1962-03-14

Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege.
In certain newspapers of the province of Quebec, my name has been linked with the now famous luncheon which took place in Quebec city during the week end. I should like to say that, while I did not attend this luncheon, my colleague from Chicoutimi did. Despite the fact that our surnames are identical, newspapermen should be careful not to mistake what he does for what I do.


Mr. Vincent Brassard (Chicoutimi):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I understood the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) to complain, a while ago, that his name was mistaken for mine in some week-end press reports.
I want to state that if such an error took place I had nothing to do with it and that I am not seeking any publicity. If the hon. member for Lapointe is looking for publicity, well, I am in no way responsible for it.
(Text):



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-76, respecting government purchase contracts (f.o.b. delivery).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, this bill will apply to government contracts for supplies to be purchased within Canada. Its purpose is to prevent discrimination against a tenderer due to his distance from the government
supply depot or stockpiling point and the consequent additional freight charges the tenderer must add to his tender. In short, it takes away a built-in tariff enjoyed by companies in the central parts of Canada as opposed to those in the extremities.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR CANADIAN PREFERENCE IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Ernest James Broome: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-77, to provide for a Canadian preference in government construction, purchase and service contracts.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ernest James Broome: This is the same bill that was introduced last session, and the title is self explanatory.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fisher: 1.	What percentage increase in toll revenue was there on the Jacques Cartier bridge in the period since the toll system was changed, by quarters?
2.	What has been the total dollar difference between the revenue in this period and the immediately preceding period of the same length when the old toll system was in effect?
3.	Given the increased earning powers of the bridge, what is the projected date when the debt of the bridge project as a whole would be wiped out?


Mr. Martini:: 1. Automatic toll collection on the Jacques Cartier bridge commenced September 8, 1959, and the percentage increase in toll revenue, by quarters, compared with the previous year, since September 1959 was as follows:
Last quarter 	.... 1959	53 per centFirst quarter 	.... I960	56 per centSecond quarter 	.... 1960	64 per centThird quarter 	
1960	53 per centLast quarter 	.... 1960	11 per centFirst quarter 	.... 1961	7 per centSecond quarter 	.... 1961	2 per centThird quarter 	.... 1961	1 per centLast quarter 	.... 1961	8 per cent2. $2,703,155.	
Questions
3. This part of the question necessitates an opinion as to the traffic in the future, and accordingly a definite answer cannot be given.


ST. JEAN MILITARY COLLEGE  CHIMNEY REPAIRS
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Have any repairs been made to the chimneys of Le College Militaire Royal de St. Jean since June, 1960; and, if so, by whom were such repairs carried out?
2.	Were tenders called; and, if so, what are the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the tenders?
Answer by: Mr. O'Hurley:
1.	Yes. On July 13, 1961, a contract in the amount of $475 was awarded to Central Duct Work Reg'd., 197 St. James building, No. 102 College Militaire Royal de St. Jean.
2.	Yes. The following firms were invited to tender:
Firms Invited	Amount Tendered
Central Duct Work Reg'd., St. Jean,
P.Q	 $475
Paul Bisaillon, Iberville, P.Q		778
The Singer Manufacturing Co., St. Jean,
P.Q	 No quote.
J. Albert Morin, Iberville, P.Q. No quote.


SABLE ISLAND WEST LIGHTHOUSE BEACON
Mr. Morris: 1.	Has an automatic daylight-controlled acetylene valve been installed for operation of the unattended
acetylene beacon light at Sable island west lighthouse?
2.	Does the valve extinguish the light during daylight hours?
3.	Does it reignite each evening?
4.	Is there an additional valve and control to monitor the main light at night?
5.	Does failure of the main light cause the second valve to ignite an emergency light; and, if so, at what time interval?
6.	How many failures have occurred in the system since it commenced operation, and to what was failure due?
Answer by: Mr. Martini:
1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. Answered by No. 1.


UNEMPLOYMENT-IMPACT OF AUTOMATION
Mr. Caron: 1.	Are any studies presently under way under federal auspices into the impact automation may have on unemployment; and, if so, which department or divisions of government are conducting such studies and have any publications been released on these studies to date?
2.	Is it intended to publish the results of any such studies?
Answer by: Mr. Thrasher:
1 and 2. The Department of Labour, under its skilled manpower research program, has been conducting studies on the employment and manpower effects of technological change, [Mr. Martini.l
including automation, since the summer of 1956. Studies published to date on this subject are as follows:
Report No. 2-Technological Changes and Skilled Manpower: Electrical and Electronics Industry and Heavy Machinery Industry (1957)
Report No. 3-Technological Changes and Skilled Manpower: The Household Appliance Industry (1958)
Report No. 8-Technological Changes and Skilled Manpower: The Automobile and Parts Manufacturing Industries (1960)
Report No. 9A-Technological Changes and Skilled Manpower: The Current Status of Electronic Data Processing in Canada (1960)
Report No. 9B-Technological Changes and Skilled Manpower: Electronic Data Processing Occupations in a Large Insurance Company (1961)
A comprehensive report, entitled "Technological Changes and Their Impact on Employment and Occupational", and based on the research findings, was presented to the special Senate committee on manpower and employment in February, 1961.
Last summer a substantial start was made on the manpower effects of technological change in the railway industry, when a special study was carried out covering railway operations in the Atlantic region. A report is now being prepared on the findings.
Plans are well advanced for a survey of a sample of computer users to determine the employment, occupational and organizational effects of office automation, for a second survey on the status electronic data processing in Canada, and for further studies in the railway industry.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Who served as commissioners on the royal commission on publications?
2.	How much did each receive, by name, in fees, salaries, expenses, etc.?
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	(a) Mr. M. G. O'Leary, chairman, (b) Mr. C. P. Beaubien; (c) Mr. J. G. Johnston.
2.	Name	Per Diem Expenses
Fee
(a)	Mr. M. G. O'Leary ..$13,650	$	430
(b) Mr. C. P. Beaubien . . 9,975	960
(c) Mr. J. G. Johnston .. 9,450	1,410


* IMMIGRATION, 1961 AND 1962
Mr. Badanai: 1.	How many immigrants have been admitted to Canada, and from what countries, since the new immigration regulations went into effect on February 1, 1962, as announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
2.	How many were admitted from all countries during the same period in 1961?


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	Statistics on the volume of migration to Canada are made available on a quarterly basis, and I must advise that I shall be unable to furnish the information requested in this question until some time next month. I might say, however, that the great majority of the immigrants who have been admitted to Canada since February 1, 1962, when the new regulations became effective, were undoubtedly processed abroad under the previous regulations.
2.	During February, 1961, the number of immigrants admitted from all countries was 4,039.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Winch:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia since January 1, 1960, relating to the establishment of Garibaldi park in British Columbia as a national park.
He said: I have been advised by the minister that there are no such documents as are asked for here. That being the case, I ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


EXPORT STRATEGIC LIST
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Mcllrailh:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the strategic list referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, page 708, Hansard, February 9, 1962.
Mr. Hees:: Two weeks ago today my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, endeavoured to make a statement with reference to this motion, but the hon. member for Ottawa West was not satisfied with it and proceeded to confuse the issue still further by making a correction in his own statement the following day. The facts are as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I had better read the motion. It is not debatable. The minister may, of course, indicate whether it is acceptable or not and explain briefly why he takes his position, but as I say this is not a debatable motion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as recorded in Hansard of July 9, 1956, the then private hon. member for Eglinton who now has the honour to be Minister of Finance asked for a copy of certain lists which were controlled through the export permits branch. After explaining 26207-1-113
Motions for Papers
the difference between the various lists the then minister of trade and commerce, Right Hon. C. D. Howe, said:
Hon. members will appreciate that I cannot table secret and confidential information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -exchanged with certain NATO and other friendly countries covering control of the shipment of strategic goods.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Benidickson:: The minister is violating the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I did not make myself clear when I spoke before, but it is not in order to introduce arguments in accepting or rejecting a motion for papers. It is not a debatable motion. It can be transferred under the rules for debate at another time. As objection is taken to the statement of the minister, which in my opinion goes beyond the practice, I would ask him to confine himself to a statement as to whether or not the motion is acceptable.


George Harris Hees: I have here, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Gazette statutory orders and regulations, 1962, which contain what I believe is what the hon. member has asked for and which, of course, it is possible for me to send over to him as I shall be very pleased to do; but the other strategic list known as the COCOM list is the one which was refused to this house five years ago by Mr. Howe. I am afraid I must also refuse to make it available because it is a privileged document and not allowed to be made public.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: It is very clear from the reference in Hansard and from the question which incorporates the page reference in Hansard that the list I am referring to is the one referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at page 708 of Hansard of February 9. That is not the COCOM list.


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to give the hon. member the Canada Gazette list which I have here in my hand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to proceed with the motion as it stands?


Mr. Churchill:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the minister accepts the motion on the same basis, that it is the list which he volunteers to produce that is called for by this motion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the document I am willing to make available to the hon. member was tabled in this house some time ago, and I am glad to let him have a copy

Motions for Papers
oi it. As I understand it I am not allowed, as Mr. Howe was not allowed on the occasion to which I referred, to table the COCOM list.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot determine what the motion means. I shall put the motion, but I would ask that the minister indicate again whether or not he accepts it before I do.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall accept the motion as I have interpreted it.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Winch:
That an order of the house do Issue for copies of all orders, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents issued since January 1, 1961, by the Minister of Finance, treasury board, or others relative to wage rates status of building tradesmen, such as electricians, steam fitters, carpenters, plumbers, machinists, etc.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say that since filing this question I have been in consultation with officials of the Department of Finance and particularly the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance on this matter, and I understand that an agreement has been reached under which certain information will be filed.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, the motion is quite broad in its terms. It asks for copies of all orders, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents issued since January 1, 1961 by the Minister of Finance or others relative to certain matters. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, communications between the treasury board and other departments or members of the public service are not producible. Interdepartmental correspondence is not producible and intradepartmental correspondence is not producible. But this would still leave open to production communications between those mentioned, the minister, treasury board and others in the public service, on the one hand, and persons outside the public service on the other, and on that basis the motion would be acceptable on the understanding that it is confined to that latter group of communications.


Mr. Winch:: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that apparently there has been some misunderstanding. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance met with me upon two occasions, and he had one of his treasury

officers meet with me. We reached an agreement as to what was to be filed. I would hope that perhaps what was agreed on will be the information filed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have correctly stated what is the understanding both of the parliamentary secretary and those officers of the Department of Finance who discussed this matter with the hon. member. What would be properly producible would be correspondence between persons in the public service and persons outside of the public service on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member prepared to accept the motion subject to the reservations expressed by the minister?


Harold Edward Winch: On the understanding that I had with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion cannot be put on the basis of an understanding which is not contained in the motion. Shall the motion stand?


Harold Edward Winch: Did you say "stand", Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I asked whether the motion should stand in order to give the hon. member an opportunity to clarify it.


Harold Edward Winch: No, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am concerned it is completely clarified. I am certain I will get the information I require. I accept the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall then put the motion to the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I indicated that on a proper interpretation of what is producible, the motion is acceptable. However, it is not acceptable as to many of the things that are specified in the hon. member's motion. I regret to say that he has not made himself clear on this subject. If he has accepted the statement of interpretation, then the motion is acceptable.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is not fair. The parliamentary secretary saw me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot permit a debate to go on. If the order is not clear it may be withdrawn.


Harold Edward Winch: I will accept it, knowing that I will get what I want.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member who proposes the order is not prepared to accept the limitation expressed by the minister here in the house, that is one thing. If he is prepared to do that, I shall put the motion on that basis.


Harold Edward Winch: I shall accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, subject to the limitation expressed by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 1961-1012 Motion No. 24-Mr. Mcllraiih:
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of order in council P.C. 1961-1012 of July 13, 1961, referred to by the Minister of Agriculture on page 1247 of Hansard on February 26, 1962.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Harkness:: Tabled herewith.


BREAKWATER-CAUSEWAY, PORT HOOD, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 27-Mr. Caron (for Mr. Robichaud):
That an	humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada, or any agency thereof, and the government of Nova Scotia, or any agency thereof, since January 1, 1956, on the subject of the construction of a breakwater-causeway at Port Hood, Inverness county, Nova Scotia.
Mr. Walker:: The motion is accepted subject to the usual reservations as to privileged and confidential documents, and also the consent of the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Hull may present this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Gloucester?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. In view of the impressive indictment made by the Canadian labour congress this morning over the failure of the government to provide proper labour representation on government appointed public bodies, will the minister say what steps are being taken to provide for heavy industry union representation on the productivity council which is now in session in Kingston?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member had paid any attention, which I am sure he has not, to the make-up of the productivity council I feel sure he would have noted that representatives of labour constitute a very sizeable part of the membership
26207-1-1134
Inquiries of the Ministry of the council. I also feel sure that as he spent considerable time in the meeting this morning he will have noted the compliments which the president of the Canadian Labour Congress paid to the Department of Trade and Commerce for having a representative of labour on every one of our trade missions going abroad.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who apparently sat all through the deliberations this morning as I did. Is he not aware that the director of the united automobile workers and the director of the steel workers have complained that the heavy industry unions are not properly represented on the productivity council, and does he not recognize that they are a very important segment of the trade union movement in Canada?


George Harris Hees: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the national productivity council has been carrying on very effectively and well and doing a good job for Canada during the past year. If this matter was of such great concern to the hon. member, I am surprised that he did not rise in his place and express his concern a long time ago.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I did.


George Harris Hees: Having worked with the council and having spent a lot of time with its members, I assure him I am convinced that we could not have five better members on that council representing labour than those we do have. They are all excellent men doing an excellent job.


Mr. Speaker:: I note that the hon. member for Essex East has given notice of a question on the order paper. Does it cover the same ground?


Murdo William Martin: No, Mr. Speaker. The question on the order paper has some refinements that I did not think would be understood by the minister.


TAPE RECORDING OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not customary and may be out of order to address a question to you on orders of the day; therefore I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has noted or knows of the report written by Norman Campbell of the parliamentary press gallery to the effect that, unknown to the great majority of the members of the House of Commons, the proceedings of the house are being tape recorded. I should like to ask-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question which relates to administration, and it is not customary to ask such questions in the house. It has been the usual and invariable practice not to involve the Chair in matters which are controversial. If the hon. member would like information about the matter which is raised in the press report, all he has to do is come to the Speaker's office and he will receive full information on the subject.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, sir. I will put the matter in a different way. May I now raise a question of privilege affecting all members of the House of Commons?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interfere in any way with the hon. member's remarks, but in view of the fact that the question was directed to me I think I should have the opportunity to answer.


Harold Edward Winch: I have not explained the entire situation.


John George Diefenbaker: The question was directed to me, and I would have to answer that I do not have the information he has referred to.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is not one which is properly addressed to any member of the government because it is not a matter of the administrative responsibility of the government. If hon. members are- well, I think perhaps I should not myself introduce any controversial note, and I will leave the matter there.


Harold Edward Winch: Will you allow me to raise a question of privilege that concerns all members of the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: I rise on a matter of privilege, namely that it has now been made public that the reports of proceedings of this House of Commons are not just being conveyed or registered by the Hansard reporters, in that there is now, and has been for some time, an electronic control going down to a basement room beneath the House of Commons whereby everything said in the house is taken down by tape recorder. I would ask you, sir, why this is being done; because there is a very definite question as to the records of the House of Commons, going back in custom and tradition, and now in a room below us there is a tape recording being taken of what is said in this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will also add to his statement-will the hon. member resume his chair? He raises a prima facie question of privilege, providing what he alleges is being done without the
tMr. Winch.]
authority of the house. If he will complete his case by saying that, I shall entertain a motion to deal with the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Then, sir, I shall say this; that just a year, or approximately a year ago, it was decided by yourself-I believe through the medium of Hansard-to have an experiment made on tape recordings. You, sir, reported to the house and we had knowledge. There was no objection. Consent was given and, to the best of my knowledge and of yourself in particular, the experiment failed. At that time, a year ago, you yourself said that would be done, but I have no knowledge that at any time in this session we in the House of Commons were told that a new experiment was to take place and that there were going to be tape recordings made in addition to our Hansard report. Now, sir, I have no knowledge of that being announced in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a matter which he asserts involves the privilege of the house, and perhaps in certain circumstances the privilege of the house would be involved if, without their consent, a report were being made of the proceedings within the house, because obviously that is a matter within the control of the house. I think I will recognize the question as involving the privileges of the house, and if the hon. member wishes to propose a motion, as a result of what he alleges, he is at liberty to do so.


Harold Edward Winch: To go a little bit further and debate this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter is not debatable, now that I have found that it involves privilege, unless there is a motion before the house.


William Moore Benidickson: Let us desist from the use of these machines.


MEETING WITH PREMIERS RESPECTING NATIONAL GRIP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether meetings between the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers on the power grid question have been definitely scheduled for March 19?


John George Diefenbaker: Meetings have been arranged between representatives of the government of Canada and of the provinces. Not all will be in attendance. I think all the provinces except Quebec will be sending representatives. I emphasize that no question of intrusion in

any way into provincial jurisdiction over power within the provinces will be raised. The purpose of the meetings is to bring about, in a spirit of co-operation and consultation, developments that may in months or years ahead make it possible for power to be transmitted from one province to another in order to bring together within this nation the greatest possible power development at the lowest price.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to receive the Prime Minister's answer, but I would like to ask him a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister expect to have a private conference with Premier Bennett of British Columbia before, during, or after the national grid conference to discuss the Columbia treaty issues as between the governments, which conference has been proposed by Premier Bennett?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think two of the premiers are going to be present at this conference, Premier Bennett and Premier Roblin. The only arrangement for any meeting between representatives of the government of Canada and Premier Bennett is for one that is to take place over the week end between the Minister of Finance and the premier of British Columbia.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on the statement of Premier Roblin of Manitoba, who is reported by the Canadian Press of last night to have said he would not encourage the building of private shelters in Manitoba because of the lack of any clear-cut policy on the part of the federal government?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not seen the report in question, and I therefore have no comment to make.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Reply tomorrow.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister any comment to make on the four Cubans who defected at Gander, Newfoundland, last week, who are now seeking entry
Inquiries of the Ministry into the United States, and who saw their first game of hockey in Newfoundland?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not know whether the game had anything to do with it, but the individuals in question received their United States visas and were supposed to leave from Montreal last evening. So far as I know they took their departure, but I have not had a final report.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: must apologize for being so troublesome, but there are a number of serious matters that concern my constituency. In view of the wish expressed by the representatives of the municipalities, the chambers of commerce, labour organizations and industry in the Kootenays that members of the permanent forces be stationed there for psychological reasons and for the protection of property, if the attorney general of British Columbia applies for these forces according to the method mentioned by the minister yesterday in this house, would the federal government supply them to perform this service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a hypothetical question, not one based on an actual application. It is not customary to ask hypothetical questions of the ministry.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the minister received any correspondence from the attorney general along these lines?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the only word I have had from the attorney general was a telegram to which I referred yesterday and the answer that I gave yesterday to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. McFarlane) which is also the answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question addressed to the Acting Minister of Agriculture, and it is in three parts.
First, did the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture, item 611, contain any stipulation or reservation other
1788	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry than the limits of cultivated acreage and maximum payment? Second, did the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act provide adequate safeguards for the collection of arrears? Third, on whose authority has an agency of the government undertaken to deduct from acreage payments arrears under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check into these various acts which have been mentioned in order to give a completely accurate answer to the question, and I suggest it should be put on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday, as reported at page 1734 of Hansard, I asked whether the minister had any statement to make about the statement of Father Turgeon, parish priest of Lauzon. The minister answered:
This is the first time I have heard about this matter.
Is the minister in a position to answer today?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to look up the reference that the hon. member brought to the attention of the house at that time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will send you a photostat copy of the reference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister do it tomorrow?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I asked the minister last week if he would advise the house at the first opportunity when he reached a decision with respect to the request of the non-operating railroad employees for the appointment of a conciliation board. Has the minister yet reached a decision with respect to this matter?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Technical and vocational training assistance-
636. To carry out the purposes of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and agreements made thereunder-payments to the provinces-further amount required, $28,400,000.


The Chairman:: Shall this vote carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee, and for the benefit of the hon. member for Essex East, I made my statement last evening. However, last evening the hon. member for Laurier asked if I could compile for him a list of the names of the schools in each province by municipalities. We have done this, and I am prepared to table this list for the information of the committee. However, I would just like to point out that the table I included in yesterday's Hansard as shown on page 1778 shows the position as of February 23, 1962, whereas this compilation goes beyond that, to March 14, 1962. Therefore there are other schools that are not in the table. This does not affect the correctness of that table, but it is a more up to date compilation. I ask permission to table this document.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Is it the intention of the minister to have this list inserted in Hansard?


Michael Starr: The list is about 20 or 25 pages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that it is not a very large expenditure of the public money to have 25 pages printed, when we are spending $25 million, so the public would know where this money is being spent. I think the minister should either read the list or ask to have it printed in Hansard, whichever he prefers. We want the list for the information of all hon. members of the committee and for anyone else who is interested. Merely tabling it does not provide it for that purpose.


Paul Raymond Martineau: We are in committee at the present stage, and the committee has not the power to order this insertion in Hansard. Therefore the only way it could be handled would be for the minister to incorporate it in his speech. If he received the unanimous consent of the committee he can have it inserted as a part of his speech. It could be done in that way, or it could be read by the minister.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a ridiculous request, because then the hon. member would not be able to get this information until Hansard is printed tomorrow,

whereas I am prepared to table it now and if anyone needs any part of this information it is readily available during the discussion, if that was the purpose of asking for such a list.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One sometimes asks, how ridiculous can ministers get.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe that this government, which has more than doubled the expenditures on information and publicity, has let a minister come into this chamber with only one copy of this document. The suggestion that if he gave one copy to Hansard no copies would be available to hon. members is really ridiculous. 1 suggest that the minister make one of the copies he has available to Hansard and have it inserted as part of his speech. We do not want him to read it, but we do want it in Hansard and we would just like to have it as an extension of what he has to say. We would also hope that from the dozens of extra copies that ought to have been prepared in view of the request made last evening by my hon. friend from Laurier, one or two would be made available to hon. members of the committee so that we can discuss it today.


William Moore Benidickson: There are extra copies in his office, surely.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am rather amazed that the minister has not placed this table on Hansard. First of all, last evening in the brief declaration which the minister now regards as a satisfactory statement he did indicate that he would place these figures on Hansard. He was requested to do so by the hon. member for Laurier, who asked, as reported at page 1779 of Hansard:
Would the minister tomorrow, so that we can have these during the course of the discussion, put on Hansard by provinces the places, the cities or communities in which these trade and vocational schools and technical institutions have been constructed-
Then the minister said:
The table that I asked to have placed on Hansard as part of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, does show
by provinces-
And so on. Surely there should be no question about the minister doing this readily so that we may have an opportunity of ascertaining whether the government is properly fulfilling the objectives that it indicated when the program was introduced it was going to see would be effected.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at this point, just to correct any wrong impression that may be left with the committee, that the federal government has no power to designate where these schools will
Supply-Labour
be built. That is entirely within the jurisdiction of each provincial government. We only participate in the expenditure in connection with these schools. I make that point so that the impression the hon. member for Essex East tried so deviously to leave with the committee may be corrected.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know why the minister is being so touchy today. No one suggested that there is any constitutional problem involved in the tabling of figures that will show the extent of moneys that are being paid-


Michael Starr: I am prepared to table them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -by this government to assist the provinces in respect of matters that come under section 92 of the British North America Act. I can only conclude that the minister is touchy today because of the very strong, and I think on the whole justifiable, criticisms levelled at the administration this morning by the Canadian Labour Congress, particularly on the question of inadequate labour representation on public bodies. It is significant, too, that in the brief presented this morning by the labour congress mention was made-


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order. This has nothing to do with the item under discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is now indulging in a new form of procedural interpretation which is unique. The fact is that the program covered by the supplementary estimate is one of those programs which came under the review this morning when the labour congress-


Michael Starr: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, by implication. The government should realize that the program is not as satisfactory as the minister would seem to indicate. I have read the statement made last night by the minister in the closing hours of our sitting, and I regret to think that he feels that this was an adequate statement of what is degarded as one of the major devices now being employed in the long term to provide relief for the very serious unemployment which continues in this country.
It is regrettable that we should be discussing this particular problem at this moment without having before us the latest reported figures on unemployment. This is March 14. We received the last report on February 13, and the usual practice is for the dominion bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour to make available the latest unemployment figures month by month. More than a month, now-just over a month

Supply-Labour
-has elapsed since the last figures were produced. One wonders-and I am not suggesting that this is necessarily so-whether the figures are not available today because of the representations which were made this morning by the largest body of labour in Canada and also, possibly, because we are now discussing a matter that has to do with the rehabilitation of the unemployed.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no question of privilege involved in this.


Michael Starr: The hon. member now speaking has left the impression that the figures prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics on the employment and unemployment situation are being withheld.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a question of privilege.


Michael Starr: Yes, it is. He says they are being withheld purposely because of the representations by the Canadian Labour Congress and because-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Michael Starr: You have too much to say. You had better sit down. I have the floor now. You can push somebody else around, but you are not pushing me around. I know you would like to very much.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. Now I have the floor. I gave the floor to the Minister of Labour, who has brought up a matter of privilege, and I will hear him out on his question of privilege before any other problem is raised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have risen on a point of order respecting the question of privilege.


Michael Starr: I am speaking on a question of privilege, and I am not going to be bulldozed by anyone who does not observe the rules of the house.


An hon. Member:: Cool down.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The minister has not finished speaking on the question of privilege.


William Moore Benidickson: Surely a point of order intervenes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: If there is a point of order which arises I will hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is this-


Michael Starr: A question of privilege has precedence over a point of order, even if the hon. member does not know it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the rules.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think that for the intelligence of the Chair and of the committee it would be well if the minister were to state briefly his question of privilege. Then if there is a point of order I will hear the hon. member on the point of order. But before any point of order can arise the minister must make his statement.


Michael Starr: Because there have been these interruptions I want to repeat what I have said on my question of privilege. My point is that the hon. member for Essex East left the impression with me, and I am sure with the members of this committee, that the dominion bureau of statistics release on unemployment has been withheld because of the presentation of the Canadian Labour Congress representatives and because this supplementary estimate was coming up for discussion. I say that is wrong and false, and the hon. member knows it very well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, and I submit in the most respectful way for the consideration of Your Honour that since I was rising on a point of order as to the propriety of the question of privilege I should have been heard immediately, because the point of order I was raising was that this was not a question of privilege and that the minister had said enough to demonstrate that fact.
As Your Honour is well aware, a question of privilege arises with respect to an individual member or to the house or to the committee, and not with respect to the thin skin of the government. What the hon. gentleman was seeking to do in the guise of a phony question of privilege was to reply to an argument put forward by the hon. member for Essex East before my hon. friend had completed it, an argument condemning the conduct of the government. If it is no longer to be competent for members of the committee on this side of the house to criticize the government without phony questions of privilege being raised and continued even when points of order are raised about them, although hon. members have a right to raise those points of order, we shall soon have no rights left in the opposition in this chamber.


Michael Starr: To deal with the point of order, which is not a point of order, raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, may I say it was just pure nonsense and hot air as usual.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I believe the matter arose out of the desire of the minister to make a personal explanation, which is often treated

as a matter of privilege, arising from a remark made by the hon. member for Essex East. The hon. gentleman has made his explanation and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has raised a point of order on the propriety of the question raised. I think now we should hear the hon. member for Essex East.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I feel I must respectfully insist upon a proper judgement as to whether or not this kind of tactic-


An hon. Member:: Boloney.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -of raising so-called questions of privilege and interfering with the right of the opposition to present its case is to be tolerated in this committee. This is just a new form of closure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have ruled on the matter. Points of privilege and points of order can only be dealt with as they arise. Right now they have been settled, and if the hon. member for Essex East has not finished his remarks I will call on him to continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am surprised that Your Honour should suggest that perhaps I had finished. It must have been apparent that I was just beginning. Now that I have the opportunity to take part in the discussion I will afford the Minister of Labour an occasion to develope that serenity which lends itself to a more objective form of debate. We all understand that the minister, at the present time, is touchy. He has obviously been irritated by what happened this morning. I hope he will calm himself and listen to a discussion of this matter-


An hon. Member:: Get on with it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask you-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I do not know what the hon. member wants to ask me, but I want to ask members of the committee to restrain their remarks and interjections so that whatever is being said can be heard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, having in mind some of the experiences we have had in the past two or three weeks during debates in this house, to take note of what is happening now.
It is evident that hon. gentlemen opposite do not like to have members of the official opposition examine their policies or criticize those policies and every time we undertake to make a statement of criticism there apparently is an organized claque sitting behind the ministry who make it impossible. I am 26207-1-114
Supply-Labour
simply suggesting with great respect to the Chair that it is the function of the Chair to see that this claque behind the ministry does not succeed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I think at this stage I should say a word. As the hon. member for Essex East knows very well and as I hope other hon. members know I have been attempting to restore order. I will ask all hon. members to co-operate so that we may proceed with the debate in an orderly fashion. That is all I have to say for now. If there are further interruptions I trust we shall be able to deal with them as they arise.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The matter we are now discussing, Mr. Chairman, is one of the greatest importance to this country because notwithstanding the extenuating circumstances and the explanations given by this government the fact is that we still face in Canada a very serious problem of unemployment more serious that that existing in any other country in the western world. That cannot be contradicted by the Minister of Labour.
The particular item now under discussion is one related to a mitigation of that problem. It deals with a program that should have been embarked upon a long time ago, certainly not later than-


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: 1955.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the beginning of 1958 by this government.


Grant Campbell: 1955.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course there was work being done along those lines then, but the problem has become serious particularly since the autumn of 1957.


Grant Campbell: 1955.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the fall of
that year we have had more unemployment in Canada-


Mr. Flynn:: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The minister is rising on a point of order.
(Translation):


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
As usual, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is not confining himself to the item under consideration. We are called upon to vote an additional amount under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, and I ask you to consider the relevancy of the hon. member's remarks with regard to the supplementary estimate now before the house.

Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer you more particularly to page 738 of May's sixteenth edition which reads partly as follows:
(Text):
-but if the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote-
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, as usual the hon. member for Essex East is trying to go beyond the scope of this debate.
(Text):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Does the hon. member for Essex East wish to speak to the point of order?
(Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I feel the point of order raised by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is not well taken. I am surprised that the minister should rise on a point of order; indeed, as he presided over our discussions for nearly three years, I would have expected him to come up with something more worth while.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Chairman, if I may help the hon. member understand my point of order, I should like to point out to him that he was starting off on a general discussion of the employment and unemployment situation, which is not relevant to the item under consideration.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the point of order which has twice been spoken to by a minister of the crown opposite. I would say this. I am astonished that even so inexperienced a minister as the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys should regard $28 million as an insignificant addition to a vote. We on this side of the house do not regard the spending of $28 million of the taxpayers' money as insignificant.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is not a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the foundation, sir.


Paul Raymond Martineau: At this stage I feel I should rule on the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, am I to be denied my argument on the point of order when the minister has spoken twice?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I must remind the hon. member that I was on my feet. As far as the point of order is concerned I wish to point out that I feel the hon. member for Essex East in speaking to this item, which as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has pointed out is an important one was laying a foundation for his argument and so far I have not found that he has strayed too far from the subject matter, which is rather broad. I now ask the hon. member for Essex East to continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would be less than appreciative if I did not recognize the precise way that Your Honour has recognized how invalid was the interpretation of Your Honour's predecessor, the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let the record show it. There is the claque again. They do not like it.


Mr. Pugh:: Speak to the item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some of those who are resisting what I am now saying represent communities where thousands of people are out of work. If hon. gentlemen opposite persist I shall take each one of them by constituency and name them as being among those who, instead of making it difficult for us to speak about solutions for unemployment, should join with us in our objective discussion attempting to ascertain what should be done to correct a problem that is more serious in Canada than in any other industrial country in the western world.


Mr. Ricard:: What did you do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is all very well for the government-


Mr. Palleii:: If the hon. member is to name members he might start with the hon. member for Leeds who is constantly interjecting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member who now interrupts me, the whip of the Conservative party, is the last member in the house who should, because his constituency is one in which thousands of people are out of work as a result of the policies of this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Arrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Arrow, the Arrow; oh, precious memory. Fifteen thousand men overnight were let go as a result of the failure of this government to properly assess economic conditions relative to employment as they affected the situation at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thrown out of work by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Hellyer:: Nothing is left of the Arrow but ashes and a bitter memory.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I observe that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is rising.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I simply wished to ask the hon. member if he would permit a question. The hon. gentleman suggested he would take each constituency and deal with the unemployment problem there. I for one would be most grateful if the hon. member would give some concrete examples of how we might alleviate unemployment in the constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will give the hon. member a good answer immediately: change this government. I have other answers but I will not give them until I have concluded what I am now saying.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: My constituents will recognize the extent of the assistance the hon. member offers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The proposal that $28,400,000 additional moneys be voted by this house in respect of the government's technical and vocational training assistance program is one that is of course welcomed by everyone in this house. But the point is that when we are discussing this we ought to ascertain the extent to which the present program is meeting the problem. We ought to ascertain the extent to which the provincial governments which, as the minister probably said, have a constitutional responsibility in this matter are bearing their share and cooperating in a program which in the long term, and only in the long term, will have the effect of mitigating the serious unemployment problem.
In a speech he made on February 22, 1961 the minister recognized that the government embarked on this program somewhat tardily. The minister did not say so, but he might well have said that when it became apparent in the autumn of 1957 that unemployment was reaching abnormal and alarming proportions he would have done well to heed the warning of the leader of the opposition and several other hon. members in the Liberal party to the effect that some positive steps ought to be taken to accelerate this vocational training program. I myself placed on Hansard the statement made by the chairman of the vocational training council which advises the minister on this very program. In his report the chairman had pointed out that, according to the advice given by the unemployment insurance commission, there was every indication that 1958 and following 26207-1-1144
Supply-Labour
years for an indefinite period were going to be difficult ones from the point of view of unemployment. He also pointed out that, such being the case, the government should make available funds with which to accelerate the program. We mentioned this matter on the floor of the House of Commons. At that time we were told by the Minister of Labour that the situation was not as serious as we had pictured it, that the government was doing everything it could in the matter of vocational training and that all was well. Indeed, the Minister of Finance, in his budget some few months later, denied that the problem even existed in proportions that required more than normal treatment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was going with the snow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, they said it was going with the snow; and as the Prime Minister said, "No one will suffer as long as I am Prime Minister or as long as a Conservative government is in office". That was the tenor or the sense of this government's appreciation of the problem at that time. Yet, as I say, we find the Minister of Labour speaking in Ottawa on February 22 and saying that the program had been expanded impressively in Britain, in Germany and in France. The minister even said that Russia is making great strides in many fields but that Canada is lagging behind. Those are the words of the Minister of Labour on February 22, 1961. When we are examining how slowly this program is moving I think it is only right that we should point out that it would have moved much faster if it had been embarked on in this accelerated fashion much earlier than the government finally took action after the prodding-and that is a matter of record-of hon. members sitting here in the Liberal party. All that hon. gentlemen opposite have to do is to look at Hansard and they will see the kind of criticisms they make about our suggestion that one way of mitigating unemployment was by providing further training for the unemployed.
This afternoon the minister said that I was wrong in suggesting that the Canadian Labour Congress this morning had criticized the government. I have not had a chance to read the brief again but I am sure that my impression of the representations that were made this morning is accurate. But let there be no doubt about what labour thinks about the tardiness of this government in trying finally to do something about this problem along the lines that were recommended. I have before me a statement of Mr. Archer, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour who, commenting on this problem, said this:
The training program for 1,400 unemployed, announced on Tuesday by Education Minister John Robarts, is too little and too late-
1794	HOUSE OF
Supply-Labour
He said:
"I don't know why they didn't start this years ago when there was a chance of it having some effect,"-
As we know, this problem is related to actions taken by provincial governments because the federal government under this scheme-and for this we complimented the government at the time-is providing 75 per cent of the capital cost of technical and vocational training facilities up to March 31, 1963, and 50 per cent thereafter. I will say to the Minister of Labour that now is the time to recognize that this limitation is not satisfactory. We are just beginning to deal with this problem of providing vocational training to the unemployed and the unskilled. This date of March 31, 1963 should be advanced. We should now let the provinces know that we are prepared to pay at least 75 per cent of the capital cost of technical and vocational training for a longer period.
We are now being confronted with evidence of the tremendous effect of automation-much more in the last year than perhaps we have had in the last decade-when all over this country, as in the United States, there is evidence that the discoveries in the electronics industry in particular have brought about a massive movement toward automation the like of which we did not even anticipate a year ago. This is going to put more and more people out of work. The hon. gentleman-I refer to the Minister of Labour-who now indulges in what is perhaps an important conversation with the whip but which I am sure is not as important as that in which I am now engaging, should embark upon a program that will advance this limited date of March 31, 1963. We must really try to meet this problem of training in a manner away beyond anything that is now in existence and even away beyond the level designated by the hon. member for Trinity, who in a notable speech in this house five years ago stated-


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but 1 wonder whether he would answer a question at this time, as I feel it is relevant to the point he is now making. The question I should like to ask is this. Would the incentive to the provinces be lost if they now knew that the date of March 31, 1963, was now going to be extended three or four years. I suggest that it is the incentive to take advantage of the offer that is making the buildings go up at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Westmorland has put a serious question and he deserves a serious answer.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I put a question and did not
get a serious answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gave the hon. member a serious answer but I am going to give the hon. member for Westmorland a more serious answer because he deserves one. I am sure that the argument in answer to that question may not satisfy the hon. gentleman and there may be something in what the hon. gentleman says. However, if one bears in mind what has been said by the ministers of education, what Premier Robarts said last week, and what was said by the Minister of Labour in the month of September anticipating the character of the problem that was unfolding, I think the real view is that there is no need of our acting like children in this matter with regard to the senior levels of government but that we must co-operatively recognize the problem that is before us. If we lose something by anticipation, I am sure we shall gain by providing an opportunity for both governments to plan for what is undoubtedly one of the serious problems in our modern industrial society.
I have said that in the last few months alone we have seen evidence of the growing seriousness of the problem of automation. First of all, may I say this about automation. The government has in the Department of Labour some studies that are under way through the economic research division of the department. But are we satisfied in this House of Commons with the evidence of these researches? We have been asking repeatedly when certain studies are going to be completed. Last year I asked I think four or five times when the studies on automation in the automobile industry were going to be completed. I understand that they are now completed. However, while the automobile industry is one of the vital ones in this context, it is only one of a number. This government is not giving any evidence of its appreciation of the character of this particular problem. I know there are some in this country who say that we are exaggerating unemployment. I hear that said all the time. When I talk with hon. gentlemen opposite privately they always say, "You overstate the problem". Perhaps they are sincere in that statement.


Mr. McGee:: Right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I notice that some newspapers say the same thing about those of us in the Liberal opposition who harp on this matter. The hon. member for York-Scar-borough says "right". He is another one who should not say that when there are thousands of unemployed in the constituency he represents. I say this is a vital problem. I spent last week end, as I spend many week

ends, in my constituency having delegations of groups and individuals come to me looking for work.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "oh". Let him come there and I will show him what it means to have hundreds of men and women who have no work come to me all day Saturday and all day Sunday. Some have been out of work for over three years. This story is one that can be repeated all over the country.
It is all very well for some to say that we are exaggerating this problem. It is all very well for them to say that we are playing politics with this problem. I deny that. Let them go to Brockville where 1,100 people are out of work. This problem is serious and it is going to have to be dealt with by our government, by the government of any free society if we are going to maintain the character of our free society.
This is no laughing matter. I speak this way today because, notwithstanding the good intentions of the Minister of Labour, I feel that the government has not yet realized the seriousness of the problem and has not yet realized that the problem instead of diminishing is growing. To be able to say that now there are only 545,000 unemployed compared with about 600,000 a year ago is no answer to the problem. That does not meet the situation. These 545,000 people constitute over 8 per cent of the work force of the country. That is a mighty serious problem, and I ask the government to give us any indication that they have plans that are going to provide for improvement in this situation.
They may be able to show that in the month of May there will be fewer unemployed than in the previous month, possibly less than in the comparable month of the previous year, but that will not satisfy or convince those that are concerned about the problem that any real step is being taken to deal with it. I will admit, as I have long ago in the house, that this particular method of providing assistance will have its beneficial results in the future ten years from now, but it certainly is not helping us at the present time. That is one thing that we must bear in mind. Having in mind that limitation, I suggest to the minister that there are some considerations with regard to the program that he should take into account to make it more effective in becoming a successful and vital instrument to deal with the problem of unemployment at a particular period.
First of all, we should be able to have from the department figures as to the number of students receiving vocational training in Canada. The minister said that he has placed
Supply-Labour
a table before us which will reveal the expenditures by provinces, but I have seen a statement by an official of the Department of Labour, which appeared in the Financial Post only two weeks ago, in which he said with regard to information as to numbers of students:
-we just can't. We are working on it but it isn't like Britain where there is some central authority which controls the whole picture.
In other words, even at this late date we cannot get from the government statistics as to the numbers receiving this kind of training which would enable us to make a more effective assessment of the validity of the program. For instance, we find that Prince Edward Island was dissatisfied with the $48,000 that Ottawa was prepared to pay toward establishing and running vocational schools in that province. Why was it dissatisfied? The government of that province wanted $100,000. The minister in charge of the department there said that $100,000 was the minimum that would be required to do the kind of job which is needed in the present circumstances in Prince Edward Island. The Minister of Labour ought to be able to tell us from an assessment of the figures why the situation is of such a character in the province of Prince Edward Island.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has now expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will continue later.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Canadian people heartily welcomed the announced intention some time ago to render effective assistance in the field of vocational or technical education. According to the table that was placed on the record last night, I understand that the federal government's contribution either already paid or contemplated with regard to projects approved to date will cost the national treasury some $179 million. I believe that the extent of the aid is an indication that the country is demanding action in this regard. As our products face ever increasing competition in the markets of the world and as other nations are becoming industrialized and automation is entering our production lines with greater and greater intensity, the problem of giving the scientific and technical know-how to our people in adequate numbers must be met if we expect to continue to grow as an industrial nation and compete in the markets of the world.
Having welcomed the extent of the effort of the government in this field, at the same time I want to condemn the government for its irresponsibility in spending $179 million

Supply-Labour
without ensuring that the taxpayer is going to receive real value for the tax dollars that I am sure he is most willing to make available for the professed intent of the measure. I should like to ask the government this question. What consultation has it had with organized labour and organized industry in Canada in order to determine the particular types of technical education that are required by the country today and, more particularly, that are likely to be required in our economy tomorrow? It is my belief that the government has done practically nothing. It has spent almost $180 million on plans with regard to something about which it has practically no knowledge.
I know the answer will likely be that education is a constitutional responsibility of the provincial governments. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the federal government is paying 75 per cent of the cost and that in many instances the type of training that is being given is completely obsolete. We do not want to spend $180 million of the taxpayers' money to help people to learn hobbies and in effect to be fooling around and wasting their time as well as the taxpayers' money. Of what use is it, for instance, to train people in the art of woodworking if the industry involved is a disappearing industry on the national scene?
If the minister would only look at some of the courses that the majority of these students are taking he would at least get a glimpse of what I am attempting to convey to him. The government says it has nothing to do with the type of courses that are being conducted. Should that be the case then I feel it also is wrong in asking for this amount of money. We are quite prepared to vote the money, but we insist it is high time this attitude of playing Santa Claus, so that people may get a new school, should come to an end. It is ridiculous.
To have a school you must have a curriculum that is designed by experienced people who know what they are doing. It should be a curriculum designed to meet the needs of the community. This is not being done. I know it may well be the responsibility of a provincial government but the provincial government only has to pay 25 per cent and, that being the case, who is not going to buy a dollar's worth of building for 25 cents?
Technical schools are now being built in places in Canada where there is no real need for them, yet in other communities where the need exists they are not being built. In addition there are many students in these technical schools who are taking courses that have very little relationship to any possible means of earning a livelihood for themselves.
[Mr. Hegier.l
The educators of Canada have not been taken into the confidence of this government. There are many who are pretending to teach in these schools and who have no knowledge of the technique of being a teacher. They have practically no training whatsoever. The government should undertake a massive, crash program of training, and I know that the situation warrants a crash program. In the first place this government owes a responsibility to the taxpayers to engage in a massive teacher training program and to evolve a curriculum that will satisfy the needs of Canadian communities.
I also hope the minister can explain why it is that the province of Ontario is able to absorb two thirds of the money being contributed by all of Canada. How is it that the province of Ontario, upon very short notice, was able to have plans ready for 166 projects to cost a total of $188 million while the province of Quebec had only five projects prepared to cost $10.9 million, and the province of British Columbia also only had five projects prepared, to cost $12 million? Did this plan originate in the political mind of the premier of the province of Ontario and was it then conveyed to the federal authorities, so that by the time the federal authorities made the public announcement that province, which has 85 representatives in this house, mostly government supporters, was able to go full steam ahead? Or is it possible that the province of Ontario was unprepared and that a lot of these projects are being undertaken without any planning? How can a community refuse a $3 million new school towards the cost of which it is not being asked to contribute a penny? It naturally is not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
In the way this program is being administered the government is not making its proper contribution towards resolving the problem of retraining our people for the new scientific day and age that is rapidly emerging on our scene. The government is being most irresponsible and reckless in its expenditure of the taxpayers' money. I certainly hope the minister can give the country an assurance that his government, which is paying 75 per cent of the cost, is also assuming some responsibility to ensure that the nation's interest is being served in this expenditure.
I have no particular quarrel with the new vocational school in Burnaby. I believe that eventually we shall resolve our problems there and I welcome this institution to Burnaby. We have some experience of technical education and I do not think the situation there is too bad in so far as courses are concerned. However, I do know that many of the courses, including some of those taught

in Burnaby, are a ridiculous and fantastic waste of the taxpayers' money. For instance, one of the courses teaches students how to become exterior painters of buildings. Good heavens, we have thousands of painters unemployed all across the country. What is the use in spending the taxpayers' money in teaching more young men to become painters?
I would challenge all hon. members to obtain for themselves a list of the courses and a description of the courses being offered in the vast majority of these new institutions. I believe they will then realize these courses bear very little resemblance to the technological age we are now entering.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has made one of the most irre-ponsible speeches I have heard in the house since arriving here in 1957. The hon. member used the words "irresponsible and reckless" to describe this program. He said it was "ridiculous" and "a fantastic waste of the taxpayers' money". He slandered all the school boards and provincial departments of education across the land, up, down and sideways. The hon. member's colleagues in the next election are going to eat those words.


Erhart Regier: On a question of privilege, our school boards in British Columbia have nothing whatsoever to do with this program.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member has made the statement that the school boards in his constituency have nothing to do with the erection of schools under this program. I let that statement stand. The hon. members from his own province, who are familiar with the situation, will deal with that particular statement. If it is as relevant as any of the rest of the things he had to say then I do not place much stock in it.
The fact of the matter is that this particular program is one of the most effective efforts put forward by this government in the short term, medium term, and long term answer to the problem of unemployment, which is acknowledged as serious in this country today. I am pleased-perhaps pleased is not a sufficiently strong word-I am delighted that in my constituency total federal grants will approximate $4,741,000 under this grant, and the latest project concerned was made public yesterday being in connection with an extension to an existing high school in the town of Leaside.
The problem which this country is facing so far as unemployment is concerned and so far as the economy is concerned is directly related to this question of technical and vocational training. I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is aware of the report
Supply-Labour
of the committee on manpower and unemployment and the statistics that were presented to that committee concerning the percentage of the persons unemployed in our economy who are untrained and unskilled workers. I am sure he is aware that the people anticipating the development of this country in the next few years have emphasized and re-emphasized the vital necessity of retraining unemployed workers to make sure that we do not fall into the same error in the future. This program which the hon. member has suggested is designed to produce people skilled in hobbies, people fooling around, which as I said before he described as "fantastic waste of the taxpayers' money" and that statement is patent nonsense. When I confront the candidate from his particular political party, whatever that may be by the time the next election rolls around, one of the first questions I shall ask him is whether he supports this statement. I am sure that in the constituency and municipality of Scarborough, where the board of education have brought forward plans and have recognized and appreciated the importance of this plan to the extent of requesting grants close to $5 million under the program, his running mate will not appreciate the view expressed by the hon. member in the committee today.
It is all very well and easy for anybody to say that this program has not come along quickly enough. Let us just consider, before I move into that area of discussion, what the effect of this building program will be and how many jobs will be created both on-site and off-site in the construction industry in the skilled and unskilled areas. This is something that surely cannot be overlooked.
It is all very well for those persons commenting about this program to say that this is too little and too late, which is the favourite expression of the hon. member for Essex East when he is talking out of one side of his mouth; and when he talks out of the other side of his mouth a little later on he complains, deplores, moans and groans about the extent of the deficit-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, will the honourable, learned and mature gentleman explain what he means when he says that I speak first out of one side of my mouth and then the other. If the hon. gentleman has in mind what I think he has, then I will be very happy to deal with him when I reply in a few moments.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. gentleman has an opportunity to speak this afternoon and I am sure he will have an opportunity to reply in the future. When he does, I hope he will address himself to the question. He and his

Supply-Labour
colleagues on the front benches over there have been complaining about too little and too late, and the size of the deficit. Which is it going to be? It has to be one way or the other.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a fair comment; not an exact one, but it is a fair comment and I understand now what the hon. gentleman was thinking about.


An hon. Member:: What is the point of privilege?


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, to go back-


John Whitney Pickersgill: He referred to the hon. gentleman personally.


Frank Charles McGee: To come back to the matter we were discussing-


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are all very touchy on this question.


Frank Charles McGee: I gather from the remarks of the hon. member from Essex East that he concedes that he has been talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. I would like to discuss this question of vocational and technical training schools. In Scarborough some years ago the authorities embarked upon a program of what I think was the largest institution of its kind. I have reference here to the Cedarbrae high school. At the time, and I believe this was three years ago, there were remarks within the community and within the school board itself about whether this type of project should have been brought forward at that time. To the great credit of the school board they persisted, and finally this school was built. I offer this as an answer to those who say this is too little and too late. The public attitude in that particular area at that time was such that an appreciation of the extent, nature and character of the unemployment problem was not what it is today, and for that reason they were reluctant to proceed with the election of this Cedarbrae vocational and regular high school.
It is fine for the hon. member to suggest that we should embark upon crash programs for retraining and giving the presently unemployed persons skills and further education. Yet in the township of Scarborough, in connection with which my hon. friend from Essex East, with the calm confidence of a great and inspiring source of statistical information known as the Martin bureau of statistics, announced to the house and the country that there were thousands of unemployed-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Frank Charles McGee: Yet the board of education in Scarborough, recognizing the low educational qualifications of the majority of the

unemployed persons within that municipality, set up a school. Special arrangements for space and teachers were made. I am subject to correction on this because I am speaking purely from memory, but I believe approximately 90 persons indicated a willingness to undertake this training. The program was brought forward, the space provided by the board of education and classes were announced. The classes were begun and- I am again subject to correction on this- out of the 90 persons who had expressed a specific willingness to participate in this program, the first class was greeted by 10 participants. I offer this simply to illustrate that it is not as simple as many of us would like to think it is to embark upon these programs to retrain and increase the educational standards and technical competence of our unemployed workers.
On the other hand to suggest, as the hon. member for Essex East and his cohorts on the front benches over there have suggested, that this is all too little and too late, and to go further into the realm of irresponsibility and call this an irresponsible and reckless waste of the taxpayers' money is, I suggest, a preposterous exaggeration which will be treated for what it is worth by the electorate of this country when the time comes. It is, in effect, an insult to the intelligence of the voters in this land.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member, before he resumes his seat, would care to explain how the curriculum in Toronto in this field of operation is related to the industrial needs of our nation.


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. member repeat that question?


Erhart Regier: How is the curriculum that is being taught in the hon. member's riding related to this question; in what manner is it related to the industrial needs of our nation?


Frank Charles McGee: I am not certain what the hon. member is leading up to. If he suggests, as I thought he was suggesting in his speech, that the federal government should proceed to impose a curriculum on a particular province, a particular area or a particular constituency, I am afraid he will not find much support for that proposition in my constituency.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are groping.


Erhart Regier: Is the program related, in the schools of Toronto, to the industrial needs of our nation?


Frank Charles McGee: Of course, this is fundamental to the whole program, as I said. Perhaps I

made too broad an assumption when I suggested that the hon. member had been reading the reports of the various committees and groups that have been inquiring into this broad question of employment.
This is fundamental to the program. I think something over 80 per cent of the unemployed persons in this country lack skills and educational qualifications. This is an attempt, a vigorous, aggressive and effective attempt to correct that situation in our economy by providing this series of grants, which have been accepted and enthusiastically endorsed by most of the areas concerned in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee was very impressed with the last statement of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. He stated as well as anyone has in a long time the purpose behind this particular act. I wish it had been possible for the hon. gentleman to join with those of us in this party who urged this course on the government early in 1958.
If the hon. gentleman will look back in the records of debates in this house during that period he will find that the reaction of hon. gentlemen sitting behind the treasury benches was not so ably stated by the hon. gentleman just a few moments ago.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, may I interject here? Could I make a comment here, with the hon. gentleman's permission?


Murdo William Martin: Does the hon. member mind making his comment at the end of my remarks, otherwise I shall find that my time is up. I was interrupted by the minister, and perhaps-


Frank Charles McGee: I extended this courtesy to the hon. gentleman. Surely he could respond?


Murdo William Martin: Is it a question?


Frank Charles McGee: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: Well, put the question. I am doing this because of the persuasive argument of the hon. member for York-Scarborough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The authority on the rules.


Frank Charles McGee: I have a private member's bill which is coming up tomorrow, I hope at five o'clock, and the suggestion made to me that I should go back through Hansard for the last five years to read the hon. member's speeches is equal to the most vicious form of corporal punishment-


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member is being facetious now. I was paying him the compliment of being a serious-minded gentleman but he has gone back to the kindergarten.
Supply-Labour
This is a problem which, as I am sure the committee will realize, is a serious one. We say that in Canada we enjoy, along with the United States, the highest standard of living in the world. If we are to maintain that standard of living we will have to increase the level of enlightenment among our people, and this means through accelerated programs at all levels. All our citizens cannot go to university, although we should aim to expand our university population to a much greater extent than is now apparently possible having regard to the professorial skills available. But it becomes increasingly clear that in this technological age if we are to meet the problem of unemployment we must provide our artisans and manual workers with greatly increased opportunities for development. This will require an expanded program far beyond anything which the government yet contemplates. The Minister of Labour must recognize this. When we take into account, for instance, the number of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 in the last decade and note that there has been ah increase in that group of 250,000, we can see how gigantic is this problem at the present time. But if we accept the anticipations of our statisticians, we face the probability that in the next five years there will be an increase of 500,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 19. This, in a country whose population has grown by some 4,000,000 since the end of the war, on top of the problem of unemployment percentagewise which now exists and which, it is calculated, will continue to exist unless our economy becomes much more buoyant, presents us with a challenging task.
What I am seeking to do is to impress on the government a realisation that good as this program is, it is not sufficient. I am not confident that the government is taking steps consistent with the need, as we feel it exists and will arise. We have had no statement from the minister as to what the government's objectives are. We are told, as I indicated a few minutes ago, that on March 31, 1963, the federal contribution of 75 per cent toward the capital cost of technical and vocational training will drop to 50 per cent, at a time when the program will have assumed much wider proportions than now. If the government had a broad objective, it would seem to me it would not impose that shut-off date. In any event, when we are discussing this item we should have from the minister a statement of what the objectives are.
I believe that at the present time there are some 29 schools with 10,000 students in Canada providing technical training, toward which the federal government is making a contribution. What are the plans for 1963?

Supply-Labour
The government has fixed that year as the shut-off date. It must have something in mind. Does it intend that by 1963 the number of schools will have doubled? I have seen two figures suggested. I have seen it suggested that the number of schools will have increased to 40 by 1963. I have seen elsewhere the suggestion made that the increase would amount to about half that number. What plan has the government in mind? Has it discussed this matter with the provincial governments or is this simply a case of the federal government giving out grants without rhyme or reason?
While I do not agree with everything the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said, there is a lot of merit in some of the things he had to say.


Mr. Spencer:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says "Oh". He obviously has not been considering the subject matter carefully or he would not have made that observation. He is usually more perspicacious than that.


Norman Leonard Spencer: What part of the speech did you agree with?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ask a specific question and I shall be glad to give a specific answer. I said that some parts of the speech had merit. I do not agree with the main thesis.
But it is plain from the statement made by the minister that at the moment the government does not have any complete or basic plan. Has it had real consultations and discussions with the provinces? This is not a question of the federal government entering into fields denied it under the constitution. It is simply a question of the government taking steps to expend properly money voted by parliament. If the province of Ontario has a plan in mind, that plan must have been communicated to the Minister of Labour. How many more technicians schools does the province of Ontario intend to establish? Does the minister know this? Does the federal government know this? Are we simply faced again with another example of a lack of preparation of the government's program? This may not be the case, but I ask members of the committee to look at the statement made by the Minister of Labour last night and arrive at any other conclusion.
The minister had nothing to say about another aspect of this matter. There should be in this measure not only an imposed monopoly of duty on the two senior levels of government, particularly on the provinces. There is a responsibility on the part of industry. What has been done to promote a measure of co-operation between industry

and the departments concerned in the two levels of government, engaged in providing for the training of all the groups concerned in this plan? Some statement should be forthcoming from the government with regard to this. What encouragement is the government giving to industry to associate itself with provincial departments of education, provincial departments of labour and the vocational training division of the federal department of labour? We do know of cases where large industries carry on, and have carried on, programs of training which have been valuable. My two colleagues who come from Essex county will support me in the statement that in the Ford Motor Company plant there has been a training school which has provided many hundreds of young men with valuable technical training for use in that industry in particular. Is this kind of thing continuing? Is any effort being made under this program to provide for the establishment of similar training facilities in other large industrial establishments as well as in schools which come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government? These and many other questions should be discussed by the Minister of Labour in asking us to approve this item, which of course we shall do-


Michael Starr: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but we would do it with greater appreciation if we had from the minister a penetrating analysis of the problem, some indication that the government recognizes the seriousness of the situation.
I should like to have had from the minister particularly a statement about the situation in the automobile industry. When one thinks of what the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission said three years ago, that only one in ten of the unemployed of our country had a skill that qualified him for an existing job, one appreciates, of course, more readily than would otherwise be the case the seriousness of this problem.
How many automobile workers thrown out of work have the skills to enable them to take other jobs? How many of the coal workers in the maritime provinces-and there is a most serious situation-have been provided with the skills that would enable them to take jobs for which their present skills do not enable them to qualify? Are we not to address ourselves to this problem? Are we going to correct it? Surely the government cannot hope to convince the Canadian people that it has embarked on a vigorous program when we have from the minister no information whatever about these aspects.
I should like to know what the Minister of Labour has to say about a report showing the

technological changes that have taken place in the automobile industry among auto workers engaged in direct production. This report was issued by the Department of Labour some time in the month of November, 1960. That study, carried out under the skilled manpower training research program, indicated that the number of employees engaged in direct production fell by 6 per cent between 1948 and 1958 although production increased by more than 36 per cent and total employment in the industry advanced by 7 per cent. Having in mind the number of men who were disengaged and thrown out of work, in the light of this very declaration of a body that worked under the minister, we are certainly entitled to ask what has been done to meet the problem. We are entitled to more information than that contained in the general terms used by the minister.
We are told in that report that employment of unskilled material handlers declined sharply and that there can be no doubt that these types of jobs are most susceptible to mechanization. That kind of declaration is to be found throughout the report. What is being done about it?
I wish to emphasize one other aspect of this problem. We find there are many workers who have offered to take advantage of the courses open to them through the provincial governments, as a result of the financial assistance now being provided under this act by the federal government. But a significant number of individuals, it has been found, have not the necessary elementary training to enable them to take courses that would give them the skills to carry on in certain lines of work. I suggest to the minister it is possible without violating the constitutional provisions of the British North America Act for the federal government to take cognizance of this fact. Have any provinces asked for financial assistance to enable them to provide the elementary training of reading and writing, let alone other subjects, to enable individuals to become qualified not for particular jobs but for courses of study that would enable them to acquire the necessary skills to accept employment. That is a situation that confronts a large percentage of our unemployed, particularly among new immigrants.
We had an example of that the other day in Toronto where the provincial government, because of the existence of the apprentice act, denied a course of training to two hundred Italians. The minister will remember there were some questions asked about this the other day. While we realize that this comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, having in mind the contributions being made by the federal government it would be interesting to know what steps the Minister of Labour has
Supply-Labour
taken to discuss this matter with the provincial authorities, not with a view to intervening in a jurisdiction that belongs to the provinces but with a view to ascertaining whether the position of the federal government could be placed before the provinces and with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution.
Within the last two weeks among the individuals who came to me asking for work were two who could have been given particular jobs, but they could not read or write.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the hon. gentleman laughing at that?


Michael Starr: No.


Jacques Flynn: Certainly not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. gentleman deny that this situation exists? It would be interesting to know whether a member of the government of Canada is even aware of the problem.


Jacques Flynn: We are laughing at the hon. member's method of arguing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry if I do not have the hon. gentleman's talent.


Jacques Flynn: You have excessive talent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure the hon. gentleman that while I may lack in talent I do not lack in a desire to see something done about this problem.
The reason why the confidence of Canadians in this government is continually declining is that ministers of the government show an increasing indifference toward this problem. I do not say that the hon. gentleman himself is indifferent to them. After all he did not go to that luncheon the other day where they were trying to establish a factory which undoubtedly would have given employment to a number of people if it had been a bona fide transaction. However, the hon. gentleman has got me off the track.


Jacques Flynn: That is all too easily done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman was nearly off the track because he almost accepted the invitation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My colleague says they almost got the hon. gentleman off the track because he almost accepted the invitation but I will not pursue that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I urge the hon. member to get back on the track, and the track in this instance is the item now before us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just discussing by way of happy digression circumstances which if bona fide would have

Supply-Labour
provided considerable work to many people, and I would have hoped it would have been possible for these people to have the necessary skills to take on the jobs.
I simply say this to the Minister of Labour. I know he wishes this act to have the effect intended. No one denies the value of this act. After all, the act was placed on the statute books by a government other than the present one and-


Michael Starr: That statement is not true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -this government has added to its benefits.


Michael Starr: The hon. member's earlier statement was not true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says that statement is not true. The whole business of technical assistance was begun by a Liberal government.


Michael Starr: There was no statute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not talking about a statute.


Michael Starr: That is what you said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am talking about the provision paid for out of moneys voted by this parliament on the recommendation of a Liberal government. I am not denying that the present government has substantially added to the framework of the concept of this kind of assistance. I am only saying that in the face of the serious problem of unemployment that confronts us, a problem which in its intensity continues to exist, the government ought to take more vigorous steps to give this program the effect which it should have in the future, some five or ten years from now.
We recognize that the immediate effect of what is being done is negligible. It could have had a greater effect earlier if these modifications had been provided. They were urged three years ago. Let us now have from the minister not the kind of statement we had last night but a substantial statement indicating that the government has an objective. How many individuals in the work force it is anticipated will receive training under this program? We are entitled to have this kind of statement from the minister. We are entitled to have from the minister a report on the automation studies which have been made by his department. Are these studies to be pigeon-holed or to be seen only by social research workers, years from now? Let us have an appreciation of what these studies reveal. Let us have some indication from the government of what steps

it is taking to promote a co-operative endeavour in this field with industry as well as with the provincial governments.
This is a good measure. I am glad the minister is asking for added money with which to do this job. I hope that we shall have from the minister a report showing how wise the expenditure has been and what the government's program is so that we can judge its present effectiveness and the extent to which we may anticipate flowing from this program consequences that are not yet fully apparent.


Mr. Peters:: I believe we all agree that the government acted wisely in preparing this legislation for the acceptance of the provinces. However, I wonder whether the government expected it was going to happen as fast as it actually happened. This legislation seems to me to raise many doubts about the particular method that we use in handling education in general and certainly in handling vocational education, by allowing the provinces to have a complete say in what is going to be done. Two things are being discussed by the members under this current estimate. One subject for discussion is those who are being retrained and who are out of a job or are displaced because of automation or because of curtailment and modernization of a particular industry; and as against that aspect one must consider the major portion of this vote which is going to build new vocational schools which are not going to apply to unemployed people or to adults at all but are going to apply to children.
It is perfectly true that a municipality in any area which has an opportunity to get a vocational school and which has been lacking one for a long time, is very happy to accept it and does not ask very many questions. I think the federal government has a responsibility to allow these people to ask the questions that they obviously have not been able to ask. In the province of Ontario in the recent leadership race for the premiership of the province, the former minister of education was successful. He campaigned to a large extent on the Robarts education plan for Ontario and he was successful in the leadership race. However, at no time did he completely indicate, to his supporters as reported in the convention or to the country in general, what his educational program was going to be. We in Ontario suffered for a long time under the little red school house policy of a previous minister of education. I am sure we welcomed any change in that type of policy. There is not much need to go into the argument about the little red school and the contention that you should not have an auditorium or a basement in the schools, and other things. When the opportunity was offered, I

am sure it was accepted with great glee by those school boards who had been hoping for it for a long time.
My home town was fortunate to be one of the areas that received one of these new vocational schools. I should like to explain just what happened in this particular case, what is happening now and what we are faced with. I think this will explain why we believe the federal government should give some guidance on an over-all picture as this provision is not necessarily going to serve the need to the extent that I am sure this amount of money would if it were handled in another way.


Frank Charles McGee: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Frank Charles McGee: At this point in his remarks is he about to retreat from the position taken by the official critic in his party, namely that this program is irresponsible, reckless and a waste of the taxpayers' money?


William Arnold Peters: May I say that in this
party we are all experts and all specialists in whatever field we happen to be speaking about. I should like to indicate, if I have not conveyed them to him, probably the same fears that were expressed in another way by a member from another province. I refer to the problems raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
In our particular case the situation is this, and I should like to relate it to something that I understand. We have in our town a new school that will have six shops. I have a young boy, 12 years of age and he is in the entrance class. Recently a teacher-parent meeting was held. The reason for holding that meeting was to inform the parents what was going to happen and how they were going to decide whether children went into this new vocational school or whether they continued in the general high school. It was pointed out to them that there would be three choices with these three courses but the three choices were not available to anyone who was past grade 8. Those in grade 8 were the only ones who were going to be able to decide this matter. Anybody who was already taking a high school course was not going to be able to go into the vocational training provided in the new classrooms attached to the vocational training school. This means that in a particular case three people are asked to make a decision that is going to mean the vocation for the pupil for the rest of his educational years. He is going to be asked first whether he wants to go into the general course, which is I presume the old high school set-up;
Supply-Labour
second, whether he would want to go into business and commercial training which also will be a four year course or whether he wants to go into a vocational training course. When questions were asked that teacher about who was going to give the guidance, it was pointed out that there was no guidance available, that there was not a qualified person available. Although this was a new school costing over a million dollars no guidance was available or would be available to help the teachers and the parents decide which area these pupils would be most qualified to pursue advantageously.
Does this mean that we are going to ask a 12 year old child to decide whether he wants to go into vocational training, take the general course or go into the business world? Is a 12 year old child going to make a decision or are the parents any better qualified to decide the matter? How many parents would like to see their sons become lawyers or doctors? How many of them would like to see them engaged in some field in which they may have more interest than the children have aptitudes. However, there is no guidance to assist in deciding this matter. There is none available in my particular area, although the federal government is donating close to three quarters of a million dollars to build this school. The teachers in this particular school-and I may say it is an advanced junior high school-have the opportunity of working with the pupils in only one class and therefore they may be in a slightly better position in which to judge the qualities and the aptitudes of the individual child than would be the teacher in one of the other schools in the rural area where they have seven or eight classes in the same school. How are these teachers in the rural area going to decide the aptitudes of their pupils and choose for them the vocations which the children will probably pursue for the rest of their lives? It is true that there will be a small amount of assistance through the high school guidance set-up they have at the present time, and they have offered this assistance.
But I suggest to the minister that he has a responsibility in this field to put into effect a program that will help with the training of guidance teachers and vocational and technical teachers in order to staff the new schools that we are now building. For this reason I believe there was irresponsibility in the whole program. In the case of my riding I know that the teacher now attached to the vocational section of the high school is not qualified to teach. In my opinion he has no qualifications at all that would qualify him for the teaching profession. He may have taken a six week summer course, but he was

Supply-Labour
not particularly good in the field from which he came, which is very remotely allied to any of the courses he is being asked to teach now.
This is an instance where over the years we have had an opportunity to train vocational teachers, but now thousands are required in the province of Ontario and I ask hon. members where they are going to come from. I have been told that most of the vocational training teachers come from the Ryerson Institute in Toronto. This institute graduates about 1,000 technically trained people every year and of this number only eight or nine enter the teaching profession. We are going to need thousands and I wonder where they are going to come from.
Several weeks ago the hon. member for Peterborough was laughed at when he said that by making this large amount of money available to the provinces we may have done what the hon. member for York-Scarborough said. We may have helped to solve the employment problem in certain areas, but I wonder whether that is what the government had in mind when they made this large amount of money available. I believe that there was not enough planning. We know that the field of retraining is a separate field. We are going to have to take people no longer employed in certain industries and train them for some other field. I believe that this program has to be pursued separately and we have to get started on it immediately. It is important that we do so when we see people walking the streets whose needs would be served by retraining.
But that is not what the program we are now considering is doing. It is making provision for the building of vocational and technical schools that will be used to train new pupils, not to retrain those formerly employed in various industries. What are we going to need in the future so far as vocational training is concerned? Is it not true that the day of the sheet metal worker is nearly over? Is it not true that the woodworking industry has more skilled craftsmen for furniture and cabinet work than are needed? Is it not true that with regard to moulding and the allied foundry trades there are more skilled people available than can find jobs in those trades? Is it not true that what we are really looking for are people to operate I.B.M. machines, to operate and service computers, to operate and service the radar equipment now being used in steel mills and other factories, to work in the very complicated field of electronics, more use of which is being made all the time? Is it not in these fields that training is needed today?
If this is so, I would ask whether this type of program is going to produce the desired results. So far as Ontario is concerned, I know
[Mr. Peters !
the answer is that it is not going to produce them. It cannot do so because we have not got the necessary teachers. Let me use an example from a highly skilled field of endeavour, the installing and servicing of automatic telephone exchanges. In northern Ontario the very progressive company concerned installed completely automatic telephone exchanges a number of years ago and they had to bring people from Great Britain to train some of our own people to do this highly technical work. It would seem to me that if one or two of these people from Great Britain had been put on the staff of a school in Ontario it would have made it possible to train enough people in a very limited time to provide all the technicians needed to instal all the automatic telephone exchanges that will be required.
It would not be wise for every little vocational school across the country to have a course in this type of work because it would have limited application, but would it not be better to have at least some of our vocational schools training people for this type of employment rather than embarking on a program of vocational training that has not started anywhere and is not going to end any place? I say it has not started anywhere simply because in the first place we have not got the teachers to get the plan under way and, second, it is not going anywhere because we have not made a survey of the national needs in the field of education and more particularly with regard to vocational and technical training. We have not taken the time to establish where this program is coming from and where it is going and unless we are willing to do that it seems to me it is a waste of money simply to erect these buildings.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough is quite happy about this plan, but I will make a bet with him that even in the schools in his riding, and I know there are more than in most ridings because he has more constituents than other members-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member but it is five o'clock. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tis-dale) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that seasonal farm labourers would receive benefits similar to those paid at the present time to seasonal fishermen.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present this motion to the house for its consideration. I may say this is not the first time during this parliament that I have proposed similar motions or made suggestions for the implementation of legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act for the purpose of including farm labourers under the act. As a matter of fact, I mentioned this matter in my maiden speech.
Our agricultural industry in the west is becoming highly mechanized and it takes a skilful person to operate some of the implements and machinery on the farms. It is difficult to secure skilful farm labourers and there is a reason for this situation.
First of all, the farm labourer is a seasonal worker and in the fall, when all work is finished, he must seek employment elsewhere. In years gone past when winter employment was readily available the change-over was not so complicated and he did not suffer financial loss as a result of this, but now in many cases he is left unemployed and yet cannot obtain unemployment benefits or payments because he has not contributed to the unemployment insurance fund. Other seasonal workers such as fishermen are contributing to the unemployment insurance fund and are entitled to unemployment assistance. Why then is there this discrimination against the seasonal farm labourer?
I would like to bring the matter to the attention of the house and suggest that early consideration be given to the plight of the seasonal farm labourer. I noted with pleasure the remarks of the Minister of Labour to the effect that studies and research have been conducted by his department concerning the seasonal farm labourer and how to bring him under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Such a measure would indeed be welcomed.
What was true in the past is true today in regard to farm labour and the need for unemployment insurance for seasonal farm labourers. In all fairness to the Minister of Labour and his department I would like to say that my representations to him on this matter of unemployment insurance for farm labourers have always received sympathetic
Unemployment Insurance Act consideration, and I would like to inform the house that this is not something new which has come about in the last few years.
The problem as to whether it is practicable to bring farm labour under the provisions of the unemployment insurance scheme is nothing new. It came before the Department of Agriculture as early as 1952. At that time an extensive survey was made by the unemployment insurance commission of the employment of farm labour in Canada, and this indicated the existence of a serious difficulty in adapting the unemployment insurance scheme to these workers. Some of these problems were:
1.	The scattered nature of the workers and the distance of the location of the employers' establishments from local offices. This would create problems of inspection from the standpoint of collecting contributions and payment of benefit, particularly in determining whether persons were employed or unemployed.
2.	The large amount of family employment, much of it unpaid.
3.	Many farm operators had only one employee, a factor which would greatly increase the administrative cost of applying the scheme.
4.	Determining the real remuneration of the employees, much of which is in kind rather than in cash wages.
5.	The highly seasonal nature of most farming in Canada. This would place a heavy burden on the unemployment insurance fund unless some restrictions were placed on the payment of benefit in the off season, so as to limit this to workers who normally had attachment to employment in some form or other throughout most of the year.
All these were the findings of the 1952 unemployment insurance commission. However in 1956 coverage was extended to two kinds of specialized farming, namely, the production of poultry and poultry products, and the breeding and raising of race horses, saddle horses and light harness horses where these undertakings were carried on as specialized farms.
In January, 1959, an interdepartmental committee was established by the unemployment insurance commission to make a further survey of the possible coverage of farm labour. The committee included representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Finance, department of insurance, dominion bureau of statistics and the privy council office, as well as the unemployment insurance commission.
In February, 1960, the interdepartmental committee submitted its report to the commission. It emphasized the fact that the problems were serious and it suggested

Unemployment Insurance Act certain possible schemes that might be applied and which, to some extent, would meet these problems although they could not wholly overcome them. The report was submitted to the Minister of Labour by the commission and he obtained the views of the Minister of Agriculture. The latter asked if consideration could be given to a voluntary scheme, as it was suggested to him by farm organizations, under which a farm operator could elect whether or not to cover his employees, rather than a scheme of universal compulsory coverage for all farm employees.
Accordingly the interdepartmental committee was requested by the commission to pursue this aspect of the matter. The committee made further surveys during the summer of 1960 but found great difficulty in arriving at even an approximate estimate of the cost of such a scheme, in view of the inadequate data. No conclusion had been reached by the interdepartmental committee when the Gill commission was appointed in July, 1961, to inquire into the whole operation of the unemployment insurance scheme. The Gill commission has not yet reported on the matter but undoubtedly this investigation will cover the question of whether it is practicable to include farm labour.
These in short are the findings of the different commissions which inquired into the problem during the last 10 years. What the findings of the Gill commission will be remain to be seen. However, the position of the seasonal farm labourer remains as before.
The position of a seasonal farm labourer is not much different from that of the seasonal fisherman, and I think there is a principle involved in this whole matter. The farm labourer is the only one in the entire Canadian labour force who is not entitled to unemployment insurance payments and it is my opinion that unless immediate steps are taken to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act the whole western mechanized farm industry will suffer severely.
From personal experience I know that farmers have sustained crop losses due to the shortage of skilled farm labourers. I also know incidents when, in desperation, a farmer had to entrust his expensive farm machinery to men who were not sufficiently familiar with this machinery to operate it efficiently, and this resulted in damage to the machinery.
Representation was also made to me by many farm labourers, who very reluctantly had to leave farms and seek employment in cities and towns where they could make contributions to the unemployment insurance scheme in the places where they were employed, something which they could not do on the farms. Many of these farm labourers


would prefer to bring up their families in the country, where living expenses are much cheaper than in the cities.
In conclusion I would like to say this problem of providing unemployment insurance for farm labourers is a very serious one and, although as I mentioned previously the Gill commission report is not in, I would like to see serious consideration given to the motion before the house so that farm labourers may soon become entitled to the same benefits as fishermen who are also seasonally employed labourers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have never posed as one of the agricultural experts in our party, which now abounds in agricultural experts, but I am tempted to speak because of the analogy made by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). I emphasize the "Tisdale", which is another of the many bonds of a personal nature between the hon. gentleman and myself, and I think I can show that there will be a few more bonds when I have finished my speech. The hon. member is appealing, undoubtedly vainly, to his political friends who are now on the treasury benches to do what will be done by a Liberal government. I have in my hand a little leaflet that I will send to the hon. gentleman. It is called "A square deal for farmers" and it is just fresh off the press. He will find there this sentence:
Unemployment insurance should be extended to as many farm workers as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the official position of the party to which I belong. The hon. gentleman will remember that some years ago when he first came to this house and when he made a very moving speech in this house, which I will never forget, I reminded him that he made a very wise decision to come to Canada in 1929 when there was a Liberal government and we admitted immigrants, because if he had waited until a year later when his present day friends were in office, they would not have let him in. I remind the hon. member today that if he were supporting a government of the party that let him into Canada, he would be getting what he has urged upon the house.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: After 22 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman would have found that 22 years ago there would not have been many people in this country, many farmers or anyone else, who wanted unemployment insurance for farmers or fishermen. The reason, of course, is that it took a long time to overcome the opposition of friends of hon. gentlemen on the other side of

the house to establishing unemployment insurance at all. Mr. Duplessis held it up for years-
Mr. Pallet!: The Conservative government brought in the unemployment insurance legislation for Canada and the Liberals took it to the judicial committee of the privy council to frustrate it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The chief whip for the government is getting more and more nervous as the date of the election approaches. We all understand this nervousness that he exhibits in the house these days, and we forgive him for it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pallet!: Don't say the information is inaccurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid there are too many agricultural experts who do not rise in their seats when they wish to speak. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor. I know he does not object to an occasional interruption; in fact, he sometimes seems to invite them. But one at a time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for rising to my defence. I need it, and the opposition increasingly needs it in this house as the days go by. I will not pursue that line, but I come back to the point. The intervention of the hon. member for York-ton (Mr. Clancy) reminds me that unemployment insurance was held up for several years by the hon. gentleman's friends in the province of Quebec, and it was only when Mr. Godbout came into office there that we were able to overcome the constitutional difficulty-


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I object to the hon. member's reference to the Quebec government as my friends. I have no interest in Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I am. I object to the reference to my friends in Quebec. I have friends in Quebec, but I do not pretend to be-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is unduly sensitive, if he considers that a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman considers it offensive for me to say that members of the Union Nationale in Quebec are his friends, I hasten to withdraw that remark; or perhaps I could modify it and say "the friends of his friends." I think he could not object to that.
I was saying that when, after long and persistent efforts, the Liberal government was
Unemployment Insurance Act able to convince all the provinces-of which the government of Quebec was the last one, and that was only after Mr. Godbout came into office in 1939-to permit the constitutional change which was necessary to establish unemployment insurance, at that time there was no demand and no desire for unemployment insurance for farm labourers, either on the part of the farmers or on the part of the labourers. It was one of those things that would have been found, I think, almost universally unpopular at that time.
However, many things have changed in this country since 1940 and we do know-as I have no doubt the hon. member emphasized, and I do not need to reiterate it-that today, as a result of the steady extension of unemployment insurance to other groups in the country, particularly its extension to other kinds of seasonal workers, it is becoming increasingly difficult for our farmers, precisely because of this obstacle, to get and keep help. It is also very hard from the labourer's point of view to understand why he should not qualify for unemployment insurance stamps and a bush worker should. I must say that I find it very hard myself to explain that on any logical basis.
It does seem to me that we in this parliament should seek to do those things which will keep the economy in as even a balance as possible, and as far as possible satisfy the legitimate aspirations of those groups in the community which express them. There is no doubt that today the majority, judging from all the evidence I have been able to find, judging from the evidence of the organized farm movements, both the federation of agriculture and the farmers' union, now feel this to be desirable and indeed necessary for the efficient prosecution of the industry.
I recognize, and I have no doubt the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale also recognizes, that there are real difficulties in connection with the assimilation of seasonal workers generally to unemployment insurance. That matter is receiving the consideration of a commission of very distinguished persons at the present time. It is my conviction, sir,-and I think perhaps this is relevant to the motion because I am one of those people who believe one should talk about how these things are to be paid for at the same time as one talks about them-that in the case of seasonal workers there should be a further change in the unemployment insurance law so that seasonal benefits do not come out of the pool that is contributed to by those workers who are really contributing on an actuarial basis. I believe that some modifications require to be made in that way. I feel it is quite important to say that to indicate

Unemployment Insurance Act that one is proposing this addition oi farm labourers with a sense of responsibility and without any desire to be unfair to those other contributors to unemployment insurance who over the years pay more into the fund than they draw out of it.
I am moved to speak about this because, as hon. members know, when I was a member of the government I had a good deal to do with the legislation which was enacted when my friends and I were in office to extend unemployment insurance to fishermen. That legislation has had a tremendous influence. Not only has it been of tremendous social value but it has been of very great economic value as well, and it would have been of much greater economic value if there had been full employment in this country in the last four years.
The reason why nearly all seasonal workers want to be included within the ambit of unemployment insurance and not under some other scheme is because they want to be able to get stamps for their seasonal work and then, if there is other work, to get other stamps to build up their benefits, instead of living in idleness in the off season. That is why they do not want some separate scheme for fishermen as some people have suggested, and no doubt as some people have suggested for farm labourers. They want to come within the ambit of the general scheme, in order to provide the greatest possible mobility of labour and the greatest cover, and particularly to protect themselves and not become a charge on the fund. It seems to me to be right and proper that if this is done it should be done within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but I think at the same time there should be modifications in that act to take account of the financial effect it would have on the fund.
I think that is really all I desire to say, except that I might allude in support of the observation I made when the question was asked: why was this not done when we were in office, to the fact that it was only at the very end of the period when my friends and I were on the treasury benches that there was any really strong support for this, and even then opinion was divided.


William Moore Benidickson: The farmers did not want to pay their part at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My hon. friend from Ken-ora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) has suggested one of the reasons which may perhaps have accounted for the fact that there was not the same kind of general feeling about this that exists today. That, I am sure, is why hon. gentlemen opposite have not done it, because it is notorious that hon. gentlemen opposite are very anxious to do

things which are universally popular though they are not often so anxious to tackle those problems which have to be tackled by a government, but where action does not always get universal approbation.
I have here a presentation to the Prime Minister and to members of the cabinet by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture dated February 7, 1962. There is a paragraph headed "Unemployment insurance for farm workers" which reads as follows:
While we appreciate that the unemployment insurance program is now under study by a royal commission, nevertheless we feel we must bring to your attention that the very real need for a selective, if not a voluntary, program of unemployment insurance for farm workers is still unmet -a matter of considerable disappointment to those farmers who find that they are seriously disadvantaged by this situation. If a voluntary program for agriculture cannot be brought in, we would recommend early extension of compulsory coverage to those areas and/or groups of producers who have clearly indicated their desire and willingness to participate in such a program.
The national farmers union made a presentation to the government of Canada on January 31 of this year and they had this to say on the same subject. I am grateful to my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River for looking up these references for me.
We reiterate our request for the early implementation of a program providing unemployment insurance for farm labour. The absence of insurance for farm workers is acting against the interests of farm employers by discouraging many skilled workers from seeking farm employment.
It is for the reasons I have given that I am happy to support the motion which has been moved by the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) who is, of course-I would not deny it for a moment- possessed of a much more intimate knowledge of this problem than I am. But I think, perhaps, he would allow that I have a greater acquaintance with the problem of the fisherman with which he made an analogy. I feel that the farm workers, and the farmers, who would have to pay something for this, are just as entitled to consideration as the fishermen.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to express the support of this group for the motion moved by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). We are witnessing a rather exciting evolution in party affairs in this house. I would judge from what has happened in recent days that the official opposition has now what might be termed a rotating spokesman for agriculture.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the hon. gentleman not believe in rotation?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) held the position for some years unchallenged. Then we find that the

hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is now the spokesman for agriculture. Last of all, possibly to the disillusionment of some other members of the party, we find the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate taking his turn as spokesman for agriculture on the part of the official opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? Does he not think that an embarras de richesses is better than a void?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am only a humble backwoodsman and I do not understand the language used by the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: Neither does he.
Anolher hon. Member: Some rotate leaders, others their agriculture experts.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I could not help making that observation, because I am always interested in watching the developments on our left and to our front. We support this motion wholeheartedly. It proposes an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which has been urged for years by farmers' organizations across Canada, by the British Columbia fruit growers association, I know, as well as by other groups and by hon, members on all sides of this house, led on most occasions, I am modest enough to say, by the members of this group or their predecessors.
I was interested in the fervour with which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate approached this question. He displayed almost a missionary zeal. However, he was a member of the former government for some years and during that period, regardless of the way he has just played the situation down, there were numerous appeals from farm organizations, from other organizations and from individual members of this house asking the government to amend the act as suggested in this motion. I am very glad that an approaching election has suddenly convinced the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that something must be done about the matter. I can state from some personal experience and from the experience of farmer friends of mine in the district in which I live, the majority of whom officially are known as Conservatives, though they have a common sense approach to life when it comes to election time, that the present act is most unfair.
Naturally, workmen nowadays are looking for protection. They are looking for regular employment, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation and so on. I know of numerous instances where farmers wanted to hire men for clearing land, ditching, fencing or other similar work, but although there were persons available for work the demand for
Unemployment Insurance Act labour could not be filled because the men wanted to obtain employment in an industry or occupation covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. They said they were very sorry to decline, and they gave as a reason their wish to seek employment in a situation where they could acquire stamps and the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act should they become unemployed.
I recognize the difficulties there are in applying the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the workmen's compensation acts to farmers generally where certain problems arise which do not occur in industry, where one finds men working together under supervision and where the services of accountants, bookkeepers and so on are available.
Some years ago we were interested in having the provisions of the workmen's compensation act applied to farmers in British Columbia, and the act was applied under certain conditions. Then, difficulties began to arise. I used to bring this to the notice of the provincial government and I discussed it with officials of the workmen's compensation board in British Columbia. I realize there have to be regulations drawn up to meet the farmers' situation. I was told by one of the commissioners.-I am referring to workmen's compensation and this is to illustrate the difficulties which arise-that a farmer had made an application to the board in respect of an injury suffered as a result of being struck by a plough handle while turning into the end of a furrow. He received compensation over a considerable period of time because he had a deep wound. Some months later a neighbour spilled the beans and the board discovered that the cause of the accident was not as stated by the farmer in question. He went home one evening intoxicated and fell out of bed while in this condition and cut his posterior on a piece of bedroom china. I mention that to illustrate the difficulties that arise in these circumstances. Because of that the act was amended. Certain regulations were brought in as a result of that and other experiences.
As a fruit farmer and one closely associated with them I realize the difficulties of administration, but they can be overcome. Farm organizations are willing to admit the difficulties and have given them serious consideration throughout the years.
Under the workmen's compensation act of British Columbia the farmers can take advantage of the provisions of the legislation on a voluntary basis. I have taken advantage of the act myself. It was fortunate for one or two persons working for us that we were able to take advantage of the act.

Unemployment Insurance Act
This and the former government repeatedly express sympathy for the proposals put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the national farm unions and the British Columbia fruit growers association. In fact a resolution of this type has been passed year after year by the latter organization but without effect. Fruit growers have a certain type of operation which requires quite heavy employment on a seasonal basis.
I remember the minister of agriculture in the former government who no doubt made a great contribution to agriculture in Canada talking about making a study and saying the government was sympathetic and would give the question serious consideration and so on, and members of this government have said the same thing.
We know that the Gill committee is studying amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I trust that the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Melfort-Tisdale-whatnot-I forget the rest of it-will cause the government to focus more attention on the problem. At present a certain injustice is suffered by the farmer.
Farming practice has changed during the years. Some aspects are similar to industrial operations. In other cases there is large seasonal employment on farms for harvesting purposes, particularly on the fruit and vegetable farms. This situation has remained unremedied throughout the years while other groups of seasonal workers have been able to obtain the insurance benefits of the act.
In view of the importance of agriculture generally and in view of the fact that I am sure everyone interested in the welfare of Canada is concerned about doing all that can be done fairly and properly to assist the Canadian farmer, the government should amend the act to provide for the coverage that has been requested. This is a disability particularly for farmers who are operating successfully and have large crops to harvest at certain times. In the opinion of this group the time is long overdue. The government should now remedy the injustice by accepting the amendments to the act proposed in this resolution, also suggested over the years in this house by hon. members representing all parties.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale for his diligence in bringing forward this resolution at this time. It is a question that is receiving a lot of attention in the farming communities across Canada today and no doubt it will receive increasingly more attention in the future.
[Mr. Herridge.l
The resolution is in the following language:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so that seasonal farm labourers would receive benefits similar to those paid at the present time to seasonal fishermen.
One of the reasons for the heightened interest in insurance in farm circles today is the changing conditions that are taking place on farms across Canada. Farm people presently are finding ito necessary to utilize larger machinery that costs considerable sums of money. It is necessary to have more highly qualified persons to operate this equipment. Many of the people who would normally be available to operate the machinery are engaged in other jobs and would be willing to accept part time employment of this type if in doing so their benefit period were increased. Unemployment insurance stamps however are not available for farm labour and so it is difficult for farmers to secure this type of labour.
I think that unemployment insurance will be a necessity before we can build up in Canada the type of labour that will be useful to farmers year after year. The revolution that is manifesting itself in the agricultural industry today has almost run its course. During the next several years we will experience to an increasing extent a necessity to build up a farm labour pool to take care of those specialized operations that are required to be performed on farms from time to time.
If Canadian fishermen are entitled to unemployment insurance surely farm labour is entitled to it when you consider that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. Farm labour today requires not only a great deal of skill but judgment as well. You cannot put an unskilled man in charge of a tractor costing $8,000 or $10,000 with the heavy machinery sitting behind it. It requires a person of judgment who can devote close attention to the job he is doing.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in which he quoted from that volume of fiction which recently revealed that the Liberals have found the answer to a lot of things now that they are in the opposition. Many things have changed since 1940, the hon. gentleman said, and included in the changes is the change of government. The hon. gentleman said unemployment insurance should be extended to as many farm people as possible. I imagine there has been a Liberal policy for the last 22 years: To as many people as possible.
I was pleased to hear the hon. gentleman admit that the Gill committee was worth while, that it did a necessary job, and that

it would assist in contributing to the solution of the problem we are now discussing.
I do not intend to take up the time of the house any longer. I commend this problem to the attention of the government. I know that it has received a great deal of attention during the last two or three years.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to join in congratulating the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale for introducing in the house this afternoon this motion with respect to bringing farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act. As was mentioned by my colleague who just took his seat and also, I think, by the hon. member for Kootenay West, it is interesting to see our friends in the Liberal party taking such a deep and rotating interest-as it was characterized-in the problems of farmers.
After listening to the quotations of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with reference to this new agricultural pamphlet that he so smilingly observed has been brought to the attention of the public just lately, it appears to me that it is more or less like a death-bed repentance that our Liberal friends have come to the front now in taking such a serious look or what they assert to be a serious look at the agriculture problem. I sincerely hope they will continue to do that. It is not going to be too long until they occur, and I think it is with nervousness and apprehension that they are looking forward to facing the democratic functions that will take place in Canada. I am sure that in the prairie west many people are going to consider not so much what they have done as what they have not done as far as agriculture is concerned when they come to mark their ballots.
This problem of unemployment insurance with respect to farm labour is a deep rooted one. It has stemmed in one instance particularly from the fact that we have unemployment insurance in Canada today, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Rosthern. As we find automation increasing in agriculture, we find the need for skilled labour to manipulate and handle these machines. As a result of this situation we wish to see to it that we have qualified people to put on this type of equipment. When we go into the labour market in western Canada now to ascertain whether labour is available to handle this equipment, we find that those people who are capable of doing so are fast disappearing from the scene owing to the fact that they have not been able to qualify for unemployment insurance. They have found themselves taking an interest in other walks of life. As a result we find the farm labour market being depleted in that respect. If we are going to maintain this basic industry of
Unemployment Insurance Act agriculture as we see it in Canada and keep abreast of the agrarian change that is taking place, we are going to be obliged to provide an adequate force of farm labour to assist presently established farmers in this great industry. I think it is high time that we saw to it that we included farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I know that the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale in his very able presentation this afternoon gave some of the reasons why it has been a difficult problem. I think one of the basic problems lies within the farm population itself, who are desiring this implementation. About a year ago or possibly a year and a half ago I made it my business as a representative of a farm riding to make a survey of that particular area in order to get the opinion prevailing on this subject. I did this by writing to the reeves and councillors of the 25 municipalities lying within the boundaries of the federal constituency of Moose Mountain and asking them for their observations on this matter. I was rather amazed at the variety of opinions expressed. If this variety of opinions that were expressed by the farmers themselves is an indication of what the thinking is, it will create a certain amount of a problem in the minds of the Gill royal commission in coming up with a definite answer. In a great many cases I found that farmers with male members in the family, with sons coming along, were indifferent to bringing unemployment insurance into the farm labour picture. They felt that they had their own help developing and as a result they were not interested. On the contrary, somebody else who possibly had only daughters in the family, was very much interested in being able to go out into the farm labour market and procure assistance and therefore was very much interested in having this measure brought about. Others expressed the view that it should be done on a compulsory basis. Then again others expressed the view that it should be voluntary.
I could not find unanimity of opinion in this matter. As a result, I felt that a certain problem was being created for the officials that were considering this matter in order to come up with an answer. All in all, in summing it up, I felt that the time had come when legislation should be enacted in order to solve this problem. As has been pointed out, agriculture is one of the basic industries and it will remain one of our basic industries as time goes on. People are still considering agriculture as a way of life and a very important one. Some want to be on the private enterprise end of it and to be the owner and operator of a farm, whereas others wish to engage in farming operations by assisting as labourers in the farm scheme of things. If this
1312	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act class of people does not wish to take the responsibility of being independent or private enterprise operators of farms but still wishes to continue in that way of life, I feel that there should be some basic security presented by proper legislation to see to it that in times of seasonal unemployment they will be protected. I feel sure that the Gill royal commission will come up with the answer to this problem. I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that personally-and I think I am speaking on behalf of my constituents of Moose Mountain-I feel that they are definitely in favour of the motion brought in by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on this particular motion which was introduced by my colleague and neighbour the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale. I was rather amused when the hon. member for Kootenay West referred to the way in which rotation was taking place in the Liberal party in the matter of agricultural spokesmen. It rather reminded me of the description of a hula dancer: put a crop here and put a crop there and then you rotate the crops. Perhaps this is typical of the Liberal party. They have been used to passing the buck and perhaps they do not wish to take the responsibility for being spokesmen. However, other members have expressed reasons why this type of legislation should be introduced and why the government should make a careful study of it.
It has been mentioned that competent help has been hard to get. Often times we have been obliged to resort to very young labourers, some of them just fresh out of school, who have not been able to establish themselves. Many of these young people have a farm background. They know the farm way of life and would far rather have it than perhaps any other. However, because of insecurity in that type of employment they often drift off the farms into other employment which would provide them with some security in the event they were laid off. I know that in my own particular case I myself have been obliged to employ many of these people. Sometimes you get an experienced hand. You often find that where a man has been laid off because of some farmer having quit farming and no longer requiring him, he has to make a shift but in making that shift very often finds himself in a position in which he is obliged to resort to using the money he has been able to save over the years, if he is lucky enough to have any. However, this creates a particular problem.


I know that on many occasions, especially during the rush season, in the spring and fall, for example, many young girls have been employed in the fields driving tractors, combines, trucks and so on. Many women and older labourers have taken to the fields at times like this. I think this situation could be corrected if legislation like this could possibly be enacted.
It was mentioned by the hon. member for Rosthern that many farmers have been obliged to purchase expensive machinery as a result of the fact that they could not get help. For one thing they would then require less help. Another point is that the type of machinery they have purchased is very expensive. I can give many examples of what happened in my own case-but that is unnecessary-where you turn over expensive machinery to young, inexperienced help. Another problem that par-haps could be corrected if this type of legislation were enacted is this. The fact is that many farmers have had to pay higher wages as a result of many people no longer wishing to stay with or work on farms because of the insecurity in that field.
I should like to raise another point which I believe was mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Contractors working on the clearing of farmland find that when they hire a machine operator to clear the bush or to do brushing in preparation for cultivation, that man is not insurable. However, if the same contractor is doing work for the municipality, he is insurable. He may have two machines operating side by side, one on the farmer's property and the other on the road allowance. The man operating the machine on the road allowance is insurable and the man working on the farm is not although they are operating identical machines. They are doing the same type of work and are working just as hard but one man is insurable and the other man is not. This problem would be corrected by the introduction of such legislation.
There are cases one could cite. For instance, men who work on irrigation projects are insurable but others, as I said, are not. This is a problem that needs a little study in order to correct some of these inequities.
Having said that, I think I should point out some of the difficulties that exist in implementing legislation of this type. There are very few countries that have similar legislation in existence so we cannot make a study of their plans in order to incorporate them into ours.
I think Great Britain was the first country to set up such a plan away back in 1911. However, even after having had such a plan in operation for some 35 years I understand

that in one year there were some 30,000 inquiries as to how it could be made operative and applicable in certain cases. Although they have had 35 years experience they still have not been able to solve the problem.
I might also say that because of the scattered nature of farming one would run into difficulty. In many cases it would be difficult to ascertain whether or not a man was actually employed. I am merely pointing out these things to illustrate some of the difficulties that would be encountered if such legislation were introduced. Only if some of these problems can be ironed out will we be able to arrive at proper legislation.
Another point has to do with whether the employee is a member of the family. It is often difficult to determine what rate of pay a man receives if he is a member of the family. What kind of stamp would you provide for him? There are cases where room and board are provided and others where board alone is provided and the man provides his own room. There are other cases where the man receives only his wages with no room or board provided.
These are some of the things that have to be considered before a suitable arrangement can be worked out. I simply wish to mention these things and to point out that the matter is now under study. I hope that before long the Gill commission will be able to make some suitable recommendations.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have considerably more time than I apparently will have in order to develop my speech on the resolution brought forward by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp).
I must say at once that when the hon. member introduces a private member's bill or resolution in the house one must pay very strict attention indeed because his record of success with regard to the proposals he has placed before parliament is practically unique. It is a great credit to him and to the government which has encouraged the active participation of the private members who support the government, unlike the days not too long ago when the trained seals flapped their flippers and kept solemnly quiet. A lot of people thought that things would be interesting after these trained seals were unleashed, but lo and behold, we find that not many of them have had anything to say in the interval.
14.	1962	1813
Business of the House
I want to deal very quickly with the resolute, positive, forward looking alternative that the Liberal party is supplying according to this document referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) where I find these words:
The Liberal party has, for today's problems, the answers that are progressive, realistic and responsible.
One might have expected upon examining this document to find a clear, concise and aggressive statement of a practical, alternative policy. But what do we find? Nothing on this particular question. Let hon. members listen carefully to these words:
Unemployment insurance should be extended to as many farm workers as possible.
Not "unemployment insurance will be extended". Oh, no; "should be extended". To how many or to what group of people? As many as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What more would you have than that?


Frank Charles McGee: Is this the same use of the word "possible" that occurred in 1919 when a certain late right hon. gentleman promised hospital insurance? Was that not supposed to come about as soon as possible? Are farm labourers going to have to wait for the same number of years between promise and fulfilment as the people of Canada generally had to wait with respect to hospital insurance? I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose you would allow me to congratulate the hon. member on his notable speech. I will instead do what you will allow me to do and ask the house leader if he can now give us a preview of the business that the government will bring before us for the rest of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a great deal of business I should like to bring before the house but we are still struggling with the supplementary estimates. I hope that notable progress will be made on the supplementary estimates tomorrow.


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


Thursday, March 15, 1962