immediate attack upon unemployment, one which would drastically reduce the number of people who were unemployed. I am afraid we cannot congratulate the government upon this feature of their policy.
One snowy evening last December we came into this house expecting to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) give us some hope. We thought possibly some gigantic expansion of the public sector would be revealed. We expected some unusual tax cuts in order to give the people of this nation greater purchasing power. What did we find? We found very little, merely this double depreciation for one year to new industries moving into areas in which there are a number of people unemployed. By this time we were grasping at straws. We waited and hoped that this measure would do something for those areas in which the people today are living without much hope. We waited. I am reminded by this thought that about an hour ago spring came to Canada. Winter is over. It is too bad that winter unemployment cannot be over, too. Winter is over, and the government has survived. However, unemployment remains. There has been no storming of the ramparts by those who are on relief. So far as this government is concerned they have survived the winter.
However, as I have said, we waited and grasped at this straw hoping that it would do something for those areas in which unemployment was chronic. We waited with patience from December 3 until March 2 in the hope that some announcement would be made which would enable us to go back to our constituents and say, "See what the government of Canada is going to do in order to move industry into this area and in order to create a growing, healthy economy." On March 2 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) did rise in his place and reveal that this delay was unnecessary. There was no reason for this delay because there was no real problem to
Labour Conditions
be solved. However, by this time the government had conceded that unemployment was present. During the early part of the winter the government did not regard unemployment as very serious; indeed, in their view there was no crisis at all.
On March 2 we discovered that in areas of over 10,000 which had had considerable unemployment during the summer months from 1953 onward, some help would be given and in areas in which the labour force was under 10,000 certain other measures had been suggested. These areas will be called surplus manpower areas. Certainly, this description, "surplus manpower areas" is ironic. Distressed areas are out of the picture and the term "depressed areas" is unacceptable. We call them "surplus manpower areas". I am certainly glad to know that at least one government on this continent is willing to call a spade a spade. I believe that when we call these areas "surplus manpower areas", we are only adding to the confusion.
When the Minister of Labour rose to outline his method for reducing unemployment I noticed that he gave us a few examples. I believe mention was made of Elliot Lake, Springhill and some places in Cape Breton. However, not a single secondary manufacturing area was mentioned. I would suggest that this is perhaps one of the most serious lacks in this particular policy. What is so magical about 1953? Is everyone in Canada who is receiving unemployment insurance benefits dated back to 1953 suddenly going to disappear? I do not believe so. Why do we talk about 1953? Surely this government realizes that in a secondary manufacturing area you can have an immediate crisis resulting from a simple change in trading policy or from some technological change. The whole manpower situation can be quickly changed.
I could suggest that in the city of Peterborough, for example, there was considerable employment in 1957; that is nearly four years ago. We are now going back to 1953, a time when there was absolutely no unemployment whatever in many areas now suffering. I suggest that the measure advocated by the minister takes no account whatever of the particular problems of secondary manufacturing areas such as Windsor and Cornwall. It does not take into account the different kinds of unemployment. Why do we turn to the summer months? Does this government believe the only real problem is seasonal unemployment? Does the government believe you need not worry about what happens in the winter as long as you can get by? We realize that seasonal unemployment is here, but it is only a very small part of this problem.

Labour Conditions
In many areas, there is the matter of structural unemployment. There have been tremendous changes in the uses of certain products. There have been great trade differences. As a result of these things, you have a large number of unemployed emerging very quickly. The emergence of this large number probably goes no farther back than 1958 or 1959. The measure put forward by the minister takes no account of one of the main causes of unemployment, as a result of technological change; I refer to the problem of automation. This problem has been developing for a small number of years. Indeed, the developments that have taken place in Peterborough in two years have been tremendous and have had a tremendous effect upon the labouring force.
I would suggest that the selection of 1953 as some kind of magical date is unrealistic and unacceptable. The government waits until spring comes, and I suppose we shall soon be into the summer. I am wondering what will happen. I suppose the government is hoping that summer employment will bring a measure of relief. I would suggest, as did the Leader of the Opposition, that we are not out of the woods as yet, even though 1960 might be a better year economically. If the trends of the last 10 years continue, we shall have more unemployment within another two or three years. One does not have to be an expert economist to know that this government has done nothing to ensure that this cyclical unemployment will be alleviated.
I certainly feel the greatest sympathy for the unemployed individual. The cost of his food remains high. His rent has not gone down as it did during the depression in the thirties. Surely he is becoming more disillusioned, Surely he is coming to the point where he must really face the freedom of being unemployed, of seeing his home disappearing, of seeing his family hopes and the hopes of his young people slowly "going down the drain", to put it in the vernacular. I certainly hope these young people who are here today do not judge democracy, democratic action and the possibilities of democracy by what this government has done during the past six months.
This is what the government has left us with and we are very much disgusted with it. Any city or municipality must come to this government in order to reap the benefits of double depreciation and can do so only after that area has been established as a depressed area through the research and statistics of the area itself. This surely is a matter of some considerable concern. Surely this is something that the Department of Labour should do on the basis of unemployment in 1961 rather

than on the basis of unemployment in 1953 in those areas having a surplus of manpower. We feel that this is one area in which the government should accept its responsibility, for what exists now, to an even greater extent than it does through this small and inadequate double depreciation program. We feel that this program will not be sufficient in terms of what must eventually be done. It is the view of this group in the corner that unemployment is a serious problem requiring a direct approach rather than an indirect one.
With regard to what private business can do in this regard,-and I think it has done very much during many years-it is the opinion of our group in this corner that private business does not have the power of an over-all approach to deal with this problem. We feel indeed that private business would prosper under the circumstances that we suggest. We feel it is time for a direct approach and for dealing directly through government agencies with the problem of unemployment.
I am not going to reiterate the things which have been suggested by members of the C.C.F. party. One has only to look in Hansard to see them. However, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that the following should be accepted as a subamendment to the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition:
and, furthermore, this house is of the opinion that the government should promptly implement additional measures to immediately stimulate employment and the further growth of our economy.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot accept this amendment which the hon. member submits. I shall be glad to hear the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), if he has something to say in favour of this proposed amendment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am opposed to the subamendment on the ground that it would be an enlargement of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, on the specific point "double depreciation". If accepted, it would deal with the subject contained in the amendment to the speech from the throne which was decided upon on November 21, 1960, and which referred to economic and social planning.


Mr. Speaker:: It will not be necessary to hear the hon. member because I am of the same view. I would like to hear the hon. member who proposed the amendment if he wishes to argue its validity, but it seems to me he is faced with the decision of the house already taken in regard to an earlier amendment along the same lines. Furthermore, this

amendment is quite irrelevant to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Walter George Pitman: I do not think there is contained in this amendment any specific suggestion that in any way would confine the issue of the amendment. I am afraid I have left myself without a copy of the amendment but I think it said "additional measures" and it does not in any way stress the words of the original amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I am not able to agree with the hon. member. The difficulty with which he is confronted is that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition deals with a rather specific and narrow subject, namely the provision for double depreciation dealing with problems of distressed areas, as well imposing the responsibility of the designation of such areas upon the municipalities. The hon. member proposes a motion which goes generally into measures to stimulate employment in general and to further the growth of our economy, which was the precise subject of the amendment moved on the address in reply to the speech from the throne as well as of a subsequent amendment.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that in the amendment, which is in fact an amendment to that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition which refers particularly to depressed areas, does not refer generally to employment or unemployment but asks that the government promptly implement additional measures to stimulate employment and further the growth of our economy. It is therefore, sir, a proper amendment to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in respect of depressed areas. I hope Your Honour will notice that the words in this amendment do not refer to that general problem of unemployment which has already been discussed in this house but refer to the implementation of further measures which deal with distressed areas and it is therefore in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what the hon. member said but I am afraid I cannot agree with him. The proposed amendment is in quite general terms. An amendment may alter the motion; it is not supposed to enlarge upon it and it particularly should not go beyond the scope of the original motion.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, the various debates on unemployment which have taken place in this house during the present session have only served to reveal a sad state of affairs in its naked ugliness. This is a continuous problem without continuous measures to meet it. The measures which have been advanced so far by the government have failed to meet the situation.
Labour Conditions
The criteria to be used in order for a municipality to qualify for double depreciation only under certain circumstances is not only unworkable but absolutely restrictive, as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition.
In my own constituency unemployment has been creeping up at an alarming rate from a registered unemployment figure of 2,600 in November of 1960 to 4,300 according to the latest figures available. The lakehead district is now classed by the federal Department of Labour as a substantial labour surplus area. It is one of 22 communities with a labour force of between 25,000 and 75,000, so designated across the country. It can be said, without much fear of successful contradiction, that although the problem of chronic unemployment is probably more severe in Canada than in any other western nation, no nation has done less to cope with it.
Several years ago when Britain was confronted with a similar situation, the government of that country did not hesitate to launch a mass attack on areas of unemployment with a high degree of success.
The double depreciation measure announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) last December in the baby budget can hardly be classed as a great inducement to establish a new industry in a depressed area; and according to the only interpretation possible for the formula only a few areas can qualify. In other words my own constituency, because it has only in the last two or three years fallen on hard times due to unemployment, is thus by-passed.
The winter works program, while it has been of some help, has not fulfilled expectations. For one thing it has ignored the difficulties of the municipalities to finance needed projects which would employ a considerable labour force. It is indeed regrettable that it did not include participation in the cost of materials to be used in these projects. Until the government establishes a municipal loan fund, which I have advocated in this house at every opportunity, the extended municipal winter works program will not make any appreciable dent in the ranks of the unemployed.
The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities has long been on record as favouring a federal-municipal loan fund and in its submission to the government on February 7, 1958, it urged that such a fund be established. I wish to emphasize the fact that such a fund has been specifically requested and has received unqualified support across the country from the municipal governments. Moreover, nearly all the provincial premiers are on record as endorsing a municipal loan fund.

Labour Conditions
In recent years local governments have been pratically forced to stand aside and allow all senior levels of government and private industry to gobble up nearly all the available supply of money. To finance the most necessary and urgent needs, such as schools, sewers, water mains, hospitals, paved streets, parks and recreational facilities, local governments have had to borrow at excessive rates of interest and it has often been difficult to obtain funds in Canada, thus forcing municipal governments to borrow in New York and helping to create the unnatural rise in the value of the Canadian dollar, with a detrimental effect on our exports.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is now speaking has not yet mentioned any of the three subjects which are delineated in the amendment. He has said nothing about double depreciation; he has said nothing about what the opposition likes to call the depressed areas and their problems; and he has said nothing about their designation, and so on. He is dealing with a very wide-ranging list of subjects on the general subject of employment.


Hubert Badanai: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said by the house leader, will he now indicate what the government says are depressed areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Fort William, who has the floor, has heard the objection that has been taken. I have been listening to his remarks which seemed to me to be verging on the second part of the amendment relating to the responsibility of the municipalities for the designation of such areas, and on the third part with regard to the definition of depressed areas.
As the house leader has said, there are three parts to the amendment, the first dealing with double depreciation, the second with placing on the municipalities the responsibility for designation of the areas in question, and the third dealing with the actual definition of the areas in question. If the hon. member will direct his remarks to those three areas he will be in order.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to all hon. members of this House of Commons, and in view of what you have just said, will you now ask the house leader-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: -who made a certain remark, to name the depressed areas?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to await the house leader's wish in that respect.


Harold Edward Winch: He cannot do it.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I am merely trying to demonstrate as effectively as I can the reason why the lakehead cities are in a depressed area. That is the only object I have in view. I am endeavouring to offer suggestions which would cure the situation.
In order to attack the problem of unemployment the municipal governments require loans at a relatively low rate of interest on a long term basis. It is therefore a matter of concern to the nation, and it is reasonable to suggest that some responsibility for the provision of funds which are urgently needed by municipalities should rest with the federal government if we are to effect a cure in the depressed areas which are concerned in this amendment.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member now name the depressed areas as he knows them?


Mr. Hellyer:: The whole country is a
depressed area.


Hubert Badanai: I am again referring to the extended winter works program designed to alleviate unemployment. Though it is a desirable piece of legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hubert Badanai: -it has not stemmed the tide of unemployment to any appreciable extent. The criteria devised by the government will not do much, if anything, towards that end.


An hon. Member:: Prophets of gloom.


Hubert Badanai: Out of 200,000 unemployed in the province of Ontario, the winter works program put to work only 15,000, or about 7J per cent of the unemployed. In my own constituency of Fort William it has accomplished even less. Out of approximately 4,300 people out of work-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member was approaching the winter works program when the house leader rose to protest that he was not discussing something relevant to the motion before the house. I quite agree that the winter works program-a program to be provided for by estimates which will be discussed in the house in due course, if they have not already been discussed-is excluded from debate on a motion to go into supply. It is not relevant to the amendment

nor is it appropriate to speak on or to discuss subjects which come directly under the estimates.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader say what is the order and principle that we are now discussing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The same as was mentioned earlier.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) made the statement of government policy setting forth the conditions upon which the government would assist new industries in areas where there has been a substantial degree of continued unemployment over the years, we were amazed to find that this so-called criterion or formula would apply only to areas which were not named, but which would have to prove that conditions of employment had been on the decline over the period from 1950 to 1960 and taking into consideration the months from May to October.
I submit that whoever devised such an impossible formula to deal with unemployment must have had a diabolical sense of humour. This formula does not meet the situation. It does not satisfy the anticipation created by the statement of the Minister of Finance who on December 20 stated:
I am pleased to announce measures to fulfil three major purposes; first, to assist new industries in areas where there is a substantial degree of continued unemployment over the years; second, to aid the development of new products from processing operations not hitherto carried on in Canada; and, third, to encourage the production of new types of goods. Double depreciation will, at the option of the taxpayer, be allowed in respect of capital expenditure incurred in the first year for these purposes but may be applied in any of the first three years.
It certainly does not help my constituency because under the formula announced by the minister on March 2 the city of Fort William does not qualify under this scheme and therefore incentive to industry and business in that locality would not be provided.
The government, however, has at least recognized the need to do something in order to alleviate unemployment. One method now being introduced in the United States by the new administration is to encourage the mass construction of public works. In my own constituency there is a definite need for a building to house the staff of the unemployment insurance commission which now occupies the old post office building constructed at the turn of the century. Its conditions are deplorable. The lakehead employment advisory committee, which incidentally is doing a terrific job and trying through every medium at its disposal to promote employment, has passed resolutions for several
Labour Conditions
years urging the government to give consideration to the construction of a new building. At this point I wish to quote two of these resolutions which point out the necessity for immediate action. The first resolution reads:
Whereas the space in the present premises of the unemployment insurance commission office at 123 North May street, Fort William, is totally inadequate to handle the volume of traffic and maintain proper standards of efficiency, and
Whereas this premises is too old (55 years) and structurally unsafe to handle the ever-growing volume of traffic, and
Whereas the structure does not lend itself to any form of expansion, because of its age, and any expenditure on an old structure of this type is deemed wasteful, and
Whereas the lack of space necessitates benefit claimants standing outside in the street in inclement weather, a condition which is certainly not conducive to good relations with the public, and
Whereas a constantly expanding labour force wil reflect greater activity in the new office, and therefore require additional space, and
Whereas certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations will have the effect of further increasing traffic through the local office, thereby necessitating additional floor space,-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a point of order being raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is now speaking about the construction of public buildings in Fort William. I cannot see how this relates in any way to double depreciation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to be a campaign of harassment of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) by hon. gentlemen opposite who have suddenly become very concerned about a rigid adherence to the rules, perhaps I might be permitted to make an observation.
Surely it has always been clearly understood that in a debate on a motion to go into supply on a matter of this kind it has always been relevant to consider the attendant circumstances. It may be that if the government did certain other things which many of us on this side think it ought to have been doing for the last three years, many places in this country would not be depressed areas.
What my hon. friend is seeking to show, it seems to me, is that the failures of the government in certain other respects had created in certain parts of the country a situation which was of such a nature that even this blind government decided it had to do something about it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seems to be making a speech on the subject matter of the debate rather than on the point of

Labour Conditions
order. I think one would have to be very strict to consider the point well taken. As the hon. member is discussing the problems of a municipality which are involved in the first part of the resolution, I do not want to be too restrictive in a debate on a supply motion.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question, in view of the suggestions of the hon. member about relevancy?


Hubert Badanai: My time is limited, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Pallet!: Is the hon. member suggesting that the lakehead is a depressed area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hubert Badanai: I shall be glad to answer the question later.


Mr. Pallell:: The hon. member cannot answer.


Hubert Badanai: I can answer it, all right. I continue reading the resolution:
Now, therefore, be it resolved that we, the lake-head employment advisory committee, do most strongly recommend that our regional and national committees give immediate effective support to this resolution, and that they pursue every effort to indicate the need for adequate and suitable new office premises for the unemployment insurance commission at Fort William and,-


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Fort William has the floor.


Hubert Badanai: I continue:
Be it further resolved that the local, regional and national committees urgently request that the federal government, through the departments concerned, take immediate action to construct new and adequate premises to house the unemployment insurance commission office and staff in Fort William.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Hubert Badanai: That resolution was passed in February of 1959. Another resolution passed in January of 1960 relates to the same subject. I shall quote only three paragraphs in the interests of brevity.
And whereas the building now used is much too small to properly handle the volume of traffic processed there, it necessitating claimants standing outside in inclement weather often in below freezing temperatures,
And whereas the existing building is in a generally deplorable condition and reflects discredit on the commission and whereas incidents have occurred which could have caused serious injury to claimants or personnel,
Now therefore, be it resolved that in the opinion of this committee immediate steps must be taken to erect a new building at Fort William to provide adequate facilities for the efficient and orderly operation of the commission's business at that point.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member permit me to hear the hon. member for Vancouver East on a question of privilege?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to say previously, the hon. member is discussing matters that are beyond the scope of the terms of the resolution before us. The discussion has strayed into the subject of unemployment insurance and various other matters. I take it that in our discussion from this point on we are free to discuss these matters.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member scarcely raised a question of privilege. If the hon. gentleman takes a point of order that the hon. member for Fort William was going beyond the terms of the resolution he may have a point but I consider that the resolution calling for the construction of a new public building in Fort William perhaps has something to do with aid to depressed areas and I did not intend to be unduly restrictive as I said earlier. When the hon. member makes his own intervention he will have to guide himself in terms of the subjects he discusses.


Harold Edward Winch: Unemployment insurance was also mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member takes exception to what is being said by the hon. member for Fort William, he is entitled to do so but the mention of unemployment insurance was surely incidental. The hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to complete his address.


Hubert Badanai: I must say that the Minister of Labour is aware of the conditions and I give him credit because I believe he has also recommended that a new building be provided.
During a recent visit to Fort William I had occasion to go into the customs building.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is really getting out of order now.


Hubert Badanai: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must ask the hon. member whether he does not think now that he is back again on a specific subject of the estimates of the Department of National Defence? He is dealing with the production of a specific vehicle, not with any measure that has been advocated in the amendment. I would ask him to stick to the amendment.


Hubert Badanai: I merely wish to point out some of the basic reasons why we have so many unemployed in the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur. Some of the people who live in Port Arthur work in Fort William in the Canadian Car plant, and some people living in Fort William work in the shipbuilding yards in Port Arthur. This is the reason why I have mentioned these two industries in these two cities.
The consternation which was caused in the city of Fort William by the Prime Minister's statement was that it was extremely doubtful whether the company would be in a competitive position if the manufacturing took place at Fort William. This is the point, Mr. Speaker. The suggestion contained in the Prime Minister's statement was that the local Canadian Car Company cannot compete with plants in other parts of the country. This is another way of saying that the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William cannot hope to share in any big way in future defence contracts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, you have just warned the hon. member that this matter has really nothing to do with the motion which has been made and he has, I think, deliberately defied your ruling by going right ahead and talking about this matter of the possible contract at some time in the future for the production of the Bobcat.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; I was following what the hon. member said. It seemed to me that he was dealing with the competitive position of the company, which could be related to the question of depreciation and this resolution. Unless he returns to the specific subject to which I objected I think I should let him proceed.

Labour Conditions


Hubert Badanai: The point is this, Mr. Speaker. I have given the explanation and it is one of the reasons why the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur have so much unemployment. We take great exception to any statements which would create the impression that it costs more to produce at the lakehead than it does elsewhere. Such statements are illogical and are not borne out by the facts. That is all I wish to point out. I want everybody to know that manufacturing can be done in Fort William as cheaply as it can be done anywhere else. As a matter of fact, we have some advantages and I hold in my hand figures to demonstrate what I am talking about.
Out of 24 classifications for the production of the Bobcat which involves bench fitters, carpenters, assemblers, electricians, inspectors, jig borers, machinists, mechanics, painters, plate workers, sheet metal workers, storekeepers, tool makers, welders and truck drivers, the wages of 19 of the classifications were in Montreal from one cent to 19 cents per hour higher; in four of the 24 classifications the wages in Fort William were from eight cents to 10 cents an hour higher; and in one classification they were the same. This proves conclusively that wages are certainly not the reason for favouring Montreal over Fort William on any kind of production.
The lakehead cities can point with pride to records in the production of aircraft and shipbuilding during and after the last war. Can the Prime Minister or anyone else tell us what has happened to render these two cities unfit for participation in defence production?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seemed to me to go back on the track, but as he has proceeded I find that he is still debating the subject of production and the choice of some other place for the production of Bobcats or some particular vehicle, a matter which, as I pointed out to him, was quite irrelevant to the motion and was out of order because it is a matter for discussion on the defence estimates.


Hubert Badanai: In deference to your suggestion, Mr. Speaker I shall not dwell any more on this particular point.
I fully realize that the lakehead is not the only region suffering from unemployment. The crucial difference is that we are practically isolated, and therefore are more or less forgotten in favour of larger centres of population. A few weeks ago I read in the Christian Science Monitor an article which told the story of an unemployed person who was asked what was the hardest thing about being laid off, and he replied: "Selling the dog". He went on to explain that they had the dog for five years, and the youngsters did

not want to part with the dog. They cried for days. He sold it for $15.50 which he used to buy meat, something which they had not had since he was laid off. After all, unemployment statistics encompass unhappy men, frightened wives, hungry children, delinquency, demoralization and defeat.
When the government introduced the resolution to appoint a national productivity council, which had been announced in the speech from the throne last November, we all thought that perhaps here was a suggestion that might do something toward the stimulation of employment and that a council composed of men of vast experience could indeed offer valuable recommendations. However, since the council will act in an advisory capacity only-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has misconceived the opportunity that is given him by this amendment. The amendment was not selected by me. It was selected by the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member who has the floor has a copy of it before him and I suggest that if he cannot confine his remarks to the amendment he might as well take his seat.


An hon. Member:: He has his speech all written down.


Hubert Badanai: It is not all written down. Last January the Canadian chamber of commerce sponsored a national business conference on employment. The theme of the conference was an expanding economy, the key to employment. What are we trying to do? We are trying to advance suggestions in order to promote work in depressed areas such as my constituency and all others as well. The theme of the conference to which I have referred embraces in a single phrase one of the fundamentals necessary to put us back on the road to employment and prosperity. An expanding economy, which we need in order to get rid of the depressed areas, demands more capital investment and judicious handling of tariffs.
The recent budgetary resolution conferring upon the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) the power to determine the content of goods and to place an arbitrary tariff rate on the article involved does not augur well for some of our exports upon which much of our economy depends for expansion and employment. If the Minister of Labour in his statement of government policy to assist depressed areas had suggested a formula to stimulate business by allowing a company to deduct from current taxable income earnings if invested in the establishment of a new industry, or invested in certain specific areas in the promotion of low cost housing for rent or in shipbuilding, an industry which is

definitely in the doldrums-incidentally, I may say there is a fine shipyard in Port Arthur-such a measure would be the greatest stimulant to private enterprise which would be eager to co-operate with the government in planning a mass assault on unemployment.
Nothing less than an all-out effort will do. The time for half measures is past. We are living in a day and age of technological change which has taken place in our factories and our industries, on our railroads and even on our farms. The result has been a steady increase in unemployment. This is one of the factors, among others, which has contributed to our dilemma. It has contributed to the condition of the depressed areas with which we are dealing at this moment.
This is the time for the government to step in and make a study of technological developments in every industry. This would not necessarily mean interfering with private industry, but I do think that sudden changes affecting employment should be handled intelligently and with a sense of humanity. Having this in mind, the government would be well advised to ask industry to inform it before industry employs methods that will displace a large number of employees because of automation, and competent advisers should be called in at once in an effort to find an immediate alternative in the form of work for these displaced persons.
Canadians have supported in the past-and they will do so in the future-programs for the alleviation of suffering in many parts of the world, especially in underdeveloped regions. We have always done so out of sympathy as well as in the national interest. I cannot believe that Canada will not support reasonable programs for the unemployed of the nation, be they victims of a disaster or victims of technological change. Technological changes are another reason why we have depressed areas in our country. The Minister of Labour has indicated that his department is undertaking a detailed study of the problem in the railway industry brought about by automation and technological changes and that the study is similar to that being made by the royal commission investigating the automobile industry. If it takes the experts as long to look into the railway problem as it has taken them in the case of the automobile industry, this will mean that the situation on the railways will get much worse before we can expect any action from the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member take his seat. His time has about expired and it appears he is unable to observe my injunction.
90205-6-199
Labour Conditions


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate, and very rarely does the small C.C.F. group have the opportunity to have two speakers in an afternoon. We appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important question. When I look at the government side of the house I can sense a sort of you-next-my-dear-Alphonse attitude. They do not seem to want to discuss this question. However, when I discuss an amendment of this sort and this subject which is of great importance, I am always reminded of the nearly 700,000 unemployed Canadians, their families and dependents, their fears, their problems and their continuing hopes for action on the part of the government. I am also reminded of the apprehension with which many of our young people face the future because of the circumstances that exist in Canada at this time.
The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) reads as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the provision for double depreciation announced last December will prove ineffective in dealing with the problems of depressed areas, and regrets that the government had imposed the responsibility for the designation of such areas on the municipalities, and that the definition of depressed areas is too restrictive.
I read the amendment because it deals particularly with three problems, namely the provision of double depreciation, the problems of depressed areas and the definition of depressed areas. As we all know, depressed areas are areas where there is abnormal and large-scale unemployment. So I presume, Mr. Speaker, that in order to discuss the resolution intelligently we can refer to unemployment problems in depressed areas and make alternate proposals.
When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking he made reference for a moment or two to the recent Progressive Conservative conference or convention or party beano, shall I say, or whatever you like to call it, that was held in Ottawa. I cannot help referring to the fact that the Prime Minister said that the Conservative party will soon have a rendezvous with destiny. I do not know how he is going to determine that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. and amiable gentleman but in view of the treatment accorded to the hon. member for Fort William I feel that unless-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Treatment by whom?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the attitude of the hon. gentleman.

Labour Conditions


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought you were referring to Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking to a point of order. In view of the very strict interpretation of the resolution in respect of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Fort William that the employment policies of the railways were contributing to depressed areas, I think the hon. member for Kootenay West would have to show that the Tory convention was a depressed area before he could make his remarks relevant to the motion. If he can do that, I would agree with him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can do that immediately. I had a member of the Progressive Conservative party in my office before 2.30 today, and the statement he made was that it was a most depressing convention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is true the Leader of the Opposition, when he opened this debate, dealt at some length with the events pertaining to a convention held in this city last week. It may be that he made some specific point which requires an answer from members of the other parties, or another member of the house.
However, following what I described as a rather discursive opening, the Leader of the Opposition did introduce a specific resolution which is the subject of the debate before the house. 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 amendment which is before us, and which the hon. member has read, makes no reference and has no relevance to the convention which he was about to discuss. I trust the hon. member will do what other members have been asked to do, namely stick to the point before the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I bow to your ruling as usual. I mentioned the convention only because the Leader of the Opposition referred to it. I was a bit curious as to whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was going to consult an astrological chart or a medium with regard to this rendezvous with destiny.	.
However, coming directly into order, I must say that we are of the opinion that this blight on our society will not be cured by pious resolutions, declamations, the protests of any particular group or double depreciation. If that is not being in order, I do not know what is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no double depreciation at the Tory convention.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is only by the determination of the Canadian people who are willing to sacrifice some of their own comforts that this problem will be remedied. I believe that the remedying of this situation will require a great deal of thought and effective action, and particularly leadership by this government of a stronger nature than the introduction of double depreciation for depressed areas. I admit that there is no easy solution to this very complicated and involved problem which is a product of the free enterprise system. The Prime Minister stated that the free enterprise system was going to be supported during the next election by his party as against the socialist approach of this party. The Prime Minister is on the defensive in this respect because the blight is one of the effects of the free enterprise system.
We in this group offer democratic socialism not as an overnight cure but as a philosophical approach to life that will remedy this cyclical unemployment. I recognize that we live in a democracy. In a dictatorship problems can be cured by edict and by order. Dictators do not need to wait for the consent of the people. A dictator could put all the people in Canada to work tomorrow. However, in a democracy you have to recognize the parliamentary institutions; you have to recognize the democratic principles. What you do must have the consent of the people as a whole; otherwise it is not effective.
What we criticize is the failure of the government to give leadership at this time, beyond this question of double depreciation and other long term measures which are fully justified but which will not remedy the situation in the near future. In contrast to this suggestion of double depreciation and the designation of certain areas as depressed areas, we suggest the way to meet this prob-blem is a program of long term and short term arrangements. We believe that long term arrangements, as opposed to this piecemeal double depreciation program, will require a conscious effort of planning by the people as a whole instead of leaving the planning of our economy to fewer and fewer corporations whose boards of directors decide whether or not men shall be employed. This planning will require co-operation between governments, between industry and labour, between labour and agriculture and other segments of our population.
This planning is only possible with the acceptance of a totally different approach to life, a different social and economic philosophy. In this way governments can influence

the direction of investment rather than have, as I believe we have had in recent years, direction by boards of directors without any relationship to what was happening in the other provinces with respect to the development of our natural resources. We could then bring these resources into production as the result of a plan rather than have them brought into production as the result of a decision of a board of directors located in New York or somewhere like that, and without any thought given to whether or not we are exhausting our natural resources or developing them at too rapid a rate. An overall plan would provide for the education of our young people, the retraining of our older people and the rehabilitation of the disabled. Some of these things are mentioned in measures that have been introduced by the government. These are long term plans that would take some time to have effect. This planning with respect to the development of markets over the years is very necessary indeed, as is long term planning with respect to research into the economics and the development of natural resources, the use of fiscal policies and so on.
We are urging this suggestion, in general, as a long term plan in opposition to the program advanced by the government with respect to double depreciation. What about the short term program? We must do something that will have an effect in the near future. People cannot remain unemployed year after year without their morale being destroyed. I can tell you right now that I have no sympathy for the lazy man. There are malingerers in all groups in society. Since there is a small percentage of people in any group who will take advantage of any type of legislation, we find that fact is emphasized. We do not talk about the malingering of the corporations who have obtained concessions valued at millions of dollars as a result of incorrect statements, and so on.
We suggest a long term program as opposed to this short term double depreciation program. We suggest there is an opportunity for long term loans and aid to underdeveloped countries at low interest rates. We suggest this will provide outlets for our industrial and agricultural surpluses while at the same time providing increased employment and production. Is it not better to keep our workers working constantly and our farmers producing and paying income tax than to have the present-day rate of unemployment? Think of all the income tax that is lost on account of unemployment. This loss must amount to hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and it results directly from the lack of markets for our 90205-6-199J
L,aoour Conditions
agricultural products. We suggest that these people should be kept employed, that the resulting increase in income tax could be used to provide the loans and aid to the needy countries, and that we then could use the immediately increased credit.
The government of this country represents all the people, and the wealth of Canada in the abstract belongs to the people of Canada. The government borrows not as companies do, but on the capacity of the total Canadian population to produce. We suggest the government of Canada could use the national credit to a much greater extent by permitting public investment programs for highways, hospitals, schools and public utilities instead of just providing this very minute remedy of double depreciation.
In the proposal for double depreciation it is suggested that it will have a benefit overnight and that companies would locate in certain places immediately. Companies do not establish industries in locations because of double depreciation or employment surpluses, but fundamentally because of the nearness of resources and the relationship between the factory, transportation and markets. These things are all taken into consideration when a company locates and it will take possibly a year or two before these companies get into operation. In the meantime this double depreciation program will have no effect so far as reducing the number of unemployed is concerned.
In addition to this double depreciation measure we suggest that the government undertake a national investment program for the utilization of the nationally unemployed, the utilization of idle natural resources, and the utilization of idle national credit at this time.


Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I have certain reservations, as I do not wish to place myself in the same position as that of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) who, despite the fact that he had ample notice and time to prepare his remarks, made only one statement that went unchallenged in the house, and that was the statement in which he declared Fort William to be a depressed area.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) was not satisfied with that effort but went further and classified the whole area of Toronto as a depressed area.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not only Toronto; the whole country.


Orville H. Phillips: That is typical of remarks made by hon. members of the opposition. One can imagine the harm to Canada's prestige

Labour Conditions
throughout the world resulting from statements made by representatives in the House of Commons, of which the absurd suggestion just made by the hon. member for Trinity is a perfect example. They seem to have adopted the Templeton doctrine.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) began his speech by waving his arms and various notes in the air and I thought that he was going to create a great deal of fireworks, but they seemed to fizzle out considerably. The Leader of the Opposition left this chamber immediately after he made his remarks. I thought he would have been much better off had he left before he made them. The hon. member for Fort William, I see by his absence, has followed his leader's example. Indeed, it is not too many minutes ago, sir, that there were exactly two Liberal members in this house at a time when they are supposed to be taking advantage of a supply motion in order to criticize the actions of the government.


An hon. Member:: There are only four in the house now.


Orville H. Phillips: That is four too many.
The Leader of the Opposition in introducing his remarks used all the antics of a professional clown except paint and then he went on to minimize everything this government accomplished, and if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had not called him to order he would still be criticizing this government.
The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be very conscious of the recent annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative association of Canada. Obviously, he found the number and the enthusiasm of the delegates most disturbing, as well he might. This was not a convention but an annual meeting and it far outshone any of the fiascos held down in what is commonly called the cowbarn at the coliseum.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the hon. member for Prince who does not often take up the time of this house but I assume that the rules will be enforced equally on both sides of this house.


Mr. Starr:: The Leader of the Opposition spent about ten minutes talking about this subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Labour was not here in the house when the ruling was made regarding this subject.


Michael Starr: I was in the house all the time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member does not make any specific objection, but the rules, I hope, will be enforced evenly.


Michael Starr: Do not stretch the truth too far, Jack.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Labour I think will not deny that he just made the remark to me; "Do not stretch the truth too far". If the hon. gentleman is suggesting anything which I said is in any way untrue, and if he can show me that it is, I will withdraw it at once, but unless he can do so I hope he will withdraw his imputations.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said I was out of the house when Your Honour brought to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition the fact that he was out of order. I said that he was stretching the truth because I was present at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that point, sir, what I said was that Your Honour had made a ruling in regard to this matter, and I was referring of course to the ruling which was made when the hon. member for Kootenay West was speaking. If the Minister of Labour was in the house at that time I withdraw the statement.


Michael Starr: I was in the house at that time and that is why I said the hon. member was stretching the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the minister
will withdraw his imputation.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty seems to arise out of remarks made by hon. members who did not have the floor. While I did not hear the remark, I think perhaps the explanation made on both sides sufficiently disposes of the matter.
The hon. member for Prince has the floor.


Orville H. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, before the member for Bonavista-Twillingate arose on the point of order I intended to refer to a few of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in introducing his motion. I should particularly like to explain one matter to him and correct the impression he left on Hansard regarding the resolutions put forward at the recent annual meeting.
Before the meeting was called various associations were requested to submit resolutions, and approximately 200 to 250 resolutions were received by the resolutions committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Kootenay West was not allowed to proceed on this line of argument, on the ground that it was in no way germane to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I submit that neither should the hon. member for Prince be allowed to proceed.

Labour Conditions


Mr. Speaker:: As I recall the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West, he was referring to the convention in his own terms. As I now understand the hon. member for Prince, he is replying to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. Even though it would be out of order to introduce a discussion on the Conservative convention in debating the resolution now before the house,
I could not prevent the hon. member from replying to a statement made in the course of such debate. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will appreciate that this is a necessary right of reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit with the greatest possible respect, sir, that my hon. friend from Fort William was departing a great deal less from the subject matter of this amendment which, as Your Honour rightly pointed out, has nothing whatever to do with the recent Conservative meeting.


John George Diefenbaker: Then why was it introduced by the Leader of the Opposition?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the Prime Minister would like a reply to that question, I should be very happy to reply to it. The Leader of the Opposition spoke before he had introduced a motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and it is a well known rule of the house, which I admit is frequently transgressed,-


Michael Starr: By the Liberals only.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to proceed. It is a well known rule of the house, which I admit is frequently transgressed, that once a motion has been made the debate on that motion must be relevant to the motion, whatever scope there may have been before the motion was made. I say that rule is often transgressed.
I should never have thought of raising this point of order in the ordinary course of events, but in view of the harassment which the hon. member for Fort William endured from hon. members opposite, starting with the house leader, when he was seeking to talk on subjects quite germane to this motion, it does seem to me that the Chair, having embarked upon the very strict interpretation of the rules that was applied to the hon. member for Kootenay West, should apply that strict interpretation of the rules equally to both sides of the house. That is all I am submitting.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member makes one proposition for which I would require support; that is, that remarks made by the mover
of the resolution before the resolution was actually moved, which would not have been in order afterwards, cannot be referred to. Unless I have some authority to the contrary I propose to follow the course which would permit an hon. member, in this debate initiated by the Leader of the Opposition, to make specific reference to what was said by the initiator of the debate in order to refute, contradict or comment on those things which he said, even though those things would not have been relevant after the amendment had been moved.
I know of no rule that would support the proposition made by the hon. member. I do agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the debate on this resolution has been confined to the relatively narrow terms of the resolution and alternative methods of dealing with the problem of depressed areas. I hope that all hon. members who take part in the discussion will observe that limitation.


Orville H. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, before the interruption of my remarks I was attempting to correct an erroneous impression that was left by the Leader of the Opposition. This has been the first opportunity I have had to do that, and I trust the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) will bear with me for a moment or two while I follow this line of discussion. We all know his dislike of arrogance and I am sure he would not wish to display it on this occasion.
As I was saying, the resolutions committee had received approximately 200 to 250 resolutions from Conservative organizations all across Canada. Some of them were received at least two or three months prior to the convention. They were passed on to the resolutions committee, in which every province was represented as well as members of our young Conservative groups and women's organizations.
Most of these resolutions were naturally of a complimentary nature. The people of Canada, realizing that this government has accomplished a great deal, naturally wanted to compliment the government on their achievements. Many of the resolutions were almost duplicates, and the resolutions committee met and condensed them into brief resolutions that could be readily understood by anyone in Canada. They were presented to the convention and delegates were allowed to discuss them. No effort on the part of anyone is going to be allowed to create the impression that the resolutions were handed to the annual meeting. The opposite is the truth, sir; they originated where resolutions should begin, namely at the grass roots.

Labour Conditions
In his motion the Leader of the Opposition produced a six-point program. I should like to refer briefly to several of these. The first one says that an area rehabilitation agency should be set up within the federal government to implement, in co-operation with the provinces and local authorities, an over-all program of economic assistance to the depressed areas of our country.
I was impressed with the wording of this resolution. I have in mind the objection which is embodied in the amendment, to having the federal government dealing with the municipalities, and yet the very first item presented by the Leader of the Opposition contains the words, "in co-operation with the provinces and local authorities". I fail to detect any great difference between the word "municipalities" and the words "local authorities". In my view the municipality is the local authority. In the very first point of the program the opposition have contradicted their whole argument throughout the resolution.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Orville H. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I was beginning to deal with the six-point proposal advanced by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon before moving his amendment. I mentioned the reference in the first point to local authorities and stated that there was no difference between local authorities and municipalities and if it is improper to have the municipalities dealing with the legislation on double depreciation it would be equally improper to have such legislation dealt with by an area rehabilitation agency.
The first point then goes on to refer to economic assistance. Here the Leader of the Opposition picked a very vague cliche and made no effort to outline what economic assistance would be forthcoming under a Liberal government. The hon. gentleman in his first point went on to say "That agency of the federal government should designate such areas... on the basis of suitable criteria and carry out detailed and concrete studies of their economies." This is a most interesting sentence. The first thing I would ask hon. members to note in that sentence is that it states "That agency of the federal government should designate such areas".
I recall a special debate in this house in which hon. members of the official opposition were most emphatic that it must be the federal government that would automatically

designate these areas. We now find that hon. members of the opposition have changed their minds. They are now passing over to an agency this responsibility and apparently if they formed the government they would have no desire to assume that responsibility.
That sentence goes on to state, "on the basis of suitable criteria." Here again there is no effort to outline or elaborate what suitable criteria would be under a Liberal government. The sentence continues, "and carry out detailed and concrete studies of their economies." That, sir, is the only thing that is offered to depressed areas in the first point, namely an economic survey. This is very interesting in view of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. There are a number of conclusions one can draw from this sentence. One is that the Leader of the Opposition has in his office a number of economists and that he is anxious to avail himself of an opportunity to unload them, and an economic survey would be an ideal means of getting rid of such people as Professor La-montagne from the office of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Habel:: He must worry you.


Orville H. Phillips: No, Professor Lamontagne does not worry me. In fact, I rather appreciate some of his remarks.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Sure he worries you.


Orville H. Phillips: I wish to paraphrase the remarks the Leader of the Opposition quoted from the Financial Post in which he said the present legislation would provide more work for civil servants than it would for the unemployed. I think the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition would provide work for only one class of people, namely certain favoured economists. I should like to see the Leader of the Opposition in the house at this time so that he might pick up his notes, wave them around to his followers and ask, for how many unemployed would an economic survey provide jobs?
The second point of the hon. member's proposal opens with a reference to a flexible fiscal policy. This is a wonderful old phrase which has been hashed and rehashed until it has no meaning today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notably by the Minister of Forestry.


Orville H. Phillips: I am sorry but I did not catch the interruption of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I will assume that it is like most of the hon. member's interruptions and is unimportant. The description of a flexible fiscal policy is merely designed to apply to all situations and hides the fact that you have solved none of them.

Earlier in my remarks the hon. member for Trinity stated that all Canada was depressed. In view of these remarks I should like to refer to the next words in the sentence that comprises the second point of the proposal: "A flexible fiscal policy should be adapted to the specific needs of those areas which may require special encouragement." That does not imply that all of Canada is depressed. In fact, it does not even admit that any specific area would require assistance. It merely refers to those areas which may require special encouragement and does not even mention the word "assistance".
The Leader of the Opposition went on to attempt to develop a description of a flexible fiscal policy. Paragraph (a) of the description is a real dilly. That is about the best characterization you can give it. Paragraph (a) refers to "capital grants for development, such as the Atlantic provinces development fund." The hon. member then had the unmitigated gall to say that the Liberal party had been advocating such grants for some time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is true.


An hon. Member:: What is true about it?


Orville H. Phillips: I clearly recall the 1957 election campaign. There was not a squawk out of the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with respect to the Atlantic provinces development fund. That idea originated when the Leader of the Opposition went into hibernation with an advertising agency and came up with the idea of $100 million for the Atlantic provinces development fund.
The Liberals were going to work wonders with $100 million. They were going to build the Prince Edward Island causeway, costing $125 million. Then they were going to build the Chignecto canal which would also cost at least $125 million. We are already up to $250 million. Then my hon. friends were going to throw in for good measure electric power development, assistance to the coal mines and an extensive public works program in addition to the first two items. Apparently they did not have any economist in the den with them when they hibernated and dreamed up this idea.
Paragraph (b) refers to "tax incentives such as temporary tax exemptions." I think hon. members should note the word "temporary" and bear in mind that Walter Gordon on a recent television program, when questioned on Liberal proposals for tax reductions stated, "Oh, they would be temporary, very temporary". I point out that you are not going to get any great industrial expansion on the basis of temporary tax reductions.
Labour Conditions
This proposal no doubt will be something like the six-weeks' honeymoon exemption that was offered during the last election campaign.
Paragraph (c) reads: "Special consideration for distressed areas in public works programs".
I wonder whether hon. members opposite would like to recall their criticism of public works programs that have been presented to this house. Their chief complaint was that public works programs did nothing except provide a deficit in the budget, and they were opposed to that.
Paragraph (d) is a most unusual one. It refers to special consideration for such areas in winter works programs. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition did not intend to compliment the Minister of Labour, (Mr. Starr), but I should like to join him in that compliment. The Minister of Labour was the first to initiate a winter works program, and the Leader of the Opposition now wants to join him in that regard. Probably this desire is activated by the knowledge that 1,800 municipalities are now spending $258 million on the winter works program, and are undertaking 6,000 projects this winter.
Point 3 states that easier credit facilities should have been made available to depressed areas. This is a most unusual confession and one that I appreciate very much. When hon. members opposite were in power several years ago the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming), at that time the premier of New Brunswick, made a plea to Ottawa for easier credit restrictions in the maritime provinces, the government of that day said it was impossible; that the fiscal policy had to be the same all across Canada. We now find the Leader of the Opposition admitting that they were in error on that occasion. Not only that, but they are attempting to adopt the idea proposed by the former premier of New Brunswick.
The item goes on to state: "For that purpose the industrial development bank should be separated from the Bank of Canada and operated vigorously to provide capital assistance for depressed areas." Earlier the Leader of the Opposition made reference to resolutions passed at the recent annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative association. I am sure he read them very carefully and I am rather suspicious that he lifted this one from one of the resolutions passed at that meeting.
Item No. 4 states: "Special training and retraining programs should be implemented in order to prepare the workers displaced". I presume he means in order to prepare them with new skills, and so on. This is nothing new, sir. I wonder where the Leader of the

Labour Conditions
Opposition has been in the last few months that he has not realized that this government has accomplished this in co-operation with the provinces? This program comes under the heading of education, and we respect the rights of the provinces in that regard and have attempted to co-operate with them. I am sure that the understudy of the Leader of the Opposition, who keeps pushing him to move out of the way and resign-I refer to the premier of Quebec-so that he may take over the leadership will not appreciate the wording of this paragraph.
Item No. 5 likewise contains nothing new. It calls for special urban renewal measures. The amendments to the National Housing Act passed this session permit municipalities to undertake urban redevelopment and to receive considerable assistance from the federal government.
In reading over these points I came to the conclusion that the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at the recent annual meeting cut fairly deeply into the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister quite justly stated that the Liberals had moved to the left and had adopted socialism, and we are now the only party on the right.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member's party has not moved at all.


Orville H. Phillips: The Leader of the Opposition realizes his mistake and he is now attempting to correct it by adopting the Conservative program. I am sorry to have to inform him that there is no room on the bandwagon for those who have so actively criticized and opposed this program. Hon. members opposite adopted socialism voluntarily. Why not have the backbone to stay with it? Do not attempt to take our program.
Item No. 6 has to do with a rural development program. The only thing that is new here is that it is a rehash of the name of the legislation proposed by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Deschatelets:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has the floor just said that we adopted socialism. Personally, I have never been more insulted in my life. The hon. member should withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member has never been so honoured in his life.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no moral turpitude involved, I am sure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that a ruling?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: It is not a judicial opinion.


Orville H. Phillips: In regard to the question of privilege, I would suggest that the hon. member discuss the matter with his leader and explain to him that he has been insulted by the actions of his leader.
I was saying, sir, that item No. 6 contains nothing new. It is merely a rehash of the name of the legislation produced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), namely his program for agricultural rehabilitation and development.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has referred to the six-point program which was introduced this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who moved the amendment to the supply motion. He referred to the first paragraph of this program which suggests that an area rehabilitation agency should be set up within the federal government to implement, in cooperation with the provinces and the local authorities, an over-all program of economic assistance to the depressed areas of the country. I wish to state at this time that this proposal of the Leader of the Opposition is altogether different from the proposal of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) who put the whole onus on the municipalities.
The hon. member also referred to capital grants for development. He should keep in mind the fact that as far back as 1956, the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, asked the Atlantic premiers to bring forward suggestions for a capital program for the Atlantic provinces. Up to this date we have heard very little from the Atlantic premiers in this regard.
It has been said on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government, which is called upon to spend $1 out of every $5 the country produces, can be considered as the biggest business in Canada. It is also recognized that in a country with such a diverse economy and such diverse interests it is the responsibility of the federal government to give consideration to all sectors of the economy, to all classes of people and to all regions of the country, and in doing so it must implement policies that are in the national interest. The function of the federal government is to create that kind of economic climate in which private enterprise and, more so, private initiative can spearhead the development of every region and where the national growth of the country can be shared on an equal basis by all areas and not be centralized to the benefit of preferred sections of the country.

It is most unfortunate that, on every occasion when we on the opposition side are attempting to bring forward constructive ideas, when we are urging the government to take bold and comprehensive measures to cope with the existing situation, we are accused, as we have heard in the last few days, of dredging up gloom; and of spreading talk of depression; and members on the other side even go so far as to say that we are holding the Canadian people by fear. It is most unfortunate that those to whom has been assigned the responsibility of government should be the first ones to dodge their responsibility and to try to lay the responsibility for events that happen on the shoulders of past administrations or the present opposition.
Is it the fault of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, if the unemployment figures which will be released tomorrow or the next day will show close to 800,000 unemployed in this country? Is it the fault of the opposition if those figures will be the highest in the history of Canada since the hungry 30's? I might also ask, is it the fault of the opposition if the unemployment insurance fund, a fund which was over $900 million when this government took office, is at the moment I am speaking under $200 million?
In supporting the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, it is my intention to deal with three main aspects affecting the Atlantic provinces and it is my hope that this time hon. members on the government side, particularly those from the Atlantic region, will refrain from personal abuse such as we have heard in the house on recent occasions. If our suggestions are sound and are of a constructive nature, those same hon. members would be well advised and would serve the interest of their constituents to better advantage if they would use their personal good will and their good influence to have the government of the day implement those measures which would benefit the Atlantic region and restore our economy in line with the rest of the country.
It is the duty of the government, we all know, to initiate immediate and bold action to take care of the chronic unemployment problems which we have to admit are growing worse and worse. The situation as we see it now may not adjust itself with the melting of the snow, and the coming of spring, which in fact started this afternoon, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) suggested to the house last year. The measures introduced so far have been inadequate, insufficient and incapable of meeting the serious problem of unemployment. Since taking office the government has been reluctant to face 90205-6-200
Labour Conditions
the facts and its approach to the problem of depressed areas is another example of its seceding attitude and its lack of responsibility.
The government's definition of a depressed area is most inadequate. It will create nothing else but confusion and delay. The remedies offered so far are too limited and inefficient and will not produce the effect expected because they do not offer the incentive needed to induce the establishment of new industries which the government expects to result from the application of such half-way measures as its double depreciation policy which was described to the house on March 2 last.
I said earlier that it was my intention to deal with the three main aspects affecting the Atlantic provinces. Notwithstanding the definition and the interpretation given to the house on March 2 by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) with respect to the selection of areas eligible for double depreciation, no one should question the position of the Atlantic region in so far as the application of this measure and much more effective measures is concerned. The president of the Atlantic provinces economic council, Arthur Johnson, in an address to the Canadian Club in Toronto on March 11, said that the Atlantic provinces' economy must be re-made and he added:
Even more important, it means doing it without delay.
In his address Mr. Johnson deplored the fact that the unemployment problem is more critical ii? the Atlantic region than in any other region in Canada. He described the Atlantic region as largely a primary producer for the country and, he said, one which gets no benefit from the national tariff policy and one which bears far more than its share of the cost of the national transportation system.
The Atlantic region, Mr. Speaker, is an area with surplus manpower, an area where the percentage of the labour force without jobs and seeking work is at all times much higher than the Canadian average and in certain periods almost 100 per cent higher. The Atlantic region as a whole should be considered as an area where there has been a substantial increase of continued unemployment over the years and an area which would qualify under this program without having to be subjected to the strict definition given by the Minister of Labour. As I said earlier, this program is insufficient and inadequate and should be extended much further if it is to produce the results which are expected to follow from its application.
May I refer first to the situation which prevails today in the Cape Breton area. No other area affected by the general decline

Labour Conditions
of the coal industry has felt the impact to the extent to which Cape Breton has felt it. The government must now admit its complete failure to meet this urgent problem and its refusal to recognize before it became too late the inevitable consequences which will result from the closing of a number of coal mines. While prospects for substantial new employment to replace coal mining are not bright, the government must admit that since taking office it has time after time, month after month, refused to recognize the situation and has kept away from adopting adequate measures to cope with this serious problem.
For the last three years we have urged this government to undertake, through the provision of special fiscal incentives, sufficient secondary industries in such areas where existing industry was declining. For the last three years we have urged this government that the coal industry was on the decline and that the time had come to take immediate steps to provide proper planning and investigation, before it was too late, to ascertain what could be done to meet the unemployment problem that would necessarily follow these mine closures.
As early as in 1958, over three years ago, I urged this government to introduce the necessary incentives to induce Dosco to establish their proposed steel rolling plant in Cape Breton and not at Contrecoeur near Montreal. Every time we put forward such proposals with sincerity and in the hope that the government would accept them or at least give some of these suggestions favourable consideration, we were subjected to the same type of personal abuse as that to which I was subjected in the house. I was accused of being ignorant and even of adopting a hypocritical attitude. Even if it is now almost too late, I still urge this government to explore the need for economic development in the mining areas of Cape Breton and to study the possibility of producing coal as a more competitive source of energy. Once again I urge this government to undertake at once, without further delay, the establishment of a committee of practical men to whom will be given the task of finding new industries that might replace that part of the mining industry which would be displaced by the mine closures. No coal mine in Cape Breton should be allowed to close, Mr. Speaker, without taking the necessary steps to provide alternative employment for the displaced miners; and the double depreciation offered by the government today will not take care of this most unfortunate situation.
The second suggestion which I intend to bring to the attention of the government has to do with the position taken by the Atlantic

Provinces Economic Council. APEC's position was expressed very clearly on two recent occasions, first by the executive vice president at the Atlantic conference in Halifax on September 20, 1960, and again in a statement issued concerning the APEC program on February 20 of this year. I outlined earlier the statement of APEC's president in which he expressed his views toward the Atlantic's unemployment problems during an address to the Canadian club in Toronto on March 11, only a week ago. On the average, unemployment in the Atlantic regions is just about 50 per cent higher than it is in Canada as a whole. In certain periods of the year and in some particular sections, it reaches a figure as much as 100 per cent higher than the national average. Not only must the Atlantic region be recognized as an area for double depreciation under the program advocated by the government, but the remedy offered is not adequate and will not produce satisfactory results.
APEC is calling for bold new policies in an area where the economy is weak and where unemployment threatens to remain greater than in any other part of Canada unless bold new policies are developed without delay. APEC, in its determination to solve this problem, has been able to develop such unity in economic thinking as to determine that secondary manufacturing industries alone based on local and other resources could create the 107,000 job openings which will be required in the next 20 years to bring employment in the Atlantic area up to the national average. APEC has suggested a formula which, if implemented, could substantially close the present gap of approximately 22,000 jobs which are required in the Atlantic region in order to enable that region to share on an equal basis with the rest of Canada.
From APEC's program issued a month ago today, on February 20 of this year, may I be permitted to quote briefly as follows:
The profit climate here, therefore, must be made sufficiently attractive to investors in secondary manufacturing industry to induce them to locate in the region. To this end, APEC recommends the adoption of fiscal policies having specific application to lagging regions as distinct from pinpointed distressed areas. They should also differ from policies applying to the nation as a whole in that they should have particular application to the needs of sub-average regions of which the Atlantic constitutes one.
APEC is prepared to work with responsible taxing authorities to arrive at a satisfactory formula and makes the adoption of such regional fiscal policies a major goal. It proposes a continuing study of such policies in all their aspects. Such fiscal policies should include, among other things, (a) regional tax and investment allowances and (b) accelerated

depreciation, both to be available for a stated and suitable period to permit sound business planning.
This plan, Mr. Speaker, is quite different from the double depreciation for one year which is now offered in the government's program. Before discussing further the proposals offered in this well prepared program, may I be permitted to comment briefly on the two main points offered for consideration. The first suggestion calls for regional tax and investment allowances. No such offer is contained in the present double depreciation program announced in the baby budget of December 20, 1960. I recognize that the tax incentive to business enterprises included in the baby budget is at least of some significance to the Atlantic provinces where the number of small businesses is relatively high, but it is far from being enough.
May I be allowed to point out in passing that the benefits under this measure will apply largely to firms which have passed their initial development stage and are already in the profit making stage. What is requested and what is needed is a regional tax and investment allowance or, in other words, a regional tax incentive which would induce small secondary industries to establish in the area under opportunities equal to those offered in the more populated areas where the chances of success guarantee a larger measure of security. If the economy of the Atlantic provinces is to be subjected to unusual strains, if the Atlantic position is determined by recognized factors which cause such differences with the rest of Canada, then we must take it for granted that measures must be implemented which will restrain or narrow the gap which is causing such a situation to the detriment of certain segments of our population and, I would add, to the detriment of our general economy. Not only is the per capita investment relatively low in the region, but the average total investment is directed to a greater extent to those sectors where it provides limited employment. In other words it is directed in large proportion to non-business investment thus providing limited and temporary employment for a limited period only. What is required is inducement and incentive for investment in our primary and secondary industries. This is not provided for in the proposal which the government now has before us.
The three primary occupations which have played an important role in the economy of the Atlantic provinces are farming, fishing, and lumbering or logging. Statistics will show that the maritime employment in agriculture alone has dropped about 50 per cent since 1940, and in the lumber and wood industry by approximately 45 per cent. Only in the 90205-6-200J
Labour Conditions
fishing and fish processing industry has employment remained fairly constant.
The problems of agriculture, as they affect the eastern provinces, are presently receiving attention in the consideration of the estimates of that particular department. I should like to point out at this time that the fishing and fish processing industry also occupies an important position in the economy of the Atlantic provinces and should be considered seriously under this program.
In the post-war period there has been increased activity in the building of modern fishing vessels and processing plants. Here again there is room for improvement and expansion, and here again we see an opportunity for the application of a policy of regional tax and investment allowances. In the construction of fishing vessels alone, the federal government has not varied one iota in its policy since 1946, which is 15 years ago. The construction of fishing vessels alone is an important factor as a source of employment in the Atlantic region. I am one of those individuals who believe in the expansion and modernization of our fishing fleet. Large quantities of fish are in our waters, but large quantities are caught by foreign ships and, in many cases, taken to Europe to be processed and reshipped to this continent. We in the Atlantic region can increase our production and our sales, and can produce additional employment for our unemployed. Sound expansion will require larger boats, modernization of equipment, and a larger market or outlet particularly on this continent.
A system of investment allowances should be introduced which would also apply to trawlers or draggers built in Canadian yards. I believe in Canadian built ships because I want to keep our Canadian shipyards in operation, and I am convinced that our Canadian shipyards and workers are qualified to do the job and do it right. I admit that the cost of construction will be higher than that for ships built in foreign yards, but this is where the government should intervene with a regional tax and investment allowance policy and, when necessary, with substantial grants in order to allow our producers to compete with foreign built trawlers. The opportunity is here for the Atlantic provinces to increase employment and to bring to our region each year additional millions of dollars of new wealth which could be distributed to fishermen and shore help alike.
The government of this country is missing the boat in not recognizing the possibilities of development of our fishing industry. The Atlantic provinces are doing their share to promote this vital industry but the financial resources at their disposal are too limited

Labour Conditions
to reach the goal which they would like to attain. Is it logical that the fishing industry today, outside of technical assistance and advice provided by the Department of Fisheries, should be operating on the same basis as that which was established, as I said earlier as far back as 1946, and with the same measure of assistance? Again I could be called to order if I attempted to elaborate on this most important factor of our maritime economy, but may I be allowed to ask the government if it is logical to be granting today, under the present high cost of construction, the same subsidy of $165 a ton on the construction of fishing vessels of the dragger or long-liner type when in 1946 or 1947 a 60-foot dragger cost in the vicinity of $30,000 against a cost of $60,000 today for a similar boat?
As I said earlier in my remarks, APEC has set the requirement of a depressed area. If the government does not want to accept their definition may I be allowed to say that not only has APEC set the requirements of a double depreciation area but it has shown that the Atlantic region, with unemployment rates 5 per cent above the national average, needs now 22,000 new jobs, and that the main source for the provision of such jobs relies on the development of secondary industry.
Before reaching the third and last point of my remarks concerning Atlantic problems, I should like to stress the importance of concentrating on a type of investment which has greater ability for providing continuing employment. I am not against investment in housing, public buildings or others, but I urge the government to give particular consideration to the type of investment and the type of public projects which could help in providing continuing employment in such depressed areas as the Atlantic provinces. I have in mind particularly the improvement of harbour facilities for fishing and shipping purposes.
In my own constituency of Gloucester improvements are required for the port of Bathurst. Such improvements would be beneficial to existing industry and would lead to further expansion and increased production of our natural resources. In other areas such as Maisonnette, Lower Caraquet, and Pigeon Hill, improvements to landing and docking facilities would result automatically in increased fish production, additional employment and increased revenue for the communities concerned. Those are the types of investment which should be of concern to the government. Improved shipping or transportation facilities, to the benefit of existing natural resources, and such projects as the Chignecto canal, are the types of investment which should concern the federal government. They are the types of investment in capital projects which should

receive priority in the government's program in its willingness to meet the problems and the needs of the Atlantic region.
I have now reached that part of my remarks which will deal with a study sponsored by the Atlantic provinces research board. This study was referred to very briefly this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition when he made reference to the proposals offered by Professor A. K. Cairncross in his report "Economic Development and the Atlantic Provinces".
In the introduction to his report, which I now have before me, Mr. Cairncross discloses the purpose of his study and describes the terms of reference of his proposed survey. I will not take up the time of the house by going into the detail of those terms of reference. In the first part of his report Mr. Cairncross deals first with the monetary policy and its effects on the economy of the Atlantic region, and in the second part he refers to the problems of regional economic development for an area where the economy lags behind that of the rest of Canada.
It may be noted here that Mr. Cairncross has fully recognized the position of the Atlantic provinces and the significant disparities which call for special measures from the federal government level. In other words, he did not have to use the restrictive and unworkable criteria suggested by the Minister of Labour to determine that the Atlantic region must be accepted as an area requiring appropriate policies.
He certainly did not shift the initial responsibility to municipalities and he did not hesitate to suggest on the part of the federal government more flexible and selective policies which in his judgment should be applied to the Atlantic region without any doubt or hesitation.
In reviewing the effect of monetary policy on the economy of the Atlantic provinces Mr. Cairncross admitted that a large part of the flow of credit into private investments comes, not from private but from public institutions. In his opinion there is nothing in the nature of things obliging these institutions to charge a uniform rate of interest on their loans or to make credit available on similar terms to all borrowers. He states in one section of his report:
If money is tight elsewhere in Canada, the Atlantic provinces cannot be completely sheltered from the consequences merely by a decision on the part of the banks to go on lending in that area as before.
This is very significant to the economic development of the Atlantic provinces.
In summarizing his remarks on monetary policy he added these words, which are to be found on page 6 of his report:

I should like to make one further general comment. "Tight money" is an intermittent phenomenon and relief from tight money is unlikely to be of more than intermittent help to a region like the Atlantic provinces. If the grounds on which such relief is claimed are the unemployment and underemployment of manpower, and if these are not intermittent but chronic, then the action called for should be designed to remove the underemployment progressively and should not be limited to providing temporary relief, any more than one should treat toothache with an occasional aspirin.
Mr. Cairncross came to the conclusion that bank finance alone was not regarded as one of the major obstacles to economic growth in the Atlantic provinces and that it has not been a major factor in the fluctuations in activity in that particular region. In fact he went even further when he declared that whatever the conceivable effects, the real effects of credit restriction within the region appear to have been far less conspicuous than the damping effects of credit restrictions outside the region and of obstacles to expansion in other markets. This, again, is very significant to the situation we have to face today in the Atlantic provinces.
In other words, he said the existing monetary policy in its general application was detrimental to the economy of the Atlantic region and contributed in no uncertain terms in creating a contraction in markets which was reflected largely in areas which already operated under unfavourable conditions.
Mr. Cairncross made it very clear and significant that he could see no way of keeping interest rates on private loans in the Atlantic provinces below the rates obtainable on comparable loans elsewhere. But he did not hesitate to suggest that loans from public bodies were quite another matter and this did not prevent such agencies as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation relieving existing shortages by allowing the building industry more leeway and offering special help where it was most needed. He did not hesitate to suggest that such agencies as the industrial development bank could apply special or preferred policies to the Atlantic region.
I know that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming), who was one of the Atlantic premiers who asked for the services of Mr. Cairncross, would be interested in expressing his opinion and showing his influence with the present government so that some of the recommendations made in this report could now be implemented to the advantage of the Atlantic provinces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What report is this?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This is the report of Mr. Cairncross, who was engaged by the Atlantic
Labour Conditions
premiers to make a survey of the economic development of the Atlantic provinces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member answer a question? Would the hon. member inform the house how he relates that to the motion before us?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I certainly relate this report to the motion which is now under consideration. The amendment introduced this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition is to the effect that the double depreciation program now offered by the present government is insufficient, ineffective and cannot cope with the situation. It cannot benefit the Atlantic provinces; it cannot benefit depressed areas. The recommendations made by Mr. Cairncross are certainly in line with the policy which should be adopted by the present government if they wish to be of any assistance to the areas concerned.
In his possible line of action Dr. Cairncross went even further. Here he was dealing directly with the economic development of the area. He says as found at page 32 of his report:
First of all, since the principal handicap to industry in the Atlantic provinces is distance, there is a presumption that lower transport costs would be of immediate help, particularly if the reduction were concentrated on outward freight.
Further on in his report he says:
I come finally to tax incentives.
Tax incentives certainly have some relationship to the double depreciation offer now being made by the present government. Dr. Cairncross continues:
I assume that such incentives, to be effective, would have to be offered exclusively in scheduled areas of Canada; and for administrative reasons these areas would almost certainly have to coincide with provinces.


Orville H. Phillips: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is reading from the Cairncross report, which is not available to all hon. members of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Orville H. Phillips: -and which has not been tabled.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Go to the library and get it.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired and it will be unnecessary to deal with the point of order.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) moved a motion for the house to go into committee of supply the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) rose to

Labour Conditions
speak. After touching upon many subjects prior to coming to the particular item on which he intended to move his amendment, the Leader of the Opposition eventually moved the amendment that all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that the provision for double depreciation announced last December will prove ineffective in dealing with the problems of depressed areas, and regrets that the government has imposed the responsibility for the designation of such areas on the municipalities, and that the definition of depressed areas is too restrictive,"
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in moving this amendment had before him, as he admitted, the whole field of government action. The hon. gentleman pointed out in his preamble to this amendment that he had an opportunity to deal today with whatever problem he and his party considered was of the greatest importance and difficulty in our country at the present time. What he selected was the formula to deal with double depreciation for those areas where industrial employment has fallen off.
The Leader of the Opposition does not like the formula that has been set up by the government. The hon. gentleman said that if he had it to do he would do it differently. As I pointed out the other day, if the hon. gentleman and his party had it to do they probably would not do it at all.
It is interesting to note that the hon. member spent a good ten or 15 minutes of the time allotted to him in dealing with the sins of omission and commission which took place at the great Conservative rally which just terminated in this capital city of Canada. May I say this. What a demonstration that was of party unity and of party harmony compared with the disorganized efforts of the recent Liberal party catastrophe which took place last January. Who can ever forget the immortal television appearance of the Liberal leader or his immortal line "Better get them out of the way." Yes, the accent was on youth at that disorganized rally in January, so much so that the youth got shoved aside so the Leader of the Opposition could have his moment on television.
What a difference there was in that hurried almost panting exhibition of disorganized frenzy compared with the high-level statesmanlike discourse of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) last Friday night.
When we talk about disorganization it seems pertinent to point out that there appears to be a great deal of disorganization in the Liberal party these days. The Toronto Globe and Mail recently carried a report of a meeting held in Brantford on March 19. According to the newspaper account the hon. member

for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) urged the young Liberals to become the radicals of their party. She is reported to have said that the Liberal party had become conservative at the top and now was the time to build from the ground up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We believe in free enterprise.


Michael Starr: Every man, woman and child in this country, as they watched and heard the Prime Minister on television when he spoke on Friday, must have felt that here was a great Prime Minister worthy of a great country. When we look at the overseas newspapers this week such as the great London Times and others, it can be seen that the Prime Minister of Canada was the dominating figure at the meeting of commonwealth prime ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not like to interrupt the minister but while it would be permissible, as I have indicated earlier, to reply to the reference of the Leader of the Opposition to the Conservative conference, I do not think the hon. gentleman brought in the prime ministers' conference in London and it would be quite out of order to deal with that.


Michael Starr: I simply wanted to point out the difference between the actions of the Leader of the Opposition and those of our great Prime Minister and to illustrate in what great respect the Prime Minister is being held the world over.
What does this amendment to the motion amount to? It states that the provisions relating to double depreciation will prove ineffective. How are hon. gentlemen opposite in a position to decide this at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We can read.


Michael Starr: This is the same old negative attitude that we have come to expect from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, time and time again. Why do they not give this proposition a chance to work itself out?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Work itself out?


Michael Starr: How do they know it is not workable?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Three and a half months.


Michael Starr: It was announced only on March 2.


John Whitney Pickersgill: December 5.


Michael Starr: The criteria were announced on March 2. There is no use twisting and turning and attempting to say it was announced in December. In the baby budget it was announced that this proposal would be brought forward and the criteria were announced March 2.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And nothing has been done since.


Michael Starr: Why are hon. members opposite in such a rush about this it they do not believe it is of any value? The municipalities do not think in the same way as hon. members in the official opposition do.
Since I made the announcement in the House of Commons on March 2 last with respect to surplus manpower areas there have been relatively few municipalities which have made inquiries about their areas being included under the program. The first of these inquiries came from the city of Cornwall. The Department of Labour immediately contacted the mayor of Cornwall and arrangements have now been made to inquire fully into the employment and unemployment situation in that area. I expect a decision will be made within a few days in this case based on the findings in that area concerning the employment and unemployment situation in relation to the criteria that have been announced.
Requests for consideration and inquiries about the basis for including areas under the double depreciation program have also been received from Drumheller, Windsor and a few other areas. I have been rather surprised, especially in view of the concern expressed by hon. members of the official opposition, that we have not heard from more areas and localities. The fact that we have not done so, I feel, proves that there are not too many areas which regard themselves as depressed areas and that it was sound not to name these areas without first enabling the municipalities to request their inclusion subject to their meeting the test. I think that proves the fact.
Hon. members opposite say nothing has been done in respect to our economic situation. Since November 17 last this government has announced and brought down a total of 23 different measures and pieces of legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Twenty three?


Michael Starr: Yes, 23. If the hon. member would like me to do so I should be glad to list each and every one of them and go into detail.


George Harris Hees: Go ahead.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member would be out of order but it is all right with us.


Michael Starr: A great many of these 23 measures and pieces of legislation are "firsts" in this country. This government has not hesitated to tackle any "first" in terms of measures or legislation that would help this situation.
I might just run over the list. It includes measures relating to housing, small business, rural rehabilitation, municipal incentive, export credits, civilian rehabilitation, sewage loans and capital projects. The list is a lengthy
Labour Conditions
and impressive one totalling some 23 various measures. Hon. members opposite say these things are not enough. In many cases hon. gentlemen opposite are not prepared to give these measures a chance to work out just as they are not prepared to give the measure under discussion a chance to work out. As I mentioned a moment ago, this particular measure was announced in this house on March 2. The opposition want results. This desire comes from a party which took over 20 years merely to examine health insurance in this country. What are they really saying? They are saying, "We do not like this measure; it will not work; we would have done it differently". The same speech has been used with regard to every measure that has come before this house since November 17. Whatever it is, they do not like it. It is not enough, or it is too late.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Both.


Michael Starr: Or they would have done it differently. But, Mr. Speaker, in each and every case they stood up and voted for the measures. The point is that they had the chance but they did not do any of these things. They certainly had plenty of chances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We had full employment then.


Michael Starr: The hon. member certainly had plenty of chances in many instances to do something about the situation that existed during his term of office, or the 22 years in which his party was in power.
They say this formula is too restrictive. It is meant to be restrictive. It is an incentive formula. It is meant to be restricted to those areas in which it is needed. We want industry to go where it is needed. If you open it up wide industry will not go to those areas. Surely even the opposition can see the logic of this.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is logical; therefore they will never see it.


Michael Starr: Let us look at their six-point program. Let me say that theirs is certainly not a policy of getting there first with the most. They get there last with the least.
After all those years in office, and after three years in opposition with not a peep from them about this matter or any matter like it, they wait until this government introduced a program and then they come in with a six-point program. Are they trying to tell us that in all those years of Liberal rule, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said a moment ago, there was not a single area in Canada with problems of unemployment? Whom are they trying to kid, Mr. Speaker? What did they do about those problem areas? Not one single

Labour Conditions
thing did they do. There is no record to show that they did anything about the problems that occurred in the 22 years in which they held office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the minister ever hear of Camp Gagetown?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sat there for two minutes racking his brain and he came up with Camp Gagetown.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the minister ever hear of the Canso causeway?


Lester Bowles Pearson: And the St. Lawrence seaway?


Michael Starr: There were many areas of unemployment during that time about which the Liberal government did nothing. Never at any time did they accept responsibility for unemployment in this country in the 22 years during which they were in office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We had full employment.


Michael Starr: Now, in this session of parliament they want us to set up an agency which would designate depressed areas. Let me tell them that no area, and certainly no municipality in this country, is asking to be designated as a depressed area.
I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) when he asked that his municipality should be made a depressed area. I also wish to refer to what the hon. member for Niagara Falls said as reported at page 2648 of Hansard on March 3:
On a previous occasion I have styled as a depressed area the riding which I have the honour to represent. This has met with incredulity on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and with indifference on the part of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).
That was on March 3, Mr. Speaker. On March 6 an editorial appeared in the Evening Review, which is published in Niagara Falls, headed, "Miss LaMarsh Off Base". It reads in part:
In the light of recent industrial developments, this sector should not be classified as a distress area for special federal aid. Miss Judy LaMarsh, M.P., thinks otherwise, against the opinion of Labour Minister Starr.
Let's look at the facts: $1 million addition to the Canadian Ohio Brass; another $1 million extension at the Nabisco plant and $6 million in the new Ford plant.
With such industrial expansion it is inconceivable that our member feels we should qualify-
That is the answer with respect to the feelings of municipalities in this country when they are designated as a depressed area even by the member representing the area.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They have to do the designating themselves.


Michael Starr: What we are asking is very different. We are asking those municipalities and areas in which there has been a substantial decline in industrial employment to apply for designation as an area where double depreciation will be allowed to new industries. This is simple enough. In connection with the designation there is a formula. In speaking this afternoon the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) said he could not understand why 1953, as an example, was the date from which this was taken. I explained that matter on March 2. I said, as reported in Hansard at page 2569:
The term "surplus labour market category" used in the criteria, I might explain, has reference to the classification of labour markets which has been published monthly in the Labour Gazette by the Department of Labour since 1953.
That was the first year when these figures were published and made available. That was the reason why we went back to that date. That is simple enough. I think this explains whatever the hon. member may have had in mind.
They tell us in their six-point program that they will follow suitable criteria. They do not tell us what those criteria will be. They very carefully avoid telling us what they will be except that they describe them as suitable criteria. They do not explain to us how the criteria they have in mind will differ from the criteria in existence at the present time, which we announced on March 2. For all we know their criteria may not differ at all, but they do not set that out. They bundle up a number of other things that this government is already doing and say that this is their six-point program.
They talk about a flexible fiscal policy. Surely no government has ever had a more flexible fiscal policy than has this government. That has been proven from the date when we took office. In this six-point program they talk about tax incentives. They never heard about tax incentives until we brought in this measure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Huh.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says "huh".


George Harris Hees: He had a big dinner.


Michael Starr: Let me ask him this. When his party formed the government, did they ever have a tax incentive plan?


George Harris Hees: Never.


Michael Starr: Never. They say there should be special consideration in public works programs. We are doing this now. We have had the largest public works program any government ever undertook in this country.


Mr. Bourgel:: Public works have been going down for the last two years.


Michael Starr: They say there should be special consideration in the winter works program, and this is what makes it special. They want us to include the cost of materials. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is really a good one. For three years now since we announced the municipal winter works program they have been tearing the program apart inside the house and outside the house. Now they want it extended.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We always have.


Michael Starr: Now they want it extended. They tore it apart. They said it was peanuts, that it was no good.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: That is right.


Michael Starr: What do they do? They incorporate into the Liberal party's six-point master plan this program which was originated and inaugurated by the Progressive Conservative government three years ago. If this is what the Leader of the Opposition so frequently refers to as bold, imaginative, planning, I could not agree more. All they have to do is to pick up the measures we have brought in, demand that they go a little farther and this is the bold, imaginative action of the Liberal party. That is all they have to offer.
They want easier credit facilities and separation of the industrial development bank from the Bank of Canada. All I can say about that is that the industrial development bank started to fulfil its purpose only after this government took office. That is when it started to fulfil its purpose. Prior to that time it might as well not have existed.
They also talk about urban renewal and rural development. Mr. Speaker, these are just two more instances of measures brought in by the Progressive Conservative government and which they now seek to adopt as their own. This so-called six-point program is a phony, I submit. It is counterfeit goods, Mr. Speaker, and this is easy to prove. When you remove from their program the measures already brought in by this government, what have you left? You have a two-point program and a very feeble and shaky one at that.
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition spent so much time in following on television the great Conservative convention and reading about it in the press. No doubt we shall soon be having more new ideas from him and his cohorts, all based on ideas already introduced by the government. But let me say this, Mr. Speaker. This method of operation makes being in the opposition a pretty simple business.
Labour Conditions


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, in his baby budget on December 20 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said, as found on page 1007 of Hansard, that he was anxious to do everything within the means of the government to encourage initiative and enterprise. In other words, he would do everything possible to stimulate our economy. Then he went on to say:
As a powerful Incentive to these ends I am pleased to announce measures to fulfil three major purposes: first, to assist new industries in areas where there is a substantial degree of continued unemployment over the years; second, to aid the development of new products from processing operations not hitherto carried on in Canada; and, third, to encourage the production of new types of goods.
The minister proposed to accomplish these things by allowing double depreciation on capital expenses incurred on new construction and new machinery purchased to accomplish these objectives. He proposed that the taxpayer would have the option of writing off these expenses on the basis of double depreciation in any one of the first three years. The need was great and, as the Minister of Finance said, the incentive was powerful but it took over two and a half months for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) to get around to announcing the regulations in the house on March 8.
Earlier on March 2 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) announced certain very restrictive criteria which would apply and which municipalities and areas had to meet before double depreciation would be allowed. Under the regulations municipalities must apply and prove their cases. Some municipalities had been interested but when they saw in the press that not even Elliot Lake could qualify under these restrictive regulations they lost interest. I heard the Minister of Labour say earlier tonight that municipalities did not want to be classified as being distressed areas. I know of municipalities right now that do not think there is any use in applying because of what they have seen in the press concerning Elliot Lake. I will come to that matter a little later.
I heard the minister and others refer to what took place at the Conservative powwow last week and I would have thought they might refer to double depreciation but there was nothing in the press about it. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) said, "All we need is confidence and faith". He did not say whether we should have confidence and faith in the Almighty or in the Tory party. I imagine he meant the Tory party.
To my mind the Minister of Finance seemed to be in a haze and to be going about in a world of unreality.

Labour Conditions


John Whitney Pickersgill: After all, it was a Tory convention.


William Hector McMillan: He did not refer to unemployment or double depreciation. To use his words, he said that there was a terrific financial mess at the time the government came into office although at that time Mr. Harris had a surplus. Rather than referring to double depreciation, the minister referred to the high interest rates under the former government; but he did not tell the convention that the average interest rate on our debt was under 3 per cent, being 2.97. He admitted that himself in his first budget speech. He did not tell the convention that he and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) went on the air and begged, pleaded and paid the people to convert their bonds and bring the interest rate up to 4J per cent.
I should like to refer to one other thing and then I will leave the Minister of Finance. He did not talk about the high interest rates that resulted from his excessive borrowing to meet overspending. The minister did not abandon this high interest rate policy until the press of this country called for more sanity in finance. He attempted to use more sanity in finance after that.
I would refer to that convention as a "flopnik". It certainly was a "flopnik" if you listened to the commentators. It messed around and sputtered around a bit but never got off the ground.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the last part of his speech, the hon. member has been dealing with some things that are not mentioned in the amendment.


William Hector McMillan: I was replying to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite in order in replying to the minister, but latterly I think he broke new ground on his own initiative.


William Hector McMillan: Then, Mr. Speaker, I shall just say that this is a weak program put out by a weak government. I have seen several editorials concerning this double depreciation program, but I have yet to see one that is favourable. None of the editors has been able to swallow this plan, in spite of what the Minister of Labour said earlier tonight. I believe the minister mentioned Drumheller, Windsor and other places. He said that many of these areas did not want to consider themselves as depressed areas. I know of one municipality right now that would like to come under this double depreciation program for one year.
I should like to refer to some of these editorials which appeared in newspapers that are not unfavourable to this government.


John Cameron Pallett: The municipality must think it is a good program.


William Hector McMillan: A number of these newspapers are alwoys on the side of this government whenever that is possible, but apparently that is not possible in so far as this issue is concerned. The Toronto Globe and Mail of March 6, 1961, says, "No solution here". The article continues:
The old saying about a mountain labouring and bringing forth a mouse applies to the dominion government's proposals for aiding depressed areas as outlined in the House of Commons this week by Labour Minister Michael Starr. They constitute a poorly thought out and thoroughly inadequate approach to a serious problem.
It might have been thought that any such program would begin by naming the districts or communities which the cabinet considered to be in need of special help. But Mr. Starr indicates that the government would not designate particular areas. The local authorities would have to establish, to the cabinet's satisfaction, that their communities were economically sick.
I could continue quoting from these newspaper articles. Even the Ottawa Journal says that the government has sidestepped naming Canada's depressed areas. Similar articles have appeared in the Financial Post, the Financial Times and the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. The Halifax newspaper, which I believe supports this government, terms this a debilitated program, and I think that comment is aptly worded.
Earlier today my leader put on the record a six-point program designed to help these areas of chronic unemployment. I would predict that by tomorrow the cabinet ministers will be saying they have never heard anything about it.
In the few minutes I have left, I should like to refer to my own area. Some municipalities in my area want to know whether they can qualify under this plan for double depreciation. There are many unemployed in the city of Welland, in Port Colborne and in the Thorold area. I do not have the precise figures, but over the week end I was told there were approximately 3,000 unemployed in the city of Welland. This is quite a large number. Many young people who have just entered the labour market have been unable to get work. Industries have been cutting back their labour forces. This cut-back has been the result of automation as well as a lowering of the demand for production. These industries have been unable to sell their products. One result has been that the workers in the 40 to 45 age group have been thrown out of work.
The men in this age group cannot secure new employment because of their age. Even if a new industry were established in these areas, the men in this age group would still find it difficult to get work. I have referred

before to the fact that the pension plans in many of these plants militate against older men securing employment. I believe these remarks would apply to any new plants that might be established under this double depreciation plan now proposed by the government. Even if a man in the 40 to 45 age group did take vocational training, he would still face the problem of age when he sought new employment. I think something should be done to cope with this problem. These remarks might not be quite in order, Mr. Speaker, but this is a factor in the unemployment in my area and in several other areas. Many of these people become unemployed after reaching 40, and that is the very worst time in their lives for this to happen. I feel that the government should give some consideration to this group of older workers.
I have often said in the house that something could be done through the provisions of the Income Tax Act. I think the government could provide earlier vesting in pension funds by withholding in whole or in part the right to exemptions which is allowed under the Income Tax Act. If this were done it would contribute a great deal toward helping people to find jobs. Certainly in our area a number of people have run out of unemployment insurance benefits. If a new factory were established in that area, it would help the young people. However, as I said before, you would still have the problem of the older workers. While I might be out of order, I should like to bring this problem of the older workers to the attention of the government at this time.
Some question has been raised as to whether or not the people in these areas are actually hungry. In passing, I might say that three Toronto newspapers have said there are hungry children in Toronto. During the consideration of the departmental estimates, I should like to say a word about nutrition. I think that if the government did nothing in addition to what they are now doing except to see to it that the children and others were properly nourished, they would have taken an important step at this time.
Over the week end I was talking with some officials in Welland who did not think the present regulations would allow double depreciation to the plants in Welland if they proceeded to make new products. I was informed in Welland-and I do not know whether it is so-that Welland stands second to Peterborough with the largest number of people per capita on the relief rolls in Ontario.
The government has advertised this scheme as a stimulant to our economy but I say that
Labour Conditions
it is too restrictive and inflexible to be anything of the kind. This is further evidence in my opinion that the government is giving no serious consideration to the problem of unemployment. We heard the Minister of Finance say not long ago that there was no emergency in respect of unemployment. When I heard the Minister of Finance make that remark, and when I looked at these measures brought forward by the government, I came to the conclusion that the government is not taking the matter of unemployment very seriously at all.
We heard the Minister of Labour announce the criteria the municipalities would have to meet before they could be classified as surplus manpower areas. I suggest that announcement is the biggest farce that I have ever heard in this House of Commons. According to the explanatory memorandum of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as tabled here not long ago, these areas will be eligible, under certain regulations, to be declared as surplus manpower areas by the governor in council. Municipalities must apply on certain prescribed forms and the Department of Trade and Commerce will then decide whether they are eligible as areas for double depreciation. These regulations, as I said, must be complied with in order that the governor in council can name a municipality as a surplus manpower area entitled to the double depreciation. I would appeal to the government to give to the criteria a more generous interpretation than they have indicated will be given so far in this debate.
I think it is natural that the people in my riding of Welland would be very happy indeed to have a new industry established there. I feel that this would certainly allow many of the young people to go to work and would, I hope, as well provide jobs for the older unemployed workers. I would again appeal to the government on behalf of the older workers for the establishment of a portable pension. I might suggest that no matter what trade an older man took up he would still be faced with the problem regarding his age; and he would certainly benefit greatly by the establishment of a portable pension which, as the Minister of Finance has said, could be easily done through the provisions of the Income Tax Act. If this were done I feel that many of these people would be able to continue working rather than be forced to lead lives of uncertainty, as they are bound to do for the rest of their lives without it.
(Translation) :


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is not without some curiosity that the hon. members

Labour Conditions
of this house have been awaiting the amendment to this motion which we expected from the official opposition in the course of this debate. We were thinking, and not without reason, that in view of the variety of subjects of interest to this house, perhaps for once the Liberal opposition would get away from its pet subject and would mount another horse than its traditional subject of unemployment conditions in North America.
Our curiosity has been disappointed once again. As we now know, our Liberal friends have again decided to go on discussing unemployment.
It is quite obvious for hon. members of this house that our friends in the opposition have little to complain about, and it is probably because they are short of arguments that they go on repeating, practically on the same note, the same old song on the unemployment problem. There are those among them who discuss it in rather bitter terms, perhaps because they are of a bilious nature; others deal with it in a sarcastic way, perhaps on the theory that by being funny, they may gain forgiveness for their own ignorance in relation to other problems. The fact is, however, that they keep repeating the same thing over and over again, obviously in the hope of gaining some political prestige by capitalizing on the hardships of those who, unfortunately, in Canada as elsewhere in North America, and through economic circumstances beyond our control, now find themselves swelling the ranks of the unemployed.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), at the outset of his remarks this afternoon, strongly denied that he or his associates were using this unemployment situation to make political hay. Certainly, I would not want to raise doubts about the word of so distinguished a man as the Leader of the Opposition, yet I do regard as rather strange this constant repetition of the same arguments in this house, on the political hustings, on television and elsewhere, always on the same subject, without ever a change of tone. This leads me to believe that there is certainly an underlying political motive.
I recall, for instance, what happened in this house on February 2 last, when just to put on an act for the benefit of members of the labour congress who were here at the time, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) rose and despite interruptions from the chairman and from others who were seeking to restore order, proceeded to repeat the same arguments merely to put on a show meant to impress the members of that group who were in the gallery at the

time. If hon. members go back over the official record of that discussion which took place on February 2 last, I think they will, like myself, come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Essex East in his remarks was thinking much less of the plight of our Canadian unemployed than of the political fate of the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the opposition should go on blaming the government for an economic situation which was largely the result of its own lack of foresight when the Liberal party was looking after this country's business, and of economic circumstances of considerable scope which are not only felt here in Canada, but throughout the North American continent.
One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker, there is too much unemployment, not only in some areas of this country, but everywhere in North America. However, I believe that it is important to look for the causes behind that situation elsewhere than in the present government's activities, because the situation is the result of events shaped by the second world war and the period which followed the victory in 1945.
It is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that in 1939, at a time when the nation was headed by a Liberal government, there was a tremendous amount of unemployment in Canada. In fact, if I remember correctly, I think the rate of unemployment was between 9 and 10 per cent; and without the world disruption caused by the second world war, it is certain that the government at the time would have been very hard put to find a solution to this unemployment problem which had been in existence for four years and was baffling the experts. However, war broke out and all the efforts of Canada's citizens as well as those of citizens of other countries, were concentrated on defence. The government was thus able to use all those energies, and war did away with the hideous spectre of unemployment which had been plaguing the nation under the Liberal government in 1939.
In 1945, the war fortunately, came to an end. The people of the world, at that time, were so anxious to get the things they had been deprived of during the war years that they turned to industry and trade in an attempt to acquire those things which make our standard of living perhaps the highest in the world. It seemed that the mass of buyers who wished to have a house, furniture, a refrigerator, a car, or any of those things which make modern life so enjoyable was inexhaustible. The whole world wanted to

have the comfort of which it had been deprived, and that explains why our industry, like that of the United States, went through unprecedented development.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, these countries devastated by war were bound to reconstruct their economy and came here to get those products which, unfortunately their destroyed industries could not produce. But today, circumstances have changed, so that in some sectors of our economy, where previously production could not keep up with demand, we now have a surplus production.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, those countries who suffered from the second world war have now reconstructed their economy and instead of importing are now exporting, the result being that, today, German, French, British, Italian and Japanese products are competing with American and Canadian products on all world markets.
This means that the law of supply and demand is still playing the same part it always played during the second world war, and particularly during the post-war years, with this difference that in certain spheres of the Canadian and American economy, we are going through a period when supply is greater than demand. This is the reason for unemployment in certain areas where manufacturers have to produce less of the goods that is not easily marketable.
This also explains why some businessmen are experiencing some difficulty in selling Canadian products which come in competition with those now being manufactured in those war devastated countries that are once again prosperous and that are competing with us on domestic and world markets.
The facts I have just referred to, Mr. Speaker, are well known to the members of the Liberal opposition. However, always in the hope of achieving the political aims that obsess them, our good friends in the opposition keep on blaming the government for all the evils and the uneasiness which affect our economy in certain places. Moreover, they choose to disregard completely the fact that this government has already taken every sound and reasonable step possible to maintain the economy at its present level. Our friends also continue to speak of distress,
Business of the House of chaos, of disorder and of poverty, in spite of the fact that the reports of Canadian companies show that 1960 has been, once again, a record year; in spite of the fact that, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, more workers are presently employed in Canadian industry than ever before in our history; in spite of the fact that our export trade, thanks to the imaginative policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), is expanding; and in spite of the fact that chartered bank reports indicate that, during 1960, more money was earned by more Canadians than ever before in the history of our country and that, notwithstanding the fact that more money was spent, the savings level exceeded all previous records.
But this does not satisfy our hon. friends and, in spite of the fact that our economy is really doing fine, they go on preaching their policy of gloom and doom, and this, I repeat, with the sole object of making political capital at the expense of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is ten o'clock. May I resume my seat?
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader could give us any guidance on the program beyond tomorrow. Is the program the same?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The program stands, Mr. Speaker, but I might repeat it so it is available to hon. members in Hansard. Tomorrow there will be a continuation of this debate. On Wednesday we will deal with interim supply, and if there is time that will be followed by supplementary estimates.
On Thursday we will deal with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to agricultural development, followed by the estimates of the Department of Agriculture on Thursday and Friday. Should those estimates be completed on Friday, we will deal with the estimates of the Post Office Department.


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


[Stage Direction]
Final Communique
The meeting of commonwealth prime ministers was concluded today. Pakistan, Ghana and Cyprus were represented by their presidents. The other commonwealth countries were represented by their prime ministers.
It had been agreed that on this occasion the prime ministers would concentrate their main attention on a limited number of specific problems which are currently of common concern to them all-namely, disarmament, the structure of the United Nations and certain constitutional problems affecting the commonwealth itself. At the outset of the meeting, however, the prime ministers held a general review of the international situation as a whole, in order to set these particular problems in the perspective of current world events. They also considered, in the course of their meeting, recent developments in the Congo and in southeast Asia.
The prime ministers reaffirmed the support of their governments for the efforts of the United Nations to restore order in the Congo and to secure the independence and integrity of the republic. They deplored outside intervention in the Congo and recognized that many of the problems which had arisen were due to such intervention. They considered that United Nations forces in the Congo should be strengthened and that the security council resolution of February 21 should be fully implemented.
The prime ministers noted with concern the situation which had developed in Laos. They expressed the hope that the parties would be able to reconcile their differences, that intervention from outside would cease, and that Laos would be enabled to enjoy an independent, neutral and peaceful existence.
The prime ministers held a full discussion on the problem of disarmament. They recognized that this was the most important question facing the world today and considered that a favourable opportunity was now at hand for a fresh initiative toward a settlement of it. They agreed that the aim should be to achieve general and complete disarmament, subject to effective inspection and control, on the general lines indicated in the statement in Annex I of this communique. They recalled the resolution on general and complete disarmament which was adopted
unanimously at the fourteenth session of the general assembly. They agreed that every effort should be made to implement this resolution by agreement between the major powers and that further negotiations for this purpose were necessary. Certain proposals designed to promote such negotiations have been put by various countries before the United Nations.
The prime ministers expressed their hope that the negotiations on the cessation of nuclear weapons tests, which were due to reopen at Geneva on March 21, would lead to the early conclusion of an agreement on this subject. Such an agreement, apart from its importance in itself, would provide a powerful impetus toward agreement on disarmament generally.
The prime ministers considered the various proposals which have recently been put forward for changes in the structure of the United Nations-including, in particular, the structure of its councils, the position of the secretary general and the organization of the secretariat. They recognized that such changes could only be made with general consent. They agreed that, whatever adjustments might be made, it remained vitally important to uphold the purposes and principles of the United Nations charter and to preserve the international and independent character of the secretariat. They further agreed that members of the commonwealth shared with all nations a fundamental common interest in maintaining the integrity of the United Nations as a force for orderly political, economic and social progress throughout the world.
The prime ministers also discussed certain constitutional questions relating to commonwealth membership. The conclusions reached were announced in communiques issued on March 13, 15 and 16 relating, respectively, to Cyprus, South Africa and Sierra Leone. The text of these communiques is reproduced in Annex II.
Annex I to Final Communique
Aim
1. The aim must be to achieve total worldwide disarmament, subject to effective inspection and control.

2.	In view of the slaughter and destruction experienced in so-called "conventional" wars and of the difficulty of preventing a convene tional war, once started, from developing into a nuclear war, our aim must be nothing less than the complete abolition of the means of waging war of any kind.
Principles
3.	An agreement for this purpose should be negotiated as soon as possible, on the basis of the following principles-
(a)	All national armed forces and armaments must be reduced to the levels agreed to be necessary for internal security.
(b)	Once started, the process of disarmament should be continued without interruption until it is completed, subject to verification at each stage that all parties are duly carrying out their undertakings.
(c)	The elimination of nuclear and conventional armaments must be so phased that at no stage will any country or group of countries obtain a significant military advantage.
(d)	In respect of each phase there should be established, by agreement, effective machinery of inspection, which should come into operation simultaneously with the phase of disarmament to which it relates.
(e)	Disarmament should be carried out as rapidly as possible in progressive stages, within specified periods of time.
(f)	At the appropriate stage, a substantial and adequately armed military force should be established, to prevent aggression and enforce observance of the disarmament agreement: and an international authority should be created, in association with the United Nations, to control this force and to ensure that it is not used for any purpose inconsistent with the charter.
4.	On the basis of the above principles, it should be possible, given good will on both sides, to reconcile the present differences of approach between the different plans put forward.
Negotiations
5.	The principle military powers should resume direct negotiations without delay in close contact with the United Nations, which is responsible for disarmament under the charter. Since peace is the concern of the whole world, other nations should also be associated with the disarmament negotiations, either directly or through some special machinery to be set up by the United Nations, or by both means.
6.	Side by side with the political negotiations, experts should start working out the details of the inspection systems required for the measures of disarmament applicable
to each stage in accordance with the practice adopted at the Geneva nuclear tests conference.
7.	Every effort should be made to secure rapid agreement to the permanent banning of nuclear weapons tests by all nations and to arrangements for verifying the observance of the agreement. Such an agreement is urgent, since otherwise further countries may soon become nuclear powers, which would increase the danger of war and further complicate the problem of disarmament. Moreover, an agreement on nuclear tests, apart from its direct advantages, would provide a powerful psychological impetus to agreement over the wider field of disarmament.
8.	Disarmament without inspection would be as unacceptable as inspection without disarmament. Disarmament and inspection are integral parts of the same question and must be negotiated together; and both must be made as complete and effective as is humanly possible. It must, however, be recognized that no safeguards can provide one hundred per cent protection against error or treachery. Nevertheless, the risks involved in the process of disarmament must be balanced against the risks involved in the continuance of the arms race.
9.	It is arguable whether the arms race is the cause or the result of distrust between nations. But it is clear that the problems of disarmament and international confidence are closely linked. Therefore, while striving for the abolition of armaments, all nations must actively endeavour to reduce tension by helping to remove other causes of friction and suspicion.
Annex II to Final Communique CYPRUS
(Communique issued March 13)
At their meeting this morning the commonwealth prime ministers accepted a request from the Republic of Cyprus for admission to commonwealth membership. They invited the president of the republic to join the meeting.

[Stage Direction]
(Communique issued March 15)
At their meetings this week the commonwealth prime ministers have discussed questions affecting South Africa.
On March 13 the Prime Minister of South Africa informed the meeting that, following the plebiscite in October 1960, the appropriate constitutional steps were now being taken to introduce a republican form of constitution in the union, and that it was the
[Stage Direction]
desire of the union government that South Africa should remain within the commonwealth as a republic.
In connection with this application the meeting also discussed, with the consent of the Prime Minister of South Africa, the racial policy followed by the union government. The Prime Minister of South Africa informed the other prime ministers this evening that in the light of the views expressed on behalf of other member governments and the indications of their future intentions regarding the racial policy of the union government, he had decided to withdraw his application for South Africa's continuing membership in the commonwealth as a republic.

[Stage Direction]
(Communique issued March 16)
The prime ministers noted that Sierra Leone would attain independence on April 27.
They looked forward to welcoming Sierra Leone as a member of the commonwealth on the completion of the necessary constitutional processes.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 21, 1961