1961-09-20

NUCLEAR ENERGY


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, last week I gave the house first preliminary reports on the impact of Soviet nuclear tests as recorded by my department's network of air sampling stations. Final values have now been derived for the week ending September 10, and I would ask permission of the house to table a summary of these readings. I might mention that the highest level recorded in that period was 20 disintegrations per minute per cubic metre of air for Vancouver on September 9.
Yesterday afternoon we obtained first preliminary results on samples collected over last week end. These were from five of our air sampling stations in eastern Canada and show very sharp increases in fall-out levels. These results are as follows:
September 16-17 Fredericton
Ottawa ___
Montreal ...
Toronto __
Windsor ...
September 17-18 Fredericton Windsor ...
Montreal ...
Toronto ....
Ottawa ...
September 19
Toronto	 460 units
In commenting on these figures I might point out that the reading of 470 units for Toronto on September 16-17 is the highest ever recorded by my department since the beginning of our air sampling program in August, 1959. The fact that these readings have been observed within a very short time following the reported testing indicates that the measured activity is largely composed of short-lived fission products. This will be determined in subsequent analyses.
In my previous statement on fall-out levels I referred to the maximum permissible level derived from the recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. I would again like to emphasize
90 units 260 units 100 units 215 units 75 units
140 units 90 units 80 units 470 units 200 units
that such figures are based on continued exposure at that level throughout a lifetime. Furthermore, the basic data provided refer to the long-lived component of a fission product mixture. As yet knowledge is incomplete concerning the significance of high levels of short-lived fission products. Such levels if maintained for a sufficient period of time might constitute a health hazard.
I would remind the house that the chief purpose of our air sampling program has always been to provide a method for the early detection of changes in the fall-out contamination of air all across Canada. We feel that more reliable information on the significance to health of fall-out can be obtained from other parts of my department's activities, such as the milk powder and bone sampling programs. In these programs we are concerned with the measurement of the specific components of fall-out which are likely to be of concern from the health viewpoint.
Such analyses are considerably more complex and are necessarily made on samples collected less frequently. It is too early yet to anticipate the levels which may be observed in this respect.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I think the house will agree that these reports of the Minister of National Health and Welfare are most important. It is desirable that he should make them and keep the Canadian people fully informed as to the readings of those various sampling stations which we now have in Canada.
It is clear that the increases are due to the recent Soviet union explosions. They cannot arise out of the tests made by the United States, because these latter explosions were in the laboratory and underground. It is therefore a matter of concern that the minister should report sharp increases in eastern stations. In one instance the testing showed the highest reading yet in the Canadian experience. The minister did not say whether these readings cover all the 13 explosions made by the Soviet union. Perhaps he will indicate at some time whether all the explosions of the Soviet union are covered by these recent tests.
The minister did not say so this morning in express terms, but in his statement last week he did say that while the explosions do show increased radioactive levels they do

Inquiries of the Ministry not indicate any appreciable increase in the danger to human health. That may be so, but I think more and more we are becoming concerned as a result of the division of opinion among scientists particularly as to the genetic danger to human beings. Some of them say that it will not be possible to determine the danger to human health for many years to come. This should put all nations on notice with respect to the undesirability of continuing these tests, particularly in the form in which they are now being carried out by the Soviet union.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for this party I wish to thank the minister for giving the house this essential, sobering information and report. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it should impress us all with the need to work harder than ever for the abolition of testing by agreement pending the abolition of nuclear weapons.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document referred to.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the statement just made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the Canadian initiative taken, I think it was at the assembly of the United Nations two years ago, for international measures and mechanisms to register radioactivity and fall-out, measures with which I believe all members of the United Nations have not yet co-operated, will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that full publicity is given at the United Nations assembly to the information we received this morning, in the hope that this kind of publicity might be of assistance in bringing about measures to stop tests of the kind which are responsible for these alarming figures?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the normal course of events I would expect that the important statement made by the minister this morning will receive widespread dissemination. However, the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that it should be brought directly to the attention of the United Nations is one that has a strong appeal, and I shall immediately communicate with the Secretary of State for External Affairs in that regard. Certainly the continuance of testing in the atmosphere shows on the part of the U.S.S.R. such a flagrant disregard for humanity and its welfare that this information could be supporting evidence in that regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to either the Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is either hon. gentleman in a position to say whether or not all nations in the United Nations are now cooperating in the world wide attempt to provide an adequate and accurate system of sampling radioactivity as a result of these explosions?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question is one of detail, of course, and I shall have to secure the necessary information.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1960, was any change made in the system of purchasing gasoline, oils, greases, etc., by the R.C.M.P. for its automobiles in Kitimat, B.C.; and, if such changes have taken place, could the Minister of Justice indicate what those changes are, and the reasons for so making them?
2.	Is the Minister of Justice aware that I phoned his office about this matter on April 21, 1961, and was promised a report on the situation; and that I again phoned his office on June 5, 1961, and was again promised a report; and that I again phoned his office on June 13, 1961, with the same result?
3.	Could the Minister of Justice indicate when I might expect a reply to my letter to him of June 22, 1961, wherein this question was dealt with?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is that the only change in the R.C.M. Police system since January 1, 1960, at Kitimat was that garages were added to the original list sometime between January 1, 1960 and January 5, 1961. Subsequently, after sufficient experience with the various garages, we retained the services of those which best met our requirements.
The answer to part 2 is that if there are reports that were to be made and have not been made I can only express regret, but it will be appreciated that such phone calls are routine administrative matters of which I have no personal knowledge.
The answer to part 3 is that I shall be glad to have a reply sent immediately. The reply, of course, will be to the effect of my answer to part 1.


MORICETOWN INDIAN RESERVE, B.C.    PAYMENT FOR LAND
Mr. Howard: Did the Indian affairs branch receive any money from the British Columbia government for land in the Moricetown Indian reserve which was used for highway No. 16; and, if so, what was the (a) total amount of money so received; (b) names of each individual member of the band, the amounts so received by them, and the area of the land for Which such payments were made?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. John Charllon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the questions are as follows:
Payment was received from the British Columbia department of highways for land required for highway No. 16 through Morice-town Indian reserve No. 1 and Coryatsaqua (Moricetown) Indian reserve No. 2. "
(a)	Total amount of money received, $1,250.50.
(b)	No payments have been made to individual members of the band pending confirmation of individual entitlement.


COMMEMORATIVE STAMP, 175TH ANNIVERSARY OF COLLEGE FOUNDING
Mr. Carter: 1.	Have representations been made concerning the issuance of a special stamp commemorating, in 1964, the 175th anniversary of the founding of what is claimed to be the oldest established college where instruction is given in the English language in the British commonwealth and outside the British isles?
2.	If so, what action, if any, has been taken?
3.	Will the post office department accept suggestions as to the design of such a stamp?
4.	If the stamp is issued, what denominations will be printed?
5.	What would be the total number of stamps issued to commemorate such an occasion?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the above questions are as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	We are, of course, always happy to receive suggestions.
4.	Commemorative stamps are issued normally in the 5 cent denomination.
5.	Commemorative stamps are normally issued in quantities of 30 to 40 million.


PURCHASE OF SIRENS, ATTACK WARNING SYSTEM
Mr. Pitman: 1.	How much money has already been allotted to the purchase of sirens as a part of the national survival attack warning system?
2.	How much money has been allotted to the purchase of sirens to the end of 1962?
3.	How many cities have been provided with sirens?
4.	In how many cities have the sirens been tested and found inadequate in the year 1961?
5.	Have any tests been devised for testing the audibility of sirens inside various types of buildings at particular distances?
6.	Have these tests been used? If so, when?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the several parts of this question are as follows:
1 and 2. A total of $950,500 has been allotted for the purchase of sirens to the end of 1962.
3.	88.
4.	4.
5.	No.
6.	Not applicable.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of a radio report to the effect that Jean Gizenga, the communist trained leader of Oriental province, is leading an armed force against the province of Katanga, will the Prime Minister study the situation and, if warranted, make an appeal to the United Nations to protect the people of Katanga from violence and aggression?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the moment there is no indication that a force under Gizenga is being led against the province of Katanga. The United Nations has undertaken negotiations with Premier Tshombe with a view to a possible peaceful settlement. These discussions are going on in the war-torn Congo at the moment.



RED CHINA-CANADIAN ATTITUDE RESPECTING RECOGNITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of New Zealand's request that the United Nations general assembly now in session debate the question of Chinese representation, and in view of the very general interest in this question on the part of a good number of Canadians, is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the house as to Canada's attitude to this question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had rather anticipated that such a question would come from someone, and I might very well have thought of the hon. gentleman in that regard. At the present session of the United Nations general assembly there will be included on the agenda for the first time an item on Chinese representation. The traditional "moratorium" resolution will not be proposed, and this means that there will be more thorough consideration given to the China issue than at any previous session. The change in approach to this question has come about as a result of the desire of a steadily growing number of member states for full consideration and examination of the substance of this problem.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The Canadian government regards this as an important matter which is not susceptible, however, to hasty solution. We attach particular importance to the right of the people of Taiwan to decide their own future, and the right of the government of Taiwan to be represented at the United Nations. These considerations will in part determine the attitude of the Canadian delegation during the discussion of this issue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the Prime Minister's reply I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the position of the government of Canada changed from that stated by the Minister of Agriculture on May 16, when he is reported to have said "It would seem that the proper thing would have been to recognize the communist Chinese right after the revolution"?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going back to the month of May to review what was said. If I started to review the past I would review some of the statements made by the hon. gentleman on this question, and I would not want to do that on this very agreeable morning.



CANADIAN POSITION RESPECTING APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question. Is he in a position now, on the occasion of the opening of the general assembly, to indicate what proposal the Canadian government has in mind and will make through its delegation at the United Nations regarding the office of secretary general?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman
was kind enough to inform my office in advance that he would ask this question. As he knows, the filling of the vacancy is provided for in article 97 of the United Nations charter, which reads in part as follows:
The secretariat shall comprise a secretary general .. . The secretary general shall be appointed by the general assembly upon the recommendation of the security council.
The procedure for filling the position either on an interim or permanent basis will be taken on the basis of that article. Talks are now going on among the delegations to find a solution. I think it would not be very helpful to go further than that at this time, except to say that the triple headed secretariat proposed by the Soviet union, which would be a self-cancelling body, is not acceptable to Canada. To set up such an organization in the form suggested by Mr. Gromyko yesterday


would mean that nothing of a controversial nature or unacceptable to the U.S.S.R. would ever be decided.
This matter raised by the hon. gentleman is one that all of us hope will permit of agreement, because until this matter is decided the future of the United Nations will always be uncertain. I know that people all over the world are hoping that a solution will be found that is reasonable, just, fair and equitable.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont asked a question about the opening of "la maison du Quebec a Paris". He asked whether the government has made provision to give television coverage to this historic Canadian event. I think the hon. member will agree that the government has not and does not control programming on television, but I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that radio and television coverage will be given in news programs of the three days of the opening celebrations. In addition, extended coverage will be given in the television program "Camera 61" on Saturday, October 7.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Public Works tell the house whether it is true that housing loans for new mining towns are ended, as is suggested in a heading in today's Globe and Mail?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the heading in the Globe and Mail is misleading, but I am sure it was inadvertent on the part of the caption writer. As a matter of fact housing loans have not been ended for new mining towns. Rather, more and more N.H.A. loans are being approved all the time. In the case of Thompson, which was inquired about yesterday, the government is approving literally hundreds of approved loans for housing for miners. Each project in any mining town, of course, must be judged on its merits. This government believes in the development of the north and the faster the better, but we do not wish it to be at

the expense of the miners. If the mining company wishes to build a townsite at its mine-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister will appreciate that his answer to the question is taking on the character of an address to the house.


David James Walker: Yes. I am glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker. However, I simply want to say that instead of the employee alone being on the covenant we want the mining company to guarantee the loan so that if there is any default and the mine does go out of business, it will not be the employee who will suffer but the mining company which employs him.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: A recent press release across the country indicates that the government of Trinidad is seeking to obtain long term mortgage money in Canada to assist in easing the housing shortage in that country. Can the minister say whether the government is giving any assistance or considering giving any assistance to the government of Trinidad in this respect?


David James Walker: Because of the applause for the last remarks, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member.


John Richard Garland: I wondered if the government is giving any assistance or considering giving any assistance to the government of Trinidad in this regard.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have conferred with the minister of housing for Trinidad, a very cultured and enlightened gentleman with a great knowledge of housing, and the Prime Minister saw him this morning. We are doing everything we can by way of advice and co-operation, but any participation or financing in connection with the government of Trinidad would, of course, be a matter of government policy and would if it ever eventuated, be announced by the Prime Minister.



WEST INDIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this would be an opportune moment for me to ask a question I should like to put to the Prime 90205-6-542
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister. In view of the vote yesterday in Jamaica, which I think all of us regret, would the government consider making its good offices available in any way possible with a view to preserving the rest of the West Indies federation; because I think it would be a disaster to the free world and particularly to Canada, with our close economic ties with that area, if this experiment in federation should fail.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had rather anticipated, on the basis of the information I had and conversations during my visit to Jamaica in January, that the vote might have been otherwise. The suggestion on the part of the hon. gentleman is one that deserves to be examined rather closely. I have found that when people unrelated, except in a commonwealth way, take a course of action which might be construed as interference, even though it might be indirect and by way of suggestion, it is not always agreeably accepted. However, I will take note of the hon. gentleman's view.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps the Prime Minister misapprehended my question. I was not suggesting for one moment that we should interfere with the desire of the people of Jamaica to govern themselves as they please, but I think it will pose a problem for the rest of the federation. What I was suggesting was that our government should, in any way it could, extend its good offices for the preservation of the rest of the federation; because, notwithstanding Jamaica's withdrawal, it should be possible to preserve the rest of the federation and it would be in the interests of Canada, the commonwealth and the free world to do so if possible.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Speakman (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he would care to comment on an article which appeared in this morning's Gazette.
I should like, with permission, to read the first line:
Reliable sources say the Canadian army is unhappy about the government's plan to train 100,000 militiamen this winter on six weeks civil defence courses.
I hope the minister's sources of information might be perhaps a little more reliable than those available to the writer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this a question?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, tlie allegation contained in the heading of this article, "The Army Unhappy over C.D. Training" is false. The contrary is the situation. The army is extremely anxious to secure the 100,000 trained men for use in the survival columns, and the militia part of the army is extremely glad to have this training going forward. I do not know what the "reliable sources" are, of course, but they are certainly very unreliable as far as some of the details given today are concerned, and indicate anything but a complete knowledge of what is projected and what is the situation.
In that connection there are one or two things in particular that I think I should set straight so there will be no misapprehension in connection with them. The most important of these is this statement that recruits will be enlisted with the lowest known army medical ratings. The article says:
For instance recruits with hearing H-4 (fourth class-unable to hear the telephone) will be admitted. The army contends such men will be difficult to train.
This indicates a complete lack of knowledge of what the physical requirements are for this special militia training, and is completely wrong. Particularly, H-4 is not what is required, it is H-3. The pulhems profile which is required in this connection is 2-2-2-3-4-1-3. As far as recruitment in the regular army is concerned for people on base duties and for people employed with corps troops, the pulhems profile is lower than that, as a matter of fact, and a very large number of people in world war II and the Korean war enlisted with lower pulhems profiles than are required as far as the special militia training is concerned. For example, a gunner in the armoured corps in corps troops requires a pulhems profile, instead of the 2-2-2-3-4-1-3 I have mentioned, of 3-3-3-2-3-1-3. An armoured corps gunner employed on base duties requires a pulhems profile of 4-3-4-2-3-1-4.
As I say, this statement shows a lack of knowledge of what is required as far as physical standards are concerned, and also a lack of knowledge as far as requirements under the pulhems profile for regular enlistment are concerned, because the statement that the militia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure all hon. members are interested in what the minister has to say, but perhaps he might find a more appropriate time to deal with this matter in detail.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister say whether it is anticipated that the unemployment
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
insurance fund will be relieved of the payment of approximately $20 million as a result of the recruitment program for this survival course?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, that is a nonsensical question.


An hon. Member:: Consider the source.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister says it is nonsensical. Perhaps he could give the house an indication of what the anticipated relief in the unemployment insurance fund will be, because this figure is used in an article in a responsible newspaper.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member sounds like an H-4.



PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce may I direct this question to the Minister of Labour. How many times has the productivity council met since its appointment on February 28, 1961? Has the government received any recommendations from the council? If so-


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member is not as familiar with our rules as some hon. members who have been interrupting, but I think he should have sufficient opportunity to put his question, at least until the Chair interrupts him and has formed an opinion whether the question is in order or not. Will the hon. member proceed with his question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the question is important because today we are going to discuss the estimates of the Department of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is using his advocacy unnecessarily, because I have asked that the question be repeated.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, the first part of my question was, how many times has the productivity council met since its appointment on February 28, 1961?


An hon. Member:: Order for return.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And get it next year.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister say whether he has any further report to make to the house with respect to the plight of Canadian priests and nuns in communist Cuba?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador has received an expression of formal regret from the Cuban government regarding this incident. The ambassador has further reported that the Cuban authorities are disposed to take all appropriate measures to facilitate the return to Cuba as soon as possible, and at the expense of the Cuban government, of the nine Canadian missionaries deported in error to Spain. Formal assurances have been given regarding their safety and the protection of their personal property.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. On this subject can the Prime Minister state whether any property owned by Canadian religious orders in Cuba has been confiscated? I think this matter was inquired into some time ago.


John George Diefenbaker: I have received no recent information.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska inquired regarding the reported experimental use of concrete ties by the Canadian National Railways. I have made inquiries of the management, who advise that limited tests are being made with concrete railway ties of a type made in Canada, and another type not produced in Canada. The test period will last from 5 to 10 years.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister contemplate introducing at this session any
90205-6-542J
Inquiries of the Ministry changes to the Railway Act in order to clarify the meaning of section 182, requiring a railway in certain circumstances to compensate employees for expenses involved in moving their residence?


Léon Balcer: The government has been dealing with the legislative committee of the brotherhood on this matter. The committee did not ask for a change in the act this session, but we discussed the possibility of the standing committee studying the question at the next session of parliament. The government intends to recommend to the committee a study of this matter.
(Translation) :



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
Could the minister inform the house about further developments concerning additional approaches to the Champlain bridge?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As reported in the press this morning, it has been decided to lay out a six-lane road for the approaches to the Champlain bridge. On the north side, that road will lead into St. Anthony and St. James streets. That way, I think we will be giving better service to the population of the metropolis and of the area, because it has been established by exhaustive surveys that at least 85 per cent of the cars and motor vehicles crossing Champlain bridge will be heading downtown.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question. Could the minister tell us whether the road plan recently given in the press is now official?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of reports of recent exchanges between Washington and Ottawa on the subject of the use by Canadian forces of nuclear weapons. Will the Prime Minister give the house an assurance that no

Inquiries of the Ministry decision will be taken regarding the acquisition or use of nuclear weapons by Canadian forces without parliament first having an opportunity to discuss such a decision?


John George Diefenbaker: I noticed the news reports in question. I do not intend to refer to any personal correspondence because, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, there is continuing communication of a personal nature between heads of government; each corresponds with the other on a confidential basis, knowing that his confidence will be respected.
Discussions with the United States on defence subjects are going on at all times and at various levels. I reiterate what has been made clear on a number of occasions, except to those who will not understand. No agreement has been arrived at between our countries with regard to nuclear weapons, and any rumour to the contrary has no foundation in fact.
The government has undertaken to increase Canada's conventional forces to assist in meeting the more serious international situation which now confronts us. As was made clear during the discussion of the defence estimates we have also equipment which will enable the use of defensive nuclear weapons should the government decide that these are required in the interests of the national security. I might add that in February, 1959, and on subsequent occasions in the house I discussed the principles of our policy in that regard.
The government does not wish any decision that it may take in this matter to impede in any way any substantial progress which may be possible in disarmament or limitation on the spread of nuclear weapons to the independent control of countries not already having them.
I might also add that in the next couple of days important proposals may be put before the United Nations by the United States, following discussions with the United Kingdom, Canada and other nations, which we hope will bring about a new attitude in the field of disarmament. This is something in which this government has taken a commanding lead, and progress in this direction still remains our desire.
The announcement of decisions of government policy on this important issue will be made in the house. I might also say this; that the government, when placing such decisions before the house, will, naturally, at all times afford an opportunity for discussion. However, and I emphasize this, in each of the instruments that we have, the Bomarc and the Voodoos, nuclear weapons could be used. The defensive requirements of Canada


and the need for the preservation of security will be the overriding consideration in the mind of this government.
No decision has been made. When a decision is made the house will be clearly made aware thereof, as I emphasized a moment ago. Speculation which has been going on in the last few weeks is based on nothing more than the views of those who, desiring one final stand to be taken, are not taking into full regard the international situation nor in the event that it should worsen, the welfare, the future and the safety of Canadians.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I thank the Prime
Minister for his answer to this vitally important question and ask him, as I did in my original question, whether before a decision of the kind he has mentioned is taken there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter in parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: If I did not misread the discussions on the estimates of the Minister of National Defence there is little more that can be said in this regard. The responsibility is one which the government must take having regard first and foremost to the welfare of the Canadian people. I must add, of course, that in any stand it takes the government must ask for the support of the house. That does not mean, however, that the decision would first be tentatively placed before the house. That would be a denial of responsible government and' a denial of the principles which the hon. gentleman himself has so long advocated.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he can inform the house how long he expects the underground explosions to continue in connection with the tunnel being constructed between the house and the west block.


David James Walker: When the contract was let and the time for the explosions was arranged, we did not anticipate that parliament would be in session in September. However, all members will be glad to know that the explosions will be completed by the end of next week, so that the part of the session which continues beyond that time will continue in peace and quiet. Only yesterday, in my office, someone

who served overseas with Colonel Churchill remarked, when an explosion took place, "Here is Churchill's armoured regiment".



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: On September 15 the hon. member for Leeds addressed two questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
1.	Has the government received two memoranda from the British government relating to the government's shipbuilding subsidy?
2.	If so, what is the effect of such memoranda?
Some weeks after the Minister of Transport had announced in the house, on May 12, the government's new policy with regard to ship operating and shipbuilding, we received an aide memoire from the United Kingdom government commenting on this matter and asking a number of questions concerning the effect of the policy announced with regard to shipbuilding subsidies. This aide memoire has been answered.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister able to say whether the city of Vancouver will qualify for a subsidy in connection with the construction of a fire boat?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, no application has been received as yet in connection with such a fire boat. If a subsidy application is received by the Canadian maritime commission consideration will be given without loss of time, and a subsidy will be granted if the vessel to be constructed complies with the regulations.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, and inquire whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who now appears to be on the continent of Europe, will be in London shortly to discuss with the United Kingdom government the allocation of the uranium contract; and is he able to indicate the date the discussions will begin?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be doing just that, but I am not certain of the date.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could give the house a progress report on the efforts he is making to expedite the return to an order of the house made last November relating to the travelling expenses of ministers?
(Translation):


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that we have to go to several departments to gather the necessary information and documents. I am doing all I can to secure the required documents as soon as possible.
(Text) :



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Finance in view of the rather evasive answer given by the Minister of Finance to a question I put to him on May 24, in which I asked:
Could the minister inform the house whether the government is giving consideration to the establishment of a fund which would be used when necessary to purchase shares in Canadian companies in order to prevent them coming under foreign control?
I ask the question again today, because there are again rumours circulating to the effect that the government is giving consideration to such a fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question does not strike me as being one of immediacy simply because something might have appeared in the newspaper about it. It strikes me as being a question which might more properly be asked on the estimates of the department. Perhaps the hon. member could place his question on the order paper if he feels it should be answered.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT

Gordon Minto Churchill: the third reading of Bill No. C-71, respecting the civil service of Canada.

Civil Service Act


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition will support this bill on third reading, for the reason that the Civil Service Act after 43 years was in need of revision, and no doubt in this bill there have been incorporated a number of changes that will bring the measure into conformity with modern practices that have developed in Canada in the intervening years. I wish to repeat what I said on second reading. This is not a new charter for the civil service, nor is it by any means a new deal for civil servants. This is the conception of the government and of the civil service commission.
One point that must be clearly stated at this stage before the bill passes is that the requests of the civil servants were not heeded in drafting this measure. Representatives of civil service associations appeared before the special committee and presented briefs and suggested amendments, but at no time were their suggestions accepted. Despite what has been said by the hon. member for Carleton, the hon. gentleman must realize that as far as the civil service associations are concerned they wasted their time in appearing before the special committee, because the government had a closed mind and the amendments advanced by the associations were rejected by the government majority on the committee.
These proposed amendments were repeated in the house by the hon. member for Hull, but were thrown out by the government one after the other. Those amendments represented the feelings of the employees of the government. They outlined the deal for which they were looking, and their requests fell on the deaf ears of this government.
The hon. member for Carleton on a few occasions admitted that the draftsmanship of this measure left something to be desired. I say with confidence that this measure will not survive for 43 years without amendment. Changes and amendments will have to be introduced from time to time because the faulty draftsmanship will come to light, and some portions of the measure will be found to be inoperative. There was no need to pass the bill in a hurry. An attempt should have been made to find better wording for use in some portions of the measure to satisfy the requests and requirements of the civil servants.
I repeat that this is not a new deal but merely a revision to bring the act into conformity with modern practice; that the requests of the civil service associations have been ignored, and that we on this side attempted on second reading to have the government consider the requests of employees of the civil service but met with no success.

Surely some government some day will recognize the rights of civil servants to deal with their employer as do other employees in industry.


An hon. Member:: Why did your government not do it over the 43 years?


Jean-Thomas Richard: That is a good question, but it is a very poor defence coming from a government which revised this act without taking into consideration the requests of the civil servants. The Liberal government embarked upon this revision of the Civil Service Act several years ago. The Heeney report was the result of an investigation ordered by Mr. St. Laurent. If the recommendations of the associations had been followed we would have the form of bargaining which I sought to advance in my amendment to section 7.
I repeat that this is not a new deal. This is a vast disappointment to civil servants and those who are close to them. Again I warn that the measure will have to be revised frequently. An employer cannot have working for him a group of dissatisfied employees. The government, above all others, needs the support of its employees. We on this side will support this bill in its present inadequate form, and look forward to the time in the near future when we will be given the opportunity to introduce the necessary amendments.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see how a transfer from the seats of government to those of opposition serves as a stimulus to thought. We regret that bargaining rights are not included in the bill presently before us. It is a well known fact that this is one of the things which we have campaigned for and advocated all across Canada for many years. I think it is also a fact that no Liberal government in any province, or in Canada, ever gave any consideration to this matter or ever established the right of bargaining for employees in the public service of the provinces or of the dominion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds I should say that, although I did not interrupt the hon. member who preceded him, who was in pari delicto, as the lawyers say, I should remind him that the subject matter of the debate is the contents of the bill, not what is not in the bill. While I appreciate that the hon. member is not going to take any length of time, I think I should draw his attention to that point.


Frank Howard: First I would say that it is regrettable to us that the bill contains the provision it does in clause 7 with respect to

consultation. In this regard it is a failure. I think it is regrettable also that the bill contains provision for infringement upon political rights and activities of employees in the public service. We dealt with this at the committee stage by way of amendment, and it is not necessary at this time to go over these particular matters again. But basically, so far as consultation and the relationships between the various associations in the civil service and the government itself are concerned, I think the provision is not such as to allow for any large degree of self determination on the part of the civil servants themselves with respect to their wages, hours of work and working conditions. It seems to me they will not be able to find proper, fair and adequate solutions to their particular problems by attempting to channel them through the restrictive conduit of the civil service commission, and that is what is necessary.
Apparently it is too late to do anything now because we are at this stage of the bill, and the government has not acceded to these legitimate and proper requests for one of the basic rights, namely to bargain collectively. Apparently sometime in the future we shall find that this provision will be contained in the act. I hope we do not have to wait for that long period of time until the Liberals get back into office, if they ever do, before we reach that particular stage.


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most astonishing statements that I have ever heard uttered in this House of Commons was that by the hon. member for Ottawa East, when he said that the voice of the civil service was not heard, and that at no time were the representations and the suggestions of the staff associations accepted. He suggested that for their part it was a waste of time to have come before the special committee.
Well, sir, I say that the facts controvert every statement made by the hon. gentleman. The fact is that the members of the staff associations have expressed themselves in the warmest possible terms on the treatment accorded to them by the special committee of this house. This special committee was one of the best committees it has ever been my privilege to sit on in this House of Commons. It was presided over by a very distinguished chairman of great ability, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Mac-Lellan). Over a period of 26 or 27 sittings the committee gave the most detailed consideration to all the representations made.
What are the facts as to the attitude which the associations took after the hearings? I read from the letter of Miss Frances E. Goodspeed,
Civil Service Act
president of the professional institute of the public service of Canada. This letter is dated June 27, 1961, and is addressed to the chairman of the committee. It reads as follows: Dear Mr. MacLellan:
On behalf of my colleagues In the professional institute and myself may I express our appreciation of the opportunity which was afforded us to appear before your parliamentary committee on Bill C-71 and the careful consideration of our views on the subject matter of this bill by the committee.
Members of the professional institute who attended the sessions of your committee were greatly impressed with the very thorough and searching review which was given every section of the bill. We are confident that your efforts will result in a new civil service act which will afford an opportunity to continue in the future the development in Canada of a public service which will give the utmost satisfaction to the public in the discharge of its duties, personal satisfaction to those who seek therein a challenging and useful career, and which will gain even greater regard abroad than it currently enjoys.
How does that language stack up with the language we have just heard from the hon. gentleman from Ottawa East? In a statement issued by the head of a staff association representing 80,000 civil servants, Mr. White-house president of the civil service federation had this to say-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me you admonished me for speaking about things which were not contained in the bill, and I acceded to your legitimate objection. I think perhaps the same rule should apply to the hon. member. He has not yet touched upon what is contained in the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is correct in principle, but of course before I appreciated that the debate was going beyond the scope of what is in the bill, or at least before I took any exception to it, a good deal had been said which is now in the course of being answered. It would not be fair to limit the answer, other than to remind the hon. member for Carleton, who is a very good parliamentarian, that what he is replying to perhaps should not have been permitted in the first instance, though that does not mean he cannot reply to it. If I have done any injustice to the hon. member for Skeena I am sorry, but that has been the result.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: It appears that perhaps the hon. gentleman does not like this. I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa East would not like it. Mr. Whitehouse said this in his press release:
It is apparent that the government in providing for compulsory consultation has moved a long way towards giving public servants a voice in determining their rates of pay and conditions of employment. This is especially true in view of the statements made by the Minister of Finance

Civil Service Act
in committee that it was expected that the provisions for consultation would evolve into a system modified to meet the needs of the Canadian civil service.
The statement went on:
The civil service federation of Canada agrees to the foregoing with a view that experience will lead both sides to the evolution of a system of negotiation and arbitration in the shortest possible period of time.
At the same time the civil service association of Canada issued a statement. Unfortunately I do not have the full text of it in front of me at this moment, but I do have this, which I will quote:
There can be no doubt that the amended clauses represent improvement over the original forms of clauses 7 and 10.
The statement went on to express a preference for spelling out in the legislation the exact procedures on consultation and the results to flow therefrom. Then it ended in this way:
The civil service association of Canada will do everything possible to assist in working out proper machinery under the act. We will certainly do everything possible to contribute to an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence in the period when such machinery is being developed.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker; does this type of language from all the major staff associations seem to indicate what the hon. gentleman from Ottawa East suggested, namely that the voice of the civil service was not heard? I say, sir, the voice of the civil service was heard. There was an opportunity over 26 or 27 meetings to consider in detail the amendments which were proposed by the staff associations, many of which were adopted by the special committee and last night were adopted in the committee of the whole.
I am sorry that in its final stages a partisan turn should have been given to the debate. I believe that in its day and age the 1918 Civil Service Act was a model of employer-employee relations. It established on a firm basis the merit system, a system which has given Canada a civil service of which every member of this house is proud. I believe that within the new 1961 Civil Service Act we have created a framework which will equally be a model in the future in the development of employer-employee relations. I believe it will stand as an example of the merit system which we in Canada will be able to say is not exceeded by any country in the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you call the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker, please?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: In my
opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Call in the members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More time wasting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house for unanimous consent to remove item No. 8 from today's order paper for the purpose of making a slight change in the wording. The purpose is to change the words in the second line of the resolution "physical fitness through" to "fitness and". The new resolution would read "fitness and amateur sport" rather than "physical fitness through amateur sport", and then the word "physical" in the sixth and seventh lines would be deleted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any objection to this, and I doubt whether it is necessary for the minister to go through the formality of withdrawing the motion. The corrections are purely mechanical, and it seems to me they could be made and the resolution could be left on the order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the suggestion made by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: The
house gives unanimous consent to amending the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
90205-6-543
Supply-Labour SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
178. Departmental administration including a grant of $10,000 to Frontier college and the expenses of the international labour conferences. $1,373,104.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister made a statement in the two days that were taken up on these estimates before the adjournment. An examination of that statement, however, will reveal that the minister did little more than give us an account of the department's general activities. In no real sense did the minister address himself to what undoubtedly is the major domestic problem in Canada at this time; that is, the continuing problem of unemployment, a problem which in our opinion this government has not resolutely and forthrightly confronted.
Yesterday the departments concerned released the latest available figures, which were for the month of August, showing that as of that month 323,000 persons were unemployed. This represented a drop of some
31.000	from the corresponding period in the previous year. Nevertheless, not much satisfaction can be taken from this figure in spite of its improvement. It is also noteworthy that the labour force decreased by 39,000. It is significant that while unemployment dropped by 31,000 to 323,000 between July and August, unemployment nevertheless continues to be higher in Canada than in any other country of the western world. As long as there are these numbers of people out of work, with all that unemployment means, this government and all of us have a responsibility to try and correct this situation.
It is significant that while unemployment in August was below the total for the previous year, it represented 4.8 per cent of the labour force. That figure should give no one cause to gloat. The release, for instance-just to take a reference here and there-indicates that employment in Quebec decreased by
17.000	between July and August, which is somewhat more than usual even for this period. We see that in the Atlantic region employment declined by an estimated 12,000. Therefore when we compare these figures with countries that provide a basis for comparison, in this regard we continue to confront a problem that is of the greatest magnitude.
We must not forget that this is tradition ally not the slack period. We must not forget that in March of this year we had, on the

Supply-Labour
basis of the standard provided by the administration, 705,000 people out of work. It is important to note that the present standard of measurement does not take into account all those who are disengaged or who are out of work. It does not include people who work for less than 33 hours a week. Therefore I say that when we refer to our unemployment figures on the basis of these standards we should not think we have covered all those who are out of work.
When we think that Great Britain had to hire 500 Canadian men to assist in a supermarket project in that country, that is not something which should warrant our feeling that we are seriously coping with this problem. It should not give us any satisfaction to realize that on the basis of the report provided by the New York Times the rate of unemployment in Canada as of March was 11.1 per cent of the work force. In Australia, according to that survey, it was 3.4 per cent; in France, 3 per cent; in Germany, less than 1 per cent; in Great Britain, 1.6 per cent; in Israel, 7 per cent; in Italy, 5.4 per cent; in Japan, 1.1 per cent; in South Africa, 1.9 per cent; in Sweden, 1.7 per cent, and in the United States, 6.8 per cent.
In the face of all this I repeat that the government cannot, by its proper emphasis on other problems of a domestic and international character, seek to impress us that this is not a continuing, serious problem, because it is. Since this government came into power this country has experienced excessive unemployment, as we know. In 1958 some 7.1 per cent of our work force was out of work. In 1959 the figure was 6 per cent, and in 1960 it was 7 per cent. Moreover, we know that at one point this year almost 12 per cent of the work force of Canada was out of work. During the current year unemployment has never fallen below 6 per cent of the labour force after allowing for seasonal factors. These excessive levels of avoidable unemployment sap the vitality of our nation, deprive us forever of the wealth and products which could have been produced at full employment levels and, more important, have a devastating impact on the personal lives of the unemployed.
We have also at our disposal the various studies which were provided by the other place, studies which could have been provided by the House of Commons if we had had a willing administration which wanted to recognize that we had a responsibility in this elected chamber. Nevertheless, the excellent manpower study conducted by the Senate last year estimates that one million additional jobs will be needed by 1965 in order to accommodate the estimated growth in our labour force and get the rate of unemployment down to a reasonable proportion. Therefore it will

not be sufficient for the government to claim month after month that more Canadians are working than ever before.
A significant fact is that unless the government takes action, more Canadians than ever before will be unsuccessful in obtaining work. It is suggested that 3 per cent of our labour force is the maximum rate of unemployment that we can permit. Our objective, of course, should be to see to it that all Canadians are at work. That is the objective of the Liberal party in the program which has been stated in this house and which I propose, before I resume my seat, to repeat. That program, if implemented by this government, would provide a solution to this problem, as no other proposals put forward by this government or by any other political group are capable of doing.
In the Canadian economy long term unemployment, that is unemployment extending for more than 15 weeks during the year, is tending upward at a discouraging rate. My examination of the unemployment figures shows, for instance, that on the basis of the information presented yesterday, in August of this year 117,000 of the unemployed have been seeking work for over four months. This represents more than one third of the total number of unemployed in Canada, and
16,000	more than the unemployed in this particular category in August of 1960.
A long period of unsuccessful job seeking represents a real crisis in the personal life of an individual and an irrecoverable loss, both to himself and to the economy, of his productive capacity which goes unused during that time. The available statistics actually underestimate the amount of long term unemployment, for the labour force survey gives us only a snapshot at one point in time of those who have been continuously unemployed for a long period. However, a high proportion of those who have been out of work for 15 weeks of the year have more than one spell of unemployment per year, so they would not show up as having been unemployed for over three months on any given survey date.
We cannot blame the growth in the labour force, as the minister is apt to do, for this phenomenon, for the fastest growing components in the labour force are women and young men who do not suffer from unemployment. Growth in long term unemployment is due to basic changes in the structure of the economy, a decline in agriculture, in the extractive industries, railroads and so on. Workers in specific geographic areas have been victims of plant shutdowns or relocations. Many factors contribute to an excess of supply over demand for labour for long periods in distressed areas, factors such as the immobility of

labour, about which I shall have something more to say when I discuss the question of distressed areas.
What about this government's program for assisting distressed areas, by the way? What are the latest figures as to the number of areas that have been designated for assistance under this government's anaemic program deriving from the announcement made by the Minister of Finance last December of the government's plan to allow double depreciation; this program which has become, in the judgment of all responsible persons, a farce? It has, of course always been difficult to conceive how a program which provided for depreciation allowance in respect of one year only could be capable of meeting the serious problem which confronts us.
Even if we had full employment at the national level the minister recognizes, I am sure, that automation and the immobility of labour would leave us with pockets of high unemployment. Such is the character of our economy as it has taken on its present form, particularly during the past three or four years. The inability of the government to promote measures to ensure full employment at the national level has tended to aggravate the problem of regional unemployment. Many people living in areas of high unemployment lack a gainful livelihood for prolonged periods. The loss of income at the personal level results in the community being unable to provide even essential services.
Coupled with this deficiency, the problem of providing welfare for the unemployed in turn becomes impossible. The federal government is not seeking to overcome this problem. It comes forward with assistance to small business; it comes forward with a program of vocational training and so on, but all these things are of long term consequence. What the government fails to produce is a crash program, something which would provide immediate relief for the thousands who are still out of work. Failing such action, according to the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission, unemployment this coming winter will reach proportions similar to the figures of the past winter. Should this be the case the government has no excuse now, after the experience of three years, for failing to come forward with a crash program, as well as its long term program, to meet the situation.
To overcome this problem the federal government must aid in regional planning and supplement the financial capacity of the various regions to implement a region wide plan by means of federal grants and credits so the unemployed will have jobs to move to 90205-6-543J
Supply-Labour
and, what is more important, by means of tax incentives promote the location of industry in distressed areas.
I have a great deal to say on these estimates, and under our procedure it will not be possible for me to say all I have to say at this time. However, I propose to deal with a number of matters before these estimates are passed. I wish particularly to deal with the manner in which this government has escaped its responsibility in connection with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I wish to deal with the contemptuous way it has treated parliament in deciding to establish a royal commission to assume the responsibility which, in the month of January, this government said it was going to assume by bringing forward a bill during the present session of parliament. But I shall say more on that subject later on.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Essex East has mentioned that the rules governing this committee will not permit him to carry on beyond a limited time. May I say it would be very acceptable to us if the hon. member were to be allowed unlimited time in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is indeed very generous, and I thank him.


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out that my time has not expired yet. I have been speaking for only 15 minutes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give unanimous consent for the hon. gentleman to continue for an unlimited period if that will afford greater continuity to his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is among those who take the position that all we do is criticize the government, and then the minister asks what we would do. That reply frequently is echoed in certain newspapers in our country. The suggestion is that all the Liberals do is criticize, that we never put forward a positive program.
The fact is that we have repeatedly in this chamber put forward our ideas as to how this problem can be met. I am going to repeat that program today so the country will know that not only have we indicted the government for its failure to deal with this problem, but at the same time we have a positive approach to the solution of the problem. Our solution is predicated on the belief that the freedom and integrity of our society depend on our being able to minimize the severity

Supply-Labour
of all that is involved in a high level of unemployment. Let us examine what we would propose to do.
1.	We would first of all transfer the responsibility for unemployment from the Department of Labour to the government as a whole. That in no way is a reflection on the minister himself. We maintain that the Department of Labour as presently constituted is not in a position adequately to deal with this problem.
2.	We would establish a national advisory council to deal with the problems of economic development, automation and employment.
3.	We would reassess federal agencies concerned with unemployment for the purpose of greatly extending their job finding function, of helping willing potential workers to find jobs outside of labour surplus areas, of intensifying vocational training programs. I shall have something to say about the vocational training program of the government later on. At first glance the program of the government may appear sound, but it is not providing results of the type which it was intended to provide, as I shall show particularly when I examine the situation in certain Canadian communities with regard to unskilled workers.
4.	We would integrate a flexible monetary policy with a fiscal policy suitable to the promotion of growth. In passing I should like to say that the government at long last has accepted the position we have taken with regard to its responsibility in the matter of monetary policy. The statement of the present governor of the Bank of Canada and that of the present Minister of Finance reflects what we have been contending all along. If this government had recognized earlier its responsibility in that regard, it is highly likely that the problem of unemployment would not be as severe as it has been and continues to be.
5.	We would balance the budget at full employment levels giving tax rebates during periods of recession and refunding the public debt during periods of expansion.
6.	We would introduce tax measures that would provide exemptions to encourage enterprise and increase private investment which, by the way, has drastically fallen since 1960. We would provide exemptions of a type that would encourage industry to locate in depressed areas. We would provide such policies as would encourage an improvement in our export position. We would provide a real accelerated depreciation program, one that would be a real encouragement to industry, not the kind of anaemic program presented by the Minister of Finance, jointly administered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour; a program which I venture

to suggest will, by the revelation of the latest figures, prove to be absolutely ineffective in providing substantial employment in Canada.
I would be surprised today if the Minister of Labour could point to one instance of an individual being employed in Canada as a result of the double depreciation program.
We would provide encouragement, then, through an accelerated depreciation program, through depletion allowances, through special treatment of retained earnings that are actually invested, and through lower corporate taxes on increased export activities. These are the things which must be resorted to if we are going to stimulate our economy and provide the level of employment which our people expect and which this government in 1957 and 1958 assured the Canadian people it would effect.
7.	We would modify the present winter works program. We believe that the federal government should pay a higher percentage of the total cost and not just part of the labour costs on municipal projects. We believe that federal assistance should be given on a sliding scale measured in terms of the gravity of the local unemployment situation.
8.	As we indicated at our convention last January, we would establish a municipal loan fund to enable local governments to participate in intergovernment make-work schemes. This would have a special meaning for such areas as the Atlantic provinces. We would provide a shelf of public works to be implemented at the local level, federal assistance being conditional on implementation of projects during the periods of high unemployment. We recognize that while much can be done in this particular there are limitations that attend such a program.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, to continue the program of the Liberal party, as a means of dealing with this major program, No. 10, we would provide for massive vocational and retraining programs to up-date the skills of the labour force, similar to what was accomplished during the war. Supplementary benefits paid to those willing to undergo instruction training should be provided.
No. 11, we would provide for increased public investment. Not merely would we divert investment from private sectors to the public sectors, but we would provide increased public investment itself.

Additional expenditures on central public services, hospitals and the like, provide an avenue of assistance that would help to stimulate the economy. This was noted by the mayors and municipalities of Canada at the recent meeting of the Canadian federation when it was observed that in every community across Canada there exists a great and growing backlog of essential community requirements of which the most urgent are housing, hospitals, schools, recreational facilities, renewal of blighted areas in the central core of our cities, civic centres, streets, highways, bridges and public transit to facilitate movement in our rapidly growing cities; underground service for water supply and food disposal.
In addition, we would provide assistance to secondary industry. Secondary manufacturing industries must play an increasingly important role in providing both uprising employment and income. Healthy expansion of these industries calls for special measures to increase both their markets at home and abroad. Tax measures should be used to encourage our domestic manufacturing industries to expand their exports, and incentives should take various forms such as reduction in the tax on the earnings of business, where there follows an increase of export sales. I made mention of this earlier but I have dealt with it a little more particularly now.
There must be stimulation of our export industry. The new Liberal government would take the initiative in actively pursuing, with other members of the organization of economic co-operation and development, all possible methods of freeing trade and expanding employment in the Atlantic area.
We ought to provide for more flexible forms of credit for industry and consumers. There is need for improvement in our financial machinery, in order to increase the availability of capital for the establishment, expansion and development of industries. We would see to it that adequate credit is available for the growth of industry. We recognize that there are special responsibilities of the federal government toward certain areas in Canada. I have mentioned distressed areas, but with special mention, I should like to note the assistance that we believe should be provided now for the Atlantic region. We believe that there should be measures to encourage the expansion of industry and employment in the Atlantic provinces. We have set forth in the resolutions of the January convention the details of this objective.
All the economic policies of a Liberal government, Mr. Chairman, would be directed toward recreating an environment in which Canadians can work, save and invest with confidence in the growth of the country and
Supply-Labour
its stability. It will be said, as it has been said, that when in opposition we take a bold and forthright position. The fact is that when we were in office, notwithstanding what hon. gentlemen may say, we did provide the highest level of employment that this country has ever enjoyed. At no time during the period when we were able to resuscitate ourselves from the consequences of the 1930-35 depression did unemployment ever reach anything over 3 per cent of the total work force. Hon. gentlemen may trot out figures for this particular year or that particular month, but the record is there for everyone to examine. No one will be able to contend that there was any period, during the time when we were in office, that is comparable with the situation now confronting us. But even if there was, that does not absolve this government from its responsibility in the face of this serious problem.
This problem is one that must be resolved if we are going to preserve, as I said a moment ago, the integrity and character of our free society. There are many things that the government can do now. Over four and a half months ago we had presented to us the Bladen commission report, a commission appointed by the government to examine into the state of the automobile industry, but we have not had any indication from the government whatsoever of its intention to implement that report. It is true that the assistance that was given by a reduction in the excise tax was a recommendation of the commission. This reduction had been urged in the house, and hon. gentlemen who refer to that as an acceptance of the Bladen report will find themselves not fully demonstrating that they have exhausted their reading of that report. Why should there be this delay in examining and accepting either in whole or in part the proposals made by that royal commission with regard to a very vital industry in our country or providing alternatives to those proposals?
True, the government brought forward legislation last fall to provide for vocational training. We were told, as I have reminded the house on a number of occasions, that the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission said that only one in ten of the unemployed in our country possesses a skill that would enable him to assume a particular job there available. That is a serious situation. True, the government brought forward an amendment to the vocational training act. We pointed out at that time that those provisions were not generous enough to meet the problem, and I have before me pretty strong supporting evidence of the grounds that we took at that time.

Supply-Labour
I understand, for instance, that in the city of Toronto alone there was recently produced a figure of 2,642 unemployed Toronto men and women who were barred from participating in the retraining program set up for them. That figure represents 70 per cent of the applicants for retraining. I say that a scheme which overlooks 70 per cent of the applicants is obviously inadequate. One might well say, what kind of a program is it that turns down three quarters of the jobless people it is intended to help?
The real reason for this, of course, is that the vocational training courses being offered under the combined federal-provincial assistance program require grade 10 qualifications and most of the applicants in this figure of 2,642 do not possess a grade 10 certificate. There is an obvious remedy for this situation and that is to offer academic subjects in the program. We want to provide education to men and women so that they can be fit to take on jobs that are available to them. We should now recognize that the vocational training act must be amended to provide this recognition of the need of training persons with education below grade 10 level, so that they can have the necessary academic background to take added training and in turn to provide them with the kinds of skills essential at this time.
These are just two of the things I mention to indicate that the government is really not meeting this problem head on. The government as a whole has not engaged in a process of planned effort. I do not mean planned effort in the sense in which that term is used by those who would build up a state octopus. I do not believe in the planning to which some totalitarian countries of communist or other types have resorted to, but the kind of planning necessary at this time, if we are going to have a successful confrontation of this problem. These two isolated cases demonstrate how the government has not engaged in a process of planned programming to try to meet the problem. That is why we find ourselves face to face almost every day with evidence which shows the lack of a dynamic and complete approach by the government to this whole problem.
On these estimates there is one other matter which I have foreshadowed and about which I would like to say something. We were told by the Minister of Labour on May 9 last that a carefully thought out program of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act would be brought before parliament this session. We were told that the government had made a study of the report of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance

commission and that as a result of the government's study of that report it had come to the conclusion that the problem facing the authorities could not be met simply by appropriating money to meet the payments which would be required to bolster the fund. The important thing is that the minister told us that the program would be brought down in parliament during the course of the session in which we were then, as now, engaged.
This intention was referred to, of course, by the government in the speech from the throne, in the month of January, when the government announced that legislation would be brought forward at this session to provide amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to deal with substantive features of the act as well as to provide for the kind of economic cushioning, necessary because of the perilous financial state into which the fund had been plunged. We were told, as I say, about the government's intention in the month of January. It was confirmed during a speech made by the Minister of Labour in this house on May 9 and confirmation of the government's intention was repeatedly given by responses to questions put by members of the Liberal opposition during the course of the present session of parliament. About two days before we adjourned in July I asked the government when it was going to bring down these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Minister of Labour told us that that matter was still under study. The implication was clear, that when we resumed we would have before us the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and that we, in this house, would give consideration to those amendments.
A little more than a week after we adjourned in July an announcement was made in the press, I think it was on July 25, that the government had appointed a royal commission. The Prime Minister did not use the words "royal commission", but he said they had appointed a committee. This committee was to go into the whole question of the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Prime Minister mentioned in his statement the financial state of the fund, thereby indicating that this committee would also examine into that problem. I say, Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time this government has resorted to this particular device, leading the house to believe in the dying days of the session that it was going to carry forward with its program announced in the speech from the throne and then the moment we were out of this chamber, no longer face to face with the Minister of Labour, the government announces a device by which it hopes to remove from this

house not only the responsibility for formulating a policy but for discussing the measure prior to the formulation of that policy. This act was an act that can only be branded as one that holds parliament in contempt.
This was not the first time this had been done. We will all remember that just before parliament adjourned in the summer of 1960, I asked the Minister of Labour to table the latest report of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission. He said it was not available and within a few hours of our adjourning, in a manner that defied our examining the report, the report was placed on the table through the Clerk. We had prorogued, as a matter of fact, before we learned the contents of that report. Parliament was denied, then, the opportunity of discussing the terms of that report, just as we are now being denied the opportunity of knowing what the government's policy is with regard to amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The government said it had a policy in January. It told us the same thing on May 9 and yet, within a few days of our leaving this house it announced that instead of the policy being formulated by the government, it was going to appoint a royal commission to examine into the whole state of the unemployment insurance fund, to provide suggestions for amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I say, Mr. Chairman, that act on the part of the government is one that shows the government's contemptuous regard for this parliament. We should in this session be dealing with the unemployment insurance amendments. We should not leave this subject to gentlemen outside of this house. This is our responsibility. The government said it was our responsibility in January. What has intervened in the meantime to cause the government to change its position?
Is it because the government has not the courage to face the issues that will be projected as a result of gaps that exist in the Unemployment Insurance Act? This is not the first time, as I say, that the government has resorted to this device. I regret that the Minister of Labour should be the tool of the government in this devious practice of not recognizing the pre-emptive right of parliament in these matters. Of course, this device of this government, the appointment of royal commissions, is not new. In the course of three and a half years this government has appointed 14 royal commissions to assume responsibilities which the present Prime Minister said, when he was in opposition, were those which should be borne by the government as a whole. These are devices which fool no one. These are devices to enable the government to escape its responsibilities, to
Supply-Labour
enable it to say to the Canadian people, "Oh well, we could not bring forward a definite policy with regard to this matter for the simple reason that matter is now being studied by a royal commission."
You know, a royal commission is sacrosanct. It is difficult to discuss a subject that is before a royal commission. It is argued here that this government, by the use of this device of appointing royal commissions, has not removed from us in this house the responsibility of examining these matters. We have before us the latest report of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance fund. I would be interested in knowing how many members have read this report. Those who have read it will come to the conclusion, that it is most regrettable we are denied the opportunity of examining the unemployment insurance amendments and considering the government's policy for replenishing the fund. The fund has reached a perilous state. The unemployment insurance fund will be down to its last penny by early 1962, so the committee points out, unless the government replenishes the fund in some way. The committee points out that with another winter of high unemployment the fund may be expected to be empty entirely by next May. It points out that the balance in the fund has been skidding for three years. It was $184,685,000 on March 31, about half what it was the year previous, and this in the face of the fact the fund in 1956 stood at $962,726,930. The latest published figure, since the fund year ended on March 31, shows that at the end of July the balance was $120,771,909. The committee goes on to advise the government that it should make special grants to the fund from which unemployment insurance benefits might be paid in order to carry the fund over until the precarious state of the fund can be corrected by amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Is it because of this report that this government has taken steps to deny us the opportunity of examining into something about which this government said in January, 1961, it had a definite policy. When we think, Mr. Chairman, that during the whole 20 years of this fund $3.25 billion have been paid out in unemployment insurance benefits, when we realize that in 1942 only $37 million was paid in benefits and that by 1958 the benefit total had reached $492.9 million, we see perhaps some of the provocation for the devious course the government is following in this matter through the appointment of a royal commission and its reluctance to do something which this government said in January last it was prepared to deal with in this house. These are matters the minister will have to explain. These are matters which he cannot leave untouched. He cannot say the government, in its

Supply-Labour
wisdom, has appointed a royal commission now and that it would not serve the national interest for us to take a course with regard to this matter that would in any way work against the careful and objective assessment of the royal commission. The royal commission has not yet begun its sittings. I venture to suggest that a federal election will be over before we get a report from the commission. We will not know for many months, for many months, for over a year, what amendments are going to be provided for with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act and what this government is going to do to replenish the fund.
This is not a fund that belongs to parliament; this is not a fund that belongs to the government of Canada; this is a fund in the main which belongs to two segments of the Canadian population, the workers and the employers of Canada. It is their money. This government has used this money, and it owes it to those who are the beneficiaries of the fund, who are its owners, to explain what the government is going to do by way of bolstering that fund.
We would like to know, for instance, if it is the government's intention to bolster the fund by increasing contributions, without in any way providing an increase in the pattern of benefits, as was done two years ago That was a scandalous performance, increasing the contributions of the workers of this country at a time of high employment, without increasing the pattern of benefits.
These, Mr. Chairman, are some of the matters that engage our consideration as we begin once again to discuss the estimates of the Department of Labour. I hope before the Minister of Labour allows these estimates to pass he will indicate that the government is not sitting back complacently with regard to this problem of unemployment; that it is not drawing the conclusion that because the figure for the last reported period shows a drop of 31,000 in the number of unemployed, everything is well. Let the minister take the committee into his confidence.
What are the prognostications of his department? There was a time-and I would be surprised if that practice did not still exist -when the Minister of Labour was furnished with quarterly assessments for the ensuing period. We have seen assessments as to what levels of unemployment are likely to persist during the fall of 1961 and the winter of 1962. The advisory committee of the unemployment insurance fund, a non-political body serving the government in an advisory capacity, tells us that unemployment in this period will be comparable to last year. If that is the case, what is the government going to do about it? Is it going to continue

in the way in which it has dealt with this problem over the course of the past three years, or is it going to come forward with a program, not only in the long term but to meet the existing social waste that flows from unemployment?
That is the main domestic responsibility of this government and no other issue, no matter how important it may be, on the domestic front or internationally can becloud the existence of this issue. This government cannot shrink from its responsibility. Let the government no longer say that it has not had suggestions from the opposition. Those suggestions were in large measure repeated by me today for the simple reason that I did not want hon. gentlemen opposite to say we had no suggestions to make, repeating the suggestion they have made from time to time to the effect that we do not have a positive program.
We were not elected to deal with this problem. The responsibility is one that primarily rests on the government. If it has no program, then let it adopt the Liberal party program. If it does that, we will find that Canada will gradually be restored to the high economic state it had when in 1957 we left office. That is the challenge I put forward.
The Minister of Labour has an opportunity to examine every one of these proposals. Let him tell the committee whether the government subscribes to them or not. If he does not accept those proposals, what does he offer? To tell us that the government is going to continue with its double depreciation program will certainly be a farcical answer because that program can only be described as one capable of producing little, if anything at all.
The government's winter works program, good in principle, obviously does not go far enough. Amendments are proposed by us and by the organization of mayors and municipalities. This is not a federal program. The minister talks about this winter works program as though it were the responsibility of the federal government. It is the program of the municipalities of Canada and the provinces of Canada; they pay two thirds of the cost of the program. Yet this government parades across the country, referring to its achievement in terms of solving unemployment by its winter works program, a program that basically, in a titular way, belongs to the provinces and municipalities and to which the federal government is only one third a contributing party and to which it does not contribute as much as the other two parties.
Let this government realize that it has thus far failed to meet its responsibilities

in this field. Let it courageously tell the house and the country what it proposes to do to bring about a mitigation of this, the most serious domestic problem in our country.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to listen to the hon. member for Essex East. However, I often wonder why his actions when in office did not meet his eloquence and the embracing of particular ideas that he now espouses.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, they did.


Frank Howard: The hon. member says they did. Of course, the record will show the position to be completely otherwise. It is not my intention to again enter into an extensive discussion of matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour, for this was done earlier this session when the estimates were considered before the recess.
However, there is one matter of general importance and general concern that took place after parliament recessed in the summer and about which the hon. member for Essex East spoke at some length. I should like to make a comment or two in this regard. I refer to the appointment of the royal commission to deal with the Unemployment Insurance Act.
All this indicates to me is that the government itself, and perhaps even the minister, is void of opinions and policies on what should be done with respect to unemployment insurance and has used the means of the appointment of some study group to deal with the matter in the hope that it can prevent itself being criticized for delay and procrastination on this very, very important matter.
It would not surprise me in the least, with the expectation that we may have a federal election next year, if this royal commission report were just coincidentally made available at the time of that election so the Prime Minister could tour the country waving this royal commission report, along with all the other royal commission reports, in front of the general public saying to them, as the Prime Minister is so able to say, "All you have to do is just re-elect me and these things will come into effect tomorrow". We all know, of course, that the past record of this government and of the Prime Minister particularly shows that actions while in office have no connection whatsoever with lavish promises made before an election. I wish the study group well in its considerations and in its discussion of the Unemployment Insurance Act and of the fund itself. Certainly there are hundreds of thousands of people in this
Supply-Labour
country who are concerned about these subjects and who have been concerned about them for years. So, naturally, the government should be concerned about this field. As I say, I wish this study group well and I hope it comes up with some sensible and fair recommendations for changes which will be found acceptable by the government in office. However, the experience of past practice leads me to believe that the government will not give too much consideration to what this commission or study group recommends. A few years ago an investigation was made into another matter of concern to the people of Canada, and the result of that recommendation is referred to now as the Clark report. This was an urgent matter in 1957 and 1958-[DOT] urgent only because the Prime Minister wanted to use it as an election gimmick. That report has been filed with the government for a long time, now, but so far all we have discovered is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has lost it or, as the phrase goes, is giving it consideration. I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister or the government intend to take any action with regard to it.
There was a report made to the government by the royal commission on publications but so far nothing has been heard of it. I suppose that has got lost, too. The report of the royal commission set up to inquire into the automobile industry, known as the Bladen commission, is another report which has been by-passed and pushed into some dusty closet. In this connection I recall reading some Conservative party propaganda published back in 1957 in which the present Minister of Labour was lauded as being the sole and only expert in Canada on the automobile industry. In any event, we had a royal commission to investigate that matter and the report has been lost. There was a report and recommendations with respect to national fish marketing questions but so far the minister and his colleagues have pushed them to one side. Thus, as I say, past experience indicates that this so-called royal commission appointed to deal with the Unemployment Insurance Act, the commission and the fund is nothing more than a subterfuge to enable the government to get out from under a difficult problem about which it intends to make no decision anyway. In this regard the government operates in an ostrich-like fashion, as does the Minister of Finance in particular, hoping that things will get better in the coming year and giving that as an excuse for doing nothing. I think that is a disgraceful manner in which to treat working class people-to shift these all-important matters on to a royal commission or study

Supply-Labour
group and then, when money has been spent on making the report, to file that report away and forget about it.
One specific matter I should like to deal with relates to wages, hours and working conditions in the H.M.C. Dockyard in Halifax and particularly those of tradesmen employed in the yard. As far back, at least, as 1950 -and this includes the period when the hon. member for Essex East was in office-there has been dissension between the employees working in that yard and the government because of the attitude taken by the government with regard to wages, especially the wages paid to tradesmen. There is a system in effect-what the formula is it is impossible to discover-which allows the government to conduct surveys from time to time in private industry in the particular area around Halifax and by some magic formula determine what the prevailing or average rate of pay is. This average is then applied to the workmen in the dockyard. This is what causes the disagreement, the hard feelings and the bitterness, in many instances, of the employees working there toward this government and other governments which have held office.
In the past the government has been inundated with letters, telegrams, personal visits, telephone calls, briefs, presentations, arguments and the like from employees and unions representing those employees in the dockyards about this question of prevailing rates and the rate applicable in the yard itself. So far, no answer has been given. So far over all the years all the employees have got is the run-around, being pushed from one department to another. The question has been referred to interdepartmental committees for study and report but no action has been taken toward a solution, nor is there any indication that a solution will be arrived at. As a result the government cannot expect anything else but disagreement and hard feelings to develop, together with occasional walkouts on the job. As I say, this has been going on for at least ten years and the position has become even more difficult in the last few months. At one time there used to be an arrangement with regard to certain tradesmen under which rates were known as starred rates, or what we might call red circle rates, under which an extra five cents an hour was paid. This was in recognition of efficiency and extra skill on the part of the individuals concerned. In May, 1960, there was a general five cent an hour increase in the rates of the industry itself. When this five cent increase was applied in the yard it was decided that the men getting the starred rates, or red circle rates, would not receive the five cent increase. In fact, they

lost five cents because of the attitude of the government. From that time on there were more briefs, more letters and more telephone calls to a variety of members of the cabinet but, once again, all the workers got was the run-around.
As a matter of fact, this question was dealt with by treasury board. The board discussed what was to be the position with respect to establishing a proper formula to govern the pay of the employees. Some time in April- I believe it was on April 17-the board decided that no change should be made in the formula, the reasoning being that it would not be economically sound to take a wage structure which applied to one section of the economy and superimpose the average on another section of the economy. This meant, for argument sake, that the treasury board said that the administration was not going to survey, say, the construction field and then decide that the prevailing rate, or the average rate, should be applicable to the dockyard workers. This would amount to taking results from one section of the economy and impinging them on another section, and for this reason the board decided that the old system should continue to prevail.
What position has been taken by the government with respect to other types of employees in the dockyard? With respect to carpenters and others it takes the prevailing rate applicable in the industry and applies it in the shipyard.
Surveys into the matter have been conducted by the unions in an attempt to find logical and statistical arguments to present to the government. As of July 5 of this year the prevailing rate for comparable work in Nova Scotia ran as high as $2.80 an hour but the rate applicable at the dockyard was $2.05 an hour. By virtue of the government's inherent laziness in dealing with difficult problems a discrepancy of that magnitude is permitted to exist. I submit this is not a sensible way for the government to behave, especially a government which espouses the ideas which the Prime Minister says it espouses. When treasury board met on this question it brushed aside the legitimate request of the men in the dockyard. I do not know why that was done unless, as I said, it was because the government is lazy in coming to grips with difficult problems.
There are several rankling features of the situation in the dockyard. Over the years these employees have attempted to have instituted a system of collective bargaining. They wish to sit down with their employer and discuss the question of a formula for applying prevailing rates. Even that small request has been denied them. No opportunity

has been given them to discuss this matter with those who make these decisions and impose them on the employees, usually without consideration as to the result. These people desire a fair formula and the right to enjoy collective bargaining. They merely wish the rights that are available to almost all other employees in the nation.
There is also concern about the question of check-off. I do not have details of the matter but I know the government will check off union dues for members of staff organizations and associations but does not have the decency to extend the same courtesy to those who are members of trade unions. I am sure this is not in keeping with the public utterances of the minister concerning the rights of employees in Canada. Possibly the minister is not aware of the situation. Perhaps it was not discussed at meetings he attended or perhaps he simply did not pay attention. In any event I put this matter forward now in a public way.
I am informed that on June 27 meetings were held at which these matters were discussed, the questions of a formula, check-off and collective bargaining. In the month of April the minister must have had some knowledge of this matter because he wrote a letter to the dockyard council saying that an interdepartmental committee had been set up as a result of these questions having been discussed. These committees offer little hope to the people on the job. They are not concerned with committees that meet in secret and which take no action. They are concerned with their basic right to enjoy some control over their own welfare, the right to discuss points of difference with their employer. The government should have the courtesy to advise the unions involved that an opportunity will be provided to discuss these points of difference in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution.
I wish to point out to the minister that this problem will not be solved by interdepartmental committees. These have been established on this question before. The question was brushed aside by the committees and no conclusion was reached. Treasury board made the spurious decision to which I referred earlier. As a result of not adopting a fair formula some employees receive up to 75 cents an hour less than comparable employees elsewhere in the province engaged in private industry.
Because of the failure of the government to extend the courtesy to which I referred with respect to the check-off of union dues those outside the staff associations must wander about attempting to collect cash dues from
Supply-Labour
their members. The minister can appreciate how this interferes with the work force and contributes to a negative attitude.
In conclusion I say to the minister that the problem will not be solved by interdepartmental committees nor by letters to the effect that the matter is being given consideration, no matter what adjective is used to qualify the consideration. The minister must say to the council and the union that the government is prepared to sit down with them and negotiate these differences of opinion in an effort to reach a conclusion satisfactory to all. If the minister were to do that he would have taken a forward step toward reaching settlement of the difficulty and would remove any doubt that would tend to be cast on the sincerity of his public utterances.
(Translation):


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Chairman, I was most impressed by the eloquent speech made in this chamber by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). He is always interesting, and the only criticism I would address to him would be that he repeats a little too often previous statements made by him many times at the beginning of this session. I cannot blame him because, as I just said it is always a pleasure both for government and opposition members to listen to the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I have no intention today of dealing with a controversial issue; neither do I have any desire to discuss the particular arguments brought forth in the course of this debate by the hon. members of the opposition. I would rather deal with a general issue of great interest to me and which in my opinion should also be of interest to all the right-minded Canadians. I am referring to the economic freedom in Canada.
Freedom, our most precious right in this world, as it was so well described by the great French writer, Louis Veuillot, inspires good thinking and I noticed when I was preparing my remarks that thoughts along that line are not always easy to express. I therefore ask the house to be indulgent for someone treading on ground as difficult as world economy.
The person who can act without restraint, while abiding by the laws, enjoys civil liberty, from which stem liberty of thought and action on temporal and spiritual things.
Canada certainly has just as much wealth of civilization if not more than her neighbours.
The faculty we enjoy of acting, speaking and writing freely is however submitted to

Supply-Labour
the free right of criticism which is rarely unemployed here in Canada. Criticism can be severe at times, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to say that it uses a sprinkler which often has the appearance of a bludgeon.
Criticism might be severe and refuse to admit certain views I express, but I do not think it can lessen my sincerity. It is a well known fact that the majority of the Canadian population is of French or English descent and that it has a leading influence. However, that influence does not allow us to ignore that Canadian freedom, during the last 60 years, has been generously granted to an important part of our population which is of other descents.
Thousands of immigrants, indeed millions, have come from almost all the European countries. Many of them settled in our cities, but the majority chose our western prairies. They took advantage of our naturalization act, thus securing the franchise and the consequential freedom to discuss with us our national issues.
In the economic structure of Canada, their intellectual influence and their material wealth cannot be ignored.
For Canadians whose forefathers settled in this country long ago, whether French or English speaking, as well as for Canadians by adoption, the freedoms of thought, of speech, of writing, and the right to pray, to own properties and to vote are the same. The privilege of being a free man in a biethnical and bicultural country is one of the greatest advantages that is fortunately to be found in our country.
In the province of Quebec, we enjoy this great privilege of having for our mother tongue the French language which has the fluidity of running water and the resistance of metal, as a great French writer so well described it.
Moreover, we enjoy this freedom of religion which has enabled us to build churches in our cities where we may pray God in the caith of our parents or that of our choice.
In addition to this freedom of speech, of religion, of action and of opinion, we enjoy economic freedom that permits us to convert into riches the products of the soil with which Providence has so generously endowed all parts of our country. The material results obtained are impressive:	transcontinental
railways whose facilities are being constantly improved, civil and commercial aviation, the building of the St. Lawrence seaway, huge Canadian factories, agricultural products of which wheat alone represents up to 500 million bushels-

(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -exports of forest products- (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to rise on a point of order. My point of order is that we are considering the estimates of the Department of Labour, the conduct of the Minister of Labour, and presumably those problems directly associated with his department. I am just wondering whether the Associate Minister of National Defence has not made a mistake about the audience to which he is speaking and perhaps the speech he intended for the Richelieu club is being delivered here instead.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, may I say first of all that when I started my remarks I said that I was going to speak on a general theme. I am trying to give a general description of the advantages which we have in Canada which to my way of thinking permit us to say that the economic situation, far from being as bad as hon. members of the opposition would like the Canadian people to believe is on the contrary a very strong, very potent and very rich one, and that we have every reason to be proud of the results which have been achieved. The fact that, in spite of the prophecies of gloom which we have heard so frequently from hon. members opposite, this government has succeeded in defeating the economic recession which was threatening the nation, is to its credit and its honour.
At long last we are on the way to our new and ever higher destinies. This has been done by various methods which I should like to explain to the committee, and which I am sure are just as interesting to the committee as the eternal prophecies of gloom and doom which we have heard so frequently from hon. members opposite.
If the hon. member will permit me to continue my remarks I shall do so, and I would appreciate it if he did not interrupt me any more than we did when he repeated the same old speeches which we have heard so frequently in the house.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps I should intercede just briefly to indicate that I was listening carefully to the minister. I am inclined to the view that a general discourse on the economy of the country as a whole or of the entire world would be straying a

little far from the narrower subject that is before the committee for consideration.
I have made it a practice, as hon. gentlemen know, to allow a pretty wide scope of debate on item No. 1.
I hope that no member or minister will take advantage of this generous spirit by wandering too far from the topic under consideration.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I will certainly abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to point out in the earlier part of my remarks that in Canada we have a tremendous development program which, if you look at the potential of the nation, is really only in its initial stages. My remarks were intended to indicate that, far from being pessimistic concerning the difficulties which we have experienced in the past and which we may experience again, we have in the contrary every reason to be optimistic because though we have had problems during the last two years we seem to have found the proper solutions and today we are marching toward ever greater prosperity and certainly toward progress.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to the use of the French language to continue the remarks I was making when I was interrupted by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).


Mr. Denis:: And rightly so.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: As I was saying, I listened to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who, explained to us once more before recess, what he said many times in this house when he gave figures on the unemployment situation in Canada, during the past few years. As a matter of fact, we were worried about the unemployment which was prevailing in Canada and which seemed to threaten our economy and the present and future welfare of our fellow citizens.
It is precisely because we were worried about the consequences of unemployment that the government introduced measures which made it possible to cope with the existing difficulties.
For instance, with a view to activating the circulation of money, which means greater buying power for individuals, we have asked the chartered banks to guarantee loans to small industries that need money to build or improve their plants.
Because we have recognized the fact that most of the unemployed are labourers, this
Supply-Labour
government has contributed to a large extent to the establishment of schools which the unemployed of this country can attend to learn a trade, because the government realizes that construction is an essential factor in our country's prosperity.
Billions of dollars have been loaned to Canadian builders and to the citizens who want to build their own homes. This was done through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Precisely because this government knows it is essential to have close co-operation between capital, labour and government, we have decided to call together in a productivity council the heads of the major Canadian industries, the heads of the main labour unions in the country, the people who are experts in economics, industry and all other fields. It is by uniting those three forces-labour, capital and government-that we succeeded in finding formulas that made it possible for our economy to spring back to new life and soar to new heights.
Mr. Chairman, we are happy to find that all our efforts have been successful, since unemployment is not only decreasing but everything shows that the proportion of Canadian workers who are unemployed will continue to decrease. The forecasts for coming years are excellent and even give a promise of unprecedented prosperity.
For instance, allow me to point out that this reduction in unemployment is felt in the district I represent here in this house, where there are about 171,000 workers. There were, last March, more than 6,500 unemployed in that district. Now, last Friday, I met the director of the unemployment insurance office who told me that this number had gone down, in the relatively short period of six months, from 6,500 to about 1,800, and he added that there was work for at least another 1,200 persons.


Azellus Denis: This is on account of Mr. Lesage's administration.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Just in order to show you that the reduction in the unemployment rate in the Longueuil area is very real may I point out that in the Nouveau Journal of Saturday last, we find full pages of ads put in by our merchants, industrialists or businessmen, offering jobs to potential workers.
This goes to show, Mr. Chairman, that the prophecies of doom and gloom we have heard repeatedly from hon. members opposite these last few months, were not based on facts but

Supply-Labour
rather on the only hope these gentlemen have, of regaining, at any price, the power which they lost in 1957, through their inertia, their incompetence and their long disinterest of public affairs.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to recall all the evil done to the renown of our country and, at the same time, to the welfare of our fellow citizens, by their constant harping on the fact that there is in Canada a certain degree of unemployment, as well as the exaggeration, constantly entertained by hon. members opposite, of the seriousness of this problem. I will not go as far as saying that the problem was not serious. I will not try to minimize the importance of taking care of those who are without work and of finding them a job so that they can play an important part in the economy of our country. On the contrary, we have been concerned with those who are without work. We have understood the hardships suffered in homes where the scourge of unemployment unfortunately strikes. As I just said, we have taken all the steps that we could take to check this scourge, and we already consider ourselves very fortunate for having succeeded in this.
I believe that it is in poor taste and surely not proper to constantly seek to blacken Canada's good name by over-emphasizing the seriousness of our economical situation. Last winter, in French and English newspapers, well-known journalists were writing articles telling the British, French, and other Europeans to forget Canada, to forget about coming to settle here and even to forget about investing money in our country because, as they said: "It is becoming more and more obvious, when reading Canadian newspapers and the criticisms made there, that Canada is a country suffering distress and hardship; Canada is no longer the land of tomorrow that we had heard of."
This reputation, given to Canada, is harmful and even disastrous. Moreover, it is not based on fact because Canada, far from being a land of hardship, as hon. members opposite have unfortunately too often tried to give the impression-only, as I say, in order to attain certain political ends-far from being a land of hardship, Canada, on the contrary, might well be the wealthiest country in the world. It is certainly the country where the future is most promising for those who want to start a family, establish a business or an industry, and prosper along with the country.
[Mr. Sevigny.l
Mr. Chairman, one only has to travel in foreign countries, to go to South America for instance, or Africa, or to look at what is happening in Asia, to realize that Canadians born here in Canada, or those who had the privilege of coming here to settle, are actually privileged, and that in fact it is in this country that we find true happiness and the best opportunities for prosperity and a happy future.
Mr. Chairman, I recently went to South America and I was able to witness the poverty of those who live in countries under an autocratic regime, or those whose countries are too often torn by internal revolutions. I saw there, Mr. Chairman, the havoc that communism can visit on a country when it permeates the social, cultural, intellectual and economic life of the nation.
I saw a country, such as Brazil, where out of a population of 70 million inhabitants, 35 million are illiterate and live in the most awful poverty. I saw that land which was called, not so long ago, "Brazil, land of the future", a country one step from bankruptcy, one step from ruin and one step from the most complete social upheaval.
In Argentina, which bears a striking resemblance to our country, from a cultural, social and economic point of view, I saw the threat of complete bankruptcy, and had it not been for the constructive genius of the man who is now that country's president, I think it would be today in the throes of revolution.
Why are those nations in such a state of distress, whereas we here in Canada today are enjoying prosperity, peace and what might be called almost full employment? This, Mr. Chairman, is due to the fact that over there, countries did not realize the greatness of that democratic freedom I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. They failed to realize that it was by living in accordance with the democratic ideal and the philosophy of life which is ours, that a country could develop, prosper and aspire to still greater destinies. At the turn of the century, when they were offered the same chance as we were, they preferred to that democratic system, which gave us our strength which enabled us to develop and prosper and reach our present standards of living, an autocratic and despotic rule which destroyed all liberty. If I mention those things now, Mr. Chairman, it is because I have gained the impression that if we continue being prophets of gloom and doom in this way, and to sow doubt and anxiety in the minds of people, we shall create, here in Canada, a class of revolutionaries, which will

grow in strength, in power and in number at times of economic recession like the one we have known the last two years, when there was unfortunately too much unemployment. It is in the minds filled with doubt and anxiety and it is in homes where people suffer that communism can be sown to develop and eventually spill over and lead to devastation.
I can understand that politicians would want to say that everything is wrong and try to gain some political advantage among a certain class of people by exploiting a certain uneasiness which may exist within the nation. But such an attitude, in my opinion, is not that of a good Canadian, because a policy like this one when stretched too far, when exaggerated as it has been by members of the opposition, is likely to give rise to concern and even terror in the minds of the people, and could easily lead a country, where everything is good, great and prosperous, where freedom prevails like nowhere else, to the tragic situations in which other countries exposed to revolutionary movements find themselves and to the crises which accompany communism wherever it is successful.
Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest earlier to the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and I told him too that is is always with a renewed pleasure that we listen to him in this house. He suggested that the program of the Liberal party should be implemented, because, according to him, it woult result in a prosperity unknown to us up to now. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why the Liberals did not think about some of those points during the 22 years they sat on the treasury benches.


Azellus Denis: There was no unemployment in those days; we had prosperity.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, a report on the economic prospects, prepared by Canada's outstanding economists, forecast, in 1956 and 1957, the economic difficulties we experienced in 1958 and 1959; however, our friends of the opposition, knowing quite well that that report would certainly not help them on the hustings, chose to hide it because the people would have realized by reading it, that it was not with those who had run the country during 22 years, that Canada would achieve prosperity but with the Conservative government which, after its election, succeeded in getting our economy out of the rut where it had been left by the Liberal party. If we are enjoying a certain degree of prosperity today, if today we have progress and if we can look to the
Supply-Labour
future with confidence, surely we do not owe it to any advice given us in this house or elsewhere by the hon. members of the opposition, but rather to the wisdom, skill and intelligence shown by the leaders of the Conserative party in introducing social and economic measures that have brought the country its present state of prosperity.


Mr. Deschaielels:: Mr. Bennett used to talk like that.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the associate minister would permit me to ask him one question?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: If the hon. member will permit, I shall finish my remarks in about two or three minutes and then I will be delighted indeed to answer all his questions. Mr. Chairman, I say to this committee that in our opinion the Canadian people have every reason to be proud of the performance which has been demonstrated by the members of this government in the finding of solutions to the economic problems which faced this nation. The problems were great and it was indeed difficult to find the proper solutions.
The members of this government worked many hours in order to find what they considered to be the right formulas for the Canadian economy. They had the help of all those who in their opinion knew something about these economic problems. They requested the co-operation of all those Canadian citizens interested in the future of Canada and the welfare of its citizens. It is through this co-operation of the state, of capital and of labour that we have arrived at the present successful conclusions.
A moment ago the hon. member for Essex East was suggesting that in order to get more and more prosperity we should follow the program that was enunciated at the Liberal convention which took place here in Ottawa last January.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: May I say this to the hon. member, that if he reviews the various points of this great program to which he refers, he will realize that most of the measures contained in it have already been put into effect by the present Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: If the hon. member looks still more closely and if he goes back to the authors who describe what socialism is, he will find out that the other measures he

Supply-Labour
suggests are purely socialist measures which possibly could be understood if they came from the mouths of the members of the new party but which cannot be comprehended when they come from members of this once great Liberal party, which at one time could describe itself as the party of free enterprise but which today is more or less a modified version of the so-called new party.
I am very much afraid that if the only formulas the hon. members of the opposition have to suggest are those which they expressed during that great convention of theirs which took place last January, the Canadian people will not find much comfort or much solace in these suggestions. I am confident, on the contrary, that the Canadian people today appreciate the fact that if there is prosperity in this country it is due to the enlightened leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister, the members of his cabinet and the members of the Progressive Conservative party of which I am a proud member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the associate minister was kind enough to say he would be glad to answer all the questions I might ask about his speech. However, I do not think I will take up the time of the committee by going into all the irrelevancies, foreign and domestic, in the speech to which we have just listened. I have a hard, practical question I should like to put to the minister.
He talked about the desolate economic state of this country as revealed in a secret report, which his friends were apparently too stupid to appreciate at the time until they found a report in a drawer. If the conditions were so bad, surely these bright people, these paragons, might have found that out for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have as much right to speak in the committee as anyone else and I am, after all, speaking about the only thing in the speech of the minister that was relevant. What I am doing is laying the foundation for a very simple question. Could the minister explain this. If the economic condition of Canada was so dreadful and so menacing in 1957, and if we have now reached new heights of prosperity, as he has said we have, under the enlightened leadership of the present government, why was it that in 1957 some 280,000 people came to this country from abroad and found employment and a chance to make a living here and this year barely a quarter of that number are going to come, and practically none of them are coming to look for work because they know that is not worth doing?

I should also like to ask the hon. gentleman how it happens that if conditions were so dreadful in 1957 and are so wonderful today, there are more than twice as many Canadians looking for jobs today as there were in August of 1957?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I have said, and I repeat, that in 1956 and 1957 those who studied the economics of the nation could see the dark clouds looming on the horizon, and they said so in a report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true, of course.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It was only because hon. members opposite knew that it would be dangerous, after 22 years of power, to tell the Canadian people all was not rosy on the Liberal horizon that they kept this report carefully hidden. The hon. member has mentioned that 280,000 people came to this country in 1956 or 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was 1957.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: It is true that this year the number has decreased.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To less than a quarter.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: This number has decreased because the hon. members of the opposition, whether it be in this house, on television or on radio, have said too often that there was no future in Canada, and that this was a land of despair. It is because of this that people from abroad are afraid to come here and have refused to come here.
However, I can assure the hon. member that in view of what is happening at the present time this situation is bound to change in future years, because at long last, thanks to the actions of this government, people abroad realize that Canada is a land in which it is pleasant to live and not the land of distress which has been described by hon. members of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Because there are fewer Liberals.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter on a more personal level. I do not recall that I, or any of my colleagues, have ever called the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate names or accused him of stupidity. Frankly, may I say that I find the word "stupid" rather unparliamentary and surely it is out of place in the present debate. I do not hold it against the hon. member for using such words, but I believe his stature would grow in this house and elsewhere if he respected those who engaged in debate with him as much as we try to respect the hon. member when he rises to express his views in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps he misunderstood what I said. I suggested that the minister was himself accusing his colleagues of stupidity, not that I was. I would explain to him very briefly and very simply why I say that, and I think it is very important.
The minister has asserted, as his leader asserted on January 20, 1958, that in a secret document some economists predicted a recession and that this document was hidden. That document was written in January of 1957 apparently by gentlemen with greater prophetic gifts than the leaders of the Conservative party. That was the point I was making, that today the minister has said what the Prime Minister said in January of 1958, that some people working for the federal government knew what was going to happen a year later, but that the Conservative leaders did not know. Why didn't they know, if the signs were so clear? Is the minister saying, and was the Prime Minister saying, that they were, to use the word I used, so stupid that they could not see those signs although some economist in a back room could see them? If so, why have they chased those economists out of the public service and stopped issuing those reports? If these men were so valuable why did hon. gentlemen opposite not keep them instead of getting rid of them? The fact is that months after the present occupants of the treasury benches had taken office the government was still saying there was nothing serious about the employment situation. When the Prime Minister met the premiers in November of 1957-I have not got the document here, but I could get it- he told them: there is a very temporary situation, but we are going to correct it in a few short months. He told the premiers: do not worry, it is nothing serious at all. Remember that the Prime Minister had been in office from June to November, that is to say, for five months, and if he was not stupid it was certainly careless of him not to have discovered this information in the meantime and found out what it was that the economists knew that he himself was not bright enough to see for himself. And, indeed, no other Canadian was aware of it, because anyone who reads that document objectively will realize that it never said what the Prime Minister made it say by picking out bits and pieces and leaving out all the rest. What it did say was that the rate of growth was going down, and Mr. Harris said the same thing in almost exactly
Supply-Labour
the same words in his budget speech well before the election. There was no deception. There was nothing of that sort. The fact of the matter is that in the year 1957 practically every Canadian was employed all through that year though we received, in that same year, the greatest addition to our population from abroad that we have had since 1913-282,000 people. Practically all of those people found work and most of them are still here and looking after themselves.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: On a point of order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to ask him this: is he asking a question or making a speech?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am making a statement in response to the minister's request that I should not accuse him of being stupid. I started out by saying that I was not accusing him of stupidity but that he was accusing his colleagues of stupidity or, to say the least, of carelessness.
Then again, on December 10, 1957 the Minister of Labour himself went to Montreal -this quotation has been referred to year after year and if anyone challenges it I shall produce it. I do not think the minister will challenge it. Well, the Minister of Labour has said on that occasion that there was no recession, that there was no serious unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Seasonal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, seasonal, as my friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont has just reminded us. He said it was just seasonal. Even in December, six months after this government came to office, they had not discovered this terrible situation that some economist in the back room somewhere knew all about the previous March. If that is not a confession of stupidity or a confession of carelessness or a confession of incompetence, I do not know what is. And that is really what the minister's statement amounted to.
The minister cannot get around this other fact that at any time in 1957 unemployment was a great deal less than it has been in any year since in a comparable month-a great deal less-and in the month of August, 1957, it was less than half of what it is today.
The plain fact of the matter is that when members of the government say: why did you not put into effect when you were in office these recommendations you have made regarding unemployment, the answer is that we did not do so for the good reason that at no time after the war was there any persistent unemployment which necessitated such

Supply-Labour
measures. There was, certainly, unemployment in two winters-quite serious unemployment-and at that period the St. Laurent government did not waste any time. They called the provinces together and my hon. friend from Essex East put before them a scheme for unemployment assistance which was accepted by the provinces and which, fortunately, was put into operation by a Liberal government. If it had not been there would have been a great deal more suffering than there has been in the last four years during a period when the Prime Minister promised there would be no suffering as a result of unemployment as long as he was prime minister.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate has once again referred to the stupidity of members of the government-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Self confessed stupidity.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: He says that at that time we lacked the brightness which, he believes, illuminates his own side of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is obvious.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. gentleman referred at length to this report which was so carefully hidden away from the eyes of the Canadian public, and he has referred at length to the speech which was made in January of 1958 by the Prime Minister in this house. It seems to me that if he and his friends remember the effects of that speech it would be best for them in view of the eventual results to forget it. We on this side, of course, are far too courteous and polite ever to call an hon. member of this house stupid or lacking in brightness, but I am afraid that if the hon. member continues in this vein it will be the people of Canada who will call him stupid and lacking in brightness.


Mr. Valade:: On a point of order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will, I am sure, allow me as a backbencher to correct his figures regarding unemployment. I should like to ask him the authority for his statement that there is more unemployment today than at any time in earlier years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: From the bureau of statistics. I happen to have the figures right here on my desk.


Gordon Campbell Chown: That is hardly a point of order. The hon. member can carry on later. The hon. member for Fort William-


Mr. Badanai:: The Associate Minister of National Defence who has just finished a speech on this subject of unemployment is to be congratulated on his faith and belief in the

government of which he is a member. He believes the government is meeting the employment and economic problems of the country. However, we on this side cannot find evidence to substantiate the belief that a solution has been found to these problems.
I do not wish to be analytical or controversial in discussing the estimates of the department presided over by the genial Minister of Labour, for whom I have great respect as a friend of long standing and as the chief executive officer of a most important department of government, but I have one or two questions in which I am particularly interested because they affect my own constituency to no small extent.
The first is the fact well known to this house that the city of Fort William needs new quarters to accommodate the unemployment insurance office, which now occupies a 70 year old building with no sanitary facilities available to the hundreds of people who visit this office daily. I have pointed out to this house on several occasions the deficiency of office space in which this important department is housed. The Minister of Labour informed me two years ago that plans for a new building were being drawn up and that he hoped it would soon be built to accommodate the staff, now subject to the worst possible labour conditions imaginable.
I visited the offices in question on several occasions. The last time I was there was the last week in August of this year. The basement was flooded-it had rained during the night. The corridors were crowded. I could hardly distinguish the office workers from the job seekers. I doubt whether there is a national employment office anywhere in Canada with facilities as poor and inadequate as those at Fort William, which serves an area of 70,000 people.
The minister is well aware that the Department of Public Works owns a central site which was formerly occupied by an armoury now demolished. I should like to hear from him what happened to the plans for the new building, which incidentally when built could accommodate other federal department services now renting from private concerns.
The unemployment situation at the lake-head has eased somewhat, as was expected, and thanks to the defence production program announced by the Minister of Defence Production a few weeks ago industrial plants in the eastern part of Ontario are now busier than they were in the past and the employment outlook is brighter. Canadian plants are beginning to reap the reward from purchases of defence equipment such as aircraft and heavy equipment of all kinds, but unfortunately the plants which are getting the largest share of orders are concentrated in

the eastern parts of the country, chiefly in Toronto and Montreal. While the plant of Canadian Car and Foundry Co., Limited at Fort William is now engaged in the manufacture of prefabricated movable homes for the armed services in the Arctic regions, I am convinced that it should share a larger proportion in the defence production program for Canada. Instead of employing a few hundred people, it should employ a few thousand. I beg the minister to use his influence with his colleague, the Minister of Defence Production, to try and equalize the distribution of defence orders more equitably than has been the case in the past.
The announcement of the minister that the government will contribute to an expanded municipal winter works incentive program to go into effect on October 15 next was, by and large, well received. However, while it includes projects hitherto not allowable under previous legislation, it does not fully meet the requirements of assistance which would spur the municipalities into a program of public works that would absorb a far greater number of men from the ranks of the unemployed.
What the municipalities want is to have the government share in the cost of materials. If such a policy were adopted, it would provide employment for twice the number of men, to say nothing of providing an increase in employment in the manufacture and supply of materials and services as a result of the program.
During the past several years efforts have been made by municipalities, by individuals and by organizations to stimulate winter employment. As an example, the lakehead unemployment advisory board has carried on a "do it now" winter work campaign for some years, and with great success. This committee is composed of men and women dedicated to the welfare of the community who have spent hours at every meeting trying to find some means by which to alleviate the vicious problem of unemployment. I sat in at some of their meetings and I know the sincerity of purpose of these people representing a cross section of the population of the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur. Not the least among the members are the managers of the unemployment insurance offices of both cities, whose zeal and dedication are indeed worthy of praise. I congratulate the department for having men of such high calibre at the head of these offices.
Winter construction now is not what it used to be. With the advancement and adoption of new techniques, construction undertaken in the winter months is of a quality equal to that undertaken in other seasons and therefore there should be no hesitation
Supply-Labour
in stimulating construction in the winter. Contractors should assume greater responsibility in their bidding on projects for construction during the winter.
The co-operation of all levels of governments, and that of individuals, organizations, architects and contractors is required to obtain the maximum construction activity during the winter which alone can ensure a vast improvement in the winter employment situation.
The August issue of the Bank of Montreal's Business Review notes that while everyone agrees high levels of employment are desirable, there is disagreement as to ways and means of achieving this aim. The publication summarizes the findings of the special committee of the other place on manpower and employment, which findings have contributed to a better understanding of the unemployment problem. And here I should like to say that if the other place had done nothing else during the year, the submission of their report alone would fully justify the existence of the upper house.
The review goes on to say that the Senate committee believes that a slower rate of growth, coupled with changes in Canada's basic economic structure, are the principal factors accounting for high unemployment. There was a decline in the rate of capital investment, so that a large portion of the labour force was displaced from construction and capital industries, without the opportunity arising for absorption in other kinds of work. Finally the review quotes the committee's own summary in these words:
There is a changed world environment. There are new trends and new circumstances in our society at home. These require re-thinking and a willingness to re-examine our priorities, our methods, and our machinery of economic policy. Continued progress depends on the ability to adapt, to solve new problems, and to take advantage of new opportunities.
The committee responsible for the statement which I just read has certainly rendered a public service of inestimable value in contributing toward a better understanding of the unemployment problem.
One cannot speak on unemployment without thinking of the melting unemployment insurance fund. In tracing the history of the fund, we find that when it was established in 1940 it was designed to be stable and self perpetuating. The act, which provided for a contribution of 20 per cent by the government, 30 per cent by the employee and 30 per cent by the employer, stood at $900 million by March, 1957. By March, 1958, it had declined to $754 million. By March, 1959 to $512 million and by March, 1960 to $383 million. I am informed that as of August 30, 1961 it was at $140 million.

Supply-Labour
Unless something is done, and done soon, it will not be many months before the fund will have reached bottom. This happened notwithstanding the government's action of two years ago, which increased by 30 per cent the rates payable by employees and employers.
It is true that the number of weeks allowable for benefits under the act was extended from 36 to 52. Is the government considering another boost in the rates which employees and employers are now paying?
Drastic remedial measures are needed now. A blood transfusion of approximately $200 million is necessary to put the fund back at a level where our present unemployed may be assured subsistence payment until they can find gainful employment again. And I submit that the only source this money can come from is the federal treasury.
The one-time surplus unemployment fund of $900 million is no longer self-sustaining.
Apart from the causes of poor investments, this diminution has been brought about because of relatively high unemployment with which this government has been unable to cope.
I wish to have the permission of the committee to insert in Hansard a table having to do with the number of claimants for unemployment insurance. The source of this information is the Canadian Statistical Review of March, 1961. If the committee wishes I can read it.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give leave to the hon. gentleman to have this table inserted in Hansard at this point in his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
*Claimants for Unemployment Insurance
			(in thousands)		
1956	1957	1958	1959	1960January 	546	835	785	783February 	572	869	796	814March 	559	860	767	823April 	374	722	611	715May 	250	551	279	364June	205	445	220	296July 	206	301	226	294August 	209	295	210	280September 	227	283	202	280October	
139	268	324	251	330November 	
215	403	419	418	485December	
398	744	715	686	754
Source:-Statistical Report on the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act February 1961; Canadian Statistical Review March, 1961
*Claimants currently reporting to local offices; all persons currently reporting to local offices to claim unemployment insurance benefits, either regular, seasonal or fishing.


Hubert Badanai: As I have already mentioned, when the fund was set up unemployment insurance was established for the purpose of giving workers some protection against loss of income during brief periods of unemployment. Since then, the brief periods for which the fund was designed have developed into an all-year-round chronic jobless problem.
The fund is no longer looked upon to serve its original purpose as a stopgap for people between jobs, but rather as a welfare agency, the only source to which the unfortunate unemployed can turn.
[Mr. Badanai.1
I do not minimize the seriousness of the situation into which the government, unwittingly perhaps, has fallen, but it cannot be denied that a major reappraisal of the unemployment insurance system should be proceeded with without delay.
I am sorry to say this, but I must say it. This government's worst enemy, is its attitude of procrastination when confronted with major issues requiring major remedies.
One of the solutions may be that which was recommended by the Canadian welfare council before the manpower committee of

the Senate to the effect, that the national employment service should be separated from the unemployment insurance commission. This separation could lead to a number of important changes in the machinery for the handling of both employment and compensation for unemployment.
With regard to compensation for unemployment, there are reasons to believe that there are instances where a too rigid interpretation of the act affecting seasonal workers, especially those in the building industry, has worked considerable hardships on those people who, as a result of the strict interpretation of the act, were denied unemployment insurance benefits.
Moreover, a new interpretation of the act, which I think was never intended, is evident by the denial of unemployment insurance benefits to tradesmen, such as carpenters, plasterers and brick-layers, only because they accepted employment from individuals and notwithstanding the fact that stamps have been provided for their books. It seems to me that this new interpretation should be reexamined at the earliest possible moment.
On the other hand cases have been reported where some individuals have cashed in on a loophole in the unemployment insurance regulations. An example was reported a few months ago in an editorial of the Financial Post. I do not recall the exact date or month; it might have been in October or November, 1960. It concerns a family living in Winnipeg who had earned $10,205 in a year while drawing unemployment benefits. Here is how it was done, according to the report.
The husband earned $85 a week as a carpenter and was laid off in December, 1958, just as he bought a building lot and poured a concrete basement. His wife, a garment worker, stayed at her $30 a week job, while he signed for jobless pay, claiming a nine-year old son as a dependent. He got $36 a week in benefits. This also entitled him to earn $18 a week as an "allowable" income and he promptly got a job for one day a week that paid $16.50. He mortgaged the lot and built his own home with money he borrowed. He worked four days a week on his house and one day at his carpenter's job. Several months later, while still unemployed, he sold the house for a profit of $4,860. Then, he promptly went back to work full time.
To sum up this family income: salary, June to December, 1958 at $85 a week, $2,210; unemployment insurance benefits December, 1958 to July, 1959 at $36 a week, $1,080; allowed income $16.50 a day for the same period or $495; his wife's earnings, $30 a week or $1,560; profit on the sale of the house, $4,860; total income, $10,205 or $194 a week. In January, 1960 he was laid off again. He
Supply-Labour
got another one-day-a-week job, bought a second lot and, according to my understanding, has now completed another house and will probably repeat the performance of the previous year.
The reason for bringing this particular episode to the attention of the government is to show that our present regulations are inadequate to control a situation such as I have tried to describe. There is no regulation to stop anyone from duplicating the performance of this person whose name I do not know.
There is no law to prevent a man out of work from building a house, a boat or furniture, and I am not advocating that there should be. Indeed, I commend any person for his enterprise in trying to keep himself employed. But if it can be shown that the income of such self employed persons is above a ceiling and that therefore they should not be entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, there should be some means whereby the regulations can be so amended. In other words, there must be a better way of operating an insurance scheme.
Perhaps consideration should be given to setting up two separate systems with separate funds, one for seasonal workers and the other for non-seasonal workers. The latter fund would serve non-seasonal workers, which was the original purpose for which the unemployment fund was established, to give regular workers some degree of protection against loss of wages for brief periods of unemployment. Such a fund should be as nearly self sustaining as possible. The other fund would require substantial annual assistance from the government.
In any event, the government has to make a decision soon. It cannot postpone the day of decision indefinitely. The question of what is to happen to the fund and how it is to be supplemented before it has all melted away and only drops remain is of course the responsibility of those who sit on the treasury benches. We in the opposition can only hope and pray that conditions will improve to such an extent that fewer people will need the assistance of the unemployment insurance fund in the future.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, before this session resumed on September 7 I for one had made a pledge to myself that for the balance of the session I would use the greatest of self restraint because I am one of many Canadians who feel that this session which started last November has produced far too much talk and far too little action. However, I find it extremely difficult in a situation such as this to exercise that self restraint when, for example, we hear the Associate Minister of National Defence painting such a rosy picture of the present economic

Supply-Labour
situation in Canada and when we realize that to paint such a picture he had to make use of comparisons with the cannibals of South Africa and the poor downtrodden people of South America. Surely the time of the house should not be wasted with such comparisons. Since when are we going to say that our situation is so wonderful by comparing it with that of the thousands of illiterate, downtrodden people in South America? Why does he not make comparisons with the people of the British Isles, Europe, the Scandinavian countries, Australia and New Zealand if he wants to make proper and sensible comparisons with regard to economic conditions? Instead, as I say, he compared Canada with South America, Cuba and so on, not realizing that we are as guilty as anybody for the present situation in Cuba. When the Cuban people tried to lift themselves up by their bootstraps, what did we do? We chased them straight into the arms of the Russian bear, possibly irrevocably. I think the time of the associate minister could be put to better use in this house.
I also think that the Canadian people are not too impressed by the endless statistics we hear from the hon. member for Essex East. I think a great many Canadian people realize that for 94 years we have had the Liberal pot calling the Tory kettle black and they are becoming fed up with this situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The best years in Canada's history.


Murdo William Martin: I think it is time that both the government and the official opposition realized that it is the system to which they both subscribe so slavishly which is the cause of the problems that we now have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


Murdo William Martin: I think they should realize, as the associate minister said, that things are changing. Surely one of the greatest indications that things are changing was given to the Canadian people in the month of August when there took place in this very city the largest political convention ever held in this country, which was attended by people who are fed up with the old system.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And when you could not agree on giving people jobs, when you disagreed with Eugene Forsey, when you said you would not guarantee people jobs.


Mr. Cooper:: How many farmers were there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Never was there a party whose bankruptcy was so well displayed as by that disagreement.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, possibly I have underestimated the effect that the convention had on the hon. member, especially when just the very mention of it raises a storm such as we have just witnessed. As I say, my resolve was to restrain myself, and while I am greatly tempted to continue further along this line I will try to come back to my original intention to restrict my remarks as much as possible. I should like to deal at this time with just one matter which I raised in the house some time ago. I believe hon. members will recall that on April 25 last I had occasion to raise a grievance in the house with regard to certain alleged working and living conditions at Moosonee having to do with a contract being carried out by the Carter Construction Company.
I make no apology for the grievance I raised at that time. It was based on information which had been supplied to me by letter from a union representative and also through personal contact with men from my constituency who had worked at Moosonee and who reported on the conditions there when they returned to Timmins. However, on the day that the house recessed in July, I believe, I received a letter from the same Carter Construction Company which reads as follows:
On April 25th last you commented on the floor of the house concerning a report that found publicity in several daily newspapers of Ontario, that had been made by Mr. Harry Hegge, a business agent for the carpenters union, regarding the working and living conditions on a project that we have under contract for Defence Construction Limited at Moosonee, Ontario. You might be interested to know that a contract has been signed between our company and the carpenters union for a period of one year on this project, and in the course of the contract negotiations, we brought to the attention of Mr. Andy Cooper, the national vice-president of the carpenters union, and Mr. Brodack, secretary of the carpenters local 1669 in Port Arthur that we resented these malicious and false statements that had been made by their union organizer, Mr. Hegge. I felt that, as you had taken the trouble to comment on this situation at Moosonee, it is only proper that you should have a copy of the letter of apology for your files wherein the union regrets the statements made by Mr. Hegge and states that they were "proven by investigation to be false and malicious".
Before I put this letter on the record in regard to this matter, I should like to deal with what happened in the interim between the time I raised this grievance in the house and the time I received this letter. Many of you may recall that conditions went from bad to worse and finally ended in a strike in this particular project. I am not sure of

the exact duration of the strike, but it lasted for some weeks and was finally settled by the agreement to which Mr. T. N. Carter referred in his letter. Enclosed is this copy of a very brief letter, and I quote:
Dear Sirs:
During our discussion with you concerning the above labour dispute, it was brought to our attention that statements made by our representative on the Moosonee project, Mr. Harry Hegge, that appeared in the various newspapers in southern Ontario, primarily the March 14 issue of the Globe and Mail, and also were quoted in Hansard, are for the most part wrong and grossly exaggerated, and were proven by investigation to be false and malicious statements.
I have found that the construction camp that you operate at Moosonee is well conducted and orderly and that the food being served the men is normal construction camp food, and that your camp is kept in a clean condition.
It is to our regret that our representative, Mr. Harry Hegge made these statements that have been so embarrassing to you.
Well, Mr. Chairman, needless to say I was rather shocked when I received this information. I was shocked particularly in view of the seriousness of the original charges and in view of the reports that had been given to me by men who had worked on this project. I also wondered if these statements were as false as they are now represented to be, and if so why had the situation deteriorated into a strike which in due course was settled. I made some inquiries and I was told that because of the fuss that was raised, both by the report and by my raising the matter in this house, the Carter Construction Company had been taken off the list of preferred contractors for defence projects, and in order to regain their status there must be some reply to these serious charges. I am told also that the strike at the camp was for $2.50 per hour in wages and the settlement was $2.85 an hour. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that any bargaining unit has gone on strike for a certain figure and has settled for a figure in excess of their demands. As I say, I am told that this was one of the conditions in order that the Carter Construction Company regained its previous status. They settled for 35 cents an hour more than was being requested, and in return received this letter of abject apology.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a rather shattering experience for any hon. member who in good faith raises a grievance on the floor of this House of Commons, then finds he has been undercut in this fashion. I think it is to the discredit of any trade union, be it the carpenters and joiners union or any other, to pull off a deal like this. I think they should be roundly condemned for doing so. I think this is something that we can do
Supply-Labour
without in this country. Any trade union that will pull a thing like this, in my opinion, does not deserve much credit.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, much could be said about the efforts of the Minister of Labour and his department in connection with unemployment and other problems. In taking part in this debate, I should like to point out the improvement shown in the twin cities of Kitchener and Waterloo since the first of the year and also the great benefits derived from the location of vocational and technical training schools there. The number of unemployed in these two cities, as well as other parts of the county, has dropped at a steady rate since January 1, 1961. This statement was made by the manager of the unemployment insurance office in Kitchener, and he added that the downward trend in unemployment has not hit bottom yet but should continue for some time as the economic situation brightens.
Construction workers made up the big portion of the unemployed, along with labourers, carpenters, painters, electricians, plumbers, cement finishers and plasterers. Millions of dollars worth of construction projects have been started and many others pending, and these are bound to have an effect on the employment situation. Amongst the projects which have made fine progress are the B.F. Goodrich new plant, the new brewery, and the new addition to St. Mary's Catholic hospital which will make this one of the finest hospitals in Canada.
Recently the Department of Labour announced the approval of technical and vocational school additions for the Eastwood collegiate in Kitchener and the Waterloo collegiate in Waterloo. These additions will be financed, as we know, by the dominion and provincial governments, the federal government bearing 75 per cent of the cost. This announcement, I am sure, was particularly approved by many of the citizens of my district. No doubt when they are completed they will be of great value to those who neglected to complete their education or, through other circumstances, were unable to take advantage of further schooling. I believe that these additions will provide work for many of our citizens.
I understand that nearly 70 per cent of the unmarried young people between the ages of 14 and 19 who are registered as jobless and living at home, have at least one parent working. In thinking of these young people I am led to commend the Minister of Labour and his department upon the introduction of measures concerning vocational and technical training which facilities have been increased to the extent of 50 per cent in Canada. The

Supply-Labour
federal government is to pay 75 per cent of the provincial contribution to the cost of these schools up to 1963. These young people living at home have a wonderful opportunity to improve their education and qualify for better positions and the security so necessary under modern conditions.
I hope that all people were able to read the statement recently made by our beloved Governor General in which he said:
Young people who leave school prematurely are cutting themselves off from most of the opportunities available in our country. Now, as never before, Canada's progress and security depend on the educational level, technical knowledge and skill of her people. It seems inevitable that those who leave school before graduation will miss most of the opportunities available in our country. They will cut themselves off from the possibility of training in Industry. They may have to face a lifetime of insecurity.
Recently, I read an editorial in my local newspaper the Elmira Signet written by R.
S.	Reid of the Kindersley Clarion. I should like to quote a part of it:
It has been a tragedy in every age and it is a greater tragedy in ours that so many of our most promising young people voluntarily cripple themselves. Their enthusiasm for life, their urge to be independent and self-reliant, their appetite for adventure-the very qualities which fit them to earn a place among our most useful and successful citizens-lead them instead to throw away their greatest chance of fulfilling their destiny. Eager to become a part of the adult world, they leave school before they have acquired an education that would enable them to make use of their natural gifts. The tragedy is greater today because our modern technological world has so little use for the half-taught-and such a desperate need for men and women with a full, well rounded education. Figures recently released by the national employment service clearly show that a high school education is a must for any person who wants to be sure of holding a job in our modern society.
Most young people must be aware, by this time, that the adult world is concerned about those who are unemployed in the nation. What they may not know is that persons with a less than grade 9 education form the greater part of the total of the unemployed.
Automation does create more jobs than it eliminates, but the new jobs are skilled jobs. In far too many cases the persons displaced by automation are unable to step into the new job it creates because they lack the education needed as a basis for training in the new work.
Our Minister of Labour, in bringing about new technical and vocational schools across Canada, is doing a most important job for those unfortunate people who may not have had the opportunity or ambition to carry on their studies in their younger days.
As a young man coming back from world war I in a disabled condition, I fully realized that I had neglected one of the great assets of life-education. In order to prepare myself for the future I attended the vocational school offered by our government under the Department of Veterans Affairs, and later
[Mr. Weichel.l
on attended night school for some years. Taking advantage of these opportunities has meant a great deal to me. May I say that such opportunities to attend vocational and technical schools are now offered to our young people by the government. As previously mentioned, Canada's progress and security depend upon the educational level, technical knowledge and skill of her people.
Today we are blessed with wonderful schools, colleges, universities and teachers who are ready and willing to bring that knowledge so essential to every boy and girl in this great country of ours. We have these additional vocational and technical schools, and a great majority of these unemployed young people between the ages of 14 and 19 years, along with others anxious to improve their education, should be impressed with these added facilities. These facilities will give them an opportunity to obtain an adequate education where they will have the chance of working up to the required income.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that parents should take a greater interest in our youth. Yes, I know we supply them with the necessities of life, but after all that is only the materialistic side of things. What about the personal relationship of our boys and girls? No doubt we will admit that the basic education of any good citizen starts in the home, and there is no substitute for this first step in the over-all process. Like all proud parents, we expect much of our youth, and we must do so if our young country is to fulfil its ambitions.
Mr. Chairman, may I again commend the Minister of Labour and his department for their untiring efforts and impress upon all parents and others-indeed, upon all of us- that we have a very important part to play in the progress of Canada. One of these important efforts could be the encouraging of our youth, and others who neglected or did not have the opportunity of continuing their education, to attend these vocational and technical schools in order that they may provide for themselves a brighter future.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I did not interrupt the hon. member earlier in his address because I did not know whether or not when he referred to the governor general, his reference was to the late governor general or our present beloved Governor General. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would inform the committee whether or not he was making reference to the present Governor General.


Oscar William Weichel: The present Governor General, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Then I must, upon reflection, concede that I should have interrupted the hon. member at that point to rule that any such reference or quotation would be out of order under our rules.


Oscar William Weichel: I am sorry; I did not understand this, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I had a call from one of the high officials of the city of Welland who told me that work was getting much slacker there at the present time. He said the number of unemployed was increasing, and no doubt the number drawing unemployment insurance will increase also.
So far this year there have been 1,090 welfare recipients, and the welfare paid out by the city of Welland has amounted to approximately $228,000. I do not give these figures to embarrass the government but because I wish to bring to the attention of the government some of the needs of the city of Welland and that area.
Welland does not seem to come within the category of the depressed area for double depreciation, according to the definition laid down by the government. Even so, Welland has had a great deal of unemployment for the last three or four years. There is a plant in Welland at the present time, Atlas Steel, that has a great expansion program in prospect. Consideration is being given by this company to a location for this expansion.
I understand that some high personages from other provinces have been in Welland offering certain definite considerations to Atlas Steel to locate in their respective provinces. No doubt one of the considerations offered has been that the plant will be located in an area where double depreciation would be allowed. Also rumours are prevalent there among these officials that another area in Ontario that is declared at the present time to be a depressed area eligible for double depreciation has been making a bid for this particular expansion program.
At the present time Welland is not in that category. I am informed that if they could receive more favourable treatment under the depressed area program there would be some likelihood of this plant staying in Welland. The minister told me today that as of now this plant would not get the double depreciation in Welland, while it could in these so-called depressed areas where double depreciation would apply. To me this seems rather discriminatory and unfair.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member for Welland does not wish to leave a wrong impression with the committee. He stated that I advised him that this plant would not receive double depreciation in Welland. The 90205-6-544
Supply-Labour
position is that Welland has not applied as a municipality for that designation. I am sure that if Welland applied for designation in a very simple way, perhaps by telegram or by letter, we would waste no time in looking at the situation to see whether Welland would qualify under the formula which has been set up, as some 19 municipalities and areas have already qualified. I do not want the impression to be left with the committee that Welland could not qualify. Welland has not applied in order to ascertain whether they could qualify or not.


William Hector McMillan: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I left the wrong impression with the committee. I intended to come to this point later and say that the minister told me Welland had not applied. However, if a plant moved from one part of the country to another they would not be increasing the wealth of the country but would be removing the facilities for production from one part of the country to another. I know that the Department of Labour-the Minister of Labour-has been flexible in reaching decisions as to whether certain areas can be included in the category to be declared areas to which the double depreciation allowance will apply. We know, for example, that one area was declared to be qualified although it was not in existence at the beginning of the period covered by the formula. I refer to Elliot Lake. In other cases, too, the minister has shown a degree of flexibility. I spoke to the minister this morning and he said that if Welland were to send in an application it would be given every favourable consideration. I thank the minister for this. I have talked to the mayor of Welland, and he said he would apply immediately.
I would appeal to the minister to give Welland the same degree of favourable consideration as he has given to some other places. Welland has been seriously affected by unemployment problems and I should not like to see a company leave the area to build an extension in another location because of this double depreciation feature if that feature were in any way to be a deciding factor. Atlas Steel has been in Welland for a number of years. The people of the county of Welland have reason to be proud of the Atlas Steel Company and of Mr. De Young, the president, now president of the productivity council, his staff and the employees. We should all like to see them remain in Welland; we should all like to see the expansion program carried out at the site of the main plant. The people of Welland would not like to see them move to another location which might be more desirable from the point of view of taxation as a result of some action of the government.

Supply-Labour
In view of Welland's unemployment problem I again appeal to the minister and to the government not to let this happen.


Mr. Regier:: I have assured a number of those who have made representations to me that I would raise this matter at this particular time. I do not intend to take more than a limited number of minutes. I want to begin by endorsing wholeheartedly the contention made this morning by the hon. member for Essex East when he said he felt sympathy for the Minister of Labour on his having to take all the blame for unemployment in our nation. I agree with the hon. gentleman's contention that the question of full employment ought to be the responsibility of the government as a whole. 1 say this even at a time when we have the Minister of Labour sitting across on the other side of the committee. I rather regret, also, that the minister of labour in the former Liberal government had to take upon his shoulders almost alone responsibility for the level of unemployment which then existed. As is apparent if we consider the organization of the Department of Labour and the specific responsibilities assigned to the Minister of Labour, he alone would be completely unable to do much about what is, in effect, a major national calamity-or at least it is to those who are unemployed.
In the past mention has been made by the government of the national productivity council and its work. The council has been referred to again today. I was interested to hear the reply which the minister gave to a question asked by the hon. member for Leeds this morning. Any organization set up by the government which has been given the heavy responsibility of recommending ways and means of causing our economy to expand to such an extent that unemployment is reduced to a reasonable level should, in my view, certainly have met more often than three times, and I hope the minister realizes that this is a matter of such great significance to the welfare of all the Canadian people. Three meetings over a period of many long months are far from sufficient. The council ought to be meeting morning, noon and night until it comes up with answers which will be acceptable to the government and to the people.
The particular complaint I have this afternoon is one in connection with which I feel the national productivity council could really assist the minister. I have here a complaint, a letter and a resolution passed by local union 1064 of the united steelworkers of America in Sydney, Nova Scotia. I am impressed by the reasonableness of the proposals made by this local union. They do not

contend that there must be no readjustment in this industry in the Atlantic provinces. They do not even claim that the complete abolition of unemployment in the Atlantic region of Canada is possible. However, they do complain that the Avro company, which rules over the destinies of so many tens of thousand of Canadians, should be able to act in such an arbitrary and highhanded manner as it acts on occasion. They point out that more than 1,100 employees have been laid off at Dosco's Sydney steel plant, with a most recent lay-off of 606, including men who had been in the employ of the company since 1942. A resolution which was passed unanimously at a membership meeting urges that immediate steps be instituted by federal, provincial and municipal government heads to summon Avro officials to a meeting for the definite purpose of making commitments for the future of our economy. It may be that lay-offs are inevitable and that in the national interest they might, here and there, be the one and only thing that can be done. What these people are complaining about is the uncertainty. They are aware that Avro has plants in many parts of Canada and overseas, and they are unable to obtain from officials of Avro any indication how long they can reasonably expect to continue to be employed. It is in this regard that I should like to appeal to the minister to get his productivity council busy so that if there is to be relocation of either industry or labour, or both, these things may be arranged in an orderly manner, thereby averting the needless and unwarranted personal hardship which is imposed by decisions of a board of directors meeting, perhaps, in London, New York, Hamilton, Ontario, or elsewhere and deciding that it is in their interest to cause six or seven hundred men to be laid off, and having the power to pay no heed to the immediate effects that such an arbitrary decision must have on the lives of the individuals and of the communities in respect to a continuation of steady employment.
Our corporations are growing smaller, more powerful and limited in number. I feel the time has come when no Canadian corporation should be permitted to treat any individuals or community in the manner in which these people have been treated by those who own this plant. I am not contending that Dosco ought not to be expanded. I do not know why it should not be. If conditions warranted, perhaps Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia could have plants to turn out our basic steel. However, as long as conditions continue as they are I believe the national productivity council,

the minister and indeed the government as a whole have the responsibility to ensure that individuals will not be dealt with arbitrarily as industries move from one area to another. The government should take steps to prevent arbitrary treatment such as that to which the people of Cape Breton island have been subjected over a period of several years.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, as I represent a riding where the working class makes up the greater part of the voters, I think I should at this point of our discussion of these estimates of the Department of Labour express the views of my voters, and therefore my own, with regard to unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, the word unemployment is in every Canadian citizen's mouth today, whether he is affected by unemployment or sincerely and loyally trying to work out some solution to alleviate as much as possible that social blight.
The causes of unemployment are many. It may be attributed partly to immigration, to automation, to the lack of primary industry in this country, however wealthy, to the lack of technical training among our fellow citizens, more particularly the young people, to incomplete education, or to the increase of the number of women workers on the labour market.
The causes may also be attributed to seasonal lay-offs as well as to seasonal unemployment or to competition on the world markets. Whatever the cause, Mr. Chairman, I think that unemployment is a blight which should be looked after with the greatest haste and care in order to avoid that certain revolutionary groups with communist leanings rouse the workers against established order, as they did before during the depression years, 30 years ago.
The right to work is a sacred right; nobody would deny to any person the exercise of his right to work, because it is a fundamental right. I know all hon. members, whatever their political affiliations, acknowledge this basic right. Now, if the workers have the right to work, I say that governments should look after the working class by taking the necessary steps to ensure that every individual who wants a job gets one.
Unemployment, Mr. Chairman, has often given rise to political controversies in this house, on the hustings, on television, on the radio and elsewhere. However, while we
90205-6-544J
Supply-Labour
should not, on this side of the house, raise political issues in this respect, we cannot let go unanswered some more or less sincere remarks which opposition members like to voice in connection with unemployment. We cannot but, in all sincerity, honesty and loyalty, point out in this house, and to the whole Canadian people, everything this government has done to alleviate the effects of unemployment.
Everyone knows, Mr. Chairman, that the Conservative government has done much, in the few years it has been in power, to remedy the unemployment situation.
May I mention some measures which have been taken for the benefit not only of those who will read the newspapers, but also of some opposition members who stubbornly refuse to see what the Conservative government, aware of its responsibilities to the Canadian people, has done since it took office as far as unemployment is concerned.
As soon as it took over, this government carried out a considerable amount of public works in all municipalities which asked for them.
Obviously it was a remedy. It was not a measure intended to abolish or completely eliminate unemployment, but it was a definite and concrete measure. That winter works program caused a Liberal minister of the present provincial government in Quebec to say that there had been a reduction of about
48.000	in the number of unemployed, due to the implementation of the program.
It can be seen, therefore, that this Conservative administration due to the interest it showed in trade and the incentive it gave our domestic and international trade, as well as to the loans it granted small industries or businessmen, was quite successful in creating employment and opening new markets.
We should not forget also the absolutely concrete, logical and intelligent action of this government when it offered the provinces to contribute as much as 75 per cent of the cost of implementing a vocational training program for all workers wishing to use the benefits under the act. In fact, I was informed that in the province of Quebec, more than
3.000	workers availed themselves of these provisions, to the application of which the federal government contributes up to 75 per cent of the costs.
Mr. Chairman, the population and opposition members should be told of the considerable sums this government has put into the C.M.H.C. fund, for housing construction and

Supply-Labour
urban redevelopment. That initiative has greatly contributed to alleviating or checking unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of this debate, we have not heard a single opposition member explain the unemployment problem.
I would be tempted to deal with employment, but I feel that to find a solution to the problem, we must first consider the different types of unemployment and their causes. Those who have dealt with this problem in a somewhat more personal way have defined four types of unemployment.
Frictional unemployment results from defective functioning within the labour market. Incidentally, this type of unemployment may exist even at times of full employment and it is due to fluctuations among the various industries.
There is a second type known as cyclic unemployment, which is caused by the cycle of business, according to whether it proceeds slowly or at an accelerated pace.
There is also a third type known as seasonal unemployment which apparently is the nightmare of all northern countries.
There is, too, a fourth type of unemployment-technical unemployment. It is brought about, of course, by the introduction of new techniques into the industrial world.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it so happens that the riding I represent in this house is particularly striken by the three last types of unemployment: cyclic, seasonal and technical unemployment.
The present government has dealt with the problem arising from the fourth type, technical unemployment, and has suggested to the provinces ways and means of meeting this type of unemployment.
There is still seasonal unemployment, a situation that is to be found in all northern countries. We could obviously take more steps to lessen the effects of this category of unemployment; but, after all, it is due to nature.
Therefore, I believe there is an unemployment situation that should be called "general unemployment". It is due to a lack of cohesion in the distribution of the labour force. It is on this situation that I request the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to get as soon as possible the necessary datas for economic planning, which involves a knowledge of labour demand in every industrial category, and the distribution of that demand according to the needs and the various categories of employees.

Mr. Chairman, unemployment is not only- those words are not mine-a federal responsibility. Whatever its causes or reasons, unemployment is not only a federal responsibility; it is also the responsibility of the provincial and local administrations, and even that of the unions. The heads of each of those administrative levels should assume their responsibilities in order to restore full employment in this country.
We read every day in the papers reports of some labour disputes that are more or less fair or reasonable, but I fail to understand that in times of serious unemployment, labour and management cannot agree in order to prevent as many strikes as possible. Considering the frightening number of millions of working hours lost through those strikes, it is of the utmost importance to urge labour unions, union leaders, labour and management also to assume their responsibilities in this field.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier unemployment is not only a federal responsibility, but also a provincial one, and I am not the one who said so. In this respect, I should like to quote the statement made by the ephemeral leader, Hon. Jean Lesage, head of the Liberal party in Quebec.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, judging by the applause, I think that the word ephemeral won the approval of the house; but it must be kept in mind that it means short-lived and that the Liberal leader will not last very long.
As I was just saying, the Liberal leader stated that unemployment is a provincial responsibility. Therefore, if we examine the current statistical data in the province of Quebec, and more especially those relating to unemployment in general, we find that it has declined everywhere in Canada, except in the province of Quebec, where it has increased in the last six months.
Therefore, we would ask the provincial government which declared that unemployment is a provincial responsibility to carry out its election promises and to set up a program to reduce the unemployment which prevails in the province of Quebec at the present time.
Every week, electors come to my office by the hundreds to tell me that Mr. Lesage, the premier of Quebec, has promised and even sworn that he would solve the problem of unemployment in the province. Yet, they

say, he is the first one to fire us from the jobs we hold with the provincial government.
If that is how some premiers intend to assume their responsibilities concerning unemployment, I call on the people to sweep the Liberals out of office, as they did in Ottawa, and we will take their place and strive to take efficient steps to fight unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few suggestions to relieve somewhat the unemployment which the Quebec provincial branch of the Liberal party ignores, and even to put an end to it in my province and in the constituency I represent.
I wonder if the Minister of Labour could not, in co-operation with the city of Montreal, undertake a huge project such as the construction of a scenic route all around the island of Montreal. As everybody knows, Canada's metropolis offers great advantages from the points of view of aesthetics, culture and education. In my opinion, we have somewhat neglected, until now, to develop Montreal's natural advantages. Consequently, I would ask the minister to discuss this matter with his colleagues so as to come to an agreement concerning a winter works project such as the construction of a scenic route around the city of Montreal, to reduce unemployment.
Moreover, as another way of creating jobs for the unemployed in the Montreal area, I wonder if the Minister of Labour could not, once more, co-operate with his colleague the Minister of Public Works and have a tunnel built under the St. Lawrence, in order to improve communications between Montreal and the south shore.
Also, Mr. Chairman, in order again to create jobs and reduce unemployment, which has become a serious problem in the province of Quebec since the Liberals have taken over, I would suggest to the minister to speed up large scale town redevelopment, so far as housing in Montreal is concerned.
Mr. Chairman, some time ago responsible persons made a study of the unemployment problem. I did not say that the former government should be blamed for it, nor should we now be. I did not say either that the provincial Liberal party was responsible, although some members of the opposition may be oversensitive on that issue since their election campaign is being turned against them.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to quote a paragraph on future prospects in Canada:
Supply-Labour
There is evidence that the recession in the regular business cycle is coming to an end and that an economic recovery is appearing. The recovery factors have been operating for several months in the United States and, if they go on, they will spur a business readjustment in Canada in the months ahead. It is to be expected that such an improvement will contribute to increase employment and, as a result, reduce unemployment. It is essential that this expansion be facilitated and supported by proper fiscal and monetary measures. In order to encourage the expansion of business transactions, it will be necessary, in particular, to increase the credits available.
Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what this Conservative government has done in the way of unemployment prevention, something the Liberals have always tried to prevent us from doing. Because we increased the housing money supply, members of the opposition called out that we were overloading the government's budget. When we wanted to make ready money available to industry and business, again, members of the opposition protested that we chose to uphold Mr. Coyne's destructive policies instead of promoting a normal and realistic economic expansion which would procure employment in this country.
But this is not from me, Mr. Chairman. If our good friends, who are a little ill at ease because of these arguments, would read the report of the Senate special committee on manpower and employment that was published on June 14, 1961, where the Liberal senators had majority, they will find that this Senate committee with a Liberal majority has just approved the very methods used by this government to fight unemployment.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if our friends want to be sincere and honest, they will admit that this government has done more than any previous government to fight unemployment. If they are not satisfied with that, let them ask their leader, Premier Lesage of Quebec, to do more than we have, because he has done nothing up to now.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct certain statements made here this afternoon, especially by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), to the effect that we never had so many unemployed as today, if I understood him correctly.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I have here the Montreal Star of September 19, 1961, where we read that in August, 1960, the number of unemployed, in thousands, was 352, and in August 1961, 323. This is a decrease of 29,000.
I wonder where the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate could possibly have

Supply-Labour
picked up his statistics. As the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) would probably put it, most likely from Martin's bureau of statistics; but I prefer to rely on those of the dominion bureau of statistics.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly would have more remarks to make, more particularly in regard to female workers on the labour market. From 1949 to 1959, the labour market has shown a 43 per cent increase in the number of female workers. Of course, always according to those statistics, it is said that most female workers are married. Well, that is a problem which we shall have to consider carefully, but, in my opinion, female workers contribute to the increase in unemployment among married men.
Therefore, I would ask the minister to take into consideration those few remarks I have just made, and at the same time I would ask our Liberal friends to be a little more serious and less politically-minded when they talk about unemployment.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I felt I should wait until the hon. member for St. Mary had concluded before pointing out to him that I think he misunderstood what I said. What I said was that month for month in no year since 1957 has unemployment been as low as it was in 1957. I have all the figures right here in my hand. They are not from newspapers or anything else, but from the bureau of statistics. I will give the bureau of statistics figures for the month of August in the years from 1957 on. This is the labour force survey of persons without jobs and seeking work. In August, 1957 the number was 174,000; in August, 1958, 281,000; in August, 1959, 239,000; in August, 1960, 322,000, and in August of 1961, according to the latest release, 301,000.


Mr. More:: How many were working?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not the point that was being discussed. I am merely correcting a point that the hon. member raised but since the question has been asked I will answer it. The proportion of the total population employed-


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: How many were working?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would just listen to the answer to his question. The percentage of the total population employed was higher in every month in 1957 than it has been in the corresponding months in any year since.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I have to correct an experienced member of the house, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He said that in 1957 the number of people employed was higher than ever before. Am I correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I did not say any such thing. What I said was that the number of persons unemployed was lower in each month of 1957 than it has been in the corresponding month in any year since. I gave the figures for the month of August and I am quite prepared to give them for any other month if the committee wants them. These are dominion bureau of statistics figures. I also made the assertion that the percentage of the total population which was employed was higher in each month of 1957 than it has been in the corresponding months of any year since.


Georges-J. Valade: If the corresponding numbers in each month were better, then I suppose the corresponding average for the year would be better than in any year before; otherwise the premise of the member would be false and would lead to a fallacy, which I do not doubt it is. I have here the report of the Senate committee on manpower and I should like to refer the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to it. There have never been so many people employed in Canada as there are today. In 1950 there were 5,163,000 people employed, while in 1960 there were 6,403,000.
If I follow the argument of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, then the average is much lower in 1956 than in 1957. If I have the correct figures here, then it is also less in 1951, 1952 and 1953, perhaps because of the Korean war. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should refer to this report of the Senate committee on manpower.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot allow those figures to go unchallenged. We know, of course, that practically every year there have been more people employed than the year before because we have a lot more people. What I was talking about was the percentage, and I think my statement will stand.


Mr. Carter:: The latest figures released by the Department of Labour, in conjunction with the dominion bureau of statistics, show a slight improvement in the unemployment situation. The report for the week ended August 19 indicates that unemployment declined by an estimated 31,000. This stands out in sharp contrast to the figures for the Atlantic region where unemployment in-

Business of the House
creased by about 12,000. It seems, therefore, that despite all the encouragement we may get from the over-all picture as contained in this report to which I have just referred, it nevertheless appears that unemployment is still our most pressing domestic problem and is likely to continue so for some time to come.
I must confess that I was greatly impressed by the sharp contrast in viewpoint concerning unemployment between the hon. member for St. Mary and the Associate Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for St. Mary, who represents a workers' riding, still maintains, as we do, that unemployment is a very serious problem. No matter from what angle we may look at it, unemployment is a tragedy. It is a tragedy of human suffering. It is a tragedy of economic waste, of potential wealth, and a tragic waste of human skills and talents. This tragedy is heightened all the more when we see so many of the needs we have here in Canada and in the world which are still waiting to be filled.
Now, everybody seems to have some plan for solving this tremendous problem. The government called us together last November and announced a program for a massive assault on the unemployment problem. To facilitate that program, we of the opposition elected to forgo the time traditionally allocated to the speech from the throne. The minister, in the presentation of his estimates last March, referred to some of these measures and today the hon. member for Essex East put on the record a number of other proposals for our party. There are some who maintain that it is up to the government to solve this problem, that the government has the sole responsibility for finding jobs for people.
Personally, I cannot subscribe to this philosophy because it is not compatible with individual freedom. We have many lessons from history which indicate that when people are prepared to forgo or to sacrifice that responsibility and trade their freedom for security or for work, then the result has always been tyranny. I think it is reasonable to expect that if we adopt this kind of thinking, history is bound to repeat itself.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
Progress reported.



John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house leader could indicate the order of business
expected for the next two days and if he could give us any enlightenment about Saturday, as I think it might be helpful to all hon. members. I hope it will be lightened.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The enlightenment about Saturday will depend on the enlightenment the house offers to me tomorrow about the progress of business. We will settle that tomorrow. Thursday, we will continue with the estimates of the Department of Labour, followed by the Department of National Health and Welfare. Then on Friday, in response to a number of requests, the following arrangement has been agreed upon: We will interrupt the study of the estimates on Friday to deal with the resolution concerning fitness and amateur sports on the understanding that Monday and Tuesday, which normally are for legislation, may be used for estimates if we so desire, on the same basis as last week, moving into supply without a debate or amendment. This has already been agreed through the normal channels, and if it is satisfactory Friday's business will commence with the resolution stage of the bill pertaining to fitness and amateur sport. If it is finished in good time on Friday we will revert to the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. That carries us into Thursday and Friday, and tomorrow we will make a decision with regard to Saturday. If things move very quickly the third department to be considered will be national revenue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it that the other two departments mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare last night will follow if there is an opportunity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, privy council and legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Is the
house agreed that on Monday next we will move into supply without a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Provided the government
asks for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Provided the government asks for it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: It is so
ordered, for Monday and Tuesday next.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is, we will move into supply without debate or amendment on the motion to move into supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is clearly understood.
It being three minutes past six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, September 21, 1961