1962-02-01

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I trust the house will permit me to rise for the purpose of referring to the anniversary of the birth of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, former prime minister of Canada. I express on behalf of the government, and I know on behalf of members in all parts of the house, our sincere congratulations to him coupled with the wish that many more birthdays will be his.
I have known Mr. St. Laurent for more than 30 years, beginning in the days when he was an officer of the Canadian Bar Association. I was a member of the council of the bar association at that time. Later when he came to the House of Commons as minister of justice in the days of war, I followed him from time to time in debate as opposition spokesman.
During that long period, while naturally there were disagreements resulting from the holding of different political opinions, there was always that attitude of mind on his part which recognized two sides to every question. That, of course, is the essence of parliament and the strength of the parliamentary system.
Once more I express warmest felicitations and all good wishes for him today.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house of course are pleased to associate ourselves with the warm and generous tribute the Prime Minister has paid to one who I think is the only living prime minister in our country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -or rather who is of course the only living ex prime minister of our country. We hope to correct that situation before long. He was also, of course, for many years the leader of our party.
We do appreciate the very gracious and generous way in which the Prime Minister has expressed what I know are the feelings of all hon. members of the house for the services Mr. St. Laurent has rendered to Canada. Perhaps I may quote one sentence
from what was said about Mr. St. Laurent this morning in an editorial in the Montreal Gazette:
It is, even more, the very special respect that must always belong to one who has so well exemplified the saying of the 18th century statesman, Edmund Burke: "Let us so conduct ourselves as patriots as not to forget that we ought also to be gentlemen".
Mr. Speaker, Mr. St. Laurent was a dedicated patriot and a strong party man, and always a respected gentleman.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group were delighted to hear the Prime Minister graciously recognize the birthday anniversary of a distinguished Canadian. I think it is very fortunate that our democratic system and the principles and practices under which it operates make it possible for us on these and similar occasions to sheath our political daggers momentarily and recognize the service that any person has performed for Canada, regardless of their party affiliation or their views in other directions.
We heartily associate ourselves with the tribute paid by the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition, and wish the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent many happy years ahead.



U.S. TARIFF PROPOSALS-REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposilion): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any comment to make on a statement attributed to him by the president of the national farmers' union to the effect that he, the Prime Minister, would be surprised if President Kennedy's tariff cutting program with the common market received congressional approval?
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I read the report
in question, and all I can say is that this and some other statements made in the same report were apparently ex parte statements made by someone in consequence of discussions that took place.
May I say that there is also a reference to the question of protection. The word
430	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry "protection" was never mentioned at any time. What I spoke of was the maintenance of our preferences in the United Kingdom in order to maintain a strong commonwealth.
That statement and other observations regarding what took place in this meeting are not in keeping with the facts.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I regret that I did not have an opportunity to send the minister notice. I wonder whether the minister's attention has been drawn to an advertisement in the Belfast Telegraph, an Irish newspaper, as follows:
More platers and shipwrights required immediately for assured employment in Canada.
Then it goes on to give the name of the individual who placed the advertisement, and this individual is referred to as the local representative. I wonder whether the minister could undertake to investigate this matter to see whether there is any basis in fact for the advertisement. Also does it reflect the true situation in Canada, and have officials of the minister's department had any participation in it?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I can answer the last question first; no. As I explained in the house last year, the department is not placing these advertisements, nor has it sanctioned them. I do not know anything about this particular one, but if the hon. member would care to send it to me I should be glad to investigate it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister explain to the house why, following the cancellation of the Avro Arrow program in January, 1959, the construction of a wind tunnel at Uplands airfield, which was regarded as an essential part of the air defence program, particularly with respect to the CF-105, was continued?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I should like to point out to the hon. member for Laurier that this is a matter which does not come within the purview of the Department of Public Works. Perhaps it


could be addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in the absence of the Minister of National Defence.


Lionel Chevrier: In that case perhaps I could direct the question either to the Minister of National Defence or to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: This matter comes within the area covered by the national research council acting on behalf of the Department of National Defence. A question was asked on March 2, 1960, concerning the wind tunnel construction. Two questions and the answers to them can be found on page 1642 of Hansard for that date. I do not think there is any need to repeat those answers now.
With regard to the Auditor General's report I might point out to the house that the need for a supersonic wind tunnel to do basic research in aerodynamics was discussed in 1954, and executive authority was obtained to go ahead with the plan. The preliminary estimated figure as to the cost was set at $3,750,000. The finest example of procrastination on the part of a government occurred at that time, because nothing further happened until February, 1957, when the government of the day made a firm decision to build the wind tunnel. It then took the best part of a year and a half for the design work to be carried out, and the first contract for the wind tunnel was let late in 1958. Ninety per cent of the contracts were let during the fiscal year 1958-59, and the cost estimate of $9 million was approved in June, 1959.
The Arrow was flying before the contracts for the research tunnel were let. Therefore this tunnel would have made very little contribution to the development program of the CF-105.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that perhaps both the question and the discussion might more properly come up on the estimates. This is obviously a matter upon which opinions would be held and expressed, giving rise to debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Since the minister has referred to an answer which he gave as reported on page 1642 of Hansard, I think I should have leave to ask a question in that connection. My question is this-


Mr. Fulion:: That was in 1960.


Lionel Chevrier: March 2, 1960.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then it is hardly an urgent matter.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Justice
apparently does not like this question.


An hon. Member:: Raise a point of order.


Mr. Fullon:: I should be glad to raise a point of order and ask whether anything urgent can arise today out of an answer given a question on March 2, 1960.


An hon. Member:: Why did the minister bring it up, then?


Lionel Chevrier: I asked a question of the minister, and the minister replied quoting a statement he had made in this house in 1960. I should like to put a question to the minister now in reference to what he said at that time, and I think I have the right to do so. My question to the minister is this. Having regard to the fact that in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Commerce the hon. gentleman stated, as reported at page 1642 of Hansard for 1960, in answer to a question put to him by the member for Trinity, that the wind tunnel was not designed to test the CF-105, would the minister explain himself to the house now in view of the statement made by the Auditor General in his report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is the information which is to be found in the tentative decision of the government of the day in 1954, but they did not carry out their purpose because they made no decision until February 1957.


Mr. Hellyer:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already expressed the view and it is becoming more apparent this is not a matter that can be dealt with advantageously now, and might be deferred until the estimates provide an opportunity to debate it.



BOMARC STATION, NORTH BAY    TAKEOVER BY R.C.A.F.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that the Royal Canadian Air Force is taking over the Bomarc station at North Bay today from the contractor and, if so, what is to be the function of that station?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows quite well, as do other hon. members of the house, what the function of the station is to be. It is correct that the R.C.A.F. is taking over from the contractor today. The R.C.A.F. from now on will be responsible for the general administration, heating, maintenance and so on of the station.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention that the station be used for administration and supplementary heating, or is it to be a defence base when warheads are supplied for the missiles?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any contribution is being made to the progress of the affairs of this country or to the proceedings of this house by the constant reiteration of childish questions along this line.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Surely the minister has no right to characterize my question as childish. The government indicated that the Bomarc stations were to be the defence of Canada and a part of the defence of North America. No good purpose is served by the making of irresponsible statements on the part of hon. members opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it the hon.
member does not wish to have a decision on his question of privilege.



REPORTED LOSS OF AVIATION GASOLINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask what explanation the minister can give the house for the loss of 167,000 gallons of aviation gasoline valued at $45,000, as referred to in the Auditor General's report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe there are a number of interesting matters in the report which the Auditor General has made, but unless there is some immediate urgency or some current action with respect to such matters which makes it necessary for them to receive attention I would think it is not in accordance with the practice to receive such questions now. They could all be raised seriatim if I allowed the hon. member for Laurier to proceed. Therefore I feel 1 must rule his question out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: No doubt there are a number of awkward references in the Auditor General's report, Mr. Speaker, but I should have thought the Minister of National Defence would have wanted to clear up this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the tap has now been turned off and we might leave the matter. Perhaps it will keep until the appropriate estimates are before us.

Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



ADVISORY COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. When did the unemployment insurance advisory committee make its last report to the minister, and when did that committee last meet?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to obtain that information for the hon. member.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA    REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN SECOND ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a relatively quiet question to the Minister of Public Works and ask whether he has received any recent communications from the premier of British Columbia requesting an additional agreement for the purpose of participating in the portion of the so-called second trans-Canada highway in that province.


David James Walker: I could not say, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member will be good enough to put that question on the order paper I shall be glad to give it attention.


Frank Howard: I would like to see the answer in writing.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) asked me a question about a new tax to be levied on the sale of certain postal supplies.
This is not a new tax, but the regular provincial sales tax. Beginning February 1, in those provinces where a provincial sales tax is levied, we shall collect it on the sale of a few items and hand over the proceeds to the province. This is because we do not wish to sell, tax free, items on which commercial suppliers would have to collect a tax.
Obviously, there will be no tax levied upon the sale of stamps or similar postage supplies.

(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Justice whether it is the intention of the government, before the dissolution of parliament, to introduce any amendments to the War Measures Act along the lines of those considered last year, and as was promised two years ago on the occasion of the passage of the bill of rights which was so greatly improved by the work of the opposition?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My
recollection of the circumstances surrounding the passage of the bill of rights and of the promises made is quite different from that of the hon. member for Essex East. I do not recall the promises to which he refers, nor do I recall any assistance being given by the opposition in connection with the passage of the bill of rights, particularly by the hon. member.
I would be assisted in answering his question if he would tell me when parliament is going to dissolve. However, as the hon. member knows, a committee was set up to consider the War Measures Act. I do not think that committee has completed its work.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it the intention of the government to set the committee in motion once again so that the work may be continued?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that matter was covered in the course of the committee proceedings last year, and that the answer will be found there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a new session of parliament. The minister cannot do that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand it, my friend the hon. member for Essex East can read. If he will refer to the proceedings of the committee last year I think he will find the government's intention indicated there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why is the minister stalling?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am surprised at the Minister of Justice, who should be aware of the rules. Is the Minister of Justice not aware that a committee in one session cannot bind parliament in a subsequent session, and that as a result parliament this session would be obliged to take a step de novo? Is it the intention of the Minister of Justice or of the government to do that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am quite aware of this fact, and there is no necessity for the hon. member to remind me of it. He seems concerned to remind the house that he is a lawyer. What I suggested was that if my hon. friend will read the proceedings of the committee he will find that the intention of the government is stated there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think he will find any such thing.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY MR. ABBE BERGERON  CLARIFICATION OF ANSWER RESPECTING RESIDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of an answer his parliamentary secretary gave to a question yesterday. The question was No. 43, standing in the name of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon)1. The first part of the question reads as follows:
1. Has Mr. Abbe Bergeron, from Cornwall, Ontario, ever held a position with the St. Lawrence seaway authority and, if so, during what year, and for how many months?
The answer was yes. By the answer given there is an ambiguous implication that the gentleman in question came from Cornwall. That not being the case, I am sure the minister would wish to take the first opportunity, as I now ask him to do, to indicate that this gentleman does not come from Cornwall.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: The information I have obtained from the seaway authority is that Mr. Abbe Bergeron lives in Cornwall at the present time but that at the time of his engagement on the St. Lawrence seaway he was from Hawkes-bury.


Lionel Chevrier: The smear that backfired.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct to the Minister of National Revenue a question which has just come to mind as a result of correspondence. Can the minister inform the house whether his department has suffered further substantial losses as a result of the recent failure of more United States owned logging companies in the Kootenays?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I have no idea to what the hon. member is referring. The department, I do not think, suffered loss. There may be times when taxpayers escape the country or something of that kind. If the hon. member will be more explicit in his reference, either privately or now, I shall be glad to give him an answer.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is an inquiry instituted under the Combines Investigation Act when two or more firms submit to any government department tenders which are identical to the last cent?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This matter has been the subject of comment by myself and the director and has been referred to in the annual report of the director of investigation and research. It would depend upon whether the circumstances were drawn to the attention of the director and what, indeed, were the circumstances under which identical tenders were submitted. It is a rather vague question, and I am sorry I cannot give a more definite answer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Has the
Minister of Labour received a resolution from the council of the municipality of Kent, New Brunswick, requesting that that area be declared a surplus labour area, and if so what is the intention of the department with respect to that resolution?


Michael Starr: Since the hon. member has not given me notice of his intention to ask this question, I shall have to take it as notice and obtain the information.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of an answer

Supply-Labour
which he gave yesterday concerning a proposed C.B.C. program of political satire by Jean Templeton. My question is this. Will the minister find out from the C.B.C., and advise the house, what references to the President of the United States, to Mr. Khrushchev and to the royal family, were deleted from that proposed program?


George Clyde Nowlan: I will take the question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question which I put to the Minister of Defence Production the other day and which the Minister of Transport was good enough to say he would answer today, but which I understand now is the responsibility of another minister, so that I can ascertain just where it stands. The question is this. Is it a fact that Seaboard World Airlines has defaulted to Canadair Limited on the purchase of its five CL-44's, and what assistance has the government given Canadair to protect it from losses? Is the Minister of Transport able to answer?


Léon Balcer: In the first instance this question should have been directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I took the question as notice because I was Acting Minister of Defence Production, but actually the question should have been directed to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He will be in the house tomorrow and will be able to answer the question.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Special services-
613.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combating seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council-further amount required, $90,000.
614.	Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1961-62 and 1962-63 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 15th day of October, 1961 to such day in the fiscal year 1962-63 as may be determined by the governor in council and to authorize payments in those

fiscal years to provinces in respect of previous municipal winter works incentive programs in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $40,000,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I intend to be quite brief, Mr. Chairman, but I rise to support this item because it does provide some measure of welcome employment to those who obtain that temporary and short term employment. From the point of view of members of this group it completely fails to meet the problem. It is a palliative, a short run approach to the question.
Before proceeding, I do want to say I appreciate the courtesy of the minister in informing the members as to the details of the regulations with respect to this program and the works that will be undertaken in the particular ridings. I also say that in my experience the municipal authorities, that is the people who very frequently work on a voluntary basis, have done their best to co-operate with the federal government in giving effect to this program. However, unfortunately the minister, with the best of intentions, is placed in the position of having to use what we consider obsolete methods to meet the present serious and continuing problem so far as unemployment is concerned.
Now, we do not blame individuals. However, it is the function of this government to try to make capitalism serve the needs of the people to the best of its ability. That is its function because it supports this present economic order, and supports so-called free enterprise. As a matter of fact, legitimate, responsible free enterprise is disappearing from the scene in many sections of industry and business. This program is an attempt to overcome the effects of planning for profits instead of planning for the welfare of persons.
This government, and all governments of the same political philosophy, recognize that the world has changed. Many years ago these unemployed persons would have been unfortunate enough to remain unemployed, without assistance. But governments have changed their views in our lifetime. The doctrine that governments must do something, even those governments supporting capitalism, to overcome the hardships occasioned by slumps or depression, is orthodox economics and entirely within the framework of the economic philosophy that this government accepts. Therefore it is trying to do something with this program.


Mr. Grafftey:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


William Heward Grafftey: He made a very interesting remark. Would he also admit that legitimate nationalization is disappearing from the scene?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman has much more knowledge of what is legitimate or illegitimate than I have. Therefore I am unable to understand or answer that question.
As I have said, the government is trying to do something. The government tries to do all it can without trespassing on the privileges of those vested interests that more and more control our economy. That is the basic reason as we see it, Mr. Chairman, for these piecemeal, partial, part time remedies that are put forward to assist certain persons in agriculture and certain persons in Canada who are unemployed. What happens today is that these vested interests, representing monopoly capitalism, accept no responsibility for the welfare of the nation as a whole or their own employees if they have to be employed at a loss or even at a lowering of the profit rate. They leave their casualties to be dealt with by the government.
What is the position in Canada today? I understand we have between 400,000 and 500,000 persons unemployed, while at the same time we can spend over 1600 million upon armaments and so-called defence. Even reading today's newspapers we must all be conscious of the fact that there is a terrific amount of waste in that quarter. A previous speaker made reference to waste in respect of gasoline which amounted to some $144,600. That is just one of the few items mentioned in press reports of waste discovered by the Auditor General in the department of defence. I am not blaming any particular individual, but even though we are spending these huge sums of money, were it considered necessary to spend another $200 million or $300 million on Bomarc sites we would provide the money without question.
Only yesterday we learned of a United States implement corporation buying out the interest of the Cockshutt company, and because that corporation does not accept any responsibility to the Canadian nation as a whole it at once lays off many Canadian employees. It does that instead of accepting some responsibility which might entail the company operating at a loss or at a lower profit margin for a period of time. Its planning is entirely determined by the yardstick of profit, and its activities are not carried out in the interests of the welfare of the employees.
At present many large companies do more than they did in previous years with respect to pension plans; but the individuals in charge of management, because of the necessities of the economic situation under which we operate, must first of all consider the profit
Supply-Labour
side of the ledger and not the welfare of human beings. This is something which disturbs Canadians living under these very serious and trying conditions.
The party for which I speak recognizes the situation and the need for what we term modern policies and modern economic tools to meet the situation. We say there is no use, even with the best intentions, in approaching our agricultural depression by offering our farmers some assistance in the form of acreage payments, and by offering a very small percentage of our employed some short term employment. We believe we must establish a system of planning in this country. I am not suggesting for a moment that this will suddenly cure all our ills, but we must have planning undertaken by those responsible to the people, whether in the federal, provincial, or municipal fields, so that planning can be based on a country wide, long term development of our natural resources. I am also suggesting a planning policy of public and private investment based on the sound use of our national credit.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we all know that in the last 25 years the humbug of finance has been exploded in quarters that had knowledge of what was involved. But that humbug is tenacious. It has a long life. It has the influence of those who are in charge of the press, advertising media, and so on. We are using unorthodox finance methods today by going off the gold standard and by the raising of large sums of credit based on the value of our natural resources.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Will the hon. member permit a question? That is a very provocative phrase which he has used, at least provocative in the intellectual sense. He has spoken of the "humbug of finance." That covers a lot of territory and I wonder would he explain what he meant. He did not limit it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would say the humbug of finance is the idea, as it were, that the banks create money, that money is something only banks can create and distribute. Money is only credit, and credit is based on the opportunity to apply labour to our natural resources and manufacturing resources. From our point of view all that is required is that the state should provide capital related to the value of our natural resources, in other words use national credit to establish a planned public and private investment policy.
Would the hon. member object to this illustration? In my own district a United States corporation-and I am not blaming the individuals concerned because we are all working under this system-has acquired a tremendous area of natural resources, forestry resources. It had to obtain the management

Supply-Labour
licence first and one of the senior officials of the company said to me "Once we had the management licence we had no difficulty in raising the capital in New York." The point is that all the credit was based on the natural resources, plus the know how of the company to apply its techniques and labour to those natural resources.
What we are saying is that we should have an investment policy, both public and private, which would make possible a national credit policy, which in turn would make possible a public and private investment policy under national control. It is only by planning for the development of our natural resources and the utilization of our credit and investment that we can provide a stable economy, which will assure those who are willing and able to work the labour and income to which they are entitled.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He seems to me to be seeking to create a differential between production carried out by private enterprise and that undertaken by public enterprise. He seems to suggest that in one kind of production there is planning and that there is no planning in the other sort. However, the hon. member, who is himself a businessman, must agree that there is not even the smallest operation carried out without constant planning. I think he will agree with that, but I would like to be assured.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I quite admit there must be planning as Mr. Kirkpatrick, chairman of the chamber of commerce said recently we have to have more planning in Canada. But the planning by large corporations must be undertaken on the basis of showing a profit as the prime result. In the illustration which I gave, the head office in New York decides the market for a certain commodity, and when the market falls it can decide to keep its United States plants working at full capacity and shut down its Canadian plant for a number of weeks. That is planning in the interests of the company, not in the interests of Canada and the Canadian people.
Now, I am not pointing the finger at individuals, because we all have to operate in the present environment. However, we in this party claim that governments have to accept responsibility for planning in all these fields if we are to have a stable economy which will provide the Canadian people with the security and income to which they are entitled.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, my first words will be a tribute to the employees of the

national employment service and of the unemployment insurance office in Joliette, who are giving such good service to the people of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
May I more particularly and publicly commend the present managers of the office, Mr. Maurice Carmel, Mr. Clovis Rondeau, Mr. Yves Dion and their whole staff. Moreover, I should like to congratulate the man who accepted to chair the winter employment campaign, Mr. Rene Giroux. Mr. Giroux and his executive committee are making a constant and devoted effort to stimulate winter employment.
Mr. Chairman, it might be advisable to stress the part the province of Quebec is playing in the winter works program. As a matter of fact, according to official Department of Labour estimates to date, the cost of projects in the province of Quebec would amount to $95 million and the federal contribution to $13,200,000.
The city of Montreal has, on its own, undertaken projects amounting to approximately $10 million for the current year and will receive about $1 million from the federal government.
Yesterday's Nouveau Journal said that the winter works program carried out in the province of Quebec, will give employment to about 46,000 people.
I also want to point out the contribution of the town of Joliette in the field of winter works. The town of Joliette is undertaking projects worth $417,000 and will get $50,000 from the federal government.
The town of L'Assomption will launch projects for a total cost of approximately $140,000, the federal contribution being $22,000.
The town of Repentigny has provided for $306,000 worth of projects, and the federal grant will be $38,000.
Rawdon, in the county of Montcalm, is undertaking projects for about $10,000, the federal share being $4,000. That is for the township of Rawdon; the village of Rawdon proposes to spend $36,000, while the federal government will pay approximately $14,000 for winter works projects.
It is rather unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) should not be in the house. When he rose yesterday-I am referring to page 418 of Hansard-he referred to an item published in the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil of July 27, 1961. Among other things, he said that municipalities of our Canadian provinces were getting deep into debt, and that it would not help the municipalities.

However, Mr. Chairman, the statements of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) which were based on that report in Le Soleil, are completely at odds with the statement of the present minister of municipal affairs of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Cliche.
According to La Presse of January 3, 1962, the Quebec minister for municipal affairs would have made the following statement:
There is no cause for alarm concerning capital expenditures by the municipalities: they result from a trend in economic development.
He added:
The public works that the municipalities must undertake to meet the increasing needs always require large expenditures and are reflected by growing financial liabilities for the citizens. In accordance with the trend in recent years, the number and the amount of municipal bonds sold on the market, during the year which is just about to end, have been maintained at a high level. There is nothing alarming about that fact; on the contrary, since capital expenditures made by municipalities reflect a trend towards development. As long as the new bonds keep in line with the paying capacity of the taxpayers, there is no reason to worry. Besides, the authorities see to it that these bond isues do not go beyond a wise limit imposed by financial resources.
And the minister for municipal affairs added the following:
The number and value of projects carried out by the municipalities in the province of Quebec to fight unemployment have substantially increased. The decision by the provincial government to contribute 40 per cent of labour costs has no doubt impelled a greater number of municipalities to take part in the winter works program. Everything tends to indicate that the number and value of the works carried out under this program are going to increase during the winter of 1961-62. We should be happy about it, because a greater number of workers will thus be able to get the money they need so badly for themselves and their families.
Mr. Chairman, I also have before me a statement made by the Quebec premier as reported in La Presse of January 3, 1962:
The forecasts for the period which is just starting would even be optimistic, on account of a certain business "recovery". Of course, there will always be pessimistic people. A company director, whose career was a success, once said; "Optimism should be a watchword for everybody". It might be said that optimism never put anything on a plate, however, fortunes have been made by some people because of an optimistic smile.
This, Mr. Chairman, is in reply to the gloomy statements on the future of Canada's economy, which were made yesterday in this house by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) and which are, I believe, contrary to those of his Quebec provincial leader.
Now, I should like also to refer to an article entitled "Report from Ottawa", by Mr. Patrick
Supply-Labour
Nicholson, one of the most prominent reporters in Canada, who states:
-that Mr. Paul Martin keeps on telling his fairy tales, but that it is "like a wicked witch that he carries on his smear campaign against Canada, which he sees only as a country of misery, depression and unemployment".
At the last Liberal convention in Ottawa, the most influential strategist of the Liberal party, Mr. Walter Gordon, acknowledged that the pre-war crisis began in 1929 under the Liberal government of Mackenzie King. And the now famous "hidden report" of 1957 clearly showed that the recession of that year had also begun under the Liberals, that is the St. Laurent government. Therefore, Mr. Paul Martin is discrediting himself and contradicting historial facts when he claims that, on both occasions, Conservative governments were responsible for the recession and unemployment.
And yet, he keeps on singing the same old tune which is perhaps his swan song. But the federal government does not lay off employees in industry; it does not build foreign compact cars to compete with Oshawa; nor does it give away American surplus wheat which deprives our prairie farmers of their markets. Furthermore, the federal government does not create employment. Neither Mr. Paul Martin nor the Liberal party could, if they were in power, create one single additional job, except by adding to the number of civil servants.
Mr. Chairman, La Presse of September 23, 1960, quotes a statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson):
Unemployment, he went on to say, is a problem which affects all levels of governments, and the responsibility thereof cannot be placed on the federal government only.
Need I recall, Mr. Chairman, what was stated in the House of Commons on March 23, 1955, by the then hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, Mr. Maurice Breton?
Some people seem to think the problem of unemployment is one for the federal government alone to solve. Still, by virtue of constitution and custom, the property, control and responsibility with regard to natural resources in this country are vested in the provincial governments. Therefore it would be abnormal for provinces which claim credit for the industrial development of this country to refuse to accept their share of responsibility for unemployment. It is true that unemployment insurance legislation is a federal responsibility. This has been brought about through the consent of the provinces. But such legislation is only a means of helping the unemployed and does not, by itself, create employment.
Mr. Chairman, on two different occasions, the premier of the province of Quebec committed huge blunders at the expense of the unemployed. The first time, at a meeting of the union of county councils of the province, he got mad and said that unemployment insurance was costing the province too much money. Because the government must spend approximately $6 million a month to help those who are without work, he said that the unemployed were lazy. He claimed that those who receive unemployment benefits would rather depend on the government than work, because the amount they receive is larger

Supply-Labour
than the minimum salary. "Those benefits are a premium tor idleness", pompously declared the premier.
The premier of the province of Quebec immediately received a harsh reply. This time, instead of attacking the unemployed, he turned on semi-disabled people who, as such, are not covered by the Disabled Persons Allowances Act, but come under unemployment assistance. According to the premier, those 42,000 semi-disabled persons represent a substantial amount in the budget of unemployment assistance and are largely responsible for the fact that those payments will cost the government over $75 million this year.
This, on the part of the premier, is really odious and it is increasingly obvious for the people of the province that the fidgets of their political leader evidently show the incompetence of the administration.
After those statements by the premier of the province of Quebec, protests arose. With reference to the recent statements made by the premier, the Quebec workers federation, through Mr. Julien Major, commented as follows:
II Mr. Lesage thinks that Quebec workers will accept to go back to the time when the laws of the jungle prevailed on the labour market, he is wrong, because they now have enough political conscience to get rid of a government which would like to bring back the most shameful days of T. D. Bouchard's plan, who was also a Liberal.
Mr. Chairman, the provincial government, through its ministers, comes out with contradictions as far as the responsibility for unemployment is concerned.
Do I have to recall the statement of the Hon. Bona Arsenault, minister of "the uniform".
The solution of unemployment rests with Ottawa.
We are familiar with the document I have here-and I have spoken about it in this house-that is, section 12 of the platform of Quebec Liberals which reads as follows:
The provincial government must assume its responsibilities in the matter of unemployment.
In the comments, it is stated that "unemployment is a family affair" and that "we must pursue the necessary policies to fight the sources of that evil which undermines the security of thousands of Quebec families". Then, the program mentions four kinds of unemployment: structural, technological, seasonal and cyclical. It suggests ways of coping with them. For the first three cases, no mention is made of Ottawa and great stress is placed on the functions of the economic guidance council.

Mr. Chairman, need I refer again to that quotation from La Reforme of November 19, 1960, which read:
Unemployment: family problem and provincial responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I would advise all members of the opposition, who are pessimistic and who are constantly harping on the gloomy state of our economy, to take their inspiration from a statement reported in La Presse of August 20, 1959. It is a letter signed by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), which reads as follows:
The fight against unemployment is a responsibility of the government and the governed, of management and labour, of public men and businessmen, of industrialists and bankers, in other words every one must co-operate in a constructive way to the gradual elimination of that social plague, and every one must at the same time avoid trading upon popular passions.
Mr. Chairman, this last quotation should be of particular interest to the hon. members of the opposition. And the hon. member for Lapointe goes on to say:
What we must guard against is to try and promote a cause or a political ideal at the expense of those who are suffering of such a plague as unemployment. There are too many demagogic politicians-
I should like to point out incidentally that he was addressing himself to his Liberal friends.
-whose main ambition is to sell their own product or promote their own advancement, by taking advantage of any social disorder, which becomes, in their eyes, a mere accident or just another opportunity in the planned pursuit of their political objectives.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe was thereby giving a lesson to his friends who are sitting with him on the opposition benches.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few notes and in order not to err about dates and quotations, may I be allowed to speak from those notes. According to the press, the leader of the Liberal opposition in Ottawa, the hon. member for Algoma East, Mr. L. B. Pearson, said in Ontario:
That one of the main objectives of a Liberal government, on the national level, would be to launch a massive attack against unemployment.
Mr. Pearson was prudent enough not to utter those words in the province of Quebec. The fact is that many of his listeners would have referred to the provincial Liberal propaganda of 1960, which held the provincial government of the time responsible for unemployment in our province.

How the Liberals exploited and deceived our unemployed with that theme. Once in power, they were to put a stop to unemployment. And unemployment, as we know, exists. They did not take any effective measure to provide jobs for those who had none.
Instead, they cut down the work, they patronized firms from outside Quebec and they reduced or eliminated unemployment insurance or social benefits to the needy.
Furthermore, Hon. Bona Arsenault, the minister who advocated the wearing of uniforms, as I said a moment ago, stated before the chamber of commerce of Saguenay:
The solution of the unemployment problem has always been the responsibility of the federal government.
And the newspaper article continues:
Then, Mr. Arsenault, and you Mr. Lesage, the custodian of the Great Seal, and you Mr. Rene Levesque, the opponent of free enterprise, why don't you tell us why you have charged the former administration with responsibility for unemployment if it was, as you say today, a federal rather than a provincial problem?
Will you admit that you were dishonest in your speeches and in your propaganda? Will you also admit that you laughed at the unemployed and that you used them as a stepladder to power?
As for you, Mr. Pearson, your promises are not worth any more than those made by Mr. Lesage in 1960. You refused to deal with the unemployment problem before the present Prime Minister ousted you from office. How could your incompetence and your apathy of yesteryears suddenly transform themselves into an infallible remedy to the unemployment problem? Mr. Pearson, you are also trying to laugh at the unemployed and the needy and you are attempting to use them as a political football to win an election.
Mr. Chairman, the premier of Quebec does not want the unemployment insurance benefits to disappear, and he had to say so in the face of the tide of protests that followed his statements against that system of assistance to the unemployed. However, one will not soon forget the attack of the premier of Quebec which can be termed as an insult to the unemployed of our province. A labour leader even wondered whether Mr. Lesage would not be one of those intellectual fossils of the thirties still prepared, in 1961, to question the usefulness of social security.
It is obvious that there has been abuse with regard to unemployment insurance, just as there is in connection with any social measure taken by municipal, provincial or federal authorities. We must fight such misuse but fight it in such a way that innocent people will not suffer.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


The Chairman:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Samuel Boulanger: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Supply-Labour
I would like to ask the hon. member for Joliette-LAssomption-Montcalm to tell us who wrote the speech he is reading.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking from notes I prepared and corrected myself. I think it is my duty to do so in order to correctly give the quotations I have to make, like this one from a labour leader-


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman. I wonder why the hon. gentleman is allowed to read his speech-he knows very well nobody is allowed to read a speech in this house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I agree that this rule is justified but the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has just explained that he has extensive notes at which he glances once in a while.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have several statistics which I will read into Hansard later on.
In addition, I should like to quote certain statements and I would not want them misinterpreted by members of the opposition who are experts in that field; instead, I would rather follow my text and look at it from time to time.
With the Quebec premier, everything was thrown overboard and investigations were re-opened, new forms were required, etc. We shall never know how much suffering and hardship were caused by such a decision.
In fact, is there so much abuse in our province? In that connection, I should like to refer to an article which appeared in Le Nouveau Journal on June 12, 1961, and in which it is stated that in 1959-60 the province of Ontario spent $12 million on unemployment assistance, and the province of British Columbia over $7 million, while the province of Quebec spent $6 million. Yet, the number of unemployed was quite high in Quebec.


Mr. Denis:: How much unemployment was there under Mr. Duplessis?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: In view of those figures, we fail to understand how there can be any talk of considerable abuse and how Mr. Lesage can spend $100 million on unemployment assistance in 1962.
Besides, the Liberal government would not have to worry so much about unemployment assistance if it had kept its promise to put an end to unemployment in the province. Instead of that, the Quebec government seems bent on fostering unemployment by taking steps to discourage new operations.
If the province can afford to keep a Quebec House in Paris, it seems to me it should also be able to provide for its unemployed.

Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote an article which appeared in the newspaper Le Devoir on January 18, 1962, and which reads as follows:
Mr. Jean Lesage has emphasized that according to the latest statistics isued by the federal government, there were 129,000 unemployed in the province of Quebec in December 1961, that is 31.2 per cent of the total figure for Canada.
And Mr. Unemployment himself, Mr. Lesage added-


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Unemployment, quite right, quite appropriate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Let's call him Mr. Unemployment.
-and Mr. Unemployment added:
That is the lowest percentage since dominion bureau of statistics figures have been available.
Need I remind the house of the protests which were raised by the confederation of national trade unions when their leaders deplored the fact that there was not a single word in the Quebec speech from the throne about the present unemployment situation in the province. Here is what we read in an article published in La Presse on January 15, 1962:
However, the confederation of national trade unions regrets that the speech from the throne has nothing to say about the unemployment problem which should undoubtedly be foremost in our collective minds.
The representatives of the confederation protested because the Quebec speech from the throne did not mention the unemployment situation in the province.
Some time ago a delegation went to Quebec, Mr. Chairman. It included officers of the Quebec federation of labour, the confederation of national trade unions, the industrialists, professional association, the catholic farmers' union, the co-operation council and of the Quebec chamber of commerce. These representatives, united in a common effort, went to meet the premier of the province and offered him suggestions concerning the employment situation. They had prepared a number of suggestions which I am glad to put on Hansard. Here they are:
Be It resolved: (a) that the provincial government be asked to establish a fact-finding service for collecting data on employment.
This service should first make surveys, at regular intervals, in all areas of the province, to determine:
1.	The number of unemployed;
2.	The average age, age category and sex of the unemployed;
3.	The average length of the unemployment periods and the types of unemployed in relation to the length of unemployment;
4.	The industrial and occupational groups where unemployment is found;

5.	The family obligations of the unemployed;
6. The degree of education of the unemployed;
7. The means of livelihood of the unemployed who have used up their unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it would be important-and here, if possible, I would ask the Quebec provincial authorities to become aware of their responsibilities-to act on section 12 of the Liberal party program, which states that:
Unemployment is a family affair, a provincial one.
If the province of Quebec were to act upon the recommendations put forward by leaders of all social classes, I believe that the evil of unemployment, which has spread all over the province, would be lessened. This problem has not been settled according to the promises made by the Quebec government.
It is becoming more and more generally known that requirements for available jobs in industry are getting to be extremely hard to meet. Statistics have shown that, despite the fresh outbreak of unemployment in the country, numerous vacancies still remain to be filled owing to the lack of qualified applicants.
It has been learned from statistics that about 70 per cent of our unemployed do not possess any skills which would ensure employment; 70 per cent of those unemployed workers have had no schooling beyond the seventh grade and are forever suffering from the ups and downs of cyclical employment and unemployment.
I now want to pay a tribute in this house to the federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) who helped to relieve the jobless, and encouraged them to increase their knowledge when he raised allowances paid to the unemployed who are continuing their studies.
Ottawa is paying 75 per cent of the cost of courses for the unemployed, while the provinces contribute 25 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, at this point, I shall have the satisfaction of reading some figures, with regard to the province of Quebec, into the record. We have been told that almost 11,000 unemployed in this country have availed themselves of those courses, 4,170 in Quebec, and only 494 in Ontario.
During the first six months of 1961-62, that is up to September 30 last, almost 4,000 persons, in Quebec, enrolled for these classes.
Mr. Chairman, it would also be urgent that in the county of L'Assomption, which is part of the riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, a technical school be built so as to give our young people the opportunity to learn a trade and prepare for tomorrow.

The federal government is ready to pay 75 per cent of the construction costs of a vocational training school in any province which wishes to take up the offer, but the initiative must come from the provinces.
I therefore ask the Quebec government to take the initiative of building this school and the federal government will then pay 75 per cent of the costs. Mr. Chairman, this would provide the province of Quebec with means to cope with this calamity of unemployment.
May I now be allowed to quote from the statement made by the Hon. Rene Levesque at a Liberal women's convention, as reported in Le Nouveau Journal of September 25, 1961:
-that lack of education is responsible for unemployment.
It does not say that the federal government is responsible.
Lack of education is responsible for unemployment.
Then Mr. Levesque went on to speak of unemployment and claimed that lack of education is responsible for unemployment. "We cannot" he said "create small jobs for those who have no education". A lot of unemployed are not fit for the jobs available.
There are at present 116,000 unemployed in the province: 50,000 of them at least are permanently unemployed. They are diseased. How many could be saved? How many have below-average education? What does it cost the government to help them?


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


Azellus Denis: Do not be sorry, Mr. Chairman. (Text):


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the last speaker who, I think, forgets that the leaders of his party prior to the election of March, 1958 said they could cure the evil of unemployment. At that time I remember hearing the Minister of Labour say on television that unemployment would disappear in the spring. We all know the Minister of Finance said that unemployment would disappear with the snow.
I listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. member who preceded me, who said that the word "unemployment" was not even used in the throne speech in Quebec. I think this year is the first time the word has even been mentioned in the throne speech here; yet by its policies this government has more to do with unemployment in this country than has any province.
I listened with great interest to what the Minister of Labour said yesterday about this vote. I am in favour of this vote. I think it
Supply-Labour
puts a certain number of men to work. However, this measure is a palliative, is comparatively meagre in its application, and is no answer at all to the unemployment problem.
I know the minister said that a number of proposed projects are not yet under way this year. If we go back to the fiscal year 1960-61 we find that there were 2,153 projects that gave employment to 121,000 men. The minister said that each man obtained an average of 45 days of work. This means that the winter works projects produced the equivalent of 21,000 jobs on a full time basis. But since this government pays only half the labour cost, it follows that this government's contribution to the winter works program is slightly over 10,000 jobs on a five day week basis for the full year.
We hear a great deal about the winter works program. However, when you compare 10,000 jobs with 719,000 people out of work last February, you can see the inadequacy of what has been done. That is why I say the effort is a meagre one. It means that there is about one full time job for every 70 persons out of work. The record of this government is one out of 70. If they wish to take into consideration another month in which the number of unemployed was not so great, it will be found that the record is still dim.
The minister referred to the winter works program in glowing terms. In my opinion the municipalities have come to the aid of the government. They have provided this work and have not received much benefit in return. I say they have not received much benefit in return for these reasons. First, we have the higher cost of construction in wintertime. I have read that the cost of construction in the wintertime, depending on the work, is higher by from 25 per cent to 30 per cent. Not being in the construction industry myself I would not know whether or not that figure is correct.


Mr. MacEwan:: That is a lot of nonsense.


William Hector McMillan: Certainly any construction being done in this deep freeze weather would be a great deal more expensive than it would be in the summer months.
The municipalities also complain that it is difficult to obtain money at a reasonable rate of interest in order to finance their capital costs in connection with this winter works program. I have also had municipalities complain to me-they have written to me and I have transmitted their communications to the government-to the effect that the government held up interim payments in respect of the winter works program. This difficulty

Supply-Labour
has cost the municipalities a good deal of money, because they are obliged to pay a high interest rate at the bank.
As to this money we are voting today, I say that the government will never pay back one cent of this vote. They will borrow it. They will never pay one cent of the interest on this vote. We know that the printing presses are working and printing about $6 million of new money a day. It will take just about a week of running these printing presses in order to soak up this vote.
I read a submission made to this government on November 10 last by the federation of mayors and municipalities. In this submission a number of obstacles were brought to the attention of the government. I might say that these obstacles have been brought to the attention of the government by members on this side of the house during the course of the last three or four years. As one major obstacle to fuller municipal participation, mention is made in the brief of lack of any provision for financial assistance in the purchase of materials. Attention is also called to the difficulty experienced by municipalities with regard to borrowing money at a reasonable interest rate in order to finance the capital cost of the program. It would be much better if we had some type of municipal loan fund, such as that which we have recommended, in order that municipalities might be able to go ahead with their various projects with money obtained at a reasonable rate. This submission also stated that it was not always practicable for some municipalities to do this work in wintertime. They say that they are willing to reschedule their work and do as much as possible of it in the wintertime, but that this is not always possible. They also assert-and they brought this matter to the attention of the government- that while the unemployment rate is high in the wintertime, it is also very serious in other seasons of the year.
They made a number of recommendations and passed several resolutions as well. Among these recommendations was this one, which particularly attracted my attention. They favoured a return to sanity in the handling of the unemployment insurance fund. They recommended that the act should be revised in order to restore the insurance principle- and they used the word "restore"-so the solvency of the fund would be assured, as they felt that in fact the fund would soon be bankrupt.
I do not see much hope, however, that the government will bring this act up for revision during this session. I know it is mentioned in the speech from the throne. However, in speaking yesterday the minister said that a vote would be brought in during this session

or before the end of this fiscal year for the purpose of making a grant to the unemployment insurance fund. This amount will be added to our debt and our taxpayers will be called upon to pay this extra bill.
Last year we in the opposition brought forward several measures that the government might adopt in order to stimulate our economy. One of them was double depreciation. We said it would stimulate our economy and that, as a result, we would have less unemployment and there would be less need for the winter works program. The government did not accede to our suggestion but made provision for double depreciation only in those areas of surplus manpower. Double depreciation was made applicable in those areas, but in other areas it was not allowed unless a new product was being manufactured.
A surplus manpower area was defined by a complicated formula which took you back to 1953. I made an appeal in this house, I think it was in September of last year,, to have Welland declared a surplus manpower area. Welland city and that area applied to the government to be so designated. From 1953 through 1956 Welland had comparatively few unemployed, but there have been a lot of unemployed in that area in the last three or four years. As a result of the high employment figures in the earlier years Welland was unable to qualify as a surplus manpower area in which double depreciation would be allowed.
I know that the government showed flexibility in arriving at some decisions. They had to be flexible in order to put Elliot Lake in the surplus manpower category, because Elliot Lake was non-existent in 1953. At the time this decision was being made with regard to Welland, the Atlas Steel Company there was coming to a decision on the location of its $42 million stainless steel plant extension. Double depreciation would mean a saving of some millions of dollars in income tax to the Atlas Steel Company. Of course the people in Welland were very anxious to have this plant extension located there. I feel it is significant that Atlas Steel did not make known its decision as to the location of the new plant until after an adverse decision had been rendered by the Minister of Labour on Welland's application to be declared a surplus manpower area.
I have no objection to a plant moving from Ontario or from my area to another province providing that province has better things to offer and it is more economical for the plant to locate there. However, I do disagree with this government that it should make one area more desirable in so far as taxes are concerned to the extent that this

would be an important factor in deciding upon the location of a plant. I know other reasons were advanced for the removal of this plant. One reason advanced was that the company would be able to purchase electricity at a cheaper rate in the new area, but Hon. Mr. Macaulay of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission went on record very emphatically to the effect that he offered power to this plant at a rate competitive to the rate they would have to pay in the new location.
I think it is fair to say that if Welland had been able to retain this plant it would certainly not need any winter works program. This plant would have stimulated our economy. It would have helped business generally, and especially the small businessmen in that area. It would have helped the farmers in my area. It would have helped everybody in the city of Welland, because the people there pay high taxes as a result of increased welfare payments over the last few years, and the capital cost of any winter works program they have undertaken in the past. If this $42 million plant had been located in Welland every taxpayer would have been helped. There is no winter works program that could be put forward by this government that would in any way compensate Welland for this loss. I am sure there are few people in the city of Welland who agree with this government's plan to make one part of our country more desirable than another in so far as income taxes are concerned. I do not believe that is good business. I objected to it at the time. I said we should make double depreciation applicable right across the country.
During the debate the minister took credit for the pick-up in our economy. He said the results were simply wonderful. I am glad that there was some pick-up in our economy. At that time he cited the most heartening increases in the gross national product and in personal expenditures on goods and services. He talked about increases in expenditures under the winter works program. He also mentioned a decrease in the unemployed. We are all glad to see these things, but it would have been much better if we could have stimulated our economy through the private sector and then had a pick-up in employment as a result.
Last spring it was freely predicted that we would have a pick-up in our economy, and this improvement was reflected in a good many ways. We know that there has been a pick-up in the economy of the United States. We have a cyclical pick-up in this country. We know the United States economy has been stimulated through their armament program.
Supply-Labour
I say that in so far as this winter works program gives limited help to the municipalities, it is all right. However, I do believe that other measures should have been taken, particularly in view of the fact that the help we are giving under the winter works program only puts about 1 out of 70 in winter or 1 out of 30 in summer of the unemployed back to work.
During the debate on the speech from the throne the Minister of Justice referred to the winter works program and said that unemployment was very little higher now than it was under the previous administration. He painted a very rosy picture. I should like to ask him, if that is so, what happened to the unemployment insurance fund? Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave some rather extravagant figures in his speech. His speeches read something like fairy tales. I should like to ask him why, if conditions are so good in this country, there is not a scarcity of labour. He presents figures which are far more extravagant than those I ever heard presented before, and figures which are even better than those presented in Italy. When I was in Italy in October and November there was certainly no unemployment there. I was in Naples, a large city in the southern part of Italy, which in previous years had a lot of unemployment, and I was told that no one need go without a job as long as he was willing to work.


William Heward Grafftey: What was the average rate of pay?


William Hector McMillan: I do not know about the average rate of pay. They were working, and our unemployed get no pay.
I asked the Minister of Finance a question the other day about the unemployment insurance fund. He, of course, has taken that fund under his protective wing and in view of the minister's record we as members of the house must feel that we should look carefully at anything he takes under his tender care. On the basis of his record I do not think the Minister of Finance could run a peanut stand and keep it out of the red, even if you gave him the peanuts free. Certainly that has been his record in the past, and I believe we should be told about the unemployment insurance fund or any other fund which comes under the care of the Department of Finance and the Department of Labour.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He would probably use Cuban peanuts.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say-


The Deputy Chairman:: Has the hon. member for Lincoln a question?

Supply-Labour


Mr. Smiih (Lincoln):: I wish to ask a question of the hon. member for Welland. During his remarks he said that prior to 1957 there was little or no unemployment in Welland county. Does he remember that in June, 1954, a large delegation from Lincoln and Welland counties came to Ottawa and met Hon. Milton Gregg and the hon. member for Essex East? I shall quote some of the correspondence from Hon. Milton Gregg. At that time 12J per cent of the labour force was unemployed in Lincoln county and Welland county, a higher percentage than now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is that a question?


John Smith: I should like to quote a very short passage from a letter which I received from Hon. Milton Gregg. It states:
In view of this situation, I can only repeat what Mr. Martin stated at our meeting, namely, that your first recourse should be, in this case, to the provincial government.
In other words they washed their hands of our unemployment problem and told us to go and see the provincial government.


William Hector McMillan: I shall be glad to answer the hon. member for Lincoln. I did not use the year 1957. I referred to the earlier years, 1953-56, and there was considerable unemployment for a short time in that period, but our government did something about it.


Michael Starr: What?


William Hector McMillan: There were not as many unemployed then as there are now.


Michael Starr: That is because of the member they have.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I rise to add a further comment to the exchange which I had with the hon. member for Kootenay West when he was speaking. He agreed with me that in private enterprise as in public enterprise there would be planning, but he seems to think that in the case of private enterprise profit is the test and the motive, and that there would not be the same amount of productivity as there would be in the case of public enterprise where the motive was the public welfare.
I should like to make some comments on that. I think in private enterprise you have the driving impulse of private gain which impels people to produce in spite of risks. I think that to talk only about profit is wrong. There are any number of people who have sustained losses and who have nevertheless provided employment and assisted others. However, I come back to the fact that profit does help us. It is, as it were, the acid test of the worth-whileness and usefulness of what is being done. If we produce things which people will not buy then we
[The Deputy Chairman.]
make a loss, but if we produce things they will buy, and if we do it well, we make a profit.
In this connection I should like to quote Churchill, who has an apt comment on nearly everything. He said we should not complain about people who make a profit; we should complain about people who make a loss. The people who make a profit, whether they have that as a primary motive or not, are assisting other people by providing employment.
There is another point mixed up with it, one with which I think the hon. member for Kootenay West would not disagree. That is the distribution of the profit. Recently I read a very interesting book on that subject by a man who practises profit sharing. He says there are three elements, three parties, to be considered when distributing profits: the owners, the workers and the customers. On this I shall have some remarks to make at a more appropriate time, but at the moment all I say is that we should not regard profit as if it were a term of reprobation. As I have said already, Churchill said we should not complain about people who make a profit but about people who make a loss.


Frank Howard: I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. member for Kootenay West and to the comments made apropos of the same subject by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I also listened with very great interest and enlightenment to the speech made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne. In that regard I think he was speaking in the wrong place. He should have been in the Quebec legislative assembly.


Azellus Denis: That is for sure.


Frank Howard: I should like to make one comment with respect to the question of the profit motive and the value we should attach to it. I believe we should keep in mind the subject matter which we are discussing at the moment, participation with municipalities undertaking certain types of projects. The benefits, if there are any, which accrue to a municipal system or structure might be attributed to the degree of profit realized by private enterprise in industry, but these benefits are really consequential or inconsequential benefits; it does not matter which classification is used. They are not things in which industry itself is directly participating. They are the results, and they appear in the form of roads, sidewalks, sewage systems, water systems, light facilities, hospitals, and a variety of other municipal services. These are services which are provided through taxes levied on industry. That is the manner in which they are provided. Industry itself

does not participate directly in providing these particular services to a community. It does it in an indirect and, I submit, inconsequential way so far as the operators of industry themselves are concerned.
This is what I take to be the gist of those remarks in the extent they apply to the speech of the hon. member for Kootenay West. If there were this larger degree of social consciousness on the part of the entrepreneurs of industry as to the services which society should provide through its governments, perhaps we would not be in the state we are today with respect to those municipal services.
The winter works program, so called, was started, I gather from the statement of the minister, as an experiment in the winter of 1958-59. There was, of course, a great deal of discussion at that time about the announced program, about its weaknesses and its failings and the fact that it was confined to such a small number of projects. The minister stated yesterday-I will quote his exact words and then they will be correct, instead of paraphrasing them-at page 405 of Hansard, toward the bottom of the right hand column:
However, there were some who felt the program had little chance of success and that it would not appeal to the local governments. Now, to refute that, the increased number of municipalities that have taken advantage of the program each winter clearly indicates that it does appeal to municipalities;-
This type of political propaganda and political speeches engaged in by the minister and other hon. members on that side of the chamber are not factual or correct statements and are not correctly aligned to the situation. Here the minister is combining the thoughts which were expressed about this experimental program when it started in 1958 with its application today, and he is saying that the two are precisely the same. As the minister knows, this is just not so.
In 1958 the fields of endeavour in which the municipalities could engage, and toward which they could expect some contribution from the federal government, were very restricted compared with what they are this year and what they have been each year since the program started. In 1958-59 this program was first instituted as an experiment, as the minister said. Those who at that time said it had little chance of success and would not appeal to the local governments were quite correct, as the program was then defined.
I read portions of letters-and I have the Hansard with me-in the early winter months of that year. I quoted portions of letters from municipalities in my own district. These letters said substantially the same sort of thing, that the program was too restrictive or 26207-1-29
Supply-Labour
applied only to labour costs on certain types of projects. Certainly in the interior of the province, where heavy winters and low temperatures prevail for a long period of time, municipalities felt they would not be able to participate in the program that existed in 1958. Those statements were quite correct at that time. The only thing which has made the winter works incentive program acceptable to a larger number of municipalities has been the fact that the minister each year since 1958-59 has admitted he was wrong the year before. That is all that has made the program helpful.
If the minister had paid attention to or acted upon those suggestions we made in 1958 and 1959, when this program was instituted, and had put them into effect at that time, the program would have had a better chance of success in 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961. But the minister felt he must stick by his original philosophy not to accept anything from the opposition benches and carry on, and then admit that he was incorrect when a subsequent year rolled around.
The program instituted originally as an experiment is now lauded as a success. It has been a success each year. I am not decrying the degree of its success. However, I think this is what we should do. This type of program, designed as it was originally to promote employment in the municipalities during the winter months on certain types of projects, is something that should not be carried on, in my opinion, on a year to year basis by way of supplementary estimates for which the rules each year can change, and be advanced and expanded. It is something which should be contained in permanent statutory form as an indication by this parliament of Canada that even though we cannot deal directly, and do not wish to deal directly, with those affairs over which municipalities have jurisdiction, nevertheless we recognize as a parliament that they have great financial difficulties and we, as a parliament representing the people of this nation, have through this medium a responsibility to those municipalities to assist them financially wherever we can.
I think this program should be carried out by statute so it would be a permanent arrangement, something similar to the trans-Canada highway program. What would be the situation if we had started to build the trans-Canada highway in 1949 by paying for it each year by way of an estimate? The provinces would not know where they were going, and the federal government would not know where it was going financially or any other way.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member explain what he meant by his reference to allowing members of the cabinet to distort the figures?


Frank Howard: Certainly. There is no necessity to quote the words and figures the Minister of Labour used yesterday when he indicated that the program provided X number of man days of employment. He said in addition it promoted work in the winter season among people who would otherwise be unemployed. Statements of that nature have been made. Whether the figure of 10 man hours or 100,000 man hours is used, the result is substantially the same. A correct indication is not given of the situation that exists.
I know of some municipalities that postpone until wintertime work that would normally be undertaken in the summertime in order to have the federal government pick up the tab.

Supply-Labour
I read a newspaper article which indicated that the reeve of Burnaby said no additional people would be employed but some would be prevented from being laid off as a result of the program. I will use this as an example. The reeve is reported to have said that 200 men would likely be retained on the payroll who otherwise might be laid off but in all probability no new men would be hired.
The distortion arises from the fact that the impression is created that 200 additional jobs are being provided as a result of the government's program.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member not agree that 200 men were retained in employment who otherwise would have been unemployed? Does that not represent providing jobs for them?


Frank Howard: My hon. friend is in just as much a difficulty now as he was the other day when he referred to Premier Smallwood. (Translation):


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Speaker...
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Frank Howard: Are you calling me to order or those who are interrupting?


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.


Frank Howard: I am finished.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, it has become apparent during the course of this short debate that its tenor is different from that of previous debates on the estimates of the Department of Labour in other sessions. This is particularly evident when you sit back and listen to the speeches made by those in the opposition benches for, although they say they are concerned about unemployment in Canada as indeed are all hon. members of this committee, it becomes increasingly evident, at least from the speeches I have heard, that they are much more concerned about the fact that measures the government has taken to combat unemployment are proving to be effective.
This session members of the Liberal party have not attacked the government concerning the unemployment problem as strongly and arrogantly as they did in previous sessions. They do not approach the subject with the same degree of doom and gloom. We all remember the occasion when, a little over a year ago, the hon. member for Essex East predicted that one million Canadians would be out of work during the winter season. That prophecy was not fulfilled.
Last fall the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the scourge of unemployment across

the country and predicted that it would be very much worse this winter than the winter before.
The fact of the matter is that the measures this government has undertaken have improved the employment picture across Canada to such an extent that hon. members of the opposition are no longer in a position to attack the policies implemented by this government to combat unemployment.
The hon. member for Skeena rose and in his devious way misinterpreted and twisted the statements made by the Minister of Labour and the measures this government has undertaken to provide employment. He did so in an effort to indicate that the New Democratic party is the only party in Canada that has all the answers with regard to the problem of unemployment.


An hon. Member:: The Canadian Labour Congress says it cannot be done.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: We
all remember the founding convention of the New Democratic party last year and the resolution brought forward with regard to a full employment policy. So important was this resolution that the matter was not even settled at the convention. I do not believe for a moment that many Canadians know what the full employment policy of that party is because as far as I am aware the party has no such policy.
We all remember that Dr. Eugene Forsey stood on the floor of the convention and made his feeling known with regard to a full employment policy. He outlined the dictatorial way in which that party would have people shifted from place to place right across the country in order to fit them into their little slots.


Michael Starr: With state police guarding them.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Yes, with state police guarding them. Hon. members will recall the speeches made in this regard by the members of that party sitting on my right.
What has happened since then? The national leader of that party has stopped talking about a complete planned economy. In fact, of late, he does not even talk about a planned economy. A year ago in this house hon. members of that party represented here rose and said the only answer to the problem of unemployment in Canada is a complete planned economy. Why, today, a year later, is this no longer the answer?
I invite hon. members to recall the famous television debate between the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and Mr. Tommy Douglas. A question arose from the

audience as to whether or not Mr. Douglas' policy was in fact in agreement with a complete planned economy. He said, "Oh no, nothing like that. We do not need a complete planned economy." That appears in the television script.
A year ago today it was declared that we needed a complete planned economy. Why, all of a sudden, is the word "complete" now discarded? I believe this is done in an attempt on the part of the New Democratic party to place before the Canadian people a rosier picture of that party which no longer stands for anything radical but merely straddles the middle line.
This serves to illustrate to my way of thinking that the opposition parties, although concerned about unemployment as we all are, are really more concerned about the fact that this government has been able effectively to combat unemployment in Canada.
Let us look at the situation in the United States. Hon. gentlemen opposite were only too ready to look at the United States when steps were being taken there that perhaps put Canada in the background. What are the present facts? The United States government is attempting to implement measures we have already put into effect in Canada. The rate of unemployment in the United States is greater than it is in Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is not so.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: That is a fact. And who deserves the credit for what has been done in Canada? The Minister of Labour and his colleagues. Hon. members in both opposition parties sit in their seats muttering and groaning about this, that and the other thing. I invite them to give credit where credit is due when constructive measures have been undertaken.
When the government of the United States follows a constructive pattern established by the Canadian government hon. members of the opposition accord no credit to the Canadian government but when the Canadian government does not follow what is being done in the United States hon. members of the opposition, such as the hon. member for Trinity, are the first to rise and tell us we are wrong. In their eyes we are never right; we are always wrong.


Frank Howard: And sometimes you are half
right.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: The hon. member for Skeena has again put his foot in his mouth where it should remain all the time.
Supply-Labour
Surely hon. members opposite cannot reasonably expect the members of the Conservative party and the people of Canada to accept the gobbledygook they utter.
We in the Conservative party are concerned that the latest figures indicate there are 400,000 unemployed persons in Canada. I invite hon. members to compare the rate of increase in employment in recent years with pertinent figures relating to the early fifties. I invite them to take note of the amazing rate of increase in the number of people who have been employed in the last three or four years as compared with the rate of employed in the fifties, especially the early part of that decade. This reflects credit on the government. There is unemployment in Winnipeg just as there is in any urban city in Canada but great credit is due to the Minister of Labour and this government for the policies that have been implemented to alleviate the situation. I know that the winter works committee in Winnipeg composed of citizens from all walks of life deserve a great deal of commendation. They are people who, without any pay or recognition, go to work in order to help do things to ease unemployment in our province.
The government has gone ahead and has built a technical school in the province of Manitoba in my riding. That is a further indication of the fact that they are interested in providing technical training for those people who do not possess the necessary skills. I agree that the government is contributing only to the construction and not the operation of the school. However, it is a policy that was not in existence before we took office.
What about this municipal loan program the opposition parties preach about? Surely they do not believe it is the total answer to the whole question of unemployment. I agree that the suggestion itself has merit. But if we had gone along with the idea and had established this fund, by the time we had the money lent or had the municipalities apply for the loan, we would have had unemployment the like of which has never before been experienced in Canada.
This government acted by means of constructive and effective measures. Let no one in the opposition try to say that the figures on unemployment with regard to this year as compared with those of last year do not represent a distinct improvement right across Canada.
The economy of the country is operating at a high level. When hon. members talk about these two measures being all that is done for unemployment, surely they are only fooling themselves. The fact of the matter is

Supply-Labour
simply this, with regard to combating unemployment, that it is attacked and worked on through all departments of government. Things are done by every minister in every department to combat unemployment. Surely it cannot be said that this estimate of $40 million is the only thing we have done to combat unemployment. I would ask hon. members to look at the Department of Public Works, to look at the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources or for that matter to consider every department of government and to look at what has been done in the last five years. That is where the answer is to be found with regard to constructive policy in order to combat unemployment right across this country.
The hon. member for Peterborough talks about the $5 million grant with regard to amateur athletics and asks why we do not get busy and build recreational centres throughout the country. Surely he has enough sense to know that recreation is under provincial jurisdiction. He wants us to invade provincial jurisdiction and to start building recreational centres all across the country without regard to what they are going to be used for or where they are going to be built. That is another example of the way in which the members of the New Democratic party attack the problem. They say "Go ahead and if you are wrong go back, but do not stop to look".
I shall just conclude these few remarks with the flat statement that as far as I am concerned and as far as the people in western Canada are concerned, it is only too evident now that what the Minister of Labour and the other ministers have done with regard to combating unemployment is proving to be effective.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of following the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) in the politically biased diatribe he gave us a short while ago. As a matter of fact, we had the clear impression, at least for a while, that he was in the wrong parliament and thought he was in Quebec.
I am of the opinion that the speech of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, which is taken up by several of his colleagues from Quebec and elsewhere, is precisely the kind of speech that irritates the unemployed.
The Conservatives are trying, after four years of research, in academic discussions, with the help of misleading arguments, to conceal their present responsibility as far as unemployment is concerned.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not true.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has brought forward two arguments which I should like to refute immediately. First, he said that the previous administration was to blame for the present unemployment situation. Let me ask him this right now-and ask the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion): Even if this were true, why has this government been elected if not to find solutions to present problems? That is the important question. But in answer to the statements by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, let them never forget that when the Conservative government took over in 1957, they found $926 million in the unemployment insurance fund. Therefore, if we had had extensive unemployment when the Liberals were in power, the unemployment insurance fund would not have reached such a huge amount. That is the answer to that question.
There is another argument which is also irrefutable. It has been proven here in this house, in the presence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), that according to D.B.S. figures-compiled for the period 1946-56-the average percentage of unemployment has never exceeded 2.8 per cent, while the experts admit that 3 per cent represents full employment.
We are therefore entitled to say today that, under the previous administration this country had a period of full employment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: How many unemployed were there in 1957?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to wait, if he has any questions; I will answer them at the end of my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm also stated that unemployment concerned every government and every individual. We are most happy to notice this change of heart-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Tell us something about the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard).


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -because his former leader, Mr. Duplessis, used to say: "The unemployment problem is Ottawa's responsibility, it does not concern us". Now, the province of Quebec, under the Lesage government-
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: It being five
o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the

consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Items stand.
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, papers; private bills and public bills. There being no business under the first two headings, the house will consider public bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Frank Howard: the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of those designed to assist the government in reducing its quota of unkept promises from 12 to 11. I am sure that in that regard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and others will find no hesitancy in supporting it. The bill is rather lengthy and perhaps I can, in the few minutes allotted to me, attempt to give a succinct but full explanation of the thoughts behind it.
Briefly, the collective bargaining process which exists at the moment by virtue of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is as follows: The two parties, that is the union and management, bargain collectively with each other directly. If no satisfactory or mutually acceptable agreement is reached by that system, the next stage is for the appointment of a conciliation officer who is an officer of the Department of Labour. He confers with the parties in an attempt to get them to reach a satisfactory solution of their differences. If the conciliation officer is not able to effect a settlement, the matter is referred to a conciliation board which consists of a representative of the union, a representative of management or the company and a person classified as impartial as the chairman, either by agreement of the two parties or by appointment of the minister without their agreement. Following upon this, if there is no agreement reached, a strike or lockout may take place. There are, of course, many other social and economic difficulties arising from that situation.
The bill before the house seeks to make some rather major alterations in that particular system which I have just outlined and which has been in effect in Canada for a number of years. I believe the system was initially established by virtue of P.C. 1003,
Industrial Relations
an order in council made during the war and applying to the entire nation. The various pieces of provincial legislation dealing with this matter grew out of that order in council and are almost parallel to this act. One of the changes sought to be made is to extend from two months to three months that period of time before which the collective agreement expires and negotiations may be opened. The thought is that the greater the length of time spent in bargaining before the actual expiry date of the collective agreement, the better the chance that some mutual agreement will be reached before the actual expiry date. Another ancillary part of that is the reduction from 20 to 10 as the maximum number of days which must elapse before collective bargaining starts following notice by one or other of the parties.
One of the major principles contained in the bill is the elimination of the conciliation board step in the negotiations, to give to the conciliation officer the powers and authorities which a conciliation board has under the act and to extend the conciliation officer's initial period of time from 10 days to 30. This gives the conciliation officer the power and authority of a conciliation board and more time in which to attempt to bring about a settlement between the parties. A new provision in here is the establishment of a period of 21 days within which either party to the collective bargaining must indicate to the minister whether or not it intends to accept or reject the recommendations of the conciliation officer. Another principle is that no strike or lockout vote may be taken until seven days have elapsed after the conciliation officer has made his report.
Another new principle contained within this bill is a provision covering the appointment of a person called a mediator who would act in that period following the conciliation officer's report, and following the rejection by either side of the report, and following a strike or lockout vote his period of time for the operation of powers similar to the conciliation officer would be 14 days. There would be an allowance of an additional seven days before a strike or lockout could take place. The bill also provides for the acceptance of a system of negotiation differing from that set out in this bill, where such system is mutually agreeable as between the two parties and is approved by the labour relations board.
Now, I should like to deal with the reasoning behind some of these changes. Negotiations between union and management now are carried on under this act and similar provincial legislation. The present system leads to a great deal of delay and procrastination. The conciliation procedures set out in

Industrial Relations
the law have been altered over the years by union and management and, in fact, are still undergoing alteration in so far as the use of them is concerned. I know that many instances both union and management, depending on the circumstances, will use the conciliation procedures contained in this act, not for the purpose of collectively bargaining in good faith but for the purpose of delay. I know of instances where union and management depending on the circumstances, will virtually refuse to make any concession or come to any agreement at the first stage of negotiations hoping when they get before a conciliation officer they may get a better understanding of the position of the other party. Likewise there is delay and procrastination before the conciliation officer and a refusal to bargain in good faith in the hope of getting before a conciliation board and the hope that the board will make a report which will be beneficial to one or the other.
Again, in negotiations which may take place before the conciliation board there may be relatively little give and take. We find that when this approach is used to collective bargaining, as it has been used in a number of instances, all the parties are doing is spending the 60 or 70 day period allowed in the act in consolidating their position, building up their relative forces and, in effect, delaying themselves into a condition where a strike or a lockout becomes virtually an assured fact.
We hope, by virtue of the bill before the house, to place emphasis on collective bargaining in good faith. We hope to indicate that if we can eliminate the conciliation board step, which in many cases is superfluous and give those powers to the conciliation officer, we would eliminate one of the steps used for procrastination by the parties. Second, the report of the conciliation officer would be in the form of recommendations such as are now made by the conciliation board. A definite limit would be established as to the length of time which must elapse before the parties indicate whether or not they intend to accept or reject the report. We allow then for a strike or lockout vote. There is also an allowance for a so-called cooling-off period of approximately another three weeks at least during which time the services of a mediator may be engaged.
From past experience we feel that any conciliation officer who is worth his salt at all should be able, in a 30 day period of meeting with union and management separately and collectively, to get their points of view about the differences. If he then makes a report recommending a basis of settlement he will make a recommendation, wherever he possibly can, on some point which he

thinks is mutually acceptable, even though the parties may not have said so themselves. This is the value of a conciliation officer, conciliator or mediator-to glean from the parties those points on which they are willing to compromise. Then we allow for the strike vote, the cooling off period, and the mediator stepping into a situation the background of which has been to promote collective bargaining, a background in which the conciliation officer has the authority, power and ability to assess the merits of each case and, of his knowledge, make recommendations. Then, if those recommendations fail to provide a solution of the difficulties, in the light of that background the mediator will have a much better chance to bring about a solution of the problems before a strike takes place, rather than giving his assistance after a strike or lockout is in effect, as is the case now.
We also propose a system of collective bargaining different from that contained in the bill, where such is mutually acceptable to the two parties in negotiations, and where there is approval by the labour relations board. We say that the particular system we envisage, the system provided for at present, or any other system of collective bargaining will not apply in toto in all possible sets of negotiations which now take place.
For the sake of argument, I can say that a certain system of negotiation might be of no use at all to the railway industry. Certainly the system in existence now is of relatively little use because in past years when negotiations went on for months and months, and even stretched into years, we found the parliament^ of Canada being asked to step in and substitute our opinions and legislative decisions for the negotiations themselves.
We think, again for argument's sake, that if the railway unions and railway management sought to work out a mutually acceptable, satisfactory system of bargaining which suits that industry, they should be allowed to use that system notwithstanding the provisions in this particular act, so long as the labour board has knowledge of that system. We may find that the same thing exists in other cases, and we should think in terms of that and not of enforcing upon management and union a system of collective bargaining which may hamstring them and prevent them from reaching satisfactory solutions. What we propose is to offer them some alternative system whereby a solution can be mutually developed, a solution which is acceptable to them, which meets the needs of that industry, meets the customs of the union and management, and which will have a better chance of bringing about a collective agreement.

To sum up, we hope by the proposed amendments to the bill to place the emphasis on bargaining in good faith. We seek to ensure that good faith will be exercised to the fullest possible extent by provision for a conciliation officer, allowing for the strike vote, the cooling off period and the provision of a mediator. We believe that by such a system, or by a mutually acceptable alternative that might be reached by union and management, we can to a measurable degree cut down the long series of negotiations that take place, cut down delays in industry and the time consumed between the opening of negotiations and the signing of a final settlement.
We also think that by doing so we shall greatly reduce the area within which both union and management now operate for the purposes of delay and procrastination to meet the needs of one side or the other. By reducing that area, coupled with placing the emphasis on collective bargaining in good faith, we think we shall promote the signing of more collective agreements with less difficulty. By doing so we would help prevent the strikes and lockouts which might develop, and reduce the number of strikes and lockouts which now take place.


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to have this opportunity to speak on the important matters raised by the hon. member for Skeena in Bill C-5, which he has just explained to his colleagues in the house.
I have read the amendments that he proposes to the provisions contained in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, studied with some care the supplementary notes which accompany his suggested amendments, and listened with attention to the explanation he has just given us. I must confess that the amendments he proposes find favour at first blush with me, but at the outset I must say I only hesitate to give the proposed amendments stronger support because I feel the house would be ill advised to cut off one of the steps in conciliation procedure without at least consultation being had by the Minister of Labour with representatives of the Canadian labour congress and with representatives of management.
It is better that the bill proposed by the hon. member be considered by the Minister of Labour. It is better that the hon. member's recommendations, and the ramifications of carrying them out, be considered by persons who are more qualified than either the hon. member, myself, or any of us here, to determine the advisability of changes such as those he suggests.
Industrial Relations
In saying that I do not mean to minimize the weight that ought to be attached to the opinion expressed by the hon. member who, down through the years, has made considerable study of the matter; but I would feel happier in confirming my own predisposition of sympathy towards what he recommends had I the benefit of knowing what they think, and of having the viewpoint of persons of the type I have described.
The purpose of the legislation now existing is directed towards conciliation procedures. The principle upon which the legislation rests was defined in a very interesting paper read by Mr. Bernard Wilson who, at the time, was assistant director of the industrial relations branch of the Department of Labour and has since become the director of that branch, to the 14th annual conference of the Canadian association of administrators of labour legislation held in Regina in 1955. He said that the principles upon which presently prevailing compulsory conciliation procedures are founded are threefold. First of all he stated:
(1)	The public should not suffer from hasty or ill considered strike or lockout action.
(2)	There should be no strike or lockout pending compulsory conciliation.
(3)	Public opinion, informed through the investigation and report of a board of conciliation, would exert an influence toward reasonableness in labour relations.
What I find significant about Bill No. C-5 and its presentation to the house by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is that he recognizes the need for the retention of compulsory conciliation procedures but is advocating changes that would have the effect of eliminating one of the steps that up until now has formed part of those procedures. My reason for saying this is that the hon. member says, in the explanatory notes of the bill:
This bill proposes to improve the above system of collective bargaining in the belief that it is unduly time-consuming and that the stages of negotiation repeat themselves in certain aspects with the resultant tendency to promote industrial unrest. The method used is to eliminate the conciliation board and give its authority to a conciliation officer.
So that the hon. member would eliminate step No. 3 in the presently existing conciliation procedures. The fundamental principle upon which the conciliation procedures rest, as indicated by Mr. Wilson in the extract I mentioned a moment ago, is to avert the cause of a strike that would cause inconvenience and hardship to too large a number of people. The right to strike is never, surely, questioned by anyone in this house. It is true it is a powerful weapon, but it has been used on many occasions in the past in this country

Industrial Relations
and on this continent to advance the cause of the workingman, and a just strike deserves public support.
A strike, it is true, is capable of causing much hardship and much inconvenience, not only to the workers themselves who go on strike but to other persons who are not even remotely connected with the strike. One of the tests of the justice of any strike is, I suppose, the extent to which steps have been taken prior to its institution; the extent to which preliminary procedures have been exhausted and have been conducted by the parties in a spirit of good faith.
The present conciliation procedures-which are only briefly mentioned in the explanatory notes-are more thoroughly dealt with by Mr. Wilson in the paper to which I referred a moment ago. He describes the procedural stages as being four in number and says they are these:
(1) Direct negotiations by the parties. This is basically a collective bargaining procedure but is considered a conciliation stage here because it must be completed before conciliation can be requested. In my view, there is nothing to prevent the parties from being mutually conciliatory; unlike mediation, third parties need not be present.
The hon. member for Skeena does not suggest that stage No. 1 as it presently exists be eliminated. Stage No. 2, according to Mr. Wilson, is as follows:
The appointment of a conciliation officer (in nearly all provinces), upon application if direct negotiations have not resulted in agreement.
(3) The appointment of a conciliation board, if a settlement has not followed from the appointment of the conciliation officer.
It is stage No. 3 that the hon. member recommends we should eliminate. Stage No. 4 is not part of the legislation but is part of the prevailing practice. It is described by Mr. Wilson in his paper as being:
Post-conciliation board conciliation, in which industrial inquiry commissions, chief conciliation officers, deputy ministers and ministers of labour seek to bring the parties into agreement on the basis of the recommendations of the conciliation board or on any other basis possible.
Again, the amendments proposed to the existing legislation by the hon. member would not eliminate this present practice from the procedure that is followed. It is of interest, I think, to give some brief consideration to the extent to which strikes have been avoided in the past with reference to the various stages presently existing in the conciliation procedures.
I am informed that if we examine the statistical data with reference to federal projects for the fiscal year 1959-60, some 76 per cent of disputes within federal jurisdiction were settled at the conciliation officer stage of the procedures now prevailing in

the act; that is to say, a little over 75 per cent of the disputes terminated on the desk of the conciliation officer.
The figures apparently would indicate, too, that the average settlement over a period of about 11 years is 62 per cent. In 1959-60 the figures that have been made available to me would indicate that out of 91 disputes dealt with to finality in that period, 69 were settled and the remaining 22 either went before a conciliation board, lapsed or were in some other way settled.
Apropos the same branch of my subject matter, that is to say extent to which disputes have been settled with relation to the various presently existing procedure stages, Mr. Wilson in his paper had these comments to make:
To illustrate statistically, there are a great number of disputes settled by the direct collective bargaining negotiations provided for by collective agreements or by legislation. No figures are available but they would amount to all agreements signed in any period less those in dispute. Figures are available with respect to settlements in the remaining three stages of conciliation. For instance, of 46 railway disputes assigned to conciliation officers over an eight year period, 21 of them were settled without requiring boards of conciliation. Of 24 of the remaining disputes that were submitted to boards, 12 of them were settled directly by the boards. Eight of the 12 remaining disputes were settled by post-conciliation board intervention. One dispute lapsed and strike action was taken in three disputes.
It will be seen that, of 46 disputes, only 3 resulted in strikes; that it is the final result that matters and not the settlement failures along the way.
The main criticisms that we hear expressed of stage No. 3 of the present procedures, the stage which the hon. member for Skeena recommends that we should eliminate, is first of all the expense of the conduct of these conciliation boards. Then second, and perhaps just as important, is the allegation that the personnel who constitute the boards are invariably-as I read it somewhere

called partisan special pleaders whose object is not to settle the dispute at all but to have the point of view of their party to the dispute prevail with the chairman of the board, and that in the result the chairman carries on under pressures being brought to bear upon him on both sides that render any possibility of worth-while decision remote and unlikely.
I think there is a good deal of merit in many of the criticisms that are voiced about this stage of our present conciliation procedure-the expense, the partisanship of those engaged in it, though one has every sympathy with the points of view put forward by those who appear at these boards. These are factors which cause me to wonder about the advisability of retaining the conciliation board as one of the steps in the present procedure.

The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in his explanatory note and, I think, in his comments a little while ago, said that the conciliation board procedure, prolonging as it does the over-all conduct of the procedures generally, had a tendency to create industrial unrest. I heard some criticism of that point of view; someone stated that the hon. member was making the mistake of assuming that by cutting off the procedure he was cutting off the dispute. I am not sure this is really a fair criticism of the objective of the hon. member in the presentation he has made to the house.
There are features of this bill, as I have already intimated, which commend themselves to me. I only refrain from giving them stronger support because of my desire to be given the opportunity to study the bill with the guidance of persons such as the representatives of the Canadian labour congress and of Canadian management, who are better qualified than either myself or the hon. member, in my opinion, to advise the government what kind of changes in the existing legislation would work out in the most satisfactory manner. I am not satisfied that I fully appreciate the ramifications which would follow if we were to agree without further guidance or study to the recommendations made by the hon. member, particularly with regard to the recommendation that we abolish the procedures presently provided for before the conciliation board.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, just the other day I had the opportunity in this house to make mention of the fact that one of the things which particularly blessed our young country was the fact that being a country in the new world we have avoided much of the bitterness, let us say, of the cleavage, which existed years ago between owners, workers, employers and employees in the old world. I think this is one of the remarkable and happy things which has underlined our life in Canada. This has been made possible, I feel, by the farsighted attitude of both major parties inside and outside the House of Commons in regard to labour relations. Nobody realizes better than the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) the impossibility of directing a country like Canada today sans la grande cooperation des employeurs, des employes et des gouverne-ments a tous les echelons.
I should like to say also, before getting into the details and into the pith and substance of the discussion this afternoon, that Canada has also been blessed in the main, by responsible union movements and responsible management. I think it is good that we should underline this fact in relation to Canadian 26207-1-30i
Industrial Relations
management and unions. It is something that we often take for granted, but it is something of which I feel we should, nevertheless, be most proud. The previous speaker said he thought this bill should not be passed before it is discussed in detail with representatives of management and labour. With this condition I am in full accord. I am similarly in accord with many of the proposals he placed before us for our consideration.
I do not want to place too much emphasis on my next remark, but I cannot help making it, because I think it demonstrates the fundamental difference in approach between those who sit on my right, those who support the N.D.P., and those who support this government. The hon. member made the remark that he thought a provision in this bill would help guarantee good faith. I know he was sincere in his contention, but I also know that is one of the fundamental differences between members of my party and members of his. I do not believe you can legislate for good faith.


Frank Howard: The hon. member must have misunderstood me or else I did not make my meaning clear. I did not say that by legislation we could guarantee good faith. What I said, or what I intended to say, was that we should place a system of negotiation into effect in which good faith would be allowed to play its full role.


William Heward Grafftey: I certainly stand corrected. I know the hon. member placed his contention before the house in all sincerity. However, I re-emphasize that he and members of his party perhaps place too much emphasis on the good faith which can be created by government legislation. That, to me, is one of the errors which runs through the hon. member's whole bill, namely that by changing procedural details you can increase or decrease good faith among the parties involved.


Frank Howard: Again, the hon. member is not interpreting me correctly.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to make two points. Broadly speaking, I think the sponsor of the bill is in fundamental error in his understanding of the actual provisions of the present legislation. I think he is also in fundamental error with regard to the effect which the provisions of his own bill would have on the present legislation. As the hon. member who has just spoken pointed out, although the bill only talks about three stages we have, in actual practice, four stages of conciliation. There is the stage of conciliation which can, and often does, follow the finding of the conciliation board. What the hon. member has assumed, wrongly I think,

Industrial Relations
is that many of these cases, or even a large percentage of them, go through all the stages of conciliation. I am referring to his assumption that they go through all these four stages when in point of fact they do not. A good many of these casess touching upon the federal jurisdiction are solved long before they get through the greater part of these stages. As was mentioned, and I repeat it, only a few actually do go through all four. In 1959-60 some 76 per cent of the cases in federal jurisdiction were settled by conciliation officers.
It is also much more important to look at the proceedings as a whole than to look at any step of the proceedings at any particular time.
In considering this legislation we should consider the possibility of the Department of Labour introducing amendments to the law which would give the conciliation officer a discretion as to whether or not a hearing should actually go before the conciliation board. I think this will come about before too long. This is desirable and wise.
The discussion today in my opinion has been of a useful nature but before commenting further on its value let me say this. The provincial authorities in Alberta and British Columbia have instituted action respecting conciliations along the lines of the bill presently before us and although we have no statistics on this point it is my impression that the experience in those provinces has been that strikes are not settled more quickly than in the federal field under present procedures.
Another point should be emphasized. It is one of the announced purposes of the present bill to avoid delay. I am sure it is the hope of the sponsor that any legislation arising from this bill would deal with disputes that are being stubbornly contested by actually cancelling, so to speak, one of the existing steps of procedure. I do not feel this will be helpful in reaching that objective. As was so ably pointed out by the previous speaker, the sponsor of this measure appears to feel that if we cut off the procedure we will cut off the dispute. Actually, the result will be that an increased number of disputes will lead to strike action whereas under the present act there are few strikes. It will not be of good service to labour relations if the legislation is designed so that the parties to a dispute may disagree more quickly. In fact, narrowness will be promoted rather than lessened if the bill as presently drafted becomes law.
For the purposes of general discussion of this vital subject I wish to place on the record some views about which more can be
[Mr. Grafftey.l
said for than against. I offer the following suggestions for the improvement of present procedures:
1.	Eliminate frivolous proceedings by having the parties bear the cost of conciliation as they now do arbitration.
2.	Endeavour to eliminate narrowly partisan board members by a panel arrangement chosen in advance by labour and management.
3.	Place legislative emphasis on the power of a conciliation officer to recommend against the appointment of a conciliation board in certain situations.
4.	Place a time limit in the legislation beyond which a strike or lockout might take place even if the conciliation procedures are not completed.
5.	Follow the administrative practice of avoiding or refusing post-conciliation board intervention wherever possible.
6.	Give conciliation officers and board chairmen more tactical guidance in meeting disputants separately and together, stressing with board chairmen the fact that settlements are preferable to recommendations.
7.	Develop board chairmen in greater numbers and from all professions. As part of their development, provide them periodically with a wide range of reading material in labour relations.
8.	Present periodically an organized and spirited exposition of the values of prevailing conciliation procedures, in order to offset biased or unjustified criticism.
As I indicated earlier, I advance these points for general discussion and consideration. I would be the last to say that in a field so vast as that of labour relations each of these proposals has been implemented but I feel any fair minded, objective member of this house would agree that under the guidance of the Minister of Labour we have made great advances in relation to the points I have just outlined. I'would agree that much still remains to be done and I have mentioned the desirability and possibility of the Department of Labour introducing amendments to the existing act which would have the effect of altering the role played by conciliation officers.
I do not feel it would be wise to pass the bill now before us without first calling in for consultation representatives of management and labour as was proposed by the speaker who preceded me. We must consider the fact that the sponsor of this measure is attempting to legislate with respect to good faith by introducing procedural changes. I differ with him in respect of his view that this measure will achieve the desired result through eliminating one of the steps of the process. I again remind hon. members of the

experience in those provinces that have incorporated this idea in terms of settling strikes as compared with the experience in the federal field under present practices.


Frank Howard: British Columbia does not have this form of procedure on its statute books.


William Heward Grafftey: For the reasons I have outlined I must oppose this bill. I am able to say, however, that the points of view introduced by those hon. members who have participated in the debate have been helpful.
At the outset of my remarks I commented that we in Canada should be proud of our experience in the field of labour relations. Modern developments and improved methods should be reflected in our legislation. It is of importance today that legislation of the type under discussion should be modernized and kept abreast of the times. We in the new world realize the importance of co-operation between management and labour and all levels of government. Bipartisan discussion such as we have had this afternoon assists us in reaching this goal. I do not for a moment feel that we disagree about the desirability of achieving the aims sought to be achieved by this bill but I believe there does exist a sincere and definite disagreement concerning the procedural methods by which to achieve the desired end. The remarks of the previous speaker were helpful and in the same way I hope my own observations have been helpful in clarifying what we recognize to be a most important question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take some time of the house to express my views on this most interesting bill. I notice there are only ten minutes left of the hour assigned for discussion of the measure. I shall endeavour to confine my remarks so it will be possible for the house to take a decision on the bill if it so wishes.


Mr. McCleave:: A new form of closure.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I am quite opposed to closure. I shall curtail my remarks so that the house may take a decision on the bill.
Labour relations are largely a provincial responsibility. It is true that the federal responsibilty in this field embraces an area which involves a relatively small proportion of the total number of workers in Canada. However, that is not the test of the importance of federal labour legislation. It seems to me that federal labour legislation has an importance far beyond that number of employees whom it directly concerns and that it
Industrial Relations
must, in my view at least set the example for good labour legislation in the country.
When the 1948 legislation was passed I for one had high hopes that sections 62 and 63 of that act would find favour with the provinces and that the legislation would prove to be of such value that the provinces would seek to avail themselves of opportunities given under those two sections. However, 1 have been somewhat disappointed in that respect. Perhaps the provinces are right in relying on their own legislation. At the moment I am not passing judgment on that matter or expressing an opinion on it.
The history of this legislation is rather interesting. The 1907 act, which was the forerunner of the present act, was in relation to its time a model of legislation. It became out of date and was not amended perhaps as quickly as it should have been amended. Then in the war years the orders in council on this subject represented distinct steps forward. They were good in relation to their times and the circumstances of their times. The 1948 bill which is now the existing act was an excellent improvement.
For my part, I should like to see this legislation closely examined again so that it could be updated in order to meet the requirements of the present day. The rapidity of technological development in the field of industry has placed on management-labour relations strains that were not in existence a few years ago. Yet in this last decade since that development has taken place we have not kept pace with it and have not kept our legislation in line with the added requirements; we simply have not modernized it as it should be modernized. To the extent that the hon. member in this legislation has sought to modernize the legislation to meet that kind of changed requirement, I think it is wholly desirable. For my part I should like to have the opportunity of going through the bill in a detailed way, as is proper in committee, in order to develop those views more fully.
Over the years, when labour matters have come up for discussion, it seems to me that the debates in the House of Commons on this subject have tended to support either one point of view or another as to labour or management and that in doing so hon. members have perhaps tended to ignore the role of government in this field and not to devote enough attention and argument to the question of how government could improve the legislation in order to make sure that it was the most perfect legislation that it was possible to draft for the purpose of meeting the existing needs.

Industrial Relations
Sometimes when I hear some of my colleagues speak in the House of Commons and when I read of the exhortations of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to management or to labour, I wonder whether they have forgotten the role of government in this field. I refer to the role of government in perfecting the legislation. One of the things that is needed at the present time is speedier conciliation and an examination of our present processes for conciliation which in principle are very good and in which I as a Liberal member of the House of Commons with knowledge of the history of this act can take some pride. However, they should be examined and should be modernized.
I am not clear as to why the sponsor of this bill seeks to remove the conciliation board and to replace it by a mediator. I can well understand that process being applied as to a large segment of industry but I cannot understand it in all cases. As far as I am concerned, there is requirement for clarification on that point. For my part I should like to see the conciliation board retained in a slightly more precise or clear form than is indicated. The mere substitution of a mediator is something which I do not think accomplishes the purpose the hon. member is seeking to accomplish. However, to the extent that it does so, and with the changed time limits he proposes, it would make for speedier conciliation in a large sector of the field it occupies.
At the outset of my remarks I said that I would not speak until six o'clock but that I would give the house an opportunity of taking a decision on this matter. I therefore because of the time resume my seat.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: thank the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) for the very short time he has left me to speak on this most important bill. Evidently he has the idea that there are others in the House of Commons who have ideas on this matter. I can well agree with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in the recommendation he is making for allowing collective bargaining to start from two months to three months ahead of the end of the agreement and in his recommendation to reduce from 20 days to 10 days the time when the collective bargaining may start. However, I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West in this respect. He has taken out one stage, namely the conciliation board and in its place he has put a mediator. He is changing the name. He is making a change from a three man board to a one man mediator. He seems to ignore the fact that the conciliation officer is one who does not make

recommendations and who is a mediator. He would destroy the usefulness of that conciliation officer if that officer were put in a position of making recommendations which might go against the wishes of the parties for or with whom he would have to be acting.


Frank Howard: He can do it now.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. McGee in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Special services-*
613.	Special services branch including the promotion of a program for combating seasonal unemployment, the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries and assistance to the provinces under agreements entered into with the provinces by the Minister of Labour with the approval of the governor in council-further amount required, $90,000.
614.	Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1961-62 and 1962-63 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding one half of the cost of labour incurred in the period from the 15th day of October, 1961 to such day in the fiscal year 1962-63 as may be determined by the governor in council; and to authorize payments in those fiscal years to provinces in respect of previous municipal winter works incentive programs in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $40,000,000.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, when this debate was interrupted at five o'clock, I was just saying that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) had asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) for a grant for the construction and maintenance of a technical school in his riding. I do not know whether he will get it, but if he does-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did not ask for a grant. I only said that under the government's policy, the latter pays 75 per cent of the building costs of a training school. I did not ask for a grant.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, whether it be a grant or a subsidy, if the Minister of Labour complies with the hon. member's request, I trust that the latter will thank the

Quebec government for it, because such a request would not have been possible under the Union Nationale which has always refused those grants and subsidies.
However, I do not intend to lose more time in comments on the speech made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I answer him-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I wish to deal with the item under consideration as objectively as possible. I intend, of course, to deal with it in the light of the serious problem it is supposed to solve.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, before asking ourselves whether or not this winter works program can be effective in view of our serious unemployment situation, we must determine exactly what situation the program is supposed to cope with.
I should like to read again into Hansard the figures which were first issued by the dominion bureau of statistics to the effect that there were 349,000 unemployed in Canada as at November 30, and 413,000 at the end of December.
I have said previously in this house that D.B.S. figures are necessarily rough figures only because they are not based on complete sampling.
The minister will recall that I wrote to him around December 15 to enquire how many unemployed were drawing unemployment insurance benefits as of November 30.
(Text):
I wish now to thank the minister for his prompt reply. This letter is dated December 21, 1961 and is addressed to me by the Minister of Labour. It reads as follows:
The information which you sought in your letter of December 15 regarding persons drawing unemployment insurance benefit is as follows:
Active claimants as at November 30, 1961
Atlantic	 49,168
Quebec	 107,561
Ontario	 115,429
Prairie	 61,285
Pacific	 52,521
Total	 385,964
Now, if we compare this figure of 385,964 with the figure released by the dominion bureau of statistics of 349,000 for the end of November, we come to the conclusion that the figure released by the bureau of statistics is surely incomplete. I should like an explanation from the minister. No doubt, he will be able to reply to my question at the end of this debate.
Supply-Labour
On January 29, as reported on page 293 of Hansard the hon. member for St. Henry asked the following question:
According to the most recent statistics, how many unemployed are in receipt of unemployment benefits?
The answer given by the parliamentary secretary to the minister was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, a record is not available at any given time indicating the number of persons actually in receipt of benefit since payments are made at varying intervals in the case of postal claimants and personal payments at local offices.
At the end of this debate, Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to explain why it was not possible to give the hon. member for St. Henry the number of unemployed drawing unemployment benefits at the end of December when it was possible to give those figures to me on December 21. I should like also to ask the minister, from now on, around the 20th of each month when he gives us the figures from the dominion bureau of statistics, to give us the figures for unemployed persons drawing benefits so that we will have a more complete picture of the situation.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, the figures I gave a moment ago show clearly what the situation is. It is serious, because of all its implications, for the families of those unemployed workers.
We can now wonder what is the government's stand on this issue, not only on the problem that has confronted us for four years, but the one we face today. The government is again submitting to us the only measure directly meant to solve the unemployment problem, namely the winter works program.
The first complaint I have to make about the government stems from the very item submitted by the minister for our approval; indeed this measure put before us today deals with seasonal unemployment only.
This government has never recognized the national and urgent character of the unemployment problem we have lived with these last four years.
Apparently, the only remedy the government knows is the winter works program. I shall say later what I think of the principle of that program. However, I want to point out that since its inception about four years ago, it has not been expanded enough to meet the problem which has become more and more serious.
I have studied the annual report of the Minister of Labour, particularly the one submitted for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961. I want to be fair. I want to give here figures that indicate the scope of that program.

Supply-Labour
First, during the period I have just mentioned, I notice that 2,162 municipalities took advantage of it. Yet, if I remember rightly, there are at least 4,000 municipalities in Canada. I must admit that the largest municipalities took advantage of that program, but I am sure that, had it been made more attractive, a greater number would have participated therein.
I note here that those projects have provided employment for 120,816 persons and that the average employment was for approximately 45 man days. As for the average wages, I think they are a little under $200 per person although I did not calculate them exactly.
I note that the over-all estimated cost of the projects undertaken adds up to $212 million, while the federal contribution in wages adds up to $36 million. That means that the federal contribution to all those projects does not exceed 17 per cent. I think we may conclude here that a nation-wide program was introduced but that the federal government does not assume the share it should and that we let the provinces and municipalities carry most of the load.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall concede that these results I mentioned a moment ago are better than nothing, but the government will never convince the Canadian people, and particularly those who are out of work, that it is with such a program that we shall reduce unemployment, especially when it is as heavy as it is now.
However, I am prepared to admit one thing. During the past few years, I have tried to think of all kinds of solutions which could help to reduce unemployment. Among the short term solutions, I still do not know of any program which could bring faster results that the one involving projects undertaken jointly by the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
But if we are to deal efficiently with unemployment, we have to widen the scope of this program, and here I have a few suggestions to make. First of all, I shall endorse some suggestions which were submitted yesterday by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
In the first place, the scope of those projects should be broadened so as to interest almost all the municipalities in this country, where unemployment prevails.
Second, I think that the federal government should shoulder a larger proportion of the cost of salaries. You know that the government contributes 50 per cent of the payroll costs, and I may point out that the province of Quebec adds to those 50 per cent
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
a sum equal to 40 per cent, which represents in all 90 per cent of the payroll costs, so that the municipality needs only contribute 10 per cent, in addition to the cost of materials.
We also know that six other provinces are adding 25 per cent to the federal contribution; accordingly, I imagine that, if the latter, in an all-out offensive, would for instance, decide to contribute 75 per cent of the payroll costs, which might mean an additional expense of $25 million at the most, the municipalities would be able to go ahead in this field, and get much more positive results than we have now.
Here is another suggestion, Mr. Chairman. During a period of national emergency like the one we are now going through with regard to unemployment, the government should consider the possibility of paying part of the cost of materials and of the supervising personnel.
A special fund for loans at a low rate of interest should also be put at the disposal of the municipalities where unemployment is more acute.
The sales tax on materials used during the winter works program could also be reduced, or eliminated. All those steps would be of assistance to the municipalities.
When a high level of unemployment lasts for several years, as is the case at present, and particularly in the areas which are most affected, I also believe that the government should consider the opportunity of extending this program several months a year and, if necessary, to cover the entire year. Such a policy would be in accordance with the recommendation made by the municipalities in May of last year according to a report published by the Star in its May 2, 1961 issue, I believe. I quote:
(Text):
The resolution asked that the program be extended to cover the entire year on a "make work" basis, with the federal government contributing 50 per cent of the total costs involved for such work from June 1 to October 15.
It asked that during the rest of the year the federal government contribute 75 per cent of the total costs of the winter works program and make prompt interim payments and early final settlement.
The resolution also asked that the federal government provide loans to municipalities for winter works at a reasonable rate of interest-
-and so forth.
(Translation):
However, Mr. Chairman, before adopting such a broad program, there should be, at the

government level, a meeting of the federal Minister of Labour and the various ministers of labour of the provinces, in order that strong action might be taken in an effort to alleviate the situation from which too many of our Canadian families are suffering.
I think the government should remember one thing, which is that Canadians are sick and tired of the half measures taken by this government. I believe that this winter works program, which is being submitted to us again this year, while basically sound, is nothing else but a half measure which does not attack the heart of the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I think there is no other conclusion to draw than the following: we have a winter works program designed to alleviate seasonal unemployment, while what we need is a large scale, exceptional program designed to fight unemployment, which of course is more than seasonal in character.
It has been said and repeated-and the highest authorities have said so-that our citizens were entitled to work, and in this regard may I be allowed to quote what His Eminence Cardinal Leger stated, in a lecture, as reported by Le Droit of September 18, 1958:
A society is not sound if it does not provide for each one of its members the possibility of living humanly from the fruits of his labour.
The right to work is a natural right. It corresponds to the duty we all have of working to earn our living.
Mr. Chairman, when a danger of war threatens, all the forces of the nation are mobilized to safeguard national security. For four years, we have felt the gnawing symptoms of a non seasonal ailment, and once more, hundreds of thousands of our fellow Canadians are now suffering hardship; I am of the opinion that if we mobilized forthwith all the forces of the nation, we could implement a far-reaching program which could not only reduce unemployment but almost completely solve the problem.
If in war time we mobilize the whole nation, we certainly must be willing to pay the cost of such mobilization. The same applies to our unemployment problem. If we want to find jobs for most of the Canadians who are now unemployed, we will have to foot the bill.
For four years, this administration has given evidence that it is prepared to go only half way in this direction. The Liberal party is prepared to pay the full cost necessary to give jobs to the unemployed of this country.
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, when I introduced yesterday the items that are under discussion today I gave a pretty clear accounting of the
Supply-Labour
measures represented, the degree of participation by the municipalities, what the results are expected to be and what they are at the moment.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to hon. members who have participated in this debate, particularly those of the opposition. Because of the trend in this debate, which has ranged into all aspects of employment and unemployment; because of the suggestion that this is the government's only remedy for unemployment and is-as was mentioned by the last speaker-only a half measure to deal with the problem of seasonal unemployment as it faces us now; because of the accusation that the government will not recognize unemployment and has not recognized unemployment, and because quite a number of other charges have been made and clarification has been asked for by those participating in this debate, it has become necessary for me to answer in detail. I am sure hon. members would wish an answer in detail so that they may fully understand the position of the government in respect of this very serious problem.
I say at once, Mr. Chairman, that if I follow that course-and I wish to do so-I hope the committee will allow me to proceed beyond the time limit that is allowed in this debate at this time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is it agreed that the minister shall have permission to prolong his remarks?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Willingly.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Those opposition members who have spoken have said this measure is not good. Of course, they say that about whatever the government is doing. I would point out to this committee that each and every measure that has been put forward by this government for the last three or four years has been described in the same terms by the opposition. Also, practically every measure has been supported eventually by the members of the opposition when the time came to vote on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Essex East when speaking in this debate yesterday compared, as he has a tendency to do from time to time, the relative situation in respect of countries in Europe; the unemployment situation as it is represented in percentage terms.
I wish to point out that this comparison is most unfair because only three countries

Supply-Labour
in the world, the United States, Japan and Canada, use the yardstick that has been set up by the international labour organization for measuring unemployment. The same yardstick was applied recently in Sweden for experimental purposes and they found that the percentage of unemployment was doubled. Therefore I say it is inaccurate to compare our unemployment situation with European countries who do not use the same yardstick of measurement as Canada, the United States and Japan.
Whatever the opposition say in respect of this municipal winter works incentive program, it is not the attitude taken by some 2,200 municipalities of this country, because they are all participating and their numbers have been increasing-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: -so that now 50 per cent of all the municipalities in Canada are participating in this program. This program has won the support of the municipalities as a means of alleviating seasonal unemployment in cities, towns and districts across this country. I should like to refer-


Azellus Denis: After four years.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for St. Denis says, "After four years". The hon. member and his colleagues did so much harm to this plan when it was first introduced that the municipalities were hesitant to enter it, but when they saw how well-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: When they saw how well it was working out they disregarded


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, may I-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Azellus Denis: May I ask a question of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: No, sit down.


Michael Starr: When they saw how well it was working out, they discarded-


Azellus Denis: May I ask a question? Is it not true that these improvements in the winter works program up to date are improvements which were asked for by members on this side of the house years ago?


Michael Starr: That, of course, is the official position taken now but, on the contrary, these were not the recommendations of the opposition; they were the recommendations and the requests of the Canadian municipalities who from time to time review this program with us and make suggestions. We implement those which come within the scope of the program and, as a matter of

fact, we have widened the scope of the scheme to an extent which most hon. members will recognize. In spite of all the criticism and all the debunking of this program in which the opposition has been indulging during the past four years, the municipalities have disregarded that attitude. They look upon this as being a very successful and helpful program and consequently they are participating in it to the extent which I have indicated.
I wish, now, to turn to Hansard and deal with some of the remarks which were made yesterday in this debate. The hon. member for Essex East, referring to figures on unemployment issued by the dominion bureau of statistics and released on or about the middle of each month with respect to the previous month, said:
Normally we would have received that figure-
-he was referring to a figure for January 31-
-some time around the 20th of the month.
That point has no substance at all, because the figures which are released by the D.B.S. refer to a sampling taken in the middle of the previous month. The hon. member went on to say:
Perhaps before this debate is over the minister might explain why we have not received it as yet.
Well, the hon. member for Essex East- and I am sorry he is not here today-knows very well, because he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of labour that these figures are not released until the date when they are supposed to be released, and that this date ranges anywhere between the 18th and 24th of the month. The hon. member said I could easily have given the committee an interim report, but there is no interim report at all. This just goes to show the type of argument to which the official opposition is indulging-arguments not based on facts of any sort.
The hon. member for Peterborough made a few remarks yesterday, and among other things he said, as reported on page 412:
I am sure all of us are extremely happy to find that the percentage of unemployed has been going down.
At any rate that is an admission. Then the hon. member went on:
This does not result from anything this government has done. They have no reason to take any credit for this fact.
Well, I am prepared to prove to the committee that this reduction in unemployment is directly attributable to the measures we have put into effect over the past number of years. The hon. member went on to say:
After all, it was only last winter that this government said you could not do anything about unemployment.

I intend to go into detail on that aspect of the subject to prove that this government has recognized unemployment and the importance of dealing with it ever since we took office on June 21,	1957. Then the hon.
member went on to say:
Management and labour must sit down together, but who is going to provide the opportunity?
May I remind the committee that we called a meeting upon the insistence of those who said the same thing not too long ago. We called together 15 of the leading industrialists of this country representing various important manufacturing industries. We called in 15 top labour leaders and we said: we have brought you together; let us see if you can settle your differences and thus help the economy. But there has not been another meeting-


Mr. Pitman:: Has the government called another one?


Michael Starr: We did call one. These are grown men, men holding positions of responsibility in the economy of this country. Not only that, but since then they have formed joint committees including the president of the Canadian labour congress and the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for the purpose of determining when another meeting should be held. We called these people together. We did our duty because it was insisted that we should have the original meeting. I do not know what the hon. member for Peterborough thought these people would be doing. Possibly he thought they would be advising the government on economic problems. Far from it. This meeting was called so that the leading men in industry and labour might be able to settle some of their difficulties in order that the economy might be capable of rapid progress in the future.
The hon. member for Peterborough went on to say:
What is wrong with this program is the fact, of course, that it is completely and utterly inadequate for the kind of unemployment that Canada is facing and will face.
Of course, this particular program does not represent all that we are doing. It is just one of the programs that we are introducing, representing some $40 million of expenditure, in order to look after a certain section of our unemployed by reducing the seasonal unemployment with which we are faced during the winter months. The hon. member said later:
What about technological unemployment?
What are we going to do about that?
Has the hon. member not heard what we are doing about that? Has he not heard that we are building some 167 schools across this country to take care of this very problem?
Supply-Labour
The hon. member talks about planning. We are building for the future of our young people. Is that not planning?


Walter George Pitman: You have not seen the problem they have in Ontario.


Mr. Jones:: Better than in Saskatchewan.


Michael Starr: I am sorry the provincial government did not go to the hon. member for Peterborough and take his advice on the kind of school that should be built. However, I think they know what they are doing. They have been doing these things for a long time -long before the hon. member entered the teaching profession. Then he went on to talk about "mass unemployment of 800,000 or 900,000". I do not know where he got those figures. Apparently he is trying to take over from the hon. member for Essex East who has his own statistics. I have never seen figures of that sort. Anyway, the hon. member went on to say:
We get another winter works program. That Is all this government can do-
Mr. Chairman, I intend to spend some time telling the hon. member just what the government is doing, because he is apparently not aware of what is being done; if he is aware of what the government is doing, then he is not telling the facts to the people of this country.
The hon. member for Welland in the course of his remarks attributed to me the statement that unemployment would melt away with the snow. I have never said that. I have been one of those who have resolutely stood by this problem, because I realize the hardship people have to go through when they find themselves out of employment. I have endeavoured to do everything within the capacity and the power of this government to bring about a better situation for these people. I have never said at any time that unemployment will melt away with the snow. To say I have done so is another example of the disregard for the facts in which the opposition has indulged in the course of this debate.
The hon. member for Peterborough says nothing will come of this program-that none of these measures is any good. The only thing that is any good in his opinion is socialism. As far as he is concerned, socialism is the only solution to the ills of this country. He disapproves of this measure-there is no question about that, because his remarks at the end of his speech give a clear indication of his opinion. This is what he said:
We will watch this go through. We will know it will not be enough. We will know it will provide heartbreak for hundreds of thousands of people in this nation. If this is the measure of activity this government is prepared to take in

Supply-Labour
dealing with this No. 1 national problem, we have little fear of what the electorate will do when the time of accounting comes at the polls.
I want to remind the hon. member-I know he was not here at the time-that the same sort of challenges were thrown out four years ago.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I know that all hon. members of the committee are extremely anxious to hear the hon. member who has the floor. The only way of doing this is to allow the minister to proceed. I urge hon. members not to interject from their seats.


Michael Starr: We had the same challenges four years ago. It happens that today is the anniversary of the day when those challenges were taken up. The house was dissolved and an election was held. We know the results of that election.
At page 414 the hon. member for Peterborough is reported to have said:
My fourth criticism, and most serious charge against the winter works program, is that it misleads the people of this nation into believing that this is all that a federal government can do, that this is the sum total of the federal government's duty to deal with the national problem of unemployment.
That is quite untrue, Mr. Chairman. That is not the sum total and this government did not give that indication. This is but one measure. This is one phase of what we are doing. We will continue to do everything that can be done. At this very moment hundreds of municipalities that have participated in this program are awaiting the passing of this item so that they may receive cheques of which they are sorely in need to pay their accounts in respect of this work.
Hon. members of the official opposition speak as though recession had commenced in 1957. Apparently they have forgotten what happened in 1954 and 1955. It might be well to remind them of the remarks made by the present Prime Minister at that time speaking in the debate on unemployment in 1955. If the government of that day saw fit in 1955 to allow a debate on unemployment, surely there must have been a substantial degree of unemployment to justify that debate.
The present Prime Minister as reported at page 2035 of Hansard of March 15, 1955 used the following words which I feel are worth repeating at this time:
We do not believe in preaching pessimism; we do not want to see the condition of affairs brought about which will create panic; but we are asking the government to act now-
The Prime Minister on that occasion made it clear that we in the Conservative party do not believe in preaching pessimism. He said we did not want to see those conditions and asked the government to act immediately.

In the few brief lines I have quoted from the remarks of the Prime Minister in 1955 is summarized the difference in attitude between the present opposition and members of this party when we were in opposition. We do not believe in preaching panic and pessimism. Obviously hon. members of the opposition do believe in preaching panic and pessimism because they feel it is the only way they can influence the Canadian people and get back into office. I do not believe the Canadian people are gullible enough to be influenced by this false attitude. Panic and pessimism appear to have become the cornerstone of the policy of the Liberal party at this time. Hon. members of that party have no other policy.
In 1955 we asked the government of that day to act. The fact is that the government at that time took no action whatever. The government was not interested in unemployment. Hon. members of the government of that day took the attitude that unemployment was none of their business. Their approach was simply to create a climate in which prosperity could be maintained. Unfortunately, however, they did not succeed in that endeavour, either.
When in 1955 the present Prime Minister asked the government to act, 7.7 per cent of the labour force in Canada was unemployed. Unemployment levels were much higher than they are at this moment. When members of this party in the opposition of that day asked the government to put forward some measure under which municipalities could participate in projects to alleviate the situation the then minister of labour, as reported at page 1608 of Hansard of March 1, 1955 said, in effect, "There is no way at all by which the federal government can or should go over the heads of the provinces and deal directly with the municipalities."
This was another enunciation of that great Liberal principle "it can't be done". Mr. Chairman, we have made a success of the program which we asked the Liberals to implement. We did it. We have proved it can be done. I repeat that at that time 7.7 per cent of the Canadian labour force was unemployed.
"We must look at the situation in a calm and dispassionate way." That was the statement of the minister of labour in 1955. The Liberals now say they have all the answers. If you examine the Liberal answers closely they embrace everything that the Conservative government is now doing, item for item. The Liberals now pledge that they are going to educate people in technology and institute municipal winter works programs, but always

bigger and better than anything we are doing. That is the policy upon which they are building their election plans.
Hon. members of the opposition now say that the recession began in 1957. That is their stand. I wonder how they described conditions in 1955. Mr. Walter Gordon is now playing a very important part in planning the affairs of the Liberal party. According to the report of the royal commission on which he served there was a slowing down in the economy as far back as 1949. The Liberals were saved at that time by increasing United States buying which resulted from the Marshall plan and by the increase in defence commitments resulting from the Korean war. In 1954 the recession really set in, in earnest, and they did nothing about it.
Even in the face of mounting recession they kept the economic brakes on. The Liberals did not discover unemployment until 1958 when they found themselves out of office after being in power for 22 years. They were not aware of unemployment in 1954 and 1955 and that, I wish to stress, is when the cycle began. It began in 1954 and continued in 1955. In 1956 there was a shortlived pickup largely on account of increased investments. This had run its course by the summer of 1957 when we took office.
The charge has been made that this government has failed to recognize unemployment. No doubt it was in the course of our failure to recognize unemployment that we called a national conference on unemployment in July 1958. From that conference emerged a number of measures, among them the municipal winter works incentive program. No doubt it must have been in the course of our failure to recognize unemployment that we broadened the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We raised the number of weeks during which people could receive benefits from 36 to 52, introduced amendments relating to married women and men, brought fishermen under the act and made it easier to obtain seasonal benefits. We lengthened that period by an additional two months. It must have been in that action that we failed to recognize unemployment.
No doubt it was also because we failed to recognize unemployment that we embarked upon the most massive program of public housing in Canada's history.
It must have been our failure to recognize unemployment that brought about the special session of parliament in November 1960 for the purpose of bringing forward additional measures to deal with that problem. I might comment also that the performance put forward by the opposition during that session
Supply-Labour
so far as concrete recommendations is concerned was rather pitiful. The government, on the other hand, brought forward some 25 measures designed to stimulate the economy and provide jobs for Canadians. I submit that this is how we failed to recognize unemployment. These are the charges we are hearing today. The actual fact is that from the time we took office we made it clear that we recognized unemployment and that we were prepared to use all the means at our disposal to put Canadians back to work. Already in the summer of 1957, when we took office the signs were there. When we took office unemployment was increasing at an ominous rate. Vast wheat surpluses were piled up on the prairies and the former government told the western farmers there was nothing they could do about it. That matter also has been dealt with by this government. Tight money was in full force at that time-there is no question about that matter-put into effect by the then Liberal government. The former government was still fighting inflation long after any danger from that quarter was over. As a matter of fact, they are still fighting inflation.
I am struck by the qualms expressed by the opposition with regard to the budgetary deficit of the present government. I wish to point out to hon. members that the accumulated wartime deficit of the former government was well over $10 billion. Apparently it could be done in wartime but, in their opinion, it cannot be done in peacetime when the objective is to put Canadians back to work and to get the economy rolling in high gear again. And they call us the party of big business.
Opposition speakers in this debate have not dwelt to any extent on the manpower situation. Perhaps the reason is that in December unemployment was the lowest in five years in terms of the labour force. In this connection I should like to refer to an article of date of January 8, written by Mr. Patrick Nicholson who is a representative of the Thomson papers in the press gallery. Mr. Nicholson said this:
In the past four years more than half a million workers have been added to Canada's labour force. Jobs have been found for a staggering 430,000 of these up to November last. In contrast, during the postwar conversion period between 1946 and 1950, only 334,000 were added to our work force and only 310,000 new jobs were created, despite the great consumer spending spree of those years.
In contrast again, during the four years 1951 to 1955 which included the Korean armaments boom, only 267,000 new jobs were created in all Canada.
Those are the remarks of Mr. Patrick Nicholson. Mr. Nicholson adds that the past four years have been our best ones since the war when measured by that important yardstick of the number of new jobs created for Canadian workers.

Supply-Labour
In December 1961, with a labor force totalling approximately 6,500,000 Canadians, more than 6 million Canadians were gainfully employed or 93.6 per cent of the labour force. This meant an increase in the number of persons working of some 465,000 over the figure for December 1956 or practically half a million more.
I wish to make this point as it seems somehow to have escaped the attention of the opposition or at least they are reluctant to talk about it. We have put a great many people to work. The measures put forward by this government have been to a great extent instrumental in reversing the recessionary trend. The solutions which this government has brought forward are those for which they voted in this House of Commons. As I mentioned earlier, they voted for every one of them. Every one of them was not any good, according to them but they voted for them. However they are the measures they are now bitterly attacking.
I well recall Mr. Walter Gordon's announcing on television-I was present on the program-that the most effective solution to our problems would be the devaluation of the dollar. He repeated that statement time after time all during the whole program. I doubt whether he said anything else. He told us that we had only to do this and that everything else would follow. We did it. Mr. Gordon's friends are now criticizing this measure. This is the gentleman who is directing the whole Liberal program. He took over from the hon. member for Essex East. He is evolving the whole Liberal social plan and policy. Now the Liberal party are criticizing what Mr. Gordon said was the only thing to do. Mr. Gordon himself has now come out in favour of a municipal works program. I say to you Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Gordon is just about four years too late. I wish to say this, that a program which could put into motion some $760 million for municipal projects over a four year period is no mere bagatelle, regardless of what the hon. member for Essex East wishes to call it or whether the hon. member for Assiniboia calls it peanuts.
Mr. Gordon and his friends are also saying that perhaps we should embark on a training program in order to upgrade the labour force. They do not seem to be aware of the 167 new schools we are building across Canada or of the facilities we are providing for some 80,000 students at a cost of some $270 million, of which the federal contribution already approved totals some $141 million. I submit that this in itself is quite a program of public works which is going on right at this moment

and is providing jobs for people in the construction industry. Perhaps they consider this program to be a bagatelle also. This government has brought into motion and into effective and positive action, a program striking forward on all fronts of economic activity, a program to stimulate the economy and to provide jobs.
We know what would have happened had the situation remained as it was in 1954 and 1955 and had the government adopted the attitude that was adopted then. Had we adopted that attitude the spokesmen for the opposition would have had reason to cry havoc around the country at this time. They would have had something to cry about. Where were the "bold and imaginative" programs when they held office? Where now are the "bold and imaginative" solutions? The boldness and the imagination have been demonstrated on this side of the house during the time we have held power. As I mentioned earlier, they were unable to offer any help to the municipalities. They always said, "It can't be done" and this was their standard answer. There were no concessions for the provinces. It could not be done. They were not prepared to evolve a massive training program to meet present needs. These training programs should have been started many years ago in order to take care of what is happening now to our labour force because of automation and technological changes.
Slum clearance, grants to assist in maintaining our water resources, the opening of the northland, a national oil policy, aid to exporters, aid to small business, tackling the wheat surplus, freeing Canadian enterprise from outside domination, aid to underdeveloped regions, housing on a massive scale such as that implemented by this government-all these achievements were beyond the initiative of those whose policy was based on the principle of standing pat and not rocking the boat.
This government has tackled all these problems. It has tackled every single one of them. It has tackled the problem of unemployment right from the beginning from July, 1957. I do not pretend that all the problems are solved, Mr. Chairman; far from it. However, very positive and active progress has been made.
Indeed, in the midst of preachments of doom and depression, Canadians have retained confidence in their economy and in their country. I want to refer to a recent Gallup poll, Mr. Chairman, which shows that 45 per cent of Canadians are convinced that the standard of living in this country will continue to rise. I assume also that that 45 per cent relates to those who have confidence

in the policies of this government. There are 6 per cent who feel that our standard of living will go down, according to the Gallup findings. Undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman, they have been listening to the opposition members, to the N.D.P. and Liberal members such as the hon. member for Essex East and the Leader of the Opposition. There are 46 per cent who are convinced our standard of living will not go down. Presumably they, too, have confidence in this government's policies.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I should like to put on the record a portion of a front page article which appeared in the Financial Post of December 23. I quote:
We have passed from discouraging recession to bright new growth in business activity-The promise now in the economy is a clear broadening of expansion on the base of recovery established in 1961. GNP might top the $39 billion mark for a 6 per cent gain over 1961. So it will be a good year for most firms, a remarkable year for the shrewd few and, for all, perhaps the best chance of doing business since 1956-
The article adds that unemployment remains a problem, which we admit at once, Mr. Chairman, and at all times. Then, the article continues:
But it would be nonsense to pretend that the federal government has not pushed the process to the advantage of all Canadians by a number of commendable actions.
Amongst those commendable actions, Mr. Chairman, the Financial Post lists first, the devaluation of the dollar; second, the export drive and, third, monetary management. This could hardly be called fulsome praise, but it is at least an admission that this government has taken certain steps which have proven helpful to the general economy. I say we can take credit for that. If we have to take responsibility and abuse for something that has not been done, then when something is done I say we have every right to take credit for it.
In that respect, I submit also that this stand compares favourably with the opposition stand that none of the measures for which they voted were measures appropriate to the situation. I might add also that the pessimism portrayed by the opposition has not found echo in the daily press except that part which is the die-hard Liberal press and supports the Liberal party.
These were some of the headlines appearing on December 22 following the third quarter release on national production by the dominion bureau of statistics. The headline in the Ottawa Citizen reads:
Canada gets glad tidings on economy.
Mr. Charles Lynch of the Southam news service went on to say this:
Supply-Labour
In almost every sector of the economy except agriculture, things were humming at such a pace during the third quarter of this year that the gross national product rose by 2.7 per cent, the largest quarter to quarter advance in several years- Labour income reflected the largest increase since 1959-
The headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail reads:
Production jumps record 2.7 per cent in third quarter.
Shaking out the last effects of recession, the Canadian economy leaped forward to establish records between July and September-
I did not write this, Mr. Chairman. This article was written by Mr. Bruce MacDonald in the Globe and Mail. The Canadian Press reported the economy as moving ahead strongly, and attributed the improvement to rising consumer and government spending. I assume, Mr. Chairman, that hon. gentlemen opposite also read the newspapers but do not pay any attention to them. In one breath they say we have done nothing, and in the next breath they say we have done too much.
We invested, Mr. Chairman, in the municipalities. We invested in the provinces to the extent that the increase in federal contributions to the provinces, by itself, would have cancelled our deficits and would have shown a modest surplus. We invested in the young people of Canada with the largest training program in history. We invested in schools. We invested in universities. We invested in sewage disposal. We invested in urban redevelopment. We invested in the small businessman through the expansion of the industrial development bank. We invested in Canadian research and Canadian export, in the farmer, in the aged, in the war veteran and in the great resources of our northland.
Let us see what the situation is now. The unemployment figure for December was the lowest for any December in five years. Is this cause for complacency? Certainly not, there is no cause for complacency, although one recalls this phrase from Mr. Gordon's royal commission report:
In a free and dynamic economy in which people are entitled to change their occupations as they choose and to move from place to place and in which there are continually changing products, methods, and consumer demands, there will always be those who are out of work at any given time. This cannot be avoided. It helps to keep the economy flexible-
This is the same Mr. Gordon who says now "We can give full employment." This government believes in keeping people at work. I would point out that average employment in the third quarter was 3 per cent above last year. Non-agricultural employment on the average was 3.6 per cent above last year and the number of men working in the third quarter was 2.9 per cent higher than last year. Manufacturing production in the third

Supply-Labour
quarter was 5 per cent over the first quarter. Employment in manufacturing industries was
83.000	higher than a year earlier. There were
83.000	new jobs, Mr. Chairman, in manufacturing alone. This is certainly a very welcome improvement.
Employment in the electrical apparatus industry in the fourth quarter, for example, was 7 per cent above a year earlier. Employment in primary iron and steel was up 4 per cent. In shipbuilding, employment was up 20 per cent over last year. I ask hon. members opposite, do they really think that a 20 per cent increase in the number of people working in the shipyards is merely an accident? Do they not think this was the result of action taken by the government, that it had something to do with the subsidies announced by my colleague, the Minister of Transport? The hon. member for Peterborough says that we should not take any credit for these things. I say to you that this is something for which we should take credit because we took action in this regard. This is an example of another investment in Canada and in Canadians.
Two recent developments in the manpower situation are also worthy of note. There were fewer women coming into the labour force and this is related to the fact that more men are working. There were 125,000 more men working this year than last year. There are fewer young people coming into the labour force, with a consequent increase in school enrolment. They are staying in school to complete their education. Finally, in December, there were 180,000 more people at work and 115,000 fewer people out of work. There is evidence that increased economic activity is being translated into more jobs and fewer unemployed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this government has moved all along the line to correct situations which were in evidence when we took office. These situations were in evidence, as I said earlier, as early as 1954 and 1955. Amongst the problems in evidence at that time were tight money, a wheat surplus, growing unemployment, dropping exports, uncertainty in industry, a labour force where new skills and training were badly needed, with municipalities, the provinces and labour unable to get a hearing at Ottawa.
Since we assumed office we have moved against these problems with positive and effective programs designed to meet the developing situation, and the results of these programs are now beginning to appear. Many of the economic anomalies are now being corrected, with the result that in spite of world wide competition the economy is once again on the upswing. At the same time we have not neglected social measures such as

care for the aged, the blind, the handicapped, the war veterans and many others.
Now, in the process of meeting these objectives deficits have occurred but may I say that never in the history of social and economic reconstruction have budgetary deficits accrued for more worth-while reasons than those incurred by the present government. The work we are doing in the labour field, the up-grading of the labour force with the aid of the winter works program in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, the stepping up of production through cooperation of labour and management in the productivity council are objectives which we shall continue to pursue and these, along with many other measures in the government's economic program, will provide a stimulus to the economy and employment for men and women in Canada.
The situation in the latter part of 1961 has been increasingly hopeful. The upward trend in economic activity, which resumed in the second quarter, has gained momentum as the year progressed. In the third quarter the gross national product, seasonally adjusted, increased by 2.7 per cent and this was the largest quarter-to-quarter advance in several years.
It is also worth noting, Mr. Chairman, that this gain was almost wholly accounted for by an increase in physical volume of output. Prices remained stable during the quarter and in this connection I would refer to the Montreal Gazette annual commercial review and forecast, published on January 13. The leading article is headed as follows "Upswing reflects rising physical volume". The subheading reads:
Extremely easy monetary policy is causing no forebodings while devalued dollar stimulates domestic production.
In that sentence is summarized the twin aspects of monetary policy which is proving both beneficial and stimulating to the economy at the present time. I shall just quote one sentence from the article which follows:
For the first time in post-war history, the economy was launched upon a period of growth without the usual accompaniment of price inflation.
I would point out that the third quarter gain in output raised the physical volume of production to a level 3 per cent above the first quarter of 1960. In the goods-producing industries the quickening tempo of expansion led to increased output of 3.5 per cent in the third quarter. The strong expansion which has been marked in the service industries continued in evidence at a slightly diminished rate of 1.5 per cent. The rise in goods-producing industries is particularly encouraging because this has been one of the soft spots in every economic downturn.

Particularly large gains were recorded in the motor vehicle industry, which I am sure will be a source of satisfaction to a great many people in my riding of Ontario and in those of the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Essex South, because employment in that industry is up by 6 per cent.
Another encouraging factor has been the increase in consumer spending in the last half of 1961. The average increase for the first nine months was 4 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of 1960. A number of figures have already been placed on the record by my colleagues in the debate on the speech from the throne, but I feel some of them bear repetition if only as an indication of the results that have been achieved. For example, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has placed on record the tremendous increases in exports, and I would suggest that an increase of $160 million in wheat sales is a matter for encouragement. An increase of $33 million in sales of nickel is also cause for a certain degree of satisfaction, as all these sales find their way back into the Canadian consuming stream, add to the purchasing power of the nation and, in the end, mean more jobs.
Construction employment and farm employment have both kept up at a time when a seasonal decrease is to be expected. Thus, from the figures I have mentioned and from others which have been placed on the record by my colleagues, it is evident that the outlook is good for employment this winter. A continuation of the current upward trend would mean the provision of new jobs for some 200,000 Canadians.
I have already mentioned the notable improvement in manufacturing. The value of manufacturers' shipments in November was up 7 per cent over the previous year and gains were registered in every province. In automobile production, while employment was up 6 per cent, output increased by 20 per cent between the fourth quarter of 1960 and 1961.
Average output in steel production was 25 per cent above a year earlier and employment was up 5 per cent. Perhaps this is what is meant by a falling off in production, as described by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the N.D.P. Another encouraging factor has been the sharp increase in domestic production of cotton fabrics, reversing the downward trend of several years ago in the textile industry.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in analysing all these changes there can be little doubt that steps taken in the fiscal, monetary and income transfer fields by the federal government have contributed to the improvement in the
Supply-Labour
economy, and we can take credit for that with a great deal of satisfaction.
The actions that this government has taken were an important factor in stopping the developing downward trends in evidence during the past several years before they had time to develop into a major recession. In order to do this we have had to enlist the support of provincial and municipal governments, and of both management and labour through such organizations as the productivity council. I may say that in by far the majority of cases this support has been forthcoming, and thus we have had the spectacle of the federal government working hand in hand with the many important elements in the community in order to provide that leadership which was so urgently needed.
We have not been afraid to accept suggestions and advice from various groups, such as business and labour as well as provincial and municipal bodies. We have checked this advice against the reports we have received and the results have been positive and beneficial.
When people talk about economic planning, when they talk about socialism and say socialism means economic planning, I ask this question: are not all these measures which the government has introduced, are they not all in the category of economic planning in a free enterprise, democratic country, not the strait-jacket type of action in which people are regimented.
Surely one can realize that these things did not just come about without planning and advice from the best economists this country could produce and the advice of the other bodies which I have mentioned. But that, I submit, is the great difference between our type of planning in a free democracy and the type of planning in socialism that the hon. member for Peterborough suggests. The practical effect of the programs we have undertaken is shown in such examples as the approval of more than $100 million in assets for double depreciation by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This means the establishment of new industries and new jobs in areas where such industries and jobs are needed. These are not theories; these are facts.
As the impact of government action becomes more fully evident in the economy there will take place an added expansion and impetus as a result of that action. By direct federal government expenditures, by expenditures directed to the provinces and municipalities, the spending level of all governments has been raised by 6 per cent in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961. Federal investment has taken up the slack left by a drop in private investment.

Supply-Labour
My hon. friends opposite will agree, I am sure, that this is a course recommended by every serious economist in Canada and the United States for a condition such as we found in 1957.
At the present time private investment is picking up and as inventories grow and plant expansion proceeds it can be expected that government spending will moderate accordingly. This government has evolved a program that is putting new life into the economic bloodstream of this country. Other and complementary measures will be required from time to time to complete this program and the program of national development to which this government and the Conservative party are committed. This we have done and will continue to do.
In five years recession has been rolled back, new jobs have been provided, stimulus has been injected into the economy, vast social and economic measures have been brought forward. The Canadian people sought leadership in 1957 and 1958 and that leadership has been forthcoming in the person of our Prime Minister and his government, who have given tremendous leadership to this country, who have put tremendous life into the veins of this country and its economic forward movement. I say in conclusion, Mr, Chairman, that the record speaks for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question? Would he say for what reasons the government refuses to give us each month the figures showing the number of unemployed drawing unemployment benefits?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was present in this house-from memory I cannot say the exact date-when a committee was set up to study this matter. It was agreed by the Leader of the Opposition and the party to which the hon. member belongs that a committee should be set up to study the possibility of bringing forward one figure which would be the yardstick of unemployment in this country. We have lived up to the recommendations of that committee.


Mr. Peters:: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. Would the minister indicate why there is objection to giving us the dominion bureau of statistics figure?


An hon. Member:: What do you want it for?


William Arnold Peters: In many cases this does not appear to be the number of unemployed. I think the committee did not agree on this matter. Certainly my understanding was that it did not agree that we would refuse to use

the dominion bureau of statistics figure of those drawing unemployment insurance each month.
I believe that in reply to the previous question it would be fair to say whether or not the government is prepared to bring forth every month, as a regular fact, this figure for the attention of the general public. The figure has been presented on a number of occasions. All that is being asked is that it be regularly presented once a month.


Mr, Siarr:: Mr. Chairman, of course it is the dominion bureau of statistics figures that are released.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I can only assume from the minister's remarks that we are now back on the throne speech.


Michael Starr: That is what you were on.


Walter George Pitman: I think one thing was true in what the minister said-


An hon. Member:: You will vote for it.


An hon. Member:: You are on the way out.


Walter George Pitman: Yes, we will vote for these estimates simply because the history of this chamber in the last four years has been a record of the opposition having to vote for half measures, quarter measures and one tenth measures because that is all that is offered.
This is also interesting. The minister mentioned a poll. He suggested that 45 per cent of the people said they thought the economy was going up. There was another poll taken very recently which showed that the fortunes of the party now in power were going down. Those people who considered that the economy was going to remain healthy and become healthier were also the people who considered this party would not be in power very long. There must be a very great interjuxtaposition of those two polls and their results.


An hon. Member:: You will not be here after the next election.


Walter George Pitman: There was another very interesting thing. This evening we had a deathbed conversion, the sudden realization that monetary deficits are really right after all. Back in 1957 when the Minister of Labour said that every economist in Canada knew there was a problem of unemployment and an economic slowdown, what did this government predict; what did the Minister of Finance say? He said we would have a surplus, that we had to have a surplus. He said that was the proper way to run a country, to have a surplus. As the unemployment

figures rose, what did he say the next year? He said we had to have a surplus. And what did we have?


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


Mr. Pallell:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member give the committee the reference in Hansard for what he is saying? That is not what the Minister of Finance said.


Walter George Pitman: The Minister of Finance was talking surpluses up to last year, and it is common knowledge.
Mr. Pallet!: Give us the reference.


Walter George Pitman: You can refer to any newspaper in Canada. They will give you all the references you need. Finally, after ditching Mr. Coyne this government decided that deficits perhaps do have some value after all. This is a death-bed conversion which I am sure the Canadian people are not going to be very happy about hearing after four years of being led down the garden path.


An hon. Member:: That is complete nonsense.


Walter George Pitman: But was this deficit a planned deficit, one which was going to produce more economic activity, which was going to produce some kind of assurance for business and labour in this country? No, it was not a planned deficit because this government did not realize the value of a planned deficit. We have not had these deficits because of any realization up to now on the part of this government that planned deficits can provide employment.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether, while the hon. member is on his feet, he could explain why the government of Saskatchewan should have a $3J million deficit when the federal government has contributed an additional $35 million or more to that province each year since 1956? Will the hon. member deal with that question?


Walter George Pitman: It is obvious. It is because the government realizes that a deficit is valuable. That is obvious. That is what we have been saying. These means may certainly be used, but they must be planned so that you can put more purchasing power, more cash into the economy in order to achieve a healthy response. You certainly do not try to cut off the money supply and then end up with an unexpected deficit and talk about having done so in order to create employment. That is the kind of backward thinking of which this government has given so many examples in the past. Obviously this government does not realize that changes of emphasis are needed from time to time-that you only sail a ship by constantly adjusting the wheel.
Supply-Labour
This government does not make any adjustment until the whole economy has practically gone down the drain. Then, finally, they come to the realization that deficits were needed in the first place. The minister has sought to tell us of the many things which the government has done. We have heard some of them described by the minister. There is one thing I notice about these schemes: nearly every one of them was put through during the last session beginning last November.
Mr. Pallet!: Rubbish.


Walter George Pitman: I believe if you read the minister's speech you will find that nearly every one of those measures was put through during the last session. Yet this same minister said that in 1957 the economy of Canada was slowing down and that something serious would have to be done. It is interesting to observe how late the government acknowledged that something did, indeed, need to be done.
The Minister of Labour suggested that a special session was called last November to deal with unemployment, but I seem to remember that the speech from the throne last November did not even mention the word "unemployment". When the Prime Minister was asked whether that was a special session to deal with unemployment he answered very definitely in the negative.
Mr. Pallet!: Could the hon. member indicate what speech from the throne was delivered last November?


Walter George Pitman: I am sorry. I meant to say "a year ago last November". The hon. member for Peel seems to want to be very exact tonight. I am referring to the one the minister himself talked about at great length tonight. We were told there was no crisis-that there were no problems. Unemployment was increasing but this, we were told, was not the real problem.


Henry Frank Jones: That is what they said in the C.C.F. campaign in Saskatchewan.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am sorry to interrupt, but I would ask the co-operation of all members so that the hon. member who has the floor may continue.


Walter George Pitman: I cannot understand the hon. member's concern with the politics of Saskatchewan. I can assure him that the government of Saskatchewan will be around a lot longer than the present federal government. It has been around, now, for 21 years. Unless the hon. member has no respect at all for the opinion of the electorate of that province he must admit that they have indicated what they feel about that particular government.

Supply-Labour


Henry Frank Jones: Only as long as we are around to bail them out of their troubles.


An hon. Member:: What about Weyburn.


Walter George Pitman: The hon. member mentioned Weyburn. Nothing indicated the paucity of the political scene as much as that, where both parties had to get together to get rid of the one seat that was lost in that constituency.
Turning back to the numbers game which the minister has been playing, it is interesting to note the suggestion made not too long ago that 115,000 more people are employed this year than were employed last year. I wonder how many of them can really be regarded as occupying productive jobs created by this government. We increased the armed forces by 15,000; we put 25,000 into survival training for six weeks. We have another 12,000 in training. Probably the imposition of sales tax in Ontario has put a few more people to work. When you get down to it you get about 60,000-about half as many as it has been suggested are now in productive employment in this country as a result of steps taken by this government.
The minister talks about vocational schools. Yes, I know that the answer, one of the answers to unemployment given by this government, was to throw a lot of money at the provinces and say: here is a vocational training program. But it was not a vocational training program; it was a school building program, and in order that we might get some people at work building the schools the government decided that they should all be put up by 1963. Thus there was no time to find out what kind or size the communities concerned needed. There was no chance to plan a program. What the provinces did was to put up as many buildings as they could and then hope they could find enough courses of instruction to make the whole thing worth while, together with students who would fit into those courses.
Mr. Pallet!: Is the hon. member suggesting that the departments of education which had requested these schools do not know what they are doing?


Walter George Pitman: I am suggesting you have created a situation in some areas of Ontario in which boards of education have been extremely embarrassed. They do not know what to do to take best advantage.


An hon. Member:: You said it.


Walter George Pitman: In the strange circumstances you have placed upon them they are obliged to have these buildings up within a couple of years. You have made decisions very difficult for them. I can think of one example-


Some hon. Members:: Where?


Walter George Pitman: In my own constituency where you created a very difficult problem.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I believe it would be valuable if the hon. member would address the Chair. I think, then, he would have more success in having his remarks heard.


Walter George Pitman: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for any remarks I might have made directly to hon. members opposite. I can think of a situation in one area which has been made very difficult because this government has simply handed money out without there being any overall plan for the organization of these schools. In this area there is a municipality which has been providing vocational training for the county around and, of course, the county was paying toward the capital costs of these schools-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask
the hon. member a question? Did he not complain yesterday about the winter works program being in progress for too short a period? This technical and vocational training plan runs from December, 1960 until March, 1963. Does he think that is too short?


Walter George Pitman: I certainly do. You cannot plan properly to create-


William Joseph Browne: How long would the hon. member need to decide to plan a school? They are building 12 in Newfoundland. Give Smallwood credit; he is building 12 schools.


An hon. Member:: Thirteen.


Walter George Pitman: I am glad the hon. member is giving Smallwood some credit.


William Joseph Browne: He certainly seems to know more than you about it.


Walter George Pitman: Before you can proceed with a program like that, I think the best thing is to carry out a national research program to find out exactly what kinds of jobs are likely to be available.


An hon. Member:: Take up more time?


Walter George Pitman: The next step, surely, would be to set up a national pattern of vocational schools and to provide the courses which would be needed. After that you could build the schools to give the courses needed for employment over a period of ten or 15 years -not four or five.
To return to the point I was making about the situation in this particular area. This particular county was sending students to the municipality and paying part of the capital cost. They find themselves now in the position where, having accepted the grants-and there is tremendous pressure on

them to accept them, as one would expect- they realize it would cost them less to provide tor a school in the county itself than it would to continue to send students to the municipality. Thus the municipality is now in the position of losing students to the county. In some cases this system may even be impairing the movement toward the integration of education which was taking place in parts of Ontario. We have students who were being brought into larger school units now attending classes in vocational schools set up in rural areas.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Walter George Pitman: I have named one. I have named one in my own constituency.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. Once again I must request that hon. members on both sides of the house refrain from interjecting from their seats so the speaker may be heard and the debate may proceed in an orderly fashion.


Walter George Pitman: I wish to make it clear that both counties and municipalities have acted in good faith and with best intentions but their task has been complicated by the fact that the answer this government has is to throw in money, allowing confusion to be created, with no clear idea what is going to happen to the money.
Under our constitution education comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces but I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that vocational training is not a matter of culture, language or religion. The federal government should assist in this field and give direction and purpose. Only the federal government can provide leadership. Only the federal government has statistics and the other information required. As it is now, money is pumped in and the period given for construction is too short to accomplish an intelligent result.
I refer the minister to the efforts of the Ontario industrial education council. The minister must know about what I am saying now because people in his constituency are active in this area. It provides full consultation among educational bodies, school boards and management from various industries concerning the type of school to be constructed and the type of vocational training that could best supplement the industries in a given area. But this requires time, and time is not available under the present program because action must be taken in order to receive the grant.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether or not the hon. member realizes that education comes under provincial jurisdiction?
Supply-Labour


Walter George Pitman: I just mentioned that education is a provincial matter.


An hon. Member:: Go back and teach school.


Walter George Pitman: I can say with some knowledge that pumping money into an area in this way can be disruptive. The federal government should provide leadership and direction. This is not a matter essentially of education but of training. It is extremely important and unless something is done there will be a serious problem.
I know of some areas where school buildings are being erected where there is no likelihood of filling them.


John Cameron Pallett: Name one. The hon. member suggested one and I now invite him to name others.


Walter George Pitman: I know of one-


John Cameron Pallett: Let us have the name.


Walter George Pitman: -in the Niagara peninsula, around Welland, I think, where a school has been put up-


An hon. Member:: Welland?


Walter George Pitman: I said around Welland. I am not sure of the place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter George Pitman: In any event they are constructing a building there but there are few people taking vocational training at this time. Nevertheless they feel a building must be constructed to get the grant. Even though they know it will not be used economically at this time they wish to proceed and situations of this kind could be avoided if the proper conditions obtained.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It would be helpful if any hon. member who wished to ask a question would rise to his feet and ask the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Walter George Pitman: I am always interested in numbers. Perhaps the minister will explain the following aspect of his program which I have never understood. Perhaps it was explained before I arrived in this chamber. The program is based on a 27-28 week basis. The municipality receives a contribution of 50 per cent of wages in relation to those employed on municipal works approved by the federal government over a 27 or 28 week period. When it comes to calculating how many are employed the basis is brought down to 9 weeks. In order to proceed on a logical basis surely you should assume that it is one job per period of the winter works program, that is one job for a 27 or 28 week period.
The figure showing those employed under the program for 1958-59 instead of being

Supply-Labour
41,500 should have been about 13,000. The figure for 1959-60 instead of being 51,600 should have been about 17,000. The figure for 1960-61 instead of being 121,000 should have been about 40,000. The figure for 1961-62 instead of being 111,100 should have been about 41,000.
The federal government pays $1 or $2 per $10 paid by the municipality. The amount of employment attributable to the federal percentage of the payment for 1958-59 should be 2,000 men and the figure for 1961-62 should be 8,000 men. That is the result when you bring it right down to exactly what the federal government is doing over a period that the program is in operation. I do not understand the reference to a nine week period. I do not know of any place in Canada where the winter lasts only nine weeks except possibly Victoria and Vancouver. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me as to why in order to produce larger numbers, a nine week period is assumed in totalling the number of people who are being employed under the program.
The minister told us about many measures which have been implemented. What about the things that were not done? From the minister's remarks one might gather that we had full employment in Canada, that everything is fine.


Michael Starr: I did not say that.


Walter George Pitman: I will admit that the minister said unemployment was a serious problem but he created the impression that this government had done everything possible.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman, I said more will be done.


Walter George Pitman: Oh, more will be done? I am glad to hear it. It is too bad that everything is done so late.


Michael Starr: We do not care whether or not you are glad.


Walter George Pitman: I assure the minister I sun glad.


Michael Starr: It is of no interest to us whether or not you are happy about it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


Walter George Pitman: I hope what will be done in future will be done more rapidly than what has been done in the past. I hope the minister will not require from December to March to initiate action as he did to figure out what a distressed area is and then take more time before acting.


Michael Starr: We will not be able to derive any ideas from you, anyway.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order, please.


Walter George Pitman: I never realized the minister was so dependant on opposition members for ideas. This comes to me as quite a shock.


John Cameron Pallett: He never said that.


Walter George Pitman: Nevertheless we in the opposition are still waiting for action. Is it not interesting that the moment of truth should have come just at the time the economy is expanding. The charge I leave at the door of the government is that it does not understand the complexities of the unemployment situation.


Michael Starr: And the hon. member does?


Walter George Pitman: I fear that the government is now going to contribute to an undisciplined growth that will cause more unemployment in 1967 and 1968.


Michael Starr: You hope.


Walter George Pitman: No, Mr. Chairman, I must say I do not hope that.


Michael Starr: You sound like it.


Walter George Pitman: I do not think it will be important to the members of this government what the unemployment situation is in 1967 or 1968.


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member wants more regimentation.


Michael Starr: And state police.


Walter George Pitman: I certainly hope an effort will be made to ensure that we do not have another winter with the distress and hardship that were encountered last winter.
Before taking my seat I wish to pose two questions. I am interested in the minister's do it now campaign. How many handbills have been sent out under this vote? Were they blanketed over all Canada or was the distribution concentrated in certain areas where they seemed particularly needed? I wish to know the policy of the department in relation to these handbills.
The minister said that the cost of the campaign was paid on the basis of a contribution of $1 to $10 by private industry. How much of this money is donated through the public service and how much is paid for by business?
(Translation):


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I was just as shocked as you and my fellow members were to hear a teacher squarely oppose the vocational training program introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) for the benefit of the coming generation. I was, moreover, very much surprised and shocked to see that a teacher could afford the luxury of awarding school boards, and more particularly those of

his riding, a certificate of incompetence, stating that they did not know what they were doing nor where they were going.
For a school teacher, who wants to promote education and training, it is certainly an astounding attitude which he will certainly regret one of these days.
I wanted to draw the attention of this house to that statement and to point out to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman), that he has jumped feet first into a tight spot from which he will find it very difficult to extricate himself, come the election.
Mr. Chairman, we are now discussing the estimates of the Minister of Labour, one of which relates to the winter works program.
For the record, I want to make a few remarks concerning the projects which this program brought about, not only throughout Canada and the province of Quebec but, more particularly, in the constituency I have the honour to represent here, that is, St. Hyacinth e-Bagot.
According to a report published by the municipal authorities of St. Hyacinthe, five municipalities in that riding availed themselves of the program inaugurated by the Minister of Labour during the fiscal year 1960-61.
For instance, the city of St. Hyacinthe has undertaken works amounting to a total of $71,511, which represented $35,962 in labour, and which provided jobs to 146 persons.
The municipality of St. Joseph, which is adjacent to the city of St. Hyacinthe has, for its part, undertaken works amounting to a total of $6,600 which represented $6,330 in salaries and jobs for six persons.
The village of La Providence has also undertaken works amounting to $16,000, which included $10,500 for labour, and this provided work to 15 heads of family.
The municipality of St. Damase has undertaken $13,902 worth of works, $5,235 of which went to pay wages to 30 heads of families.
As for St. Nazaire d'Acton, it spent $800 to provide work for ten people and pay them $690 in wages.
Two hundred and seven of my fellow citizens found employment on those projects for which $57,917 were paid for labour expenses.
Supply-Labour


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: What about the hundreds
of others?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That, Mr. Chairman, is quite different from what our hon. friends on the other side of the house did when they were in power.


Mr. Meunier:: There was no unemployment then.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier) can have the floor when I am through with my speech.
When hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, they never could find a way to help the municipalities. And now, after all their disparaging remarks about the program we are discussing at the moment, they are beginning to recognize its value because the provincial government has agreed to a 40 per cent participation. They are still-


Azellus Denis: Still bad.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: These gentlemen of the opposition are not hard to please, since, to them, 40 per cent is much more important than 50 per cent. They have a way of their own with mathematics. They are so backward that the difference between 40 and 50 per cent is beyond them.


An hon. Member:: And nothing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, if you were to deduct the federal government's share from this program, it would be an entirely different story.


Azellus Denis: And the Hon. Mr. Duplessis: nothing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: During the winter of 1960-1961, the federal government also undertook the construction of post offices at St. Pie and St. Germain in my riding. Moreover, the Lorette convent was demolished in anticipation of the construction of a federal building in the city of St. Hyacinthe and preliminary work was started for the construction of a tunnel at the eastern entrance to St. Hyacinthe.
Those are all steps we have actually taken and which our friends opposite could have taken themselves, had they not been too backward to think about them and to see what was going on.


Azellus Denis: Sir John A. Macdonald forgot about them too.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Midgets defiling the graves of giants.
476	HOUSE OF
Business of the House


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The people were led to believe that since the change of government in Quebec, the ratio of unemployed in the province has gone down. I have some figures here. I shall read them tomorrow since it is now ten o'clock. I will give them to the house tomorrow even if they are detrimental to the Liberal opposition and painful for them. You will see then, Mr. Chairman, that unemployment has never been so serious in the province of Quebec as under the Lesage government. (Text):


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?

Items stand.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the
leader of the house if he would indicate the business which the government proposes to submit for the consideration of the house tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The same program as was outlined for today.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 2, 19G2