1963-01-30

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent I move:
That the standing committee on marine and fisheries be authorized to examine and consider (1) the recommendations of the international north Pacific fisheries commission that the stock of halibut in the eastern Bering sea and the stock of herring off the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands each be exempted from the abstention principle contained in the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, (2) the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, and (3) the last annual report of the international north Pacific fisheries commission and, in particular, to examine and consider the possible harmful effects which such recommendations may have upon Canada's fisheries and with authority to report its findings and recommendations from time to time.
This motion is seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather).


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this is a substantive motion and therefore in my opinion it requires notice. Under the circumstances it could not be acceptable at this time without the appropriate notice.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman asked for unanimous consent, and we would be glad to accord it.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent, of course, it can be moved. Is there unanimous consent in this regard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that there is a dissenting voice.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, may I draw to Your Honour's attention and the attention of the house that my first words were "with unanimous consent I move", and no one objected throughout the entire reading of that motion.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not in accord with the rules.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, could we be permitted to find out who objected?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-110, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (agricultural employees' coverage).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed, to say the least, that the commissioners appointed to inquire-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that he may in a few succinct words explain the purpose of the bill, without advancing any argument.


Reynold Rapp: The commissioners appointed to inquire into the Unemployment Insurance Act, in their report dated November, 1962, on the one hand recommended that the general principle-


Mr. Speaker:: No. What is the purpose of the bill?


Reynold Rapp: The purpose of the bill is to bring employees in agriculture under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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


Mr. Rinfrei: In 1961, how many C.N.R. employees at the supervisory level took job-instruction training courses and, of these, how many were French speaking?


Mr. McBain:: During 1961, 499 employees of supervisory rank on the St. Lawrence division took training relating to their work responsibilities. The records do not indicate the racial origin of the employees enrolled but from examination of supplementary data it is estimated that approximately 263 were French speaking.
Questions

(Text):



TITANIA ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF CANADA

Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What is the value of the prime contracts and of the subcontracts between the government and the Titania Electric Corporation of Canada Ltd. in each of the years 1958 to 1962 inclusive?
2.	What was the maximum profit allowed to Titania Electric Corporation of Canada Ltd. on the aforesaid contracts in each of these years?
3.	Was a government audit conducted for each of the prime contracts in these years?
4.	Was a government audit conducted on all the subcontracts during the years 1958-1962, and, if not (a) for which subcontracts were audits not conducted (b) what was the total value of these unaudited subcontracts?


Mr. O'Hurley:: 

REFUSAL TO PERMIT U.S. STUDENTS TO FLY TO CUBA

Mr. Berger: Did the air transport board or anyone acting on its behalf, on December 27, 1962, refuse to allow a group of United States students to take off from Toronto to visit Cuba and, if so (a) under what authority did the board purport to act (b) has such authority been invoked before in similar circumstances and what were those circumstances?


James Alexander McBain: On December 21, 1962, the board denied a Cuban air carrier permission to operate a charter flight Toronto-Havana transporting American students.

(a)	On December 21, 1962, an applicant Cuban air carrier had not complied with the requirements of the air transport board and Department of Transport to become eligible to operate charter flights into and out of Canada.
(b)	Yes, when carriers have failed to meet the requirements of the air transport board and the Department of Transport.



PSYCHOLOGISTS IN PENITENTIARY SERVICE

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Of the nineteen psychologists employed in the penitentiary service, how many have B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees?
2.	Are any of the nineteen employed in psychologist positions without satisfactory completion of the basic undergraduate degree?
3.	In addition to their defined responsibilities in relation to the inmates, do the psychologists have other duties and, if so, what are these other duties?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: 1. Only 9 of the 19 positions are filled at present on a full-time basis. Of these, 5 have B.A.'s, 3 M.A.'s, 1 Ph.D. There are 3 part time psychologists, 1 B.A., 1 M.A., 1 Ph.D.
2 All those employed are graduates, but B.A. degrees do not give accepted professional status.
3. They are also responsible for the psychological assessment of staff applicants and for some training of staff.



TRAINING OF CUSTODIAL OFFICERS

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is remunerative recognition given to professional penitentiary staff who have qualifications exceeding the minimum requirements of the penitentiary service?
2.	Are there monetary incentives provided for custodial staff in our penitentiaries to improve their education and training for greater proficiency in job performance?
3.	Do all custodial officers in our correctional institutions receive training in the behavioural sciences by qualified professional staff?
4.	Does the federal government contemplate the provision of training grants and bursaries for its employees in the field of correction and welfare in view of the fact that moneys are now made available to the provinces for similar training in these fields?


Thomas Miller Bell: 1. Yes, in that minimum requirements qualify the individual for appointments to positions of minimum grade only, whereas higher qualifications are recognized in that the appointment is made in a higher staff category.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	This matter has been under discussion, but not because of the fact that moneys are now made available to the provinces for similar training. No decisions have been reached in this matter yet.



ALERT SERVICE, TORONTO

Mr. Fisher: Has the R.C.M.P. any knowledge of the objectives of the Alert Service, P.O. Box 173, Station Q, Toronto, and, if so, has the R.C.M.P. co-operated in any way with the service, either with advice or funds?


Thomas Miller Bell: The R.C.M.P. has knowledge of the objectives of the Alert Service and has co-operated with this service as it does with any reputable news media. It has not co-operated with funds.
(Translation):



* REQUEST FOR LICENCE FOR THE RE-BROADCAST OF PROGRAMS ORIGINATING IN AMERICAN TELEVISION STATIONS

Mr. Dube: ![DOT] Has the Minister of Transport recently received from the mayor and the city council of Campbell-ton, N.B., an application for the immediate granting to the North Shore Community Television Ltd. of a licence for the microwave rebroadcast of programs originating in an American television station and, if so, has a licence been granted or will it be granted?
2.	If a licence has been refused, on what grounds was the decision made?


Mr. Balcer:: 1. North Shore Community Television Ltd. applied for authority to establish and operate a microwave relay in conjunction with an existing community antenna television system to carry programs from broadcasting stations located outside of Canada. No licence was granted.
2. Departmental policy states that the department may give consideration to an application which is predicated on the use of a radio relay where the programs are to be received from a transmitting station located in the United States provided the area does not receive any Canadian television service either directly or by CATV and the application complies with other technical requirements.
(Text):



* C AMPOBELLO, N.B.-CUSTOMS SERVICE ON BRIDGE

Mr. Rideout: Does the Minister of National Revenue plan to have the customs office open on a 24-hour basis on the Roosevelt memorial bridge at Campobello?


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: The
answer to the question is yes.
For the further information of the hon. member I can say that on my instructions the director of customs-excise inspection visited Campobello last week and investigated the effects of the winter hour schedule operative since January 7 on the residents of Campobello and general business activity.
Questions
I received the report of this officer yesterday afternoon, and based on it orders have been issued to resume full time service effective tonight.



SOCIAL CENTRE FOR INDIANS, VANCOUVER

Mr. Prittie: Has the government received a request from the city of Vancouver asking assistance in the establishment of a social centre for Indians to alleviate social problems arising from the migration of Indians from the reservations to the city?


Mr. McGee:: No.



C.B.C.-GRANTS, REVENUES, AND B.C. OPERATIONS

Mr. Nicholson: 1.	For each fiscal year from April 1, 1957, to March 31, 1962, what federal grants were given or paid to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	What were the total revenues of the said corporation for each of these fiscal years?
3. What were the production expenses of the said corporation for (a) radio, and (b) television, in the British Columbia region for each of these fiscal years?
4. How many directors and producers in (a) radio, and (b) television, were employed in the B.C. region in each of these fiscal years by the said corporation?
5.	What was the total television staff employed by the said corporation in British Columbia in each of these fiscal years?
6.	What was the total staff employed by the said corporation in the city of Vancouver in each of these fiscal years?
7.	For each of these fiscal years, what was the total number of programs produced in Vancouver in the following categories: (a) children's drama (b) adult drama, and (c) musical programming?


Mr. Halpenny:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1 and 2.
	(1)	(2)
	Parliamentary	Total
	Grants	Revenues
1957-58	*$41,177,181.	*$ 70,567,2161958-59	55,953,202.	89,147,7241959-60	58,560,213.	97,124,153.1960-61	64,872,304.	102,960,527.1961-62	76,466,505.	109,786,345.
*The parliamentary grants shown for 195758 were provided under the terms of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, hence cannot be properly related to the grants for the years 1958 to 1962 which were made under the provisions to the Broadcasting Act 1958.
3. It is considered to be not in the public interest to require the corporation to give such information as it would affect the corporation in the competitive business in which it is engaged.

Questions 4. Directors and Producers Radio		TV
1 April 1957	14	161958	15	141959	16	171960	18	161961	17	141962	19	155.	Television staff in B.C.1 April 1957	1911958	1861959	2031960	1981961	2051962	2046.	Total staff in Vancouver1 April 1957	3681958	3781959	4111960	4021961	4101962	4147.	Television
Children's Adult Musical Drama Drama Programs
1957-58	Local	-	3	97Network	20	14	261958-59	Local	-	1	93Network	41	25	21959-60	Local	-	12	63Network	57	23	11960-61	Local	-	2	21Network	36	10	301961-62	Local	-	9	42Network Radio	25	431957-58	Local	-	-	1Regional National	45	312	275Network	52	155	5451958-59	Regional National	52	301	215Network	39	134	3691959-60	Local	-	-	1Regional National	68	263	274Network	-	58	3061960-61	Regional National	42	261	229Network	-	136	3141961-62	Regional National	42	271	281Network [Mr. Halpenny.l	-	63	379



CONTRACTS TO CANADIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

Mr. Langlois: 1.	What companies were awarded the contracts lor the building of facilities at the following airports: Chatham, N.B., Bagotville, Que., Val d'Or, Que., Cold Lake, Alta., and Comox, B.C.?
2.	Was a Canadian company awarded any contract for the construction of the R.C.A.F. terminal at Marville, France, and, if so, what company?
3.	What Canadian company was awarded the contract for the building of communication stations between Brevoort Island and Goose Bay, Labrador, for the ballistic missile early warning system?
4.	Did Defence Construction Ltd. call for tenders in connection with the construction of a dock at St. Vincent in the British Windward islands and. if so (a) did any Canadian company participate in the project (b) what is the name of such company?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: 1. During the fiscal year 1961-62, five contracts for the building of facilities were awarded as follows:
Chatham, N.B.:	Coronet Paving Ltd.,
Andover, N.B.
Bagotville, Que.:	North Shore Builders
Ltd., Saguenay, Que.
Val d'Or, Que.: North Shore Construction Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.
Cold Lake, Alta.: Poole Engineering (1958) Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.
Comox, B.C.: Miller Cartage & Contracting Ltd., Richmond, B.C.
2.	No.
3.	C. A. Pitts General Contractor Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
4.	Yes. (a) Yes. (b) Bennett & White Construction Co. Ltd., and Horie and Tynan (Joint Venture), Burnaby 1, B.C.
With respect to question 1-it is understood that the information Mr. Langlois requires is in connection with the contracts referred to on page 5, paragraph 3, of the annual report, as follows:
"By year's end, five new contracts had been awarded in this connection with a total value of $3,349,000 at Chatham, N.B. Bagotville, and Val d'Or, Quebec, Cold Lake, Alberta, and Comox, B.C."
The question, therefore, has been answered to give that information.
With respect to question 4, D.C.L. called tenders on behalf of the external aid office, Department of External Affairs.



*CANADA SAVINGS BONDS

Mr. McMillan: 1.	What was the total amount of the latest 1962 series of Canada savings bonds sold?
2.	What was the value of former series of Canada savings bonds turned in since the last series went on sale?
3.	What was the net amount of cash realized by the sale of the last series of these bonds?


Mr. Graffley:: 1. The sum of $1,602,637,300 of Canada savings bonds 1962 series were sold to December 31, 1962.
2.	The preliminary total of redemptions of Canada savings bonds of all series in October, November and December 1962 was $834,658,400.
3.	Gross sales of Canada savings bonds 1961 series to December 31, 1961, amounted to $932,346,000. In this period redemptions of all series of Canada savings bonds amounted to $250,665,850.
(Translation):



* QUEBEC


Mr. Beaule: 1.	Has the government entered into negotiations about the level crossings of the C.P.R. located in the city of Quebec on the lines running along the St. Charles river up to Palace station between Marie de l'lncarnation street and the Palace station and, if so, what have been the results of these negotiations?
2.	Has there been an agreement or have there been negotiations between the city of Quebec, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purpose of using C.N.R. tracks in order to divert railway traffic in the city of Quebec?


Léon Balcer: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advises as follows:
1.	In February 1961 the board authorized improvements to the protection at the level crossings at Mgr. Gauvreau, Bridge, de la Chapelle, Crown, Dorchester and Gosford streets, which are all on that portion of the C.P.R.s' Quebec subdivision between Marie de l'lncarnation street and Palace station. The work in connection with such changes was completed by February 1962. At present there are no applications before the board dealing with level crossings on that part of the C.P.R. Quebec subdivision.
2.	The board is not aware of any agreement or negotiations between the city of Quebec, the C.N.R. and C.P.R. dealing with the diversion of railway traffic in the city of Quebec. It is possible, however, that some action has been taken by these parties to consider such a proposal, and the board would not necessarily be aware of any such negotiations.
(Text):
request for reduced duty on imported



AMBULANCES

Mr. Gagnon: Has the Minister of National Revenue received representations from "L'Association des Directeurs des Finances du Canada" recommending a reduction in duty as applied to ambulances imported
Questions
from the United States and, if so, does the minister expect to give a favourable reply to the association?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. I have received a copy of a brief addressed by this association to the Minister of Finance. As the hon. member knows, the second part of his question does not apply to the Department of National Revenue, which is primarily concerned with administration and is not responsible for matters of tax policy.



C.B.C. PROGRAM ON ITALIANS IN TORONTO

Mr. Haidasz: Has the Canadian government considered the communication from the representatives of the Italian committee in Toronto protesting the C.B.C. camera program depicting the life of Canadians of Italian descent in Toronto and, if so, what action has the government taken with regard to this protest?


George Ernest Halpenny: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the program "Camera Canada" on January 14 was based on the activities of a recently arrived Italian family in Toronto. It was generally well received but was criticized by some members of Toronto's Italian community who would have preferred an emphasis on different features of community life. The C.B.C. arranged for a review of the film by several representatives of the Italian community and discussed their criticisms with them. After a full review of all the circumstances, the C.B.C. still believes that the program was a fair and honest portrayal of the life of a group of recent immigrants from Italy and of their efforts to adapt to life in their new home land.



CAMPOBELLO, N.B.    CUSTOMS SERVICE ON BRIDGE

Mr. Robichaud: Is the government prepared to give favourable consideration to representations received from various sources on behalf of the 1,400 residents of Campobello island for the restoration of full time service on the Roosevelt memorial bridge in order to assure continuous movement of fish and pulpwood from Campobello to the mainland?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, this is the same answer that I gave a few moments ago. I would be glad to send a copy to the hon. member for Gloucester, if that might be considered the answer.


Mr. Robichaud:: I will accept that, Mr. Speaker.

Questions



BUTTER SURPLUS

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1}325-Mr. Badanai:
1.	What is the amount of surplus butter stored in Canada as of December 31, 1962?
2.	What is the location of storage plants in which surplus butter is stored and what is the cost of such storage to the government?
Mr. Jorgenson:: 1. The amount of butter stored in Canada by the agricultural stabilization board as of December 31, 1962, was 2,086,270 boxes.
2. The location of storage plants and storage charges are as shown in the attached table.
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD Number of boxes of butter in storage as of December 31, 1962 (56 pounds per box)
Monthly storage rental



ST. EUSTACHE  ENLARGEMENT OF POST OFFICE

Mr. Drouin: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the enlargement of St. Eustache post office in the county of Deux Montagnes?
2.	If so (a) have plans been prepared and by whom (b) what has been the approximate cost to date of the work involved (c) have tenders been called (d) was a contract let, to whom, and for what amount?


Mr. Fulton:: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) Preliminary plans are being prepared by the department.
(b)	As this work is being done by personnel who are also engaged on other similar projects the cost of the work done to date cannot be accurately established.
(c)	No.
(d)	Not applicable.
(Text):



BROADCAST OF THURSDAY NIGHT HOCKEY GAMES

Mr. Dube: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ever considered the expediency of broadcasting and televising regularly the hockey games played on Thursday nights and, if so, what decision was reached?
2.	Has the corporation ever made surveys of public opinion about the matter?


George Ernest Halpenny: 1. No.
2.	No. So far there has been no great demand for hockey other than Saturday nights, except at playoff time. With the increased interest among fans at that season the C.B.C. covers all semifinal games in part, and the final playoffs in their entirety.
(Translation):



CHATEAUGUAY-HUNTINGDON-LAPRAIRIE CONSTITUENCY-HOUSING LOANS

Mr. Boucher: How many loans were made by C.M.H.C. in the constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie during the years 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962?


Edmund Davie Fulton: N.H.A. Loans Approved in the Constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie 1959-1962*
Approved
Lenders C.M.H.C. Total N.H.A.
Year	No. of Loans	No. of Loans	No. of Loans1959	83	37	1201960	13	11	241961	119	41	1601962	455	78	5331959-	1962 670	167	837
* Data for 1962 do not take account of cancellations made after loan approved. Cancellations are taken into account in the data for earlier years.



* SURVEY ON CONDITIONS OF THE OUTSIDE CHANNEL AT SHIPPEGAN GULLY

Mr. Robichaud: In recent years, has a survey been made on conditions of the outside channel at Shippegan Gully, Gloucester county, N.B., and, if so (a) when was such a survey completed (b) what was the average depth of water found at low tide throughout the main channel leading to Shippegan Gully breakwater (c) is it the intention of the government to proceed with dredging operations to improve that channel in order to accommodate the local dragger fleet?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. (a) In May, 1962.
(b)	Inside the breakwater, 8.5 feet. About 6 feet outside.
(c)	Not now, because of the very high maintenance costs involved.
(Text):



GRANITE FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE BUILDING, OTTAWA

Mr. Mcllraiih: 1.	Is granite specified for use in the construction of the new building for the Department of National Health and Welfare at Tunney's Pasture and, if so, what steps are being taken to ensure that the granite being used meets the standards of quality specified?
2.	Has any of the granite supplied to date failed to meet such standards?


Mr. Fullon:: 1. Yes; to ensure it meets specifications the granite is checked by visual inspection. Samples of the stone are also tested in the laboratory.
2. Yes; about one third of the granite supplied to date shows white markings or streaks which are prohibited by the specifications and will not be used in the building.



* DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE AGENDA

Mr. Rinfrei: 1.	Will the federal government include a definite agenda in invitations shortly to be sent to the premiers of the provinces to attend a dominion-provincial conference and, if so, will the following subjects be contained in such agenda: (a) a distinctive national flag (b) a national anthem (c) bilingualism and biculturalism (d) a draft amendment to the constitution with regard to pensions?
2.	Will other matters be discussed and, if so, what subjects?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, when the invitations have been sent out a copy thereof will be tabled in the house. I cannot in advance of these invitations deal with what will or will not be included.



PLACEMENT DIVISION SUPERVISORS, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Mr. Laniel: 1. Do supervisors grade 4 of the placement division of local offices of the national employment service receive the same salary as some of their subordinates?

2. In some local offices of the service, is the supervisor classified as a placement officer grade 2, and, if so (a) is he responsible for the supervision and rating of employees of equivalent grade and salary (b) are employees in local offices remunerated for supervisory duties (c) are employees in the regional or national offices remunerated for similar supervisory duties (d) did the fitness review board of the civil service commission make any recommendations during 1960 concerning additional remuneration for supervisory duties in local offices of the service and were any such recommendations not implemented and for what reason?


Mr. Hales:: 1. No. The positions of subordinate employees are classified at grades below the level of grade 4.
2. (a) and (b) As a result of a recent upgrading of positions in the national employment service there are some instances where supervisors at the employment officer 2 level have one or two employees on their staff at the same classification. Studies are now being conducted to determine the proper classification for local office supervisory positions in the national employment service with a view to correcting these anomalies, (c) Yes. (d) The fitness review committees were departmental committees whose function was to make recommendations with regard to the suitability of employees for the higher grades which were introduced in a general program designed to provide more appropriate classifications for the duties being performed. In some cases certain committees recommended higher classifications than those that had been approved for the duties being performed, and in such cases the employees concerned were classified at the level that was appropriate for their positions and which was at the grade that was authorized for other employees in the national employment service who were performing similar duties.



PAYMENT FOR BRIDGE AND FEEDER CANAL, DUNNVILLE, ONT.

Mr. Pennell: What vote of the revised estimates for 1962-63 contains the sum of $420,000 required by the St. Lawrence seaway authority to pay to the corporation of the county of Haldimand to carry out the terms of the agreement entered into by the said authority and county relating to the bridge and feeder canal situated at the town of Dunnville in the county of Haldimand?


James Alexander McBain: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows: vote 230(a), supplementary estimates (A) 1962/63.



HOME MAIL DELIVERY, HAWKESBURY, ONT.

Mr. Elhier: Has the Postmaster General reached a decision concerning the provision of home mail delivery for residents of Hawkesbury, Ontario, and, if so, when will such service be inaugurated?


Mrs. Fairclough:: Yes. Service will be inaugurated on Monday, March 18, 1963.
Questions



CONTROL OF FINANCE COMPANIES IN BANKING FIELD

Mr. Ryan: Does the government plan to introduce legislation to control finance companies in their entry into the banking field and particularly in their pursuit of deposits from the public?


William Heward Grafftey: This is a matter of government policy. Any announcement would be made by the government in the usual manner.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND


Mr. Deschatelets: 1.	How much money is there in the unemployment insurance fund as of this date?
2.	Apart from statutory contributions made by employers and employees, was there any money put into the unemployment insurance fund in the form of loans or otherwise and, if so, for what amounts and at what rate of interest?


William Heward Grafftey: 1. On December 31, 1962, the last date for which information is available, there was $98,975,326.02 in the unemployment insurance fund.
2. The following loans have been granted
to the fund: Amount of loan	Rate of interest	Interest paid$ 80,000,000.00	5%	$1,470,136.9842,000,000.00	5J%	273,036.9970,000,000.00	5%	1,599,726.0370,500,000.00	5J%	1,538,106.16$262,500,000.00	$4,881,006.16
All those loans have been paid back.
(Text):



CHIEF JOSEPH DREAVER

Mr. Howard: Is Chief Joseph Dreaver presently employed in any capacity with the government of Canada and, if so, what in detail are his duties, responsibilities, and wages?


Frank Charles McGee: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):



LIGHTING ON PERLEY BRIDGE

Mr. Eihier: Is the Department of Public Works or any other department of the federal government responsible for the maintenance of Perley bridge between Hawkesbury, Ontario, and Grenville, Que., and, if so, will action be taken to improve lighting on the bridge?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Department of Public Works is in charge of the maintenance of Perley bridge. Tenders have been called for the setting up of a lighting system on that bridge. Those tenders will be received on February 12, 1963.

Motions for Papers
(Text):



SUBSIDY ON WHEY BUTTER

Mr. Ethier: Does the government propose to include whey butter in the same category as ordinary butter upon which a subsidy of 12 cents per lb. is paid?


Mr. Pigeon:: The present dairy support program authorized payment of the 12 cent subsidy on creamery butter only. No decision has been made concerning the support program for the coming year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	What is the national average concentration of strontium 90, according to latest measurements?
2.	What is the average concentration of strontium 90 in the Northwest Territories and Canadian Arctic regions according to the latest measurements?
3.	What does the Canadian government consider as a "safe level" of strontium 90?
4.	When did the Canadian government first take measurements of strontium 90 concentration in the Northwest Territories and the Canadian Arctic?
5.	When did the Canadian government first publish its findings regarding strontium 90 concentration in the Northwest Territories and the Canadian Arctic?


Mrs. Casselman:: Return tabled. IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION, 1950-1962


Mr. Beer: 1.	How many persons came to Canada in each calendar year 1950 to 1962 inclusive, from which countries did they come and what are the numbers from each country?
2.	How many persons left Canada during the same period by years, and to which countries did they migrate?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any reports of conditions at the Fort St. John Indian agency and in particular the situation at Prophet river since January 1, 1962.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether with the permission of the house I could request that this notice be withdrawn and the order discharged.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the notice of motion shall be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT FOR RADIO STATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 59-Mr. Cowan:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid 
before this house a copy of all correspondence dated August 15, 1962 to December 1, 1962, between the government of Canada or any minister, department or agency thereof and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, respecting the contract for telecommunications for the approximately 195 radio stations, the previous ten year contract having been replaced by a new contract effective October 1, 1962.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Humber is not here.


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member could this motion stand?
Motion stands.



WINNIPEG


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 64-Mr. Knowles:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence, dated since July 1, 1962, exchanged between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Winnipeg school board concerning the subject of smoking in relation to the health of school children.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 65-Mr. Malheson:
That an humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all regulations made by the governor in council pursuant to section 653 of the Criminal Code of Canada with respect to the execution of sentences of death.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Robichaud:
That an humble	address	be	presented	to	HisExcellency praying	that he	will	cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other communications as from December 1, 1962 to date, between the government of Canada, its officials or any interested persons regarding the closing restrictions on the Roosevelt memorial bridge linking Campobello island in New Brunswick with Lubec, Maine.
Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to producing the documents requested, but permission will have to be secured from the interested parties, the provinces, and perhaps even the state of Maine, I think. With that reservation the motion is quite acceptable.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I hope there is no restriction on correspondence from individuals, including the leader of the official opposition in New Brunswick.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 67-+-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Justice and the Canadian association of university teachers, since September 21, 1962.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: I understand the hon. member is willing that this motion should stand.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN TRADE POLICY WITH U.K.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Matheson:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all communications received from the United Kingdom since the visit of Mr. Peter Thorneycroft to Canada in September 1957 alluding to Canadian trade policy with the United Kingdom.
Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion be allowed to stand.
Motion stands.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government now proposes to establish by national action a 12 mile jurisdictional zone of waters adjacent to the Canadian coastline.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what has already been stated in that connection. The matter was reviewed on an earlier occasion, and there has been no change.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a supplementary question may I ask whether it is the attitude of the United States of America to this proposed action that is holding up a decision?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a
question of one country or another. As the hon. gentleman knows, there were two lengthy conferences on this subject and we almost succeeded in securing that which all the nations desire. At the last conference we lost out by half a vote, and since then there have been discussions taking place with a view to ascertaining what might be achieved through individual agreement or multilateral agreement among nations favourable to such a change.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


INQUIRY AS TO RELATIONSHIP OF FORTHCOMING NEGOTIATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his statement to the house, after the close of the question period yesterday, with regard to trade. Can the Prime Minister indicate to the house the relationship between the forthcoming trade negotiations referred to by him yesterday and those to be conducted in the forthcoming United Nations conference on trade and development?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will study both he will see there is a vast difference. The President of the United States realized there was a difference when he accepted the suggestion of the Canadian government. I would ask the hon. gentleman to make an examination, and I believe when he does he will understand what the government is proposing.


SUGGESTED TARIFF ADJUSTMENTS TO STIMULATE TRADE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Before the house commences labour I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the miscarriage of negotiations with respect to the admission of Great Britain to the common market, is the government giving consideration to tariff adjustments that will stimulate trade for Canada with Great Britain, the commonwealth and other countries?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice a moment ago of the question he intended to ask. The government has always sought to stimulate fruitful two-way trade with Great Britain, the commonwealth and other countries, and to this end it has taken a lead in seeking a conference of the countries of the commonwealth, the countries of the European economic community, the countries of the European free trade area, the United States, Japan and other like minded countries, at as early a date as possible.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In order to make
3262	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the record complete will the minister agree to ask the unanimous consent of the house to make his release of January 28, interpreting the speech of the Prime Minister on Friday last, an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of National Defence a very serious question. Will he agree to table the release and ask the house to make it an appendix to today's Hansard?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has seen this in print, and I shall be glad to send him a copy of it if he wants another one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; the privilege of the house is involved in this. It is not a question of my having seen it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am asking the Minister of National Defence-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The reply may be unsatisfactory to the hon. member, but I do not think he is in a position to comment on it. I recognized the hon. member for Athabasca.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege-


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the rules of the house?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am rising on a question of privilege dealing with one of the most important matters facing this country at this time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -and it does not add to the solemnity and importance of our deliberations for hon. gentlemen to display the reactions they now manifest. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a statement to which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I have a succinct statement of the privilege that is being sought?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I am stating my question of privilege. The Prime Minister made a statement with regard to defence policy on Friday last and the Minister of National Defence, although he sat here during the deliberations on Friday last, issued a release outside the house in which he gave his interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks. In the opinion of many people-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -this seems to be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am having some difficulty in seeing the privilege at the moment. I think we are getting argument rather than privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should think there would be no difficulty in seeing the question of privilege on this matter. This release has been discussed in the house. The minister refuses to table the release on the grounds that I have seen the statement. It is not a question of whether I have seen the statement. This is a matter of public interest. I say the privilege of the house consists in the obligation of the minister to table this document so that it can be part of the record and so can be a key to judgment with regard to the division of opinion in the ministry on so vital a matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Having heard the hon. member in extenso I am still convinced there is no question of privilege here. There is no statutory obligation on the minister to table this document, and he is within his rights not to table the document. The only way this document could be tabled or produced in the house would be by way of a substantive motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I now table this release of the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot table the document.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no substitute for the rules.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Don't lose your temper, Mr. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Athabasca has the floor and I wish he could be heard.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister if in addition to the system of simultaneous translation the government is thinking of instituting a system of simultaneous interpretation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after some of the remarks that have emanated from that side of the house all I can say is that charity begins at home.


Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, in another attempt to clarify for the Canadian people the position of the government with respect to the important question of nuclear weapons, would the Prime Minister indicate to the nation the extent to which he disagrees with the interpretation of the Minister of National Defence?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a quite improper question at the moment.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling I should like to try again, and rephrase my question. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether or not the government is at present pursuing policies aimed at the acquisition of nuclear weapons?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is
going far beyond the orders of the day, I submit with great deference. That question was asked and answered in full. While the answers do not satisfy the opposition, I believe it is proper-and I have not raised any objections yet-to suggest to Your Honour that these questions are no longer within the purview of questions to be asked on orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will decide on the matter of questions from all sides of the house. I think we will go along with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: But in this regard, before anybody gets overly exercised about it, I suggest to hon. members that they might perhaps review some of the rules in so far as questions are concerned. Again I would ask the co-operation of the house in this regard. I do not know that it should necessarily become a game to see how many can be drifted past the Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and notwithstanding the intervention of the Prime Minister I would ask you to rule whether you consider the previous question out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, yes, I do. The question was of the same nature. It goes far beyond the realm of questions to be asked on orders of the day, and I think the Leader of the Opposition recognizes that.


Malcolm MacInnis: On the point of order, I should like to ask Your Honour why you
Inquiries of the Ministry permitted the Prime Minister to rise in answer to the question without making a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not necessarily up to the Chair to pass on every question as it goes by. If the minister is prepared to give a reply and says that it is not a proper question to be answered, that is up to the minister. That is the course I intend to follow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. One at a time. I think that is quite clear.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your ruling as to why my latest question was out of order. You have not indicated so far.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Read the book.


Mr. Speaker:: The question, as I have
indicated, went into a matter of policy and was far too wide to be allowed on orders of the day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that questions in regard to the collective responsibility of the government on matters of defence or other policies are out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not so, and many questions have been put in that regard. But there are ways of putting questions that do not offend the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister which I think Your Honour will not find unacceptable. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he disagrees with the press release issued by the Minister of National Defence, which has been referred to in the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have said over and over again in answer to that question, and repetition does not improve the situation, that I made the statement of policy, and I am not here for the purpose of determining what interpretations may be placed thereon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the statement of the Minister of National Defence, which was not tabled this afternoon, was a statement of government policy in the matter of defence and nuclear arms?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Repetition.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has there been any change in government policy regarding the acquisition of nuclear arms since last Friday?


John George Diefenbaker: I made a full statement on Friday, and I have nothing further to answer. This is simply an endeavour to repeat over and over again something they realize was ended on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we should get into a controversy on motives in asking questions.


ASSISTANCE FOR WORLD TOURNAMENT IN OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Alderman Don Kay of Ottawa has been elected to an international commission set up to host a world wide silver stick hockey tournament to be held in Ottawa during the centennial year. Would the government give early consideration to providing assistance to the civic authority in Ottawa so that a civic centre can be made ready for that important occasion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member could make his representations during consideration of the estimates, or put a suitable question on the order paper.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO POLICY RESPECTING SECOND ROUTE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may 1 also direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether his government has endorsed the proposal of the Yellowhead route association with respect to the route of the second trans-Canada highway?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I gave a report on that question yesterday. If the hon. gentleman will look at Hansard I think he will have his answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position today to answer the question I asked him yesterday as to whether the government was considering any additional financial assistance over and above the 50 per cent contribution now provided by law-
IMr. Fleming (Eglinton).]


Edmund Davie Fulton: And 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the route.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and 90 per cent of 10 per cent of the route, as the minister has said-and the 90 per cent in all provinces except Quebec has already been spent. In addition to the present provisions of the law I wonder whether the government is contemplating any additional contribution to the completion of the trans-Canada highway now under construction?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the question of the trans-Canada highway is a matter that is under constant study, but there is no present intention of amending the act.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the urgent representations which have been made in the last few days by the fishermen and the fishing industry on the west coast, is the government prepared to refer the recommendations of the north Pacific fisheries commission to the standing committee on marine and fisheries?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question a couple of times already. I have nothing to add to what I have said. The matter is still under consideration by the government. It has not been approved by any of the three governments which are parties to the treaty.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the one of main concern to us is Canada's approval, and not the approval of the other two governments?


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that representatives of the fishermen and the industry are here at this time and will be returning to Vancouver shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That matter has
already been dealt with.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. Is it the fact, as has been reported in the press, that in mid January in Tokyo he expressed himself

as being in favour in principle of the recent recommendations of the north Pacific fisheries commission?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I expressed no opinion on that matter on that occasion.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES SUGGESTED ROYAL COMMISSION TO STUDY CANADIAN CULTURAL SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. On Monday he indicated that today he would announce when he would make his statement on the request for a royal commission on biculturalism. I wondered whether he wanted to make any such statement today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I at no time said that I would make a statement on a royal commission on biculturalism. I said I would make a statement in regard to the problem as we saw it and the need for convening a federal-provincial conference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Prime Minister misunderstood me. On Monday his words were "The day after tomorrow I will indicate when I am going to make the statement". I just wondered whether the Prime Minister could make a statement today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman mentioned a royal commission on biculturalism and that is what my answer was directed to. I think the statement will be made on Monday.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's remarks that he has discarded all plans for a royal commission on biculturalism?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a question should not be asked on orders of the day.
(Text):


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since the installation of direction signs has not appreciably increased traffic on the Champlain bridge, does the minister feel that the time has now come to remove the tolls on that bridge?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this is a question that should be put on the order paper.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on January 24 the Minister of Justice interrupted the Leader of the Opposition to say that he had corrected a statement which appeared in the Japanese press, which the minister was alleged to have made, that Canada had the highest level of unemployment in the western world. I wonder whether the minister could make this correction available to the house before we go into committee of supply on the estimates of the Minister of Labour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as is not unusual, has misquoted me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What I said was that I had taken steps through the press- and, I may say, otherwise-to correct as far as it is possible for one individual to do so this palpable error that appeared in the Japanese press. I made it quite clear at the time that at no time did I make the statement that was attributed to me in that press, and which was quoted with some glee by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we are going to get ourselves on very thin ice here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister consider that the Japanese press is as inaccurate as the Canadian press?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are just getting into an area of controversy here which is not going to advance the business of the house at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not as inaccurate as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


DIVORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him what progress has been made toward finding a solution to the subject matter of divorce.

Supply-Labour


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the subject of divorce is in the same position as it has always been.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
1. Department administration including a grant of $10,000 to Frontier College and the expenses of the international labour conferences, $1,321,700.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to make a comprehensive statement on the work of the Department of Labour in introducing the 1962-63 estimates of the department. I hope members of this committee will give every consideration and co-operation as we address ourselves to the various items which are before us in these estimates. I am prepared to reciprocate in like manner and give every co-operation in answering questions which may be in the minds of members. As a result I hope these estimates will be passed expeditiously.
The Department of Labour, during the period in which I have been Minister of Labour, has endeavoured to co-operate with each member of this house in every possible way, and to be as helpful as possible to each and every member of parliament. I doubt very much whether any member, regardless of where he sits in this chamber, has found our attitude to be one of discourtesy or lack of co-operation in giving out information or assisting with regard to any problem which relates to one or another aspect of our work. We have tried to afford this co-operation to all members of parliament for their benefit and for the benefit of their constituents.
I hope in my statement to be able to deal with every aspect of the department and every phase of its jurisdiction. However, to give a complete picture of all the various phases of the department's work and responsibilities would necessarily take up a great deal of the time of this committee. I do not intend to do that, but I shall endeavour to give a brief resume of all the aspects of our work in as few words as possible. After that I hope I shall be in a position to answer any questions which may be in the minds of the members when we reach the particular items in our estimates to which they relate.
Mr. Chairman, the committee will be asked to provide $217,577,700 in the main estimates and $80 million in supplementary estimates (A). The Department of Labour requires

$192,809,700 out of this amount and the unemployment insurance commission requires $104,768,000. This represents an increase of $47,534,597 over the 1961-62 main and supplementary estimates. Members of this committee will notice that this increase in relation to the 1961-62 appropriation does not agree with the figures shown on page 169 of the blue book. The explanation is that further supplementary estimates for 1961-62 totalling about $93,400,000 were passed by the house after the main estimates were prepared and, of course, the $80 million supplementary estimates for 1962-63 are not shown in the summary. The supplementary estimates for 1962-63 to which I have referred include $30 million for the municipal winter works incentive program and an additional $50 million for technical and vocational training organizations.
I should like now to deal generally with the main activities of the Department of Labour. I wish to put on record my sincere appreciation, first of all, of the excellent work performed by the staff of the department and of the co-operation I have received from labour and management groups, the provinces and the many other organizations with which we work across Canada. The high level of competence associated with the work of the department will, I am sure, be a source of satisfaction to all members of this committee, as it is to me.
Vote No. 1 includes costs relating to the general administration of the department, international affairs and the women's bureau. In the field of international affairs, as hon. members know, the department serves as our official link with the international labour organization, and it is this co-ordinating activity which is provided for in the item. The highly constructive work which the I.L.O. carries forward is so well known as not to require recounting at this time. The department has played an increasing role in these significant activities as the I.L.O. becomes increasingly more important in making a special contribution to the manpower and labour relations development of many countries less developed than our own.
In the women's bureau we are interested, of course, in the activities of women in the labour force of this country. Women are playing an increasingly important part in Canada's labour force, and the work of the women's bureau makes a significant contribution to a wider understanding of the problems and needs of women at work in addition to encouraging progressive standards in that field. The bureau works closely with the provincial departments of education and labour, employers' organizations, the labour movement and the national women's organizations.

In the economics and research branch, research plays a key role in the Department of Labour in helping us deal with the complex problems we face in providing a sound factual basis for the development of our programs and policies. The work is carried out by the economics and research branch provided for in vote No. 5. This research has made a vital contribution to the development of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act which was passed by this house in December, 1960, and to the preparation of the industrial change and manpower adjustment act which is now on the order paper to be placed before the house this session. I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing this legislation.
The results of this research have contributed to our understanding of the consequences of automation to workers, management and governments in Canada, and have made a most practical contribution to the consideration of measures dealing with this important problem. Work on a study of changing technology and manpower in one of the regions of a Canadian railway was completed this year, and a report will be published. Work began on a similar study in two large railway shops and a report on this is under preparation. A second study of the extent of electronic data processing in Canada is under way and a detailed examination of the effects of office automation on manpower and training needs is being carried out. Five reports on studies in other industries have already been issued. A survey of employers' current and future needs for engineers and scientists was conducted during the year and a preliminary report has been issued. The joint federal-provincial studies of seasonal unemployment in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will be concluded shortly. A range of special studies of the characteristics of the unemployed were initiated during the past year in co-operation with the dominion bureau of statistics. As a result of this, additional information on unemployment has already been published and more information is currently being developed.
In the field of conciliation, during the fiscal year ending March 1962 the more important collective agreements between the major railways and the running trades expired and new agreements were being negotiated. I am pleased to report, Mr. Chairman, that all of these disputes have been settled, including those involving the major railways and the brotherhood of railroad trainmen, the brotherhood of locomotive firemen end enginemen and the brotherhood of locomotive engineers.
Supply-Labour
Collective agreements are to run through to 1964. Also negotiations commenced in the year ending March 31 for the renewal of collective agreements between the major railways companies and the unions representing over 100,000 non-operating employees. A conciliation board was appointed and I am happy to report that in August, for the first time in recent years, a settlement of all issues in dispute was made by the board. I want here to say what tremendous work the hon. member for York South did on the board, representing, as he did, the unions, as one of the members of three.
The field of labour-management co-operation is very important indeed and is a field that has now been recognized by a great many people of this country, in which these same people are beginning to become more interested. As hon. members know, I have stressed the importance for over four and a half years now of developing effective labour-management co-operation in this country in order to improve the performance of our economy and to eliminate the distrust between the parties to industry. I am happy to say that great strides have been made in this respect. The lessons to be learned about the contribution of labour-management co-operation to a more efficient economy and rising standards of living have been emphasized for us by the European experience. The recent national productivity council mission to Europe has emphasized the fundamental need in this country for a substantial development of labour-management-government co-operation. As hon. members know, the productivity council reports both to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the Minister of Labour. The council has held two significant labour-management conferences at Kingston and at Halifax which have played an important role in the development of consultation between top level labour and management in this country. In the past year, the Department of Labour has organized area conferences of labour and management at Winnipeg, Cornwall and Kitchener to promote labour-management co-operation through exchange of experience on improving the effectiveness of joint committees. The productivity council as recently as last week held another conference in Saskatoon, and the reports I have received indicate that it was highly successful, in fact more successful probably than some of the others. In other words, we are getting into an area of understanding, where these conferences are beginning to bring about a better understanding of labour and management in their own particular spheres. It is planned to hold more of these conferences over the coming months.

Supply-Labour
All of these conferences have played a significant role in improving the atmosphere of labour-management relations and stimulating discussion of ways and means of bringing about greater labour-management-government co-operation. The labour-management co-operation service of the department is responsible for promoting better labour-management relations throughout Canada. This kind of co-operation at the plant level is one of the important keys to increased productive efficiency and high morale in industry. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we formed 1,700 such committees at the plant level across this country. We have increased these committees in the past year by 100, and they are doing a very important job in labour-management relations.
I want to remind hon. members that in the field of civilian rehabilitation this house, in May 1961, passed the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act. That is an important milestone in giving greater economic and social independence to our disabled citizens. Most of the provinces have responded to this legislation by developing a more comprehensive program of vocational rehabilitation. As a result, we have doubled our estimate for this fiscal year, which is only the beginning of a greatly expanded program. Similar substantial increases have been requested in the estimates for vocational training for disabled persons as part of this program. While this government will continue to provide for those unable to provide for themselves, we now know that through the co-operation of provincial governments and voluntary organizations a considerable number of these seriously disabled persons can be usefully employed and can make a contribution to our society.
In the field of special services we have under vote 30 a provision for the special services branch which administers the municipal winter works incentive program, the federal-provincial farm labour program and the program of organized movement of workers between Canada and the United States. It is also involved in our regular winter employment campaign, more familiarly known as the "DO IT NOW" program. I would pay tribute to public-spirited citizens across Canada, the press, radio and television for their co-operation in making this program successful.
Under the farm labour program, agricultural workers are moved within and between the provinces and Canada and the United States to meet seasonal requirements. On October 17 and 18, the department held a most successful conference on training in agriculture. The conference was attended by representatives of provincial departments of education and agriculture, representatives of farm organizations and of industries related to agricul-

ture and of professional agriculturalists. The conference identified and discussed the issues which must be faced in the development of effective agricultural training in Canada and should stimulate the development of greatly improved training programs for agriculture by the provinces under the auspices of the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act.
For a few moments I should like to deal with the municipal works incentive program. Last winter's municipal winter works incentive program gained an increased response from the provinces and municipalities and made a fundamental contribution in securing winter work for thousands of Canadians who would otherwise be unemployed. The 8,269 projects that were authorized provided an estimated 148,000 jobs involving almost 6 million man-days of work. The Canadian Labour Congress in its research bulletin for May and June of 1962 has commended this program in the following words:
There can be no question that the program has been effective and increasingly so-145,000 jobs in the 1961-62 season, lasting an average of about 40 days each for a total of 5,784,374 man-days work -this is not to be sneezed at. Moreover, there is little doubt that at least an equal number of jobs were provided indirectly in the industries which manufacture, sell and transport materials used in these jobs. The program certainly has not solved the problem of seasonal unemployment but it has made a substantial contribution.
In July the government announced that the program would again be in operation this winter on the same basis as last year. All of the provinces accepted this offer and the program got under way on October 15 last. As of January 25 of this year 5,853 projects from 2,293 municipalities have been accepted and approved. The total cost of the projects so far authorized is estimated at something like $319 million. That is, indeed, a substantial public works program for this winter instigated under this program. These projects will provide 107,011 jobs and some 4,949,229 man days of work.
Based on municipal estimates of cost the federal contribution towards these authorized projects is something in the neighbourhood of $35,811,000. These figures represent an increase over last year at the same stage of the program. Since the inception of this program in the fall of 1958 the amount of work provided under the program has increased each and every year and the figures I have quoted with regard to employment provided apply only to on-site employment. It is estimated, as the Canadian Labour Congress points out, that at least an equal number of workers will be employed through the production and supply of materials used on various projects.

I should like to deal for a short while with technical and vocational training in Canada. The provision for the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act is made in votes 35 and 40. The Prime Minister recently described this program as "the most massive effort in the field of human training ever undertaken in Canada".
The program of capital facilities and expanded training programs which the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act provided represents a massive intervention on the part of this government to equip the manpower resources of Canada, and particularly its youth, to meet the economic and technological challenges of the future.
Effective technical and vocational education is a fundamental prerequisite for the development of sound economic growth in Canada. A few of the reasons for this major initiative on the part of this government may be pointed up by some fundamental facts.
Skilled, professional and white-collar occupations make up 70 per cent of our labour force today while the unskilled and semiskilled account for the balance of 30 per cent. Over the past ten years alone, professional workers have grown by 70 per cent; skilled by about 38 per cent and white collar workers by 34 per cent. On the other hand, unskilled and semi-skilled workers have increased by only 19 per cent and some unskilled primary industry occupations have declined in numbers.
This vast upgrading of the educational and training requirements of our labour force has been necessary because this country faced a serious problem of youth leaving school without sufficient educational qualification. About 35 per cent of our young people who entered elementary school in recent years have left school at or before grade 8; another 35 per cent left before obtaining their junior matriculation.
Over the next four years, it is estimated that there will be an increase of 280,000 in the numbers of youth attending secondary schools. Already this program is having a substantial impact on our early-school-leaver problem.
In September there were 80,000 more in the 14-19 year age group than last year, but only
8,000	more youth were in the labour market. This has meant that in spite of the very substantial increase in the numbers of youth in
Supply-Labour
this age group, many more of them are staying in school longer to complete their educational and vocational training.
The capital building program, of which I shall give the members of this committee some detail, at its present stage of development will provide facilities to train almost
130,000	Canadians each and every year. In the light of the figures and the increased number of youth who will be attending school and entering post secondary school training facilities, there is absolutely no reason to fear that these facilities will be underutilized as some critics assert. If anything, they may be overcrowded.
Under this act, between April 1, 1961, when it came into effective operation and January 28, 1963, of this year, I as Minister of Labour have approved for federal contribution 468 provincial capital projects for institutes of technology, adult vocational schools, trade schools, and technical and vocational high schools.
The progress of this technical education and capital building and equipment program is so important and of such interest to every member of this committee, I am sure, that I would request the permission of this committee to table a statistical statement which will indicate the details of this program as of January 28, 1963, by provinces and for Canada as a whole. If I may have this permission at this time, I should be glad.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Chairman:: Order. Is the table a very substantial one?


Michael Starr: About one page.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I believe the minister is asking that it be included as part of his speech. As the committee realizes, I cannot accept any document for tabling. Is it agreed that this table will be included as part of the minister's speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Laing: At this stage may I ask the minister whether I heard him correctly as saying that this table shows the apportionment between the provinces?


Michael Starr: 
Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Before the minister continues I should like to inform him, as I do not want to interrupt again in a minute, that his time will expire in a minute. Is it agreed that he has the unanimous consent of the committee to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. As there are many new members of the house who perhaps are not familiar with the contribution which this government has made under this act I should like at this moment to cite its main provisions. Under the act agreements with the federal government were entered into by all the provinces in this country. They provide for a federal contribution of 75 per cent of provincial expenditures on buildings and equipment for vocational training purposes up to March 31, 1963. After March 31, 1963 the federal contribution reverts to the 50 per cent level. In other words, we gave an incentive of an additional 25 per cent up until that time and then the contribution goes back and provides for the paying of 50 per cent from then on.
It is, I think, of special significance that of these 468 projects 226 were for completely new schools. Of the remaining projects 168 were for additions and alterations to or equipment for existing schools or institutes, and 74 were for minor alterations or equipment costing less than $10,000. The total cost of these 468 projects is around $458.1 million and the federal share will be approximately $292.8 million. These figures do not represent the total building program because new building submissions are still being received and new buildings are being forecast by the provinces for the next four years. My original objective in this program will be surpassed by a considerable margin by March of this year.
Training facilities will be available for our Canadian youth and adult workers to enable them to undertake the training they require to follow satisfying careers in skilled and technical occupations and to meet the continually growing needs of our economy. We have other training programs under our jurisdiction and I will deal with them a little later.
The provision of buildings and equipment, of course, only provides the physical facilities for the technical and vocational training. Teachers, courses and the many other aspects of training must be made available and the legislation fully provided for this. There are 10 programs which are being developed under the agreements on a joint federal-provincial basis. They meet almost every conceivable need for training, including the training of technical and vocational teachers.
Supply-Labour
I will mention some of the highlights of some of the more important programs. The federal government contributes 50 per cent of the cost of these federal-provincial programs with the exception of training for the unemployed to which our contribution is 75 per cent. To meet the growing demand for technicians we are providing for post-high school technical programs in all provinces except Prince Edward Island. This is a new and very important area of our manpower development program and will add greatly to the opportunities for our young people and to the total skilled manpower resources of Canada.
The trade and occupational training programs are being expanded and improved in order to provide a wider range of opportunities in the semi-skilled and skilled trades, the service trades and commercial and business occupations. These are, in the main, the pre-employment programs at the trade level.
In the field of upgrading and retraining I would point out that in the past we have not had an extensive program for employed workers through which they can upgrade their knowledge and their skills. New programs are now being developed in co-operation with industry to meet this need of our adult workers. With rapid changes in production and manufacturing techniques, which give rise to new occupations and displacement in others, it is extremely important to provide adequate training services for those who are now employed. In this connection I would mention the project at Leaside, Ontario, where three companies have joined in a training program for their employees in co-operation with the federal and provincial governments. This is a pilot project in this respect. I can foresee great developments in this program which will help to minimize the less desirable effects of technological change in conjunction with the manpower legislation currently before parliament.
For several years we have been developing and expanding our training program for the unemployed. In this area we are contributing 75 per cent of provincial expenditures on this program provided, of course, the province reaches an agreed upon minimum volume of training. In this area there has been an increase which is not entirely to my satisfaction but during the past year the figures that I have available to me show that some 19,000 people have been retrained under this program, and I hope that the provinces will undertake more and more of this work because of the results that have been achieved in those municipalities where the program has been taken seriously. This program is being expanded in all provinces as a significant step

Supply-Labour
in creating much wider employment opportunities for those unemployed who take advantage of it.
I wish I could take the time of the committee to tell members what has been done in this field in the city of Cornwall, Ontario where, upon completion of the St. Lawrence seaway and the closing down of the textile mill, the authorities found themselves at odds as to what to do with the labour force. During the past few years, with everyone working in co-operation with the federal and provincial governments, it has been possible to retrain 800 unemployed workers in that area and place them in useful employment to the extent of some 85 per cent of those who were unemployed before. This is a good example.
In the field of the physically handicapped, the training of physically handicapped persons has been going on for some years and, like our other programs, it too is growing. As new facilities become available we will be able to offer even more to those who are in need of vocational rehabilitation because of some physical handicap.
One of the very important new programs in our agreements is for the training of vocational teachers, supervisors and administrators. Many new and improved programs are developing. The staff of our training institutions and our vocational co-ordinators and supervisors are so important that we must place special emphasis on this program. A lack of adequate programs in Canada in past years resulted in a great shortage of competent people for this work. However, progress already made in planning and establishing facilities and classes provides ample evidence that most anticipated requirements for teaching personnel will be fully met as they arise.
Our apprenticeship program is operating through a ten year agreement with all of the provinces except the province of Quebec. This program provides for the long range development of journeymen in the highly skilled trades, and many changes are taking place in apprenticeship programs to meet current and future needs.
Now for a few moments I should like to deal with employment conditions in Canada. During the past two years, and particularly since the beginning of 1961, production, employment and incomes in Canada have risen substantially. The improvement has been reflected in such economic indicators as the gross national product which in volume terms has increased by 8.8 per cent, and the industrial production index which has risen by 7.9 per cent. Employment in the third quarter of this year was between 4 and 5 per cent higher than two years ago, and 6 per cent higher in non-farm industries.

In addition to the increase in numbers employed, short work weeks have been eliminated in some plants during the past year and substantial overtime has been worked in others. As a result the average work week in manufacturing in the first seven months of this year was almost half an hour longer than the comparable period of 1961, which is a clear sign of the rising level of industrial activity.
Incomes of Canadians have kept pace with the higher levels of average hours and employment. Personal income in the first half of 1962 was 7 per cent higher than the first half of 1961. For those who like to compare incomes in terms of real dollars per capita, let me repeat what I said during the throne speech debate. In the second quarter of 1962 the gross national product per capita, in 1957 dollars and seasonally adjusted at annual rates, was $1,978. This is $65 higher than in 1957, five years ago.
It has been encouraging to note that a good part of the employment expansion of the past year has been in industries that employ a high proportion of male workers, who form a major part of the unemployed. This year manufacturing provided more than
60.000	new jobs, on average. This summer, for instance, construction employment was at its highest level in three years, up 7 per cent over 1961, and the service industries provided 121,000 additional jobs over the past year.
Seasonal factors remain the major influence in creating unemployment in this country. It is worth noting as an example that some six weeks of severe winter in Britain were recently blamed for an increase of some
100.000	in the ranks of the unemployed in that country. This is a problem with which we have to cope in an even more extreme fashion each and every winter.
In December unemployment reached a total of 6.3 per cent of the labour force, compared to 6.4 per cent a year earlier and 8.2 per cent in 1960. More than three quarters of the total number of unemployed had been out of work for less than three months, and the decline in the number of long term unemployed is particularly encouraging. In September less than one fifth of the total had been seeking work for six months or more.
The combination of increasing job opportunities and declining unemployment resulted in scarcities of workers this summer in specific occupations and specific areas despite the fact that the over-all supply of labour was still plentiful. National employment services across the country have reported a substantial

increase in job opportunities this year, and for many jobs qualified applicants were not available.
As most hon. members are aware, the accelerated depreciation program was initiated last year to encourage new firms to locate in areas of heavy unemployment, and to produce new products in Canada generally. The response on the part of municipalities and business interests has been encouraging. In the early part of November accelerated depreciation had been certified for assets valued at a total of $186 million. That is to say $186 million worth of productive facilities had been or are in the process of being installed to produce products that are either new in Canada or are new to a particular area or locality, and these companies will provide some 5,642 new jobs.
These are among the indications of the many forces at work in the economy to sustain and increase the level of activity. Investment has been substantially higher than last year and there is no sign of weakening in this field. Manufacturing has improved in many fields on account of actions taken by the government in recent years and in recent months. A stimulating effect will be provided by the near record western grain crop.
Export and import industries have been aided by dollar devaluation, as it was expected they would be. Domestic demand is expected to remain high because of the increase in consumer savings. The increase in employment last summer was more than normal and it is expected that the drop during the winter months will be below average. In spite of general improvement unemployment remains a serious problem.
As hon. members know, over the past several years a number of measures designed to implement economic expansion have been approved by parliament, and the effect of these measures has been felt in the general upward movement in the economy. These measures have taken the form of increased works projects, incentives to industry and a general upgrading of the labour force through training and retraining. As the full effect of these measures is felt through the economy, the upward movement will continue. An indication of this is to be found in the economic growth figure expressed in the large and continuing increase in gross national product over the past year, in the improved balance of payments situation, in generally improved conditions in industry and in the greatly increased volume of exports.
Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of hon. members of the committee I have endeavoured to give them-because I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time-what 27507-3-207
Supply-Labour
might be termed a bird's eye view of the activities of the Department of Labour. When we come to the particular items I am prepared to be of as much assistance as is necessary to answer questions that might arise in hon. member's minds, and provide them with all the information they need. I would now ask for their co-operation in the expeditious passing of the estimates of the Department of Labour.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, we have listened with interest to the minister, as we always do. I wish to assure the minister, who is seeking the co-operation of this side of the house to expedite the passing of his estimates, that we are always pleased to co-operate with the genial Minister of Labour. He may be assured that while we shall leave no stone unturned to examine carefully the estimates he has presented, we will afford him the fullest co-operation. It is unquestionable that the minister has a fine department. He has officials who are doing and have done over the past years a very fine job of administration. There is certainly no question about that. We had experience with them in former administrations and I am sure their high calibre has continued into this one.
The minister has painted a picture of very great economic activity and social well being in the country, to which I am afraid we will have to take some exception. I have made a few notes and I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by him. First I wish to say that we have no quarrel with his retraining and training program except, of course, that it has not reached its acme, by any stretch of the imagination, and can be improved upon. But this, in my opinion, is one of the greater accomplishments of the present Minister of Labour. The winter works program was outlined by the minister. The figures in relation to the operation of the winter works program and the co-operation of various municipalities show that the federal government expended some $36 million in the last fiscal year. This required the greatest co-operation on the part of the municipalities with whom the minister was dealing. I think it is certainly a reflection of the very great interest shown by the municipalities which has contributed to the success of this so-called winter works program.
This program, of course, has been made even more urgent since 1957 because unemployment has been such a serious problem since that time. When the figures presented by the minister are considered, together with the assistance which has been given under the unemployment assistance act and the contributions of the municipalities, it adds up to quite a large, glorified relief program. The sum of $319 million was contributed by the

Supply-Labour
municipalities in order to alleviate this serious unemployment situation. On the other hand, in 1961-62 the federal government, under the unemployment assistance act, expended some $92 million, representing part of the relief given to those who were not in a category which would provide them with unemployment insurance. This means that we have expended $184 million in relief measures. We have no figures, of course, to show the amount which must have been expended by the provinces and the municipalities for direct relief. When totalled up it will be seen that our relief programs over the year amounted to many, many millions of dollars. So that while the picture the minister paints in this chamber may have the aspect of an aurora, it is not quite in accordance with the facts.
I should like to go back a short way into the history of this question. Let us see what the government was saying in the early months of last summer in regard to our unemployment situation. I am happy that the minister, at least, before resuming his seat did say that unemployment represented a very serious problem in Canada. On June 13, 1962 the Prime Minister said, "We have the unemployment problem in Canada licked now as a result of the policies we have instituted". I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister said we had the problem of unemployment licked. How does that square with the facts given to the committee by the minister this afternoon?


An hon. Member:: It is a question of interpretation.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, we do not have the simultaneous interpretation that was requested here this afternoon. The Prime Minister has made quite a number of statements. In all fairness I wish to say that I cannot connect the Minister of Labour with any of these profound statements of untruths that were made during the election campaign. The Prime Minister made a profusion of statements and said there was no longer any problem. He said our economy had reached its apex and we no longer had any problems as a result of the administration of the Conservative government. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour had a hand in drafting any of the election campaign messages, but his department contributed some very profound statements, statements that if they were believed-and I think they were, by a fairly large number of the electorate-would lead unquestionably to a Conservative government being re-elected. On June 16, I think it was-in any case it was the Friday prior

to the election-Conservative party headquarters issued a news release purporting to emanate from the Department of Labour in Ottawa. It said:
The Department of Labour economists flatly predict that June -will see for all those who want to work full employment in Canada.
How does that square with the facts which the minister himself brought to light this afternoon? I took the trouble to put a question down on the order paper this session. It asked:
Did the Department of Labour issue a press release in June, 1962, which indicated that there would be full employment in Canada during that month.
Of course, as I expected, the answer was, no. The same news release emanating from Ottawa had this to say:
We repeat-
They were repeating an earlier statement.
-the bureau of statistics this morning announces the greatest increase in jobs in any month in Canadian history.
In an earlier address to this house given, I believe, during the so-called budget debate, I referred to this matter as being an instance of duplicity on the part of the government. I am using it now to show that the actual facts regarding our unemployment situation are not as the government wished to have us believe either at that time or since. I showed then, on the basis of the actual figures, that the statement which had been put out was untrue, that is, that the actual figures were not correct. I also took the trouble to put down a question asking whether the dominion bureau of statistics had announced in the month of June, 1962, that the greatest increase of jobs in any month in Canada's history had taken place in the month of May. Again, the answer was a categorical no. This afternoon the Minister of Labour himself proved to us that this was a sham- that it was merely advertising which was contrary to the provisions of the Canada Elections Act and contrary to those of the Broadcasting Act.
The minister has said that the rate of unemployment today, that is, the percentage of unemployment to the labour force, is 6.3 per cent. He says that this is average or normal, because it was 6.4 per cent at the same time last year. Let us admit, then, that our economy is sick. Because its temperature has improved by one tenth of one degree, does not give us anything about which we can be satisfied. If this is the attitude of this government, that we should be satisfied with an unemployment figure of 6.4 per cent at that time of the year, in December, when we had the most open fall or early winter of the last half century, it is no wonder that our economy is failing to

move forward as it should. By the time the January figures or even the December figures are published we shall undoubtedly find that the unemployment picture is much changed and, perhaps, unemployment will amount to more than 8 per cent. Is this a situation which the government is prepared to accept as normal? If it is, it is time for the present administration to remove itself from office and make way for another which would be prepared to face the facts of our economic situation.
We have in recent days heard reports of a member of the cabinet, who is apparently not answerable to this house, making statements abroad that those of us who say our economy is not in a good condition should consider our position as Canadians. I am referring, of course to the so-called barefoot boy from Bay street who went to Toronto to lecture the Liberals on the attitude they should take toward this government. I have here a copy of the Toronto daily Star of January 29.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Would the hon. member yield the floor to permit a question? A reference was made by the hon. member to a certain individual whom he described as a barefoot boy from Bay street. Some of us from the Pacific coast are not familiar with these eastern terms. I realize the hon. member comes from the western side of the Rockies, but he is familiar with eastern terminology; so perhaps he could enlighten the committee and tell us the name of the individual he has in mind.


An hon. Member:: Is it Walter Gordon?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member will bear with me I will inform the committee of some of the business dealings which this particular minister has had with British Columbia forest industries. If he would contain himself I might proceed further and make my identification more explicit.
I am reading, as I said, from the Toronto Star. According to this report the minister from the other place had this to say:
Those who go around this country predicting crises in its foreign exchange position, predicting economic calamity internally, should give serious consideration to their position as Canadians.
It is unfortunate that this minister cannot come before the house in order to give hon. members the benefit of his thoughts on this subject.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: An hon. member has asked me to read on and I will do so. The minister indicated that those who were not happy here could find their livelihood elsewhere. That is certainly not the proper attitude for a minister of the crown to take toward anyone who wishes to criticize the operations of this 27507-3-207*
Supply-Labour
government or the manner in which it has handled our affairs. However, he went on to point out that there were very serious factors, such as the chronic deficit in the international balance of payments, unemployment, and the need to set up the nation's rate of economic growth. Well, he had better get down to doing just those things, rather than going across the country and criticizing those of us who have for years been telling the government to do just that sort of thing.
Mr. Chairman, what do we propose by way of eliminating unemployment? We do not intend to undertake this over-all state planning as the hon. members of the New Democratic party suggest we should. It is not so long ago that I referred them, in a debate in this house, to some of the recent prognostications of Mr. Khrushchev, who has unquestionably gone the full wheel in the matter of state planning and suggested that in order to stimulate the economy of that great country they should look towards the free enterprise of the western world. So before they go too far around that circle I advise that they be prepared to accept the Liberal middle of the road policy which in the past has brought the very greatest of prosperity to Canada, a prosperity which has not been outdone by any other country in the world.
We shall first establish a department of industry. The government of the day has set up innumerable boards. The strange thing which I found about the throne speech debate was that after the Prime Minister had gone about saying that we had never had it so good, that the economy was buoyant and unemployment was licked, the throne speech contained the outline of the development of at least four economic boards to deal with the problems which he said a couple of months previous to the speech just did not exist. Is it any wonder that the people of Canada today have lost faith in the ability of this government to take the proper measures to deal with the serious problems which face us?
Mr. Chairman, I said that we would establish a federal department of industry. We would undertake to develop true co-operative economic planning through government, management and labour. This does not mean state planning from the top, but a co-operative effort to bring about the very best in economic development. We would undertake to promote on a gradual basis means for more plentiful credit and tax incentives; in other words a public capital works program which would assist in the expansion of trade. We are not completely-


Gilles Grégoire: Why did you not do that when you were in for 22 years?

Supply-Labour


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member asks me why we did not do that when we were in power. During those 22 years the Canadian economy was never in better circumstances.


Gilles Grégoire: Nonsense.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It has always been true.


Gilles Grégoire: You never did anything.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: If the hon. member will contain himself for a few minutes-


Gilles Grégoire: I find it very difficult. It is so discouraging to hear that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -he will hear what our plans are. We will provide special help to new industries in distress areas.
With regard to the question of assistance to the young members of the community, we would assist boys and girls to stay at school by continuing the family allowance beyond the age of 16, so long as they were at secondary school. We would improve their skills, as has been attempted by this government, and leave them to seek employment in the skilled trades rather than in the labour market today where there are no job opportunities for untrained people. We would also provide scholarships and loans to the more deserving boys and girls who wish to attend university. I think this is one of the more important matters which should be undertaken. It is a tragedy that so many of our young people otherwise qualified are unable to attend university because of the financial deterrent they face. We would establish an arrangement for job training in industry to retrain people who are unemployed or threatened with unemployment. This would be an extension of the program already undertaken, and I am sure that it could be made to work with greater vigor than has been shown under the present government. We would also have national housing insured mortgages made applicable to older homes. We feel that it is extremely important to do this in order that young families would not have to raise the very large down payment required for the building and purchase of a new home. It would also provide for younger families being able to move from a community and establish themselves in another community should their employment cease in that area. We would also make loans and grants to municipalities, which would have the effect of creating immediate employment. We would provide more capital assistance for urban renewal plans.


Gilles Grégoire: Electoral promises, that is all they are.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We would provide federal aid for more building of power projects in other

basic work, particularly in areas which need development. There is certainly one area in British Columbia where this government could have expedited the work, and that undertaking is the Columbia river development. In 1957 the federal government offered to pay half the cost of the development of the Columbia river, repayment to be made as the earnings accrued. This government has either delayed or muddled negotiations which should have been settled, and undertakings made to develop these projects, at least two years ago. These are developments which are required and which would certainly provide jobs not falling into the category of the glorified relief programs which we have today. We would provide federal aid for redevelopment of slum clearance, and so on.
So far as the older people are concerned, those who are reaching retirement age, we find today that many of them are forced to stay in the labour force beyond the age of 65 because of their inability to provide a retirement pension for themselves. We would-


Gilles Grégoire: You would do lots of things, I can see that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member admits that we would do lots of things. We have done many things in the past. Give us the opportunity and we will do them again in the future; there is no question about that. We would institute a truly contributory plan for portable pensions.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Rémi Paul: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to take up more than my allotted time in this house. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
(Translation):


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has just tabled the estimates of his department, as prepared in April last, and as revised at the beginning of this session.
Normally, those estimates should have been considered and approved during the last spring session, if parliament had not been dissolved at that time. Therefore, we now have to discuss and approve expenditures of which ten twelfths have already been approved, which puts us in a rather unusual situation. In fact, I think it would be pointless to lose precious time in discussing at

length the figures which are now submitted to us, and I can assure the house that we, Social Crediters, are prepared to co-operate in order to keep the debate within a strict minimum.
We also take into consideration the fact that these estimates will be referred to the public accounts committee where they will be closely scrutinized. So I see no reason to prolong indefinitely this discussion which, for all intents and purposes, will produce nothing and will not make the government change anything to what has already been submitted.
Besides, I am sure that all hon. members would be far more interested in a discussion of the estimates that the minister will submit in his next budget, for then we would be in a better position to judge the attitude that the government will consider taking in relation to the problem of unemployment and of economic and industrial development in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we note that the amount of money put at the disposal of the department has more than doubled; in fact, it has jumped from $53,935,000 to $112,809,000. I think that, in principle, all members will agree that such an increase was desirable. However, the only remark I should like to make is about the distribution of that money among the various items of that department.
I should like to deal in particular with the technical training assistance, which is increasingly important, and of which the provinces do not seem to have benefited in a fair way.
The figures issued recently have shown that, out of an amount of $285 million, provided by the federal government, the province of Ontario alone secured $186 million, while the province of Quebec received only $13 million. This is quite significant of the problems brought about by a centralized administration which cannot think of any legislation or regulation in terms of the needs of all provinces.
This legislation, having been developed by the federal government, without any detailed study by the provinces, has allowed a particular province to benefit substantially from the situation, to obtain much more than the others, due to the fact that this legislation was developed and drafted in terms of the needs of that particular province.
At his recent meeting with provincial representatives, the minister had the opportunity of listening to their grievances on this
Supply-Labour
particular matter, and I hope he has given full consideration to the requests which have been made to him.
In my opinion, it would have been proper to consider the possibility of maintaining and increasing that assistance of 75 per cent to the construction cost of technical schools in the provinces. This would allow the other provinces, which have not originally benefited from the advantages of this legislation, to benefit this year from that federal offer. That also brings to light the fact that the provinces alone have not enough income at this time, to carry out their tasks with regard to vocational training and the training of the teachers who are to give courses in the technical schools. Here again, we have the problem of the distribution of taxes and of the whole fiscal field.
Mr. Chairman, the training of workers is one of the many aspects of the problem created by the unemployment which now prevails in this country. We seem unable to solve this problem. To increase the number of jobs is the main objective now, so that we may eliminate unemployment.
It is all right to appoint research bodies, to send missions abroad to examine the situation and to propose training people for a higher level of efficiency by increasing the number of our technical schools. The fact remains, however, that all those measures are subject to an increase of employment opportunities in this country.
How can we increase the number of jobs in Canada? To enlarge our plants and to create new ones seems to be the only solution at this time, and I wonder how the government intends to obtain that increase in production through the increase in the number of our industries.
The government made an inquiry, sent missions in Europe and in almost every country in the world to observe what is being done there to deal with unemployment and promote industrial development.
It seems to me that all those things are closely related to a new conception that we must have as regards the needs and the goals of labour.
Here I should like to bring to the attention of the committee an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star and which dealt precisely with a problem related to the present unemployment situation. And, in this regard, I shall refer to disarmament, about which so much is being said nowadays. A world wide campaign is going on at the present time for complete disarmament. Well, that editorial

Supply-Labour
mentions that, at this moment, armed forces and war industries are providing jobs for 50 million men and women. Therefore, although in our hearts we all want disarmament, it is normal for our administrators to ask themselves how they would provide for 50 million additional employees because, even now, our leaders cannot organize our economic system in such a way that the available labour force will be kept busy.
It makes one wonder whether our administrators are really serious when they ask for world disarmament. Do they really want that disarmament which, after all, would create other problems for them, much greater problems probably, in the field of employment?
That brings up the problem of the false economic conception we now have, of the false conception of the purpose of labour. If, at the present time, we can provide a livelihood and pay salaries to 50 million men and women in the armed forces, when, to all practical purposes, they do not offer any services nor produce any consumer goods whatever, I wonder why we cannot provide them with a livelihood outside of that war production and those armed services.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that it is a very complicated problem which calls for a thorough retraining of that mass of people who, for many years, have performed military functions.
I know that the governments which, at present, realize this problem and consider such a contingency, are wondering how to provide the jobs which would be required at that time, due to the discharge of these military people who would come on the labour market, which would likely cause as great a threat as the present nuclear threat. That is why we can see in the world today economically strong countries, for instance the western countries, a war policy being promoted because it serves their interests and it hides a colossal failure with regard to the economy and the understanding of human needs.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that as long as we consider work as an end in itself, we shall always encounter these same problems.
To go back to the possibility of increasing the number of jobs here in Canada by increasing the number of our industries, unfortunately I must say that now, with the present world economic doctrine, with all those circumstances which exist, with all the

international agreements, I think that the government will have to impose tariff protection measures for new industries. It will have to do it on a temporary basis, so as to enable those new industries to compete with foreign producers, within our home market.
At present, there are foreign manufacturers who sell in Canada. We should interest Canadian businessmen to manufacture those products sold in Canada by foreign manufacturers.
I know very well, of course, that it is impossible to make everything we need and everything we consume. From an economic standpoint, it is probably difficult to do so. But I think that between the present situation and an improved one, there is a long way, and we can work and achieve some objectives.
The possibility of resorting to tariff measures to help our industries undoubtedly represents one solution. I would not say it is the best solution, but it is one of them and of course, it should be temporary.
Now, there would also be special tax abatements. There would be the accelerated depreciation of investments and a wider use of the industrial development bank which I think does not play its part any too well. That bank should not be only an industrial development bank, but also an industrial creation bank, because we shall certainly need funds to finance those new industries.
At this time, I should like to quote an item which I noted recently in a newspaper. It is about an economist who was considering the economic situation of Canada in relation to our external trade. He was analysing our monetary deficit. He was pointing out the interests and dividends we pay each year on American investments in Canada. He was mentioning our imbalance of trade with the United States which amounts to $1 billion and several hundreds of million dollars each year, with respect only to interests and dividends paid on American investments in Canada.
According to him, we are not even able at the present time to correct this imbalance; we are even unable to suppress its cause.
Only yesterday, one could read in the papers that in 1962, American investments in Canada reached $1,100 million. This means that we will have to pay to our southern neighbours additional interests which, in any case, sooner or later, will always show up in the continual deficits we have known in the past and which will keep on increasing as long as we will not change our economic concept respecting

the development of our industries and of our natural resources by Canadians and, as far as possible, with Canadian capital.
I feel, however, that the industrial development bank will be the most appropriate organization, after its regulations are amended, to promote the economic development of Canada.
I know that Canadians have savings which they could invest in industry, but at the present time, the different levels of government, through their various bond issues, create a scarcity of capital available for the development of our industries.
Then, if the government cannot think of any other way of financing its management, well, it will have to be in a position to create the source of capital it needs to make the development of our industries possible.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock?


Rémi Paul: Order. So that the house may proceed with the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: It now being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business, which is today notices of motion as found on page 25 of the order paper.
(Translation):


ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
Mr, Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke) moved:: That this house is of the opinion that a select committee be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to effect a more expeditious dispatch of public business.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to shorten the duration of sessions and to save the Canadian taxpayers' money. The mere fact of having shorter sessions might make us forget any idea of raising our salaries as members of the house.
As a newcomer to this venerable assembly, it was my privilege, at the opening of the session, to attend a ceremony which is most impressive but which has no meaning in the
Special Committee on Procedure twentieth century. In my opinion, it is most childish on the part of so-called adults to go through such motions.
Without harming anyone and setting aside the question of age, we could-


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the hon. member is not suggesting that the role played by His Excellency the Governor General is childish. Otherwise, I will have to remind him of the standing order which forbids any allusion to the crown or its representative in such terms as those I have just heard. I hope the hon. member will explain himself.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to the participation of the representative of Her Majesty the Queen to the opening ceremony of parliament. I am just talking about a time-consuming and costly ceremonial.
I merely wish to point out that in the twentieth century, we should no longer have to observe the sort of formalities in honour at the court of Louis the Fourteenth. To revert to the principle of my motion, I suggest that the throne speech debate should not take place. In my opinion, this eight day period used by the leaders of opposition parties to derive probably some degree of political capital, but which promotes in no way the public welfare, should be abolished, thus enabling us to consider without delay the business of the house and to hasten passage of legislation brought before the house.
I had the opportunity to attend the opening session of the United Nations and I found out that in this world assembly, no time is lost on such a trivial matter as the reply to the president's speech.
I also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time allowed to hon. members be cut down from 30 to 15 minutes. Moreover, the sittings should be from 2 to 7 p.m. instead of from 2.30 to 6 p.m. and from 8 to 10 p.m. Thus the members could attend to their work as representatives of the people, in the evening and in the morning.
At this time of day, members introduce notices of motions and everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that all of them get a first class burial.
I think that all hon. members are of the opinion that this time is put at our disposal merely to give us the opportunity to make speeches, and the administration of the public business does not benefit from it in any way. The time provided for the consideration of private members' business could be abolished, which would give us an extra hour a day.

Special Committee on Procedure
If some do not agree that this hour should be abolished, we might get in touch with the other parties and find out if one of them intends to kill a motion. Under the circumstances, the sponsors of such motions could withdraw them so as not to waste their time or take up the time of other hon. members.
I would also suggest, sir, that we abolish debates on resolutions submitted to the house by committees. We do not have the bills before us during such debates and that is a loss of time because such legislation comes before the house at a later date and we then have to engage in another time-consuming debate.
Consideration should also be given to shortening the question period.
The question period, that lasts over an hour and a half at times, has become a real free for all. In my opinion, it could be limited to half an hour; each party would have the right to ask only so many questions and each member would be allowed only one question. We could thus dispatch more expeditiously the public business. We would not see ridiculous situations happen every day, which has been the case since the beginning of this session.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Has the hon. member for Sherbrooke read the comments made today by Mr. Marcel Gingras in La Pressed They could enlighten him.


An hon. member:: We have no time to read La Presse. We have work to do.


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind some hon. members that they should not make remarks when one of their colleagues has the floor?


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, we should also consider immediately giving to the other place the responsibility to settle divorce bills. We lose considerable time on those bills and I think we all agree that the other place has the required competence in that field and should look after it.
Mr. Speaker, since I do not want to talk out my own motion, I suggest that some postures we have to assume in the house, and more particularly the kowtowing, be eliminated, not to cut down the time reserved for the business of the house, but rather because that puts us in some ridiculous positions.
(Text):


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion

I can say at the outset that I am in favour of it. I think the time has arrived when the special committee should be reconvened in order to consider further the rules under which we carry on business.
It was mentioned in the speech from the throne that the committee would be reconvened, but in view of the initial remarks of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) in which he bypassed this formality, I presume he did not wish to refer to it. Nevertheless that particular proposition is in the speech from the throne, in somewhat similar terms. In any case I am in agreement with both propositions.
I think the reason for inefficiency in this house is that we spend many hours discusss-ing matters on which there is agreement, just for some procedural advantage. This is the sum and substance of all our difficulties, and we can avoid a lot of the lost time if we are able to remove some of the advantages that accrue from talking on things on which there is general agreement.
I should like to mention a few now in the hope that this committee, if set up, will consider them. The first subject with which I wish to deal is the private members' hour, which we are in at this moment. I have always felt that a good deal of time is wasted in private members' hour by hon. members carrying on a debate for the purpose of filling in the one hour allotted. In this particular matter I accept equal responsibility with a number of my colleagues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are the first among equals.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gives me first place somewhere. However, Mr. Speaker, this is one of our major problems. 1 think it could be cured and I am going to put forward a proposal in connection with private members' hour which I think will help. When the rules were last revised private members' hour was put on daily. That was a great advantage because now a tremendous number of notices of motion are put before the house. Before this amendment only about four private members' notices of motion ever came before the house, and those generally were talked on for a whole day. The present system is certainly much better. However, I would suggest that we could improve it if, after all hon. members who indicate that they wish to speak on the subject have spoken, and no

other person appears ready to rise and continue the debate, the minister under whose jurisdiction the particular subject comes, or his parliamentary secretary, were to rise and take one of three choices. First, he could indicate that the government accepts the resolution or bill in general terms. Second, he could indicate that the government rejects the resolution or bill. In the case of either of these two alternatives the question should immediately be put, subject to the right of the sponsor to close the debate. The third choice I would suggest is that the minister could state that the government desires to give further study to the resolution or bill. In such event the minister or parliamentary secretary could move the adjournment of the debate.
This would not in any way be limiting the rights of private members on private members' hour, because this situation would only arise if no other hon. member appeared ready or willing to speak on the subject, in which event the minister or his parliamentary secretary could rise in the same manner as does an hon. member who closes the debate and state that the matter is worthy of consideration and will receive further study; and the debate should be adjourned for the time being. I think this would be very helpful because the house could then go on to another resolution or bill. In some of these cases only one or two hon. members are prepared and willing to speak on the subject, and sometimes these matters are brought forward in a hurry due to the previous motion or motions having been stood over. I think in this way we could save a good deal of time. As I have said, I am the first to admit that on various occasions I have been guilty of speaking on private members' hour when perhaps I was in favour of the resolution or bill and might better have let it come to a vote. But we have to be honest about this. Because of the way the procedure is set up it is sometimes advantageous that certain resolutions should not come to a vote. With this very honest approach to the matter I believe we could go a long way toward making private members' hour more efficient and effective.
I have another suggestion for saving time, Mr. Speaker. I think that the question of appeals from decisions of the Speaker should be reconsidered. I believe that the Speaker's decision should be final and not subject to appeal to the house.


An hon. Member:: Why?
27507-3-208
Special Committee on Procedure


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I will come to the point in just one moment. The main reason is that appeals to the house never decide whether the Speaker was right or wrong. They are never voted upon on the basis of whether the Speaker made a correct decision. I have observed over a period of almost six years the question of appeals from decisions of Speakers and have noticed that in every case the appeal is voted upon on party lines. This does not mean anything. It does not mean that the Speaker was either right or wrong in his decision. I feel that in order to have an orderly growth of a body of precedent in the House of Commons the Speaker should make a decision to the best of his ability and that decision should be final. I say again that when voting on an appeal the minds of hon. members in the house, I am sure, are not always on the correctness of the Speaker's decision or on precedent, but are on other matters which possibly are quite beyond the correctness of the decision. I think there is a great deal of inconsistency in connection with appeals to the house from the Speaker's decisions. We find in one parliament that a certain ruling by the Speaker, which may have been in accordance with precedent, is reversed in another parliament simply because of the system of voting on party lines. In this way different conclusions are reached in different parliaments.
Therefore it does not follow that any body of precedent can be established or that an appeal from the Speaker's ruling means anything at all as far as the correctness of the decision itself is concerned. I think that errors which Speakers make and have made in the past are matters all of us must accept in electing a Speaker to make decisions on our behalf. I do feel that the Speaker's decisions should not be subject to appeal to the house.
In a similar category is the question of appeals from decisions of committee chairmen. As I understand the situation, Mr. Speaker, we are in a considerable state of confusion in this house with regard to an appeal from a decision of a chairman of a standing committee. There is nothing in our rules of practice and procedure relating to appeals from committee chairmen and there has never been, to my knowledge, an established practice with regard to whether there is an appeal, and if so, to whom. In the first section of our rules it is stated that if nothing is provided to the contrary in our rules, the practice of the House of Commons at Westminster shall be followed. In the House of Commons at Westminster there is no appeal from the decision of-



Special Committee on Procedure (Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. In my opinion, the hon. member who is speaking now does not refer at all to the matter under consideration. In fact, the proposal of the hon. member for Sherbrooke does not mention at all the changes to be made, but simply suggests the setting up of a special committee that would study what has to be changed. Consequently, the hon. member should stick to the motion.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the rules are concerned, I believe that the mover of the motion himself proposed some changes, and I am of the opinion that the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) are quite in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if some of the remarks made a few moments ago were not in order, that is no reason why everybody should be out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: One can go back briefly to certain previous remarks, in order to indicate the reasons why one is in favour of the creation of a certain committee. I think that at this stage of the business of the house one can discuss that and I feel sure that a few hon. members would like to make themselves heard on that subject. Perhaps the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) will want to make some remarks also in this debate.


Gilles Grégoire: I intend to, in a moment.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, we shall proceed.
(Text):


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My point in drawing attention to these things is that these are reasons why a committee should be set up. I am setting forth what I believe to be inequities in our present procedure, deficiencies which could be corrected by such a committee. I believe these are perfectly good reasons for supporting the motion.
Perhaps I might continue on the subject I had raised earlier with reference to appeals from decisions by committee chairmen. The present situation is confusing. Under its rules, the house of commons in the United Kingdom has no provisions for such appeals. If we refer to the United Kingdom rules-and there is nothing in our own rules to deal with this particular case-we find there is no provision for an appeal from rulings of the Chair, and it follows there is no appeal from the ruling of a committee chairman in Canada. I have taken this position in the committee of which I have the honour to be chairman. Even if there were the right of 
appeal there is some doubt whether the appeal should be to the house or to the committee itself. I do not wish to pursue this matter but I think it is a subject which might well be considered by a committee such as is proposed.
There is one other thing we might well do to prevent too much jockeying for position during the session and to facilitate the expeditious dispatch of business. I believe the time has come when the proposed date of the prorogation of the session of parliament should be announced at or near the beginning of each session and that unless the session is extended by a vote of two thirds of the members it should be prorogued on that date. The responsibility for delay, extension, failure to bring forward legislation, failure to act on legislation and so on could not then be shifted back and forth between one party and another. It would then be up to the house to conclude its business within the time allotted. I think that if such an announcement were made it would prove of great advantage.
I also think the time has come when the length of the sessions of this house should be considered. Certainly, as a collateral question, the subject of members' pay has come up as was mentioned by the proposer of this motion. But I think that if the work of the session were dealt with expeditiously and if members could return to their private business for at least half their time during the year, they would have no financial difficulties. I certainly believe that if such a procedure were adopted it would prove satisfactory. Should certain matters arise requiring an extension of time, this could be arranged by a two-thirds vote.
In the same vein I would suggest that no legislation should be introduced later than two weeks prior to the proposed date of prorogation. I think if this suggestion were adopted the house would be in a position to conclude its business in good order and, when the time arrives, there would be no last minute legislation likely to warrant extending the time of sitting of the house except, as I have said, in the case of an emergency, in which situation a vote of two thirds of the members would be required.
These are just a few of the many subjects which require discussion in such a committee as is proposed. I support the motion. I hope the committee will be set up and that these matters will be dealt with. I think this is more than a routine debate and a routine resolution. It is a most serious matter. Right now, as far as this house is concerned, we are wasting time. But who is to blame? It is easy to throw accusations back and forth that it is this party or that party which is causing

the difficulty. We have to face the situation which confronts us. I think the time has come when it must be faced and the only way in which it can be done, as far as I know, is by revising the rules so as to impose on ourselves some restriction to prevent our wasting the time of this house and the people's money.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: The theme of the motion by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) is that the House of Commons ought to make haste speedily, that it ought to engage in a more expeditious dispatch of public business. He suggests that the way to do this is to set up a committee on procedure to consult with Your Honour and to effect changes in the rules.
We all want to save time. We all want to shorten debate and shorten sessions, provided this objective is reached without failing to achieve an even more important objective, namely the preservation of the rights of private members of the House of Commons. One of the main purposes of the rules is to protect the rights of individual members elected in their individual capacity to serve their constituents. The rules also provide a systematic method of dealing with public business and they ensure that there is an opportunity as the life of each session unfolds for each item of public business to be discussed in a systematic way. The rules under which we operate have been tried and tested by experience and I believe it is a mistake on the part of hon. members, and especially on the part of the mover of this motion, to believe that all our parliamentary difficulties and frustrations flow from faulty rules and that these difficulties could be removed by a formal change in the rules.
I was surprised that the hon. member should recommend that the opening ceremony in connection with parliament ought to be abolished, that we ought to save a few hours and thereby deprive ourselves of a reminder for example, of the symbolic importance of the mace and of the importance of the first bill the Prime Minister introduces. These are ceremonies, but they remind us in a short space of time of the struggle that has taken place over the centuries to reach a position where we have a free parliament, where free discussion is possible. On reflection, I am not surprised, because this attitude is consistent with the anti-parliamentary, anti-discussion approach which has been manifested by the hon. member's particular group since they came into the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: This debate has been conducted on a pretty high level so far. Therefore for the good of this debate we will keep
27507-3-2084
Special Committee on Procedure partisan references out of it. If I can I should like to avoid recrimination, and I hope we will not get into that field. I am not suggesting that the hon. gentleman is doing so now, but there may be a tendency to get into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We might have a debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is not the first member of parliament who has tried his hand at streamlining our work. He is not the first among the present members of this house who has made sincere proposals to streamline the work of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) not so many years ago held out great hope that the expansion of the committees system would make parliament a more effective instrument in dealing with the public business. If I may quote from a comment made by the right hon. gentleman in 1960, he stated as follows:
In pursuance of our desire to bring about an expansion in the opportunities for all members of the house as a whole to make their contribution, we have in the last two sessions set up a number of committees ... I hope we will be able to expand the system in this regard to the end that we can use committees to a larger extent than in the past, thus rendering parliament more effective.
The house has attempted in the organization of its work in the past five years to make the committees system a more effective instrument and to relieve the House of Commons of certain burdens. I noticed that the Prime Minister confessed with candour not so many days ago in this house that the hopes he had held for an expansion of the committees system were not realized, and that this effort he had in mind had not reached its objective. I believe there is a resistance among members of parliament in transferring from this national forum to other subsidiary bodies certain functions, including committees of the house, and I believe there will be a resistance to the changing of any rules that hon. members might feel will in the future restrict at a critical time the right of any individual member to express his opinions.
In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the committee on procedure sitting under your predecessors has accomplished a good deal in streamlining, and especially reducing, the time spent on debate. That work was done, as we know, with the active co-operation of Liberal members sitting on that committee. Private members' days have been reduced in number. The length of speeches has been reduced. The number of days spent on the budget debate and on the address in reply has been reduced. As all this has happened, serious parliamentary observers have wondered how far the erosion of the rights of private members is going to continue.

Special Committee on Procedure Where is it going to stop? We have had from the hon. member today a proposal that we abolish altogether the address in reply, which is the first opportunity, maybe the only opportunity, new members elected to the House of Commons will have to address the Commons on behalf of their respective constituencies. Abolish that altogether, is the view of the Social Credit party. Again they say, abolish the private members hour, which time has already narrowed down, but is still there to give private members an opportunity of bringing before the house subjects in which they are interested. Even though no action might be taken on them, at least public opinion is formed and views are expressed.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Would the hon. member permit a question? Has the private members' hour ever done anything good for him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question by anticipation. I ask myself whether there are important changes which can be made in the rules of the house which would effect real economies in time. We have reduced the time on the address. Shall we reduce it two more days and thereby deny more members the opportunity to take part? Shall we reduce the budget debate and thereby deny more members an opportunity to take part? Shall we reduce the number of supply motions and deny private members an opportunity to raise votes of non-confidence against the government? Shall we reduce the number of readings of a bill? Shall we have only one reading and pass the bill at one stage? This is the kind of important change which will have to be made in the rules in order to effect real economies.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of the remarks made by the hon. gentleman, and in the light of his desire to achieve economies through cutting down opportunities for debate, I was surprised how fully and effectively the members of his party have taken advantage of their opportunities for addressing the House of Commons since they have come here, and how fully they have been reported in the press of the country.


Mr. Valade:: Are you jealous?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For example, on the
budget resolution, the ways and means debate, there were 14 Social Credit speakers, more speakers than any other single party in the House of Commons put forward. Eight days were spent on that. Perhaps four days would have been saved if the hon. gentleman had imposed the self-denying ordinance he now wishes to translate into the


rules. That same point can be made in connection with the participation of other hon. gentlemen in that group in debates in this house. I have no objection to it, but I do wish these gentlemen would admit that they are taking part in debates under certain rules enshrined in the standing orders of this house which give them the opportunity to speak freely and be reported in the press of this country freely.
I do not believe that the work of this session has been so unimpressive that it ought to lead to an immediate drastic change in the rules. In the first 60 days of the current session we passed 17 bills; these were government bills. That is a better record than any session in the recent past. In 1958, in the first 60 days we passed nine bills. In 1959 we passed nine bills, in 1960, nine bills and in 1960-61 we passed only six. Why all this talk of obstruction? Why all this talk about holding up the business of the country, when our legislative output in this session is more impressive than that of any session in the past five years as a result of members of the opposition having co-operated within the rules in a spirit desirous of completing the public business?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: You are supporting the government there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am supporting the possibilities given under the rules for free discussion in this house. By putting forward the legislative output of this house I want to answer the charge of obstruction which is either traceable to a deficiency in the rules or to a deficiency in hon. members of this house.
There is another thing we must remember, namely that the business of the country is becoming more complicated. The burdens of government are becoming heavier and greater opportunities must be given for debate. Let me remind hon. gentlemen that in the years 1945 to 1950, that five year period, an average of 20 days was spent in the discussion of the main estimates. In the period from 1952 to 1957 a total of 40 days on the average was spent in the same fashion. Is that doubling of time traceable to obstruction on the part of hon. gentlemen who now, in the main, sit on the government side and who doubled in their years in opposition the time taken to deal with the main estimates?


Mr. Jones:: It is 60 days now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are being criticized because in this session up to now we have had five days in which to deal with the main estimates whereas in a normal year, when these hon. gentlemen were in opposition, 40

days were taken to deal with those estimates. Yet the Prime Minister says, "Let us get through with these estimates; there is obstruction; you have had five days; we must get on with the budget".
I think one of the important matters we must remember is that the government of the day has a place in the organization of the business of the house. It is the government, and nobody else, which decides every day the business that will be dealt with the next day. All the opposition can do is to react: it cannot initiate. It is not the responsibility of the opposition to organize the business. It is because the business of the house has been so badly organized that we have had only five days on the main estimates, and only one supply motion. There is frustration among members of the house. There is a false idea that we ought to improve the situation by changing the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In embarking upon this type of argument the hon. member is getting out into space, as far as this motion is concerned. No charge has been made. There is a question here as to whether there should be a committee to speed up the business of the house and generally consider the rules. No one has been making charges and answering in this debate. I think we will keep the matter on that basis.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the point you made, Your Honour; but surely in a discussion of the way in which to deal expeditiously with public business we must ask ourselves the question whether this purpose can best be served through a change in the rules or whether there is another way which might yield greater results. I think that establishes the relevancy of my comments to the effect that the government is responsible for the agenda. If the house does not get the agenda, it cannot move ahead. I could give many illustrations but, in the light of your admonition, Mr. Speaker, I will give only one more.
In the session of 1960-61, the opposition agreed to waive the debate in reply. The opposition gave up its rights and it was unanimously agreed upon by all members of the house. How many bills were passed in the first 60 days? Six bills were passed. What was the reason for that situation? The reason was that the government was not ready. The government could not bring on its legislation and the house wasted its time in fruitless discussion, with no results. That is why I say that, although we will agree to the setting up of a committee on procedure and will co-operate with other members in making
Special Committee on Procedure whatever changes are to be made, nevertheless there are other more important ways by which the public business can be expeditiously dispatched.
I agree that certain constructive ideas are coming forward in this debate. A suggestion has been made by the mover that we ought to reduce the time of the question period. I go along with that idea. I am sure Your Honour would appreciate a suggestion in the committee on procedure that some arrangement, possibly on an experimental basis, could reduce the oral question period to half an hour per day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member as he may be touching on, shall we say, a subject of interest to the Chair. However, the clock unfortunately has imposed its sanction on the hon. member, and I will recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who last spoke, namely the hon. member for Invemess-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen), was a little bit less than fair to the mover of the resolution. I think the mover intended to improve parliamentary procedures and to make this parliament more effective. I do not think he proposed in any sense to cut down discussion or to abridge the rights of private members or of parliament.
I support this resolution because I, as I think do many other hon. members, feel strongly that this parliament, being the central institution of democracy, should function with just as much efficiency as is possible. If the procedures in this parliament are obsolete and lend themselves to endless repetition and to long winded and unproductive discussion, then to that extent parliament itself falls into disrepute. In suggesting, in accordance with what has already been promised in the speech from the throne, the setting up of this committee, I feel that the hon. member intended, as do we in this group, to improve the procedures of parliament. We believe it is urgent to improve the procedures of this parliament and not in any way to abridge its rights. It struck me that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond showed some of the complacency and conservatism which one also associates with his party.
I suggest that the committee should be set up. I wish to make one suggestion, namely that many of its members be new members of this house. In discussion with members in all parts of the house who have been here for some time I have observed that they have relapsed into a state of despondency, despair and discouragement, and have become inured to the procedures of the house. They have got themselves into a condition

Special Committee on Procedure in which they do not believe anything can be done, and sometimes they doubt whether it should be done. As one of the new members I wish to say, and I believe I share this view with many new members, that I am a little bit horrified by the time that is wasted, and by the amount of repetitiveness in debate, which I believe brings this house into disrepute. I suggest one reform that is obvious, namely that we should not give way to our national Canadian weakness for long windedness in speeches.
As hon. members will recall, apart from the formalities, we started this session with a three hour address from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), followed by a three hour address from the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). I am saying nothing disrespectful to these two gentlemen when I suggest that their speeches would have been infinitely more effective if they had taken not more than an hour each. It is my conviction that all the members of this house would make more effective speeches if, instead of speaking for their full time of 40 minutes, they disciplined themselves and spoke for half that time. I understand that in the mother of parliaments there is no rule as to the length of speeches, but that it is the custom of members who speak to speak for only 15 or 20 minutes. Should they exceed that time, not only are they drowned out by their colleagues but the Speaker seldom, if ever, recognizes them again.
I know that is not a responsibility we can put upon you, Mr. Speaker, because, by long custom of this house, it has been the practice for each hon. member who speaks, whether he has anything to say or not, to speak at interminable length and to the full extent permitted by the rules. I suggest that one real reform would be to cut in half the time allowed for speeches. By that means we would get more speeches from more members and better speeches, than we get at the present time. There would be an improvement in our democratic procedure which might save time. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that saving time is the only object of reforming the rules. We could save time, of course; but I am suggesting that streamlining the procedure would not only save time but make the time we do spend more productive and more worth while.
I have often noticed that those who have to speak in 20 minutes speak a lot better than those who are given 40 minutes. I have not addressed this house very often myself, but on one occasion I realized it was seven minutes to six o'clock, the time it is now, and I had a 20 minute speech prepared. I boiled it down to seven minutes, and several members of the

house were kind enough to tell me it was by far the best speech that I had made in the house.


Mr. Churchill:: Stop now and you will get the same compliment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to practise my own principles, but by trying to confine myself to about 10 minutes rather than seven minutes. The recommendations I have made should be considered by this committee.
The question of committees has been brought up. I do not care whether or not it has been tried before. I suggest most seriously that the committees system should be employed more effectively than it has been. I remember thinking it was a great honour to be appointed to the committee on external affairs, and that as a new member I might learn something. In four months, Mr. Speaker, that committee has never met. What sort of system do we have? We have members who are anxious to find out about these subjects that concern all members who have been appointed to various committees, presumably because they have some special interest in the subject; but they have no opportunity to learn about them through the effective working of committees. If the system has been tried and found wanting, then let it be tried again, because in my respectful submission it would vastly improve the efficiency of the members of the house.
I am not singing a new song, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Cardin, a Liberal cabinet minister, said in 1943 that the rules were obsolete and that there was an urgent necessity for changes in procedure. Just to show that I pick authorities impartially, Mr. John Bracken described procedure in the Canadian parliament as being still in the oxcart stage of half a century ago. I know there have been some changes made but in my submission they have not been enough and have not gone far enough.


Mr. Nesbitt:: The voice of experience.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Somebody says "the voice of experience". Some of us have had experience outside of this house as well as in it, and I suggest that outside this house the procedures of the house would be regarded as intolerable, wasteful of the time of members and urgently needing reform. I have in front of me a book by Professor Dawson entitled "Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons". Having referred to all the revisions that have been made hitherto he goes on to say:
These revisions, however welcome, are only partial ones and leave many of the important defects of procedure untouched. The house still takes too long to do a relatively small^ amount of work. Debate during most of each session remains largely disorganized and repetitive. The committee system could be used to greater effect. The house

does not give proper scrutiny to the public accounts and the estimates. These important problems are with the house today and seem likely to remain so indefinitely into the future.
That is the view of an impartial observer outside the house and my experience in the house, brief as it is, makes me believe it entirely justified. To those members, and I am sure this includes all members, who believe in the essential importance of parliament as an instrument for the welfare of the Canadian people I suggest that reform is urgently necessary, if this institution is not to fall into disrepute. There is still time to vote on this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I have now spoken for only 10 minutes so I will obey my own injunction and sit down.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that the hon. member who just resumed his seat, while advocating freedom of speech, prevented a member from another group to express his views on this proposal.
In my opinion the purpose of the mover of this motion is most commendable and I believe that it fills an urgent need to reduce useless loss of time and to enable us to do constructive work.
Mr. Speaker, I am most surprised at the stand taken by our friends in the Liberal party, and more particularly to hear the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Mac-Eachen) say that the motion should not restrict the liberty of members to express their views before the house on all the amendments to be made to the standing orders.
I also deplore the use the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond made of the word freedom, because we, Conservatives, are not responsible for applying the closure rule. We remember the now famous pipe line debate. I cannot see how the Liberals, who do not like to be reminded of the circumstances which surrounded that debate, can now support the advisability of amending the procedure of the house.
I do not feel either that we should restrict freedom of speech, but after the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond about freedom and the intention of the house
32S7
Business of the House to reduce the members freedom of speech, I must take exception to some of his statements.
I appreciate that some members of the Liberal opposition would profit enormously by keeping their seats during the debates of this house, particularly so when 95 per cent of them have nothing to say about the business submitted to us.


Mr. Speaker:: I should have reminded the house before this of what I said a moment ago about partisan considerations.
It now being six o'clock, the hour appointed for consideration of private members' business is expired and the house shall revert to the business interrupted at five o'clock.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may be permitted, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, to raise a question of privilege for just one moment, I suggest that the idea that any debate in this house should be non-partisan is foreign to our whole parliamentary system.


Mr. Speaker:: I fail to see that the question of privilege is a question of privilege. The hon. member is putting forward a point of view.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would think it would be a convenience to have in Hansard again the business for tomorrow and Friday. I have read what the hon. gentleman said last night and I would ask him if he could be quite specific-he seemed to be last night but I was not quite certain after reading his words -that there will be a supply motion on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow and Friday we will continue discussion of the estimates, the Department of Labour and the Post Office Department. If those are finished I will call a third. On Monday and Tuesday we will have a supply motion. I should say that starting on Monday we will have a supply motion because it does not have to run for the two full days, although that is quite normal.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 31, 1963