1962-02-02

Mr. Jack Wratten (Brantford) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-50, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jack Wratten: Mr. Speaker, in 1967 Canadians will be celebrating throughout Canada the birth of their nation. As Sir John A. Macdonald was the first prime minister of Canada, it seems proper and desirable that his memory should be honoured by the observance of a holiday in the name of Sir John A. Macdonald day.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce has a reply to the question I addressed to him yesterday.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday the hon. member for Laurier addressed a question to the Minister of Defence Production, and in his absence my colleague the Minister of Transport accepted it as notice.
I presume the hon. member for Laurier, in referring to a C-54 sold by Canadair to Seaboard World Airlines Inc., had reference to the sale of five CL-44-D-4 aircraft sold by Canadair Limited to Seaboard in June, 1959. Four of these CL-44-D-4's have been delivered to Seaboard, and the fifth aircraft is scheduled for delivery in April of this year.
I am informed that as of today Seaboard World Airlines Inc., is not in default on any payments due to Canadair Limited. Seaboard World Airlines Inc. has been experiencing financial difficulties but so far has been able to obtain new capital to carry on its business.
I am pleased to inform the hon. member for Laurier that this government has given 26207-1-31
assistance to Canadair Limited through the facilities of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. The corporation insured Canadair Limited against loss covering the sale of the five aircraft to Seaboard under the authority of section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act approved by order in council P.C.1959-747, dated June 11, 1959, which was tabled in this house on June 16, 1959. In addition, when Seaboard was experiencing financial difficulties during the year 1960 the Export Credits Insurance Corporation agreed to an amendment which provided for more generous terms of payment. E.C.I.C. did this under the authority of order in council P.C.1960-1045, dated July 30, 1960, and tabled in this house on August 6, 1960.
(Translation):



QUEBECAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his reply which brings me to ask the Minister of Transport an additional question. Can he tell the house whether Quebecair defaulted with regard to its commitments concerning the two aircraft purchased from Canadair, and what assistance the government granted Quebecair under the circumstances?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, relations between Canadair and Quebecair are between two private firms, in which the government has no direct interest.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question? Was the government asked for a grant, or some other type of financial assistance by Quebecair in order to help that firm to carry out its operations through the winter period?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, an application was made by Quebecair to the air transport board. After due consideration by the air transport board, it was submitted to the government who did not deem it appropriate to award the grant.
478	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of a Canadian Press report that in a speech at Montreal the hon. gentleman said a study would be made leading to a campaign against organized or syndicated crime. I wonder whether the minister has anything to tell the house as to the scope of this study, whether it is to be a royal commission or a study within his department.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: No,
Mr. Speaker. Some of the headlines relating to my speech are, may I say, a little exaggerated in the context of the reports themselves. I direct the attention of the hon. member to the report which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail, where under a somewhat far-reaching headline the body of the report reproduces much more accurately what I had to say. Part of that account reads as follows:
He did not elaborate, making only a passing reference to the study in a speech to the Montreal junior board of trade in which he sketched the government's new program aimed at curbing drug addiction.
The report then goes on to refer to the fact that the R.C.M.P. and other police forces have been holding preliminary talks with regard to this problem.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask the minister to clarify this report further by telling us whether or not a study of syndicated crime is now being made, whether a study will be made, or whether the report itself is inaccurate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have already directed the hon. member's attention to the report which, I have said, reproduces accurately what I have said.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Is there any assistance available under the government's fine agricultural program for those poor little lambs who lost their way at the Liberal convention in Ottawa earlier this week?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Political black
sheep.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member did not specify which of the two secretaries should

answer and, furthermore, it seems to me he is taking liberties with the Department of Agriculture.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I apologize for not giving him sufficient notice, but I sent my question to the Postmaster General's department and it was redirected to him. My question is based on a copy of a letter I received from the municipal clerk of the corporation of the village of Kaslo, British Columbia, addressed to the Postmaster General, Ottawa, which says:
I have been directed to refer you to the promise made that a new post office was to be built in Kaslo during 1962.
I must bring to the attention of the house the fact that Kaslo is the birthplace of a very distinguished Canadian, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). The letter goes on to say:
It has now been ascertained that this project is not to be undertaken.
In view of the inadequacy of the present post office for the public of Kaslo and district the board of commissioners and public generally urgently request that this matter be reconsidered and that arrangements be made for a new post office to be built without delay.
My question is this. In view of the great need for a post office and the particular circumstances surrounding this village, will the minister reconsider his decision?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize until this moment the great importance of Kaslo. I think perhaps this matter should be drawn to the attention of the historic sites and monuments board. After all, there is no one in Canada, other than the Prime Minister, who is more famous than the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I assure the house that this matter is engaging our earnest attention even without having known the important significance of Kaslo, and we will be building a new post office there in the next year. In the meantime, however, we have an unexpired lease and adequate quarters at a low rental. I assure the hon. member for Kootenay West that when the post office is built we will endeavour to persuade the Secretary of State for External Affairs to assist my hon. friend in opening the building.



RESERVE MINES, N.S.    INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with construction of the post office at Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, notwithstanding protests from the Canadian Legion in that community?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my hon. friend has now changed his position. Originally he was opposed to this; now he is in favour of it. The hon. member is shaking his head, so perhaps he is against it again. Originally I thought he was directing the campaign, and I do not know where he stands at the moment. I shall inquire into the matter and advise him in due course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could clarify the mind of the minister by saying I was merely making an inquiry, which is all we are supposed to do at this stage of the proceedings under the rules.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the fence again?



FORT WILLIAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has he heard of a request for a new post office in Fort William; or is the department planning an extension to the present building or the construction of a new building in another location?


David James Walker: I am delighted to answer these questions if they deal with matters of national or urgent importance, Mr. Speaker. However, I would ask the hon. member if he would be good enough to put this question on the order paper. I have a hard time keeping in mind 265 different constituencies. I could not answer the question at the moment.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of rumours being spread in Ottawa, as reported in a Montreal newspaper, to the effect that part of the staff of the national film board will be moved back to the city of Ottawa from Montreal, with further action 26207-1-31i
Inquiries of the Ministry to be taken in order to remove the whole staff from Montreal to Ottawa, can the minister inform the house whether the national film board is contemplating such action and, if so, what will happen to the national film board building in St. Laurent?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the second part of the question first, there is no such intention. When the national film board moved from Ottawa to Montreal there was a strong feeling that the stills division should be left in Ottawa and as a matter of fact the photo librarian, the editors and the photographers have remained here but the processing division moved to Montreal with the rest of the board.
Subsequently it was found that this was not a particularly good arrangement, because it took so long to process photographs and have them returned to Ottawa. Complaints were being made as to the length of time it took, with the result that the management analysis division of the civil service commission investigated the matter. Their recommendation is that the stills laboratory should be returned to Ottawa. If and when a decision is made, this would involve nine persons.



CUBA-REPORTED STATEMENT BY U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister. Has he any comment to make on the Washington report of a statement by United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk with regard to an appeal to O.A.S. member states concerning a cessation of trade with Cuba?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I had expected that question would be asked, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that the Leader of the Opposition asked a similar question the other day. That was, of course, prior to the statement made by Mr. Rusk; hence the anticipation with which I looked forward to the opportunity of answering this question.
We have no official reports on the conclusions reached by the foreign ministers of the organization of American states at the Punta del Este conference. I am, however, not aware of any decision taken by that meeting which relates to restrictions on trade with Cuba in non-strategic materials and goods.
In so far as the export of arms to Cuba is concerned, as the house has been informed on
480	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry a number of occasions the Canadian government has not been permitting the export of arms to that area for more than two years, and in addition has not been allowing the export of strategic materials to Cuba.
In the statement appearing in the press, reference was made to the suggestion that the earnings by Cuba on her exports to Canada might be used "to promote communist subversion in neighbouring countries". I would point out that Canada's trade with Cuba in non-strategic goods runs heavily in favour of Canada, and that therefore there can be no possibility of earnings by Cuba on her exports to Canada being used for this purpose. On the contrary, Cuban trade with Canada is absorbing dollars secured from other sources.
I think it might be of interest in that connection to point out the record for the first nine months of 1961 with regard to both exports and imports. Canada's exports to Cuba amounted to $21.5 million. Imports from Cuba amounted to $4.6 million. During the same period United States exports, while they were tremendously down from those of the previous year, amounted to $13.3 million and imports to $26.8 million.
With regard to the problem in general may I say this. While naturally Canada is most desirous of co-operating at all times with friendly nations, the decision as to the course Canada shall take should be made by Canada on the basis of policies which we believe are appropriate to Canada.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what are the actual steps that are taken to ensure that goods exported from the United States to Canada are not then re-exported from Canada to Cuba?


George Harris Hees: Exporters of goods to Cuba are required to declare what goods are contained in the shipments. If anything which comes from the United States is attempted to be shipped to Cuba, that shipment is refused. That has happened on a number of occasions. We are watching this matter very closely. I do not believe there has been a single instance in which goods which originated in the United States have been shipped to Cuba.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thank the minister for his answer. May I ask him this question. What steps are taken to ensure that goods exported from Canada are not originally from the United States? Are the exporters asked to give the original source of the goods exported to Cuba?


George Harris Hees: I believe they are asked to do that, Mr. Speaker. However, I should like to


get information on the exact procedure, because I do not wish to make a misleading statement in the house. I will produce it early next week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thank the minister.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received any recent communication from any emergency measures organization official suggesting that a formal directive be issued to all unemployment insurance commission officers informing them that unemployed men may be allowed to take the training course at the civil defence college at Arnprior without loss of benefits? If so, would the minister be willing to take action in this regard?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I am not aware of any communication of that nature, but I will certainly look into the matter and see if there is anything. If anything can be done to help in training of any kind we are most helpful and cooperative.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Kent (N.B.) in which he inquired about a resolution from the council of the municipality of Kent. We have checked our files, and we find that no request has been received from that municipality.



PEACE RIVER-APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for disturbing the Minister of Public Works a second time, but I wish to ask him this question. In view of the recent statement of the minister of lands and forests of British Columbia that he was making immediate application for a licence to build a hydro dam on the Peace river, can the minister inform the house whether he has received an application from the

province of British Columbia for a permit or licence under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to construct a dam on the Peace river and, if so, what is the government's approach to this application?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware the application has not yet been received, but when it is it will receive due attention and an announcement will be made in due course.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
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.
(Translation):
Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, before the house adjourned yesterday evening, I had quoted a few figures to show how efficient the winter works program was. I should like to complete the information I gave by adding, for example, that during the winter of 1960-61, in the St. Hyacinthe district, ten municipalities participated in this program. The work done cost $1,153,845, of which $144,156 were paid in salaries, and it provided jobs to 413 workers.
During the winter of 1959-60 in the city of St. Hyacinthe alone, according to the report published by the board established to promote winter works, a sum of $126,935 was spent on such projects and 118 men were employed. As indicated in the report, the figures were incomplete, owing to the fact that many contractors had yet to report.
I think it is only fair to say that the municipalities would have availed themselves of this program long before that, had the opposition
Supply-Labour
not raised a hue and cry against it, spreading fear and panic among the municipalities.
During the year 1958-59, according to the figures now available, 41,500 workers, throughout Canada, and 647 municipalities have been assisted by the winter works program introduced by the minister. In 1959-60, 51,600 workers received wages produced by those projects undertaken by 869 municipalities.
Finally, during 1961-62, it is estimated that the projects submitted to the government by 2,286 municipalities will provide employment for 111,200 workers. Man days provided as a result of that program will add up to 4,743,000.
According to hon. members of the opposition, this program is not worth paying attention to and the municipalities should almost be blamed for participating.
In their speeches, the hon. members of the opposition have made a survey of the situation. I should also like to discuss the situation in the province of Quebec and compare it with what it was when our hon. friends the Liberals were running this country.
But before doing that, Mr. Chairman, I should like to call your attention to an article by Pierre Charbonneau in Le Nouveau Journal on November 30, 1961. I quote:
Plank number 12 of the Quebec Liberal party platform reads as follows: ''The provincial government must assume its responsibilities with regard to unemployment."
I read a little further on:
In short, it emerges clearly from that analysis- and the speeches made by Mr. Lesage and his colleagues during the electoral campaign of June 1960 have confirmed it-that unemployment is primarily the responsibility of the province.
And still further on:
Although sympathetic to the cause of the unemployed, Quebec admits its helplessness and passes the buck to Ottawa, satisfied to play a purely supplementary part. What about the council for economic guidance? And what about the pursuit of "the necessary policies" mentioned in the Liberal platform?
At this point, I would like to refer to an advertisement published, in 1960, by the Liberal party during that campaign. It states:
The Liberal solution to the unemployment problem is as follows: 1. consider unemployment as a family problem and a provincial responsibility.
Now, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont (Mr. Deschatelets) let us now compare

Supply-Labour
the percentage of unemployed under the administration which preceded that "terrific team" in Quebec.
When the said "terrific team" took over in Quebec, the percentage of the jobless in the province was 5.7 per cent. In July 1960, that percentage rose to 6.5 per cent, and reached 6.2 per cent in August, 6.4 in September, 6.9 per cent in October, 7.9 per cent in November and 10.1 per cent in December.
Moreover, in March 1961, when the Quebec Liberal government was claiming to have done something to keep unemployment down, the percentage of people without work in that province went up to 15 per cent as against 13 per cent at the same time a year before.


Mr. Pigeon:: The damage was terrific.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Those figures are taken from the publication sent to us by the dominion bureau of statistics, and I would like my friends opposite to make more frequent use of it in their speeches.
We also heard from the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont that there was full employment, under the former government. I would like to refer my hon. friend to the years 1937, 1938 and 1939, when a Liberal government was at the helm, and there were about 400,000 unemployed, a large number of them on relief. And 400,000 unemployed, at that time was a much higher proportion, since the labour force was then much smaller than it is now.
However, during the years 1937, 1938 and 1939-years of plenty according to our hon. friends opposite-in the city of Montreal and in other large cities across Canada, there were doctors, notaries, lawyers, nurses and teachers on relief. These people were receiving direct assistance. However, our hon. friends opposite now would have us believe that there was full employment at that time.
Our hon. friends will also recall that in those years, wages of 10, 12 and 15 cents per hour were being paid in the textile industry, and when you compare average salaries then and now in that industry, you cannot but recognize that Canadian workers, under the present Conservative regime, are far better off now than ever before.
In fact, it cannot be contended that we are living under a hunger regime when Canadians earn more, spend more and save more.

It must also be remembered that there are more Canadians at work today than ever before in Canada's history.
In the textile industry, for instance, the average weekly salary as of November 1956, was $55.96, while it reached $63.51 in November 1960.
In the manufacturing industry as a whole, the worker was earning $68.78 a week in November 1956 and $79.16 in November 1960.
In the building industry the average weekly pay was $70.78 in November 1956 as compared to $81.46 in November 1960. And I believe this last average has gone up since November 1960.
In the field of construction, according to a report by the secretary of the builders' association, Canada has established a world record.
In fact, Mr. John Caulfield Smith, executive vice president of the national association of house builders of Toronto, stated:
Construction accounts for 10 per cent of our gross national product as compared to 11 per cent in the United States and 8 per cent in Britain.
And since our friends opposite like to make comparisons with present full employment in England, Germany and Italy, does that imply that the Liberal policy would be to go back to longer hours and lower wages than those paid here? Do they intend to achieve full employment by reducing the wages and increasing the working hours of Canadian workers?
I feel that if the question was put to the Canadian worker, he would not hesitate to answer that the conditions which he enjoys now under a Conservative administration are indeed the conditions he prefers.
Mention was also made of certain Gallup polls. I should also like to draw the attention of this house to the results of a poll reported in the newspaper La Presse on January 4, 1962. The question put to people in various walks of life was as follows:
Do you approve or disapprove of the record of the federal government to date?
For the whole of Canada, the answer was as follows: for, that is favourable, 43 per cent. Against, 28 per cent, while 29 per cent of the population did not answer.

As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, the proportion in favour shows that this government did a very good job: 44 per cent were in favour; 29 per cent were against and 27 per cent did not answer.
Concerning the textile industry which is of particular interest to me, I should like to draw the attention of the house to information I have here.
I am quoting here from an article published in the Gazette of January 13, 1962, which is based on the publication entitled The Primary Textile Institute, with the following subtitle:	.
(Text):
Textiles may enter new phase-obtain 51 per cent of domestic market-first increase since 1950.
Further on we read:
Industry optimism stems from a number of 1961 indications, such as an increase in domestic production, a levelling of the volume of imports, and the arrest of annual cuts in employment.
Further on we see:
Despite the difficult conditions since 1950-
Mr. Chairman, you will remember that hon. members opposite have tried to persuade us that the textile industry has only been in trouble since our government came into power; but you will note, sir, that this industry has been in trouble since 1950, and for the first time since that year is beginning to pick up. I was quoting this article:
Despite the difficult conditions since 1950. this industry has never ceased believing that it had a vital role to fill in the Canadian economy and the future of this country.
This is quite a bit different from what our Liberal opponents have been trying to persuade people all across Canada. (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that, at present, 6,048 requests have been approved by the Department of Labour in connection with the winter works program. The estimated cost of the works to be carried out under those projects runs in the neighbourhood of $257.5 million. Salaries to be paid as labour, for those works, will amount to $66 million, and the federal government's contribution amounts to $33 million. However, this does not prevent our Liberal friends from protesting, after having voted at first for those winter works and probably preparing themselves to vote again in the same way. They rise one after the other to say that this measure has no value whatever and that the sum of $33 million is negligible.
Now, it must be remembered that $33 million constitutes a sum intended to help municipalities. It must also be recalled that when those hon. gentlemen could have done
Supply-Labour
something to help municipalities, they did not bother to do anything. They were satisfied to sit back and let municipalities cope with their own difficulties. Today, the municipalities are most happy with the assistance they get from this Conservative government and municipal authorities are certainly most generous in voicing their appreciation to the Conservative government and the Minister of Labour who has established the winter works program with their co-operation.
Mr. Chairman, I would advise our Liberal friends to think twice before speaking and voting, because the people are pretty well fed up with their criticism of everything that is done in the house, even though afterwards they vote for the measures introduced by the Conservative government.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I followed closely the remarks made yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and I also listened carefully to the speech the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) started yesterday and concluded this morning.
I congratulate the Minister of Labour for having taken such pains to defend his department's policy.
At the outset of his remarks, the minister stated that the Liberal party was absurdly criticizing everything that was done by the government. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the role of the Liberal party is, if not to criticize and comment on the government's policy and make suggestions so as to improve it materially. That is what we have done in the past and what we intend to keep on doing.
As general elections are getting closer, it seems to me that government members and ministers are becoming increasingly nervous, and that reminds me of-


Mr. Martel:: You mean the Liberal members.


Samuel Boulanger: -the attitude of the Union Nationale, in the province of Quebec. No opposition is to be tolerated. Newspapermen are criticized. And attempts are made to prevent members of the opposition from expressing their views.
Indeed, we shall vote for the adoption of the Department of Labour estimates. We shall vote for these measures because-


Mr. English:: Because they are good.


Samuel Boulanger: We cannot be against them. For want of something better, we shall vote in favour.


Mr. Johnson:: A reasonable gesture, at last.

Supply-Labour


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, in the course of his remarks, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot has counted the blessings brought about by the assistance granted municipalities through the winter works program, and he quoted figures to show all the wonderful things that had been done in his constituency. But he forgot one thing, and the most important one. It is that, if the St. Hyacinthe-Bagot constituency has benefited from this legislation, the one to thank is Mr. Lesage, the greatest premier the province of Quebec has ever known.
That act was passed in 1958 and it was only in 1960 that the province of Quebec was able to take advantage thereof, because Mr. Lesage accepted the joint plan-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. May I point out to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska that during the winter of 1959-60-and I quoted figures to that effect this morning-some municipalities in my county took advantage of the winter works program before there was a joint plan with the Quebec provincial government. Therefore, the hon. member should bear that information in mind.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is always balled up.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I do not see that there is a point of order here.
As I was saying, if nowadays the province of Quebec can take advantage of that act adopted by the federal government, we owe it to Mr. Lesage, because in the days of the Union Nationale, Premier Duplessis always refused to co-operate with the federal government in order to alleviate unemployment.


Mr. Habel:: Hear, hear.


Samuel Boulanger: The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot has even been searching through statistics in order to find some arguments that would justify this government's policy in general and that of the Department of Labour in particular. He quoted Gallup poll figures. He should have gone further and given us the opinion of the pollsters who conducted that same Gallup poll on the popularity of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If you are satisfied with one government, you do not worry.


Samuel Boulanger: -and in Canada. Those figures would have been most interesting.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Give us some figures.


Samuel Boulanger: However, I can quote figures also-
(Text):


Mr. Deschatelets:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker enjoyed courtesy from this side of the house while he was making his speech. He was not interrupted, and there were no interjections. I would ask you to see that the present speaker enjoys the same courtesy from the other side of the committee, and that the rules be applied to both sides.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I want to draw your attention also, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that I was interrupted by the hon. member who has just spoken as well as by the hon. member who actually has the floor. In these circumstances it is most surprising that he should get up and try to teach you a lesson.


An hon. Member:: I was interrupted, too.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has the floor and I would ask other members to co-operate in recognizing his rights in this regard. (Translation):


Mr. Drouin:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I should not want to be rude to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, but he put forward facts which are not accurate. Actually, when he stated that under the Duplessis government-


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He should be asked to read more slowly.


The Chairman:: Order.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind government members' criticism, but I would like them to be courteous enough to wait until I have finished my remarks, as we did ourselves yesterday evening and this morning, when we listened to them.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not true.


Samuel Boulanger: A moment ago, I was speaking of Gallup polls and the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) asked me what I thought of the Gallup poll's conclusions on the Conservative government's popularity in Quebec and throughout Canada. He asked me to give figures and I am quite willing to quote some from memory.
In Canada-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: On what date?


Samuel Boulanger: September 1961.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I see.


Samuel Boulanger: When the results of the next Gallup poll are known, they will no doubt be even less favourable to the Conservative government.
For the information of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, according to the figures, the Liberal party's popularity was 56 per cent, while that of the Conservative party was 48 per cent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Keep your present leader for a while and we will easily be returned to office.


Samuel Boulanger: An upturn in the textile industry was also mentioned. It was stated that employment had improved in that industry since the beginning of 1961. However, the situation is not quite as good as in 1956 when the Liberals left office. The Canadian producers' share of the domestic market was 56 per cent that year as compared with 48 per cent at the end of 1960. It has decreased continuously. If there is an improvement in the textile industry today, it is because there has been a marked improvement in the economic situation in the United States, and because the Americans are selling their products in their own country where the demand is heavy, which eliminates dumping in Canada.
I revert to the question of unemployment to enlighten the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe-Bagot who claimed that the government's policy has reduced unemployment in the country and in his riding, in particular. I would suggest that he refer to the following figures which I find in the November issue of the Labour Gazette:
Employment opportunities and applications at the unemployment insurance commission as of September 29, 1961.
I must tell the hon. member that according to the above mentioned survey, by August 31, 1961, there were still 1,049 unemployed in the city of St. Hyacinthe. Yet, there are some who claim that the municipal winter works program helped alleviate unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, the government's policy in that respect certainly has some advantages, since it will help to provide work for 118,000 people over a period of 45 days. We do not criticize that policy; we merely hope that the government will improve it. The aims of the Minister of Labour are sound and appropriate, but the means considered to check unemploy-26207-1-32
Supply-Labour
ment are inadequate because they do not meet the wishes expressed by the population, the municipalities and the unemployed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do not insult Mr. Lesage.


Samuel Boulanger: I shall come back later on, if I may, to Mr. Lesage, since I have been driven to speak about him.
As far as winter works are concerned, it has been determined that materials represent from 66 to 68 per cent of the cost and labour, from 30 to 34 per cent. Of this last percentage, the federal government pays half. Fortunately, in certain provinces, a percentage of the labour cost is added. The Quebec government pays 40 per cent of the labour costs. Both the federal government and the Quebec government are to be congratulated for that.
The fact does remain, however, that municipalities have to pay from 68 to 72 per cent of the cost of materials, which this year is estimated at $267 million. Furthermore, municipalities have to pay an 11 per cent tax on those materials. Now, we are told that this year the federal government will spend about $33 million. Then, taking into account the tax to be levied by the federal government on these $267 million worth of materials, we find that it will receive $28 million. This goes to show how insignificant the federal contribution is. It amounts to just a few million dollars.
What we want, and what the municipalities' union and various other organizations have been asking, is that the government do more than it has done in the past by creating a fund from which municipalities could borrow at a reasonable rate. For pity's sake, let us do away with the 11 per cent tax on materials which municipalities buy for winter works.
These are suggestions we are making to the Minister of Labour, not to be nasty, but to help him deal with the unemployment problem, since we know that there were 413,000 unemployed in December and there are perhaps over 500,000 at the present time.
Last winter, the number of unemployed reached 713,000, and if means are not taken to improve the situation, we will have this same number again this year.
We made plenty of suggestions during the great debate on unemployment which took place in 1959. The Liberal party set forth 25 of them and I think that was enough to work out a solution which should alleviate the unemployment situation.

Supply-Labour
Since the hon. members from Quebec want details, I am prepared to give them some. We know that in 1959-60, the province of Quebec held the record for unemployment. It was the province which had the most unemployed in relation to its labour force. But by mid-December 1961, the province had dropped down to third place, thanks to the wise policy of premier Lesage who had then been in power only 18 months.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: What has he done?


Samuel Boulanger: Although he took over from an administration which had turned everything upside down for 16 years, only 18 months after he was elected as leader of the government of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage had taken such measures that the province dropped to third place as regards unemployment. And I ask all the hon. members from the province of Quebec to examine the figures as they are published each month so that they may realize what Quebec can do when it has a fair and sound government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Twenty two new taxes under the Lesage administration.


Samuel Boulanger: Under the Union Nationale government, the assistance provided to municipalities under the program amounted to nothing. Today the government pays 40 per cent of the cost of labour.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Who signed the federal-provincial agreement on unemployment insurance?


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, during last year's debate I offered a few suggestions and I had one about profit sharing. I explained that under that formula, the worker shares in the profits of our business concerns, which helps to reduce production costs so that our products are in a better position to compete with those of other nations on the export markets. I found that the best way to do so was to bring about better co-operation in labour-management relations. That is why I asked the government and the Minister of Labour to encourage employers and employees to sit down together and discuss their problems rather than have each side pulling on the blanket and increasing difficulties.
The Minister of Labour has made no comment about my suggestions and the same goes for the unions. They had no comments to offer, except for one union leader who has expressed views I cannot give you here for the time being.

However, a fortunate movement was initiated recently by industrial leaders and management associations that met for the first time in Winnipeg recently. We are told that other meetings will follow in various parts of the country; I hope they will be successful in improving management-labour relations and will find ways to improve employment conditions throughout the country, which is something the government cannot do.
Mr. Chairman, I thought I should make an appeal in favour of the 400,000 people who were out of work in December and I have been sincere in this.
It is said that an amount of $33 million will be spent during the year in an effort to ease unemployment. That is not enough. If hundreds of millions are spent on war material that will probably never be of any use to us, I think that the $33 million that will be spent this year to fight unemployment are not enough. As the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) was saying yesterday, in wartime, there is a lot of money for armaments, whereas with a human problem like unemployment, the purse strings are tightened and nothing is done to solve it.
It is not by going back to the regime that prevailed in the years 1930-35 that the unemployment problem can be solved, but rather by examining it today in an objective manner and by working together to find a satisfactory solution. Unemployment is no more the responsibility of the provincial government than of the federal government or of the unions or of management. It is a problem which concerns each and everyone of us, a problem which concerns the government as much as each and every member of this house. It is not by indulging in bigotry, as has been the case yesterday and this morning, that a solution will be found to this problem of unemployment.
(Text):


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Hon. members will recall that during the throne speech debate I mentioned optimistically the employment situation in the Saint John area. This optimism was fortified the other day, namely on January 30, by a press report. I am quoting from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal.
Unemployment in Saint John at the end of 1961 showed a sharp decrease over the previous year, said Mayes C. Smith, manager of the national employment service office, yesterday.

I referred, however, to the increasing demands in our area for skilled labour. I mentioned the fact that the industries now located there were forced to go to the United Kingdom for their skilled people and that these immigrants are now moving into this part of New Brunswick. At that time I expressed the hope that it would be possible to increase our technological training facilities there so that it would not be necessary to bring in so many immigrants and we could make use of the fine young men who are now in Saint John.
This matter of increased vocational training has been to the fore in the last two or three weeks. A great many statements made at the various levels of responsibility have appeared in the press. I had hoped that it would be possible to make more progress than that which has been made. I am not suggesting that any of the statements that have been made are untrue. However, I make mention of this fact because I think the impression could have been created in some minds that the nigger in the woodpile is the federal government. Some of the figures that have been used, while not untrue, create the wrong impression.
I should like to take the example of a proposed expenditure of $1 million on construction for vocational training. Under the plan made possible by the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act of last year and the agreement thereunder the federal government would match 75 per cent of all money paid by the provincial government. The provincial government of New Brunswick is hamstrung owing to an old and outmoded vocational education act and can assist only to the extent of 30 per cent. This would mean that 25 per cent of the 30 per cent, which would be paid by the province, would amount to only $75,000, which is a paltry sum indeed. Suppose the provinces paid the full $1 million for this proposed construction. In that event the province would receive back from the federal government $750,000. This would leave only $250,000 as the net amount to be paid by the provincial government. However, the provincial government are welshing on this because they would only pay $75,000 under the existing scheme and would therefore save themselves $175,000. This has the effect of making it impossible for the municipality to go ahead with its plan. I understand that in the Saint John case the estimated cost is $500,000 and if we take half this amount this means that the provincial government by hiding behind this 26207-1-32*
Supply-Labour
outmoded act is saving approximately $80,000, or half of $175,000. As a result we will not be able to go forward with this very necessary construction to provide facilities for training people in the skills that are necessary in the Saint John area.
I suggest that when the provincial act was drafted the circumstances were entirely different. Revisions have been made with regard to the federal responsibility, and it is up to the province now to make the necessery changes so that we will all be able to benefit from this very generous offer of which advantage has been taken by most of the other provinces.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief because there is no need now to answer the statements of the opposition. I think the Minister of Labour did so very effectively last night when he outlined just how much good this program is doing all across Canada. On the radio this morning I heard complimentary remarks by a commentator about this program of the government. The commentator said that the opposition had fired no big guns against the program. He implied that they had let off a few firecrackers, and I think he believed that even among those firecrackers there were quite a few duds. In my opinion the opposition has endorsed this program by praising it with very faint criticism.
The two items now before the committee are very important. Item 613 provides an amount of $90,000 for the promotion of a program to combat seasonal unemployment. The Minister of Labour expressed his appreciation of the work of the local winter works committees and their great efforts in providing more jobs during the winter. I should like to add my personal commendation to the minister's letter of thanks which he addressed last year to the local winter works committees. May I say with particular reference to the Moose Jaw winter works committee that I think their efforts will certainly deserve thanks from the minister again this year.
During the debate on acreage payments I drew attention to the fact that the item covering those payments to western farmers and the item of $40 million for winter works appeared on the same supplementary estimate sheet. I said at that time that the $42 million in acreage payments will help to bolster the income of the western farmers and the $40 million in item 614 now before us, the purpose of which is to pay half the labour costs for winter works, will add to the income of the workers. I repeat what I said in the earlier debate. The fact that the two items appear on the same supplementary


Mr. Peters:: And the fact that there may be an election on April 9 may have something to do with it.


James Ernest Pascoe: The minister referred to the scope of the program last winter. This list of claims is only one cheque requisition. This requisition is two pages long, and it shows the money paid from Ottawa to the provincial government and to the municipalities. There are quite a few of them in my own constituency but I shall not read the items.


William Arnold Peters: What about the minister's own riding?


James Ernest Pascoe: This list of claims processed for payment by Ottawa is covered by just one cheque requisition for $99,246, and I am sure it is only one of hundreds of such requisitions. After the projects are accepted, in my particular area anyway, Ottawa pays the money to the provincial government at Regina which in turn pays it to the municipalities. I do not doubt that the provincial government takes a great deal of credit for that, but I want to make it very clear that we are paying half the labour costs, as can be seen by this item for $40 million.
In my files I have letters of thanks for the part I played in some of the major municipal projects, and I pass on these expressions of thanks to the minister who is doing so much to provide jobs during the wintertime and thus reduce seasonal unemployment. The government programs implemented in the past four years have provided another benefit not directly connected with these payments from the federal treasury. This benefit is connected with winter construction. In earlier years it was taken for granted that construction work could not be carried out during our cold winters, but the example set by the winter works program has been followed by contractors all across Canada, as can be seen by the buildings now rising in Ottawa. Only this morning I passed a nine storey building on which work was being carried out in 19 below zero weather.
This is another part of the government's campaign to provide more employment, a campaign for which the Minister of Labour can take a great deal of credit. On behalf of my constituency, which has benefited considerably under this winter works program and which will benefit to an even greater extent this winter, I am happy to support this supplementary estimate, and I thank the minister for introducing it so early this session. (Translation):


Mr. Leduc:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on the items now be-
Supply-Labour
fore us. We are asked by the government to vote an amount of $40,090,000 as a contribution to joint winter works programs.
Last night I listened very attentively to the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). He did his best to justify the means chosen by his government to reduce unemployment. Yet, I think he went further than he intended to at a certain point, when he stated that the whole of the opposition believed the joint winter works programs to be no good.
Mr. Chairman, since the government submitted its winter works program and asked this house to vote the necessary funds for carrying it out, I always voted, with the other opposition members in favour of the joint winter works program. I voted for that program because I believed it would help a considerable number of unemployed in my riding, in my province, and in my country.
I do not think the minister was fair to the opposition when he said that we claimed the winter works program was not good. We do say however that it is not good enough to solve the unemployment problem.
While going through sessional report No. 194 of the Department of Labour for 1960-61, I noticed that 22 municipalities in my riding benefited from that program by carrying out joint winter works projects with the provincial government.
I would now like to read out a list of municipalities in my constituency which undertook winter projects in 1960-61. Here they are: Aumond, Aylwin, Blue Sea Lake, Bouchette, Buckingham West, the township of Buckingham, Denholm, Eardley, Hull South, Hull West, Lac-du-Cerf, Low, Mani-waki, Messines, Mulgrave and Derry, Portland, Portland West, Sicotte, Templeton West, Val des Bois, Wakefield East, and Wakefield Village.
(Text):


Mr. Stewart:: All aboard.
(Translation) :


Rodolphe Leduc: The total amount came to $294,149, with a federal contribution of $110,964 and a provincial contribution of $88,449.
Mr. Chairman, answering a question I had asked, the Minister of Labour stated that until 1960 no municipality in my riding had benefited from the winter works program because at that time the government of the

Supply-Labour
province of Quebec was headed by Mr. Duplessis who did not want to contribute anything to such a program. Needless to say the municipalities who did undertake projects to help relieve unemployment, did so by paying 50 per cent of the labour cost in addition to the cost of the project itself. But, today, the provincial government has realized that the responsibility for unemployment is not exclusively a federal one. The provincial governments, as well as the municipalities and all Canadian citizens must realize that this is a joint responsibility. When each of us accepts his full responsibility in this field, then, and only then, shall we find the real answer to our unemployment problem in Canada.
I am pleased to tell the house that since last year unemployment has gone down considerably in my riding. That does not mean that the answer to the unemployment problem has been found, that there are not again, this winter, thousands of unemployed who suffer because they cannot find work, but I say that there is some improvement, and I hope conditions will improve from day to day.
I would have a suggestion for the government in connection with the winter works program, as we all believe that there always will be some seasons in this country when the number of available jobs will not be large enough to absorb all our workers, more especially during the winter months. The very fact that 22 municipalities undertook winter works last year and that there will be this year a still greater number taking part jointly in the winter works program to help the unemployed indicates that the winter works program has been of assistance to them. I also believe that the municipalities could benefit more from these joint projects if they could find the money that is needed to undertake certain municipal works at a lower interest rate.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the problem now facing many municipalities wishing to undertake these works is to find the required capital at a reasonable rate.
It has been said that there is plenty of money, but reference to the very high interest rates was forgotten.
I also noticed yesterday that the Minister of Labour was very careful not to mention present interest rates. I know that some municipalities, in order to carry out certain winter projects, have to pay 6, 6J or 7 per cent interest.
[Mr. Leduc.l
The federal government should, I think, establish a special fund to lend money to municipalities for winter works at rates lower than 7 per cent.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall votes 613 and 614 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: No, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Kill time.
(Translation):


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, while the government and its supporters persist in creating the impression that the opposition, while approving the supplementary estimates, are against winter works, I believe that they should rather realize, in all fairness, that the opposition is trying to convince the government that the responsibilities of unemployment, shared by the provinces, by the federal government, and up to a certain point by the municipalities, should be supported by all three levels of government.
However, one thing remains: it was not the provincial governments, nor the municipalities who, in 1957 and in 1958, promised to cope with unemployment and1 that nobody would ever suffer from unemployment in this country.
It was the present Prime Minister himself who, during his 1957-58 election campaign, stated that no Canadian would have to suffer from unemployment.
You will admit, Mr. Chairman-and all members on the government side will also admit-that in the political speeches made at that time there was no mention of asking the provinces or the municipalities to pay for most of the costs of winter works. The promise made by the Prime Minister during the 1957-58 election campagn was that of a political party who, today, is trying to fulfil only part of that promise and pass responsibilities on to municipalities and provincial governments.
You hear members on government benches boasting that the government is paying 50 per cent of the costs of those projects. We, on this side of the house, admit that the plan suggested by the federal government is probably a good one but we believe that it is inadequate to cope with unemployment.
We say that it is unfair to ask the municipalities to bear in practice the biggest part of the cost.

First, it is well known that federal government contribution amounts to only 50 per cent of labour costs. Besides, we all agree that at the present time when mechanization is now well established in this country, so to speak, most of those jobs are done with mechanical equipment. Thus those winter works projects could be done more cheaply by municipalities in more favourable seasons. It also happens that municipalities have to spend considerable amounts of money in order to reduce unemployment.
I said a moment ago that the 1957 and 1958 promise was not made by the municipalities nor by the provincial governments.


An hon. Member:: How about those of 1950?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It seems strange to me that this government which certainly deserves some credit for the winter works program should try to take all the credit.
I say that hon. members on the government side should honestly recognize that, if it had not been for the co-operation of provincial governments and municipalities, the program would be a complete failure. I hope they will agree that provincial governments also share in this effort and that municipalities assume an extraordinary burden in order to help in the solution of the unemployment problem. Hon. members have very little to say about it because they seek to give all the credit to the federal government.
Well, I say, Mr. Chairman, that unemployment is a plague which the government should have tackled much sooner than it did. In fact, it was only in September 1960 that this government recognized unemployment as a national emergency which had to be faced.
Until then, the right hon. Prime Minister himself as well as all the other cabinet members were charging the opposition with spreading confusion throughout the country with their statements on unemployment. The government refused to recognize that the plight of the unemployed was critical and called for government intervention.
It so happened that in September, 1961 the Prime Minister became aware of the feelings throughout Canada on that matter, and finally agreed, in a television program, that a serious unemployment problem had developed in Canada and that in such circumstances the government had to call an earlier session in order to settle the matter. Once again, a winter works program which had already been applied for a few years but in which the province of Quebec, for one, did not want to partake was proposed at that session as a corrective measure.
I am very much surprised now to hear some Conservative members from Quebec
Supply-Labour
offer fulsome praise to this government for its winter works program. You will admit, Mr. Chairman, that those same Conservative members from the province of Quebec would do well, once in a while, to thank the present government of the province of Quebec for having agreed to participate in those works.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: What do you mean? Thank it or having provided jobs for federal Liberal members from Quebec?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: A moment ago, a Conservative member-I believe he is precisely the one who is now trying to interrupt me-was asking the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Boulanger) who had signed the agreement on winter works.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I was not asking that-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The answer is the following: the hon. Mr. Barrette, on the eve of the election in 1960. And in behaving as he did, I submit that he was repudiating his former chief, who had always refused to participate in those works.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I do not wish to delay the committee, but there is one question I wish to ask.
(Translation):
I did not ask who had signed the agreement on winter works. I should like to thank the hon. member for having pointed out that it was the Barrette government and not the Lesage government. I asked you who had signed the agreement on unemployment assistance, on behalf of the province of Quebec.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, in connection with unemployment assistance, I think it was the hon. Mr. Duplessis who signed the agreement, but he only did so after having waited for a year, after the Prime Minister, that is the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, had proposed it to all provinces.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member permit ia question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: So, returning to the question of winter works, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is a terrible gap in this program, and in particular I would call the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to this. He must have received from the association of northeastern Ontario municipalities last December, a suggestion that the government should extend the scope of winter works in an area of the country such as the one I have the honour to represent.

Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, it is impossible tor us to undertake certain works that may be done in places where the weather is more favourable. In our district, the weather being what it is, we must submit thereto. So municipalities would like the program to be extended in such a way that a greater amount would be paid, not only in wages and salaries, but also for materials. Furthermore, they would have preferred the program to apply also to other constructions than those now provided for.
For instance, in the constituency I represent, it would be impossible to contemplate the installation of a water or sewer system. But, if the program were to start, one or two months earlier and if the period of its duration were extended, the municipalities could envisage the possibility of undertaking such works, and draw up their budget accordingly, because, it must be admitted that the present program of the government prevents municipalities from taking full advantage thereof, since they can hardly prepare their budget sufficiently in advance to be able to do so.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That is a very fine speech to kill time.
(Text):
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, when the house recessed at one o'clock, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) had succeeded in putting on record a very kind remark about me, by saying that my speech was meant to kill time. He should have said, rather, that it was a logical speech reminding the Conservative members from Quebec that the carrying out of this winter works program is possible in their province only because there is a Liberal government in Quebec.
To come back to the subject I was dealing with before one o'clock, I was referring to a request which had been made to the Minister of Labour by the northeastern Ontario municipalities association. I happen to have the text of that resolution here, and I shall read it to you as it is written, that is in English. I quote:
(Text):
That the winter works program be replaced by an assistance works program beginning one month prior to the present program and lasting one month longer and that grants for said program also cover equipment operators and supervisory staff.

(Translation):
This shows, Mr. Chairman, that the existing program even though it has its good points, is certainly inadequate in other respects and that the speeches of the members of the opposition are not made to oppose the winter works program, but rather to point out its flaws to the government and make suggestions which could easily be implemented.
Mr. Chairman, I was also saying before one o'clock that some government members from my province, namely the province of Quebec, seemed to give all the credit to the federal government. As far as I am concerned, I am willing to give this government the credit it deserves for its participation in this program. However, it would be sensible, I think, for government members from the province of Quebec, and from all the other provinces for that matter, to give some credit to the provinces and the municipalities.
For example, after reading an article published in Le Devoir of yesterday, I find that, this winter, the amount earmarked for winter works in the province of Quebec will total $81 million. Of that amount, thanks to an agreement reached by the provincial and federal authorities, the province of Quebec will pay $11,160,172 for labour costs whereas the federal government will pay $13,950,262. That clearly indicates that while the federal government is paying 50 per cent, the provincial government is paying 40 per cent. However, something else must be added: the municipalities will pay the sum of $3,286,576. That means that the total amount put up by the provincial government and the municipalities for the carrying out of such winter works in a province would be $14,446,000, compared to $13,950,000 put up by the federal government.
Therefore, in all fairness, a large share of the credit for that winter works program should go to the provincial governments and the municipalities. It must be noted, Mr. Chairman, that this total represents only the amounts paid in salaries. What about the cost of materials and machinery needed for carrying out the work? The provinces and municipalities must bear it alone.
In my opinion, that proves that there is a flaw in the winter works program.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) stated yesterday that Liberal members seem unable to distinguish between the federal government's contribution of 50

per cent and that of the provincial government, which is 40 per cent. It is easy to work out the difference for someone who has reached the third grade level. It is a 10 per cent difference.
What the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot did not explain is the difference between 40 per cent and the Union Nationale's failure to contribute anything. That is a difference of 40 per cent. The hon. member did not work that out. No doubt he could have made the calculation, Mr. Chairman. He was able to do it, but he deemed it advisable not to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of taking the 30 minutes I am allowed. I spoke for 12 minutes before one o'clock. I said certain things which deserve consideration. I shall continue along the same lines, since I shall now refer to the construction of technical schools.
I must tell the minister that a technical school is under construction in the community where I live. I wish to thank him on behalf of all my constituents. That project will certainly be most helpful to the people of the district.
That program was already in existence under the Liberal government, but the federal contribution has been somewhat increased, if my memory serves me right. However, we approved that measure to permit the construction of technical schools. What surprises me is that when the Liberal government was contributing to the technical school building program, the province which was refusing subsidies for winter works was also turning down grants for the construction of those schools.
The Quebec government refused federal assistance for the construction of technical schools for four or five years.
It is surprising to see that it was the government headed by the political leader of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon)-Mr. Barrette's government-which was turning down the federal government's offer of financial assistance for the construction of technical schools.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The statements made by the hon. member just now are not true.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think that if an hon. member is not in agreement with what is said by the hon. member who has the floor, it would be better if he waited until the latter has finished his speech before answering back.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Besides, Mr. Chairman, I have only good feelings toward the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I had the occasion recently to make a trip in his
Supply-Labour
company and I learned to know him better. There is one thing, however, that I always find disappointing. In spite of all my efforts, he will not listen to reason.
(Text) :


Mr. McGee:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: When I am through I shall be glad to do so. I can answer any questions the hon. member may ask.
(Translation):
On top of what the municipalities and the provinces have to pay.
I was blamed for quoting a political advertisement yesterday. I am going to quote another one, this time from the 1957 campaign. This one is more recent than the one I quoted the other day since that one dated back from 1956.
This advertisement refers to a Conservative candidate running in the province of Ontario, in a constituency next to mine. I quote:
(Text):
Do you wish to pay another further sales tax of 3 per cent to 5 per cent on everything you buy?
(Translation):
Now, the Liberals are being accused of playing off one province against the other. Well, I should like the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to listen to this, and I quote the Daily Press of June 1, 1957:
(Text):
You shouldn't have to support municipalities in other provinces, when there is so much to be done in the Porcupine area. You should not be forced to pay additional sales tax, because the Liberal government refuses to give Ontario a fair share. You can raise your voice in protest.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I believe the province of Ontario sent enough Conservative members to the house to indicate that it was protesting against the former administration.
The number of Conservative members in this house indicates that people did object, and that the program announced by the party in the federal election had a following. But the strange thing is that, today, we are paying a 3 per cent tax imposed by a Conservative government because it did not receive the $100 million it had been promised by the present Prime Minister of Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, municipalities contributing to winter works are paying the federal sales tax as well as the 3 per cent provincial tax.

Supply-Labour
That is the way, Mr. Chairman, in which this government fulfils the promises made in 1957-58.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before the house took recess, in a district like the one I represent, winter works are practically impossible.
There is one thing to which the hon. minister should pay particular attention, and that is the possibility of announcing his intention of sharing the cost of such works earlier in the season.
First of all, he will admit that, since the government took office, he has only announced in the late summer his intention of participating in such works during the year.
Now, municipalities have to prepare their budget in January, February, and sometimes in March. They are therefore quite unable to take any account of those winter works at that time. Therefore, even when the government announces its intention of continuing the winter works program, in July or August, municipalities can take no part in it because they cannot provide for this program in their budget.
The Minister of Labour, and the government, should tell us once and for all whether winter works will go on for a few years so that the municipalities can budget in order to take advantage of the program.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I wish to mention again that a technical school is being built in my community and that the school board appreciates the assistance given both by the federal and the provincial governments.
We hope that this school will train young people to take up the challenge of life, or rather, I should say, the challenge of mechanisation we have nowadays.
I wish to thank the minister for the contribution his government has added to that we already had towards the construction of this building.
If my memory serves me right, Mr. Chairman, the former government was paying 50 per cent while the present government has raised this contribution to 75 per cent.
I wish to mention this, for, as I mentioned at the outset, I want to give credit where credit is due.
If the government, in order to fulfil a promise, has found a way to set up a winter works program, it has, on the other hand, burdened the municipalities and the provincial governments by making them share the cost of fulfilling this promise made by the present Prime Minister who had not, however, sought the permission of the municipalities or of the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Such is not always the case.
(Text):


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member said he would reply to questions at the conclusion of his remarks. Having in mind that the Liberal party professes great concern about the unemployment problem and particularly the vocational training aspect of the over-all problem, would the hon. member explain why the Liberal government in the province of Quebec has only seen fit to participate in the over-all program of construction of vocational and technical training schools to the extent of $6 million whereas a Conservative government in the province of Ontario, which does more than profess interest, has participated to the extent of $139 million?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: My answer will be given with pleasure. I simply say that the government of Ontario was able to benefit from the amount paid by the former administration to the extent of 50 per cent. Now they are taking advantage of the addition of 25 per cent more paid by the administration. In other words, Ontario was prepared for such a program so they could go into it more easily while on the other hand the province of Quebec refused for years to participate in the program. The fact is that the administration in Quebec was overburdened with debts incurred as a result of promises that had been made by a Tory administration.


Frank Charles McGee: The plan has been in effect for two years. What are you waiting for?


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, last night the minister made a statement to the effect that the opposition had been critical of the action of the government in devaluing the Canadian dollar. I have not heard anyone on our side of the house make such a statement. As a matter of record, may I say that I for one have advocated the devaluation of the dollar for the past two years as a measure to stimulate exports and discourage Canadians from buying abroad. I know of no member of the official opposition ever having made a speech against the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. I should like to hear the minister say who made such statements and where they are alleged to have been made.
It was agreed that the two items under consideration should be considered at the same time to facilitate debate without unnecessary repetition, but we have heard much repetition yesterday and this morning on both items which are very closely related and involve $90,000 for publicity for the do it now campaign and $40 million by way of contribution to the municipalities under the winter works program. The minister referred first to the item of $90,000 to be spent for publicity to promote the do it now campaign.

This program, sponsored by advisory employment boards to the unemployment insurance commission and aided by the regional employment commission managers throughout the country, began some years ago, and I agree with the minister that it is being supported as a desirable means of providing additional winter employment.
The lakehead unemployment advisory board has carried on a do it now winter works campaign since its inception and with considerable success. We are fortunate to have men and women capable and willing to serve on these boards without remuneration of any kind. They certainly deserve the appreciation not only of those for whom they are helping to create employment but of the communities and the government. They spend hours at every meeting, some of which I have attended, trying to find ways and means of alleviating the vicious disease of unemployment.
In yesterday's issue of the Globe and Mail there is a story from Fort William reporting the sad statement by the city welfare director that 800 persons are now on relief, the greatest number reported at any one time since the depression of the 1930's. The welfare officer is reported to have said that the figures now stand at the highest level since the department started to keep accurate statistics.
There is no question of our support for the voting of this money to help to provide winter works. The idea of a federally assisted municipal works program was first put forward by the federation of mayors and municipalities at a winter employment conference convened by the Minister of Labour in Ottawa on July 14 and 15, 1958. Subsequently the proposal was again advanced at an informal conference held in Ottawa from October 6 to 8, 1958, between the federal cabinet and representatives of the federation of mayors and municipalities. Shortly after the adjournment of the informal federal-municipal conference, the federal government announced the first federally assisted municipal winter works program.
Seasonal unemployment is a continuous problem which is more or less peculiar to Canada both in good times and in times of recession. We feel it more today than at any other time during the past decade simply because of the widespread unemployment in fields where, up to a few years ago, it was only of a temporary nature whereas now it has assumed proportions with which it is hard to cope. The special provision for a program to
Supply-Labour
combat seasonal unemployment by the introduction of an expanded municipal winter works incentive program is to be commended, and while it will not cure the hard core of unemployment it will certainly help to absorb a number of men from the ranks of the unemployed.
The minister also made a statement to the effect that the average labour content of all municipal works is about 35 per cent. I regret to inform the minister that I do not agree with his statement. Since the federal government pays only 50 per cent of the labour costs, the federal government's share of the total cost of municipal projects amounts to approximately 17 per cent. This means that the municipalities involved bear the major brunt of the expenses incurred in the municipal winter works program. The provinces which contribute 25 per cent of the labour costs-I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for York-Scarborough who has just left the chamber-are Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan. The province of Quebec contributes 40 per cent and Manitoba's contribution is 50 per cent provided the persons employed under the scheme have been on unemployment relief for a continuous period of 90 days.
In order to make this winter works incentive program really effective the government should also provide assistance to meet the costs of material, such as steel in the construction of bridges. In short, what the municipalities want is the government to share in the cost of materials used in the winter works program. The Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, and other municipal associations have, from time to time, passed resolutions urging the federal government to establish a municipal loan fund from which municipalities may borrow money at a low rate of interest to finance local improvements. The participation of the government in costs of materials used in winter works projects, and the establishment of a municipal loan fund would give the winter works scheme a real incentive which would more than double, probably treble, the number of projects which municipalities would be able to undertake.
The submission of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, presented to the government on November 10, 1961, deals at one point with the municipal winter works program. I wish to quote a few paragraphs from that submission which I think should be put on the record. They read:
One major obstacle to fuller municipal participation is the lack of any provision for financial assistance toward the cost of materials. Another

Supply-Labour
obstacle is the very real difficulty some municipalities have in obtaining the money needed for capital undertakings and at reasonable interest rates. Still another difficulty is that it is not practicable for municipalities-although they are willing to reschedule their work requirements as much as possible to the winter season-to make a sharp division between the seasons.
Moreover, while unemployment varies seasonally -although the highest incidence is in the winter- there is a serious amount of unemployment in all seasons. The need is for an all-year employment program of municipal works, which would extend both into and beyond the winter season, with provision for the scheduling of as much as possible of such work to meet the peak periods of unemployment in the winter .. . there are strong and compelling reasons why all levels of government should participate in the costs of essential municipal works irrespective of the season of the year in which they are taken. And there are equally good reasons why government-assisted employment measures should be maintained on a year-round basis.
For these reasons, the federal government is requested to give consideration to the following proposals:
(1)	That federal loans be provided to municipalities for capital works programs at a favourable rate of interest-extending the practice now followed in the financing of sewage facilities.
(2)	That federal contributions to municipal works be extended throughout the year with the federal government contributing a proportionately greater share of the labour and material costs involved for such work undertaken during the winter months of the year. If this is not feasible, the time should be extended to permit completion of projects already commenced during the winter season.
(3)	That municipal works for which federal aid is available under other forms of assistance (e.g. railway grade crossings) be considered as allowable projects for federal-assisted municipal winter works programs.
(4)	That measures be taken to assure prompt interim payments of the federal government's share and early final settlement of all federal-assisted municipal works programs.
As matters now stand, communities which would like to go ahead with a program of local improvements, but feel they cannot afford the costs and high interest rates, are inclined to postpone construction indefinitely, or to do it in the summer when costs are normally lower. The elimination of sales tax on building materials would also be a help to stimulate and speed up the execution of municipal works.
Mr. George Mooney, executive director of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, made a statement some time ago that municipal governments across Canada are operating in a financial strait-jacket, a statement with which I fully agree. He knows that there is no city in Canada, large or small, that is not up to its neck in debt. Municipalities cannot depend only on property taxation for revenue, and should participate in some form of federal assistance. The Prime Minister himself recognized the problem when, during the 1958 election campaign, he

promised that his government would set up the municipal loan fund to provide low interest loans to municipalities.
It is all very well to try and stimulate the municipalities to proceed with winter works projects. I am all in favour of it, yet the government is offering the municipalities a cart without a horse, or bricks without mortar.
Having served my city of Fort William as an alderman and mayor, my sympathies are naturally with the municipal authorities and their financial problems. Indeed I am sure that the Minister of Labour, who served his city of Oshawa in similar capacities, must feel the same way as I do. The success of the winter works incentive program can only be achieved if the federal government proceeds to establish a municipal loan fund and enlarge its contribution by assuming a portion of the costs of materials used in these winter projects.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?
(Translation):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of taking part in this debate. So small is the gift being offered by the government to those who are now unemployed that I could not bring myself to attach much importance to it. But having heard some of my colleagues, the one from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) and the other from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), I feel it is my duty to challenge some of the statements they made and I am going to make certain remarks about the slight success being achieved today by the winter works program, as compared to the nil results obtained by this program which the government introduced in 1958 and which was also in force in 1959 and at the beginning of 1960, when our Conservative colleagues from the province of Quebec still had as friends close to the provincial government the members of the Union Nationale and, as leaders, first, Mr. Duplessis, then Mr. Sauve, then Mr. Barrette, then Mr. Prevost, who, one after the other, all refused to do anything whatsoever to add to the little that the present federal government was offering in the nature of assistance to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed.
I heard yesterday the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot give a long list of projects for this year. I think he mentioned five communities in his constituency and said that 206 unemployed were provided with jobs through that winter works program.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that at a rate of 200 unemployed per constituency and sometimes less, it will certainly be a while before

all our unemployed are supplied with jobs and a good many hon. members will have to rise here and give us their list of winter works to prove that this winter works program supplies jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed, as the minister claims.
Some 200 people have now found jobs in the constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot for two reasons: first, there is no Duplessis government in Quebec and the Lesage government assumes 40 per cent of the cost of the wages paid under the winter works program; second, if the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot can boast about having supplied jobs to 200 unemployed as a result of that legislation, it is because it was extended this year in line with the recommendations and suggestions put forward in this house since 1958 by the Liberal party, when this winter works program began.
The hon. member complained about the fact that Quebec was contributing only 40 per cent of the cost of wages, but that, as he said, some of his friends who previously did not contribute anything-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wish to correct the statement made by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) because I did not complain at all about the fact that the Quebec government contributed 40 per cent-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I feel that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot should postpone his corrections to the end of the speech of the hon. member for St. Denis.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I do not object at all to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot trying to imitate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, but he should at least find some other means of doing so, because he is taking the floor much too often.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for St. Denis is the biggest liability to this nation and, therefore, to the province of Quebec.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, you have just heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, more zany than brainy.
And now to continue with my remarks I shall come back to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and his eloquent speech of yesterday.
As I was saying, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot boasted that Ottawa was contributing much more than the Quebec government, that is 50 per cent against 40 per cent by Quebec.
Supply-Labour
And now, what must he say of the other provinces which contribute only 25 per cent?
I think it is the province of Quebec which contributes most to the winter works program, and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is not satisfied. Would he like things to be as they were in years gone by, when Mr. Duplessis and the Union Nationale were in power, while the city of St. Hya-cinthe, the city where he lives, had no project at all?
If 200 people are now working in his constituency, he certainly should thank the Liberal government in Quebec and its decision, and not the winter works program introduced by the Conservative party in Ottawa.
And now, coming back to my friend the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who spoke at length yesterday- I don't know whether he was speaking extemporaneously, or whether he was reading a speech, or quoting from a newspaper or whether he mistook one reading room for another-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If you don't know, shut up.


Azellus Denis: I don't know whether he mistook one parliament building for another, because he spoke of the provincial government all the time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are speaking of it yourself.


Azellus Denis: And in reading over his speech, I note that more than half of it is stuffed with long quotations. So, I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is misusing the time of the house by using it as a reading room. And all this to say that the Union Nationale was much superior to the provincial Liberal party now in power, while those people of the Union Nationale were doing nothing to contribute to the winter works program.
I must remind the hon. member that since the Liberal party has been in power in Quebec, advantage has been taken of all joint programs that could provide jobs to unemployed people in the province of Quebec.
I shall list only a few, such as the construction of the trans-Canada highway and of access roads to forests.
If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was secretary to the Hon. Antonio Barrette. I do not know if he kept the correspondence or the files from him, but I do know that Messrs. Barrette and Duplessis were against Quebec's participation in the building of the trans-Canada highway.

Supply-Labour
Now, Mr. Chairman, you realize no doubt that the building of a trans-Canada highway provides employment.
You are aware also that all provinces except Quebec took advantage of the joint plan for the construction of the trans-Canada highway in order to give work to the unemployed.
You are not without knowing that the construction of access roads to forests provides jobs for the unemployed.
I know that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was against that and now that the provincial government has decided-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Quote me.


Azellus Denis: -to give work to those unemployed, to accept its share of the federal government's money, we hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm rise and claim that it is unfair, we see him convene the mayors-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not true.


Azellus Denis: -of his riding's parishes to protest because the trans-Canada highway does not run through the constituency of Joliette.
Can you hear those people who did not want the highway at the time complain because it does not run through the constituency now that it has already been decided that is should pass elsewhere.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Mongrain shares my
opinion.


Azellus Denis: I now come to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.
The trans-Canada highway goes through his constituency. But do you know what he says, he who was so opposed to the construction of the trans-Canada highway? Here is what he says: "Is it not a shame? The provincial government has decided to cut through our farm lands".


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What a clown.


Azellus Denis: There is no way of getting along with these people. Either they object or, when things run smoothly in spite of them, they complain that things are not going according to their tastes.
Well, if they do not keep pace with progress, Mr. Chairman, I am very much afraid that progress will pass them by.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You sound like Seraphin.


Azellus Denis: And they are not the only ones.

Last year, the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Martel) boasted, in this house, that he had succeeded in getting three roads of access built in his constituency.
Here are those roads of access: Amos-Matagami, Chapais-DesMaraisville, Wacou-michi-Albanel. The hon. member for Chapleau boasted in this house that he had obtained the construction of those three roads, and I do not blame him for it. But you must know, Mr. Chairman, that I am sure those roads could have been built years ago. Why were they not? Because our hon. friends from the Conservative party were in power in Quebec. (Text):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Use your brains and put your
brakes on, the next time.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: As far as the Amos-Matagami road is concerned I must explain that they made a last minute effort-probably knowing that they would not succeed and so, they could blame the federal members-to have the Amos-Matagami road built on a costsharing basis by the federal and the province but their request was turned down because the contract had been allocated without calling for tenders.
That is the reason why one member of the present Quebec cabinet refused to accede to the request of our friends of the Union Nationale. And now that the province of Quebec has a Liberal government, those three roads have been built thanks to Mr. Lesage's administration. Yet, those people are still not satisfied. Indeed, I wonder when they ever will be.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: When you stop talking.


Azellus Denis: When will they be satisfied with the generosity of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec?
Old age assistance was even refused in that province, where unemployment was among the highest in this country.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Old age assistance was not refused.


Azellus Denis: I am sorry, it was not old age assistance, but unemployment assistance that was refused.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is because you do not rise often enough in the house; it is a lack of habit.


Azellus Denis: I thank the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for reminding me. But now, he knows we are discussing unemployment assistance, and assistance to people without work who may not benefit

from unemployment insurance. Is he aware of it or not? Does he know, or does he not know that the unemployed who does not get unemployment insurance is worse off than the man who does? Does he realize that?
When the Union Nationale administration was in power, all assistance to the unemployed was refused. And what were its supporters doing all the time? They were distributing kick-backs to their "needy" relatives and friends while the "wealthy" unemployed were left to starve.
That is what I infer from the stand taken by the friends of the Union Nationale.
Members of the Union Nationale are close friends of the Conservative members from Quebec in the house, but I also know that some of them have disowned their former friends. But the fact remains that if those friends of the Union Nationale had not taken part in the last election campaign in Quebec in the manner we know, I wonder how many of them would be sitting in the house?
To show how a Liberal government has been beneficial to the province of Quebec as far as the winter works program is concerned-I am addressing myself now to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm-I will give some facts, not merely do some guesswork. I am not quoting newspapers; these are facts that you cannot deny.
Knowing how much my colleague from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm likes to talk, familiar as I am with his ideas and his nervousness, being aware that he likes to interrupt without giving other members a chance to reply, that he has probably fooled some of his friends by not letting them speak, I will now give facts.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I would ask the hon. member to please address the Chair.


Azellus Denis: It is with pleasure that I address myself to a more intelligent person than the previous one.
In 1958-59, 649 Canadian municipalities took advantage of the federal government contributions. In the province of Quebec, under the Union Nationale regime, the figure stood at 82, while in Ontario there were 208 of them. In 1959-60, the results were the same, with about a hundred more for the whole of Canada, a little more in Quebec.
But comes 1960-61. In Quebec, 600 municipalities availed themselves of the winter works program. In 1961-62, this year, the number goes up to 875.
In 1958-59, 169 projects were carried out in the province of Quebec under the Union
Supply-Labour
Nationale government. In 1959-60, always under the same administration, there were 174. In 1960-61, under Mr. Lesage's Liberal government, 1,720 were carried out, and 1,854 projects were approved in 1961.
You can see, Mr. Chairman, how beneficial it is for the province of my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to have a Liberal regime. In 1958-59, the federal contribution amounted to practically nothing. In 1959-60, the federal contribution to the province of Quebec under the Conservative winter works program, totalled $1.9 million in cash.
I would remind the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that in 196061, with a Liberal government in power in the province of Quebec, the federal contribution reached $13.3 million. In 1961-62, it will be $14 million.
You can see how things change when a Liberal government takes over from a Conservative government in Quebec. You can see what it means to our unemployed. At least, the money we paid in taxes to Ottawa has found its way back to us, while, under the Union Nationale regime, we had nothing to eat but sweet autonomy.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do not worry. It will be the end of you at the next election.


Azellus Denis: Now there has been boasting here about improvement in the unemployment situation in the last months. Well, it is in the province of Quebec that the improvement is mostly felt. If that statement is untrue, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to refute it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is easy.


Azellus Denis: I know that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm finds everything easy, especially when he gets away from the facts. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Labour whether all improvements in the winter program were not the result of suggestions from the Liberal party.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, all those who rose on this side of the house have always complained that the winter works program was announced too late. The Liberals always complained that the period during which the work was to be carried out was too short. The Liberal members who spoke complained that the special work, the types of employment which would be offered were too limited. This can be found on practically every page of Hansard, in almost every speech.
Is it not true that this year, the program was announced earlier? Is it not true, also, that this year and last year, instead of beginning in December, the period during which

Supply-Labour
the projects could be carried out was extended to last from October 15 to the end of April? Furthermore, is it not correct, Mr. Chairman, that in 1961, the winter works program contained a greater variety of projects? And to prove that those are suggestions of the Liberal party, I shall quote what the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) said on February 12, 1960, as can be found on page 1018 of Hansard. This is what he said:
How is it possible to do any of the projects within the narrow field of this plan?
And a little further on, he said:
First the length of time has to be stretched out so that it can be used in the month of October and November and in March and April-
And still further on:
The projects themselves have to be broadened-
And he also complains, in the same speech, about the delay in announcing the program. I shall read almost textually, the letter written by the Minister of Labour to Mr. Lesage, in 1961-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are quite confused there.


Azellus Denis: I am now quoting the letter of the Minister of Labour:
We have been satisfied with the success of this first joint program, but we believe that there would be a way of fighting more efficiently against winter unemployment by broadening out the projects comprised in the program.
This is almost word for word what the hon. member for Essex East stated on February 12, 1960. And, for 1961, may I quote again from the letter of the Minister of Labour to Mr. Lesage:
We have again broadened the scope of the program.
Why was the scope of the program not broadened at a time when there were more unemployed than there are today? Why leave people in need for years before deciding to yield to the reasonable suggestions made by the opposition, or by the mayors of the various municipalities, and the various newspapers which have been almost unanimous in complaining of the fact that the winter works program was arriving too late. The newspapers have been almost unanimous in advocating an extension of the period during which the works can be carried out.
I have before me a list of editorial headlines. This is what the newspapers had to say:
The unemployed are being laughed at.
These are the words of Alderman Matte, of Quebec city.
Unnecessary expenses are being planned for.
That is the opinion of Alderman Burns also of Quebec city. You contend to be making handouts to the unemployed, but do not forget that this contention is far from the

truth: the handouts to the unemployed are not being made by the present government, but rather by the municipalities, since they pay 85 per cent of the costs relating to winter works.
Mr. Filibotte of Quebec city states:
Government publicity paid for by municipalities.
And Mr. Dozois:
The misleading nature of the legislation.
The latter is a friend of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. Instead of practising distributive justice and giving to one's "needy friends", the "rich unemployed" receive nothing.
A rush improvisation. You wonder whether it is not a bluff.
That one was from the Citizen and dates from December, 1958.
Absolutely inadequate assistance.
That is from Mayor Foucher, of Shawinigan. Mayor Hamel, of Quebec city, voiced exactly the same opinion.
A palliative-
Said Professor Art Lerner, director of the department of economics at Sir George Williams University. When he was in Quebec, Mr. Paul Sauve, had a laugh at the winter works program.
Ottawa should be more generous.
This is from the joint committee on winter construction works.
A drop in the ocean; a monumental joke-
-asserted Mayor Foucher, of Shawinigan.
Inadequate help-
-stated Mayor Nadeau, of Sherbrooke.
The experience of 1958-59 has been useless.
To put all the municipalities on the same level, various areas of the country should have been zoned. Quebec, on account of the cold weather-
-said Mayor Boivin.
Mean and insufficient program.
A drop in the ocean of unemployment.
Burden for municipalities.
Mr. Starr's "peanuts".
I also wish to mention the title of an article, a comment by a friend of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, Mr. Clement Brown:
Short of the country's needs.
This is what Mr. Clement Brown said on December 14, 1959. And I could continue indefinitely the list of comments by reporters, economists and specialists who complained about the meanness of this project.
Mr. Lesage made certain suggestions since he took over.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Twenty two new taxes in Quebec.


Azellus Denis: I am in favour of taxes to supply jobs for our unemployed, and I do not mind telling the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm; I am in favour of an increase in taxes to supply bread to those who have none. But I am not in favour of tax increases such as were applied in the past by the Union Nationale for the kind of distributive justice that was practised then. I am in favour of giving bread and butter to the unemployed, but I am not in favour of getting relatives and friends "in the paint" as the Union Nationale did.
Mr. Lesage offered the federal government to pay part of the cost of the material and equipment. Has the Minister of Labour answered that offer? Does he remember that when Mr. Mackenzie King took over in 1935, in order to offset Mr. Bennett's shortcomings, he shared in an extensive program of public works across the country and that he paid half of the cost? The "bout-de-l'ile" bridge which is in the vicinity of Joliette riding was paid for by the government to alleviate unemployment. The Pie IX bridge was partly paid for by the federal treasury in order to help the unemployed who were put out of work by Mr. Bennett.
The more it changes, the more it remains the same.
This government offers to pay half of the wage costs of additional labour you have to hire under the winter works program. That does not include foremen, regular employees, civil servants, accountants, architects, engineers, etc., but only the additional labour. But this cannot apply only to labourers, since the projects eligible under the 1958-59 plan included only sewer projects and sidewalks. Street lighting has been added since and now, thanks to the Liberal party, certain municipal building projects were added. I rose to speak about that one or two years ago and I blamed the government for not including tradesmen in this winter works program. I asked the minister to include buildings and construction in the winter works so that tradesmen-carpenters, bricklayers and electricians could work. It is only today that this can be done, that some constructions are allowed. But it was in 1958 and 1959 that these projects should have been allowed under the winter works program, and not three years after it has been in operation; not when you claim that the number of unemployed is lower today than it was two years ago.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must tell him that his time has expired.


Azellus Denis: I only have a few more words to say.
Supply-Labour


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the house allow the hon. member to continue?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, you have not recognized me but I only want to tell the house that the hon. member must stop talking; he has said enough nonsense.


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, the unemployment situation is causing us grave concern, not only seasonal unemployment, which is particular to our economy, but the problem of a more threatening unemployment.
It is natural that local governments, being close to those who are affected by unemployment, and whose problems of municipal budgeting are intensified by the requirements of public assistance, should seek efficient and immediate counter-measures.
In each municipality across Canada, there is a considerable and increasing delay in coping with essential community needs, among which the most urgent are the following: housing- new and renovated-hospitals, schools, recreation services, civic centres, streets, roads, bridges and public transportation, underground water and sewer systems. In filling those needs, we find one of the finest opportunities of increasing the output of Canadian plants, as well as the number of Canadian workers.
(Text):
I have reason to believe that the winter works program can be a most useful method of attacking seasonal unemployment provided the municipalities throughout Canada can borrow the necessary funds to carry on the much needed projects for public works which they have on the planning boards. In other words, this plan should appeal to the municipalities provided they can borrow the money needed for the projects they have in mind.
I have the honour of being mayor of a prosperous municipality in the province of Quebec and my council and I have taken advantage of the winter works program to carry on many projects. The 50 per cent allocation on labour costs paid by the federal government plus the 40 per cent paid by the province of Quebec makes it a worthwhile plan in this province. However, were it not for the 40 per cent paid by the province of Quebec, the plan would hardly be worth while. We all know that work carried on during the winter months, during the cold weather, costs from 10 per cent to 15 per cent more than it costs in the summer months. For instance, a winter project that would cost $1 million might have a labour cost of $200,000. The federal government grant would be 50 per cent of this amount and the Quebec provincial grant would be 40 per

Supply-Labour
cent. Thus the municipality would have a saving of $180,000 but had the work been done in the summer months the labour cost would have been at least 10 per cent less, thereby reducing the saving to $160,000 or 16 per cent of the cost of the total project. As I said, I believe that this winter works program can be made very effective but in order to do so we must come back to the borrowing power of the municipalities. Canadian municipalities are experiencing unprecedented difficulties in their financing.
Your Honour, in the Listening Post, a leaflet published by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, the issue of April, 1961, the question of municipal borrowing was dealt with at length. I should just like to read a few vital paragraphs which deal directly with this question of borrowing. The federation is in favour of the establishment of a municipal development bank, as am I, but time will not allow me today to deal with this important method of financing municipal public works. In this issue of the Listening Post, under the heading of "Une Banque de Developpement Municipal" we find the following:
(Translation):
Municipal capital borrowing.
In their efforts to finance their backlog of capital works, they have to compete on the capital market not only with private enterprise but with upper-level governments.
For the last ten years, municipal governments have been piling up compulsory debts. Several municipalities have reached the point where the cost of debt servicing constitutes obligations which are out of proportion with their annual income. Directly and indirectly, in the last ten years, municipal works have been an important source of labour. If urban face-lifting and essential development works cannot go on, the result will be a serious spiral effect, not only on the works of municipal governments but indirectly on both commercial and residential construction.
While municipal governments wish to play their part fully to provide municipal works in highly essential capital projects and thus provide constructive work, their capacity to assume new debts depends largely on the cost of borrowing.
A federal municipal loan agency.
What the municipalities want is to have at their disposal capital money at a cost they can afford to pay. Due to their importance as basic community needs, several municipal works have a priority equal to those of upper-level governments. Therefore, it would only be fair to grant municipal governments the same advantages that higher levels of government have in regard to the capital market.
Municipal capital requirements must be raised to a level equal to those of the federal and provincial governments, as they rightly deserve.
In order that all municipalities may participate in the winter works program, municipal authorities should be given the same advantages as higher levels of government.

With regard to the money market, those who purchase municipal debentures should receive, with the approval of the province concerned, a federal guarantee as firm in principle as the federal government's guarantee on mortgages or railway debentures.
This guarantee on municipal debentures would eliminate one of the greatest obstacles to municipal development, it would strongly stimulate growth and renewal and would greatly contribute to the constant promotion of planned capital investments on the part of municipalities.
Not only would this provide employment but it would guide a great number of unemployed towards work which would enable them to earn a decent living, thus contributing to reduce by thousands the number of unemployed.
If the federal government were to guarantee municipal loans, municipalities could carry out necessary works programs.
As I said earlier, that would not only provide work for thousands of people but it would permit the fulfilment of basic common needs.
By making it easy for municipalities to borrow at a low interest, the federal government would make it possible to carry out extensive works, thereby removing numerous workers from the list of unemployed getting benefits and enabling them to pay income tax.
On the one hand, this would cut down substantially the over-all costs of unemployment insurance and, on the other, increase materially the amounts paid by taxpayers.
That would be a good thing for the federal government as far as revenue and income tax are concerned; it would be a good thing for unemployment insurance because the practically empty fund could be replenished.
Thousands and thousands of workers could then obtain employment and not be out of work any more. They would become productive instead of being idle. The over-all economy would benefit from it.
(Text):
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should just like to read a few lines from the Listening Post, a leaflet published by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, the issue of February, 1960:
While it is generally agreed that something must be done to relieve municipalities of the financial stringencies under which they are operating, no embracing solution of the problem has been worked out.
Meanwhile, municipal governments have been operating within the limits dictated by Iheir inadequate revenue resources and their restricted ability to borrow for needed municipal works.

On balance, they have been able to keep pace with the increased operating and administrative costs of municipal services and to finance the costs of normal local improvements . .. No municipality has been able to catch up with the full backlog of needed public works nor to undertake any renewal or improvement program commensurate with the need-
In recent months, the capital market for municipal bonds has tightened considerably. Because of the general shortage of capital investment funds the market has been more selective with interest rates. . . While yield prices of 6 to 7 per cent and more may not present any grave financing problem to private borrowers . . . the same cannot be said for municipal governments . . . Every percentage point increase in the cost of municipal borrowing adds tremendously to the over-all debt carrying charges which the municipality has obligated itself to repay, even if, thereby, municipal services are neglected and much needed community facilities and improvements are deferred.
-our municipal governments are not in a position to adequately tap the taxable wealth resources within their community and, as a consequence, are unable to command and obligate themselves to pay the high capital costs involved in undertaking the community improvements which are needed-
One of the serious disadvantages in today's money market is the legal restrictions within which municipal borrowing must take place ... It is the view of the municipal governments that municipal borrowing costs can be made lower. To achieve this, appropriate action by the federal government is required.
Joint participation by the federal, provincial and municipal governments in the capital expenses of building waterworks, sewers and road building, paving, etc., would go a long way toward placing the municipalities of Canada on a sounder financial basis and enable them to undertake many improvements that they could not otherwise go on with. If municipal governments are to keep pace with their growth requirements, renew obsolescent municipal facilities and maintain their capital plant at a satisfactory standard of efficiency, they must be able to borrow and finance the cost of such improvements at the lowest rate possible.
The impossibility of municipalities carrying on works programs is contributing greatly to the unemployment situation existing today. In numerous cases works programs are at a standstill due to lack of funds. High rates of interest prevent municipalities from borrowing to carry on the improvement programs which they need.
The Minister of Labour will no doubt want to give serious consideration to the lending of money to Canadian municipalities at a low rate. There lies the cure to a large part of our unemployment problem. Low rate interest for public works in the municipalities of Canada would put many hundreds of thousands of unemployed to work immediately.


Mr. Chatterlon:: Mr. Chairman, since the inception of the winter works incentive program in 1958 I have been on the receiving end of
Supply-Labour
the benefits of the program until the end of last year. Therefore I can speak with first hand knowledge of the effect of the program on the municipalities.
First of all I should like to pay tribute to the winter employment committee in my area which is known as the greater Victoria winter employment committee. It is composed of civic, labour and business leaders and these people give unstintingly of their time for a most worthy cause. I am very glad indeed that we are now proposing to advance the sum of $90,000 for their so far most effective campaign to promote the do it now program.
As I have said, sir, I have had some experience from the point of view of the receiving end of this program and I have seen how it operates on that end. I have listened intently to some of the statements made by hon. members opposite. It seems to me that their main contentions are, first, that the municipalities do not benefit from this program and, second, that the program does not aid in relieving unemployment.
The hon. member for Essex East, for instance, said that the city of Toronto paid some 61 per cent of the cost of their winter works projects. He was trying to convey the idea to the committee that the municipalities paid a larger share of such projects. Certainly they do. It was never intended that this program should pay the major part of the cost of these projects. The intent of the program when it was initiated was to encourage municipalities to undertake works in the wintertime and thereby encourage employment during that slack season. That objective has been attained.
If the city of Toronto had to pay 61 per cent of the cost of their winter works projects, then it follows that 39 per cent of the cost of the projects was financed by the senior governments. I feel that any municipality that can get 39 per cent of the cost of projects financed by other means certainly would be happy to receive such a grant. I am sure that the wise councillors of the city of Toronto appreciate that and if they do not I am sure the taxpayers do. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the 39 per cent is not repayable. It is an outright grant made by the senior governments.
The hon. member talks about a municipal loan fund and extending this program to benefit municipalities further. It has been mentioned that many municipalities in Canada do not participate in the program because they cannot finance their share. No one is more aware of the difficulties of the municipalities in Canada than I am. I know that they do not find the financial resources at their disposal satisfactory or adequate to meet their

Supply-Labour
own requirements. They cannot finance essential projects which their people demand and which are very often necessary to maintain the health of the people.
But, Mr. Chairman, it should not be necessary for anyone here to remind hon. members opposite that the municipalities are creations of the provincial governments. If the municipalities are the children then the provincial governments are the parents, and certainly the federal government has been very generous to these parents. This government has done more in the past five years to assist the municipalities across the country than the previous government did in 22 years.


Mr. Hellyer:: They also raised interest rates.


George Louis Chatterton: Hon. members opposite, recognizing the error of their ways, realizing now their serious omissions of the past 22 years, want to jump on the government bandwagon of assistance to the municipalities. They come forward now with proposals for further assistance and extension of the programs started by this government. As I said, the present government has done more to assist the municipalities of Canada directly and indirectly in the last five years than the previous government did in 22.
Yesterday the Minister of Labour-I should like to commend his speech to all the people of Canada-outlined to us. some of the measures taken by the government to assist in relieving the unemployment problem that we have in Canada.
To return to the question of assistance by the federal government to the municipalities, I would point out there are direct and indirect aids. I shall quote one example of direct assistance to a municipality in my own riding, that of Saanich. At this point I would extend an invitation to those who have not enjoyed Saanich's beautiful climate to visit the municipality. It is not 25 degrees below zero there, as it was here this morning. It is about 50 degrees above, which is quite normal at this time of year.
Through the winter works incentive program alone, the Conservative government has paid the sum of $168,000 to the municipality of Saanich. That is no bagatelle, Mr. Chairman. I am well aware of the difficulties of that municipality. They are similar to those of other municipalities across Canada, and I can assure you that this type of assistance, an outright grant of $167,000, was greatly appreciated by the people and council of the municipality. That was the amount of the federal government's direct grant. The provincial government pays another 25 per cent

and, in certain cases, an additional 25 per cent. The total represents work to the value of at least $1.5 million, work which perhaps otherwise might not have been done. Parks have been created, ditches have been cleared, and many other works which benefit the people directly have been carried on through the municipal works incentive program, sparked by this government.
There are many other ways in which the government helps municipalities, and I shall quote one under part 6B of the National Housing Act. The municipality of Saanich received a loan of $428,000 from the federal government last year, at a considerably lower rate of interest than the municipality with its excellent credit rating could have obtained anywhere else, even with the guarantee of the government of British Columbia. In addition to the substantial benefit of the low interest rate, if the work is completed before March 31, 1963-which it undoubtedly will; it will be completed within the next two months-the federal government will make a direct grant by writing off 25 per cent of the loan which, in this particular instance, amounts to another $107,000 which the taxpayers and municipality of Saanich will receive.
I have mentioned but two examples of how the government is helping certain municipalities. These are direct aids but there is an incidental advantage to this type of program under which the assistance of the federal government, so to speak, goes directly to a municipality. In other words, it is earmarked for the municipality. Some of the provinces will not be in a position to take that money and use it for other purposes and so will not be in a position to take credit or the money paid by the federal government to the municipality. Believe it or not, quite a large amount of that is being done. Certainly the province in the far west is doing that every day.
I shall now deal with some of the indirect assistance which the government gives to municipalities across Canada. I refer to payments made by the federal government to the provinces. In beginning my speech I said the municipalities are the creation, and therefore, the responsibility of the provinces. If the federal government makes payments to provincial governments surely everyone can understand that this would put the provincial governments in a better position to assist the municipalities. Let me not be misunderstood. I reiterate that the municipalities need help. They need it badly, but let it not be said that the federal government

has not done all in its power-indeed much more than previous governments-to attain that objective.
In 1956-57 the government of Canada made payments to the provinces and provincial institutions of just under $700 million. In 1961-62, payments by the federal government to the provinces are estimated at something in the order of $1.5 billion, more than double. That being the case, if all provinces recognize their responsibilities to the municipalities surely some of that money can be used to relieve the problems of the municipalities. I regret to say that in the case of British Columbia that is not being done, but it is not the fault of the federal government. Any fault there might be lies in the fact that this money given to the provinces should have been earmarked in the same way as our contributions under the winter works incentive program and the National Housing Act, the same way as they are earmarked and tagged for specific use and relief of the municipalities.
I repeat that the municipalities need assistance but the winter works incentive program is not intended as the over-all end of assistance. I am quite sure, judging by the record of the federal government in the past, that further assistance will be forthcoming for the municipalities.
I have been invited by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities executive, although I am not officially a member, to attend with them in visiting the Minister of Finance on Monday week next, February 12. They are aware of the fact that I recognize the difficulties of the municipalities and that I shall do all I can to assist them. I feel certain that the government will continue its generosity to the municipalities, the generosity it has demonstrated in the past. The generous assistance and vast program that now exists are so complex that I feel the time is coming when all the assistance programs of the federal government, designed to assist municipalities, should be placed under the aegis of one department.
Certainly the federal government has indicated its willingness to assist municipalities, to listen to their problems and to consult them on further programs of assistance. In what I have said I think I have made my first point, that municipalities appreciate the assistance that the government has given them specifically through the winter works incentive program.
Some of the members opposite tried to make the point that this program is ineffective in creating winter employment. We all expect irresponsible statements from the hon. member for Peterborough and others on that side of the house.
Supply-Labour


William Arnold Peters: We will see.


George Louis Chatterton: I shall quote one example. Since being elected to the house I have heard members opposite blaming the government for the unemployment situation as it exists. We certainly recognize it is serious but, in the first place, that is not a fair charge.
The minister and many hon. members have pointed out that the major causes of the unemployment problem have been inherited by this government from the previous one. Whether or not this government is responsible for the unemployment situation, if we are blamed for it then surely we should be given credit if that situation is relieved. The hon. member for Peterborough yesterday, as is reported at page 412 of Hansard admitted first of all-no doubt reluctantly-that there was an improvement in the unemployment situation. Then he said:
This does not result from anything this government has done.
I know the opposition have to criticize, but certainly there should be a measure, even a small measure, of fairness. That is another example of irresponsibility from the far left side of this chamber. I think most hon. members, at least those on our side, recognize these things and I think the people of Canada are understanding that these kinds of statements will always come from that side.
Coming back to the value that this winter works incentive program has been relieving the unemployment situation, last night the Minister of Labour very effectively indicated the effect of this program on the unemployment situation in Canada. Neither the minister nor anyone on this side of the chamber has ever claimed that this is a panacea. This is not a cure-all. Many other measures have been taken by this government to relieve this serious problem. This is but one of them and, as was intended in the first place, this measure has been most successful.
I wish to refer to some figures for the greater Victoria area. I cannot break down these figures by municipalities because in my area the figures released from the national employment service are for the greater Victoria area. In the greater Victoria area since the inception of this program the federal government payment to four of the municipalities has amounted to $837,000. In addition to that, of course, the provincial government pays at least another 25 per cent of the direct labour costs. This brings the sum total of the payments received by the municipalities in that area to some $1J million.
As hon. members know, our wage rates in British Columbia are very high. Assuming that

Supply-Labour
the labour content of works undertaken by the municipalities is between 30 and 33 per cent, this represents some 400,000 man hours of work on site; that is, work created right on the spot by this program. That does not take into consideration the other work created by way of supplies and the use of equipment in this program. In my opinion this is a very substantial contribution to creating employment for the people in that area. I know that not only the municipalities but the local councils and the people in the area appreciate the assistance that has been given through this program.
The hon. member for Skeena tried to convey the idea that this winter works incentive program has been a failure because it merely shifts work from the summertime to the wintertime. He quoted a statement of Reeve Alan Emmott of Burnaby to the effect that in that municipality-and, he said, in the surrounding district also-200 people are not being released. I am relying on my memory here. Reeve Alan Emmott was quoted by the hon. member for Skeena as saying that they are not taking on any more men for the winter works program, but they are not releasing some 200 men who would otherwise have been released.
My interpretation of that statement is that if the winter works incentive program had not been there, the municipality of Burnaby would have released 200 men. What is the difference between taking on 200 men for special work and retaining 200 men who would otherwise have been released? Surely that argument falls to pieces when the hon. member tries to indicate that this winter works program is merely creating work in the winter that would otherwise have been done in the summer. In my own experience that is not so. I know that in my municipality and elsewhere in my riding a great deal of the work that has been done has been directly prompted by this program and would otherwise not have been done, not because the councils were not aware of the value and the need of these works but because they, as I have said, have difficulty in financing these projects which are demanded by the people. This program has prompted these people to undertake projects which would not otherwise have been undertaken.
The second point the opposition have been trying to make is that this program does not create employment in the winter. I am privileged to quote from the daily Colonist of January 6, 1962. This is a newspaper owned by the Sifton-Bell group. The headline in the Colonist of that day reads:
More people working than in past decade-
Year end unemployment figures, a sensitive barometer of the island community prosperity, indicate

a healthier employment situation even for this time of year than at any time in the past decade.
National employment service officers report a drop of some 30 per cent in the number of people seeking work compared with the same period a year ago.
Using Victoria's figures as an example it is noted that the percentage of increase in unemployment between August and November in some years has risen as much as 109 per cent. Unemployment during this critical four month period soared by a whopping average of 90 per cent during the years 1954 to 1957.
In 1961 the increase during this period was only 18 per cent.
Can those figures be construed as purely coincidental, with such a remarkable increase in employment in this period, even in my area where the impact of winter is not as severe as in other parts of the country? Can this be construed, as some hon. members opposite try to say, as being purely coincidental? Certainly not, sir. The increased employment during this period was caused first, as a direct result of this winter works incentive program and second, of course, by the over-all rise in the economy resulting from measures taken by this government. Certainly, it is the responsibility of the opposition to criticize, but we expect a certain measure of recognition for what has been done, a grain of fairness from hon. members opposite. I am one of the three youngest members of this house and I must say it is not easy to understand all the circumstances surrounding this debate. I have been here listening for three days. It was made clear at the beginning that hon. members opposite would vote in favour of this measure and approve this vote. I felt I should speak on the question, but when I heard that the opposition had been going on after lunch today, I could not understand why that should be so. One of the reasons which occurred to me was that they did not desire this measure to be passed. I know the municipalities are anxious to get their cheques, and I dismiss that possible reason for the delay in getting this vote.
Having heard the leader of the house say that the next item of business has to do with old age pensions, it occurs to me that maybe members of the opposition are not anxious to have that question discussed in the house. I certainly hope the show we have seen here today will not be carried on indefinitely. I know that on this side we are not only anxious to dispose of the present measures so that the municipalities may get their cheques, but we are anxious to get on to the next important item which, we have been told, has to do with increases in old age pensions, old age assistance and assistance to blind and disabled persons.

In my view the effect of this winter works program on the municipalities has been unreservedly good. First of all, the scheme has been well received. It has been appreciated by municipal councils across Canada. In addition, it has been appreciated by the people. This is one of the programs put forward by the government in respect to which it is easy for the taxpayers, the property owners and the public generally to appreciate the benefit of what has been done. Some of the other programs, as I have said, have not been passed on by the provincial governments and they have not been recognized by the people as emanating from the federal government. I believe the people of Canada appreciate this program. The use made of this scheme by the municipalities has, moreover, shown evidence of sound judgment. This has been my experience of the work carried out by the municipal councils in my own area and I am sure that is true also of the municipalities throughout Canada. I am satisfied that the projects which the municipalities have submitted under this program are sound. They are not relief projects which create work merely for the sake of creating it. They are projects which the councils consider to be essential, in many cases.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member's maiden address to this committee but his time has expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, we are now discussing supplementary estimates Nos. 613 and 614 and, with the unanimous consent of the house, we may choose to deal with one or the other.
As regards item No. 613, we are asked to vote an additional sum in order that the government may continue to encourage Canadians to undertake work projects during the winter months.
Last fall, in November, I was glad to accept an invitation to take part in the official opening of the winter works campaign, known as the "Do It Now" campaign, in the town and surrounding district of Mont Laurier.
I was glad to use that opportunity to ask the people of the constituency of Labelle to take part in such an effort. However, I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) something which happened at the meeting. A film was shown by officers of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation pointing out how construction work could just as easily be done in winter than as at any other time. But
Supply-Labour
I regret to have to inform the minister that the film was in English. The population of Mont Laurier and the surrounding area is 98.5 per cent French. I know that the officers apologized, saying that the French version was not ready, but I thought I should bring this to the minister's attention.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the federal government should take all the credit for this winter works "Do It Now" campaign. On this subject, I refer to the statement made the day before yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), as published on page 403 of Hansard, and I quote:
During the past eight years-
-and I repeat, Mr. Chairman, "During the past eight years"-
-increased efforts have been made by government at all levels, by individuals, by communities and by national organizations to stimulate winter employment.
Mr. Chairman, under item No. 614, we are asked to vote a sum of money in order to make payments to the provinces for projects undertaken by the municipalities under the winter works incentive program.
Even if that program provided 121,197 jobs, according to the pamphlet published by the Department of Labour, it nevertheless has its limits, and I may say that the municipalities pay for most of the cost.
In answer to a question I asked on May 17, 1961, record No. 135, question No. 333, I received the following information:
The total cost of approved projects, as of May 12, 1961, was $289,911,087. The share of the federal government was $35,139,648, or 12 per cent of the estimated cost of the works.
I would ask the Minister of Labour to try and convince his colleagues of the cabinet that we should grant more assistance to the municipalities so that they can carry out those projects.
I know that several municipalities in the riding of Labelle would have liked to carry out works to reduce unemployment. They were unable to do so however, for many reasons. That is why I wonder if the government could help those municipalities buy the necessary materials and borrow money more easily and at a lower interest, thus enabling them to undertake those works and, in some cases, to purchase the equipment required for their execution.
Mr. Chairman, I see on page 24 of the list of Canadian municipalities which have submitted an application for assistance and which have projects under way, that the municipality of La Macaza has undertaken works.



S08 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
Now, it is well known that La Macaza is the community where the government is building a Bomarc launching site.
During the by-election campaign in the riding of Labelle in October 1961, a Mont Laurier weekly, friendly to the present government, claimed that the construction of the Bomarc launching site would give work to hundreds of people and that millions of dollars would be spent to provide jobs for the unemployed. How is it then that in 1960-61 the municipality of La Macaza had to submit an application under the winter works program, when according to a Mont Laurier weekly, the construction of the launching site was to provide jobs for hundreds of people.
Mr. Chairman, I have already stated that there is a limit to what can be done with such works, especially when it is considered that in February, 1961 there were, according to D.B.S. figures, 719,000 unemployed, that is almost 12 per cent of Canada's labour force.
Mr. Chairman, before I finish, I should like to reply to certain assertions made by government members from Quebec concerning the Quebec provincial government. They claimed that Mr. Lesage said that he would settle the unemployment problem. Mr. Lesage never said any such thing, but he did say that a government led by him would shoulder its responsibilities in order to solve the problem.
And, to prove my point, I shall refer to an inquiry I made of the Department of Labour on December 21, 1960, file No. 35, question No. 45, concerning work projects submitted and approved by the province of Quebec.
First, going back to the year 1958-59, I find that, for this period, the Quebec government had approved, or secured approval for 289 projects. For the 1959-60 period, the number went up to 336. Then, for the 19601961 period, as at December 20, 1,333 projects were approved.
One of the reasons for this almost threefold increase over the number of projects carried out until then in the province of Quebec is that, a few months after taking over the government of the province, Mr. Lesage agreed to contribute 40 per cent to the winter works program.
Furthermore, it is a known fact that, what with automation and other systems which are being introduced in industry, the Lesage government has seen fit to pass legislation for the improvement of educational facilities in the province of Quebec.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I know that some of my colleagues who spoke before me have listed other measures taken by the Liberal administration in order to cope with the unemployment situation.
(Text):
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of personal as well as national tragedy that this program remains as urgent as it is. It is a palliative, a stopgap measure. It is designed to treat a symptom but it does not go to the real cause of the disease. The plan has considerable support because of the desperate situation existing in the country today but there is at the same time a great deal of dissatisfaction with certain aspects of it. This dissatisfaction is not new. It has persisted since the plan was first announced.
As far back as August 9, 1959 there were reservations expressed by members of the Ottawa city council. I should like to read from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of that date.


Mr. Pugh:: Have you any up to date clippings?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. I shall deal with them in a moment. The article reads, in part, as follows:
Ottawa will be ready to take advantage of any winter works program grants the dominion government has to offer.
Mayor Nelms, who said recently that dominion winter works assistance would have to be substantially greater than last year to be of any help, yesterday instructed civic departments to prepare lists of projects suitable for winter works.
He maintained, however, that last year's contribution which amounted to about 10 per cent of the over-all cost of winter works projects, did little more than offset the additional costs incurred by doing the work in winter.
Under last winter's program the dominion provided 50 per cent, and the province 25 per cent of the labour costs of works projects but the city paid the entire bill for materials and other costs.
Controllers were unanimous in the view that the grants should be broadened to cover a share of the entire costs of projects involved.
Subsequently, Mr. Frost, who was then premier of Ontario, expressed his reservations in respect to this program. I shall quote briefly from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Thursday August 25, 1960, a report from Queen's Park by Godfrey Hudson:
The Ontario government has immense public works projects on the shelf that could be started in an emergency to combat mass unemployment. But this is not what Premier Leslie Frost regards as the long term solution. As he sees it, the answer to unemployment is Canadian industry in a position to compete with other world traders. "We are dependant on what we sell for our standard of living. While public works undertaken in a crisis

are necessary, they are only a palliative. They do not straighten out the economy," he said in an interview.
What is needed, he stressed, is a partnership approach by industry, labour and all levels of government to ensure that Canada remains in a favourable competitive stance. This country can use only a portion of what it produces. "Canada has got to compete in the markets of the world and in competing and selling we provide employment,'' the premier said.
Our own Minister of Public Works has reservations about public works as a measure to deal with the unemployment situation. He is quoted in an editorial in the Toronto daily Star of April 25, 1961. The editorial bears the caption "Public Works No Pipe Dream" and reads, in part, as follows:
Confronted with a delegation of unemployed in Ottawa yesterday, public works minister Walker took pains to disillusion them about public works.
Public works, he said, were the most expensive way of creating jobs. That they held the solution to unemployment problems was "a pipe dream that has been exploded long since."
The minister is too modest; perhaps the right word for him is unimaginative or inert. His statement that public works alone cannot solve unemployment can be quickly granted; and it was gratuitous because the jobless delegation hadn't claimed they could.
But public works can be an important part of an effective program against unemployment, a program such as the present government has failed to develop.
It is interesting that a minister who is part of the present administration should have such serious reservations about this program and still recommend it to this house from year to year. There is a further expression of opinion on this subject by the Toronto Star under the heading of "Winter Works: Small Pill, Big Ills". It is under date of June 2, 1961, and reads in part as follows:
The federal government's annual winter works program that ended this week has been beneficial. It did provide jobs. But there were serious deficiencies, and the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, meeting in Halifax, is justified in expressing dissatisfaction with it.
The federal government deserves some credit for having extended the program at both ends-from October 15 to the end of May. According to some Ottawa estimates, about 120,000 jobs were created directly, perhaps as many more indirectly.
But this was like headache pill treatment for a grave ailment. The Toronto projects provided 98,000 man-days of work, which amounts to 654 full time jobs for the 71 months. The jobless total in the Toronto area in mid-March was, by contrast, almost 66,000. Across Canada the 120,000 jobs allegedly created lasted an average of only 40 days each, if the pattern was similar to last year's. Yet 705,000 persons still wanted jobs when spring began.
Nor is the program enough in a financial way to satisfy municipalities. Under it Ottawa pays half the direct labour costs, (Queen's park and the community share other half), but none of the costs of equipment and material. Thus Ottawa is putting up only $35 million of the $298 million total (to 26207-1-33
Supply-Labour
mid-May). And so the main burden falls on the municipalities, already staggering under financial responsibilities.
The extent to which this burden falls on the municipalities is set out in a parliamentary return which lists the number of projects, the jobs, the estimated number of man-days work, the cost and the federal share. For the program of 1960-61, the figures for Ontario are given as follows:
Number of projects	 1,560
Estimated number of jobs	 20,710
Estimated number of man days work 1,035,039
Estimated total cost	 67,346,757
Estimated federal cost	 7,920,238
It is fairly obvious that the main burden of this program in fact falls on the municipalities. However, it does not fall equally on the municipalities across the country. One expression of opinion from the maritime provinces, for example, was given in the house a year or so ago. I should like to quote from a report which appeared in the Toronto daily Star dated February 20, 1960. It reads as follows:
Charles Van Horne, Conservative M.P. for Resti-gouche-Madawaska gave his own government one of the fieriest criticisms it has received from any quarter since coming into power three years ago.
He said if the government had carried out "only half the election promises" it made in 1957, unemployment today would be less than 200,000; instead it stands at close to 800,000.
W. L. M. Creaghan, a fellow Tory from Westmorland, was less direct and buried his brickbat in bouquets.
He said the winter works program was fine es far as it went, but it didn't go far enough. Areas that needed winter work projects most, he said, just couldn't dig up the 50 per cent they must pay of the labour costs involved. The federal government pays the other 50 per cent.
The government must find some formula which will provide smaller municipalities and provinces with more than 50 per cent, he said, and should pay a percentage of other costs-equipment, materials, professional and permanent employees.
Apparently Mr. Van Horne as well as the hon. member for Westmorland believed that this program was not equally satisfactory to all parts of the country and in particular that the maritime provinces were not well served by it.
This method of constructing municipal winter works involves extra costs. For example, in the city of Toronto a list has been made of just some of the extra costs that result from this particular type of financing. They include the administrative work involved in formulating and having approved a winter works program; services of a considerable degree of the personnel of the public welfare department in connection with selection and assignment of the workers involved and of the related departments in preparing time sheets, making out pay

Supply-Labour
cheques, distributing them, obtaining unemployment insurance and vacation savings books and affixing stamps, in processing garnishees in the hundreds, in preparing claims and producing records for government audit. Some of these expenditures occur even before the programs commence. Cash outlays on the works themselves rise in varying extent to their peaks. Certain it is that the bulk of the spending takes place at a time when the city must borrow almost every cent it spends. In the case of winter works some money has been spent more than a year in advance of recovery being made and all of it for many months. As a matter of fact, of all the methods of constructing municipal works this is the most inefficient and consequently the most expensive method possible.
I was much interested in the maiden speech of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. He spoke very well, if not too convincingly.


An hon. Member:: It is nice to hear some facts for a change, is it not?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He told the committee that even if the municipalities did not appreciate this program, the people or the taxpayers in fact do so. I have my doubts-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the hon. member not pay taxes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My hon. friend has just made the case. Why is it that some people think that taxpayers who pay taxes municipally are different from taxpayers who pay taxes provincially and federally? Why is it that extra waste, extra cost and duplication are condoned provided the burden can be shifted from one tax collecting agency to another? Is this of importance? Is this what we try to legislate for? Is it an advantage, when costs are increased, that they must be paid by some taxpayers although only in part by them as municipal taxpayers and in part by the same people as provincial taxpayers and the balance through their federal taxation? This is not efficiency. This is not wisdom. This is inefficiency, duplication, waste and extravagance.
The municipalities have put forward a number of suggestions in order to relieve themselves of a greater portion of the burden. I will give just three of their suggestions. The first is that personnel services not now subsidized, such as hire of trucks with drivers, be included in the subsidizable list. The second is that materials used for these works be exempt from federal and provincial sales taxes or the taxes rebated. This suggestion was also made by the Canadian Construction Association. The third suggestion is that an appropriate percentage, say 10 per cent, be allowed to cover the cost of administrative overhead and
interest on borrowed money. These suggestions, if adopted, Mr. Chairman, would reduce the direct cost to the municipalities but they would not decrease the over-all cost. If anything, they might in fact increase it.
A much more fundamental approach to this whole problem is required. In general, what is required is to get Canada moving again so that we do not have this urgent requirement of dealing by any expedient we can think of with the mass unemployment which has characterized this country, particularly in the last four and a half years. In particular, in respect of municipal projects what is required is a municipal loan fund from which municipalities can borrow large sums of money at low interest. This has been put forward in the program of the Liberal party. Projects approved by the provinces would qualify for loans from the federal-municipal fund at low interest rates.
By agreement with the municipalities a proportion of the work could be done in the wintertime, the same proportion as would be done in the other months, but the advantage would be the avoidance of duplication, the elimination of waste, the streamlining of procedures, the speeding up of payments and a complete change from the existing volume of red tape and hold-ups resulting therefrom. I was astounded to learn that many of the payments to the municipalities are held up as much as a year from the time the work is actually completed, and this just is not good enough. It puts far too much of a burden on the hard-pressed municipalities.
I would recommend to the Minister of Finance that he consider a municipal loan fund for the purpose of making loans available to the municipalities on terms which they can afford and that he use the federal borrowing power to save the taxpayers of the municipalities a certain amount of interest because they are the same taxpayers municipally as they are federally and there is no reason they should not have the benefit of the federal government's borrowing power. If he were to do this, he could facilitate a reduction in costs, a word which he used to understand when he sat on this side of the house but which he seems to have forgotten since he was elevated to the treasury benches. He could reduce the over-all costs of programs to the municipalities.
Furthermore, he could facilitate their planning on a year-round basis rather than on an ad hoc basis because it is true, as was suggested, that many projects now are just postponed to the winter months rather than being carried out on a year-round and more orderly basis.

This program has been supported in the country, Mr. Chairman, but on close examination it fails to meet the real problems existing today. I hope that before another year rolls around the fundamental solution will make itself apparent, and that is, of course, a change in the administration of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair for committee of ways and means, may I suggest that since it is so close to five o'clock the house might call it five o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there is an understanding that we are going to put the appropriation bill through between now and five o'clock.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
['Still discriminating.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply-granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, the sum of $82,390,000, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, I know it is very unusual to debate these resolutions in committee of ways and means but we are living in very unusual times financially and I wonder whether the minister can give us the assurance that he has the money in the treasury to pay these large sums he is now asking us to vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the prudent financing of the government I think the house can be assured that this money will be in the treasury and available there as required.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like one more assurance. Could the minister assure us that the pressure of federal borrowing will not increase the interest rates that municipalities will have to pay for their debenture issues in the coming months?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not attempt to predict the course of market trends in the future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You would not dare.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is given to others. I prefer not to.
26207-1-33J
Ways and Means


John Whitney Pickersgill: The self-denial of the minister on this occasion is touching but we remember other occasions when he did not show the same restraint. Perhaps he has learned, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinion) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-51, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
['The self-denial of the minister on this occasion is touching but we remember other occasions when he did not show the same restraint. Perhaps he has learned, sir.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, by leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
['the second reading of the bill.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: I have examined the bill very quickly but I should like to have the usual assurance from the minister that the schedule to the bill corresponds precisely with the resolution adopted in committee of supply, and that the clauses of the bill are the standard clauses in bills covering supplementary estimates?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I give that assurance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
['I give that assurance.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
['the third reading of the bill.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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, public bills and private bills.

Bill of Rights BILL OF RIGHTS



John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-4 to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights.
He said: I only intend to detain the house very briefly on this bill. My reason for saying that is because I hope the bill will be passed through the remaining stages before six o'clock, as I do not believe there is anything contentious in it and it certainly represents the professed aspirations of all hon. members in all parts of the house.
I introduced a similar bill which only got as far as first reading last year. Otherwise I am sure it would have been passed at the last session and perhaps, in order to save time, I might read the explanation I gave at that time, and add a very few words to it. It will be found at page 7395 of Hansard for Monday, July 3, 1961, at which point I said:
Mr. Speaker, this bill is being introduced at the present time because I have recently had my attention drawn to the case of a naturalized Canadian citizen of German origin with a Canadian born wife and three Canadian born children who is obliged to live abroad by the nature of his employment as one of the greatest living authorities in his field. Unless the law is changed this Canadian citizen will be deprived of his citizenship under Section 18 of the citizenship act, though no similar penalty would attach to a natural born Canadian citizen in the same circumstances.
By way of parenthesis I should like to say a word of appreciation to the hon. lady, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), who has taken what I think is a very wise and also very generous view of this particular case. Also I hope that before the case has again to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, the law will have been changed so that this form of procedure will no longer be necessary. To continue with what I said on the last occasion:
The effect of the bill, if passed, would be to place naturalized citizens on a basis of complete legal equality with natural born citizens of Canada. Since all parties in the house have at one time or another advocated equality of Canadian citizenship, and since the present law works an injustice against naturalized citizens, I would hope that the house might see fit to dispose of this bill favourably before the present session is concluded.
I echo that hope for the session of 1962 and trust we can do it more speedily than we did most things in the session of 1960-61. At that point I was interrupted by Mr. Speaker who felt I was beginning to advocate my bill instead of merely explaining it. I bowed to his ruling, but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) asked me to give some further explanation, and I think I should read the exchange which followed. It is:


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the risk of lengthening the explanation, may I ask the hon. gentleman if there are any other purposes, effects or implications of the bill he proposes to introduce.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had intended to add that I hoped the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, until this bill has been disposed of by parliament, would not deprive any Canadian of citizenship under section 18 of the act. That was all I had intended to add.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And there are no other effects or implications?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will not give a legal interpretation. The minister can do that himself.
Now sir, while I do not intend to give a legal interpretation even today, perhaps I should read the explanatory note to the bill so that it will be on the record of Hansard. It says:
The purpose of this bill is to guarantee, expressly and by inclusion in the Canadian Bill of Rights, that a Canadian citizen may only lose his Canadian citizenship by himself renouncing it: that no law of Canada, nor any person or authority acting under a law of Canada, may arbitrarily strip him of his Canadian citizenship. For greater certainty, the amendment provides that, in any law of Canada an express declaration under section 2(1) that such law operates outside the safeguards of the Canadian Bill of Rights cannot be used to erase this right of citizenship from the bill of rights.
Put very simply all this bill would do would be to say that once the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has conferred citizenship, under the authority given by this parliament, on any person who was not previously a citizen of Canada, no one can strip that person of his citizenship at any time in the future except himself, and he can do it only by becoming the citizen of another country. Now I know that many arguments can be made-that is why the discrimination that exists in the present law is there-for taking away the citizenship that is given under the law, but is does seem to me that all those arguments, when you really examine them, are just as valid against Canadian born citizens.
One of the discriminations in the present existing law, and one that I do not think most of us would object to in itself, is that if a naturalized citizen goes out of Canada, is accused of a treasonable act and refuses to come back here to stand trial, he can be stripped of his citizenship. But if a Canadian born citizen goes outside Canada, is accused of a treasonable act and does not come back to stand trial, he cannot be stripped of his citizenship. It seems to me there should be the same law for one as for the other.
There should not be this discrimination but there is a much wider and important discrimination in the existing law. It is that any citizen who is naturalized and has spent 10 years out of the country without taking certain legal steps to preserve his citizenship

can have his citizenship cancelled. In saying that I hope the hon. lady, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will correct me if I am wrong, because every day it gets a day longer since I was last in charge of the department and my failing memory may have betrayed me.
There are a number of practical advantages to that provision in the law. I admit that at once. That is why it was put there when the Canadian Citizenship Act was first put on the statute books in 1946. However, as against the practical advantages it does seem to me there would be the great, over-riding advantage of being able to say to all these people who come of their own free will and accept citizenship in this country, "In giving you Canadian citizenship we are giving you exactly what Canadian born people have".
It is such an advantage to be able to say that as compared with these few rather administrative inconveniences that we should not balance the one against the other. I would be proud to say that all Canadian citizens are equal just as far as the law can make them equal. They are not now.
Let us all, in a non-partisan way, join together this afternoon and as far as this house is concerned do what is necessary between now and six o'clock to make that proud boast a part of the law of our country.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a very great pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who has introduced Bill No. C-4. It is especially a pleasure because we share something in common, coming from the same part of Canada, although I might say that he is not the least of our exports from the province of Manitoba.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: One of the greatest.


Joseph Slogan: The bill in question and the remarks of the hon. member regarding it I think commend themselves to most hon. members of this house. I think all of us feel that once a person is granted a certificate of Canadian citizenship he should be accepted on the basis of equality before the law of Canada and should have the same privileges as any other Canadian citizen, whether he is a Canadian born or naturalized Canadian citizen.
The point that concerns me, however, is the manner in which this bill is being brought in; that is, as an amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights. To me the Canadian Bill of Rights should be, and I think is, a general statement in which is enshrined the basic fundamental freedoms which we enjoy in this country. I do not think it should be
Bill of Rights
cluttered up with a number of different types of amendments which could be better dealt with under other statutes.
As I read Bill No. C-4 it sems to me it has particular reference to the citizenship act. As the hon. member who introduced this bill was the minister of citizenship and immigration in the former government, I wonder why this bill was not brought in as an amendment to the citizenship act. Except perhaps that he felt if it is brought in as an amendment to the bill of rights it will, of course, be on a much higher plane. However, at the same time I think it would detract a great deal from the precise language and the general statement contained in the bill of rights.
I should like an explanation about two phrases in this bill because I think they are rather vague. I should like to quote from the bill:
A Canadian citizen ceases to be a Canadian citizen only if he voluntarily renounces his Canadian citizenship by his formal declaration or by his acceptance of the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada:-
The phrase "by his acceptance" is certainly rather vague. There are instances where children of naturalized Canadians or born Canadians go with their parents to another country where their parents become citizens of that country and automatically under the law of that country the children become citizens. How can we, in this case, say this is a voluntary renunciation? That is another vague phrase which I find in this bill.
If this bill were passed as an amendment to the bill of rights it would affect several sections in the Canadian Citizenship Act. It appears to me as I glance through the act that sections 4 (2) and 5 (1) (a) would be affected. Perhaps I may read part of those sections. Section 4 (2) of the act reads:
A person who is a Canadian citizen under paragraph (b) of subsection one and was a minor on the first day of January, 1947, ceases to be a Canadian citizen upon the date of the expiration of three years after the day on which he attains the age of 21 years or on the first day of January, 1954, whichever is the later date, unless he
(a)	has his place of domicile in Canada at such date; or
(b)	has, before such date and after attaining the age of 21 years, filed, in accordance with the regulations, a declaration of retention of Canadian citizenship.
Section 5 (1) (a) is more or less on the same basis. This covers Canadian citizens who, for example, emigrate to the United States and their children who are minors are still considered to be citizens of Canada until their twenty first birthday is reached. They have three years of grace, but after they are 24 years old, if they do not apply for Canadian citizenship they are no longer citizens of Canada.

Bill of Rights
A large number of people emigrate from Canada to another country, raise their children there and fully intend to remain in that country. Their children may not be interested in maintaining Canadian citizenship. Why should these people continue to have the privileges of Canadian citizenship for the rest of their lives even though they are perhaps not interested in maintaining that citizenship?
It also seems to me that if this bill were passed section 6 of the Canadian Citizenship Act would not be necessary.
Then if we look at section 17 I think we have another situation which would be affected if this bill were passed. This concerns the case of dual nationality. For instance, there are a number of countries-I believe there are about 17 in Europe-such as France, Switzerland, Greece, Hungary and all the countries of the Soviet union, who consider people who have been born in their country and who have emigrated, for example to Canada, and then returned to the country of their origin, to be nationals of their country though they may have already acquired the citizenship of that other country. We could take the example of a person who has come to Canada, become a citizen, and gone back to his original country without any intention of returning to Canada. It could be that the country was at war with Canada and that this person could be fighting against Canada; yet during all that time he would have all the privileges of Canadian citizenship. It seems to me that allowing such people to retain their citizenship even in circumstances where they might be fighting against Canada would be stretching it a bit.
There is, of course, section 18 which the hon. member mentioned. I agree that if a natural born Canadian goes to another country, accepts employment and so forth, and is not required to renounce his citizenship regardless of the length of his stay in another country, then I think a naturalized Canadian should have the same privilege. I think the hon. member's point is well taken and I hope that some time in the future this section might be amended in order to grant this privilege to both types of Canadians. The hon. member mentioned the case of a person who had come to Canada and because of the nature of his work, which was highly specialized, had been obliged to leave Canada to find employment in another country where he has been living for a number of years. Section 18(1) of the citizenship act provides that a person ceases to become a Canadian citizen if he resides outside Canada for a period of ten consecutive years. Of course, there is also provision in the act for an extension of that period upon application. I think that in the case to which I have referred 
this has been done for a number of years. As the hon. member said, the case has been leniently dealt with by the department. I agree that it should be, because I think the person concerned is the type of man of whom we in Canada should be proud. I am sure he would be glad to come back to Canada if suitable employment could be found for him. I suppose similar cases could be brought to the attention of the committee.
At the same time, if we look closely at the facts of this case we find that within one month or two months of this person receiving his citizenship certificate he left the country with his family to accept employment abroad, since then he has not, to my knowledge, been back. So it appears that this type of privilege can be abused. For example, a girl who comes to Canada as a landed immigrant could marry a Canadian citizen and obtain citizenship status within a year. Then they could go abroad. She could get a divorce and under the bill now proposed still maintain her citizenship indefinitely even though she might have lived in Canada for only one year. We can see cases where abuses might arise in this regard. There is, too, the danger of abuse by foreign agents who might like the privilege of having a Canadian passport. I think we all realize that a Canadian passport is a valuable document which carries a great deal of prestige.
I have tried to point out some of these things in order to show how this bill would affect the citizenship act and why it would have been much simpler for the hon. member to have brought in his bill as an amendment to section 18 or, perhaps, some of the other sections of that act. It seems to me we are going off on a tangent when we try to amend the bill of rights. To me, the bill of rights, is a fundamental document among our Canadian statutes and one which we should regard with a great deal of respect. It is something we should try to keep as brief and as general as possible; we should not clutter it up to a point where it becomes meaningless. In this case it seems to me that the purpose of the hon. member in introducing the present bill could have been much better served by proposing an amendment to the citizenship act. In this way he could have achieved his object by a relatively minor piece of legislation rather than in the lofty manner he is trying to employ here.
In conclusion I wish to say I have no criticism at all to make of the hon. member's intentions in which he would place naturalized Canadians and natural born Canadians on the same footing. I think it is a lofty ideal.
Perhaps the hon. member would be the first to admit that under the present government a large number of the discriminations which

formerly existed in the legislation covering citizenship and immigration have been removed. It seems to me that in the old act there was a section which could have deprived a person of his citizenship after only two years abroad. I think the removal of that provision was good for the Canadian Citizenship Act.
I go along with the idea that as much discrimination as possible should be removed from the measure. There is no doubt that the act is not perfect. I am a natural born Canadian of naturalized parents and I would be the first to say that all Canadians should be placed on an equal footing. However, I think we should take care to see that we do not jeopardize the security of the country. At the same time we should do everything possible to ensure that the regulations are not a strait-jacket and that they are not such that they can be interpreted so as to discriminate against naturalized Canadians.
Perhaps at some time in the future the hon. member could reintroduce his bill as an amendment to the citizenship act. I think if he did so everyone in this house would support the lofty ideal of placing naturalized Canadians and natural born Canadians on an equal footing.


Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: I noticed that when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) rose to introduce this bill he said he intended to be very brief. He was very brief. He made no attempt to discuss the bill at any length nor did he try to point out the effect it would have on our citizenship laws as they now stand. Neither did he attempt to deal in any detail with the bill itself. He rose only to say that he thought the law as it stood now contained features of discrimination against persons who had come to this country and been naturalized as citizens. He was not prepared to discuss the effect on the citizenship act of the proposals he had to bring forward; he merely stood on his feet long enough to raise an emotional argument, presumably because he had no other good argument to support his proposals.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate specializes in emotional colour when there is nothing else to support his contentions. I was in the house when this measure came up on a previous occasion not long ago. The hon. member made a self-righteous and appealing speech in support of his argument. He was followed by a number of hon. members with some experience in this house and who know as much about this as he does. They told him that as far as they were concerned there was no merit to his amendment. But the hon. member rises today to tell us he thinks everyone in the house is ready to
Bill of Rights
accept his bill. This is one of the debating tricks of the self-righteous hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
It will be noticed, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan), that the hon. member did not bring in his bill as an amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act. This is not just a matter of proposing amending sections to that legislation as one would expect of an effort to change a statute. Oh no, that would be too routine for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He wanted to give this special colouring of emotion and sentiment and brought in his bill as an amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
We should certainly closely examine this bill before it is passed by the house. Indeed,
I feel it should never pass as an amendment to the bill of rights. The hon. member proposes sections which in my view would not appropriately form part of the bill of rights. A fundamental statute which deals with the basic rights of the Canadian people should not be cluttered up with every routine idea that is brought forward by a member of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: By all means.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It might help him along a little, in fact. Does the hon. member consider that an assertion that all Canadian citizens are equal, which is all this bill does assert, represents a cluttering up-an odd phrase, it seems to me, sir, but that was the language the hon. gentleman used-of the bill of rights? Surely it is the most fundamental thing that could be contained in it.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman proposes an amendment to a statute which is now looked upon by Canadians everywhere as a sacred statement of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Actually the hon. member seeks to effect a change in the citizenship act by means of an amendment to the bill of rights. The hon. member is not prepared to argue the doubtful merits of the case, if there is any merit in seeking to effect this change. The hon. member attempts to achieve his purpose by the back door means of seeking to amend the bill of rights.
I agree with the hon. gentlemen that the equality of all Canadians is an important matter but I suggest that the citizenship act as it now stands in no way discriminates between citizens of Canada. In no way does it put one group of citizens in an unequal position.

Bill of Rights
Let us examine what is sought to be accomplished by the bill which the hon. member hopes he can sneak through before six o'clock, in one hour. What will it do?
We must first examine the means whereby Canadian citizens may be deprived of their citizenship. Under section 15 (1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act any Canadian citizen who accepts citizenship in another country automatically loses his Canadian citizenship thereby. That applies to all Canadian citizens and is, I suggest, the most usual way by which Canadian citizens lose their citizenship.
Sections 4 and 5 of the act deal with the situation in which a person may lose Canadian citizenship if he rejects the opportunity of filing a declaration of intent. A man may be born outside Canada and may never come to live here, but as a child of Canadian parents he is a Canadian citizen. These sections provide that within three years after his reaching age 21 this man will lose his Canadian citizenship unless he files a declaration to the effect that he wishes to retain it. The reference in these sections is to a man who has never lived in Canada, who was born outside the country. He is asked only to file a declaration indicating that he wishes to be considered a Canadian and retain his citizenship. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wishes to delete these two sections from the act so the foreign born person of Canadian parents need do nothing at all to retain his citizenship.
I submit that if a person is interested in Canada and meets the tests of citizenship, which I submit are that he wishes to live here, has some interest in the country and wishes to make some contribution to its strength, he would certainly not fail to file a declaration of his intention to remain a Canadian citizen. If a person will not do that I see no reason why he should not be deprived of citizenship. Why should the rights, privileges and immunities of Canadians be extended to those born of Canadian parents abroad, and living abroad, who reject an invitation to file a declaration indicating they wish to be considered Canadian citizens?
There is another situation in which a person may be deprived of his citizenship under the existing legislation. I refer to a man with a dual nationality, that is, born in another country, who under the laws of the country in which he was born has citizenship there even though he is now a Canadian citizen. Section 17 of the act provides that if such a man leaves Canada after becoming a citizen here, returns to the country of his origin and serves in the army of that country in a war against Canada he shall not be considered

a Canadian citizen. This is the great discrimination the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate seeks to eliminate in his selfrighteous cause this afternoon.
I see no discrimination in retaining a law that provides for the deprivation of Canadian citizenship in the case of a man with Canadian citizenship who returns to the country of his origin and serves in the armed forces of that country in a war against Canada. I see no reason why a soldier in the army of a country which is at war with Canada should have, by right, a Canadian passport, the protection of Canadian embassies and the privilege of saying he is a Canadian citizen.
Another situation in which a person may lose his citizenship is dealt with in section 18 of the act which provides that if a person who is a naturalized citizen leaves this country and resides away from it for ten consecutive years with no intention or desire to return he may lose his citizenship. This, of course, does not apply to anyone who is interested in Canada and who is abroad temporarily. The section sets out many exceptions to the general rule that a person who has been away for ten consecutive years ceases to be a Canadian citizen. If a person serves away from Canada with the armed forces, United Nations or NORAD forces then, of course, he retains Canadian citizenship. If he is absent from the country in the service of the Canadian government or of a provincial government, or represents a firm, business company or organization outside Canada, or if he is away from Canada because of ill health or disability he retains Canadian citizenship. The same applies to the spouse or minor child of any of the class of exceptions to which I have referred.
However, if he does not fall within any of these categories and has been away for ten years, in order to retain Canadian citizenship while abroad he must indicate his intention to return to Canada at some time and that his absence is for a temporary purpose. There are many naturalized Canadians who have left this country to work abroad but who intend some day to return. It is the policy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to extend the period in those instances as the minister has authority to do under the act. This is frequently done where a person requires an extension of absence. For all practical purposes the door remains open for such people to return to Canada and they retain their citizenship indefinitely.
There is a good reason for the inclusion of this section in the act. It is in the interests of Canada and Canadianism. Primarily it is to

prevent a person achieving Canadian citizenship who comes to Canada solely for the purpose of acquiring the prestige of Canadian citizenship status. It is to prevent a person coming here for five years, qualifying for Canadian citizenship and then taking his Canadian passport with him to wander through the rest of the world, never returning to Canada. There is no reason why Canada should extend citizenship to people with that motive solely to enjoy the privileges arising from possession of a Canadian passport. A Canadian passport is something which every one of us values. We can cheapen it by making it available to everyone who comes here only for the purpose of acquiring it and then going away, never to return but everywhere across the world in every instance representing himself as a Canadian although it might have been 40 years since he set foot on Canadian soil.
I do not think the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, if he thought carefully into the proposal he puts before us today, would really want the people of Canada to extend that type of privilege forever to someone who has no interest whatsoever in Canada except for the prestige or status which he might gain from having our passport in his pocket or from being able to say that he is a citizen of our country.
Then also there is another situation with which I am sure the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate is familiar; but of course he did not refer to it because he feels that the emotional mantle of the discrimination cry alone should be sufficient to carry his argument today. I refer to the situation of a person of foreign birth who marries a Canadian and comes to Canada. After one year in Canada this person can qualify for the rights and priviliges of Canadian citizenship. After one year he or she can become a Canadian citizen. Then there is nothing to prevent that person from leaving Canada and going back to his place of origin. However, under the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, this person who has spent one year in Canada is forever after that under all circumstances a citizen of Canada and is entitled to all the benefits and privileges of citizenship in this nation. I do not think he makes a reasonable argument at all when he rises to tell us that we are discriminating against this person who after living only one year in Canada, wants forever to be a Canadian citizen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit me to ask him another question?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Of course.
Bill of Rights


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member realize that the argument I made about discrimination was not originally made from this side of the house but rather was originally made by his own leader in the election campaign of 1957, and that what I am seeking to do is to fulfil one of the unfulfilled promises of the present leader of the government?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Since the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has raised this matter of unfulfilled promises, a matter in which he seems to specialize, along with the emotionalism which shrouds so many of his bald arguments, may I refer for a moment to a letter which appeared in a recent issue of the Ottawa Journal and which mentioned the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. It is dated January 22, at Sarnia, and is written by Rev. Ralph E. Bradley, United Church minister in that area. The letter reads in part as follows:
Sirs: The present campaign of Mr. Pickersgill to gain political yardage by his collection of so-called unfilled promises of Mr. Diefenbaker is hardly consistent with his past performance as a cabinet minister, and reminds us of the Pharisee who claimed to be much more righteous than his fellowmen.
I think that the argument made this afternoon by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will appear to the rest of the members in the house to be a Pharisee type of argument. The letter goes on to say this:
If he will recall his role as superintendent general of Indian affairs and the "do-nothing" policy that he pursued while in office, he might be reminded that he issued a direct order to all members of the Indian affairs branch in Ottawa to do absolutely nothing towards solving the land question that was then developing on the Sarnia Indian reserve. He said that he would have nothing to do with it, because in his own words "it is a political hot potato".
Mr. Speaker, he is a specialist in political hot potatoes and that is what he is trying to manufacture this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and I am genuinely grateful to the hon. gentleman for giving me a chance to do so. I read that letter. That statement I am sure was made in good faith as it was made by a clergyman; but it is just untrue, as the hon. lady who is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration knows very well. I approved of this sale to this New England company. It was the company itself that did not go on with the transaction. Hence the statement happens factually to be untrue. I think perhaps the gentleman who wrote the letter, in view of his profession, would have been well advised

Bill of Rights
if he had taken the trouble to ascertain what the real facts were before writing a letter of that kind.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Of course, I am not going to enter into an argument-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Since my name has entered into this discussion and since the hon. member has called me to witness with regard to his good intentions, I can only say that I certainly take his word spoken as a member of the House of Commons. However, I can scarcely be called to witness with regard to something about which I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize to the hon. lady if I went further than I should have gone. We had a good deal of debate about this matter. I think she is quite right. It is not fair for me to ask her to do that. She was not minister then; I was minister at that time. It is not fair to ask her to be witness to it. However, the facts are clear and they have been put on the record many times.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Of course I do not want to enter into this argument.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am grateful to the hon. member.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate is better known to Mr. Bradley who had an opportunity to see the hon. member when he was minister at first hand and to understand his attitude to the Indians of the nation. I merely wish to say that Rev. Mr. Bradley concludes his letter by saying this:
-it was under Mr. Pickersgill's administration that the long inequity of our national policy to the Indian people sank to an all-time low.
I think most members of the house will agree with that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that matter I would call the hon. lady to witness because she has been following these deals ever since.


Robert Simpson MacLellan: To continue, may I say that there is another situation in which a person can be deprived of citizenship. If a person who becomes a naturalized citizen of Canada commits treason against Canada or commits an offence under the Official Secrets Act and flees from Canada and will not come back to stand trial, he is then deprived of his Canadian citizenship. A person who is a traitor or a spy and hides abroad to avoid trial loses his Canadian citizenship. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wishes to argue that this is discrimination, I say it is discrimination against a spy or traitor. No one else needs to worry about it.
Again I do not see why we should extend the rights of Canadian citizenship to people

who take up arms against us, who betray us, or who commit treason against us or indeed people who enter the country through fraud or misrepresentation. It is not a matter of discrimination at all. It is a matter of the people of Canada using the same rights we exercise when we pass laws to set up a method of immigration into the country.
We as citizens exercise the right to screen people who come into the country as to their suitability to mesh in with the Canadian way of life and as to their skills. We wish to inquire whether they can support themselves here. We have that right. The door is open to all who wish to come subject to this proviso, namely that they must be good citizens of Canada. Under the Canadian Citizenship Act in a few cases we reserve the right to withdraw from people, whom we once thought to be good citizens the right of Canadian citizenship if it turns out in fact that not only are they not good citizens but that they bear arms against us, spy upon us or otherwise seek to do us harm. Not only is that so, but as a matter of technical law only we withdraw citizenship from people who were born outside of Canada, who never wish to come to Canada and who have no interest in the nation, demonstrated by refusal to declare that they are Canadians.
To sum the matter up, may I say this. I think that Canadians should require from people who claim the right of citizenship in Canada that they be citizens. I noticed that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not wish to argue whether or not a person who committed treason and refused to come here and stand trial should retain his citizenship. He did not wish to argue the merits of that matter. He merely stated that such a person was being discriminated against. May I say that it is not a matter of discrimination at all. It is rather a matter of the people of Canada setting up a system of rules in order to protect the value of citizenship here and abroad. It is a matter of seeing to it that people who come to this country and then desert or forsake us in order to go some place else, who wish to have no further interest in us, lose their Canadian citizenship because they are not entitled to have it. They are not citizens of Canada in fact by any manner of means. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) wants to make them by law, what they clearly refuse to be in practice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, our Canadian Bill of Rights is couched in no mean language. The high principles which underlie

the history of our country are given a permanent record in our bill of rights for the bill speaks of the very highest principles and moral virtues which we can bring to bear on this important subject. The preamble speaks of the supremacy of God, the dignity of the human person and the rule of law. No acts of men can make all men free and equal. We can only do our best and in our bill of rights we have done this.
I do not want to see the bill of rights changed into a mere immigration act and I do not think that the people of Canada want this to be done. We want it to stand beside such documents as the declaration of independence of the United States and the constitution of that country. We want it to be a document which all men can always regard with reverence and respect.
I suspect that the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) merely wants to bring in an amendment to this great document in order to get himself into the history books such as he is so fond of writing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a reflection.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: He speaks of taking away the rights of Canadian citizenship arbitrarily. I suggest that if a man who was not born here leaves our country it is an act of abdication. Far from taking away any rights from him we are restoring to him the right to belong to his own native country. I was born in Canada but I take no narrow view of this matter. Some of our finest citizens are those who have come here and made themselves equal in spiritual values and in dedication to our country. Such people we welcome. They have equality without the law. No law can make them equal because by the law of their own country they still have a status which we cannot change. We cannot be completely equal because they can abdicate their citizenship. I cannot nor do I want to, but no act of parliament can change this fact. When I have been born in Canada nothing can alter that fact.
If a man wants to leave our country and go back to the land of his birth this is something we cannot alter in any natural way, nor do I think we should do so in law by a unilateral act. Men who are born in certain countries of Europe cannot become Canadian citizens today in the eyes of their own countries and they cannot escape military service or other duties to the countries of their birth. Much as we would like to have no possible difference between our citizens in fact or in law, the fact of being born in an alien country does make a difference which we are unable to change.
If there is great disagreement with what I am saying and we wish to change the Immigration Act or the Canadian Citizenship 26207-1-34i
Bill of Rights
Act, let us do so by the proper method and in the proper statute. There is a security angle in protecting our country internally but I do not think that is the only factor involved. If we lay charges against people for treason or other acts for which they may lose their citizenship, there is a tremendous burden of proof placed upon the crown. I think this is one case where the burden of proof should be shifted to the accused to show that his own acts are not such as to indicate that he should forfeit the highest right we have, that of being a Canadian citizen.


Mr. Terry Nugeni (Edmonton-Sirathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a couple of minutes and I should like to summarize what has already been placed before us by some of the other speakers. First, while in name we have a bill which apparently is an amendment to the bill of rights it is in all respects a sweeping change in the Canadian Citizenship Act. As was shown very clearly by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLellan), many of the provisions of that act dealing with acquisition, retention or loss of citizenship would be struck out in one blow by the bill introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). He does this under the guise of an amendment to the bill of rights and then, as has been pointed out, does not want to debate it.
Obviously we are wondering whether or not the attempt to do it in this manner means that the hon. member does not want to be drawn into a debate on those parts of the Canadian Citizenship Act which he would take out by this method. We have seen before that the politics of a situation are very important to the hon. member. I think it was demonstrated while he was a minister that he was much more interested in the politics than in the rights of the citizens involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think that what the hon. member is doing now is reflecting on my motives in bringing in this bill, which is clearly contrary to the rules. The reason the bill was introduced in this form is perfectly plain. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in the opposition they promised equality to all Canadian citizens and I am attempting to help them to keep their own promise.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I hope I have not referred to motives. I am merely suggesting that because of the way in which the hon. member is seeking to do this we are a little puzzled. If he wishes the citizenship act to be amended, then why not introduce an amendment to that act? I suggest that we have seen evidence of a little envy in the hon. member for

Business of the House
Bonavista-Twillingate because under the present government we were able to pass the bill of rights which has been welcomed by the country and is very well thought of by people generally. It is something that we have always needed and the hon. member feels that if he can get even a little amendment made to it he might be able to get some of the glory that our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has achieved with the bill of rights.
I would suggest that anyone who is going to consider seriously the bill which the hon. member has presented must study each one of the sections of the citizenship act which would be made ineffective by this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it is six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Still discriminating.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair perhaps I could inquire of whoever is the acting house leader-I take it it is the Minister of National Revenue-* if, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister when he asked to have the business interrupted, we are going back to the speech from the throne on Monday?


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about any undertaking given by the Prime Minister. I do not recall any such undertaking. At any rate, the intention is that on Monday we will deal with certain resolutions starting with No. 13 on today's order paper dealing with the Old Age Security Act. Having concluded the debate on that we shall proceed to No. 14, the one dealing with the Old Age Assistance Act. Having concluded that we shall proceed to No. 15, which is another one of the social security measures under the name of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having concluded that we shall deal with No. 16. If those have been concluded we shall deal with No. 17, the measure respecting the railway in Alberta, then with No. 7 on today's order paper and then with No. 8. If by that time the house has approved all of those we shall deal with other matters on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, the hon. member questioned the undertaking given by the Prime Minister. He will find it in Hansard of January 18, at page 7, where
the Prime Minister, in asking unanimous consent to set up the committee of supply gave this undertaking, that the only matters that would be brought before the house would be those supplementary estimates. On being questioned by the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister said:
Might I just add this, because I want to be as fair as the Leader of the Opposition. There is also the program in connection with winter works. I do not go beyond those two.
It was on that understanding that the consent was given and I hope between now and Monday the government will consider the undertaking given by the Prime Minister.


George Clyde Nowlan: This is in keeping with the pledge that was given. We did refer those matters to the committee of supply. The undertaking has been fulfilled and we are not referring other matters to the committee of supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is sharp practice and it is shocking.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is important that the rules of the house, as agreed upon by the committee which drafted them last year, a committee of which the hon. member was a member, be kept.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
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.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 5, 1962