1962-11-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan-Boundary) presented the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and provide for the construction of a line of railway in the province of New Brunswick, by Canadian National Railway Company, from Nepisiguit Junction for a distance of 15 miles to the property of Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation Limited, at a total estimated expenditure of $1,450,000, not to be exceeded by more than 15 per cent; to authorize the issue by the said railway company of securities that may be guaranteed by Her Majesty in right of Canada to finance the construction of the said line; and in order that the said railway company may forthwith proceed with the construction of the said line of railway, to authorize temporary loans to the said railway company out of the consolidated revenue fund upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council and secured by securities of the said railway company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has come to any decision with regard to recommending to the house the establishment of a special committee on defence policy.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The government will make known its decision in this regard very shortly. I did
not hear the last word of the question. Was it "defence matters" or "defence policy"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: "Defence policy".


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as defence policy is concerned, as in the past, when the hon. gentleman was a member of the former government, so today and so, generally, throughout the free world, questions of policy are not submitted to committees.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister think television facilities should be afforded to officials of the department to do the very thing which the Prime Minister now says parliament shall not have an opportunity to do.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is apparently off on the wrong track. I did not say "parliament"; I said a "committee".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, surely, a committee of parliament is parliament.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the light of the apparently favourable reaction of the president of Pakistan to the Prime Minister's suggestion of Canadian good offices in the mediation of the Kashmir dispute, can the Prime Minister tell the house if there has been any reaction from New Delhi?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): There is nothing further to add to what was said in this house during the course of my remarks the other day. Until I am in a position to say something with finality, I think the hon. member will understand that the question might better remain in abeyance.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Has the government, in the light of the close and friendly relations which have been maintained between Canada and India, conveyed to the Indian government any formal proposal as to mediation in the Kashmir dispute?


John George Diefenbaker: The statement which was made in the house has been sent to both India and Pakistan.

Inquiries of the Ministry


INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OP TERRITORIAL WATERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has given consideration to the possibility of approaching the four or five nations which have historic fishing rights on the east coast of Canada with a view to seeking their acquiescence in the establishment of a 12 mile fishing zone.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated question and we have been giving it consideration in the department for some time. The main country involved, of course, is the United States.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman now say whether the governor in council has received a petition under section 53 of the Railway Act from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asking for a stay of all proceedings in connection with applications respecting the branch line abandonment? Can the Prime Minister say whether any new policy has been adopted which will prevent the abandonment of further branch lines at this time?


John George Diefenbaker: A notice of appeal has been received by the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the house when policy will be announced as far as the request for delay in the proceedings is concerned. Further, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has anything to report on the meeting between the railway companies and the Minister of Transport in this connection.


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that a meeting has taken place. Discussions have been carried on, notice of appeal has been given, and when the government is in a position to say more in this connection it will do so.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
Could the minister tell us why it is impossible for co-operatives, feed manufacturers and farmers in the east to buy wheat and other grain directly from the Canadian wheat board?


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry but, as it is put, the hon. member's question requires a reasoned answer from the minister and that is not in order. I feel that he should put his question differently or put it on the order paper.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question again to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the eastern farmers, the co-operatives and the feed manufacturers buy wheat and other grain directly from the Canadian wheat board?
(Text):


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Cook (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the reply given to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux), could the minister tell us whether the eastern farmers, who buy wheat regularly from the Canadian wheat board, enjoy terms and conditions as advantageous as those offered to China?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but the hon. member cannot ask such a question on the orders of the day since it calls for a detailed answer. I would therefore suggest that he put his question on the order paper so as to get a complete reply.


Jean-Paul Cook: I am not asking for details, Mr. Speaker. I just want to know whether the conditions are the same.
(Text):
INQUIRY AS TO 1962 PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE: PAYMENTS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Horace A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us when he expects the payment of awards under P.F.A.A. will be made to those farmers who qualified in this crop year, 1962?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will recognize that his question would be more proper on the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would
like to ask the Minister of Agriculture

whether he has given an indication to the agricultural meetings that have been taking place in Ottawa that a change in the government's policy relating to butter subsidies is under consideration or is likely.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that at the federal-provincial ministers' meetings, which lasted over three days, we discussed many matters, some in public and some in private. So far as the public discussions are concerned, they have already been reported in the press, and so far as the private discussions are concerned, they will remain private for a little while longer.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house whether it is the intention of the government in the near future to proclaim the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this comes directly under the Minister of Transport, and I think it should be answered by him.


Léon Balcer: I wonder if the hon. member would mind repeating his question.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Is it the government's intention in the near future to proclaim the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, at the end of the year.
{Later:}


Thomas Rodney Berger: In view of the policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the answer he gave a few minutes ago, can the minister assure the house that an opportunity will be given to any parties affected by the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act to make representations to the ministry before any regulations are passed under the powers given by that act?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the minister is always willing and glad to receive information and deputations from any group whatsoever in the country.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to give the house any report with respect to the excellent work being done by our representatives at the United Nations in connection with proposals for disarmament?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to inform the house that the resolution on the resumption of disarmament negotiations was adopted in a plenary session of the general assembly yesterday by a vote of 84 in favour, with none against and only one abstention. The terms of this resolution fully reflect the Canadian views. It reaffirms the need to reach agreement "at the earliest possible date" on general disarmament with effective controls, and it calls on the 18 nation disarmament committee, which is meeting on Monday next, to resume negotiations "in a spirit of constructive compromise". This, of course, is in line with the Canadian emphasis on common elements in the views of the two sides and on the necessity of a further effort to achieve acceptable compromises.
In addition, the resolution recommends that urgent attention be given "to various collateral measures intended to decrease tension and to facilitate general and complete disarmament". Canada has taken the initiative from the outset of the disarmament conference in stressing the importance of early action on collateral measures. The significance of such measures has been underlined by the recent events in Cuba, and I hope that agreement on this can be achieved without delay.
This resolution was adopted yesterday and together with the resolution on the banning of nuclear tests which was passed ten days or so ago, gives the 18 nation committee about as much backing as could have been expected from the general assembly. General Burns, the head of the Canadian delegation to the disarmament committee, is leaving for Geneva today. We hope that good results will be achieved. It might help the house if these two resolutions could be printed as an appendix to Hansard today. That would give the house a complete picture of these resolutions.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The minister asks leave of the house to have the two resolutions printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is it agreed?


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister or his department received information that a product known as preludin, of the C. H. Boehringer drug firm of Ingel-heim, Germany, which is distributed in Canada, may have an effect dangerous to women in the early stages of pregnancy?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, thus far the only information on this product that we have seen has been a newspaper report. We are checking the report, however, and will make a full investigation into the matter.


James Edgar Walker: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister consider taking steps to temporarily freeze the distribution of this drug in Canada until the reports can be either confirmed or denied?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness I think we must view this matter in the proper context. My understanding is that there is one British report or a letter or something of this nature. We are endeavouring to trace this, and as soon as possible we will make a study of the situation and report.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport because of the scheduled end of certain prairie air services on November 30, with the withdrawal of the federal government subsidy. Can the minister say whether any other steps the government may be taking will assure the continuation of this air service beyond November 30?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to repeat what I said earlier, namely that the service will be carried on after November 30.
[Mr. Green.l


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question to ask following this welcome announcement. From the minister's answer am I to-take it that P.W.A. and N.C.A. services into Regina will be continued beyond November 30?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether it is correct that they will be continued?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, all I said was that this matter has been the subject of a review by the air transport board. The air transport board has reported and we are now considering the best way in which to serve the public needs with regard to air service in the prairie provinces. The air service needs will be met after November 30.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a further supplementary question to ask, if I may do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is now getting to be more of a matter of jumping into a little argument.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, my question is-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have questions to ask, all right, but they are not supplementary questions. I think it might be well if he would give some other hon. members the chance to ask questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask the minister. Has the minister yet been able to ascertain whether the chairman of the air transport board gave a press release about the speech he made some time ago, a matter which the minister was going to investigate?


Léon Balcer: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there was no text of that speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked about a press release.


Léon Balcer: No press release was issued by the air transport board or by the chairman of the air transport board.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Some time ago in reply to a question of mine the minister said that before November 30 he would make an announcement with regard to the details of air services that would be continued in the prairies beyond November 30. Will the minister make such a statement to the house before the present services are discontinued on November 30?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.

Health and Welfare Act



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Justice, and I have sent him notice of it. What steps are being taken to improve living conditions at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, situated in the province of Quebec?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: There are very extensive programs under way in this regard following the fire which occurred at that penitentiary in midsummer. I have a long statement here covering three pages, dealing with all the steps that are being taken, but I am quite sure you would not wish me to deliver it at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: This more than convinces me that the question would have been better put on the order paper. I allowed the question because the hon. member had sent notice, but the reply obviously is going to be far too lengthy.
(Translation):



SOUTH AMERICA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) asked whether the government was considering the possibility of trading goods with Brazil or other South American countries which are anxious to develop such an international trade policy.
The government itself does no international trading. Its function does not go beyond providing for exporters, through its policies, the most favourable trading opportunities. There is no official policy concerning barter and Canadians are free to indulge in it if they wish to.
(Text):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether he can now, or when he will be able to, give a report to the house about the possibility that perjury may have been committed before the miscellaneous private bills committee a few years ago in the Eccles divorce case, which was referred to the minister for action?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if you consider this a
proper question to be answered on orders of the day, I shall endeavour to do so. The matter has been referred, as is proper in this case, to the proper law enforcement authority, namely the attorney general of Ontario.



SONS OF FREEDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In the light of representations made to him and to the government of British Columbia by the civic authorities of the village of Hope, would he say whether he has had conversations with the attorney general of British Columbia on the matter of the Freedomite sect in that province?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no conversations with the attorney general of British Columbia.


Arthur Laing: May I ask a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's answer is no.


Arthur Laing: I wish to direct another question to the Minister of Justice. Would he undertake to the house to have some of his officials look into the conditions in that camp at Hope, where the Freedomites are?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that is not a matter of federal responsibility. If I were to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member I would be guilty of an intrusion into affairs that fall under the jurisdiction of one or both of two other levels of government in this country.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE ACT


Jay Waldo Monteith: the third reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will not be made at great length.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: I am pleased to see I can say something which meets with the approval of hon. members. I regret that I was not able to be present during discussion on the earlier stages of the bill, and there are one or two points I would like to place on record with respect to it.
In recent years we have seen the growth of a body of opinion in Canada, most of it misdirected and erroneously guided, which is
1894	HOUSE OF
Health and Welfare Act attempting to eliminate or restrict the activities of government in the field of social welfare. It is regrettable that those forces are at work promoting the concept that we have no need to assist those of our citizens who are in want from time to time through no fault of their own, but this bill is to be welcomed in that it says we need to make further inquiries, studies and moves in the field of welfare.
No doubt there have been abuses committed by a relatively small number of people who are in receipt of so-called social welfare benefits, as distinct from types of welfare payments in the nature of pensions. I know that on occasion in my own province recipients of social welfare benefit have spent most of it on liquor and thus denied to their families the subsistence and assistance which the payments were designed to provide. In fact there have been cases of people taking taxis from the social welfare office down to the nearest liquor store or beer parlour. This is well known, and it is regrettable that such things take place. Because people in some instances tend to abuse welfare assistance, an excuse is found by those who want to destroy the concept of social welfare, and they use these isolated instances to promote their own ideas.
By establishing a council, such as is envisaged in this bill, we may be able to move in the direction of overcoming that attitude on the part of some Canadians, the attitude which says we do not need this sort of assistance, and the council may also be able to recommend action to correct and balance out the abuses which occur from time to time.
In this connection I understand that at the third meeting of provincial premiers in Victoria this year one of the communiques issued suggested that an effort be made to attach some sort of productivity or work to social welfare benefits. That is not an undesirable thing, in my opinion, and I am sure people who are out of work would far sooner be doing something constructive rather than merely being the recipients of what they look upon as a charitable contribution from the public purse. I suggest that such work should be directed toward the beautification of our municipalities, and I further suggest that it be paid for at decent rates of wages, not substandard rates as existed during the thirties but rates of wages equivalent to those for comparable work done by other people within a community, and that those rates prevail during whatever period is involved in absorbing all the social welfare funds provided.
This would accomplish two things. It would give the individual recipient a sense of contributing to the community, and it would


tend to weed out those people who are solely and simply concerned with abusing the structure of social welfare services.
I am not too pleased with the fact that this bill, as does the statutory provision which established the dominion council of health, seeks to place the meetings of this council in the hands of the minister at such times and places as he may decide and direct. Having in mind the person who now holds the position of minister, this is perhaps perfect. I do not think there is any doubt or question in anybody's mind that the minister who now holds that position will conscientiously and deliberately do everything he can to make this particular council function in the best way it can. But I think it is unwise to be legislating in such a way that we place control over this sort of council in the hands of a person of political stature. I am not saying this unkindly to the present minister at all, but he is in a ministerial position and is a person of political stature, and can misdirect or misuse authority which may be placed in his hands. Perhaps at this late stage this is something for future consideration with respect to this council and any other similar types of advisory bodies, but I would far sooner see statutory authority for calling meetings put in the hands of someone other than a political figure.
Second, I do not think it is too wise to give to the governor in council the authority to prescribe what the duties and powers of such a council should be. I think wherever possible this should be set out in the statute because, as we all know, over the years there has been too much growth in the matter of the cabinet, which is the governor in council, making decisions and deciding things which are primarily the right and function of parliament itself. I think we would have had a better concept of what we are trying to do in this regard if the minister, when he introduced this bill, had set out in it the powers and duties of the council so that parliament would have had an opportunity to deal with them. This would also establish that it is not the minister, a political head, who decides when and where the council is going to meet.
I merely raise those points now, realizing that it is perhaps a bit late to do anything about them. Perhaps even at the second reading and committee stages it was too late to do anything about them. But I think this is something that should be kept in mind in future when this type of legislation is introduced, to ensure that councils should be able to meet and do things without too much potential interference from people in political

positions, because after all this matter of social welfare is far too important to be left open to possible misdirection.


Mr. John B. Stewart (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: Mr. Speaker, any measure that
promises, as does Bill No. C-4 now before the house for third reading, to promote simplicity and efficiency in the field of welfare services certainly commends itself to hon. members on this side of the chamber. The men and women who chiefly benefit by welfare legislation are those most baffled and discouraged by inadequate administrative procedures. Moreover, many of these welfare programs require the co-operation of medical doctors who often, even generally, are extremely busy.
Undoubtedly these considerations were important in prompting the Canadian national welfare council to recommend in 1958 the establishment of a broadly representative body of common persons to survey constantly all aspects and developments in the field of social welfare. Undoubtedly another consideration that prompted the council to make this recommendation was the realization that there were required in this country new adventures in the field of social welfare. We are therefore happy that the government has, after a considerable delay, decided to accede in the recommendation of the council.
At the same time the passage of this bill must not conceal-and I think we can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will not allow it to conceal-the urgent need for this government to formulate and introduce into this house legislation dealing with contributory pensions, medical care insurance and other required welfare programs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FARM CREDIT ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the third reading of Bill No. C-71, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (for the Minister of Justice) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-49, to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
27507-3-120
Labour Conditions LABOUR CONDITIONS



PROVISION FOR ORGANIZATION AND MAINTENANCE OF MANPOWER CONSULTATION SERVICE, ETC.

Michael Starr: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting industrial change and manpower adjustment; to provide for the organization and maintenance of a manpower consultation service; to provide also for the payment of assessment incentives for carrying out manpower adjustment programs; to provide further for the entering into agreements providing for the payment by Canada respecting a labour mobility incentive; and to establish a council called the "advisory council on industrial change and manpower adjustment" and to provide for the chairman's remuneration and for certain expenses of the members of the council.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Chown in the chair.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister recently said "Automation poses the supreme challenge to our industrial and social development. It is a challenge which must be met on the social and economic fronts by co-operation between government, labour and management." The legislation referred to in the resolution before the committee is an initial but far reaching step designed to meet this challenge of automation and to deal with it in a co-operative way by government, labour and management.
Technological change or automation, as it is now called, affects almost every aspect of the working life of Canada today. We have made more technological progress in the twentieth century than in all the previous history of the world. The pace of this technical progress is an ever quickening one. Automation presents us with an opportunity and a challenge. The challenge is to ensure that its human consequences do not work unnecessary hardships on those who must adapt their working lives to it. The opportunity is that it opens up a vast perspective for increasing human welfare in both an economic and social sense.
There has been much discussion in this house, in the press, and by labour and management groups of automation and the consequences for workers and for industry generally. This discussion has frequently been based on limited knowledge. It has also arisen in some cases from an understandable fear of the immediate consequences for workers and their families directly affected. This legislation is designed to deal in a positive way with some of the human problems caused by automation. These problems will grow ever more serious in the future if the measures proposed in this legislation are not taken soon.
In November of 1957 the government set up an advisory committee on technological

Labour Conditions
change composed of experts from management, labour, government and universities to guide a research program on the manpower effects of technological change in Canada. This research has gone forward vigorously and has concentrated on a number of manufacturing industries, on railway transportation and on the introduction of electronic computers in offices. The findings of this important research have guided us in the formulation of this legislation. It is soundly based on the facts of industrial change and their consequences for manpower adjustment. The findings of this research might be highlighted as follows. The average worker in our labour force today cannot expect to remain in a single occupation with a given set of skills for most of his working life. Unlike his father or his grandfather he will have to make many adjustments to new skill and knowledge demands and on occasion even shift to completely new occupations, usually at higher levels of skills.
This means that a more flexible and adaptive approach to technical education and training must be developed. Skills cannot be allowed to become out of date in the face of ever-changing manpower demands and thus act as a brake on individual growth and on our economic progress. Nor can we allow the human dislocations imposed by lay-offs as a result of industrial change to create a steadily increasing burden on unemployment insurance and other forms of social assistance.
This legislation is designed to provide a preventive approach to such unemployment. It goes to its source, and helps to ensure that efforts will be made to re-employ, productively, workers who are displaced by industrial change. Old jobs are disappearing and new ones are being created every day. We must make sure that as many displaced workers as possible are equipped to take these new jobs.
Canada's requirements for highly skilled manpower are being met increasingly under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act of 1960 through the facilities and the programs developed to meet this need. This new legislation will complement the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act in an important way with respect to adult employed workers.
There is a broad need throughout Canadian industries to match occupational supplies and demands. Today, for example, there exist manpower shortages in skilled and technical occupations which limit potential increases of production, raise costs, and limit the expansion of employment.
Manpower adjustments of the kind which this legislation is intended to facilitate are

essential if technological change is to play its necessary part in increasing the productivity and competitiveness of Canadian industry. It is vitally necessary to ensure that this objective is achieved with a minimum of displacement and other human dislocation. As I have said before in this house, and as the national productivity council mission to Europe last summer has urged in its report, new patterns of labour-management-government consultation and co-operation must be developed if we are to meet these objectives effectively.
This legislation is designed to ensure that these human consequences are minimized and that positive measures are co-operatively taken by labour and management to bring about as smoothly as possible the manpower adjustments required by automation and industrial change.
The legislation is founded on a number of basic principles which the government feels are fundamental. First, it is based on the principle that a co-operative and joint approach by unions and management to developing research and plans for dealing with the effects of industrial change is the most effective one. The government is prepared to assist financially and through consultation if the parties in industry voluntarily wish the government to do so. The primary responsibility, however, remains with labour and management for working out the ways, at the plant and industry level, in which displaced workers can be most effectively adapted to new employment. Government facilities and assistance are brought into play at their request The legislation will give labour and management a chance to sit down together and assess the situation. It will then encourage them to determine the facts, with assistance if this is desired from the government. It will encourage them to decide jointly and in their mutual interest on a course of remedial action.
In essence, then, the legislation will serve as a practical step to bring about effective labour-management-government co-operation. Members of the house will agree, I hope, that this is a highly desirable objective, and that this legislation will provide sound opportunities for the development of such cooperation.
A second important principle of the legislation is that steps must be developed well in advance of worker displacement resulting from industrial change, if effective measures are to be brought into operation so as to minimize unemployment and other human dislocations. In addition, many of these steps have to be taken in industry at the factory or establishment level, and the legislation provides for this.

The extent to which advance preparations can be made depends, of course, on many factors such as the extent to which technological and market changes, which often vary widely from situation to situation, can be predicted. With this in mind the legislation will provide first for research well in advance on the consequences of technological change for manpower, and second, for technical and financial assistance to labour and management in making advance plans to deal with these consequences.
The third principle is that the legislation will provide for the co-ordination of government efforts at both the federal and provincial levels to deal with the effects of manpower displacement flowing from industrial change. There are many government facilities and agencies which can help to deal with the problem of manpower adjustment. The vocational training programs of provincial governments, the placement facilities of the national employment service, the manpower research facilities of the Department of Labour are among these. It is not the intention of this legislation to duplicate these facilities in any way, but rather to focus their use effectively on this problem. The retraining of workers for the new jobs created by technological change either in the plant or industry for which they work or in other plants or industries in which employment is expanding, is an essential element of manpower adjustment.
Steps to encourage training in industry are provided under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act. Wherever appropriate this new legislation will help ensure that such training is developed as part of an integrated program to assist workers likely to be displaced make the necessary employment adjustments. It also provides for the utilization as part of a co-ordinated plan at the factory or industry level, of the facilities of the national employment service for finding alternative employment for displaced workers, and for bringing to bear in a similar way the research and technical resources of other federal agencies in the effort to promote manpower adjustment.
This legislation will set up an agency which will ensure that such co-ordinated plans of action make the fullest possible use of assistance from any provincial of federal government agency which can help in tackling the problem of manpower displacement at the plant or industry level.
Fourth, the legislation provides financial assistance for the movement of workers to new employment. This is most important, since the lack of financial resources is often a significant barrier which must be overcome if workers are to move long distances to new 27507-3-120J
Labour Conditions
employment. The legislation will provide for the participation and co-operation of the provinces and of employers in providing necessary mobility for workers, with assistance by the federal government. This will enable displaced workers to move to new employment opportunities, either directly because of the skills which they now possess or following retraining which may be taken under the provisions of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
In summary, the legislation is based on providing financial incentives primarily to employers in co-operation with unions to undertake the measures I have outlined so that constructive action to deal with problems of manpower displacement resulting from technological or industrial changes can be developed. The responsibility for working out the details of the manpower adjustment measures to be taken and for taking the initiative in developing these measures primarily rests with management and with labour. Most of these measures, moreover, must be taken at the level where action counts most.
I do not wish to create the impression, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation will solve all the problems-economic, social and human- created by technological change and automation. If I did I would be less than honest. At the same time it is, I think, an important piece of legislation which will constitute a challenge to management, labour and government. Although pioneering in approach, it provides a means by which the ingenuity of government, management and labour may be turned in the direction of developing some solutions to this most difficult range of human problems. The legislation will provide a framework and a basis through which the human problems of industrial change can be dealt with and through which we can learn by experience.
This legislation will require, for its effective implementation, the wholehearted support of management and labour in this country and of provincial governments, particularly those agencies concerned with manpower and training. There are no firm guidelines for this type of legislation, as it is the first of its kind anywhere in the world. The legislation will, of course, be subject to discussion and to revision in the light of experience. It is not the final or only answer to this problem-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And it is not the
first one, either.


Michael Starr: Yes, it is; I have checked on that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, there are three others.

Labour Conditions


Michael Starr: -but I hope the committee will agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is a significant step toward its solution.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, about 200 years ago, in the midst of the great political revolution then sweeping Europe, there began another great revolution, one which we see today was perhaps more important than those political revolutions. The first industrial revolution was a great instrument of social change. Its significance lay, Mr. Chairman, not so much in the new machines that it brought into our way of life, but in the social changes which it brought into our society.
Today, Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a second industrial revolution, one which I suggest will have effects even more sweeping than this first industrial revolution. Our second industrial revolution, based as it is on the new principle of automation and the new technology that we have developed in the past 20 years, will have effects more significant because I suggest that its impact will be deeper and its effects will be felt more swiftly than the results of the first revolution with which we have lived over the past 200 years.
We must prepare, Mr. Chairman, to meet the social changes that are coming upon us because of this great second technological revolution. It is only in this way, by preparing to meet these changes, that we can avoid what may develop into losses of economic and political freedom. Certainly, therefore, we should welcome legislation which would put us in a position to deal with these matters before possible harmful effects will have deep-seated results on our way of life.
There is not much question, Mr. Chairman, that automation will have the effect of displacing people from jobs which they hold today. It may be too soon to tell the exact effects or results that automation is going to have, but there is no question that this displacement will take place. It may be true, as some have said, that automation will produce many other jobs in turn, but unfortunately the people whose jobs are taken away by these technological changes are often not the people who have the training and the skill to take up these new jobs. Therefore there is a great need to prepare the people whose work may be on the way to disappearing because of these technological changes so that they, along with the rest of our society, will benefit from these changes and not suffer because of them. The legislation which we bring into effect, Mr. Chairman, must be such that the burden of this technological change will not fall merely upon those people primarily affected by it. Instead', this burden is one which must be borne or supported by the whole community. This can be done only by

legislation beginning in places such as this which will muster the forces of our entire country to deal effectively with the problems of technological change.
Mr. Chairman, it is certainly difficult to comment in a detailed way upon the measures referred to by the Minister of Labour until we see the bill itself. However, I trust that we may be permitted to make some comments in a preliminary way. I was interested to hear the Minister of Labour refer to the need for co-ordination of services and the fact that, as he suggested, the measures he proposes would not overlap or compete with what we have today. I certainly will be most interested to see the actual legislation as it is presented, as I for one have some fear that, instead of the co-ordinated, organized, forward looking type of program and organization that we must have, there may be some unnecessary proliferation and overlapping of services which will have the effect of preventing us from tackling these problems in the way we must.
By way of illustration I would point out that one of the terms of reference of our productivity council is to deal with matters of this type, and apparently one of the approaches or terms of reference of our technical and vocational training act is to deal with matters of this type as well and in fact to create an advisory council on technical and vocational training. In addition, in the resolution itself we see that two other bodies are to be set up, a manpower consultation service and an advisory council on industrial change and manpower adjustments. I certainly would hope that the effect of the legislation itself, the detailed bill when it is before us, will not be such as to cause confusion and a spreading out of our effort in this regard rather than to bring about the co-ordinated and fully developed program which we must have.
The Senate committee on manpower and employment which brought down its report almost two years ago pointed out that one of the most important steps to meet the challenge of automation is to have a combination and a co-ordination of effort. It was pointed out that although much research is being done at the present time, it is spread out amongst a number of government organizations and bodies, some of them referred to by the Minister of Labour himself. This report took some pains to urge that there be a co-ordination and a bringing together of these various efforts at research so that the most important results of this research might be readily available to those so greatly concerned with this problem, not only to those inside government departments and bodies concerned but to the labour movement and to

industry so they would be able to plan well ahead the steps they must take to meet the challenge of this second industrial revolution.
There is something else that concerned me when I read this resolution and when I heard the words of the Minister of Labour. He made some reference to increasing labour mobility and to arranging for payments to help workers to move from one area of our country to another. Certainly this matter must be taken into consideration. There is no question that if workers are willing and are interested in moving from one part of the country to another in order to take up employment for which they are suited, then we have an obligation and a responsibility to help them to do so in a manner which will bring about the least possible dislocation. However, what concerns me is that we might do something here by way of an approach whereby we feel that the workers primarily must be brought to the job rather than attempting, at least in the primary instance, to bring the jobs to the workers in the communities in which they and their families have spent their lives.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot tackle the problem of depressed areas, surplus labour areas, areas which have the effect of dragging down the whole economic effort of our country unless, as a primary aim, we work to bring jobs or economic developments to those areas which have been lagging behind the rest of our country. This was another point stressed by the Senate special committee on manpower and employment. That committee was made up of representatives in the Senate of both the Liberal and Conservative parties. If I may, I should like to quote briefly from page 6 of the report, as follows:
The achievement of a satisfactory rate of economic growth for the country as a whole may not, by itself, solve the unemployment problems of particular areas and regions which have long endured economic difficulties. The most serious problem in this respect lies in the Atlantic region. Over the long run there are only two solutions; either the people move out to better opportunities elsewhere, or better opportunities are made available to them where they are. The massive migration of the population is neither socially nor economically desirable, and we reject this possibility.
Those are the exact words of the report of the special committee on manpower and employment. I suggest then that, in putting into effect legislation of the type contemplated by this resolution, we must be careful that we still maintain as a primary goal the providing of jobs and the providing of economic development in those regions of Canada which need them so badly today, and that only second, do we try to bring about, by
Labour Conditions
some forced draft method, the movement of workers from one part of the country to another.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, there is some problem confronting one in commenting in a complete and detailed way when we have only this resolution before us. Certainly there are problems which can be tackled only through the co-operation of labour and management. Once this legislation is put into effect-and I hope it will be put into effect quickly-I certainly hope that more effective steps will be taken to bring labour and management together in order to work out their problems, not only in the field of automation but in other areas, than have been exhibited by the government in the past in some of the conferences it has held in this country. It is not enough to talk about these matters. The government must be willing to take the initiative in bringing labour and management together so they can work out these difficulties. I think they would be most willing and anxious to do so if the initiative or the impetus was given to them by our federal government and by our provincial governments as well, both working together in this field.
I referred to the technological changes that are sweeping across our world today as a second industrial revolution. I must urge and emphasize to those here this afternoon that if we are going to tackle, as we must, the problems of automation we must do so in a co-ordinated and organized fashion. I am greatly concerned about the possibility of diffusion of effort. Everyone who has studied this particular problem remarks not only upon its urgency but on the need for having one over-all body and one over-all approach to carry out the myriad programs which must be put into effect in order to deal with this second industrial revolution.
Let me therefore say, Mr. Chairman, by way of conclusion that certainly even before this day there was need to bring down legislation of this type. Certainly in the past five years this need was amply demonstrated and there was ample opportunity to tackle this problem before now. But since we have the opportunity, starting today, to begin to assume our responsibility in the area of guiding and leading our nation in dealing with this second industrial revolution, we should not shrink from it.
Mr. Chairman, it is only by accepting the leadership role which the country expects of us that we can begin to bring to our country the benefits of this second industrial revolution. In addition, we should make sure that there will not be any unwilling victims of

Labour Conditions
this change. Let us therefore exert this leadership so that this second industrial revolution will really be a victory for Canada and the Canadian people.
(Translation):


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the introduction of this resolution, and I think the whole house welcomes it also. We are all the more happy about it as it gives us the opportunity of examining the most serious problem facing the Canadian people at the moment.
At this stage of the introduction of this resolution by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), we must limit ourselves to its consideration as a whole, and see whether it could improve the present economic situation.
It seems, Mr. Chairman, that we are still harbouring this concept which prevailed many years ago, that is, that production is inadequate.
I believe that we must come to the conclusion today, in this century in which we live, that the main problem is not one of production.
If we go back 200 years, we realize that there was then a problem of production, there was a scarcity of consumer goods for the people. But as a result of the evolution of production methods, and of the discoveries which were made by the inventors who preceded us, we have seen production increase over the years to the point where it now satisfies all reasonable needs.
I do not suggest that, at present, all countries have found a solution to their needs in all fields, but if we consider all problems facing Canada at present, I think we can say that production is not the greatest.
We have discussed agriculture here for several days, we have proposed all kinds of measures to help farmers to produce more and better. But I think this problem will stay with us for a long time yet, in fact, as long as we consider work as an end in itself, and as long as we do not reconsider our economic philosophy.
In my opinion, the problem of production has now been solved to a great extent.
We even hear that there is overproduction, agricultural as well as industrial overproduction. And, in many areas-particularly in the one I represent-there are problems of agricultural and industrial overproduction.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that what we call "overproduction" is really overproduction, it is rather "underconsumption". If all peoples of the world, and all Canadians in particular could get what they need, there would not be any overproduction, and we would all have to get to work in order to satisfy their needs.
So, it is not a production problem, but a distribution problem, and causes at the basis of this problem reach very deep, I would say they even go as far back as the beginning of civilization.
I think that as long as we stick to our present economic and financial system, we will always be faced with a distribution problem, a problem of under-employment, a problem of lack of purchasing power for the consumers. It is suggested that people should get more educated and that workers should prepare for jobs which will be available. We may always have those mechanical and technological changes but I ask you sincerely to consider those changes which increasingly take manpower away from the production line. The purpose of this bill is to get men ready to go and take up other jobs in other plants. As the hon. member who spoke before me was saying, I do not find it reasonable to imagine that we are going to put workers in mobile houses so that they can travel with their families from one place to another to fill the available jobs. In my opinion, we should consider the problem more open-mindedly, on a broader basis, because work is not an end in itself, it is not a goal, but a means to an end, and that is why, consequently, we have to work.
Today, when I hear people tell us that we need plants to make our people work, well, I feel that principle is false to begin with. We do not have to build plants to make our people work, because a plant is not meant to provide employment, but to produce goods which the consumers and the people need.
As long as production is achieved, I feel that the goal is reached. If we can entirely eliminate entirely any manual labour to complete that production, if we are able to design machines that will eliminate all manual labour, or human participation in production, we will have something to crow about, because it will be the victory of the genius of man over matter. We should be glad of it, but because of our present economic concept, we are obliged to deplore, I would even say mourn, the fact that machines are introduced in our plants.
Being a worker myself, I have been able to notice the degree of insecurity that the industrial worker feels now about his job.

That man, who has been affected to a job for many years, is afraid of tomorrow because he knows quite well that, with the present economic concept, machines will take his place.
Only the government can change the situation. Without buying power, he will have to run about, come and go to earn a living. Insecurity is even greater around 40 or 45. In fact, it is impossible for a Canadian worker of 45 to find another job in industry.
I hope we will consider that problem together and ask ourselves the following question: Is it possible to further improve the present economic system? Can we still believe in the possibility of full employment?
There are those who claim that everyone should have a job and that full employment is possible. As for me, I say that if we need full employment, it is because our economic system has been a complete failure since that is neither an end in itself nor the purpose of our economic system. The purpose of our economic system is to put at the disposal of the people of the world, of a country all the goods, all the services they have a right to expect. But it is the aim of our economic system to obtain those goods and services at the lowest price possible with the minimum effort. If in our current mechanical evolution we can foresee the day when men will have to participate less and less in that production, we must then turn our aspirations toward other horizons. It means that taking part in work is not the solution. It is not a matter of working more. Nowadays, what counts is to train school teachers, because they are the greatest need of this country.
Nowadays, we have to face the problem of leisure, which is perhaps the most serious problem confronting us. We must prepare the people to make use of their brains instead of their arms, and to use their brains to put it to the service of the community.
In our present production system, the cost of labour represents a part of the cost of production. Now, the purchasing power gained by the workers through their active participation in production has always been inadequate to obtain, to purchase that production.
I know that the philosophy of Social Credit has been rejected by many hon. members of this house. I urge them to consider with real sincerity the problem as it really exists. It is not a matter of trying to get them to accept our philosophy, I am only asking them
Labour Conditions
to be realistic and wonder whether through economic planning, through increase in number of plants, through regimentation of labour, we are actually coming any closer to the solution of the problem facing us. Is a deficient production the real problem?
In my opinion, we will not even come near finding the answer to this problem as long as we consider that we must work in order to secure all those things. I know that there are many more goods that we could produce. Our inventors could discover a great many opportunities for employment and a wealth of goods which we could produce in order to raise our standard of living.
Mr. Chairman, Canada is experiencing a serious unemployment crisis. This is the first opportunity offered the house to discuss at length the unemployment situation. Much could be said on such a matter, and there are other members wishing to speak on it. But I submit that the present unemployment problem in Canada can be solved through the development of our secondary industry. If we keep on accepting to live in accordance with our present economic thinking, then it is clear that the sole and only solution open to us is the development of our secondary industry.
How will we go about the matter of building up a secondary industry which for all practical purposes is non-existent in Canada? Will we rely solely on private industry? Or are we going to develop it through government planning, with the government, since it is the sponsor, meddling in it and controlling it?
There must be some sort of compromise available to us, and I believe that an answer could be worked out, implemented and supported by men of good will.
I submit that failing to conceive this task on another basis, in another line of thought than the one we are favouring in this corner of the house, the government and all classes and organizations in our society will have to see to the expansion of our secondary industry. For instance, the government will have to keep a close watch over all items imported from all the other countries in the world. It will have to stimulate, to initiate and, I would even say to suggest, in some cases, what our secondary industry should produce.
I admit that the government did make an effort in that respect, and I should, more par-

Labour Conditions
ticularly, commend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) for his efforts in this matter. I know that some action he took was very commendable and that it might lead us to hope that a solution will be reached. However, I deplore the fact that some industrialists were not sufficiently interested in the meetings which they had been invited to attend by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Other meetings of a similar nature have been held in other provinces in Canada and I would like them to go on, to become frequent and to get a wider publicity.
Indeed, I think that, as far as all import items now consumed by Canadians are concerned, the government should attach a much greater importance to them. This is what I would suggest. The government should bring to the attention of the people, and more particularly of the commercial and industrial organizations, the various items we import, their volume, their significance, the possibility of producing them ourselves, and their consumption in the various parts of this country.
At this time, every country in the world tries to be self-sufficient. I admit that the fact of wanting to be completely self-sufficient is likely to be economically inconsistent. There certainly are some products which we are unable to manufacture here, in Canada, on an economical or even a paying basis, but I am satisfied that a thorough and conscientious study of this matter would demonstrate that a great number of items which are now imported can be produced here, in Canada.
In that line of thought, the first industrial sector which comes to my mind is that of the automobile industry. In fact, according to what is being said on the matter and the statistics which we are being given from time to time, Canadian participation in the automobile industry is only about 50 per cent. We are being told that 50 per cent of automobile parts are produced in Canada, while 50 per cent are imported, and that all the assembling is being done here. I am satisfied that it would be possible to increase our relative production of parts going into the manufacture of an automobile in Canada, and I believe that this section of the automobile industry is one of the first that we should consider, since it accounts for an important part of our imports.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that it is rather difficult to deal with all those subjects, but

I should like to revert for a moment to a question which comes to my mind.
We are being asked to set up committees on labour training. Of course, I realize that we are late, but for all practical purposes, it is never too late. In fact, there is something that should never be forgotten, and it is that whatever may be the university training or the skill of a man today, our mechanical, industrial and economical patterns are changing so fast that if that man does not go beyond his present knowledge, if he does not continue to study and to develop as fast as automation and the economy, by 1982 he will be as backward as we are today as compared with 1942.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the solutions which might flow from this resolution put forward by the Minister of Labour will be effective to the extent that, together, workers, legislators, industrialists, union members, cooperate to make this measure work as well as possible.
Before bringing my remarks to a close, I should like to state again that as long as we hold on to our present economical and monetary concept, we will have to face the problem of unemployment. If we start importing products from outside to manufacture them at home, we shall have solved our problems in part, but the reaction will immediately follow. In fact, I suggest that if we import a great many American products to manufacture them in Canada, we will create unemployment in the United States. We are dealing here with a world-wide chain.
In fact, we have noticed that unemployment and economical problems have been at the basis of the wars which occurred throughout the history of humanity.
Today, we are fighting for foreign markets. Canada is making efforts to get foreign markets. All countries are now doing likewise. All countries are selling on foreign markets. In fact, I wonder whether we are really logical in wishing to keep on stepping up our efforts to sell on foreign markets, when we know that those countries are also stepping up their own efforts to sell their products here.
Mr. Chairman, I think we can conclude from that reflection that the solution to this problem does not reside in the export of our products. On the contrary, it resides in the increase of consumption among the Canadian people, and it is only when we have achieved

this increase in consumption among all Canadians that we will be able to say that we have improved the situation in this country.
In a few years, all countries of the world will have to consider the problems from that angle, because as a result of the increase in production facilities, they will be able to overproduce, and at that time, if our concepts have not been readjusted and if our finished products cannot be better distributed, we shall probably be faced with the greatest catastrophe the world has ever known. We will also show evidence of the greatest inconsistency ever known since the beginning of this world, that is the inconsistency of having an accumulation of all our consumer goods and services, without having increased consumption possibilities. We shall then see production accumulate before the eyes of a people who will be unable to get hold of that production which, however, will have been intended and produced for them. That will be the inconsistency which all the peoples of the world will have to face.
Mr. Chairman, I think I should close my remarks at this stage, and I would ask all hon. members to consider the various points of view I have expressed. If my modest contribution to this debate has been of any help, I shall be very happy.
(Text):


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, the members of the New Democratic party were happy to see this resolution on the order paper and are happier to see it now before the committee, because it provides some evidence that the government is going to do something about unemployment and automation. As the Minister of Labour well knows, we have taken the position that the government has done far too little about these problems since June 18. The resolution offers two measures which may be useful in mitigating the increasing unemployment which technology and automation have left in their wake. The resolution is worded in a rather vague manner, but from what is said in it and from what the minister told us today I think we can take it that there are two essential elements to the resolution. First of all, it offers assessment incentives to industry to encourage industry to carry out manpower adjustment programs; second, it promises payments to workers to encourage them to move to areas where jobs are available.
27507-3-121
Labour Conditions
Let us keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that measures like this by themselves are not adequate because they only deal with the plight of the worker after changing economic conditions, technology and automation, have deprived him of his job. If these are the only measures the government is prepared to take, we will get nowhere. What is required is a willingness to plan the country's economic future; to intervene at every stage, if that is necessary, in order to provide jobs and security for all Canadians. If we are to make sure that none of our citizens suffer from unemployment we must plan our economy with that in mind. We ought to be prepared to regulate investment, to regulate the location of industry, to regulate the development of new products. It is not quite good enough simply to say that the federal government will intervene after all these decisions relating to investment, relating to the location of industry and relating to the development of new products have already been taken by the leaders at the top echelons of industry and business. It is not good enough, after all these things have been left in private hands, after all these important decisions have been made by people who are not responsible to the country itself, at that stage to encourage business and industry to embark upon a program of manpower adjustment and to encourage workers who have been deprived of their jobs to move to areas where jobs are available. Measures such as those contained in the resolution are useful, but they do not get to the root of the problem.
The real problem is one of economic disorder, and in the view of the members of this party it will not be sufficient to offer measures such as those contained in this resolution without getting to the root of the trouble. That can be done only by embarking on a program of economic planning. When I said that those who are making the major economic decisions in this country today are not responsible, I meant they are not responsible to the people who work for them, to the people who buy their products or to those who work in small businesses connected with industry and who are not privy to the decisions made in the top echelons. In this sense we have an economic situation where the important decisions are made by people who bear no responsibility to outside bodies for what they do. I think it is legitimate to make this criticism while bearing no enmity whatsoever toward those who in present circumstances are able to make decisions which affect the welfare of each one of us. We believe we ought to have something to say about those decisions.

Labour Conditions
It will serve no purpose to get industry to embark on a scheme of retraining employees if there are no jobs for those employees after they have been retrained. It will serve no purpose to get workers to move from a depressed area to some other place if there are no jobs for them when they get there.
The present government has had a program of vocational and technical retraining under way for the past few years, and I think this program has demonstrated the futility of trying to look after workers who have been deprived of employment as a result of automation and changing technology, without at the same time trying to make sure that there are jobs for them after they have completed their training. The government's vocational and technical training program has so far been largely a failure.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Thomas Rodney Berger: This is because the workers have no real prospect of employment when they have finished their courses. When I said the government's program of vocational and technical training had been largely a failure, I heard a cry of "nonsense" from the Conservative benches. That is the usual intellectual riposte one gets from those benches.
I want to refer to some statistics which the minister was good enough to supply after certain questions had been placed on the order paper. The government is fond of putting statistics before the house which tell, usually, only one side of the story. For example, government spokesmen tell us that employment has never been higher in Canada- that more people have jobs than ever before. At the same time they decline even to mention, let alone acknowledge, that more people are out of work than ever before, that unemployment is much higher than ever before. These statistics which have been supplied to us in connection with the vocational and technical training program illustrate that the government has fallen into this habit in a congenital way.
According to these figures, between April 1, 1960, to March 31, 1961, there were 2,848 persons who completed vocational and technical training under the government's program. The government was unable to tell us how many of these persons obtained jobs after they had completed their courses and, of course, that is the only standard by which one can judge the success of the program. From April 1, 1961, to March 31, 1962, there were 26,887 persons enrolled in the training and re-training program. Of these, 9,646 completed their courses and 6,569 failed. More

than 10,000 were still undergoing training at the time these figures were supplied by the minister, so we can safely conclude on the basis of the department's own figures that more than 40 per cent of those who enrolled in these courses failed to complete them. Once again, for the period in question, the government was unable to tell us how many of these people had obtained jobs.
I heard an interjection a moment ago from the Conservative benches suggesting that those who failed to complete their courses had obtained jobs. The government has been unable to tell us whether any of those who took part in these courses ever got a job, so I find it difficult to accept that suggestion.
Let us take the most recent period, March 31, 1962 to October 4, 1962. During this period 16,334 persons were enrolled in the programs which the government had assisted the provinces in undertaking. Only 8,372 completed their courses and, at the time the figures were supplied to the house, 4,143 were still undergoing training. So, once again, we find a disturbingly large number of failures. I should not have said that. I should have said, rather, that we have a disturbingly low number of people who actually completed their courses. But in this case, with respect to this bill, the government was not only unable to tell the house how many people had obtained jobs after completing these courses, but it was also unable to say how many people had failed these courses. Thus, the government is becoming more and more reticent as it is queried about the success or failure of this program. It had told us how many had failed during the previous years, but for the present year it says those figures are unavailable. We are told how many have completed the courses, but the government is unable to say how many have failed. The government's penchant for using statistics to colour an unhappy situation has gone almost beyond reasonable limits in this instance, because we have a situation where it has declined to give the house the only information on which we can judge the success or failure of the technical and vocational training program which has been under way for the past few years. I suggest to hon. members that in the absence of full disclosure by the government of figures which I am confident are available, the committee can only conclude that by and large, this program has been, as I suggested earlier, nothing but a failure.
The government's own failure to produce any adequate analysis of the success or failure of its vocational and technical training program

demonstrates the necessity of planning for jobs instead of legislating in piecemeal fashion to train men and women for jobs which do not exist.
The hon. member for Essex West, who spoke earlier in the debate, said that no one can tell what the effects of automation are. Well, I suggest that that is not correct. I think we can tell what the effects of automation are. The Minister of Labour's own economics and research branch has produced a study called "Technological changes and their impact on employment and occupations", which shows quite clearly what have been the effects of automation. This was a study of five manufacturing industries undertaken in order to determine the effects of technological change and automation on employment in those five industries. The study shows that the number of people employed in producing goods in those five industries actually declined between 1950 and 1959, even though production itself had gone up immeasurably during that period. The study showed that automation reduces the number of people required to produce goods and services but brings about some increase in the number of people required to distribute, tabulate and administer the products of industry. But this trend or tendency is already declining. The Minister of Labour's economics and research branch study shows that the acceleration in the number of people employed in the so-called white collar field, people engaged in distributing and tabulating the products of industry, is already declining. What economists call office mechanization and automation are now beginning to make their impact felt on the white collar worker. So I suggest that it is a mistake for this committee to say that it must wait any longer to determine what the effect of automation is in Canada.
Unemployment and automation have already produced in Canada a lost generation of workers. This lost generation of workers consists chiefly of manual workers who have lost their jobs through a decline in economic activity or through the onset of age. As the hon. member who spoke just before me quite properly pointed out, it is almost impossible for a man of 45 to obtain employment nowadays. This lost generation of workers is unable to obtain employment today, not just because in some cases they do not possess the requisite skills, but because there are no jobs whatever available. Although, as I say, this lost generation of workers consists chiefly of manual workers, the impact of automation upon the white collar field will soon produce -if the government does nothing about it- a lost generation of white collar workers.
27507-3-121i
Labour Conditions
I know that my hon. friends opposite will be interested in any utterance which comes from an organization which has anything to do with the chartered banks. The Canadian Bankers' Association has announced that the banks are embarking upon a program of automation. There have now been developed in the United States machines, which are in use in some sections of the banking industry there, which replace up to 50 bookkeepers. The Canadian Bankers' Association no doubt intends to take advantage of this type of machinery in the conduct of the banking business of this country. They have said that no lay-offs will be entailed, but that when employees retire they will not be replaced. This is a kind of unemployment which we have failed to perceive as closely as in the case when lay-offs occur. Whenever an employee retires and is not replaced, the job available in that industry for a young applicant will no longer be available. I suggest to the committee that office mechanization and automation will soon be depriving white collar workers of jobs, and potential jobs, as rapidly as industrial automation and mechanization are depriving the blue collar workers of their jobs.
The resolution proposes incentives to encourage workers to move to areas where jobs are supposed to be available. Such a measure designed to bring people to capital will serve no purpose unless the government is prepared to take measures to bring capital to people, to bring jobs to people, to bring new industrial development to areas where labour and public services exist unused. There is a tendency in every modern industrial area for new industrial building to concentrate in crowded areas, causing congestion in those areas and unemployment elsewhere. These congested industrial areas have been described by economists as "conurbations". One economist has said that the word itself is an ugly one, but that it is the only one adequate to describe the economic results of the tendency of industry to congregate in areas which are already subjected to urban blight.
I suggest to the minister that he should keep in mind that by encouraging labour to move away from depressed areas he may aggravate unemployment in those same depressed areas. Let me give to the minister a better example of what I mean. If 10,000 unemployed persons are induced to leave a depressed area, it is a mistake to suppose that unemployment will decline by 10,000 in that depressed area. Because when 10,000 persons leave any area of this country, it means that there is a decline in the demand for goods and services in that area. Ten thousand persons are no longer buying groceries; 10,000



Labour Conditions
persons are no longer riding the buses looking for work; 10,000 persons are no longer paying rent, if they can, to housing authorities and landlords. What the economists call the multiplier effect works in reverse. If you remove 10,000 unemployed from a town or city, although you are removing 10,000 who may have been unemployed, you are going to aggravate unemployment to some extent in that particular town or city.
We in this party believe that workers should be free to move from job to job, despite what the hon. member who preceded me said near the conclusion of what was otherwise an admirable speech. The members of this party are wholeheartedly dedicated to freedom for all people, and we believe that workers should be free to move from job to job. But under present circumstances they are not free to do this because they are tied to their jobs. Their rights to pension benefits, to health insurance benefits, to sickness and accident benefits-all of these things depend upon their remaining with their employer. So they are tied to their jobs. If they leave their jobs they are threatened with the loss of accumulated benefits which may deprive them of security against any number of unforeseen contingencies. That is one of the reasons why this party has advocated a national medical care insurance plan. That is why the government of Saskatchewan introduced in that province the first medical care insurance plan in this country earlier this year. That is why this party believes in a comprehensive social security system and a system of portable pensions.
We urge upon the government that they undertake the implementation of both of these projects. We can safely say that the ground has now been broken in Saskatchewan and that it is now safe for the government to proceed with a national medical care insurance plan. We urge the government to implement a system of portable pensions at the earliest possible time. These things will do a great deal more to increase what the minister in his resolution has called labour mobility than will any kind of system designed to move workers from province to province or from industry to industry as if they were pieces on some kind of economic chess board.
We suggest to the government that not only should they consider a system of economic planning which would get to the root of the problems of unemployment and automation but that they should consider other social legislation designed to solve these problems. To economists who have studied the impact which automation has had upon employment it is apparent that we must reduce the work week. We must reduce the

citizen's working lifetime. We must encourage earlier retirement. We must educate the young people of this country not only in order to provide them with the kind of skills, training and education they need to obtain employment but simply to make sure that as many jobs as possible are available for those actually looking for them.
I suggest to the minister that the time is not too far distant when we shall no longer have a work oriented society. The hon. member who preceded me in speaking adverted to this matter. I urge the government to consider a program for workers, and by that expression I mean everyone who works for a living; and that includes people who wear white collars as well as people who wear blue collars, people who work in offices as well as people who work in factories. I urge the government to consider a program designed to meet the needs of these people when the day comes when we shall no longer have a work oriented society. This program will not create social problems so much as it will create social opportunities. Then there will be opportunities of an intellectual, cultural and vocational kind for every person in this country. Such opportunities up to this point have been available only to a fraction of our people.
We are going to support the resolution despite our misgivings about the government's failure to get a real attack mounted against the problems of unemployment and automation in this country. However, we urge the minister to keep in mind the fact that this resolution is one which will be effective only if it is part of a program of social and economic planning.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the committee except to make this suggestion, namely that when the proposed advisory council is set up, a representative or representatives from the agriculture industry be included. I think this whole proposal is broad enough so that the concept should not be applied only to organized labour and to management in industry. All of the people of Canada are interested in employment for Canadians. I therefore believe that when the advisory council is formed it should be representative of all classes including agriculture.


Mr. Byrne:: First of all, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I should like to return a compliment to the Minister of Labour in exchange for one he handed to me yesterday. I wish to compliment him on his exercise in semantics when he introduced this resolution this afternoon. He used a large number of words. While I have not had the opportunity to read what he said when introducing the legislation

dealing with the national productivity council, I presume that his speech was made with the same amount of force and energy.
It would seem that the national productivity council legislation set up in 1960 must have been extremely successful. The objects of that legislation were to provide expanding opportunities for increased employment and trade and rising national standards of living, and to promote and expedite continuing improvement in productive efficiency in the various aspects of Canadian economic activity. I hope no one will come to the conclusion that the legislation dealing with automation has become a necessity because of the great success of this productivity council. The legislation provided for in chapter four of the statutes of 1960 would I am sure give the minister almost as much power to co-ordinate the activities of labour, management and government as this legislation appears to give, at least on the surface.
I should like to deal for a moment with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. He was concerned about the drop in employment in the banks. I want to assure him that I almost shudder when I go into my local bank and see the number of men and women who are apparently living off the interest on the loan that I obtain and those that others obtain. There seems to be no rapid decline in employment in the chartered banks.


Thomas Rodney Berger: What about debt free money?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Debt free money may be one way of giving assistance, in that there would no longer be any need for keeping track of our payments.
Then, the hon. member also introduced into this discussion of automation the question of the medical care program in Saskatchewan. I do not know, I am sure, just what connection there is between these subjects. As I have already said, the minister used a lot of phrases in introducing this subject which did not seem to mean very much, so I suppose that taking the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to task for introducing medicare into this discussion is not fair. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that people are not rushing into Saskatchewan to take advantage of the medical care program. As a matter of fact, there are less people employed in industry in Saskatchewan now than there were in 1944 when this paradise was first established.


Mr. Peters:: This is not true. Show me the figures. Some people might have left the farms, but that is untrue of industry.
Labour Conditions


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member wishes to make a speech on this subject, he is at liberty to do so.


William Arnold Peters: I think I will.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I repeat that there are less people employed in industry in Saskatchewan at this date than in 1944, that is in manufacturing industry. Apparently they are looking after the problem in Saskatchewan without assistance from the minister.


Mr. Barnett:: Is not the same true in British Columbia?


The Deputy Chairman:: Only one hon. member can have the floor at one time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have mentioned earlier legislation that was passed in this house in 1960 establishing the national productivity council. Where has it gone? What has it done? Apparently it was hoped that the work of this council would get under way back in March because on March 15, 1961 a meeting was held in Ottawa between labour, management and the government. This meeting was under the sponsorship of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have here an article from the Ottawa Citizen dated October 12, 1962 from which I should like to quote:
Most of Canada's top business and union leaders attended the Ottawa meeting at the personal invitation of Trade Minister Hees and Labour Minister Starr.
They are reported to have agreed to establish a permanent council to be financed by all three groups, to foster continuing co-operation and consultation on economic problems among labour, management and government.
Apparently they were discouraged in this undertaking by the government representatives because, if we may interpret the reasoning, they felt this body they were going to sponsor was going to be an effective body to promote production and good management-labour relations. However, it has not been successful. Yesterday when I questioned the minister on the matter of unemployment, he indicated that the only real unemployment at this moment was in the farm labour field. This is not so. The minister keeps his head in the sand and he should pull it out, at least as far as his ears so that he can hear if he cannot see.


Michael Starr: You have been away for a long time and do not know what has been happening.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We certainly hope this legislation is going to accomplish something, and that it is not just another smokescreen to get over another general election. There are more and more words used, but there are no deeds. Of course, for the first three or four years the government was in power, they said

Correspondence on Surcharges there was no problem; there was nothing to worry about, that we were only spreading gloom and doom when we said that there was unemployment and that there was a problem to be faced. This resolution may indicate that the government has something in mind. We know they have something in mind; they have the next general election in mind, but will they be able to do something about the serious unemployment situation?
I think, Mr. Chairman, I shall have to leave my remarks concerning what appears to be the terrifying subject of automation until a later time in this debate.


Rémi Paul: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, five o'clock.


Rémi Paul: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to a consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown and officers of the Department of Justice or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962 and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-987, dated July 11, 1962, and the import control list as amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24, 1962, with particular reference to the legality of such orders.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when we previously adjourned discussion on this particular motion of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) I had been dealing with the general rule against the compelling of the production of papers of a confidential nature prepared by officers of the government for the use of the government. It is a well entrenched, very wise and sensible rule, and I have given one or two illustrations of statements made by hon. members of the opposition which had confirmed our view.
Now I have come up with another gem, and this is a quotation from a speech made by an hon. member who, not so very long ago, had flown into a perfect frenzy in the

house because of what he termed the improper refusal of the government to produce papers. I shall give the reference later, unless of course the hon. member who used these words will claim paternity of them beforehand. They are:
-this notion that parliament and the public are entitled to see every document in the possession of a government department is wrong, that it is contrary to the constitution: indeed it is subversive in the proper meaning of that word, by which I mean if it were accepted and applied it would upset the whole British concept of responsible parliamentary government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The author of that is the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who does not take back one single word.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad the hon. member recognized his foundling child and accepted paternity. It is true enough that in this particular motion there has been an attempt to narrow the approach, but I submit with all the strength I can, not in any way an attempt to change the rule itself; and that attempt comes about by reason of the fact that this resolution asks for the production of legal opinions dealing with the validity of an order in council.
The question then for discussion is, should we demand the production of legal opinions and advice prepared on a confidential basis by the law officers of the crown for the government and the ministers of the government? There has been an attempt by hon. members opposite to say "Well, this is a matter which should be distinguished; there are particular and special features about it; let us not deal with the rule at all." I can quite understand why hon. members do not wish to meet the rule face on, because they are doomed to failure if they do, and so they want to deal with this in a special manner without any regard to the rule. I submit we should not accommodate ourselves to this particular point of view.
I do not know what was in the legal opinion The Minister of Justice has said what the substance was, that it dealt with the question of the validity and it stated the procedure taken was proper and legal. I am dealing with this, Mr. Speaker, entirely on the question of a very important principle, and on that basis I am prepared to meet hon. members opposite.
The principle, and it is a very important and fundamental one, is that members of the government are entitled to receive from the law officers of the crown advice and opinions and memoranda, safe and secure in the knowledge that these memoranda, letters and opinions shall not be dragged out into the arena of political controversy. I suggest if this were not to be the case it would not be possible for members of the government or the one side, and law officers of the crown

on the other side, to give these opinions. They would be restricted in their actions by the knowledge that these opinions and these letters would become the subject matter of a heated and controversial debate inside the House of Commons and that, I submit, would create a very dangerous situation.
This, of course, is what the hon. member for Essex East invites us to do by the terms of his particular motion. This is the main issue, but there are collateral reasons. Quite frequently-and we can think of a dozen different instances-ministers of the crown will seek the opinion of the law officers. It may be on the question of the constitutionality of a statute. It may be as to which of two statutes shall prevail where there appears to be a possible conflict. It may be the legality of a statute or the validity of an order in council, and surely under those circumstances a minister is entitled to ask and receive the opinion of the law officers without its having to be made public.
Mr. Speaker, in giving those opinions I would imagine that the responsible law officers would canvass every aspect. They would give the points for and the points against, the strengths and weaknesses of the various matters submitted to them for discussion. They would canvass all aspects and these would be contained in their opinions.
Assuming there might be those who would later wish to challenge the validity of a statute-and I do not include in that the capricious desire of hon. members who may wish for certain purposes to say such and such a statute may be illegal or invalid; I am only referring to instances where some might think a statute is ultra vires and propose to challenge it-if the course which the hon. member for Essex East asks us to embark on is accepted, any adversary of any particular measure would have handed to him the entire legal opinion on a silver platter. He would have all the secrets of the entire reasoning of the Department of Justice officials with regard to the particular matter, and I suggest this could lead to catastrophic results.
If we acceded to this request then it is a logical sequel that law officers of the crown could undoubtedly be compelled to appear before committees as witnesses, and be cross-examined as to legal opinions which they had given in the belief that these were confidential and meant for members of the government alone. This is not a course which we should seek to follow.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I think I am justified in pointing out that the law officers of the crown are lawyers and members of the bar of a province. As such they belong to a profession to which there has always been
Correspondence on Surcharges attached a certain privileged position in so far as the treatment of communications is concerned. A member of the bar takes an oath when he is called to the bar. He is an officer of the court as regards certain facts, and under certain conditions he is not a compellable witness. I admit quite readily that with respect to a member of the bar who occupies a position in the service of the country there are certain variations of this rule; and I also admit that it is the privilege of the client, not of the solicitor, to insist upon withdrawing a communication from publication. But, sir, I suggest that there is inherent in the relationship between, say, the deputy minister of justice and the government that type of client-solicitor relationship which I have indicated to you.
There are a number of cases dealing with this. I am not going to read all of them. I admit they are not binding, of course; but I have come across one or two decisions which I am going to read to the house because I think they have a direct bearing upon the particular issue with which we are dealing. I shall first read from the Canadian Abridgement, volume 18, at column 1075. This is a quotation from a judgment of the court of Appeal of Ontario in the case of the United States of America v. Mammoth Oil Company.
The case is reported in 56 Ontario Law Reports, 635, 1925, and it refers to a decision of Vice Chancellor Kindersley, which I am now quoting. Vice Chancellor Kindersley said:
The general principle is founded upon this-
He is dealing with this question of the privileged quality of communications from legal advisers:
The general principle is founded upon this, that the exigencies of mankind require that in matters of business, which may lead to litigation, men should be enabled to communicate freely with their professional advisers, and their communications should be held confidential and sacred.
By substituting two words we have precisely the principle which is in issue here. I will read it again with this substitution.
The general principle is founded upon this, that the exigencies of mankind require that in matters of-
-government-
-which may lead to-
-legislation-
-men should be enabled to communicate freely with their professional advisers, and their communications should be held confidential and sacred.
In the next column, in the case of Canary v. Vested Estates Ltd., 1930, 1 W.W.R., 996, as reported at page 1076 of The Canadian Abridgment, volume 18. Chief Justice Morrison says:
The unrestricted communication between parties and their professional advisers has been considered

Correspondence on Surcharges
to be of such importance as to make it advisable to protect it even by the concealment of matter without the discovery of which the truth cannot be ascertained.
These quotations are most apropos, and so logical that I commend them to hon. members; not, as I say, because they are binding, but the principles set out there are those which this house should have in mind when it comes to making a decision on this particular motion. Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this is a simple issue before us and all the forced eloquence and all the purple prose about the bill of rights, and all the red herrings dragged across the path cannot obscure the fact that we are dealing with an attempt by the hon. member for Essex East in this motion to violate a very sound and very sensible rule of practice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have more regard for the hon. member for Peace River as a lawyer than I have for anyone else on the other side of the house. I must say that my regard for him is not diminished by the fact that the principal authority he quotes in support of his, I think very unconvincing, argument, is myself. He did me the honour of quoting me twice with evident approval as well as with relish, and I may say I agree completely with the quotations he gave. I take back nothing of what I said, that in the relations between civil servants and their political masters, civil servants are entitled to be protected at all times from being dragged into the arena of political controversy. I do hope that some time when the hon. member for Peace River has time to have a little seminar and can get the attention of his political leader, who is not in the house at the moment, he will remind him that the greatest affront to that principle occurred on January 20, 1958 and was perpetrated by the right hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of Canada and who was the prime minister then. I am therefore somewhat astonished that any of his followers would be able to hold up their heads when using an argument such as the hon. gentleman used today.
But what I think the hon. gentleman failed to appreciate was that a legal opinion as to the validity of an order in council under a statute is not at all a question of the relationship between a civil servant and his political master in the administration of the affairs of the country. In any event, in any circumstances, in the interpretation of any statute, it is produceable at the will of the government whenever the government sees fit to do so.
I admit that normally it is not produced, but I call Your Honour's attention to two particular circumstances in this case which make it abnormal. The first is that in this particular case the government was seeking not merely to legislate but to tax by order in council, and one would have assumed that the government of its own motion would have reinforced its claim by producing the opinion, as has been done in many other cases, as my hon. friend from Essex East showed in his original argument, and there is no need for me to repeat them. It was done by Mr. Guthrie, it was done by Mr. Bennett, it was done by Mr. St. Laurent; and I do not think anyone would argue that any more eminent lawyers, except possibly Mr. Blake, ever sat in this house than Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Bennett. If they could see fit to do that sort of thing, it surely would not be very hard for the distinguished Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) to do the same.
What the government has done here, when parliament was not sitting, is to impose taxation by the use of two statutes-not merely of one-by what many eminent lawyers commenting on it outside the house, as well as many hon. members of the house, have suggested was at the very least a strained interpretation of those statutes. There is no more reason why this opinion should not have been produced than the opinions that were cited by my hon. friend from Essex East the other day. The suggestion that it would in any way drag the deputy minister of justice into the political arena is quite ridiculous. If the deputy minister of justice was offering advice to the government about an administrative course, if it was the deputy minister who suggested to the government this method of dealing with this problem, then I think they might wish to protect him. But I assume that the Minister of Justice, who was then minister of finance, was advised as to the policy, in so far as it was not generated in his own head, by the deputy minister of finance, by the governor of the Bank of Canada, by the deputy minister of national revenue and the other officers who would have had some competence in the field of policy. I would not for a moment support any motion to have their advice produced in this house, for the very reasons I gave and which were recited by the hon. member for Peace River.
This is an entirely different thing. All the deputy minister of justice was asked was, "In your opinion, as the legal adviser of the government, have we the power to do this without parliament? Have we the power to tax by order in council?" That was all he could have been asked. If any minister who

has any respect for parliament, any government which has any respect for parliament, is going to usurp-or, if the minister does not like that I will try to use an even more moderate word-is going to use the power to tax, which most of us think belongs exclusively to this parliament, surely he is going to want to be fortified to the greatest possible extent with the greatest possible authority.
If the deputy minister did in fact-and I am not questioning that he did-give such an opinion, surely this parliament is entitled to have that opinion when the government is claiming that it has the right to tax without any reference to parliament at all. That is the whole point in this particular case. It is unique; this situation has never happened before in the history of Canada, to my knowledge. Maybe I am wrong about that, because the Prime Minister did say this on July 1, 1960, in a speech filled with purple passages, to quote the hon. member for Peace River, who seems to think that purple passages are to be deplored-and we are indebted to the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) for recalling this to our memory-
I believe the hon. member for Laurier was a parliamentary assistant on the occasion when the rates on government annuities were unjustifiably increased by order in council. This is just one instance of a statute being amended or suspended by order in council, rile hon. gentleman will recall, too, that he was a member of the cabinet when an order in council was passed which legalized taxation three months before parliament met on it. That is not going to happen any more. I also seem to recall that taxation was once imposed by a radio speech-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize the rather narrow confines of the debate in this regard. These have been referred to quite definitely by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) who cited the decisions of my predecessor to the effect that what is, in fact, the issue of this motion is not what is behind the documents, or what is their substance, but whether they should be produced or not. I think the hon. member will, on reflection, see he is going a little beyond that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps a little beyond, but not very far beyond, because what is in question here is whether a legal opinion should be produced with regard to taxation by order in council, something which the Prime Minister said only two years ago would never be done again. The fact that the Prime Minister solemnly assured this house that taxation by order in council would never happen again, as he did on July 1, 1960, seen in the light of what happened less than two years later when this was done on a scale which has never happened before, is surely
Correspondence on Surcharges the soundest and most compelling argument for asking that the legal opinion saying there was some valid reason why the Prime Minister should have broken that solemn undertaking to parliament, should be produced. As I say, we were given a solemn assurance on July 1, 1960, that there was never again to be taxation by order in council. There has been.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is transgressing. We are concerned with the question of whether a legal opinion should be produced-a legal opinion on any subject, because I think the same principle would apply, if I might say so, to the production of a legal opinion on the price of peanuts in Timbuktu.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must respectfully differ from Your Honour. I would not argue that a legal opinion concerning the price of peanuts in Timbuktu, if, indeed, it would be competent for a legal adviser of the crown to give an opinion on such a ridiculous subject to the Minister of Justice-and I cannot think of any other minister who would ask for such an opinion-should be produced. In any case, it would not be likely that the opposition would ask for its production. I think there is a distinction to be drawn, if I may continue my argument as the hon. member for Peace River was permitted to do without interruption, between legal opinions in general and a legal opinion in a particular case. I think, for example, that a legal opinion on an administrative matter might be a very different thing from a legal opinion as to whether the government has the power to legislate and to tax.
That is the whole point of my argument. I am saying that this case is unique. We ought to be more jealous of the power to tax than of any other power we have in this house, and when that power is used by the government in what it claims is a legal fashion it is the compelling duty of a government responsible to this house to produce every scrap of evidence which it can produce to show it has acted legally. It should not resist the demand for the production of such evidence. I do not think I can put the matter more forcefully than that.
There is one other aspect of this question which I think some member of the government should clear up. It is important because, if the matter before us is determined, and I hope the house will be allowed to determine it, it would be my opinion that a vote on this issue does not represent a vote expressing confidence or want of confidence in the government. It would be merely a vote to assert the right of this house to control the government. That is all it would
1912	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges be, and it seems to me that any hon. member who votes on such a motion should feel perfectly free to do his duty as a member of the House of Commons and to vote for the supremacy of the House of Commons as opposed to the government, without any fear that his action would disturb the occupants of the ministerial benches. This is not a vote of confidence or want of confidence. It is merely a very proper attempt by my hon. friend from Essex East to assert the supremacy of the House of Commons in matters of taxation.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: May I ask
the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member not admit that if this motion were passed it would be a binding precedent with respect to all similar motions in the future asking for legal opinions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not. I think the point is important and I should like to deal with it very briefly. This is a motion to produce a paper. While it may be used as a basis of argument when another such motion is under consideration, it does not alter the rules of the house or the procedure which normally applies to privileged documents. My hon. friend from Essex East and I have been careful to indicate that we regard this case as unique. It is true that if we wanted another legal opinion about whether the government could do something which would ordinarily be done by legislation it would be an important precedent, but it would not be a precedent for the production of all or any opinions submitted by civil servants. This is confined to a legal opinion dealing with the delegated legislative power of the governor in council in the particular area of taxation.


Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: I should like to direct my remarks to the completely indefensible and misleading propositions put forward by the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate under the guise of precedents.
One of the delights and amazements I have experienced in this house in the last five years has been the ability of the hon. member for Essex East in the course of a single speech to talk eloquently on all sides of the subject without giving his listeners a clue as to precisely what proposition he was supporting. His efforts in this direction were no different today.


An hon. Member:: Talk it out.


Heber Edgar Smith: I am not talking it out. I hesitate to discuss the question of precedents, but in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Essex East is virtually the Liberal dean of the House of Commons and 

has been a lawyer in Ontario for almost 30 years and holds more law degrees than any of us, it seems obvious he does not understand what "precedent" means. To me, a precedent means what was done on another occasion-what was done on another occasion in this house, for instance, or in a court of law. I think this is so elementary that it should not need to be stated again. However, having regard to the argument of the hon. member for Essex East last week, perhaps repetition will be helpful. Precedents are not what the hon. member for Eglinton said in the house ten years ago or what the hon. member for Prince Albert said, however illustrious those hon. members are now: it is what was done on a previous occasion. That is what "precedent" means.
The hon. member for Essex East cited and misused three precedents last week. I found that two of his quotations in this house were very selective; but his reading was obviously very wide, because as I went through the various Hansards I found notes and other indications which made it apparent that he had done some very wide reading on the subject. I think I should like to deal with them in chronological order. The first quotation he used was the minister of Justice in 1935, as appears at page 1427 of current Hansard, where the hon. member for Essex East said:
Not only did he give without any prodding the opinion of the law officers of the crown but as well he volunteered opinions on the very point In issue which had been tendered by two eminent counsel, namely Mr. W. N. Tilley, K.C. and Mr. Aime Geoffrion, on the very point. Those opinions are now to be found in Hansard for 1935, volume III, at page 3166.
Mr. Speaker, the opinion of the law officers of the crown on that occasion was not given. There was no request for it. All that was done was that Mr. Guthrie, as reported at page 3166 of volume III of Hansard for 1935 said:
The opinion of the law officers of the crown is that clause 5 presents some difficulties.
Then a little further on he said:
The opinions of counsel who I have named are summed up in the following statement by Mr. Tilley:
Then he reads Mr. Tilley's opinion.
Then on page 3167 of the same volume Mr. Ralston is reported as saying:
That is the opinion of Mr. Tilley?
Mr. Guthrie replied, yes. Then a little later on the same page he went on:
I am sorry that I did not bring Mr. Geoffrion's opinion; I brought two of Mr. Tilley's, but Mr. Geoffrion's opinion is to the same effect.


An hon. Member:: What did Mr. Tilley say?


Heber Edgar Smith: 1 would read it, but it would take a long time. Then Mr. Ralston went on:
The law officers of the crown I understand give the opinion that this section 5 is invalid.


Mr.   Guthrie@: Yes, that is the opinion of the law officers of the crown.
On that occasion, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and the hon. member for Essex East, the opinion of the law officers of the crown was not produced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was given in the house.


Heber Edgar Smith: It was not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have just read it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was the substance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the floor. Let us not have cross-fire argument here.


Heber Edgar Smith: Only the consensus or the result was given. The detail of the opinion was not given. It was not asked to be produced. Mr. Ralston did not ask that it be produced. The opinion of Mr. Tilley, who was engaged as outside counsel, was given.
The next precedent quoted by the hon. member for Essex East appears at page 1427 of current Hansard. He said:
But we have as perhaps the most recent precedent in this house the action taken by Mr. St. Laurent when he was minister of justice. In May of 1942 the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Cardiff), and the present member for that constituency, moved for a copy of all opinions rendered by the Department of Justice with reference to the power of the governor in council under the War Measures Act-
And Mr. St. Laurent tabled those opinions.
I think it would be interesting if we looked at the complete exchange which took place in the house, as reported in volume III of 1942 Hansard at page 2290. The motion was as follows:


Mr. Cardiff:: For a copy of all opinions rendered by the Department of Justice with reference to the power of the governor in council under the War Measures Act to conscript men for service in any theatre of war.
Mr. St. Laurent replied:
I have been advised by the departments of government concerned to say that they do not object to the production of the opinions mentioned in this motion, but it will be done without prejudice to the general rule which is stated in Bourinot, at page 250, as follows:
"As a rule the opinions of the law officers of the crown are held to be 'private communications' when given for the guidance of ministers, and may be properly refused by the government."


Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):: The question is largely academic now.
Correspondence on Surcharges


Mr. St. Laurent:: With that reservation, for the convenience of hon. members I table the return at once.
Mr. Speaker, that made me curious to find out why the matter was largely academic, and I looked at the Journals of the House of Commons for May 11. There I found that the government apparently had doubts as to the legality of the act, and on that day Mr. Mackenzie King moved for leave to introduce bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940. Subsequently that act became law, in 1942, and is to be found in the statutes of Canada for that year, chapter 29, page 131. There was certainly no precedent established there.
The next instance the hon. member for Essex East referred to was the emergency conservation regulations and legislation of 1942. He was referring to the then minister of finance, Mr. Abbott, and at page 1428 of the current Hansard the hon. member said:
It was not rejected. As my hon. friend knows, it was an oral opinion. Perhaps by this time my hon. friend understands that it is not possible to produce, by way of a document, an opinion that has been given orally; that was the situation in 1948.
Mr. Speaker, that was not the situation in 1948. The opinion was not an oral opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to point out, in his most interesting argument, that the minister of justice-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a minute. Mr. Speaker: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is permitting a question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question to ask, he may interrupt; but he cannot interrupt to argue the point with the hon. member. I think that he readily understands.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just asking my hon. friend, who has no objection to my putting a question to him, does he not recall that the minister of justice said that he had examined the files of the department and found that there was no written opinion in the matter now being referred to?


Heber Edgar Smith: I will quote the minister of justice; and I assume I am correctly quoting the hon. member for Essex East when he claims there is no written opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know. But the minister of justice said there was not one.
1914	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Heber Edgar Smith: I presume I quoted accurately from Hansard the hon. member for Essex East when he said:
It was not rejected. As my hon. friend knows, it was an oral opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, based on what he said.


Heber Edgar Smith: The hon, member said that it was an oral opinion. However, I should like to quote from column II of Hansard for 1948, page 1322. The hon. member for Eglinton said:
Several days ago, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Calgary East, the minister, as I recall his remarks, and I was in the house at the time, said that an opinion had been sought by himself last August, and that the opinion had been given at least in the first instance orally and had been followed by a memorandum. I understood that the minister was considering making the memorandum available to members of the house.


Mr. Abbott:: No. I said I would show it to the hon. member for Calgary East and I did.
There was a written opinion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said, at the time it was asked for,
I did not know whether it was proper for legal opinions from law officers of the crown to be produced in parliament. X discovered later that it was not; but my hon. friend said he would like to look at it himself. Knowing what a good lawyer he was, I had no objection to showing it to him, and I did give him a copy of the memorandum the other day .. .
Perhaps that was improper; I do not know. In any event, I did it.
So there was a written opinion. Perhaps it would be interesting to hear Mr. Abbott's rejection of the motion by the hon. member for Eglinton on this matter. I am reading from volume 1 of Hansard for 1948, at page 331 where Mr. Abbott is reported as follows:
The policy which the government announces is the government's policy and it must stand or fall by that policy. It takes its advice from the permanent civil servants and in some cases accepts that advice and in other cases rejects it, for reasons. The government itself must take the decision. But to suggest that permanent civil servants should be subject to questioning as to what advice they have given the government would, if followed, be completely destructive of our parliamentary system of responsible government. I know of no case in which any suggestion has been made before this one to which I am referring. It has never been made in the British House of Commons. To my knowledge it has never been made before here and I hope this is the last time it will be made.
I am still quoting from Mr. Abbott.
One of the strengths of any British parliamentary government is the permanent civil service which goes on from government to government. The government may change but the permanent civil service is always there, ready to advise and carry on the functions of government. If we are going to expose the permanent civil service to personal attack and innuendoes and call them to account for 

advice they have given to their political superiors, I say that we shall not be able to get any sort of first-class men in our civil service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Heber Edgar Smith: I should like to complete one sentence. Surely that is the real reason why Mr. Abbott did not produce the opinion, not that it was a verbal opinion only, as was alleged by the hon. member for Essex East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Did he read far enough to discover that what Mr. Abbott was referring to was not just the opinion of the law officers of the crown but the memoranda supplied to him by Mr. Rasminsky of the foreign exchange control board, and several other civil servants, which would have been privileged, as my hon. friend from Essex East would have agreed.


Heber Edgar Smith: I think the principle is clearly stated by Mr. Abbott. There may have been dozens of other documents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are referred to.


Heber Edgar Smith: They were not produced. Neither was the opinion of the law officers of the crown produced. My hon. friend was curious as to why I was bringing in all the books and I promised I would not forget him. I should like to quote from page 351 of 1948 Hansard, volume 1. There we find that Mr. M. J. Cold well stated as follows:
May I at once associate myself with what the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said this afternoon about the impropriety of attacking in this house the permanent officials of Canada. Both hon. gentlemen quite properly warned the house that this should not be done-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Your Honour was rather restrictive when I was speaking. I have been following the reading from Hansard of the hon. member. The hon. gentleman is now referring to a statement made by Mr. Abbott about other officials and not about law officers of the crown. I submit that it is totally irrelevant and is just using up time that should not be used up, according to the ruling given by Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If certain citations have been made and certain arguments have been advanced as to whether documents should or should not be produced, the hon. member may cite references as has been done by other hon. members. If they are improper, it is up to or rather open to some other hon. members who will participate in the debate to traverse the arguments now advanced. So long as they do not go into the

subject matter of the documents or any government policy behind them, they are in order. That is all to which I was limiting the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might point out to Your Honour that I was reading from Hansard words of the Prime Minister when Your Honour interrupted me.


Mr. Speaker:: That was on a different point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit to Your Honour with respect-and I was following the hon. gentleman-that what he is reading about is not the law officers at all. It has nothing to do with this motion. It is about the opinions of Mr. Rasminsky and other civil servants who were being attacked by the present Prime Minister. It has nothing whatever to do with this motion. I submit to Your Honour that the hon. member should be asked to stick strictly to the motion in the same way as we on this side of the house are asked to stick to it.


Mr. Speaker:: On this point may I say this. If the hon. member is dealing with a matter which is strictly germane, he is in order. We must recognize that in this motion the rules of relevancy are very narrow. I would suggest to all hon. members that, when they are giving citations and making references, they should limit themselves to the matter of legal opinions.


Heber Edgar Smith: All I was trying to do, Mr. Speaker, was to complete a very incomplete citation by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) last week. I would suggest that the summing up of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) of this debate on the foreign exchange conservation act of 1947 is also incomplete, as the whole debate there is intertwined. Sometimes they are talking about the production of a legal opinion and sometimes they are talking about Mr. Rasminsky's opinion, and it is impossible for anyone to say whether or not at an exact moment in the debate they are dealing with the general principles as to the production of the opinions of civil servants or that they are talking now about Mr. Rasminsky or now about the deputy attorney general. However, I was very near the end of my remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was Mr. Rasminsky
whom the Prime Minister attacked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must caution hon. members that they are not permitted to conduct a debate from their seats. They all know the rules which are quite clear on this matter. On other occasions they appreciate the co-operation of the house in allowing them to make their own speeches.
Correspondence on Surcharges


Mr. Smilh (Simcoe Norlh):: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate seems to be much more interested in stringing out my remarks than I am myself. I was coming very close to the end of them and was trying to answer a question. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to complete the quotation from Mr. M. J. Coldwell at page 351 of Hansard of 1948.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust it will be germane to the point.


Sidney Earle Smith: It is a very short quotation and I feel that it is germane. There are only two more sentences and I think they prove their germaneness. They are as follows:
Both hon. gentlemen quite properly warned the house that this should not be done because the men so attacked are not responsible for government policy. Their advice would be tendered to any government, and the government itself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired. I recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I was quite flustered by what seemed to be a tribute when I rose to my feet, but I recognize that it was a tribute to my friend the hon. member for Simcoe North.
Although I am a lawyer I must admit to being quite impatient with the legalistic arguments which have been presented to this house by some of my fellow lawyers. It seems to me that this issue before the house for the production of documents is one which concerns us as members of parliament and is a constitutional issue of some real importance. I have a few minutes only in which to do it but I urge the government to reconsider its decision on this matter and to make available to this house the legal opinions on which it relied to impose the surcharges. This would at least be a gesture of respect for this parliament and one which, I suggest, is badly needed.
I listened with interest two weeks ago to the Minister of Justice when he brought before this house a series of precedents, most of them about 100 years old, for the refusal to produce the opinions of the law officers of the crown. These precedents were no worse for being 100 years old, but all they do is justify the minister in claiming that, as a general rule, such things being of a confidential nature do not have to be produced. I suggest they do not apply in a special case such as we have here. They do not apply where we have an extraordinary situation quite outside the ordinary rule.
We have here, Mr. Speaker, a serious challenge by responsible and experienced members of this house of the legality of
1916	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges the action of the executive in imposing taxation without direct authority of parliament. None of the precedents given us by the Minister of Justice apply to such a situation. What is the government's reply to these serious allegations about the illegality of the order? We have no answer. We have the assertion of the Minister of Justice that his law officers have given him certain advice. No particulars are given; no reasons, no arguments, even in the broadest detail, to enable this house to judge whether the assertions of the minister are justified.
When it is suggested the matter be taken to the court the Prime Minister gives us a blanket refusal, a refusal to recognize the problem even exists. The Minister of Justice says he gave to this house the substance of the opinion of the deputy attorney general of Canada. This cannot be correct, unless indeed the opinion of the learned deputy was like the statements made in this house by the minister and the Prime Minister, bare assertions of conclusions which the legally trained members of this house, as well as other members, will readily recognize as no opinion at all.
There are some new members in this house who sometimes feel a little frustrated by the proceedings in this parliament. I suggest their frustration should not permit them for a moment to overlook the fact that it is of the utmost importance that we preserve intact all the privileges of this house, that we recognize that the executive is the servant of this house just as this house is the servant of the people of this country. I suggest even if the government are entitled by some legal rule to say they will not tell us the justification for these orders in council, they clearly have the right to waive that rule. It would be in the interests of the people of this country if they did, and if they produced before this house the justification which they say exists for what we think is an imposition on the house, an assumption of jurisdiction which belongs to parliament and parliament alone, the jurisdiction to impose taxes on the people of Canada.
I had a great deal more to say, but I see the time. I conclude by urging this government to reconsider, in the interests of this House of Commons and the rights of parliament, whether they will not produce, so members of this house can see, the legal opinion upon which they claim to rely.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: With all due respect to the eloquence of the hon. member for Greenwood, I must say I consider it far more convincing to listen to a man who is speaking at least out of conviction rather than to a man who is speaking for political


intrigue and manoeuvre. Nevertheless, I am thankful that my destiny in life was not to become a lawyer. I was thinking, as I listened to the debate this afternoon, that we have too many of them in the house as it is. I would say to the hon. member for Essex East that, in the light of the remarks that were made from the front benches of his party about not being able to understand what debt free money was, perhaps he does not have to understand it to vote for it. This probably applies also to the issue that is before us.
However, the game of politics continues to emasculate this house of minorities. The hon. member for Essex East, so far as my observations are concerned, is merely plying his dubious trade of political expediency in a matter which he knows is not one of vital importance to the country as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Robert Norman Thompson: But if he-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I would caution the hon. member for Red Deer that he cannot impute motives to another hon. member in this house. One may have some ideas about them, but one cannot say them. Therefore, I think he has gone far enough in this regard. I do not believe he meant his remark in any offensive sense, at least I hope not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Red Deer has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask him one
question? Is my friend going to oppose this motion or not?


An hon. Member:: He does not know yet.


Robert Norman Thompson: I was only saying that the time of the 264 members of this House of Commons is being wasted over an issue that is not vital, and I am not so sure that the time of the 265th member is being wasted as well.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what is happening at the moment in relation to this debate is that we have a history of a once great Liberal party, a party which knows all too well how they mismanaged-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Chair is able to judge, there must be a lot of budding speakers in this house because there are a lot of comments being made. I must caution hon. members that they will have an opportunity to speak from their feet and not from their seats.
I must caution the hon. member for Red Deer that the rule of relevancy is extremely

narrow. It is based on whether documents should be or should not be produced and I trust the debate will continue in that vein.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, all I intended to say is that I do not believe the issue that is involved is one that justifies taking up so much of our time. This was a decision that was taken on the advice of the law officers of the crown. It belongs to the past. What we ought to be doing is being concerned with legislation that will assist in the removal of the rest of the surcharges as soon as possible in order that our economy can get back on its feet.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have one comment I should like to make in reply to the hon. member for Greenwood. He says, let us get down to the fundamentals. 1 want to ask him this question: is the opinion of the deputy attorney general fundamental to this question of surcharges at all? It is merely the opinion of the law officer of the crown on this subject. It is not binding, it is not final-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It does not decide the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time appointed for the consideration of private members' business is now expired, so the house will revert to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.
(Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Starr- Mr. Paul in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting industrial change and manpower adjustment; to provide for the organization and maintenance of a Manpower Consultation Service; to provide also for the payment of assessment incentives for carrying out manpower adjustment programs; to provide further for the entering into agreements providing for the payment by Canada respecting a labour mobility incentive; and to establish a council called the "Advisory Council on Industrial Change and Manpower Adjustment" and to provide for the Chairman's remuneration and for certain expenses of the members of the Council.
(Text):
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Correspondence on Surcharges AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, when discussion of this measure was interrupted at five o'clock I had reached the point where I said there was an apparent fear of automation among government ranks and perhaps among other hon. members of the house. As a former miner, and continuing miner when not participating in discussions in the House of Commons, I must say I have no reason to fear either automation or mechanization if we could be assured of having a progressive government prepared to meet changes and the responsibilities which these changes bring.
Of course, as we heard this afternoon, automation takes us a step further in the industrial revolution. Automation means that machines actually undertake the processes of the human mind and are able to direct themselves, but this is not something before which we must bow down in great trepidation. It is, after all, the result of union organization and the demands of the masses for a greater share of the production of the country.
However, I hope the country will not be led to believe that everything from now on will be well because of the introduction of this legislation because, as I said earlier, we have previously seen the government introduce other legislation with a great amount of volubility, which the government thought would have the effect of alleviating all our difficulties, but the government itself did not carry the process through to a proper conclusion. Therefore I trust that industries themselves will not take a laissez-faire attitude just because this legislation has been produced. They must take the initiative in this process and not believe that legislation itself will solve all our problems.
I have said I have some experience with mining, mechanization and automation, and for that reason I shall relate a few of the experiences I have had. The company with which I have been associated, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, operates the largest lead zinc mine in the world. After the last great war, when it became obvious we must reduce our costs in order to remain competitive, the company instituted a program which involved the setting up of a joint production committee. I may say in passing that I notice the productivity council has mentioned the importance of productivity committees, and we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of such a committee just last summer.
A program of job evaluation, method study and job simplification was also instituted and

Correspondence on Surcharges this, together with the joint production committee, has resulted in over-all actual production in the mine being increased from 6,000 tons a day to 11,000 tons a day with a labour force of some one third less. Some other hard facts will demonstrate the value of changes to the committee. To drill a round in a passage, a tunnel, a drift or a rise the operation back in 1947 and 1948 required the use of some 500 pieces of steel in varying lengths from one foot to five feet. The net result, after having drilled for two days, was that one may have drilled about two feet into this hard rock. Now, with newer methods and better steel applied to the bit itself, the same miner is able to drill with some 36 pieces of steel an eight feet round in that same hard rock called chert. This rock is almost as hard as diamonds. One can see the very great benefit derived from this increase in mechanization. The miner himself is no longer packing a 235-pound machine 100 feet or 200 feet up a raise. He is able to take a light machine weighing from 80 pounds to 100 pounds and do this work, not drilling two or three feet but drilling eight feet. Of course, as a consequence his earnings have increased, on a piecework rate, to often more than double his base rate of income.
This is only on the question of drilling. There is also the matter of larger machines for disposing of that rock, and long-holed diamond drilling, all processes of mechanization. They have been able to keep within the market, and I might say, make a reasonable profit. The employees have also done much better because of these profits. They have gone a step further. The removal of this ore from the mine left a large percentage of iron concentrate which was simply drained off into a stockpile and was of no particular use. In order to employ the people who were being displaced by mechanization they went ahead and planned an iron plant.
I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, I will have to diverge just a little bit to include everything I have to say on this question. First they developed a fertilizer plant by taking the sulphur from the iron oxide that was being taken away simply to the stockpile, apparently of no particular use. It was decided to reduce the sulphur dioxide and they established a fertilizer plant. As a result of this about 150 tons to 200 tons of pig iron was simply being floated away into a stockpile.
Here was an incentive that was brought in by the Liberal administration of British Columbia a number of years ago. They agreed to subsidize any company that was prepared to make use of iron ore that was produced in the province. These people went to the provincial government and asked them to

reactivate this act and they were prepared, although this was a very costly process, to establish an iron plant. This has been accomplished. They are now producing fertilizer at the mine and they are also producing iron ore. Men have been taken directly from the mine. They were miners; trained as miners. They were removed in the first instance to the fertilizer plant. After instruction there for some months they learned to become operators and in a very short time they were employed in a supervisory capacity. So they were taken from the mine because of their displacement, then taken to the fertilizer plant and put to work there.
The same thing applies to the iron plant. This is where automation really takes place in so far as this operation is concerned. Men who were low in the seniority bracket have been taken from the mine and trained to sit before a huge panel. I am not a metallurgist, neither am I a technician; I am simply a miner. Therefore I cannot describe the process that takes place. But I was associated with these fellows; they worked in the mine with me and carried the machine with me. They are now sitting in an easy chair, such as my chair here, and looking at the boards. They are well qualified operators in the most modern iron producing plant in Canada.
This is simply a suggestion that I make. Industry itself has a very great responsibility; industry must be encouraged to take that responsibility. It must not believe, just because we have a great superfluity of words in the introduction to this resolution, that all is going to be well. They must take the initiative. I and most hon. members on this side of the chamber believe that industry has the first responsibility, and government has the responsibility to create an economic climate in which this type of thing can flourish.
(Translation):


Mr. Dionne:: Mr. Chairman, it is the first opportunity I have today to congratulate you on your appointment to your present office, and I am very pleased to do so, because I saw for myself how much patience and fairness your colleague and yourself have shown at certain times of tension when feelings were running high.
We understand that this resolution is designed to give some kind of guidance to labour, in view of the employment variations resulting from the unavoidable transformations brought about by the progressive industrial evolution of our times, guidance which would consist, as I understand the

scope of this resolution, in classifying the various categories of workers according to their skills, while taking into account opportunities for employment in various segments of the labour market.
I recognize that this project might have a beneficial effect, but it might also be one of those types of agencies we all know, which operate rather slowly and, through an administrative machinery that is very slow in getting started, tend to create intricacies which result in troubles instead of simplifying problems.
I am not one of those who believe that the fact of classifying workers will create new jobs. I admit that it is important nowadays to enable workers to enjoy a more adequate training, and especially to allow young workers to gain the required experience so that they can be hired by the employer who wants experienced hands, because it often happens that some well disposed young men and no doubt well qualified ones too-since many received diplomas and grades which show that they had the courage to prepare themselves-unfortunately cannot find a job because the employer also wants the new employee to have a practical experience of the trade, apart from his theoretical studies. How do you think a young man just starting out in life can show he has had previous experience when he has not had a job yet?
All industrial production, especially, is intended to make a profit. It inevitably follows that an employer will seek the services of experienced workers, who will help reduce production costs and enable him to make a larger profit. Many industries have even organized job work to increase production. I am well aware of what goes on in the woods, where lumbermen especially, besides having to supply a power saw worth from $250 to $300, must do job work at a price which is often too low. Automation has not helped the lumberman; he is paying the consequences.
Considering that, under present conditions, working in the woods is most tiresome-and I know whereof I speak, for I earned my living as a lumberman during 22 years-the older lumbermen could benefit by becoming instructors in their trade, which requires a lot of skill.
I shall comment on that later on in the course of my remarks when I put forward my own suggestions as to the possibility for experienced workers to become instructors.
Correspondence on Surcharges
In face of automation, it is suggested that it would be absurd and unsound to attempt to destroy it. On the other hand, it is recognized that automation replaces man in a certain proportion and is bound to replace him in a larger proportion in the future. So we sometimes wonder whether it would not be better for the worker to retire at 55 instead of 65.
A 55 year old man would not be useless. He is experienced and wise and at that age, he should lead and not serve, he can render great services by giving leadership to society, he can know and understand his country, think over the future of his family and finally, at that age, he must think more than ever about eternal life.
The question is not to prevent a man from working at 55, and I do not want to be misunderstood on that point, but to change his work. At 20, he is strong, skilful and vigorous. He can do manual work. At 55 he is losing his strength; therefore, his work should call more on his intellectual faculties. He could let younger people benefit from his experience; he could, for instance, become an instructor in some sections of industry.
No man would be hurt at going up one degree in the scale of values.
Young people, those who do not work, those who lose hope, would find in the positions that would become vacant the work they need to spend their energy, to keep busy, to hope and to get married. Finally, our young people would find again the ideal they are now losing. And fathers would encourage their sons to build their own homes, would help them if need be.
If a greater number of adults were to take an active part in municipal, provincial or federal politics, it would be all to the good, I think. Is it not shameful in a country like ours to see a man of 60 having to keep a man of 20 or 25 who is unemployed?
The contrary would be more normal in a wealthy and prosperous country. That people should retire with an income at 55, that is normal; but that people should be unemployed at 20, 25 or 30, that is hateful and shameful.
We are of the opinion that if that suggestion were implemented, there might be less juvenile delinquency, less unemployment, the moral and social level would undoubtedly be higher and those older workers could, as instructors, let the younger ones benefit from their experience.
1920	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges
Referring to the provisions of the resolution before us, 1 fully understand that labour-management co-operation is a factor of success in any industry. As a matter of fact, I was responsible for negotiation of collective agreements for 10 years in the logging industry, and I am happy to say that we have always been able to come to an agreement without having to strike anywhere at any time.
The employee is a human being, not a machine. He is optimistic, but also proud; he is fair and honest. What he wants first of all is security and stability. He wants his place of work to be properly organized and managed. He wants to be treated with fairness.
In addition, he wants to be respected as a person; he wants freedom to take part in community activities. He wants appreciation for a job well done, an opportunity for advancement, a friendly place to work, a boss he can respect.
In addition, the worker wants factual information on business conditions. Finally, he wants a fair income.
Those are basic aspirations of a human being which a dynamic industrial relations service must try to understand and meet.
In order to do that, they must tackle a big problem because they will be dealing with a purely abstract question, people's attitudes, their motivations, interests, fears, personal problems and the most sensitive thing in the world, the human being.
However, if everyone tries to grasp the meaning of his role, it is quite likely that common grounds of understanding will be found. Indeed, that is what everybody hopes for. In passing, I should like to point out that a body like the one it is now proposed to establish, will have to depend on the full and active co-operation of the other existing organizations which, unfortunately, discourage the workers with their old-fashioned modes of application.
Here is a case in point. The manner in which the unemployment insurance contributions of forest workers are computed is not in accord with the number of hours during which he works in any one week; it often happens that the lumberjack, when he is lucky enough not to live too far from home, stops working on Saturday afternoon. Now, as contributions must be paid in a lump sum for a six day week, when he works only five and a half days in a week, his contributions must be computed on this basis in order to comply with the terms of the act. In this way, and as the result of such computation,


the worker loses a whole week of contributions over a twelve week period. This is not much encouragement for him. Yet he has had good earnings all week, as he often works overtime.
I also could point out the difficulties he meets with when trying to check his unemployment insurance book from time to time, and even to obtain it when he leaves the camp. I have often had occasions to intervene in situations of this kind.
As we can foresee negotiations for a shorter work week-which labor organizations are trying to obtain, and I commend them for it- I am doing my best, by way of negotiation, and when circumstances are favourable, to improve the lot of all workers and more particularly of the forest workers I am representing.
We should give greater flexibility to all existing labour legislation because the present situation brings about administrative complications and much trouble for the worker who has not always the advantage of being made aware of changes in regulations, bylaws or other decrees which rule the various zones or sectors of work.
We notice the same anomalous situation in the case of temporary railway employees, who are entitled to certain days of leave, based on a ten hour day, when the average man works eight hours a day. It is an absurdity, but it is a fact.
We also note the delay in finding some area of agreement to extend the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act to the thousands of Canadian workers employed in American territory. This problem has been under discussion for years. Some members had even risked their seat, putting it at stake to bring about a solution to that problem. We are on very good terms with our neighbours when it comes to solving disputes-Colombo plans, if you like-but we cannot agree to solve the problem of 5,000 to 6,000 workers who have no income after having worked in the states of Maine or New Hampshire. This is an absurdity.
I can well understand that such a project, as seen by a Social Crediter, seems rather easy to apply, because, as you may have noted in the various speeches made, we are not paralysed by the famous tight money policy. In our views, the wealth of this country is in its products. We Social Crediters see wealth in things rather than in signs. That is the difference, because that system is the bane of our time, this terrible scourge that we call the fear of tomorrow, which makes our hair white prematurely, and probably leads a great number to the cemetery also before

their time. The famous fear of the future to which we seem unable to find a solution.
Furthermore, if we examine that famous money system, the ravages it has caused in the world, we realize it corrupts the soul, because there are many who will still the voice of their conscience to earn their living. How many businessmen have robbed their competitors because they could not have carried on without that? How many professional people have sacrificed their science and their art on the altar of comfort and of the necessity of living according to their station in life? How many public men have sold out their country to ensure economic security for themselves?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: The corruption of the soul is so deep on account of the tight money system that it has become a moral law to consider making money as the sole purpose in life: Thou shalt get an education to earn money; thou shalt choose such a profession because it pays better; thou shalt leave thy wife and thy children to earn your living; thou shalt study selling technique in order to get more money out of a lesser service.
"Let us not give money for nothing; we would only encourage laziness." "Money must be earned the hard way; otherwise, men will not love God." "Business is business." "Let your family do without in order to put money aside," pretext for all sorts of treasons. The word "money" is more often on our minds than the word "love" in our hearts. Thus, our money system keeps humanity in bondage. "Man worships the golden calf." "Money is his main concern." It is because the money system is not directed towards its proper aim. Money should remain in its place: it is a means of exchange, not of domination.
Our system is faulty and it is condemned by the greatest doctrinal authority in the world; that is beyond question. The following is to be found in a memorable encyclical letter:
Those who hold and control money and credit supply the life-blood of the entire economic body and grasp, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will.


An hon. Member:: Let us print money.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: We should stop more often and look in that direction, for it is not production that is lacking, nor courage on the part of our workers, nor abundance. What is lacking and what we must find is a way to distribute production. I think there is a way, perhaps the only one, to cope with this problem of unemployment which is bringing so much hardship to our Canadian families and which our legislators, who think they know so much, have not been able to solve yet.
Correspondence on Surcharges
I shall bring my remarks to a close by an example. When God created the world, he created goods. If we are not contented with our lot, we only have to dig up the soil: they are still lying there. But He did not create "dollars". However, he gave man and woman an intelligence so that they could use the wealth which He has created. I suggest that the person who said, a few years ago that we are living in a world of lunatics whose government is entrusted with the worst of them was absolutely right, for we are now in an impossible situation.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to accepting the offer of the hon. member for Kootenay East to participate in this debate but would hasten to assure the house that while I have had some experience in bush operations and of organizations in that field, I feel much more at home in the field that the hon. member for Kootenay East mentioned. However, I realize that tonight we have an exceptionally large number of cabinet ministers with us. I presume that the reason they are here this evening is-


An hon. Member:: Not to listen to you.


William Arnold Peters: No, I presume they did not come here to listen to me, but to wish the Minister of Public Works well in his travels and to wish him well in the deliberations which are to take place. If so, I wish to join with them.
The hon. member for Kootenay East, in an earlier discussion today, made what I think was a very unfair statement about industry in one of our provinces. I would only presume that these remarks were made not necessarily because he believed them, but because one of his colleagues from the province of Saskatchewan has told him and many of his colleagues these things so often that he does believe them. I would just like to put on the record that in discussing this resolution tonight we are faced with the problem that manufacturing in Canada has found fewer and fewer employees over the last few years. I would make the suggestion that the drop has been greater in the last year or two and that for this reason this resolution will be very welcome. However, the remark was made that in Saskatchewan, since 1941, the population of industrial workers has decreased. I do not know what the situation is that leads the member to this conclusion. Maybe Mr. Thatcher has a new set of figures published for his own benefit. When the hon. member for Kootenay East comes to parliament I think he should at least give the house dominion bureau of

Correspondence on Surcharges statistics figures because, while they are not always completely accurate, they are the best set of figures we have available. Certainly they are the most uniform and they are considered by many to be exact. I think it is interesting to look at those figures. If you will do so, Mr. Chairman, you will note at page 738 of this year's Canada Year Book, 1961, that while the figures do not go back to 1941, they begin in 1951. Using a base of 100 for 1949, we find that over the years the situation was this. In 1951 the figure for employment in industry in the province of Saskatchewan was 106, and in 1952 it was 111.
It went up in 1956 to 121, in 1958 to 126, in 1959 to 130, in 1960 it was 126. In 1961 where the figures are not complete for the dominion bureau of statistics they can be found in the statistical review. The figure for that year is 123. It has never been our contention that Saskatchewan was the largest industrial province in the country. However, I think that many of the statements which have been made and which are not backed up by facts should not be made at all.
In this regard it is interesting to note that while Canada and Saskatchewan started at 100 in the base year 1949, in 1958 the figure for industrial workers across Canada was 117.9 and in Saskatchewan the increase had been to 126. This means that the Saskatchewan average had gone up considerably more than had the national average; and in 1959 the figure had increased to 130 as opposed to 119 for all of Canada. In 1960 the figure was 126 for Saskatchewan as opposed to 118 for all of Canada. This means there was a 26 point increase in industrial employment in the province of Saskatchewan against a national increase of 18 points.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. member will refer to Hansard, I think he will find that what I said was with reference to manufacturing. It was the manufacturing industry which the socialist government had proclaimed their intention of increasing over all other aspects of the economy. This was the manufacturing industry.


William Arnold Peters: We now know exactly where the hon. member obtained the information. This was a publication put out by the Globe and Mail quoting a gentleman by the name of Mr. Stevenson. Obviously what I said previously is perfectly true, namely that Mr. Thatcher is still trying to write the labour policy of the Liberal party nationally as well as in Saskatchewan. What the hon. member says in fact is true. Manufacturing employment in Saskatchewan dropped as it did all

across Canada and the percentage in Saskatchewan in that field was lower and the loss was less than it was on the national average across Canada.


An hon. Member:: Cheap politics.


William Arnold Peters: It may be cheap politics, but I think it is dishonest politics. If the Liberal party are going to develop a labour policy that is going to be acceptable, it will be necessary for them to use much more up to date and much more truthful figures than those which they may receive from the leader of the party in the province of Saskatchewan.
This piece of legislation is very interesting and warrants a great deal of thought and consideration, partly because it is very am-bigious and looks as though it covers a great number of fields. Also to be considered is the fact that if anyone would care to look at the order paper, he will find there three items, namely item No. 27, item No. 30 and item No. 31. I would suggest that the government should sit down and seriously consider rewriting a new program for labour and industry in this country and should include in it those resolutions, as well as the productivity council, one or two other proposals made to the government in the last year or so. It seems to me that this should not be piecemeal legislation but rather should be an over-all program for the development of industry and the employment of the labour force in Canada, so that the most effective use will be obtained from one of our most valuable resources, namely our labour force and the production of that labour force.
We notice that one of the resolutions mentions the Atlantic development board which has as its justification reasons similar to those which are being used or given for this resolution. I think the same speeches in many cases could be applied to this piece of legislation. However, it is restricted to a particular area. Hence we have another resolution establishing a national economic development board which will apply to the national scene that which we have given to a regional area under a regional board. I suggest that we should examine the whole approach to the development of labour, the redistribution of industry and in some cases the redirection of our industrial development in this country.
I was very much interested in the remarks made by the minister in which he talked about the co-operation by labour and by management necessary for the redistribution of industry. I think this is a worth while principle. These two agencies must work towards a common goal. They must both put the best of their abilities together in order

to provide for the development of industry not now available to Canada. They must do this in the best manner possible. However, in order to do it I suggest that labour and management themselves, and free enterprise as well, will not be able to solve the problems with which we are now faced in this nation.
Countries across the world-and I have read some of the legislative aims of countries like Sweden, Great Britain, Prance and others-lament very loudly if they have 2 per cent unemployment. Yet we have never been able to solve our unemployment problem. There are many in Canada who say that 4 per cent might be a reasonable unemployment figure. I suggest that 4 per cent may be a reasonable figure for some people, but not for anyone who is unemployed. However, other countries which have gone into the planning of industrial and labour management and government co-operative programs for advancing the economic development of their countries, are not satisfied with 2 per cent but are passing legislation similar to that which we have before us tonight and other legislation which will be before us during this session. They are passing legislation of this type to see that the unemployment situation in their countries is maintained at a much lower level than 2 per cent. I therefore think we must look to some of the plans that are being made in other countries in order to get a solution for some of our problems.
The hon. member for Kootenay East also mentioned two other major problems tonight, automation and mechanization and he attacked them, I presume, from a management position. I have seen the same problem in the mining field from a labour point of view. I would suggest that mechanization itself was never a bad thing but that automation was always a bad thing as far as the miners were concerned. At no time in my experience in the mining field was management ever able to take advantage of automation and bring to the workers and the community the benefits of automation itself.
I remember when the miners used to work with very ineffectual tools, when they used tools made of standard steel without carbide bits and other additives that have now made mining much simpler for the miner. They had old, heavy, antiquated machines and mucked by hand rather than by mucking machines. These things, too, I saw; but at the time equipment of this antiquated type was being used we had a fairly healthy community with a large section of the population employed in the mines. But the result of machines replacing men has been that the community
Correspondence on Surcharges is now existing with two thirds fewer men employed and those who are employed find themselves not much better off in dollars and cents. Their take-home pay only provides them with a decent standard of living without improving conditions for them as the years have gone by. You now have a ratio of one employee supporting the town where previously there were two or three.
This has meant that the communities have been very hard pressed. I believe this is one of the major problems of automation, the fact that we have communities dependent upon one industry, particularly a basic industry, which has had a large amount of automation brought into it in recent years. The words "mechanization" and "automation" have been greatly misunderstood. I think it would be most interesting for the committee to give some consideration to a speech made by Walter Reuther, international president of the auto workers, on the impact of automation. He said:
Through the application of mechanical power to machinery, and the development of new machinery to use this power, the first industrial revolution made possible a vast increase in the volume of goods produced for each man-hour of work. Succeeding technological improvements-such as the development of interchangeable parts and the creation of the assembly line, which were essential to the growth of mass production industries-have led to continuous increases in labour productivity. But however much these machines were improved, they still required workers to operate and control them. In some operations, the worker's function was little more than to feed the material in, set the machine in operation and remove the finished product. In others, proper control of the machine required the exercise of the highest conceivable skills. But whether the required skill was little or great, the presence of a human being, using human judgment, was essential to the operation of the machine.
I think we should note there that a retraining program that will train our young people to fill their role in the light of increasing mechanization and give them the skills necessary to integrate them into a mechanized economy is something that can be done, but with automation that is not possible. He went on to say:
The revolutionary change produced by automation is its tendency to displace the worker entirely from the direct operation of the machine, through the use of automatic control devices. No one, as far as I know, has yet produced a fully satisfactory definition of automation, but I think John Diebold came close to expressing its essential quality when he described automation as "the integration of machines with each other into fully automatic and, in some cases, self-regulating systems."
In other words, automation is a technique by which whole batteries of machines, in some cases almost whole factories and offices, can be operated according to predetermined automatic controls. The raw material is automatically fed in, the machine automatically processes it, the product is automatically taken away, often to be fed automatically

Correspondence on Surcharges
into still another machine that carries it automatically through a further process. In some cases the machine is self-regulating-that is, it is set to turn out a product within certain tolerances as to size or other factors, and if those tolerances are exceeded, the machine itself detects the variation and automatically adjusts itself to correct it.
If automation is carried to this extent, then no matter how well we prepare our retraining program it is not going to have much effect on the employment picture with respect to people in a factory which is automatically regulated, automatically operated, where the raw material is automatically fed and where weighing, sizing and so on are done by automatically regulated machines. I believe this leads into a field that the minister has not mentioned at any length, that of forward estimates of manpower requirements. When automation develops to the extent that men are no longer needed in an industry, what are we going to do with these people and how long is it going to be before this type of training must take place?
I think this is a government responsibility. No matter how large any industry is it is not going to be able to decide how fast automation will come to the nation. General Motors may be quite capable of saying how fast it will come about in their plants in a specific area, or some other industry may be able to do the same thing, but I doubt that they are going to be able to decide on a national basis how fast automation will be effected.
In the area from which I come we have seen in the mining field that a form of automation and a high degree of mechanization have eliminated a large number of workers. These people were encouraged and offered many incentives to go to such places as Blind River, Elliot Lake, Yellowknife, particularly communities connected with the uranium industry. Yet we find that in this field the government did no planning at all to make sure that when these workers were transferred from the gold mines and the coal mines they were going to have employment of some duration in the uranium industry. These people made the move. They were displaced. Their families went with them to a new community. In fact, we had to create the communities to which they moved. Yet within a few short years we find these people again being asked to do exactly the same thing, to move from a new community to yet another one and to retrain themselves for new employment.
It is very difficult to decide how much of an upset this creates for the nation, the communities and the families concerned. It is not only difficult for the employee to undergo training when he moves into an industry with which he is not familiar but it is more


difficult for the family because of the necessity of the children changing schools and all the other things that accompany such a move. It is very difficult to assess the cost to the nation of such relocation.
The Minister of Labour is to be congratulated that he has undertaken these worthwhile programs. I believe they are not integrated to any great extent but he has three or four pieces of legislation that he can bring together when the results of the operations of these plans are available. I hope he will then come forward with a national labour code that will govern industry, labour and management and provide for a much clearer picture of what is going to happen in the foreseeable future.
There is another matter to which consideration should be given. It is a problem Canada faces today and over which we have little control. In the canning field there is a very large company which has been almost completely dominated by United States interests. Although the wages in this industry have, in the main, been relatively low and employment not of a continuous nature in it has been decreasing, recent changes have seen the industry itself removed in large measure to the United States.
The controlling interests in this industry have shown no interest whatsoever in the development of Canada and are simply motivated by the financial arrangements which the parent company in the United States finds advantageous by integrating all the operations in the United States. This has resulted in Canada being left practically without a canning industry and it has hurt the people dependent on it in a supplier capacity and in a labour capacity. It has also gravely affected secondary industries which, to a large extent, were dependent on it for their very existence. I believe the minister will soon have to give consideration to legislation supplementary to the present measure and take these factors into consideration.
In my opinion it is not always in our best interests to move people to industry. In many cases I think we should consider moving industry to people, and in areas like Cape Breton island and Kirkland Lake, where a large percentage of industry has already disappeared, it will be necessary for the government to give assistance to the development of industry, that will operate and stay in such areas. These areas which are losing a basic industry already have the towns and the population, and all they need is assistance from the government to get the wheels of secondary industry turning once more. Any measure which the minister

brought before the house to provide such assistance would, I believe, be given favourable consideration.
Such steps had to be taken in countries like Great Britain because industry had a great reluctance to moving from one locality to another, no matter how great the advantages might be.
During the next few days a number of workers will be coming to Ottawa asking for a halt to be placed on what I might term the runaway of industry, where industries are leaving centres that were dependent on them for many years and going to other areas where they hope to be able to pay lower wage rates and, in some cases, get closer to the larger marketing centres. The government has a responsibility in this field and if it does nothing to meet the problem it will be responsible for much of the blame. In saying that, I may add that if a Liberal government were in power I do not believe it would do any better. The Liberals already had a chance to do it, and they did not do as much as the present government has done. While we may not be completely happy with this legislation, at least we are getting three pieces of legislation which attack the fringe of the problem.
As I say, past governments were very reluctant to do this and, if the present government does not do it, the only alternative will be to elect a New Democratic party government pledged to carry out such a program. Having listened to the previous speaker, who had a great deal of experience in forest industries in the province of Quebec, I believe we could expect assistance from his group in joining us to see that the type of legislation we advocate is given to Canadians.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Coalition?


William Arnold Peters: No, not a coalition; but I would be quite happy to have the hon. member for Kootenay East read some statistics that come from official publications. It would be of assistance to him in being more exact in his facts. He said he had experience in the mines and I presume at one time he was a miner. I have a great deal of sympathy with miners and 1 am sure the hon. member would be welcome to join us if he would be more exact in his facts.
We are going to plan for industry and industrial development. We are not going to leave it up to free enterprise or entirely up to labour and management, because labour and management do not fully control industry. If big business had complete control of this country, instead of majority control, it would be able to do this; but under the circumstances I suggest the government must play a leading role in the redistribution of
Correspondence on Surcharges industry, the redistribution of manpower and the redistribution of some of the wealth of the country to make sure that national development is designed for the people of the country, rather than for the profits of shareholders in very large corporations which have little or no interest in Canadian people and Canadian development.
(Translation):


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that the resolution introduced by this government actually deals with the ills that are crippling most industrialized countries as well as those that are less developed. Moreover, if those ills are allowed to go unchecked, they will bring about the downfall of the free world.
I am also pleased to note that the government, even at this late date, is beginning to realize that the situation has become serious, a fact that others had foreseen half a century ago.
We see by this resolution that the government is anxious to look into the unemployment problem resulting from automation which, from the very start indicated that the ills we are now experiencing in the labour field were bound to happen.
If we examine the evolution of automation, we realize that at the end of the eighteenth century and at the beginning of the nineteenth, when scientists started to find means of replacing manpower, it could already be foreseen that automation, instead of displacing manpower, as was first believed, was bound eventually to replace workers. Conventional economists with their philosophy of inflation and deflation, of unemployment, austerity and prosperity cycles which adjusted themselves only in wartime are still saying nowadays that automation is only displacing manpower. Well, we must look at the facts and recognize that economists are more and more in the wrong. And the government introduces today a resolution which tends to recognize that all across the nation, automation is replacing manpower.
What is exactly automation if not the outcome of human intelligence? In face of that problem, should we bar automation to give jobs to workers who were replaced by machinery? I think that would be an unsound attitude and an insult to God who gave us the required brain-power to achieve a degree of automation which will leave us free to put our brains to work instead of our hands.
The Social Credit party understood at first the immediate effects of automation. In fact, in 1933, a Social Credit theorist Maurice Colburn, wrote in his book, page 63, the following story to help understand the dilemma in

Correspondence on Surcharges which we were being placed by the technological changes. He made a man and a machine talk together. When the man was through building the machine, he addressed it in those words:
(Text):
Man: Now then! Let's get to work.
The Machine: But I don't need your work. Run away and play.
Man: But you need my money.
The Machine: On thinking it out, I do.
Man: Well, I can't get any money unless I work.
The Machine: Work. then.
Man: But you improve so quickly that there is less and less work for me to do.
The Machine: I'm sorry; I'll improve as slowly as possible.
Man: But it's your job to improve as quickly as possible, so that you can serve me better and better and make me freer and freer.
The Machine: You can't have it both ways.
Man: Then what are we to do?
The Machine: Don't worry; something will turn up.
Then a declaration of war is sounded without. We have been going through the same problem for the past century without really arriving at the solution. When the Social Crediters bring to Canada the real solutions, they are more often laughed at by those same orthodox economists who tell the whole nation that Social Credit policies are policies of funny money and that the problem we have understood for years and which the government is starting to understand, the solution to which we are putting forward, will never be solved by Social Credit policies.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, may I read an excerpt from a recent publication, dated May 10, 1962 and entitled "The Christian Doctrine of Wealth". That pamphlet enables us to realize that the more things change, the more they are the same. In fact, here is what it says on page 32:
(Text):
The problem therefore is not simply one of providing against old age, ill-health or temporary unemployment-essential though these safeguards will continue to be. We must visualize a situation when it will be impossible to provide "gainful" employment for a substantial and growing section of the population. We are of the opinion that it would be foolish to attempt to retard or reverse this tendency; rather should we look upon it as a challenge and an opportunity-a challenge to solve the economic, social and moral problems, and an opportunity to move on into these wide fields of human endeavour that can only be explored on a voluntary basis. The "evil" of unemployment resides in two things-poverty due to lack of access to the real wealth produced by the economic system and misuse of the leisure it provides. The first can be cured by a reformed monetary system-
It will be noted that this is not a Social Credit pamphlet:

The first can be cured by a reformed monetary system, and the second-given the removal of the first-is the responsibility of the moral leaders of society, and of course of the individual himself.
(Translation):
And now, Mr. Chairman, some people other than the Social Crediters realize that the solution to the automation problem does not lie solely in the setting up of a commission to control unemployment, but also in that of an economic system which will enable the person who is replaced by a machine to develop freely and to improve his brains.
If God gave us brains to enable us, at a given time, to free ourselves from matter, I cannot imagine that people can be kept in such a frame of mind as to believe that one must necessarily work eight hours a day to be able to benefit from the products of machines.
If God gave us brains to enable us, at a given time, to come out of this frame of mind, it is up to us to use them and to use the means which will bring about a solution to this crucial problem, in short, the most important one we are now facing.
I think that this light that the government is beginning to throw on the problem should enable us to understand that the more automation will replace the individual, the worker, the more important it will be to place in his hands the purchasing power required to enable him to use the products of machines.
Mr. Chairman, it is the only way in which we can hope that the study that the government wants to make of the problems resulting from automation will enable us to come to a fair and definite solution, not a makeshift solution, but a solution that will bring a real remedy to that halting economy we have inherited from the old line parties since confederation.
(Text):


Mr. Malheson:: Tonight we are discussing industrial change and manpower adjustment. We do not know if there is anything of real importance in this bill; we do not yet know what is intended, but the text should be that we are forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead. We are talking about Canada putting machines and men to work, instead of lagging behind as an industrial nation. Despite the optimistic things which the minister and others have been saying, we have been lagging behind on almost any fair assessment of our industrial growth. First, in these last five years our actual physical volume of manufacturing has been declining.

Some of the material put on record by the hon. member for Kootenay East shows this to be true not only with respect to one province but with respect to the country as a whole.
I shall indicate some of the answers given in the twenty fourth parliament with respect to the productivity of Canada from 1955 onward. I should like to put on record the figures for the period 1955-61 as reported in Hansard on February 12, 1962 and on October 4, 1962 in reply to questions. May I have the leave of the committee?


Rémi Paul: Does the committee give consent for these figures to be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. McCleave:: I assume these are answers to questions. Where do the answers come from?


Mr. Matheson:: It is question No. 116 reported on February 12, 1962. It was this question: "What is the production per capita together with the percentage change for the years 1956-61?" The ministry returned a complicated table giving the answer in current dollars, in constant dollars and then on a per capita basis. It is the summation of those figures I seek to put on record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Editor's Note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
GNP in constant (1957)
Year	dollars per capita
1955	  $1,849
1956	  1.959
1957	  1,924
1958	  1,884
1959	  1,904
1960	  1,897
1961	   1.893
May I say that from 1955 to 1956, our gross national product per person in constant dollars in Canada increased from $1,849 to $1,959, a sharp increase. This was the type of development evident over a period of years. Then there was a sudden decline. In 1961 we were down to $1,893. In other words, after six years we had dropped $66. When we compare this with what has been happening in almost all the countries of western Europe we find we are a laggard nation. What are we going to do about this?
There has been a lot of experience in distant parts of the world. I have been impressed by the various books which David Morse, a friend of the hon. member for Essex East has written with respect to automation. It is David Morse's conclusion that there is no evidence outside the United States that 27507-3-122
Correspondence on Surcharges automation causes unemployment. In Europe, labour shortages have occurred precisely in those areas where there has been the greatest measure of automation and the greatest attention given to the introduction of new ideas and equipment. He illustrates his contention by pointing to the United Kingdom where, for instance, a large drug store chain introduced office automation in 1960 with great success. In France, a re-equipment program for the French national railways has resulted in the introduction of a variety of automated devices which have saved expense and made service both faster and safer. Automation is also used in marketing yards where television, tape recordings, telecommunications and remote braking have improved efficiency to a marked extent. In the Soviet union, he says, there can be no doubt that progress in automation is one of the first economic objectives.
My hon. friend from Kootenay East drew my attention to an article in tonight's Journal where Professor Presgrave of the University of Toronto school of business is reported as saying:
II man ever is a slave to a machine, which I doubt, it is to the primitive machine-the plough, the hammer and sickle. The computer is the symbol of the supremacy of the intellect over the inanimate-in old-fashioned terms, the triumph of mind over matter.
We have not only to address ourselves to this problem in a twentieth century manner but we must do so more effectively than we have done in the past. There are difficulties facing Canada which did not face us even a few years ago. We are facing the results of our economic stagnation, which has been reflected in loss of growth of capital equipment, loss of consumption and chronic unemployment. This problem is not one which would be solved by adopting a different way of distributing what we already have. The cake itself must get larger, and the only way it can get larger is by taking our limited population and putting it to work with the best equipment in the world and in the areas where there are the greatest natural opportunities. This is going to require complicated adjustment, but it can be done. In Europe they have done it. Ludwig Erhard has given evidence that to improve the standard of living quickly it is necessary not to divide up the national product but to multiply it. It is time in Canada that we not only added, but that we multiplied. We can do it.
One of the things which has been disturbing in connection with this study by the hon. member for Davenport called "Troubled Canada"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
1928	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges


Neil Alexander Matheson: Hon. members laugh; they laugh every time there is reference to "Troubled Canada." Without any disrespect to the author all it really does is take statistics produced by the dominion bureau of statistics, draw on chapters of the Gordon commission report, bring these up to date and assess whether, as a nation, we have done those things we ought to have done and which we said, in 1956, on the basis of all the evidence available that we should do. But there is not one area in our whole growth pattern which indicates we have lived up to the expectations of 1956. Some hon. members may say this was a Liberal document, but I ask them to remember that the Gordon commission report was produced under the chairmanship of a layman, whatever his political sympathies might have been, and of one who at that time thought the government would probably continue in office. And it did not. I am not saying our economic lag has been entirely the fault of this present administration, though I earnestly believe that in part it is. That is why I am here.
We have to think in terms of economic growth. This means, for Canada, a vast capital expansion. If we compare the figures today with those put before the Gordon commission in 1956, it is evident that our capital growth is not keeping pace with our needs. We have not done the things which would have made us richer and produced more employment. This is a rather elementary principle of economics, although we recognize it introduces certain problems.
I feel, and I am not being disrespectful to the Minister of Labour, that the Department of Labour has for some years been almost sterile. I feel it has become crystallized and purely administrative. Many years ago, when the Department of Labour was perhaps one of the most creative departments of the government of Canada, there were new ideas, new thoughts and new energies. I hope that this resolution which we are discussing tonight will indicate to Canada that there is a possibility that the Department of Labour is starting to deal dynamically with economic problems which affect people, productivity, and the future welfare of Canadians. One of our problems has been that on this continent in particular, as distinct from Europe and Japan, between the peaks of our prosperity there are sustained slumps. We know that this will continue no matter how wise planning and direction may be at the level of management or government. We know there will be cycles. But one of the disturbing things has been the fact that the trough has become 

deeper and the length of the trough has extended, and the upswing has become shorter in duration.
Walter Buckingham has made a study of this subject. He is the author of a book called "Theoretical Economic Systems and Automation", published in the United States, and he indicates that without flexibility and mobility of productive resources of all kinds our economy would stagnate, and the rich harvest from economic progress would be lost. So that one of the things we face in Canada is not only unemployment now, but that in future we will have to think in terms of more jobs and more movement. We will have to get people of 40 or 45 years of age to start again, and that may mean a shift or a retraining arrangement, with companies moving out 50 or 100 workers at a time to undergo intensive training to prepare themselves for the new task. This can be done either when these people are out of work, or when there is a possibility that there will be a shift over and a change in the future. This can be a dynamic and exciting new experience.
According to our statistics, the real problem which we will have to face immediately is the prospect for the age group of 16 to 24. So many of these people are limited in skills. We must recognize that in the skilled society, the only kind of society who can lift this country economically, the majority of workers are in white collar jobs. A lot of us in this house have had experience with manual labour, but the future will probably mean that man will become more and more a white collar labourer. That is the conclusion which has been reached both in Europe and in the United States. We will find that automation will have certain direct and immediate effects on jobs. It will eliminate some jobs outright, and eliminate parts of other jobs. It will require new combinations and skills. It will require far more flexibility and imagination on the part of government.
I was disappointed at the reply I received when during the last parliament I asked the Minister of Labour whether his department had made any study of the various papers submitted at Niagara Falls by some of the economists brought over here under the auspices of the Canadian Congress of Labour. They were extremely good papers and indicated the degree of partnership which has begun to prevail in Europe. Mr. Chairman, you will remember that the then member for Greenwood made a very fine contribution in the last days of the twenty fourth parliament. An old Conservative, he made a wonderful contribution to the new look with regard to management and labour. I think that this is the approach we will have to adopt.

Reference was made by one of the members of the New Democratic party to Walter Reuther. Reuther has had a long experience with this problem. He is probably one of the important authorities in the United States today on the question of automation and transition. He has said that technology, using the word as distinct from automation, has for several years been a highly unsettling factor in an economy already characterized by a serious lack of balance between productive capacity and effective demand. Several cred-itistes in this corner of the house have emphasized the demand aspect of the curve. They talk frequently in terms of demand. Of course, they are right because demand is a vitally important matter. That is why we believe that there cannot be economic growth unless by bold policies, particularly in times of unemployment like this, we sustain demand so that it can fortify the cost curve-and the cost curve is more often stressed by other hon. members. It is the interplay of these two, demand and cost. This is a new era into which we are moving, not an era of competition between labour and management. We enter this automated era in a new sense of partnership. In my riding we have 10 small industries which have done extremely well some having gone through difficult times. I believe that today management is part of that large category called labour. Very little of management, as I know it, is made up of people with large ownership in industry. It is people who work, often for long hours, who are part of management. Even a lawyer has to work long hours today. In fact there is not one of us today who is not in some aspect or other fearlessly facing this problem of automation.
The curious fact is that in the United States production has risen and employment has declined in many industries. From 1953 through 1960, there was a 17 per cent increase in manufacturing production, with an accompanying decrease of 1,600,000 production workers. I think that the great challenge to Canada is to appreciate that we have to be very much more like the Europeans. We have to prepare a plan, but this does not mean that we must destroy competition. This means that we should set new ground rules for competition so that competition can expand and flourish and be sustained and supported in various important aspects by federal and provincial legislation.
We will never overcome the problem of depressed areas and their chronic unemployment unless the federal government, through appropriate penalties and inducements, is able to discourage the movement of industry into areas of labour shortage and encourage 27507-3-122}
Correspondence on Surcharges its location in areas of higher than average unemployment. We have to think fearlessly and boldly. To me this is exciting legislation which we see before us tonight. We on this side feel that up to this time in parliament we have just wasted our time. We came here on September 27 and have done just trivial things. I think that this could be something vitally important. It is not enough to just appoint councils and committees. We cannot solve the unemployment problem by merely appointing people to boards and commissions. We think that the real challenge is to pass legislation that gets down to the people, and this is one way in which it can be done.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to detain the committee at any length, but I should like to say one or two words in connection with this resolution. I was quite interested in the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat because to me he sounded as if he really meant what he was saying, and was perhaps expressing a new hope that there may be some effective steps taken by this parliament to deal with this problem. Earlier tonight one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Timiskaming, drew attention to the fact that there were a number of resolutions on the order paper which seemed to be closely related in so far as they dealt with basic economic problems facing the Canadian nation, and the need for greater planning. He suggested that these resolutions might better be combined in one comprehensive proposal which would relate economic development nationally and regionally more closely with the activities which the Department of Labour and the Minister of Labour has in mind in sponsoring this resolution. Like some other hon. members, I am not too sure in my own mind what is going to be the legislation that comes forward from this resolution. Until we have it, I think it is rather difficult to assess whether or not it really means very much. Certainly it is long past the time when some measures respecting industrial change and the manpower adjustment problem should be brought forward and discussed in this House of Commons.
I am not going to go into any lengthy suggestion as to what has been happening in this field. The hon. member who preceded me in speaking made some references to trends in employment in relation to automation, the developing technology in industry and the need for expansion of production. I should simply like to suggest that this is a problem which extends right across the country and into many industries, particularly those industries which are dependant on an export market and where effective demand

Correspondence on Surcharges depends on many conditions outside of this country and to that extent is somewhat beyond our control.
By way of illustration I should merely like to mention the situation in one of the large logging areas in my constituency where a certain large production unit puts something over 100 carloads of logs into the water every day. A few years ago there were approximately 1,000 employees in that production unit. Today, some 10 years or so later, they are still putting approximately the same number of logs into the water each day but the number of employees in that unit is now slightly more than half of what it was only a few years ago. I feel that is certainly one small illustration of the kind of problems which need something to be done about them at this stage. If the proposal being put forward by the minister is not as comprehensive as my colleague from Timiskaming would like to see it, I would suggest that perhaps in some small way I may be responsible for that situation. I was thinking back to the time when a debate took place in 1954 and when I made in this house a proposal which I feel bears some similarity to the one being put forward by the Minister of Labour. To that extent perhaps in some small way the ideas which I put forward then have borne fruit. As found at page 2386 of Hansard for February 23, 1954, I stated as follows:
I suggest it is time to do something more than review our unemployment insurance plan. It is time for the government, in line with its acceptance of the validity of the insurance principle, to launch a new insurance plan, one which I would call re-establishment insurance. This plan would cover those people the Acting Prime Minister-
At that particular time he was Right Hon. C. D. Howe.
-has advised to go elsewhere to seek work. It would insure them against the loss of their homes, and against having to walk away and simply leave behind everything they have accumulated over a period of years. It would be a plan which would cover retraining these people in another industry, so they might continue to enjoy a level of income comparable with that which they had in the industry from which they had been squeezed out.
I then went on to say that I felt that this is something that could be developed on a sound actuarial basis and that it would deal with the problems of people who have been displaced in industry because of technological change, changes in trade policies of the government, activities of competitive industries in other countries or any of those things which are certainly beyond the control of the individual working man. I therefore feel that some of the proposals which I hope to see in the legislation envisaged by this resolution will in effect be some step along the line

which I, as spokesman for the C.C.F. party in 1954, was putting forward in this house. While I recognized at the time, as I feel is the case now, that this principle is certainly not going to be the answer to all the problems in this field-and I congratulate the minister on having said that was the case in giving his own opinion earlier today-I would say I put it forward at the time as a suggestion to the government of that day; for even though I had not then been long in the house I had come to recognize the fact that it was quite a problem to get the government of that day to take even a very small step forward in a constructive plan.
So far as this proposal incorporates the ideas which I had at that time I should like to congratulate the present Minister of Labour on having brought it forward. When we see his legislation I hope that perhaps we can offer him congratulations in addition to those we are able to offer today at this stage.


Rémi Paul: Shall the resolution
carry?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Starr thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-83, respecting industrial change and manpower adjustment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Michael Starr: the second reading of Bill No. C-70, to provide for the safety of persons employed in federal works, undertakings and businesses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as I stated on first reading, is to promote the safety and well-being of persons employed in works, undertakings and businesses within the federal field of jurisdiction. It has concerned me for some time that there is nc federal legislation specifically directed towards the prevention of employment connected accidents and the elimination of hazards at work in the various activities coming within federal jurisdiction. With these objectives I am sure all hon. members will be in full agreement, nor is there likely to be any doubt about the seriousness of this problem.
While we do not have precise information on the nature and extent of work accidents in federal industries, a deficiency that would be taken care of under the terms of this legislation, there is sufficient knowledge about these incidents to indicate that probably more than

10,000 disabling injuries occur each year including about 100 fatalities. The resultant direct cost of compensation benefits, medical, hospital and related services totals several millions of dollars. These enterprises can ill afford this heavy drain on their manpower resources and no more can they afford the very substantial dollar costs and the lowering of their productive efficiency that surely attends such accidents.
There are extensive and equally serious indirect costs consequent upon these accidents, such as the interruption of operations and the damage or loss of material and equipment. There is an established and widely accepted premise that the aggregate of indirect costs of industrial accidents is, on the average, four times greater than the direct costs. Whether anyone is hurt or not, these indirect costs are the high price of work accidents.
With respect to the federal public service, to which this legislation also applies, we know that some 18,000 work accidents are reported each year and of these about one third, or some 6,000 disabling injuries, are serious enough to cause some loss of the employees' time. These 6,000 disabling injuries represent one such incident for each 39 public servants. This ratio is somewhat better than the ratio of 1 to 37 reported for industry generally in Ontario, as an example, in 1960.
The Glassco commission, in referring to these disabling injuries in the public service, noted incorrectly that this ratio was 1 to 13. I do want to say, however, that the Glassco commission expressed concern over the incidence, the hardship and the cost of the accidents occurring in public service employment and they also urged that a more extensive and a more positive safety program be undertaken.
Last year the direct costs of accidents in the federal public service amounted to nearly $3J million and time was lost equivalent to the year round employment of about 450 persons. In broad terms this illustrates the extent of the problem that the legislation is designed to cope with. Even aside from the compelling humanitarian considerations, there are sound economic reasons, as I have shown, for positive action by the government. This legislation establishes a clear and direct policy of general application that would be carried out through a co-ordinated and highly practical program of work that I shall now outline.
The legislation provides in effect that no one shall carry on any work within the federal sphere in a way that will endanger the safety and well-being of the employees. The Department of Labour will be responsible for the regulation and inspection of work places to ensure that this general requirement
Safety of Federal Employees is being observed in respect of those matters for which other federal departments are not already assuming responsibility.
As hon. members know, there are some industries within federal jurisdiction, including railways, shipping and air transport, in which operational safety, the safety of the public and, in some instances, employee safety are covered under more general statutes. While strict standards are applied in some important areas, there are substantial groups of employees and numerous work places in these industries to which no government authorities are now applying safety and health standards.
In other industries within federal jurisdiction, including grain elevators, communications, interprovincial trucking and warehousing, no federal legislative standards in the field of safety and health have been established. This legislation fills these gaps and would ensure that the safety and health of employees within all these federal undertakings were being more effectively protected.
The majority of the provinces now have legislation regulating work places in the interests of employee safety and health and providing for systems of inspection. This legislation deals with the safety of equipment such as elevators and steam boilers, as well as general safety and sanitation in the working environment. Provincial regulations have been applied in certain instances to some establishments under federal jurisdiction but, in the absence of appropriate federal legislation, clear-cut safeguards cannot be introduced. This has given rise to doubts and confusion in federal industries and in the various agencies responsible for accident prevention work. This bill clarifies the situation, fills this serious gap and provides a basis for a continuing and comprehensive attack on the problem.
In actual practice this legislation and that of the provinces will be largely complementary in so far as our field is concerned. By this I mean that where the legislation of a province now contains appropriate safety standards, and there are a number of them, these standards can be adopted as regulations under this legislation and applied as required.
As a further practical measure, and I think from every point of view a highly desirable one, it is proposed that as far as practicable arrangements will be made for the use of provincial inspection services. With this in mind the bill provides for entering into agreements with the provinces whereby their inspection services would be used to carry out inspections under our legislation wherever it is appropriate to do so. I have every confidence that the splendid co-operation in this

Safety of Federal Employees field which we have enjoyed with the provinces in the past will be continued. It will be necessary to establish a small headquarters and supervisory staff to give direction to and generally co-ordinate this and other related work.
It is vitally important to my mind that the inspection program be carried out in accordance with an over-all plan which, while making allowance for special investigations, will nevertheless ensure systematic coverage of all establishments and will also ensure that inspection resources are used to the best advantage, so those places where the need is greatest will receive the most attention. There can be no question about the contribution which regular inspection makes toward the safety and well-being of persons in employment.
The bill also provides for the reporting of accidents, the nature of them and the circumstances under which they occur. A clear understanding of these factors related to the problems of the individual enterprises is a necessary preliminary to finding effective means of avoiding similar accidents in the future. For some years the Department of Labour has been engaged in developing with the provincial authorities a system of reporting industrial accidents. The legislation will provide encouragement to this work and to related studies.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house would permit me to finish my statement. It would only take a few minutes more.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: I would like to draw the attention of the house to the excellent activities being carried on by various provincial authorities and associations in the field of accident prevention. I am sure these agencies can be counted upon to contribute to a joint effort to promote occupational safety.
In the preparation of our program under this legislation, there will be extensive consultation with these bodies. We will also seek the advice and assistance of employee and employer groups. I would like here to underline the particular responsibility of management for this matter of a safe work environment. Only through a better realization of that overall responsibility leading, in turn, to better safety organization at the work place, to constant attention to safe working practices and to the provision of protective equipment to employees can substantial progress be expected.
For many years my department has been active in the preparation and distribution of films on industrial safety. I expect that many hon. members are familiar with our well known and highly regarded series of seven 

films under the general heading, "Accidents Don't Happen", produced by the national film board.
There is a need for a continuous educational and publicity program in which films and other visual aids are widely used. Displays, courses of instruction and other forms of training are also needed to bring about a better understanding of the problem and teach safe work habits.
The legislation applies to the crown in right of Canada, thus bringing government departments and agencies within its provisions. For some years my department has been providing, on a voluntary basis an advisory accident prevention service to other departments and crown agencies. This service will be extended and it is our intention to apply appropriate standards which will be developed in collaboration with federal authorities.
This provision with respect to the crown will provide a basis for a comprehensive accident prevention program for the public service. Such a program has been recommended by the national joint council and more recently, as I have already said, by the Glassco commission. The inclusion of the federal public service in the bill strengthens the program as a whole, with attendant advantages to both the public service and industry.
I have every confidence, Mr. Chairman, that we can, through this legislation, with the continuing co-operation of the provinces, the accident prevention associations, the employers and the employees establish a safer environment in which our people work and so reduce human suffering, the loss of manpower and the costs of compensation. This kind of co-operation could lead to the improvement of government efforts in the safety field throughout Canada and to the development of more uniform standards.
I believe that this legislation will commend itself to all hon. members of the house, and I shall be pleased to deal with particular aspects of the legislation under the appropriate clauses.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: May I inquire what the house will do tomorrow, and perhaps we could get some indication of the business for next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Certain adjustments have had to be made and there has been considerable negotiation going on. Tomorrow we will take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture which we started a few days ago. On Monday the proposal is to start first with interim supply and then follow with the

resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance, No. 30 on today's order paper, dealing with the national economic development board. That is as far as I can go.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask an impertinent question: could we depend on this?
Business of the House Mr. Churchill: You have been depending on the government now for several years and can continue to do so.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
The general assembly,
Recalling its resolution 1722 (XVI) of 20 December 1961,
Convinced that the aim of general and complete disarmament must be achieved on the basis of the eight agreed principles recognized in general assembly resolution 1722 (XVI),
Reaffirming its responsibility for disarmament under the charter,
Taking note of the two interim progress reports of the conference of the eighteen nation committee on disarmament (DC/203 and DC/205), the draft treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict international control submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (A/C. 1/867) and the outline of basic provisions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world submitted by the United States of America (A/C.l/875),
Noting with regret that during six months of negotiations at Geneva little agreement was achieved on vital problems of disarmament,
Expressing its appreciation to the participants of the eighteen nation committee engaged in disarmament negotiations at Geneva for their perseverance in trying to reach agreement,
Welcoming the spirit of compromise which prompted the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America to introduce certain modifications to their two draft treaties for disarmament,
Recalling hopefully the letters exchanged recently between Chairman Khrushchev, President Kennedy and Prime Minister Macmillan, in which they expressed their readiness to resume disarmament negotiations with renewed determination and vigour, Determined to avert the grave dangers to the human race of nuclear confrontation, on which the recent crisis focused attention,
1.	Reaffirms the need for the conclusion, at the earliest possible date, of an agreement on general and complete disarmament based on the joint statement of agreed principles for disarmament negotiations submitted on 20 September 1961 by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America (A/4879) and endorsed by the general assembly in resolution 1722 (XVI) dated 20 December 1961;
2.	Calls upon the eighteen nation committee on disarmament to resume at Geneva its negotiations on general and complete disarmament, with effective controls, expeditiously and in a spirit of constructive compromise, until agreement has been reached;
3.	Recommends that urgent attention should be given by the eighteen nation committee on disarmament to various collateral measures intended to decrease tension and to facilitate general and complete disarmament;
4.	Requests the eighteen nation committee on disarmament to report periodically to the general assembly on the progress of its work and, in any case, not later than the second week of April 1963.
5.	Transmits to the United Nations disarmament commission and requests the acting secretary general to make available to the conference of the eighteen nation committee on disarmament the documents and records of plenary meetings and meetings of the first committee at which the question of disarmament was discussed.

[Stage Direction]
[ON THE REPORT OF THE FIRST COMMITTEE
(A/5279) ]
1762 (XVII). The urgent need for suspension of nuclear and thermonuclear tests
The general assembly,
Deeply concerned with the continuation of nuclear weapon tests,
Fully conscious that world opinion demands the immediate cessation of all nuclear tests,
Viewing with the utmost apprehension the data contained in the report of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation,
Considering that the continuation of nuclear weapon tests is an important factor in the acceleration of the arms race and that the conclusion of an agreement prohibiting such tests would greatly contribute to paving the way towards general and complete disarmament,
Recalling its resolution 1648 (XVI) of 6 November 1961, whereby the states concerned were urged to refrain from further nuclear weapon test explosions pending the conclusion of necessary internationally binding agreements with regard to the cessation of tests,
Noting with regret that the states concerned have not responded to the appeal contained in the aforementioned and in other relevant

resolutions and that, despite its efforts, the conference of the eighteen nation committee on disarmament, referred to in general assembly resolution 1722 (XVI) of 20 December 1961, is not yet in a position to report agreement on this vitally important issue,
Recalling that in resolution 1649 (XVI) of 8 November 1961 the general assembly reaffirmed that an agreement prohibiting all nuclear weapon tests would inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries and would contribute to the reduction of international tensions,
Noting that, among the states represented in the subcommittee on a treaty for the discontinuance of nuclear weapon tests of the eighteen nation committee, basic agreement now prevails as regards the question of control of tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water,
Noting further that the proceedings of the eighteen nation committee indicate a somewhat enlarged area of agreement on the question of effective control of underground tests,
Considering that the memorandum of 16 April 1962, submitted to the eighteen nation committee by the delegations of Brazil, Burma, Ethiopia, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Sweden and the United Arab Republic, represents a sound, adequate and fair basis for the conduct of negotiations towards removing the outstanding differences on the question of effective control of underground tests,
Welcoming the intention to find a speedy settlement of the remaining differences on the question of the cessation of nuclear tests, declared in the letter dated 27 October 1962 from Mr. Khrushchev, chairman of the council of ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to Mr. Kennedy, President of the United States of America, in the letter dated 28 October 1962 from Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Khrushchev, and in the letter dated 28 October 1962 from Mr. Macmillan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to Mr. Khrushchev,
Convinced that no efforts should be spared to achieve prompt agreement on the cessation of all nuclear tests in all environments,
1.	Condemns all nuclear weapon tests;
2.	Asks that such tests should cease immediately and not later than 1 January 1963;
3.	Urges the governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to settle the remaining differences between them in order to achieve agreement on the cessation of nuclear testing by 1 January 1963, and to issue instructions to their representatives on the subcommittee on a treaty for the discontinuance of nuclear weapon tests to achieve this end;
4.	Endorses the eight nation memorandum of 16 April 1962 as a basis for negotiation;
5.	Calls on the parties concerned, taking as a basis the above mentioned memorandum and having regard to the discussions on this item at the seventeenth session of the general assembly, to negotiate in a spirit of mutual understanding and concession in order to reach agreement urgently, bearing in mind the vital interests of mankind;
6.	Recommends that if, against all hope, the parties concerned do not reach agreement on the cessation of all tests by 1 January 1963, they should enter into an immediate agreement prohibiting nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, accompanied by an interim arrangement suspending all underground tests, taking as a basis the eight nation memorandum and taking into consideration other proposals presented at the seventeenth session of the general assembly, such interim agreement to include adequate assurances for effective detection and identification of seismic events by an international scientific commission;
7.	Requests the conference of the eighteen nation committee on disarmament to reconvene not later than 12 November 1962, to resume negotiations on the cessation of nuclear testing and on general and complete disarmament, and to report to the general assembly by 10 December 1962 on the results achieved with regard to the cessation of nuclear weapon tests.
1165th plenary meeting, 6 November 1962.
27507-3-123
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 23, 1962