1963-02-01

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting this house and every member of it. My question of privilege involves the failure or neglect on the part of the Minister of Justice to discharge a responsibility and a duty which parliament gave to him. That responsibility and duty is that which is contained within section 3 of the bill of rights and the regulations made with respect to section 3.
I wonder whether I should read to you the relevant part of section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which is as follows:
The Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
The regulations pursuant to that section provide the mechanics for dealing with bills presented to or introduced in the House of Commons, and regulation P.C. 1960/1792 sets up the procedure and allows in clause 3(b) of the regulation that the minister shall:
-cause to be affixed to each of the copies thereof- -that is, copies of bills-
-so received from the Clerk of the House of Commons a certificate, in a form approved by the minister and signed by the deputy minister of justice, stating that the bill has been examined as required by the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Mr. Speaker, the total number of bills introduced in the House of Commons this session prior to yesterday was 109. Of those bills, the period of time which elapsed between their transmission by the Clerk of the House of Commons to the Minister of Justice and their return to the Clerk with the affixed and approved stamp on the front of them, indicating that they had been examined pursuant to the bill of rights, was
statistically as follows. There were six of those bills in which the time which elapsed was only one day. There were 40 of those bills in which the period of time which elapsed was two days. There were 19 of them in which the period of time which had elapsed was three days. There were 16 bills in which the period of time which had elapsed was four days. Ten of them took five days. Five of them took six days. Three consumed a period of eight days. One of them took 13 days. Another one took 14 days; and six of them had no indication of the number of days on the approved stamp affixed to the front of the bill, although there was an indication that they had been received back by the House of Commons in a period of time not longer than eight days.
Even with respect to the one which took 13 days and the one which took 14 days to-examine, that was over the Christmas and New Year's holiday. Hence we can extract from that figure a reasonable number of days upon which the people were not working and thus were not examining bills.
There is one bill which was introduced on October 1 of last year, at the start of this session, and which has not been so returned and, I submit, has not been examined as required by section 3 of the bill of rights. That date is 123 or 124 days ago. That bill is C-14, an act respecting Indians, one which I myself submitted.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this question of privilege is that the Minister of Justice, either by failure or neglect, has not examined that particular bill and has not,, as is required by the bill of rights, returned it to the House of Commons. Accordingly, based upon that premise, it is a prima facie case of privilege and I move as follows, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the standing committee on privileges and elections be authorized and instructed to inquire into and study the responsibilities attendant upon the Minister of Justice by virtue of section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights and whether those responsibilities were properly carried out with respect to Bill C-14, an act respecting Indians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the moment I am not even considering whether this is a prima facie case of privilege.

Question of Privilege


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to find in what the hon. member has said anything which bears very much resemblance to the case he is trying to make out. It is about as far fetched a presentation of a question of privilege as this house is likely to see.
First of all, may I say that there was no intimation to me at any time by the hon. member that he was concerned about any aspect or delay in relation to the review and certification by the deputy attorney general under the regulations in relation to any measure. The review by the hon. member of a statistical nature I think points to the fact that, in the midst of a session in which the deputy attorney general is carrying other very heavy responsibilities, the certification of bills in the form prescribed has been carried out with efficiency and celerity.
After wandering over the whole sessional program and over 100 measures the hon. member finally came around to the burr that apparently was under his collar. He finally referred to Bill C-14, his own bill. Before any hon. member pays any attention to or takes seriously what has been said by the hon. member this morning, I suggest that reference might be made to what was said on October 1 in relation to this bill when the hon. member sought to introduce it. Some discussion on this question will be found at pages 33 and 34 of Hansard when the bill was read the first time.
Let me say very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibilities which are laid upon the minister by the bill of rights and the responsibilities which are laid upon the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general by the regulations passed in pursuance of the bill of rights have been fully and faithfully discharged.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, this appears to us to be a matter of pretty serious import-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Pearson:: A breach of the law; that is all.


Lionel Chevrier: -more particularly because of the fact that the bill has been held up from October 1 until now, and my suggestion to you, sir, is that this matter be taken under advisement.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: Particularly because of the violation of the act by the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think there have been quite sufficient extraneous comments. This matter will be taken under advisement

by the Chair. I should like to indicate to the hon. member for Laurier that he may not have been here on the occasion when this bill was called in November was not proceeded with and was dealt with under the rules, but in so far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned I will take it under advisement and will make a ruling in due course.
(Translation):



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that the governor in council has approved the treasury board recommendation to authorize the director of the Royal Canadian Mint to reach an agreement with the Cobalt Refinery Limited of Toronto, Ontario, for the supplying of silver bullion.
The agreement would become effective on April 1, 1963, and would be for a period of five years. It stipulates that Cobalt Refinery will deliver to the mint from 2 to 6 million ounces of silver per year, at competitive prices to be determined by negotiation every year the agreement is in force.
Cobalt Refinery Limited operates a silver refinery at Cobalt, Ontario. Its contract with the Canadian mint will enable it to buy larger quantities of silver ore concentrates already produced in the Cobalt and Gowganda districts. Since the closing of the Deloro Silver Refinery in 1961, those concentrates have been shipped to other countries to be refined.
It is expected that the transaction will help maintain in operation a new silver ore processing plant in Canada and that it will also benefit the mining operations in that region of Ontario.
(Text):


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for the statement he has just made. I believe that recognition of the silver treating plant at Cobalt will prove advantageous, in that there has always been some regret that the silver we produce in Canada has had to be processed in the United States. I know that the people of the area and particularly the silver producers will certainly appreciate the statement of the minister. It is to be hoped that on the strength of what is now available under this agreement Canadian producers will be able to send all their silver to this refinery for treatment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to call together the Canada-United States ministerial committee on defence which was set up by the present government and which last met in July, 1960, in order to discuss current joint defence problems between the two countries.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given to that matter.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he will take up with Mr. Speaker the suggestion of Senator Aiken of Vermont, which appears in today's press, that the parliamentary-congressional committee be called to discuss Canadian-American problems?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, that committee has done great work in bringing about good relations. The government has nothing whatever to do with the committee. Any discussions that take place in that connection are the result of arrangements between you, Mr. Speaker, the organization here and the organization in Washington.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph B. Cowan (York-Humber):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for Exernal Affairs and ask him if amicable relations still exist within the joint Canada-United States air defence mission which is now in India investigating air defence problems in that country, with instructions to report back.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for Exernal Affairs):: That is a Commonwealth-United States mission, and it is carrying on its work in the normal way.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs if any formal note, or any note, has been sent by this government to the United States in answer to the release of the U.S. state department of the night before last.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously an attempt to continue on the orders of the day the debate which took place yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think there should be comment on questions.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: Is the answer "No"?


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I could finish my answer. The question has the significant feature I mentioned, also another, which is that the Liberal party is still following-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is quite wrong.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No protest by the government.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he inform the house whether the meeting with the provincial premiers concerning rail line abandonment has been concluded, and if so whether an agreement on the approach to this question has been reached?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer to the first part of the question is no, so the second part does not apply.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INVITATIONS TO PROVINCES TO ATTEND BICULTURAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Horace A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the invitations have been extended to the provinces to attend a bicultural conference, whether the have gone out as yet?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman will recall, a question was asked yesterday, I think it was by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I advised on Monday I would be making a statement in this regard. At that time the whole situation will be placed before the house.
3332	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['It has never been.']
Mr. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Since the government spending authority in terms of ten months' interim supply expired at midnight last night, will the minister say if and when he intends to ask this house for further interim supply?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: I think that would be a matter, Mr. Speaker, to be determined by my colleagues and announced by the house leader in due course.
(Translation):



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could he explain the delay in appointing the directors of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation whose appointments he said were to be announced some ten days ago?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Laurier, I wish to tell him that the names of the directors of the world exhibition will be announced early next week. There has been no delay in these appointments which required discussions between the three levels of government concerned, that is the federal government on the one hand and, on the other the provincial government and the authorities of the city of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house, may I say also, in relation to that world exhibition, that contrary to statements which are found in some newspapers there is no delay in the setting up of the organization in charge of preparing that exhibition.
I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker.
Invitations have been sent to all countries interested in that exhibition. Town-planners' studies respecting selection of a site are in progress, and we think that as early as next week we will be able to give precise details to the public, who seem to show a keen


interest for all matters related to that world exhibition.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
supplementary question following the long answer the minister has just given to a short question?
May I suggest to the minister to pay close attention to rumours going around at the present time to the effect that the appointments will all be of a political nature. I hope that he will see to it that such is not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am of the opinion that it is out of order to make remarks of that kind.
(Text):


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if any progress has been made in the matter of referring the recommendations of the north Pacific commission to the committee on marine and fisheries?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given on, I think, three previous occasions.


Frank Howard: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether any action has been taken by the government to approve by order in council the two specific recommendations by the international north Pacific fisheries commission that Japan be allowed to fish herring off the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands and halibut in the Bering sea.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.


PUNTLEDGE RIVER, B.C.-WORKS TO PROTECT FISH RUNS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received any commitment from the government of British Columbia that they are prepared to see that protective works are constructed on the Puntledge river to protect the fishing runs which are at present being damaged by the installations of B.C. hydro?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question should go on the order paper. It is important, or may be important, locally, but it is a matter of detail.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Is the minister in a position to tell the house whether U.S. expenditures for defence production in Canada in 1962 were greater than Canadian expenditures for defence production in the United States in the same period?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that this is a question which should be on the order paper. I do not think it is absolutely urgent that we have the information at this present time.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I notified the minister of my intention to ask the question and I think the minister has the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The decision is still left to the Chair in these matters.


TRADE AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce relative to the present government's policy. Is the minister aware that business firms unable to supply information required by the bureau of statistics have been advised by the bureau to make a guess, as their guess is as good as that of the bureau?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is putting forward a certain point of view.
(Translation):


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
PROTESTS RESPECTING TELEVISION BROADCAST "FATHER gedeon"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Following the many protests I have received concerning the obscene and even pornographic character of the television programs of January 17 and 20 entitled "Le petit monde du pere Gedeon"-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member to go on with his question, since some members have wanted to ask similar ones this week and I suggested that they put them on the order paper.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: No point of order may be raised in this regard.
(Text):


COLUMBIA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coasi-Capilano):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government consider referring the Columbia river treaty to the external affairs committee of the house for immediate discussion and review?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained on quite a few previous occasions that before the treaty is ratified it will be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Will you do it now?


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he tell us which department of government is currently carrying on negotiations with the government of the United States in respect of the Columbia river treaty?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that also has been explained in the house on more than one occasion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has never been.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Port Arthur):: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has any information on the likelihood of the commission of inquiry into shipping matters on the great lakes being completed by the opening of the navigation season and, if not, whether the minister is planning any particular steps to ensure that we will not have a continuation of labour strife on the great lakes?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the commission of inquiry expects to have its work

Inquiries of the Ministry done prior to the opening of the navigation season on the great lakes. So far as strife or disruption on the great lakes is concerned I must say that in the past few years there has been very little of it.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Maiheson (Leeds):: May I
direct a question to the minister of defence. Have provisions been made for replacing wastage in respect of F-lOl's in the R.C.A.F.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that is a question which should better be placed on the order paper.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG-INQUIRY AS TO TRANSFERS OF EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question is based on the welcome statement he made the other day with regard to transfers of employees from the T.C.A. overhaul base in Winnipeg. Can the minister clarify what will be the position of an employee at Winnipeg seeking promotion in some other area in the system?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I am pleased that the hon. member has asked for this clarification, because several inquiries have been made of me following the statement to which he has referred. I wish to say that of course there was no intention to prevent an employee bidding for a position anywhere in the corporation. What I meant by saying there would be no transfer was that there would be no transfer of positions. If a senior employee were to bid for a position outside Winnipeg and was successful, he would be replaced by a junior employee and the position would be maintained. Thus the number of positions in Winnipeg would remain exactly the same until the discussions between cabinet representatives and representatives of the crown can take place and a decision can be reached on this matter.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to address a question to the

Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Last week I asked the minister what measures were being taken to protect the health of Canada's Eskimo population in view of the dangerously high levels of strontium 90 in northern Canada. Has the minister anything further to report to the house in connection with this matter?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: As I indicated to the hon. member when this question was asked last week, we have a committee working closely with representatives of the Department of National Health and Welfare. As soon as there is useful information available I shall be happy to report to the house.


Thomas Rodney Berger: A supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house whether he has any knowledge at the present time as to when the facts may be available, and the time which is likely to elapse before he can advise the house concerning this situation?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall be glad to check and give this information to the hon. members.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister inform the house when he proposes to bring down a budget for the next fiscal year?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have answered that question on a number of occasions. The last time I did so I believe I said "In due course, and without undue delay".



SECRETARY OF STATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: wish to address a timely question to the Secretary of State. Would the hon. gentleman undertake to see that early appointments are made to fill several vacancies which exist in the province of British Columbia in the position of returning officer?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to.

Inquiries of the Ministry



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
the Minister of Labour whether the government has now given consideration to the brief presented to the hon. gentleman by the standing committee of ministers of education regarding federal-provincial technical and vocational training, and whether amendments will be introduced to the act?


Michael Starr: Yes. Consideration is being given to the presentation to the government of the suggestions made by the ministers, at which time the government said it would give this matter careful study. A decision will be announced in due course.



MESSENGERS AND CLEANING STAFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether the commissioners of internal economy have as yet undertaken a review of the question of salary increases for messengers and the cleaning staff of the House of Commons?


George Clyde Nowlan: No, not yet.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the announcement in the Ottawa Journal that Renfrew county has been selected as the pilot area for Ontario under ARDA and that another county will be selected for Quebec. My question is this. Will there be any general application of this act in other counties this year or will the ARDA projects be confined to a few pilot areas?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I should be happy to have a chance to get my estimates before the committee again so as to deal with this question in detail. I cannot possibly give a complete answer during this part of our procedure. A short answer might be that each of the
provinces has been asked to propose trial counties or districts under the rural development section of the act. This is what the news story is referring to in Renfrew.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will this be the only application of that section in this province this year?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No. I asked the provinces to select these counties or districts under the rural development section. There are other sections of the act in addition.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister responsible for replying in the house on behalf of the Minister without Portfolio from Gormley when we can expect a progress report in this house on the progress being made by this gentleman in implementing the recommendations of the Glassco report, particularly the major ones relating to the reform of the treasury board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Prime Minister in his capacity as reporter to this house for the Minister without Portfolio whether any concrete steps have been taken since that minister was made head of the cabinet committee to carry out the recommendations of the Glassco report.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell us what they are?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman being an authority on the rules, I suggest he put that question on the order paper.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has
the Minister of Labour received representations from trade unions in British Columbia urging delay in the introduction of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act based on the Gill commission report until organized labour has had an opportunity to discuss this question thoroughly among its membership and, later, with the government?

Supply-Labour


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question might preferably be asked when the estimates of the minister are before the house. I understand they are to follow immediately upon the completion of orders of the day.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: The other day the Minister of Justice indicated in response to a question that he expected the report of the restrictive trade practices commission relating to drugs to be made available "any day now"; I believe those were his words. May I ask the minister whether he has yet received this particular report?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I have received the report. It was delivered to my office a week ago yesterday, late in the day, and it reached my desk the next morning.


Frank Howard: Can the minister indicate when this report will be made public?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In accordance with the statute, within 30 days of my receipt of it.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has with him today the document which Arthur Blakely says he had in his pocket yesterday, namely an order for the dissolution of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is quite hypothetical.

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



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
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.
(Translation):
Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned Wednesday evening last I was recommending greater participation by the industrial development bank to the setting up and creation of new industries in Canada.
Certainly, if we want to reduce unemployment and recapture economic control over our industries, which are now in Amer-
(Mr. Herridge.l
ican hands, we must also find the financial means required by our industrial development.
I should like also to draw the attention of the house to a comment found in this morning's press, to the effect that the lack of development of the Canadian financial system, the lack of expansion of the monetary supply is at the very root of unemployment now prevailing in Canada and of the "nondevelopment" of our industries.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the house and this government are duty bound to ponder seriously that lack of financial possibilities for the development of our industry in Canada.
I think that the present regulations of the industrial development bank will have to be modified in order to supply the capital required for the multiplication of Canadian industries.
Of course, it is perhaps difficult for the government to require private enterprise to create new industries. But I believe that the Department of Trade and Commerce, which must provide for the development of our industries, is in a position to convince our industrialists that certain imported goods could be manufactured economically in Canada. It is the duty of that department to make the necessary publicity to that effect, and it is also its duty to develop the interest of our industrialists toward certain particular fields.
In my opinion, it is up to the government to provide the necessary facilities for those industries to establish themselves preferably in communities where unemployment is most acute.
The government's winter works program has greatly contributed to the stabilization of the economy. However, I should like to point out to the minister that as long as the unemployment situation has not improved substantially in Canada, he will have to allow certain works to be carried out at a more appropriate time of the year.
At present, the program is in effect from October to May but I call the minister's attention to the fact that certain projects can be undertaken by municipalities only in the fall, a period which is too short in some cases.
It should be taken into account how ridiculous it is that workers are idle in the summer and can only find jobs for a few months during



I. 19G3

[Stage Direction]
the coldest period of the year, that is in January and February.
This is not logical because those workers who were unable to find jobs in the fine summer months, must buy warmer and very expensive clothes to work outside in the winter months. Now, they often work only a few days and their earnings are barely enough to pay for those clothes.
There is also another aspect to winter works. I should like to point out in particular the serious problem which will probably prompt several municipalities to curtail their winter works. A great number of our municipalities are hard put to find the necessary funds to take part in the winter works program, because we know that even though the government pays 50 per cent of the labour costs, nevertheless municipalities must provide 10 per cent and pay, in addition, the material, equipment and machinery required for the carrying out of those winter works.
In fact, most of our municipalities are so involved in debt that they cannot spend any more money without increasing the already too heavy burden of taxes resting upon the citizens' shoulders.
I believe the only possible solution would be that the government set up a municipal development bank to enable our municipalities to borrow on easy terms, to increase their contribution to the winter works program, and even to carry out certain projects which nearly all of them have been looking forward to for a long time.
Mr. Chairman, the government has also shown that it was conscious of the problem arising from automation and its effects by introducing Bill No. C-83 at the beginning of the session. When this bill comes before us again, we shall give it a more thorough consideration. Since my time is running out, I shall await another opportunity to discuss it at greater length.
The Minister of Labour now has in his hands several briefs which were submitted to him by trade unions, as well as the Gill report on the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service. Worthy recommendations have been put forward by everybody and I hope that with the co-operation of all the groups concerned with the matter-there is quite a number of them-improvements can be made to increase the efficiency of this branch which is trying to find jobs for the unemployed.
27507-3-211
Supply-Labour
I am of the opinion that the development of these services has been completely neglected in the past, although they are of the utmost importance and should have deserved the continued attention of the responsible authorities. I will leave the more thorough discussion of the problems concerning unemployment insurance to others who wish to take part in this debate.
Before bringing my remarks to a close, I should like to point out to the minister my satisfaction in seeing that he is fully conscious of the problems resulting from unemployment in our country, but I believe other measures as well would also be desirable besides those which have been adopted so far. I am myself interested in labour conditions, and I know that the solutions are not easy to find. However, with the co-operation of the members of the cabinet and of his colleagues, I believe the minister should obtain, even demand that a greater share of the estimates be provided for areas which are more heavily affected by unemployment. On the other hand, I know that their budgets are limited but, nevertheless, since the Minister of Public Works is responsible for the carrying out of government projects in the country, he should take into consideration, while preparing his budget, the areas affected and provide special projects for them. The areas with surplus manpower should benefit from a greater share of the budget. In these areas, several projects have been submitted to the minister concerned. Therefore, I should like above all to ask the Minister of Labour to exert pressure on his colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton) to put at the disposal of those areas larger amounts of money for the works likely to improve their economy.
The formula is merely a temporary one. Only an increase in the number of industries will bring stability and will substantially reduce unemployment in the various sections of the country.
Statistics reveal that we have 414,000 unemployed in the country, 154,000 of whom are in the province of Quebec. In my opinion, this situation should make the cabinet members conscious of their responsibility to adopt means likely to reduce unemployment in all parts of this country. In fact, the province of Quebec is just as much entitled as any other part of the country, if not more so, to its share of government expenditures and investments.
Mr. Chairman, I know that my time has expired. On behalf of our group, I should like to assure the minister of our co-operation in making the discussions as brief as possible so that he may introduce without
333S
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
delay new estimates for 1963-1964 which will show us what he intends to do next year, provided of course, this session continues.
(Text):
Thomas Rodney Berger: I think it is entirely fitting that, having discussed yesterday the No. 1 problem which Canada faces in the field of foreign affairs, we should devote today to discussing the No. 1 problem which Canada faces in the field of domestic affairs, namely that of unemployment. It seems to me that when the estimates of the Minister of Labour come before the committee the minister ought to deal primarily with this problem of unemployment, and that the committee ought likewise to devote its time primarily to this problem.
Many of us recall that when the session opened the government, when it brought down the speech from the throne, promised to create a million new jobs. Since that time the government has created many new jobs. However, the trouble is that all these new jobs have gone to defeated Tory candidates. In the meantime, according to the latest unemployment figures which we have, covering the month of December, 1962, 414,000 Canadians were unemployed. This figure represented 6.3 per cent of the labour force. That figure meant that 414,000 men and women did not have jobs. It meant that they and their families were suffering. It meant that they were deprived of the opportunity of taking an equal part in the development of this country.
I think it is essential that the minister and this committee should realize the magnitude of that figure; I refer to the figure of 414,000 wage earners and salary earners who are out of work. That figure is equivalent to the entire male labour force of the province of British Columbia. The situation is just the same as it would be if every man in British Columbia were without a job. Surely under those circumstances the committee would be able to persuade the Minister of Labour and the government that the unemployment situation was critical, that we faced an emergency condition, and that something ought to be done about it.
I am going to discuss later what the government has done about it and what we think it ought to do about it. Before doing that, however, let me point out to the committee that the figure of 414,000 unemployed is equal to two thirds of the labour force of the Atlantic region. This unemployment figure is one which although it is less than that of a year ago, remains nevertheless a figure which ought to be of grave concern

to the minister, the government, the committee and the house. If the entire male labour force of British Columbia were out of work, or if two thirds of the entire labour force of the Atlantic region were out of work, this committee would demand that the government mobilize the resources of this country in order to put those people back to work. I suggest that under the present circumstances we ought to treat the situation as being just as critical. I suggest that we ought to require the minister and the government to mobilize the resources of the country in order to make sure that those 414,000 people go back to work at the earliest possible opportunity.
It is easy in Canada to get people worked up over a strike. Editorial writers rush into print as soon as a strike or a lockout takes place. However, the time lost as a result of strikes over the last 50 years of Canada's history averages less than 0.2 per cent of the total working time each year. The secretary of labour in the United States Mr. Wirtz, said recently that he was appalled by the realization that in the United States more man hours were lost as a result of unemployment in 1962 than were lost from strikes in the preceding 35 years. Yet editorial writers become concerned about the loss of employment, the loss of man hours and the loss of production which results from strikes and lockouts while this tremendous problem of unemployment which we have had in Canada for many years has ceased to agitate them.
I put the matter in this vivid way in order to bring home to the members of the committee the importance of the problem. If the entire male labour force of British Columbia were out of work we believe that editorial writers would not accept half measures; they would demand action on the part of the government. Instead, when facing just as critical a problem as that, what do we have from the government? No one suggests that the Minister of Labour has not tackled this problem in all sincerity. What we object to is the fact that the government's program has not been adequate to meet the emergency. What we object to is the fact that the government's program affects only the fringes of the unemployment problem.
What have the government done about unemployment? They have instituted a do it now program. They have instituted a winter works program. They have instituted a system of capital grants to the provinces to enable the provinces to carry on technical and vocational training. All these things reflect credit upon the minister and the government, but they do not go far enough. They do not get to the root of the problem. They

constitute a form of unemployment after-care. Nothing has been done to eradicate the hard core unemployment problem, a problem that we have had in this country for many years. This hard core of unemployment has existed ever since world war II.
I know that earlier this week the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate told the house that during the 12 years following the war we had full employment in this country. Those are the very words he used; they appear in Hansard. I think it will be acknowledged in all parts of the house, even among members of his own party, that the hon. member's statement was entirely inaccurate. As a matter of fact his own leader, the Leader of the Opposition, during the debate on the speech from the throne told us that during the 12 years following the war under a Liberal regime unemployment averaged 3 per cent each year. I do not blame the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for not listening to the speeches of his leader, but I suggest that at least he ought to read them occasionally if only to avoid being unaware of the abrupt changes in policy that the Leader of the Opposition makes from time to time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I apologize to the hon. gentleman because I was not listening to his speech at all. Could he tell me what he was complaining about in my conduct?


Thomas Rodney Berger: I was not complaining. I do not think the hon. member's conduct can be a matter of complaint. I was talking about a speech the hon. member made in the house earlier this week in which he said, and this appears in Hansard, that during the 12 years following the second world war we had full employment in this country. I pointed out that this was entirely at variance with what the Leader of the Opposition said during the debate on the speech from the throne, when the Leader of the Opposition stated that during those 12 years unemployment averaged 3 per cent each year. I suggested to the hon. member that he should read the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition even if he was not prepared to listen to them.
At any rate, the point I was seeking to make was that the statement that we had full employment in this country for 12 years following the war is nothing more or less than arrogant nonsense. Many of us had friends and relatives who were unemployed for years during that 12 year period, and I suggest it is not doing justice to the problem or being fair to the house to make statements of that kind.
Today unemployment is declining. From 1953 to 1961 unemployment rose from 3 per cent to 7.2 per cent on the basis of the 27507-3-211J
Supply-Labour
annual average. During the same period the average during the winter months rose from 4.3 per cent in 1953 to 11 per cent in 1961.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. gentleman say what figures those are? Are they bureau of statistics figures?


Thomas Rodney Berger: Yes, they are. In 1962 the unemployment figure was 5.9 per cent. This represents a decline but, as I said earlier, this represented 414,000 unemployed. The Minister of Labour and the government do not know why unemployment rose sharply from 1953 to 1961. They do not know why it declined slightly from 1961 to 1962. They do not know whether it is going to rise again. They do not know whether it is going to decline further. They do not know what to do about the hard core unemployment that we have had in this country for so many years. The government simply do not know where unemployment comes from, and I suggest they do not know where it goes.
What is most regrettable about the vast unemployment that we have in this country is not the loss of production involved but the demoralizing effect that idleness has upon men and women. Enforced idleness breeds a sense of frustration and uselessness, a consciousness of personal degradation, and this is far more damaging to our society than the loss of production which their idleness represents.
The government's program is one which over a six year period has proved inadequate by any standard. The government have had almost six years to cope with unemployment and do something about it, and they have failed utterly. After six years in office unemployment averaged almost 6 per cent last year. We had 414,000 Canadians unemployed in December, 1962, after the government had had six years to do something about the problem. Many of us recall the empty promise that the Prime Minister made during the election campaign of 1958, when he said that no one would suffer from unemployment as long as he was Prime Minister.
In view of the government's failure, why does the government not adopt a program of genuine economic planning? This is the means by which other countries in the world have cured the unemployment problem. This is how the countries of western Europe and the Scandinavian countries have achieved prosperity and full employment. Why does the government persist in refusing to adopt a program of genuine economic planning? This would involve the expansion of public investment and the regulation of private investment. It would involve the location and relocation of industry. It would involve other

Supply-Labour
measures which come under the heading ot modern, genuine, economic planning.
Why does the government not adopt such a program? After all, what is more important than the provision of jobs for more than 400,000 Canadians who together with their families are suffering, who are not able to enjoy the good things of life that should be the right of every citizen in a country with the abundance that Canada has? What is more important, to provide these people with jobs or to continue to pay homage, as the government does, to economic cliches that have no validity under present day conditions?
When we in the New Democratic party talk about full employment we are talking about something that cannot really be measured statistically. We believe that we will never have full employment in this country until there are more jobs than there are people to fill them. When we reach that situation, Mr. Chairman, it will mean that if there are people moving from job to job, if there are people temporarily unemployed, all of them will live secure in the knowledge that there is useful work for them to do when they are able to do it and when they are required to undertake it.
Speakers in the government party and in the Liberal party, as well as spokesmen for some segments of business and industry in this country, have talked about what they call tolerable levels of unemployment. We in this party do not talk about tolerable levels of unemployment; we regard unemployment as intolerable.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is not just the manual workers, the craftsmen and the labourers who are the victims of unemployment in Canada today. The white collar worker is increasingly becoming the victim of unemployment. We are all aware of the enormous effect which automation has had upon those engaged in manual work. But we should all realize, and this was apparent from a study made by the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour a year ago, that although automation has increased the number of people required to tabulate and administer and distribute the products of our industrial machine, office mechanization and automation has already cut into that increase. The rate of increase of employment for the white collar worker is already declining. Office mechanization and automation has resulted in the displacement of people employed in sales, administrative and clerical work.
As a matter of fact, an article appeared in the Globe and Mail for November 23, 1962

headed "Automation May Soon Cut Middle-Management Ranks". It is a report by Ronald Anderson and reads in part as follows:
Automation, which has been blamed for high unemployment among unskilled workers, may soon cut into the ranks of middle-management.
Professor J. A. Sarjeant of the University of Toronto school of business told a graduate seminar this week the number of middle-management jobs will be reduced during the next ten years as computors take over many of the planning operations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, business plans ahead, industry plans ahead, so why should not the government of Canada plan ahead? It is essential that the government plan ahead, that the government set some course for Canada's economy, that the government lay down an economic blueprint for this country; otherwise the unemployment problem will get worse and worse as the years go by. It is going to have an increasing effect not only upon the manual worker but also upon the white collar worker.
We in this party believe that in years past we have been governed in this country by people who felt no sense of challenge; we have been governed by people who had neither the imagination nor the will to grapple with the difficulties we face. We have a Prime Minister who cannot make up his mind. We have a Leader of the Opposition who keeps changing his mind.
We observed them yesterday indulging in childish recriminations. These people have no solutions, they offer no solutions to the enormous problems that face us. They denounce a party that proposes a program of genuine economic planning and refer to that program as "magic nostrums". At the same time they propose, for purely political considerations, policies of debt free money. The two party system in this country is today a thing of the past because the two old parties have utterly failed to comprehend the problems that Canada faces in the second half of the twentieth century. We saw yesterday their paucity of ideas and the inconsistency of their policies in relation to foreign affairs. We have seen in this debate, as we have in previous debates during this parliament, evidence of the fact they are at a loss to know what to do about unemployment.
We in this party, Mr. Chairman, believe it is the responsibility of the government of this country to plan our economy to make sure that we achieve prosperity and full employment, to make sure there is useful work for every man and woman who wants to work. We believe it is the responsibility of the government of this country to bring about that situation. We think it could be done if only the government had the imagination and

the will to do it, because it has been done in so many other countries in other parts of the world.
We in the New Democratic party, Mr. Chairman, so long as this parliament lasts will fight to make sure that the government discharges its responsibilities to the people of Canada, and more particularly to ensure that this government discharges its responsibilities to the unemployed of Canada by providing jobs for people who should have had them long ago.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Labour upon the tremendous work he is doing in his department. I must say that the minister is not only familiar with labour problems and with employment, but he is also an authority on agriculture. I have had the privilege of having the minister speak in my constituency, and to say the least I was very much surprised that a person in his occupation would be so familiar with agriculture in the west. My people were really much impressed with his knowledge of this subject.
With this background of knowledge about agriculture and agricultural problems, I should like to bring to his attention one problem with which we are faced in the west. I refer to the problem of farm labour. Over the years science and technology have advanced to the point where some of our farms are getting bigger and some of our farms are shrinking in size. As a result the farm labourer seeks employment somewhere else. One reason a farm labourer seeks employment somewhere else is the discrimination against farm labour. His counterpart may seek employment in the cities and have available to him the advantages of unemployment insurance. This is not available to the farm labourer. I was very much disturbed in 1957 when I read that another class of employee had been covered by unemployment insurance. I refer to the fishermen. In 1957 it was not only the employees in the fishing industry who were covered by unemployment insurance but also the self employed fishermen.
Before I continue I should like to make one statement, and it is this. I am not against fishermen receiving the benefits of unemployment insurance; far from it. If there is a problem in the fishing industry it should have been taken care of under the Unemployment Insurance Act or by other means. At the time the then minister of fisheries, Mr. Sinclair, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate saw to it that the act was amended to give benefits to unemployed fishermen, there was not one mem-
Supply-Labour
ber of the Liberal party or of the Liberal ministry who was concerned about the unemployed farm labourer. This was the time when they should have made representations, when the farm labourers should also have been covered by insurance, but this was not done.
I have brought this problem of the unemployed farm labourer to the attention of the house on many occasions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And I supported you many times.


Reynold Rapp: However, since a royal commission was appointed in 1961 I could not continue introducing bills and bringing this matter to the attention of parliament until the report of that commission was tabled. That commission has done good work in reaching some conclusions and recommendations, but there is one point on which I cannot agree with the report. Paragraph 20 of the report contains this statement:
We recommend that the general principle be followed of extending coverage as broadly as possible so long as the necessary administrative procedures may be carried out to see to it that the rules of the plan are adhered to in a satisfactory fashion.
That is dealing with farm labourers, but on the other hand the commission says it is not able to recommend administrative procedures. What is the difference between administrative procedures for the farm labourer and administrative procedures for the self employed fisherman? If it was possible to include the self employed fishermen without encountering administrative difficulties, then I am certain farm labourers should also have been included. In my opinion this was discrimination against the farm labourers.
I would like the minister to give this particular paragraph of the report his earnest consideration when he comes to deal with the matter. From personal experience I know many small farmers experience difficulties in obtaining labour during the harvest time or any other rush season. I also know that many farmers who have increased their acreage over the years must now either dispose of some of their holdings or discontinue farming altogether. Last year, when we had a fairly good season and the crops were satisfactory, many farmers had to leave bales in the field because they could not get farm labourers to draw them in. I myself approached the unemployment insurance office in Saskatoon, but although there were many labourers on the unemployed list, casual labourers, they did not want to take the work because they said "If we go out we will not be able to put

Supply-Labour
stamps into our unemployment insurance books." They said had farm labourers been covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act they would be glad to come out and have an opportunity to put these stamps on their books, thus extending their eligibility for unemployment insurance.
Over the years since 1958 this matter has been raised in the house more than once, and from all sides of the house. There seem to be many members who are in full agreement that the farm labourer should be dealt with in the same way as other labourers, and it is time this was done. The commission report, dealing with administrative difficulties, says there is difficulty on account of a father and son claiming unemployment insurance, but that problem does not apply only to farm families. This is a difficulty which concerns other employees too, and I suggest regulations could be introduced to prevent such collusion.
I know the minister is very anxious to have his estimates approved and I shall not take much more of his time, except to ask him to take into consideration my representations and the representations of many farm organizations and other interested parties, in seeing that the farm labourer is brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the same as other segments of our labour force. In my opinion the time is long overdue for this discriminatory section in the act to be removed.


Mr. Munro:: Mr. Chairman, I have read with considerable interest the remarks of the Minister of Labour when introducing his estimates. I do not intend, and I do not believe anybody in this party intends, to prolong introductory remarks because there are so many fields the minister touched upon that will require detailed questioning as we deal with the estimates item by item.
The most serious problem is that of unemployment, which has been dealt with by the hon. member for Kootenay East on behalf of this party, and by other party spokesmen. On January 30 the Minister of Labour dealt with this topic more or less at the tail end of his speech and did not express too much concern about the unemployment figures, other than to reiterate that on the basis of those figures things were looking up.
The latest figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics indicate that there are over 400,000 people unemployed. This is disturbing enough, but the statistics also refer to 374,000 people claimants for unemployment insurance. When one relates that figure of 374,000 to the total of 414,000 it leads me immediately to question, as many have done, the accuracy of these statistics so far as the

dominion bureau is concerned. Net for one moment do I think the figure of 414,000 unemployed, serious and grave as it is, is a true reflection of the number of unemployed in the country. Winter works programs and the like take many people off the unemployment rolls for a week or ten days, and I do not think those people properly reflect the number of casual workers. I know that in years gone by discussions have taken place in parliament in which it was advocated that a committee be set up to study the accuracy of these figures.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: The government has always refused to set it up.


John Carr Munro: I certainly would welcome such a committee and I may say so far as this party are concerned we challenge the accuracy of the figures. I for one accept them as a minimal indication of the number of unemployed, but I think the number is much greater. I think the sooner we have the means of getting accurate information about unemployment in this country the better it will be, especially with regard to the taking of concrete steps to deal with this problem.
As a new member of parliament I find it frustrating and disappointing to have been appointed to the industrial relations committee, which is a standing committee of this house, only to find it has never held a meeting and that presumably there is no likelihood of any meetings being held before the dissolution of this parliament. We hear screams about obstruction by this side of the house, but it should be realized that we have been sitting since September 27 and that four months have now passed during which the government could have convened this committee, when we might have examined in detail within that committee not only the accuracy of the figures and the means taken to record those figures, but the nature of the solution which has been proposed for this cancer in the economy.
The programs to which the minister has referred have been beneficial to an extent, and the idea behind them is good. However, their execution has left something to be desired, especially in urban areas. I think many of the retraining programs designed to deal with unemployment leave a great deal undone, especially in specific urban areas such as Hamilton and Toronto. Thousands of people who do not speak English adequately have come to this country in the last four or five years. They have found it almost impossible to qualify for any of these courses because of this language handicap. Yet these are the very people who are suffering most from the effects of unemployment because they are,

for the most part, construction workers; they were unskilled when they came here, and they qualified as labourers in the construction industry. They are subject to all the griefs associated with this type of work, the seasonal nature of the occupation and so on.
I would be interested to hear from the minister what concrete policies his government is willing to adopt to tackle this problem. I should like to find out whether the government, in co-operation with the provinces, has made any detailed plans for the setting up of teaching staff so this difficulty can be overcome, perhaps by arranging for a preliminary language course in connection with these training programs so that those concerned might qualify. As I indicated, there are thousands of these people involved, and they are receiving no attention from the government. A number of organizations, Italian, Ukrainian and the like, have submitted briefs to both the provincial and federal governments asking that action be taken in this regard, but they have received no concrete assurances regarding a solution of this difficulty.
I do not wish to be redundant in speaking about the seriousness of unemployment. We all know how tragic unemployment is and what a cancer it is in our society. Hon. members from urban areas understand this especially well because they are constantly exposed to the representations of those who are not able to find steady work and who do not have sufficient income to take care of their families. The situation is almost unbelievable when one contrasts it with the usual terms in which one thinks of Canada as being a country of wealth, prosperity and unlimited resources. We look around at each other and see how well we live and how well we dress. I think we are isolated here from what goes on in the rest of the country.
If this situation continues it can only lead to loss of confidence among these people not only in Canada but in themselves. This problem of unemployment is one which all the resources of government should be centralized to cure. It is the foremost and outstanding problem now before the present administration. In my opinion it is questionable whether the Department of Labour has the facilities needed to cope with it. So it has come up with stopgap measures. The winter works program is, I believe, strictly a stopgap measure. I do not see in it the promise which the Minister of Labour discerns, one reason being that it requires such large scale financial participation by the municipality in order to make it work. The government, as hon. members know, contributes only labour costs. How long can the municipalities go on submitting these
Supply-Labour
projects in the light of their depleted treasuries and constantly growing financial responsibility?
I know this question arises as far as Hamilton is concerned, because with regard to unemployment Hamilton at times attains the status of a depressed area. It is my belief we shall not be able to submit many more applications under this winter works program simply because the civic budget will not stand the strain. Thus we shall not be able to take advantage of even the temporary benefits which accrue under this program.
I have pointed out the shortcomings of the training programs as far as they affect new Canadians. It would be highly interesting, I think, to have a breakdown of the unemployment figures showing the racial origins of those without work, the length of time they have been in this country and so on. I think those figures would be a surprising revelation. Obviously the Department of Labour has been unable to find any solution to unemployment except stop gap measures. I do not think that is the fault of the department itself. I think because of its very nature the department is limited in what it can do. It will require all the resources of the government as well as of the department directly concerned in order to tackle this question; it will need monetary and economic policies designed expressly for its solution.
The speech from the throne indicated that the government intended to present a bold new program to combat unemployment. Well, several new boards have been or are to be set up. There is the national economic development board, the Atlantic development board and the manpower adjustment council which is going to set up yet another board. But it should be remembered that after four months we still have not got the national economic development board. On the other hand, having looked at the terms of the bill, which seem to me devoid of any substance, it appears questionable how effective this board would be, especially in the absence of any statement from the government about its relation with the other boards, some of which I have mentioned. I suggest the government has dragged its feet with regard to explaining the power this board would have to set economic goals.
The minister referred to the national productivity council and talked about consultation which had taken place between management and labour, but nowhere in his speech could I find any indication of precisely how the government intends to implement the findings of the mission to Europe or the

Supply-Labour
discussions which took place at the conference. They obviously came to the conclusion that certain government action was required in this area, but nowhere do we see any concrete, detailed government planning into which any of the opposition parties can put their teeth so as to implement their findings. Obviously the only way we can implement the findings, not only of the mission to Europe but resulting from consultations across the country, is by some type of legislation which we have not yet seen.
It has often been expressed by many speakers in this house, and I reiterate, that it would appear the government does not really and sincerely advocate planning in order to combat our problems. Without going into the origin of this idea I think we all agree now that something has to be done and that planning should be instituted. Until we pass the concrete measures which are necessary in order to show in what direction this country is going and how we intend to combat this problem, this tragic condition of unemployment will continue.
Another matter sadly lacking in the opening speech of the minister is any indication of the basic philosophy which lies behind his department's program. We do not have any indication of how we stand in relation to labour. Perhaps this lacuna has gone on year after year and it is felt that it is not necessary. As a new member looking at the estimates of the department, there seem to be certain basic principles and tenets which the department accepts and adheres to as far as the rights of labour and management are concerned, and perhaps the department is prepared to acknowledge this. Or maybe it feels that this is too controversial and will not even indicate a general philosophy in these two areas.
I think before the department can realistically go into all these matters of conciliation procedures, the encouragement of labour-management co-operation, and economic and research areas, they certainly must have a basic program of beliefs as far as the rights of labour are concerned. I see no government position-and I think this is an area where you would expect it-enunciated with respect to employees of the civil service and their demand for collective bargaining rights and arbitration. That is not even referred to. To my mind a general statement outlining the estimates and activities of the department for the forthcoming year would be just the place. Again perhaps this is an area of responsibility which the Department of Labour wishes to evade.
Nowhere do I see any basic philosophies or beliefs on the part of the Department of
[Mr. Munro.l
Labour with respect to minimum wage legislation, weekly working hours or vacations with pay. I think every country has accepted certain standard regulations with respect to these questions, but not Canada. Apparently it is an area which the Department of Labour wants to avoid. I think when we go over the estimates item by item it will be seen that the government must be prepared to take their stand on these controversial matters.
In conclusion all I can say, coming from an urban area with a great amount of unemployment, is that I am terribly disappointed to find there has really been no concrete action taken by the government other than, as I say, a winter works program and what I consider to be stopgap, temporary measures. There has been no concrete long range program or policy enunciated by the Minister of Labour to show in what direction his department is going, or in what direction the government intends to go in the forthcoming years to cure a cancer such as 6.3 per cent of our labour force out of work. Until the government and the Minister of Labour are prepared to come before this house and the Canadian people and show, apart from temporary measures, a longe range program of how they intend to cope with this question and provide for one million more jobs in the next five years, there will be no satisfaction in the government indicated either by this opposition or by the Canadian people.


Mr. Scotl:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I should like to put on the record at this time. In keeping with the spirit of cooperation which our party is exhibiting in passing these estimates, I will use up only a portion of the time which would normally be available to me.
I should like to say something about the unemployment problem. I have read with a great deal of interest the speech of the minister delivered at the commencement of our consideration of his estimates, particularly the section dealing with unemployment. The most disturbing thing about the minister's speech with regard to the question of unemployment was that it exhibited a smug, selfsatisfied attitude toward this problem. It indicates that as far as the government is concerned unemployment is treated as an inconvenient problem which it does not know how to deal with and somehow wishes would quietly fade away.
I think the real trouble, or one of the troubles, is that since this parliament assembled and began discussing problems such as unemployment both the government and the official opposition have treated the whole problem as some sort of statistical matter. We have spent hours in this house listening to

the government and the official opposition arguing between themselves as to who had the highest rate of unemployment when they were respectively misgoverning the country. We have heard these endless quarrels, and the result of all this shadow boxing, treating unemployment as just a mass of statistics, is that we are losing track of the fact that people who are out of work are not statistics. They are men and women with children. They are Canadians.
Every week end my office in my constituency, which is an urban one, is flooded with people who are out of work and who are bringing problems they ask us to try to solve. The most discouraging thing about this is that with the policies in effect in Canada today, with the lack of programming which seems to face us, there is no way in which I can hold out any real hope to these people that jobs will become available for them. The minister tells us that there is only 6.3 per cent of the work force out of work, instead of 6.4 per cent at the same time last year. This is very nice and we are very glad to hear it, but the fact remains that there are still 414,000 people in this country unemployed. This means in reality that the cold, ruthless hand of unemployment is reaching out and gripping the lives of nearly a million Canadians, if you add to the number of unemployed their families and the other people depending upon them.
Where is our sense of urgency about this problem? Why must we always consider it merely a statistical matter? Where is our belief and our determination that the problem of unemployment is not a statistical question but is one of the most pressing, vital and compelling problems facing Canada today? Why can we not get rid of this passive acceptance of unemployment, this smug idea that all these people out of work is somehow a normal thing and that there is nothing very much we can do about it; that it happens every winter, and we are just going to have to endure the fact that a million of our fellow Canadians are being affected by it?
Let us try to look at this problem in terms of what it is like to be unemployed. For example, the maximum income obtainable under unemployment insurance is $33 a week.


Michael Starr: It is $36.


Reid Scott: Well, $36; it does not really matter that much. I have with me the brochure of the Montreal council of social agencies in which they have examined the problems of family life in Canada and set out the minimum requirements for adequate living. If we take a family of a man, his wife and two children we find that just for 27507-3-212
Supply-Labour
the bare subsistence level they are obliged to spend $87 a month on food, $14 a month on fuel and $70 a month on rent. This is a total of $171, a figure which exceeds the maximum amount which they can obtain in a month under unemployment insurance.
What does this mean to the man who is unemployed? It means that even if he is able to adequately feed his family and keep his premises, he will have no money left over with which to pay the mortgage on his home, taxes, light, or water, anything for clothing, or to have anything at all left over for recreation. This is what it is like to be on unemployment insurance.
These are the statistics we are talking about. These are the conditions under which our fellow Canadians are forced to live in this society of ours today. No bills can be paid. Mortgages fall behind. Insurance policies lapse. Creditors chase them. There are garnishee orders and court actions. Tension grows in the family. A sense of frustration develops in the man of the house, and it is not long before he begins to feel that our society does not really care about him, that he is an inconvenient problem and ought to go away somewhere. How are we going to justify our system to this man? Why should he continue to have faith in a society which does not really care about him and which is prepared to cast him aside?
It is because week after week we see conditions of this kind in our ridings that we are nauseated by the monthly spectacle of the Minister of Labour. Every month when the unemployment statistics are released we have this nauseating spectacle of the minister doing a dance of joy because there are only 414,000 persons out of work instead of 550,000. It is a dreadful spectacle for us to witness.
If one looks at the people whose unemployment insurance benefits have run out and who are forced to take welfare, one finds that the situation is even worse. A single person is allowed $7.45 a week for food and $5.75 a week for furnished, heated shelter. Nobody could even exist on an allowance of that type. A man with a wife and family is allowed $42.95 a month for heated accommodation and $64.50 a month for food. Again, Mr. Chairman, these are the conditions under which we are suggesting that our fellow Canadians should live.
I say that behind the statistics lies a tale of national tragedy and national suffering which ought to make us in this chamber ashamed of the unemployment situation. That is why when I commenced my remarks I asked this question. Where is our sense of

Supply-Labour
urgency about this matter? Why can we not recognize that the unemployment problem is probably one of the greatest questions confronting our country? Why can we not set full employment as an objective of government? As I said previously, I do not think we in this House of Commons really understand what our fellow Canadians are going through. Sometimes I think that we here are five or six light years removed from reality.
I should like to suggest that the entire cabinet and the whole House of Commons have their parliamentary salaries suspended and that they be placed on unemployment insurance for three months. I should like to suggest that the hon. gentlemen in the other place have their salaries suspended and that they go on welfare for three months. Let the members of the House of Commons and the members of the other place try to live on the income on which one million Canadians are being obliged to live. I suggest that, when the three months were over, we would come back here very much convinced of the urgency of this matter and very much prepared to do something about it, and to bring in a program that we have failed to bring in up to this time.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: Why did not
your party help us in this house during the last four years in our opposition to the government because it did nothing? We had to fight all alone.


An hon. Member:: They did as much as your government did.


Reid Scott: Here we go again, Mr. Chairman, with the old shadow boxing back and forth. Every time this matter is raised the hon. member for Essex East has some inane comment to make about the government, and they have the same comments to make about him. It is the old shadow boxing back and forth between the two old parties. They do not have an answer for this problem. They do not have any programs that are designed to cure it. Because they do not wish to face up to it they spend all their time in this House of Commons fighting each other back and forth, trying to justify the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about your party?


Reid Scott: That is all we get from the old parties. The Liberal party is no better than the Conservative party. It has not a program either, in spite of all the hogwash they are trying to deliver in this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Just a family quarrel.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Loud but limited cheers.


Reid Scott: As I was saying, the future problems of unemployment will become even more difficult. The members of our party and the members of the other opposition parties have tried to emphasize the fact that the whole problem of unemployment will become even greater in the years ahead; that the number of children between the ages of 14 and 19 who are still at school, probably 1,200,000 or more, whose education is acting as a dam to hold them back, one of these days will begin to spill on the labour market at the rate of a quarter of a million a year. We have the increasing dislocation through automation mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I think the minister should be very much worried about the statistics.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that we have had a 7 per cent increase in the gross national product. That is a very good thing. It is one of the best years we have ever had. However, in the same year unemployment dropped by only 1 per cent, something which gives the ominous information that automation is working far faster than any of us thought it might work, and that even a large growth such as that which we had last year is not sufficient significantly to cut into the very large core of existing unemployment.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose for lunch I had been setting forth the view that unemployment as it now exists will probably continue to be an even greater problem in the future. This will be due to the increased displacement of workers as a result of the inroads of automation, because of the very large number of young people who will be coming on the labour market at the rate of a quarter of a million a year, because of immigration and because of the need to eat into the very large backlog of unemployment which we now have in Canada. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is not unfair to say that if some sort of action is not taken now to prepare for these difficulties in the future we will be building for ourselves a problem of almost nightmare proportions.
Those of us in the house who come from urban ridings have sat here since the session started last September and have listened with patience to all the problems of the farm people in Canada and the problems of other sections of the country. We have been glad to hear their problems and to see them getting

solved but I feel it is about time that we got down to the problems of the city people too. While we have sat patiently up until this time we will not sit patiently too much longer.
I was pointing out before the recess the great human hardship and suffering that unemployment brings to families, but more than that it constitutes a great waste to the community. It is interesting that Mr. Willard Wirtz, secretary of labour in the United States, said in testifying before one of their committees:
I find it almost intolerable that the country takes unemployment with such a degree of acquiescence.
He went on to say:
I am appalled by the realization that we lost more man hours in unemployment last year than we lost from strikes in 35 years.
This indicates to some degree the great loss to the community, the great loss to the country in production and income as a result of the high levels of unemployment we have endured. One thing is certain, I think, and that is that we will never deal with unemployment in Canada on the basis of an insurance scheme, nor will we ever really deal with it on the basis of a welfare scheme. In both regards we are still chasing a will-o'-the-wisp.
The solution to unemployment lies in far deeper problems in our country, problems of growth, problems of expansion. It is only when these are taken care of that we have any real chance of solving unemployment at all. That is why I was urging this morning that the house and the government accept the idea of full employment as a national goal in itself instead of chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of a balanced budget. What we should really do is that all our energies, skills and resources should be devoted to and concentrated on the great national goal of eradicating unemployment. For those of us from urban ridings who go back to our constituencies on the week ends and see the results of unemployment, it is a sickening and frustrating thing that leaves everybody whose lives it touches with a feeling of helplessness and with a feeling that the rest of the country has forgotten about it.
Today in the house we have heard very little that would encourage us to think that the government is really serious about this matter. I know the Minister of Labour is a man of good will and undoubtedly he is doing his best, but like everybody else in the house he must be frustrated by the indecision and the lack of leadership we have received from this government. I hope that when we hear from him again we will not be treated to another Alice in Wonderland tour of Canada and that he will tell us what plans the government has in mind to meet this problem. To date we have heard very little in this regard.
27507-3-212J
Supply-Labour
It is a source of great regret that nothing laid before us thus far in the session indicates that the government has any real awareness of the great urgency of the problem or any real method of solving it, but I know we will be hearing from the minister again and I assure him we will be waiting to hear these plans.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the name of your union?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I seem to hear a noise from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Correct.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -who asked me what the name of my union was.


Mr. Pigeon:: The brass union.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would remind him that there are a great many working people in this country who do not belong to unions and as the member for Davenport I represent a great many of them as well as union members. I am here, as he is, to discuss the labour estimates and the question of unemployment. I hope he will not interrupt me again with a facetious question of that kind.
In rising to participate in the discussion of the labour estimates I should like to state at the outset that I fully realize, as I am sure others realize, that responsibility for the unemployment problem in Canada does not rest alone and cannot rest alone on the Minister of Labour. The extremely high levels of unemployment in recent years have been the result of the fact that Canada has been in the economic doldrums. We have been in the economic doldrums for a period of six years and all the members of the government must accept some share of responsibility for that.
There has been a tendency lately for some people to become complacent about this question of unemployment. I remember that during the last election campaign the Prime Minister made the astonishing statement that the unemployment problem had been resolved, and that in a few weeks there would be no more unemployment in Canada. I challenged the Prime Minister, as soon as he made that statement, to come and say it again in Davenport where a great many people could not find jobs and many more people are in that same plight today.


Mr. McGee:: Is that the same place where your leader was predicting 800,000 unemployed this winter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What leader?

Supply-Labour


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -the parliamentary secretary will have lots of chances in a very few weeks to tell the people of Scarborough what he knows and what he has been doing about unemployment. I would suggest he keep quiet in the meantime, or at least until he gets up to support the minister on these estimates.
The Prime Minister did not accept my challenge last June. Instead, he went around the country making personal remarks about me and a number of others. I was rather surprised about that because even an amateur, such as I was then, and I believe I am a little less of an amateur now perhaps,-


An hon. Member:: But not much.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -knows it is poor politics to go around publicizing anybody on the other side. It certainly did not do the Prime Minister any good last June, as I remember. In fact, I understand there are a number of people, and I think some of them sit on the opposite side of the house, who are beginning to question the wisdom and the infallibility of this man whose political intuition was once thought to be so great.


Mr. Kindt:: What has that got to do with labour?


Mr. Woolliams:: Is this another personal attack on the Prime Minister?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I answer one question at a time?


An hon. Member:: Try them both.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The Chair cannot permit members, while remaining seated to ask questions of the member who has the floor. If hon. members do not like the remarks made by the hon. member who has the floor, they will have a chance to answer him.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that many people in Canada are unable to find jobs. If any members of the government do not know this, I will be glad to prove it to them. Sometimes, as the hon. member for Danforth said a few minutes ago, people forget what it means for unemployed people to be unable to find jobs and to be on relief month after month. I, like the hon. member for Danforth and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, see these people continuously whenever I am in Toronto. Believe me, the people who come to my office and who write to me from Davenport about their desperate need to find jobs do not find it too encouraging when people across the aisle make the sort of remarks they have just been making. This is a serious subject and should be dealt with in a serious manner. There is a very personal subject, and it

represents human tragedy for thousands of people in this country who, in the last six years, have been unable to find jobs. There are people in this country-again I suggest we had better not throw any stones or I will be inclined to mention names-who seem to think that the people who are unemployed just do not want to work. Well, the fact is that the level of unemployment in the last six years has been double what it was in the previous ten years. If people in Canada were anxious and willing to work during one period, it is most unlikely they would not be just as anxious and just as willing to work if they were given a chance to do so under present conditions.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: May I ask the hon. member a question? Were his figures on a percentage basis or numerical?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My figures were on a percentage basis, as I am quite sure the hon. gentleman would know if he cared to look them up.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I have looked them up.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: He has looked them up, his question was quite unnecessary and I will go on with my remarks.
There are seasonal variations in unemployment as everybody knows. It is dishonest, in my opinion, to compare the actual figures on unemployment during the summer months with averages or with the corresponding figures during a period of the year when unemployment is always higher. But on the average, month by month during the last five years, six or seven of every 100 members of the working force have had no work to do. I have said before, and I should like to repeat, that this is a shame and a national disgrace. Something must be done about it. Again, as I have said before, I think that something can be done about it. If the election that seems to be upon us or will be within the next few days or weeks turns out the way I think and hope it will, then something will be done about it.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to Nova Scotia again?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is speechless.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not speechless, Mr. Chairman, I just wish some hon. gentlemen on the other side would occasionally get a new idea. I am not worried about what will happen in Nova Scotia in the next election.


Mr. MacEwan:: You should be.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Some hon. member is shouting that I should be.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Yes.

Supply-Labour


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, we will find out who Mr. Woolliams: Yes, that is a good ques-should be when the time comes.	tion.
There are two problems in particular that must be tackled if we are to restore prosperity in Canada and cure the unemployment problem. I have not got the time this afternoon to deal with all the problems, but I am going to mention two. The first of these is the annual deficits we have been incurring in our transactions with other countries. I would like to say a few words about this because I think it is central to our whole economic problem.
In 1961 the deficit in our transactions with other countries was just under $1 billion, and while the figures for 1962 are not yet available it has been predicted by ministers of the crown that the deficit will again be just about a billion dollars. The deficit in 1961 was made up of an imbalance in our transactions with the United States of roughly $1,400 million, with a surplus in our transactions with all other countries of the world combined of about $400 million. This imbalance in our transactions with the United States, means that we have been importing some of the things that we could have been producing ourselves in Canada, or alternatively that we have been unable to find markets for some of the goods we could produce for export.


Mr. Nasserden:: They were one of our best customers.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Is that the Prime Minister speaking? It was estimated a year or so ago, by a well known economist in western Canada, that if we could bring our international accounts into balance it would be the equivalent of producing roughly 200,000 more jobs in Canada. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if we are sincere, and we certainly should be, about getting to the root and doing something about this unemployment problem, instead of wasting time in the way we have in the last five years, we should have been dealing with the balance of payments problem. There is no simple way of doing it. It has got to be done on an industry by industry basis.


Mr. Pugh;: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shall be glad to answer this question, but from then on I shall answer questions at the end of my speech.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am glad the hon. gentleman accepts the question. He put figures on the record for 1961 and what he thought they were for 1962. Would he be prepared-I know he has the figures in his own mind- to put the figures on record for 1956-57, the imbalance of trade with all other countries?


David Vaughan Pugh: Damned right.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. gentleman thinks this is a good question. I gave the figures for 1961, and the figures for 1962 have not yet been finalized or published. As the hon. gentleman probably knows, we started to run a deficit in our transactions with other countries about 1950, and from 1950 to 1955 inclusive the average deficit was under $400 million a year. The problem became acute in 1956; it has remained acute from 1956 until now, and nothing has been done about it.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would you be prepared to put the figures on the record?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The average figure from 1956 to 1962 has been running at about a billion and a quarter dollars a year, and in the last two years at a billion dollars.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would you be prepared to put the figure on the record?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have been putting the figures on the record, and if the hon. gentleman will be quiet for a few minutes I shall put some more on. If we are going to do anything about this problem, if we are going to cure unemployment in Canada, we must approach it on an industry by industry basis. There is no simple way, by waving a wand or making a speech, to cure the problem. It requires action and that is what we badly need in Canada.
The other day reference was made to the automobile industry and on other occasions I have used this as an example of what should be done in order to solve this problem of our balance of payments. In 1961, and again that is the year for which the latest figures are available, we imported approximately $360 million worth of automobile parts into Canada. We believe that a separate department of industry should be created to deal with this problem, and that one of its functions should be to go to the automobile industry and say that the government has concluded that this very large amount of imports should be reduced by, say, two thirds over a period of a year or so-two years at the very most. That in itself would produce an extra 35,000 to 45,000 jobs in Canada in places like Windsor and Oshawa.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: What about the last few weeks?
(Translation):


Mr. Deschaielels:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Since the opening remarks of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Labour
Gordon), members of the Conservative party have kept on interrupting him in spite of your call to order.
Consequently, I would ask you to put an end to that.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What about the last few weeks?


Rémi Paul: A few moments ago I asked for the co-operation of all hon. members. If hon. members do not like the remarks made by the hon. member for Davenport they will have a chance to answer him. With real co-operation we will be able to report real progress at five o'clock this afternoon.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To go back to my example of the automobile industry I suggest that the appropriate arm of the government-and in my view it should be a separate department of industry-having decided upon the target should then call in representatives of the industry and ask, "How do you recommend we should accomplish this objective quickly and without adding to costs?" I suggest that representatives of the industry be consulted, because after all they are the people who are most familiar with the technical processes and who can provide valuable assistance to the government in this sort of thing if they are consulted. I also suggest that labour unions be consulted in a matter of this kind. In our view, in doing this if the industries concerned can suggest ways by which they can increase exports instead of reducing imports that will be so much the better.
The royal commission of which Professor Bladen was chairman suggested a formula which in principle has a lot to recommend it. It is this formula, or a modification of it, which was introduced last October by the Minister of Finance. I thought that move was a good one. It was a move in the right direction, but it did not really go far enough. That particular move if it is successful, as the minister stated at the time, might reduce the imbalance in our transactions so far as automobile parts are concerned to the extent of $30 odd million. That is an insignificantly small part of a $360 million deficit in that particular industry. It did not in my view show any real sense of urgency in tackling this problem.
There are many other industries which will have to be dealt with in exactly the same way. During the past four months various members on this side of the house have been meeting privately and have worked out plans which could be made applicable to many other industries in Canada. This approach would go

a long way toward reducing this tremendous imbalance in our international transactions. We would be well on the road to reducing unemployment in Canada to levels at least considerably lower than those we have today. That is the kind of approach which is needed. We are not going to solve this problem by shouting at each other across the House of Commons. We can only solve it if we start oft with some real understanding of the difficulty and then, with determination and a power of decision, do something about it.
The second of the two problems which I said must be tackled head on if we really intend to balance our international transactions, restore prosperity and cure unemployment in this country is of a different kind. It has nothing directly to do with the balance of payments question. It is the unsatisfactory and much too low rate of investment in Canada in both the private and public sectors of the economy. As far as investment in the private sector is concerned, there is a great need to expand existing industry and to develop new industries in Canada. I am one of those who would prefer to see this done by private investment because I believe in the decentralization of decision making, particularly when we see how difficult it is for some governments to make decisions of any kind. However, I think we must recognize that there is in private hands in Canada a shortage of the kind of capital which is needed in order to expand certain industries. Certainly there is a shortage of the kind of capital needed to develop new undertakings in the extractive industries. In the past we have allowed too many of these developments to be financed by foreign capital and that is, in my view, one of the reasons why we are facing the problems which confront us today.
While on balance I should prefer to see as much private capital as possible invested in such undertakings, if it were available, I certainly would not like to see the expansion of industry and the development of new projects curtailed merely because there is a shortage of private capital for such purposes. In that event it seems to me that public capital should be made available. What was done in the case of the Polymer Corporation is an excellent example.


An hon. Member:: Remember the shoe factory in Saskatchewan.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not thinking about small shoe factories and other things which were done in Saskatchewan. The hon. member can ask his friends over there in the New Democratic party to talk about Saskatchewan at the proper time. I am saying that if it is a question of unemployment or of investing public funds in new developments then we should use public funds for such purposes.

Now, in what is usually looked upon as the public sector of our economy it seems to me that if we in Canada are to resolve our unemployment problem, restore the prosperity of our nation, and make our cities and towns better places in which to live and work we should make grants and low interest loans available to municipalities. This would permit them to get on with the job of improving our cities and towns and, in the process, stimulate the construction industry in Canada and thus provide the kind of jobs which can only be provided in that industry. The Liberal party has proposed that this should be done through a municipal loans fund and I suggest that the sooner a loan fund of this kind is created and the earlier we get on with projects of this sort the better it will be for the people in my riding of Davenport, the people in Danforth, the people in Winnipeg North Centre and the people in a lot of other ridings in this country who need that type of work. In some cases it is the only kind of work they are accustomed to doing. I, for one, would prefer to see public moneys spent in that way than that they should be spent in keeping these people unhappily on relief which, as a previous speaker has pointed out, means misery not only for the head of the family but frustration and difficulty for all its members. Sooner or later this represents a big bill in terms of broken homes and-I do not like the phrase "juvenile delinquency", but it is the one which comes to mind.
I cannot this afternoon, certainly not on the estimates of the Department of Labour, outline a complete program of what the Liberal party would do to deal with unemployment in this country.


Michael Starr: It would be agreeable to me if the hon. member for Davenport would do that.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: All right, I will come back later and do it. At this stage I wished to outline two major aspects of our program for dealing with unemployment. One is to bring our international accounts into some kind of balance by producing ourselves some of the things we are importing, as well as by exporting more of the things we can produce. The second item in this program is the creation of a municipal development fund which would really put some juice into the construction industry and provide many more jobs.


Rémi Paul: I see the hon.
gentleman's time has expired. Does the committee agree to give some extra time to the hon. member for Davenport?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Supply-Labour


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Thank you very much. I am glad to have this opportunity of continuing because I was talking about this problem of our balance of payments in western Canada a few weeks ago and I pointed out then that this imbalance in our international transactions had a great deal to do with bringing on the financial and exchange crisis last year. I suggested that if we fail to put our national house in order, if we fail to clean up the mess we see around us, we run the risk of facing another financial crisis.
I tried to find out this morning from the Minister of Finance whether he had any ideas about when he might ask for further interim supply in order to carry on the business of the country for the present month of February because this government has run out of money and will soon be unable to pay its bills. If this is the way the government runs its own affairs or runs the affairs of the country, it does not leave me, and I doubt whether it leaves many other people, with very much confidence as to what we may expect to encounter in the near future. It is clear evidence that the government does not know how to manage its own affairs. And surely that means it is incapable of dealing effectively with the question of finding work for Canadians.
By a strange coincidence, shortly after I made the remarks to which I referred, the sometimes invisible Minister without Portfolio made a speech in Toronto to the Toronto board of trade. It was last Monday, January 28, and I should like to read two sentences from one paragraph of this speech. He said:
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. This is still a free country-
-said Senator McCutcheon-
-and if I felt as they appear to feel I would pack up and leave.
That is the end of the quotation. Senator McCutcheon analysed the economic picture for the benefit of the large audience he was addressing, and then made that comment. I suggest that this is an incredible statement for a member of any government to make. It is an incredible statement even from a non-elected member of an arrogant government like the present one. There are four to five hundred thousand Canadians without jobs at the present time and the ones I have talked to are critical of the government, very critical. Does the hon. senator suggest that they should all move out? If so, may I ask him where he thinks they should go and who is going to pay their bills?


Mr. Nesbitt:: That is a disappointing interpretation.

Supply-Labour


An hon. Member:: You are.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Hon. members on this side of the house

Mr. Chairman, there seem to be murmurings going on, but I am not going to pay any attention to them.


Mr. Robichaud:: They cannot swallow their own words.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If they have anything to say they can get up and I will be glad to hear them in due course. Hon. members on this side of the house, myself included, have been highly critical of the government's incapacity and indecision, of its inability to come to grips with any problem, of the frightful failure it has made in dealing with this human, personal problem of unemployment, with all the misery which that word implies. So I say to the Minister without Portfolio and to the members of his government that we intend to stay in Canada. We have a responsibility to stay under our democratic parliamentary system, and if after an election-which I was about to say can be only weeks away, but perhaps is only hours or days away; I noticed the Prime Minister did not answer the question whether he saw the Governor General yesterday-if after the election we are called upon, we intend to clean up the mess that this government has got our country into. And we intend to do something to cure the unemployment problem.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I might say that the reason I gave my consent for the hon. member to have additional time was that he intimated that he would put forward a program on behalf of the Liberal party which he would put into effect should that party become the government, and I am sorry indeed that he took advantage of that time without saying a word about it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, since this house went into labour yesterday the pains seem to be coming more frequently and severely. I should like to say that we in this party are not happy with the levels of unemployment which we see in Canada today. Furthermore, whether or not they are less than or equal with the levels of last year, or even the preceding year, is not a valid argument for saying that the levels are all right. I think the Minister of Labour agrees that he is not satisfied with these levels, but I must say in all fairness that some of the charges being made to the effect that nothing is being done simply are not true. I know that there are not particularly large numbers of unemployed in my constituency, but there is far more unemployment than I like to see. I also know that, as has been stated time after time both in this house and outside, even though
IMr. Nesbitt.]
it may not be as bad as it was at some other time, if you are unemployed it is bad at any time.
There is one other matter we are going to have to give a great deal of consideration to, namely some of the recommendations made in the Gill committee report. This is, in my opinion, a very agonizing reappraisal of the unemployment insurance commission, and if we were to implement these recommendations suddenly there would be some adjustments which would be very painful. I think there are some good recommendations in this report, and perhaps most of them can be implemented gradually. I want to say a little more later on about some of the things being done to try to solve the unemployment problem, but I am not going to let some of the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me pass without a comment or two.
For example, he mentioned the shortage of private capital in Canada as being one of the major contributing factors in the unemployment problem, that is to say, that because of this there are not sufficient jobs being created. He also mentioned-at least, I took this meaning from what he said-that this was also the reason which aggravated the problem of investment of foreign capital in the industry of Canada. I agree that this is certainly true.
I think the reason that private industry has difficulty in finding the long term capital requirements needed for expansion is that the federal government is in the private money market on such a level, forcing the interest rates up to such a level that private industry is a little bit hesitant about taking on long term commitments at these interest rates, which are established in competition with the federal government. I suggest that it is in line with Social Credit policy that public capital for social expansion should be provided by the Bank of Canada, and that the government should move out of the private money market and leave private capital for private enterprise.
There are two or three other points I should like to make. I am not going to speak for very long. One is the matter of the increasing unemployment problem in the flour milling industry. I raise this matter specifically because that is one section in the labour market in which we have steady increases from one year to the next. If you go back and compare this year with last year, last year with the previous year and so on, you find that in each succeeding year more plant capacity is being shut down in this particular industry. What I should like to suggest is that the Minister of Labour use his influence with

the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce so that in some of these wheat deals we have been making some portion of the total volume could be delivered in the form of flour.
A few months ago I had the privilege of visiting in Africa. In one of the countries there I found a brand new, almost automatic flour milling plant which, in fact, turns out something like 8,000 hundredweight of flour per day. This figure is 2,000 hundredweight per day more than the total domestic requirements of that country. Here we see a situation in which they are importing all of the wheat they need to make flour. They are providing a few jobs, but they are also providing some national income; so I do not blame them for setting it up. However, the fact is that we are supplying them with the raw materials and they are processing them, when we have right here in Canada the plants and the men who could be doing this same job.
I should like to read into the record a little bit of information to show what has happened to the flour milling industry, as of just a few weeks ago. For example, there is one mill in Medicine Hat that is completely closed down. Another one is running at about 50 per cent of capacity. Another one is running at about 55 per cent of capacity. I understand there is a plant at Goderich, Ontario, that is completely shut down and another one at Peterborough that is shut down. There is one at Brantford that is shut down. There is a plant at Port Colborne, with a capacity of 26,000 hundredweight daily which is now operating at a rate of 7,000 hundredweight daily. At Keewatin there is one plant which is completely shut down, and there is another mill which is running only part time. In Winnipeg there is a mill that is being remodelled. It is shut down completely now and is in the process of renovation. It bad a capacity of 7,000 hundredweight daily. After the remodelling is completed, its capacity is going to be reduced to 3,000 hundredweight daily. All the mills in Calgary are running much below capacity. There is at least one that is completely shut down there, if not two. The largest mill in Lethbridge, Alberta, is running at below 50 per cent of capacity. This situation is fairly serious. I believe that some relief should be given to this situation if the Canadian negotiators, in our export marketing of wheat, would try to have some flour included in the total deal. I understand that in one of the wheat deals made with red China, for example, one of the provisions was that they should take some of the wheat in the form of flour, but that this has not been done.
Supply-Labour
We know that there is competition in this field, and I fully appreciate that fact. I believe that the United States government are providing some wheat subsidies that are applied to flour being exported. We also know that there are perhaps some lower labour charges that go into the production of flour in some of these other countries. At the same time, however, since we grow the raw materials here I think we should be concentrating on trying to provide some of the finished products as well.
If I may, I should like to deal just for a moment with some of the things that I think are being done. I am not saying that they are adequate or that they are completely doing the job. However, a few things are being done about solving this unemployment problem. One of the major things that has happened recently is the action that was taken by this government in co-operation with the provincial government in providing vocational training schools and schemes. It was only last week that the keys to the one built in Medicine Hat were turned over to the local school board. I should like to congratulate all of those responsible not only in that constituency but all over Canada for the good work they have done in setting up this kind of plant. We realize that they were breaking new ground nearly all the way. It is a tremendous undertaking to line up courses, curricula, staff and all of the other things required when there is not anything to look at-more or less set up a program to follow, if I may put the matter in that way. For example, for the one in Medicine Hat-and I am not sure that this applies to other schools as well-we had to find journeymen and people who were skilled in many trades and technicians who did not have any teacher training. So they have hired a number of people who had the skills they were supposed to teach, and now they have them on the staff and they are taking teacher training so that they will have the ability to pass that information on.
In Medicine Hat there have been outlined programs which have been prepared with a view to better meeting the ability, interests and needs of six groups of students. They include, first of all, the business education group. Then there is the vocational group, the technical group, the professional matriculation group, the pre-employment group and the adult group. It should be pointed out that these new programs are the inevitable outcome of, for example-at least this is the premise which is used in working out these programs-of the rapid advances in technology which are changing the entire pattern of industrial occupations and the demand for more workers with higher levels of technical knowledge and skills. Then the other problem

Supply-Labour
they looked at was the school drop-out problem which sees large numbers of young people entering the world of work unprepared to meet its demands. Then there is the need for a new program more adequately designed better to meet the ever widening range of pupil abilities and interests.
In the business education branch, for example, they are working out programs for secretarial training, including shorthand, typing, office practice and so on. They are working out bookkeeping and clerical training, and retail clerical training. Then there is a special one year course for graduate students and those with 70 high school credits will concentrate training in skills for office work. I think this program is very important but there are other programs and other parts to the programs. There are industrial, vocational and beauty culture programs, and in this particular area I do not believe there is any precedent anywhere in Canada as to what might be included in the programs to turn out students with the required skills. As I mentioned, there is a technical and vocational program and with regard to this particular segment I think this short paragraph is rather significant. They say that prospects for employment for this technically trained group are excellent, and go on to say:
Up until about 1959 a large percentage of our technicians came to us from Europe and the British Isles. This is no longer the case and Canada must educate its own technicians.
Obviously we have the people in the ranks of the unemployed and if they take this training Canada will not only be provided with people to do the work in this field but we will also not have to bring in people to do these jobs, though I have no objection to immigration at all. They are also setting up three and four year matriculation programs for those who would like to enter a profession, as well as pre-employment programs and adult education programs that will be carried on at different hours when the school is not being used by the regular students.
There is only one other point I want to make and that will conclude my contribution to this debate for the present. While I was overseas visiting some of what have been commonly referred to as the emerging nations of Africa I was struck immediately by the almost complete lack of a middle class in their social and economic structure. In Nigeria, for example, they have opened five new universities in the last two and a half or three years or since the program started. This will certainly provide highly trained persons in specialized fields and perhaps in general as well, but there is a problem in that large numbers of workers are required to provide the supporting administrative staffs

for these university graduates. They do not have any facilities for training this type of student.
It must also be recognized that the entrance requirements for vocational training schools would be substantially lower than for universities and such schools widen the possibilities for people without university qualifications to get some kind of training that will fit them for a useful life. I believe that those of us who have looked at the new vocational training schools recently built in Canada are aware that there is space available for a greater number of students. I am not too familiar with the situation in other parts of Canada but I know that in Alberta so much capacity has been provided that some of it will be unused in the immediate future.
I should like to suggest to the Minister of Labour that through the Department of External Affairs the government invite some of these countries to send students to Canada to make use of the extra capacity we have now, because I really believe that there is a very great need for technically trained people in those countries. Certainly it would be a great contribution toward helping them to help themselves. We cannot provide all of the technically trained people they need to operate their industries, but we can invite them to send some young people here who will undertake to learn a trade and acquire teaching skills so that they can go back to their countries and in turn train more people.
In my opinion this is by far the best kind of foreign aid that Canada can provide, the kind of assistance that will help these people to help themselves. They do not want us or anyone else over there running their affairs for them, but they recognize that we have made advances in education and technical skills from which they can profit. It is our responsibility to help them and I hope that something can be done to invite these governments to make use of the facilities we now have. As I said, I do not think we are going to be able to use all of our capacity immediately.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) last January 30, when he introduced his department's estimates. His remarks were impatiently awaited because the unemployment situation remains serious in our country.
The minister spoke about the activities of his department in the fields of research, economics, conciliation, civilian retraining, etc.
All these subjects are no doubt interesting but, as the representative of a riding made

up mostly of working people, like many of my colleagues, in the name of the unemployed who have been forsaken in the last few years by the Conservative government, I must complain once again about the complete lack of interest shown by the minister, once more, in the speech he made last Wednesday about the most important problem in Canada today, that of unemployment.
In fact, when the minister states that the unemployment problem is serious, we would expect him to show us, through his estimates, that short-term concrete steps are being taken to deal with that situation immediately.
Well, apart from the winter works program to which I shall refer later on, the minister has done nothing except leave the unemployed to their own fate and, unless favourable circumstances come up unexpectedly, circumstances with which the Conservative party will have had nothing to do, we shall have to face the fact that those unemployed will receive, this year, nothing but their unemployment insurance benefits and unemployment assistance payments.
To my way of thinking, Mr. Chairman, it is time the government should realize that the unemployed cannot pay his rent, his doctor and even less his grocer with statistics.
I said earlier that the unemployed was left to his fate because this year the government brings in no new short term measure to solve that problem and it is quite easy to prove it.
In fact, the 1962-63 estimates exceed by only $47 million those of 1961-62. Now, I challenge the Minister of Labour to prove that a substantial portion of those $47 million will be used to implement short term projects which will be of some assistance to the unemployed in this country before the year is out.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot expect a substantial increase in the winter works program this year, and the minister knows it. If you refer to page 3268 of Hansard, you will see that the federal contribution to those projects will amount to $35 million while they amounted to $34 million for the fiscal year 1960-61.
Again I ask the question: apart from the winter works program, what short term measures is the government considering to help the unemployed? The answer is none. There were none to be found in the speech from the throne, none in the minister's statement. We shall again have this year the same situation in this respect that we had last year and the years before.
Supply-Labour
We know that the minister, in all his statements, stresses the fact that there has been a continuous increase in the number of people in Canada who are working. As if there was anything new in that, when in a country such as ours there is a constant natural increase in population. I submit that this is a very poor screen to use to hide not only an unfortunate situation that has been going on for too long, but also the government's inaction and lack of imagination and boldness concerning the unemployment problem.
What is, in fact, the extent of unemployment right now, in February 1963? What do the statistics show? That, possibly, is the most important aspect of the question, but the minister carefully avoided it in the speech he made on January 30, as shown on page 3272 of the official report, where he said:
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.
How can you discuss intelligently a problem such as unemployment if you do not know its scope and its ramifications? At the end of January 1963, I asked the following question: How many unemployed are drawing unemployment insurance benefits in Canada?
How is it that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who answers in the house for the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service, cannot tell us, in introducing his estimates, how many unemployed are drawing unemployment insurance benefits in Canada right now? Why conceal that information which I consider as essential to all these discussions on unemployment?
But I should like to discuss that matter a little further. A few days ago, on January 28, I put question No. 1,324 on the order paper and asked the minister for the following information:
What are the latest statistics of the unemployment insurance commission concerning the number of unemployed persons who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
The minister answered that at the end of November 1962, the number was 347,000.
Now, I ask the minister this question: How can he explain that concerning such an important matter, the only statistics available to answer my question of January 28 were those available at the end of November 1962?
Is it that our employment service or the unemployment insurance organization is so

Supp ly-La hour
inadequate that it is impossible for a member of parliament to know the number of unemployed receiving benefits for a period of less than two months? I do not believe that.
I know that the minister has the most recent figures in hand. I know that every week he gets figures from the various offices.
It is, I think, very strange and most unfortunate that members of parliament are unable to secure the information they believe necessary, at least in a discussion like the one we are having now.
(Text):


Michael Starr: I should like to interrupt on a point of order. The hon. member just stated he knows-I repeat he stated he knows-I receive these figures each and every week. If that is the case, I would ask him to give me some specific proof how he knows that I do.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are going to deal with this on a different basis. Now that the minister is adopting this attitude I want to know, and I am entitled to know, the number of persons drawing unemployment benefits in Canada. I should like to have the latest figures. Now, is the minister aware of this? Is he able to give us these figures at a time when we are discussing his estimates? This is what I should like to know, and then I might come to another conclusion.


Michael Starr: I asked the hon. member to give me proof how he knows that I get them each and every week.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This is an extraordinary attitude on the part of the minister.


Michael Starr: You made the charge.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: He is asking a member to prove that the minister is receiving weekly reports from his officers. I have said this and I am going to repeat it and the minister can do what he likes: The minister is receiving from the officers of the national unemployment service weekly figures about the unemployment situation. The thing I deplore is that members of parliament are not being made aware of these figures so that they can discuss these estimates in the way they should be discussed. Now, this is an important aspect of this point.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, on January 28, I finally put a question to the minister, asking him what were the unemployment figures registered in our unemployment insurance offices

regarding the number of unemployed people. The results were the same as those I had had for November 30.
But, in any case, we are sufficiently aware of the facts to be able to put the blame on the department, not only on account of the scanty information it gives the members but also on account of its inaction, of its lack of administrative ability and originality in the means that should be taken to deal with such a situation.
Mr. Chairman, on January 30, I also put a question on the order paper regarding the unemployment insurance fund. I was told that as of December 31, the fund amounted to $98 million. The same question comes up now. We are at present examining the estimates of the Minister of Labour. Would it not be normal for us to know, on this February 1, 1963, the balance in hand in the unemployment insurance fund?
I understand that loans totalling $262 million have been made to the fund and that these amounts have been paid back. But I should like to know from the minister, at the closing of his remarks, why, during his speech, he avoided mentioning such an important question as the unemployment insurance fund.
I listened to his speech, I read it again and I do not even find one reference regarding one of the most important questions concerning the Department of Labour.
In 1955 and 1956 we sat together on the industrial relations committee and I clearly remember that the government actuaries told us then that if the unemployment insurance fund stood at less than $500 million it was in a precarious position. Therefore, I say this to the minister: What steps does the government intend to take in order to restore to its proper balance the unemployment insurance fund?
Here is another important problem that the minister avoided mentioning and I take this opportunity-
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wanted to know what is the balance in the unemployment insurance fund. The answer was given to him in a reply by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance as reported at page 3259 of Hansard for January 30.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the minister was sleeping during the last few minutes I was speaking. I have already said I asked this question and that I received an answer. I had even mentioned that the amount is now $98 million. That is not the point. I say to the minister that he

has not mentioned this insurance fund in his speech. It should have been a topic of his speech because of its importance. We have only $98 million in it. This is the point and I hope the minister will follow my speech more closely from now on.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I was saying that there are now only $98 million in the unemployment insurance fund, and I would like to stop here for a moment to recall a particular fact to the Conservative and Social Credit members who are conspicuous by their absence.
When the Liberal administration is blamed for unemployment, I ask them to remember a very important fact: when the new administration took over in 1957, there were $926 million in the unemployment insurance fund. Thus, if there had been anything but full employment in Canada during the years preceding 1957, that fact would obviously have been reflected on the unemployment insurance fund.
Now, if one considers that we had then $926 million in the fund, that answers the childish argument often raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve. So, Mr. Chairman, we must make the best of it.
The only short term concrete measure which the government has to fight chronic unemployment, is the winter works program. We know that only an extension of the scope and duration of the program could constitute a short term measure likely to improve the situation.
Even though I have never considered them as anything more than an unemployment index, the figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics show most eloquently that we have a serious situation on our hands.
Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, the present Minister of Labour claimed that there was a state of national emergency when, in 1954 and 1956, the unemployment level reached only half of what it is today. He seems to have forgotten the speeches he made in those days.
Mr. Chairman, we must realize that the government is at present going through a most serious crisis. I know that if I was unemployed I would consider myself in a desperate situation. There is nothing to expect from the government which has remained at the helm because it had the support of the Social Credit party about which I will have a few things to say in a moment.
I hope that in the near future the voters of this country will be given an opportunity
Supply-Labour
of electing a stable administration, a majority government and none but the party I belong to will ever be able to lead this country toward prosperity because it will prove that if in the past it has succeeded in creating full employment in a country such as Canada, it can repeat the performance.
Mr. Chairman, I admit that the government pays 50 per cent of the labour costs involved in the winter works program, but I wish to point out to the minister that the government of the province of Quebec is the only one to supplement this program with a 40 per cent contribution program of its own.


An hon. Member:: And what did it do?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Has the question been put? I would like to say a few words on unemployment in the province of Quebec, Mr. Chairman. Its causes can readily be traced. For several years, the provincial authorities refused to accept from Ottawa the money which Quebec taxpayers contributed to the federal government's coffers, and which they were entitled to get back in part. Take for instance the trans-Canada highway: Quebec received only a few million dollars, while Ontario received $108 million.
I submit that the situation is serious. The government would do well in expanding its winter works program. We should have emulated the Kennedy administration, which lost no time in launching a program of on-the-spot inquiries, in the sections where unemployment was heavy. I think that in the provinces which, today, are suffering much more than others, we might have extended this works program over the whole year and also doubled the government's share.
If the winter works program costs the government $35 million, I think nobody can pretend that we cannot double our contribution in the present circumstances when provinces like Quebec, for instance, and others, are facing the most acute unemployment problem.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to say a word about our hon. friends of the Social Credit party. I want to tell them that they are quite as responsible as the Conservative members for the present situation. They systematically supported this government, when they were quite aware that the throne speech mentioned nothing but the winter works program to solve the unemployment problem.
The unemployed in Canada will not forget that if the government has been able to

Supply-Labour
hang on to power these last few months, if it has been able to survive in spite of its inaction these past few years, it is thanks to our Social Credit friends who have placed the interests of their party above those of their country.
This is the last opportunity I will have to remind the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) that the first duty of a member of parliament is to attend the sittings of the house, not to look after the organization of his party.
Mr. Chairman, the Social Credit members who have participated in this debate on unemployment would have us believe that the solution is to be found in their monetary theory. I do not have the time to challenge that contention now, but I should like to ask the hon. member for Villeneuve-


Rémi Paul: Order. Perhaps the house would find some advantage in listening to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. His remarks seem to create unusual interest, but we can hardly hear him on account of the noise. I would therefore ask the hon. members to listen closely.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: According to the Social Credit members who spoke during this debate, the adoption of their monetary theory would be one way of creating full employment in Canada. If the hon. member for Villeneuve does participate in this discussion, I would ask him to comment on the following. During the last election campaign, when he stated before Canadian workers that the monetary theory of Social Credit would be one way of fighting unemployment, why did both his leader and himself hide from their audience that in 1956, their monetary theory was condemned as inflationary by a royal commission in New Zealand and that since then, Social Credit has never been heard from in that country? I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve why he tries to deceive the people by telling them that his theory could solve the problem.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding may I say this: My hon. friends of the Social Credit should not worry, they will soon pay for having supported a government which they knew very well was unable to settle any situation at all; but they did it precisely in a petty party interest.
I am convinced this is the last time we shall have the opportunity of studying the estimates of the Department of Labour. The situation is hopeless. The unemployed have completely lost confidence and hope in the

government. They will soon be asked to judge it again and they will take advantage of the occasion to judge also the hon. members of the Social Credit who, to this date, did but one thing in the House of Commons, namely fill the shoes of the Conservative members they had defeated.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member allow a question? Does he agree with Mr. Le-sage that unemployment is a provincial responsibility, as he said during the 1960 election campaign?


Lionel Chevrier: He never said that.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The hon. member is giving me the opportunity of paying tribute to the premier of Quebec, for the courage he has shown in this regard. In fact, he was the first among all provincial premiers, to recognize that unemployment was a national problem, that could not be solved without the co-operation of the federal, provincial, and municipal governments.


Georges-J. Valade: I have asked a question to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and the hon. member for Laurier has replied that Mr. Lesage had never said that, while the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont replied that it was a provincial responsibility. I should like to know who of the two is right?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I will say that the question was badly put, because the hon. member has asked whether Mr. Lesage said it was a provincial responsibility. Mr. Lesage never said that; he said it was a responsibility which must be shared between the three levels of government, as my colleague has just said.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Earlier today my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard pointed out that yesterday and today we have been discussing two of the most important questions which are facing us, on the one hand the question of what we are going to do about nuclear weapons and on the other hand the question of unemployment, the subject which has occupied most of our time today.
I find it interesting that this parliament* for all its faults, has been discussing these two important questions yesterday and today. I find it particularly interesting in view of the rumours and reports which are drifting: into this chamber.

About half an hour ago a report came in that the Prime Minister was at government house. I suppose he was just taking tea with the Governor General or recommending some appointment, but he could have been doing something else. The most recent report is that he is back in the east block.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. English:: What is the hon. member talking about?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am talking about the labour estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am beginning to wonder, in view of the reports that are coming in, whether this parliament is going to have a chance to complete the labour estimates or any other estimates. As a matter of fact, the prediction I made on December 17 may well come true. Maybe we shall go through the fiscal year 1962-63 without parliament approving the estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman will permit a question. Does he know of a rumour, widely current, that the Prime Minister has already slipped through the tunnel to the West Block en route to an unknown destination?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the hon. member has had an even later report than I have had.


An hon. Member:: He has a pipe line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am reminded, of course, that this is February 1, 1963, and that on February 1, 1958, just five years ago today, the Prime Minister went to see the governor general of that day and at six o'clock made an interesting announcement to the house.
If these rumours and reports foretell what we are going to be doing in the next couple of months, I am glad that we have had before parliament in these two days these two important issues, one concerning nuclear weapons and the other the question of unemployment. I urge most strongly on all members of this house in all parties that they should throw away some of their prejudice about words and do some really hard thinking about ways and means of providing full employment.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made a little while ago by the hon. member for Davenport. I felt, as I sat here, that I was watching an idea struggling to be born in the mind of the hon. member. He expressed great concern about unemployment and about the numbers of Canadians without jobs, and insisted that it was not good enough for us to shout across the chamber at each other about it, but that we
Supply-Labour
must do something about unemployment. In particular, he called upon the government to do something about unemployment. He said by way of defending his own party in the matter that some of the members of his party had discussed this question and had made plans to deal with some of the problems which affect our economy. A little later, after he bowed three times in the direction of private enterprise, he got bold enough to-say that it might even be necessary to invest large sums of public capital in our economy to provide jobs for our people.
As I say, I enjoyed watching an idea struggling to come to birth in the mind of the hon. member for Davenport, but as he made his speech he carefully avoided facing up to the fact that if we are to do something about full employment we have to go in for democratic economic planning. Members of other parties, though they know that something of this sort has to be done, still regard these words as something to shy away from, because of their loyalty to the kind of system we now have. From the speeches which have been made today on all sides about the importance and urgency of the unemployment problem, a problem which may be talked about a good deal in the next couple of months if today's reports have anything to-them, it must be realized that if this problem is the serious one it is in our country it is not good enough to go on arguing about statistics and the amount of money in the unemployment insurance fund. Surely the time has come for that sort of over-all economic planning which will get our economy rolling and provide a situation in which, as one of my colleagues said this morning, there are more jobs than there are people to fill them. Only when we reach that stage will we be in the position of having full employment in this country.
In addition to this problem there are many other items of unfinished business as far as the Minister of Labour and his department are concerned. There is the question of doing something about labour legislation in the field of minimum wages, statutory holidays, and holidays with pay. Then there is the question of improving the vacations with pay act. Improvements need to be made so far as government legislation is concerned in the provisions for collective bargaining. The time has come for the government to pay heed to principles it supported at the international labour conference with regard to consultation among government, employers and labour in the matter of employment. All these are things which affect our people. The time has come to do something about the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is strange that with the Gill committee report in front of us, the-Minister of Labour found it possible to make

Supply-Labour
his opening remarks the other day without indicating when the government planned to act on that report by way ol legislation.
I promised myself, Mr. Chairman, even if I did not promise the committee, that I would make my remarks brief at this point, and I intend to do so. But I do urge that this whole problem of unemployment be looked at not just as something to talk about or as an area in which we argue over figures, but as a problem which calls for the best thinking and brains which we have in this country, and for sound over-all economic planning.
I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is back in the chamber. This at least puts a stop to any more rumours that he is at point A, B or C. He is now here and can tell us later, if he wishes, whether he has seen the Governor General, whether he has been through the tunnel, and so on. If that is so and if the event of February 1, 1958, is to be repeated on February 1, 1963, the people of Canada will get the chance to hear from all parties in this country where they stand on the important issue we discussed yesterday and on the important issue of full employment which we are discussing now on these labour estimates.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman-
(Translation):


Mr. Caouette:: Mr. Chairman-
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: I suggest that the hon. member for Villeneuve might be interested in letting me have the floor first, since my remarks will be in relation to him and he might want to come along afterwards and catch up.


David Réal Caouette: How long will you be?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Ten minutes.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry. I did see the hon. member for Port Arthur first, but it should be a member from the Social Credit party.


David Réal Caouette: If I am going to lose my turn I would prefer to take it now. But if letting the hon. member for Port Arthur go on means it is not possible for me to go after him, then I prefer to go now.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am advised by the Clerk that there is a member of the Liberal party who will rise after you, so I suggest you take the floor now.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to take part in the debate on the estimates of the Department of Labour. But
after hearing the rather humorous and strange remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), a Liberal member as one might expect-who stated that Social Crediters in this house were more concerned about the party's interest than the country's-I feel I should say a few words. The hon. member should know something about the policy of putting the party's interest before that of the country for a great number of years, in fact for over 22 years, he followed it himself within the Liberal party, when he sat in the Canadian parliament.
He added that the hon. member for Villeneuve was seldom in the house and that he was doing organization work for his party.
It is obvious that we want to get rid of incompetents like him in this house. This is very definite and quite in order. Besides, I said it publicly and I repeat it in this chamber: Elections are not won in the house, they are won outside. But I still come to the house often enough to take part in the debates and I have spoken more often than the hon. member himself since he has been sitting here.
Moreover, when he says that we deceive the voters by supporting or voting with the Conservatives when want of confidence motions are presented, I point out to the hon. member that we do not deceive the voters, that we think first of the interest of the country, and that is why we do not play the Liberals' game when they try to set traps for us, here and there, in order to catch off guard the members of the other opposition parties or even some government members.
Mr. Chairman, those considerations will enlighten the public on the attitude we have taken in the house. That does not mean that we support the government as such.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I think the hon. member will agree that the Chair has allowed him a lot of latitude up to this moment. I think perhaps he should now get back to item one of the labour estimates.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, those are remarks which you have allowed the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont to make a moment ago. If the hon. member has the right to attack the member for Villeneuve, I wonder why you would prevent the latter from replying adequately to the former.

(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I should advise the hon. member tor Villeneuve that the Chair is being very tolerant. I realize that during the last part of the speech of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont I allowed him some leeway, but I hope the hon. member for Villeneuve will come back to vote No. 1 of the labour estimates as quickly as possible.
(Translation):


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I come back at once to the subject matter of the debate, the estimates of the Department of Labour. We get more and more complaints from everywhere. I receive complaints from my constituents, of course, but many of them come from all over the province and all over the country. They are directed against the Department of Labour which does not seem to understand its responsibilities with regard to Canadian workers.
For instance, this sad story appeared on page 3 of the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday:
(Text):
An unemployed father of five school-age children, who says he cannot find work, was sentenced to 40 days In county jail this morning for defrauding the unemployment insurance commission.
George David, 55, of 45 Skead rd., was sentenced to five days in jail on each of eight charges to run consecutively. He pleaded guilty to receiving an overpayment of $181 from the commission.
"I can't look on this as anything but eight cases of outright theft," said Magistrate L. A. Sherwood.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to discuss the legality of the sentence imposed on a 55 year old man, a father of five, who was charged with over-collecting an amount of $181, while he claims that he has already paid back $39. But when a man who is unemployed and collects $181 from the unemployment insurance commission is prosecuted and sentenced to 40 days imprisonment, I say to myself that the unemployment insurance commission, which comes under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, should change its attitude or its rules so that our Canadian fathers are not treated that way right here in the Ottawa-Hull region, or indeed in any region.
And the article goes on:
(Text):
He said that up until last year he had worked all his life and never drawn unemployment insurance.
David claimed he didn't understand papers he signed which stated he did not have employment while he was collecting the insurance.
"They said to me 'you're good for collecting for one year'," he told the magistrate. "I thought it was money coming to me. I am on relief and unemployed."
Supply-Labour
He is on relief and unemployed, with five children and his wife at home. The article continues:
The accused said he had gone to two Ottawa controllers for work "and they turned me away."
"When I went to the unemployment insurance office they told me I was too old," he said.
That is at 55 years of age, Mr. Chairman. I would ask you to take note of that. We all know that at 55 years of age you are too old right across Canada today. This is why we think the Minister of Labour should look a little more closely at the social legislation in our country. The article continues:
"My lights were shut off and my children were hungry."
David said his children range in age from five to 12 years.
Hugh Johnstone, an investigator for the UIC, said David had made the statements "and he knew what he was doing".
At one point David and Johnstone were shouting at one another across the courtroom, David claiming he had repaid $39 and Johnstone claiming he had not.
John Murchison, lawyer for the accused, asked the UIC investigator if leniency "or a blind eye" was not sometimes shown by the UIC in some
cases.
"I've never known that to happen," was the reply.
David said when he went to the UIC "I gave the lady my book, she stamped it, and that was all there was to it".
However, that man with a family is in jail. He is in jail for 40 days accused of having committed what they call a theft of $181. We have seen many cases like that one, not only here in Ottawa but across the whole country.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be amended.
We are at present discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour. These amounts have already been spent. In Canada, from coast to coast, winter works are in progress.
Some minutes ago, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont told us that we should extend and expand the winter works program. Personally, I feel that all that program can do is help out momentarily a very small portion of the Canadian population; it cannot solve the hard core of our unemployment problem.
I am convinced that there are other ways. By all means, let us pass the estimates, and pay back those provinces which have taken part in the winter works program. But it is imperative to modify the labour legislation if we want to avoid in the future cases like the one about which I was telling the house.

Supply-Labour
I believe there is enough room in Canada outside jailhouses to allow individuals to select their own kind of work, instead of condemning them to prison under the pretence that they have obtained sums that were not due to them at the time.
Mr. Chairman, Social Crediters have neither a pro-government nor an anti-government attitude. They take solid stands to secure the enactment of a labour legislation which would enable Canadians to find work, live in comfort with adequate means in a country capable of offering each and everyone of its people freedom over and above security.
(Text):


John (Jack) Davis: We have heard a great deal about unemployment during this session. On innumerable occasions we have been told that this is our No. 1 problem; that it is a terrible thing; that it bears in on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians; that it destroys their personal freedom and their will to live. We have also heard that we should do some hard thinking about this problem. We have heard a great many words in general terms about solutions. Certainly we have had the blame placed by speakers for each party on all the other parties in the house.
I should like to speak briefly this afternoon about a few tangible things that can be done about unemployment in areas in which a great number of people are out of work. We do not want government in all phases of industrial activity but government certainly must participate and is going to have to participate effectively when there is substantial unemployment, and in places where many people are out of work.
There are vast projects which are possible, the timing of which can be advanced by government investment at an early stage, per-ihaps in research, certainly in construction. One of the largest projects which could appeal to Canadians in the immediate future is the construction of a crude oil pipe line from the west in northern Alberta to the Montreal area. In the west of Canada we have in the Athabasca tar sands an oil reserve which is as large as the proven oil reserves of the conventional type in all the rest of the world, and processes are currently under development which promise to result in the production of that oil at a reasonable price.
There is the problem of disposing of the oil in Alberta. There is too much oil now and if the oil from the tar sands were suddenly to bear in on markets now available to the conventional oil producers it could create chaos. Why not gear a large pipe line development to that oil resource? Support, if

necessary, research in the processing of that oil from the tar sands and make the oil available to Montreal in a market which constitutes nearly 40 per cent of the Canadian requirement. This market is largely supplied at present from Venezuela and the Middle East. This would mean not only the saving of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign exchange and help our balance of payments but would also mean several thousands of continuing jobs in northern Alberta. A vast complex would evolve there financed, principally, I believe, by private capital and of the order of the development in Sarnia, Ontario, today. During the construction phase the vast steel companies at Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie in the east would be busy producing steel, cement companies would be producing cement and other companies would be producing other construction materials and certainly machinery and equipment would be in great demand.
This type of development can be promoted by public investment if private capital is not immediately willing to carry out the entire project. Certainly it will be supplemented by private investment. This is the type of thing which a government concerned about unemployment would investigate seriously now and have under way in the next few years if we continue to have 5, 6 or 7 per cent of our labour force out of work.
There are other projects. Our uranium mining industry was geared to a sudden requirement of large proportions in the United States. That requirement has largely ceased. United States mines are supplying that which remains. Our uranium mining industry has been laying off people and will continue to lay off people. What can be done? I believe government can do something about this. We do not have within the borders of this country a processing facility for converting uranium into the enriched high grade forms which are necessary for many types of power reactors. Europe will be the first to require nuclear power on a large scale. Certainly we will want to sell to Europe and today we cannot. We cannot sell because we have to sell to the processing plants in the United States owned by the American government. The priority, therefore, obviously is to the American mines.
So I believe that government finances may be necessary in order to build a processing facility such as I have in mind. This would be of the order of an Arvida or a Kitimat. In a period of five to ten years it would provide jobs for 5,000 to 10,000 people. This is the type of thing which government may have to get into, perhaps totally in the early

stages because of the element of secrecy involved, but this would provide a real hope for our uranium mining industry. This is the type of tangible project that we should be talking about rather than generalities or general policies with little meaning.
There are other projects. Research and development should be aimed, I believe, at the processing of the ash from some of our western Canadian coals. In these ashes lies an aluminium source of the type that the Germans used to make aluminium during the last war. We do not produce any of the aluminium source materials in this country. We bring in all our bauxite and alumina from the Caribbean and from Africa. Our mines branch could, by investigating processes of this type, make possible a large aluminium industry based firmly on the coal resources of western Canada. Tremendous resources of this type exist and I believe that there we could have substantially self-sufficient industries which did not involve foreign exchange and which did not involve our purchasing materials outside our country and providing employment outside our country, but rather jobs right here in this country. We have these great possibilities.
The Columbia river treaty could result in a series of projects of the dimensions of the entire Ontario hydro installations today. Literally thousands of people would be employed within the next few months, certainly within the next few years, in the construction of these projects and this great international development. I believe that with good will on all sides, not only across the border but between parties in this house and between governments in this country vast projects of that type could get under way and more work could be provided in areas of serious unemployment.
Governments have to get together. Certainly the province of British Columbia has not been working very well with the government in Ottawa and, I suggest, vice versa. I believe it is possible for instance, on the river with which I am familiar, the Fraser river, to have great multipurpose developments not only for power projects but for flood control, irrigation and so on. The northwestern corner of the United States has been favoured because Washington has looked on that part of the United States as an area in which to stimulate this type of multipurpose development by providing low interest loans and by providing engineering, economic and research services free through the United States army corps of engineers. We could do this through some other governmental device in this country.
Supply-Labour
We could get other major projects going. The North and South Saskatchewan rivers are interprovincial in character. Multipurpose developments are possible there. Certainly developments of a similar character are possible in other provinces, including the mari-times where unemployment is a serious problem. I believe these projects could provide tens of thousands of jobs, but of even greater importance in terms of greater employment are our service industries. Tourism is one of these. In the Vancouver area we have a remarkable situation. Few people who did not live there would believe that most Canadians there go to the United States to ski. They go south of the border for their winter sports. Yet within a few miles of Vancouver we have some of the finest scenery in the world. Federal and provincial cooperation in respect of highways and in the development of park areas could provide not only great immediate employment opportunities but the springboard for great service industries, a great tourist industry, a great convention centre industry in that part of the world. The west coast has a great deal to offer and it can offer many more jobs sooner if vision of that type is shown.
We have heard a great deal recently about the national economic development board. Perhaps it will supersede the national productivity council, but under its terms of reference projects are mentioned. I have mentioned a number of projects of the type which can be carried forward. I hope that the Department of Labour, through an effective minister of labour and an effective staff, will be able to spot these projects, assist other departments to find projects and work as well with industry and labour in order to bring forward the types of sdhemes which can provide many jobs.
Government initiative is needed. Certainly government planning is needed. I believe we should rely wherever possible on private enterprise and private initiative, but in the private enterprise economy there has been at least periodically serious unemployment and we must deal head on with this problem.
I believe the keynote really is co-operation between government and industry, government and labour, between governments in this country and, in view of the incidents of the last few days, between governments across international boundaries. I think that with the will to co-operate we can beat this unemployment problem and I hope this afternoon I have given a few tangible ideas as to how we can get at it soon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in connection with an act that is administered by the Department of Labour, the Industrial

Supply-Labour
Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. This is a rather fantastic situation in which I am involved personally, and in order to put the situation into focus I have to put on the record a letter from 2167 Barnes street, Montreal, dated October 20, 1962. It is addressed to Mr. John M. Paquet, national president of the Canadian trainmen's union, 344-15th street, Limoilou, Quebec. This letter is signed by J. Earl White, national organizer of the Canadian trainmen's union. It reads: Dear Mr. Paquet:
Re: Interview with Messrs. Robert Beaule and Mr. Real Caouette.
After our meeting in Quebec city on October 17 I took your letter of introduction to Mr. Beaule and arrived in his office the following morning.
I was promptly received and discussed the C.T.U. platform with Mr. Beaule. He was quite familiar with it and is prepared to support the cause for which we also fight.
Mr. Beaule asked me to wait in his office and he searched around the building until he found Mr. Caouette. They returned to Mr. Beaule's office.
The interview with Mr. Caouette was very brief. I asked him first if he was familiar with section 6 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. He was quite familiar with it and very much opposed to the compulsory feature of it because the compulsory feature took away from Canadian labouring men the rights supposedly given to them in the Canadian Bill of Rights.
I told Mr. Caouette that I believed that 80 per cent of Canadian labouring men were opposed to compulsory membership and compulsory dues, because it weakens rather than strengthens labour unions in their dealings with management.
I suggested that his party should advertise their support of a change in the industrial relations act to eliminate compulsion. Mr. Caouette stated it was already the policy of his party and that they were doing a great deal about it.
I suggested that his party should arrange to interview 100 labour union members by picking them at random on the street in various Canadian cities. I told him that I was convinced that he could draw large numbers of votes away from all the political parties and in particular the New Democratic party-if he made it clear that he favoured democratic Canadian labour unions.
I then asked him to introduce in the House of Commons an amendment to the industrial relations act at this session of parliament, because Prime Minister Diefenbaker must respect the wishes of the Social Credit party if he wishes to remain in power.
Mr. Caouette thanked me very profusely for the suggestion and he stated that he would recommend it to a caucus of his party and that he was quite sure that positive action would be taken on the suggestion in the near future.
Just as we shook hands and Mr. Caouette was about to depart a man appeared at the office door looking for Mr. Caouette. Mr. Caouette invited him to come over to where we were and then invited us all to be seated. This man was a stranger to me and I was not introduced to him. Mr. Caouette then asked me to repeat what I had just suggested to him. I did so and finished up by saying that as far as the labouring vote was concerned his party could massacre the other three parties and especially the N.D.P. Mr. Caouette thanked me again and left the office with the stranger whom he still did not introduce.

After they were gone Mr. Beaule asked me if I knew who the man was and I admitted that I did not. Mr. Beaule then told me that the stranger was Mr. Douglas Fisher, M.P. for Port Arthur and a top rank leader in the C.C.F. party.
Mr. Beaule assured me that Mr. Caouette is a very smart politician and that he is sure that he has a very good reason for letting Mr. Fisher know immediately on what basis he proposes to put pressure on Prime Minister Diefenbaker.
I cannot imagine what Mr. Caouette's strategy is other than to cause the New Democratic party to vote to support Diefenbaker in a vote of confidence over the question of compulsion in our so-called democratic American labour union. Such a development could prove to be very embarrassing to the N.D.P. and the C.L.C.
I am arranging to send a supply of C.T.U. letters and miscellaneous material to Mr. Beaule. I was very pleased to observe that he already had a file of considerable proportions-thanks to your initiative.
The developments presently occurring in the House of Commons are encouraging in the extreme.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, this letter is signed by J. Earl White, national organizer of the Canadian trainmen's union. There are a couple of things that need to be put into focus here. This letter came to me from a union organizer or representative in the Quebec city area. He informed me that it has been distributed fairly widely amongst railway employees in that part of Quebec, particularly on the Canadian National Railways. It has been distributed with the argument that here, in effect, is a New Democratic party member visiting Mr. Caouette and apparently approving of Mr. Caouette's views that section 6 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act should be altered so that there is no check-off of dues allowed to any unions which come under federal jurisdiction.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a fantastic conclusion to draw from what I am sure the hon. member for Villeneuve will remember and acknowledge was an innocuous visit on my part to his office in order to chat with him about some ideas he wanted to express to me if I was going to write an article in a newspaper about him. I think the hon. member will acknowledge that. To find, as a result of that very brief visit to interview Mr. Caouette about some information for a newspaper that I am identified with the Social Credit party's view on breaking an important part of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is just going too far.
I am not attempting, Mr. Chairman, to make accusations where the hon. member for Villeneuve is concerned or his colleague referred to in the letter, Mr. Robert Beaule, but it is quite apparent that this Canadian trainmen's union is capable of jumping to some fantastic conclusions. I should like to point out, therefore, that this is a union that does not have a contract with any major

railway in Canada. It is what we call an attempt to destroy a union that is already in existence and serving the men. I should like to refer to the proceedings of the committee which examined the Canadian National Railways, but since the Anal report has not been received, I cannot give evidence from that.
However, I believe I can say that the hon. member for Lapointe at that committee revealed he was in favour of this Canadian trainmen's union and completely ignorant of the relationship of the brotherhood of railway trainmen to the railways of this country and the responsibilities that they carry out. I would like to point out that section 6 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which permits a check-off, was challenged in the courts, and it is my understanding it was upheld as being good law by Chief Justice McRuer, and since that particular incident it has stood.
If the members of the Social Credit party wish to make this part of their campaign, and suggest they want this taken out and that they do not want the check-off for labour union men in Canada, then that is fine; but it is not only fantastic, it is dastardly, that as a result of a chance visit to the office of the hon. member for Villeneuve I am identified as being in favour of this. This is coincidence run wild.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that my reception in the few minutes I was in the office of the hon. member for Villeneuve was adequate and friendly, as one expects in all relationships with members of other political parties; but I must say that this gentleman, in describing the incident, has not been completely factual, because the hon. member for Villeneuve did not ask him to repeat the gist of his argument so that I could hear it at all. That did not take place.
This particular personal issue, and I emphasize it is a personal one, has very serious implications in a general way. Recently in Canada, particularly with the upsurge of the Social Credit party in Quebec, we have had a fantastic kind of approach to labour unions. These gentlemen seem to feel that the rights that have been hard won by labour unions- and many labour unions feel they should secure many more-have gone far too far and must be cut back. One of the means of doing this is to weaken and cripple the unions.
At this particular time the railways are going through a state of flux and change. There has been a steady reduction in the number of jobs available. It is an unstable situation and there is a tremendous need for co-operation and liaison, not only between management and labour but much more
Supply-Labour
so between labour unions. In this connection I would like to argue it would be vital to consider seriously the kind of suggestion that apparently-if we believe this letter- the Social Credit party wants to put forward, which in effect would go a long way to destroy these unions that represent the working men on the railways.
So far as the Canadian trainmen's union is concerned its emphasis is remarkably upon a kind of Canadian nationalism that is extremely narrow. If any members of the house feel it is time for the so-called international unions to end their relationships with international officers in the United States, that is an opinion or point of view to which they are welcome, and they are welcome to argue it; but this is no reason to go in the face of the tremendous contribution that Canadian unionism receives from the United States, a contribution that in many ways still exists and is still coming in so many fields.
I feel, particularly in the railway business where we have the illustration of an all Canadian union, the Canadian brotherhood of railway and general employees, working very strongly with the international brotherhoods on the non-op side, that we have proof we can have a Canadian union on the railways that will do its job and work with brotherhoods that have international relationships, and that both can work together for the workmen on the railways and the trade union movement as a whole.
This being the situation I would ask the Minister of Labour to dismiss in a very cavalier fashion the kind of arguments put forward by organizations such as the Canadian trainmen's union that would somehow suggest, because a member of parliament happens to come into the office of another, that he is all set on ruining one of the most important pieces of legislation that is on the statute books today.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, there are three definitions I wish to put before the committee in talking in this labour estimates debate, and I hope they will assist in clarifying the objectives which I am sure all of us have for those Canadians whose livelihood and happiness are dependant on the employment policies of the government. These definitions are as follows:
1.	Unemployment is the involuntary idleness of a worker seeking work at prevailing wages.
2.	Job, a regular remunerative employment.
3.	Employment is the degree or extent to which persons needing employment and who are available for employment are provided

Supply-Labour
with employment, or lack of it, because of the prevailing economic conditions. Employment in a particular area, and this is very important in the definition, is likely to increase or decrease according to the economic conditions of the country as a whole.
This may seem very academic, but I feel that unless we constantly attempt to find out what is wrong with the economic conditions in the country that allow us to have a chronic rate of unemployment, then the Minister of Labour will not be able to effect a cure for the country.
I suggest that the minister's greatest concern will be the employment policies and practices of his government, and not just the unemployment problem. I am sure he agrees with this proposition. Yesterday the minister stated that unemployment is still a very grave problem. That is right, and it is an extremely personal one for hundreds of thousands of our people. However, Mr. Chairman, I think the government has an even greater problem on its hands, and until it has answered that problem we can really look for no significant change in the job picture for our people.


Mr. Churchill:: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the committee would continue just for a few minutes and pass at least the first item of these estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there does not seem any good reason for deviating from the order of rule. Moreover, the committee has no power, I would remind the hon. gentleman, to extend its sitting. The Speaker would have to go back to the chair and the committee would have to ask leave to sit again. We would be glad to consider that request if it is made at the proper time. I just recall the rule because of certain things which happened in the house not so long ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before Christmas.


Mr. McCleave:: There is no necessity for Your Honour to see the clock unless it is drawn to Your Honour's attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is five o'clock.


James Edgar Walker: Five o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The hon. member for York Centre reminds the Chair it is five o'clock. So that the house may proceed to private members' business, pursuant to standing order 15, section 3, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit later this day or at the next sitting of the house.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being now five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of

private members' business as it appears on today's order paper, namely, public bills as set out at page 22.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.-Mr. Howard.
Frank Howard: I do not know whether it is worth while following the normal proprieties of the house at this stage or not, but I should like formally to ask leave to withdraw this particular bill.


Some hon. Members:: Granted.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



CRIMINAL CODE


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill C-27, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member for York South whose name has been given as seconder, if he will permit me to second this bill in his place.


Mr. Lewis:: Since it deals with nuisance, I shall be delighted to.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the correction as agreed, I call on the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must explain that this measure does not deal with such an angelic nuisance as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. It has to do with material nuisance in relation to our national resources.
I am introducing this bill once again because I am alarmed at the sight of our industries and people polluting our waters, as it were, with their own hands at an increasing rate. Over many parts of Canada the water table is falling, yet thousands of factories and hundreds of municipal sewer systems are discharging their waste into our rivers with only a fraction of this increasing filth having been given adequate previous treatment. We all know that water is the life blood of any country, yet though we have more than trebled our consumption in recent years we are polluting it and destroying the watersheds whence it comes. We are destroying something without which we cannot survive and for which there is no substitute.

There are substitutes for power and for other materials but there is no substitute for clear water.
The soul of man, shaken and bruised by the ceaseless din of modern cities and the calamitous international sabre rattling, needs treeways rather than freeways; it needs pure waterways rather than sewer ways. We are disfiguring the natural landscape, eroding our soil, destroying our forests and polluting our waters almost with the zeal of a religious mission in the name of so-called progress. The purpose of this bill is to make it an offence for the owners of industrial plants and oil refineries or other persons to discharge noxious matter into an interprovincial water, thus endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public.
It provides as follows:
Every owner, lessee, or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill or other plant or works, or any other person, who discharges or throws or allows to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water any part of which is interprovincial or which flows into any interprovincial water, which has the effect of endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public is guilty of-
-either an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This measure is identical with one which was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was a distinguished and militant member of the opposition. In this respect it can be said, for once, that by introducing this bill I am following in the footsteps of John. It must be agreed that the scope of the bill is limited. It deals only with the provision of pollution of interprovincial rivers. I think this question arose on that earlier occasion as a result of the Saskatchewan river on the Alberta side of the Saskatchewan boundary. There was a great deal of concern at that time on the part of members representing the province of Saskatchewan in this house. Nevertheless, this is a short step which we can take to indicate where we stand on this matter in this house- to show our concern and willingness to do something within our powers to correct a situation which is becoming increasingly bad.
I have had a lifelong interest in the question of conservation. I have lived very close to the soil, to the waters and to the woods of this country and I have had a close relationship throughout the years with persons who have held opinions similar to my own. But in presenting these views this afternoon I am introducing a bill which members of this group support wholeheartedly because they realize we cannot maintain a satisfactory material standard of living for the generations
Criminal Code
to come unless it is based on adequate national resources. We aim to preserve our heritage for future generations. As I have said before, water is of prime importance, though many people fail to realize it. I think the government of Canada failed to realize it when they signed the Columbia treaty and made it possible for the United States to use for all time the surplus waters of the Columbia for irrigation and domestic purposes as well as for flood control, rather than preserve those surplus waters for use in the Okanagan and, some day, for the irrigation of the western prairies.
Considerable interest has been taken in this matter throughout the years by small numbers of people. The international joint commission has done some excellent work with respect to agreements with local authorities, and measures for the prevention of pollution in certain international waters. There are numbers of provincial organizations in British Columbia and in the western provinces, in Ontario and the maritimes, which have taken a great interest in this question of the prevention of pollution of rivers and streams. There are other groups, not so well known, perhaps, which carry on their work without much publicity in the municipalities, besides numerous individuals in various occupations in life, particularly in some of our universities and research establishments. These people have pointed the finger at the desperate need for federal, provincial and municipal cooperation to meet this situation. I must say, in fairness, before proceeding further, that I give this government credit for a limited approach in making provision to assist municipalities to obtain sewage disposal plants. That is all to the good, but it is far too timid an approach really to accomplish the objective outlined by the minister when he introduced his legislation.
In dealing with this question I should like to quote from a monthly letter issued by the Royal Bank of Canada. In it is an article entitled "Resources for Living". I will give credit to the Royal Bank of Canada for the interesting articles they have published with respect to the conservation of natural resources. They must have someone at the head of that institution who understands this problem and is interested in it. I quote briefly from page 3:
The purity of our air and water and the foods produced on our soil and in the sea will determine our number, our health, our efficiency, and our enjoyment of life.
Although pollution has reached impressive proportions, legislation competent to eliminate it is creeping forward at a snail's pace.
This group wholeheartedly agrees with that statement.

Criminal Code
There is delay in initiating measures of cleanliness because of lack of clearly defined responsibilities. The various levels of government are not certain who should do what. As was said in a paper presented at the "Resources for Tomorrow" conference: "Indecision and delay stem in part from differences in interpretation of the B.N.A. Act and a lack of clear federal and provincial policies." Meantime, public health is at stake, recreational values are impaired, industrial uses are limited, and fisheries suffer.
That indicates the interest of prominent persons in one of our large banks in Canada and represents growing opinion in this country.
I should also like to quote briefly from the Gazette of October 5 an editorial entitled: "Why water pollution gets little action". This editorial says:
At the recent conference of the water pollution control federation in Toronto, a good point was made by Mr. K. F. Beaton of the public relations department of Shell Oil Company, New York. He said that the success or failure of efforts to control water pollution will largely depend upon the public's understanding and support of what is done, or might be attempted.
There is much to this. If water pollution control were a comparatively inexpensive thing, governments might be ready to introduce it. But it is immensely costly. It will take up many tax dollars. This expenditure may have to be taken away from some other project, or will have to delay other plans.
There is not the same general pressure for action, the same insistent demand that the huge sums of money be spent, as there might be for something like highways, where the problem seems far more visible and personal and urgent.
Yet the threat of water pollution may be one of the greatest-all the more so because it is a rising danger. But unless the public demands that something be done, or unless the public is brought to realize that something really effective must be done, the control of water pollution will likely remain where it is today-quite low on the list of priorities.
I received a very interesting magazine through the courtesy of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Sams), who I understand is very interested in this problem. The magazine is "The Civic Administration Handbook of Environmental Pollution Control", and it deals with the subject from the point of view of municipal authorities. The handbook is about the difficulties which are related to the question of overcoming river pollution. I should like to quote from this in view of the fact that I am introducing a bill today similar to one introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). The Prime Minister sent a message to the editor of this magazine for publication, and I do wish he would give effect to his message. He said:
I congratulate the editors and publishers of civic administration on their initiative in publishing a handbook for municipal administrators on the sources, effects and control of environmental pollution, the first such publication to deal with the pollution of soil, water and air as a single problem.
[Mr. Herridge.l
Canada is fortunate to be endowed with abundant renewable resources and it is incumbent on all of us to see that in using these we do not destroy them, but pass them on unimpaired to future generations. In carrying out this trust, the control of pollution is of fundamental importance.
The letter is signed by the Prime Minister and I do hope that the members of his party will on this occasion support this bill so that it will pass this house before the hour is completed.
This matter is of increasing concern and is a danger which is growing apace. We have only to look at the Ottawa river flowing beside our parliament buildings to realize the necessity for some action. We also have this problem with many other rivers of Canada. Fortunately I come from a district where there is very little pollution, an area in which flow two great rivers, the Columbia and the Kootenay. But this problem which is facing the people because of sewage disposal from various cities and industrial developments must be nipped in the bud. We have a little problem at the present time but we must prevent it from becoming a big problem. I suggest that we need research. We need information. The public require to be informed. We need co-operation between governments. We need legislation such as this. This is first-step legislation to deal with this increasing problem. We need the participation of the Canadian people in the defence and protection of our great natural resources. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I urge support for the principle of this bill as a short step, so far as legislation is concerned, in the direction in which we should go.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wentworth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is not the seconder going to support this bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is going to speak on his behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: I call on the hon. member for Wentworth, and then on the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Rock).


Mr. J. R. Sams (Wentworth):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my view, water pollution is fast becoming, as was expressed by the hon. member who has just spoken, one of our most pressing domestic problems as we go on developing the industrial potential of Canada. In my opinion there are two basic steps which are needed to keep pollution from reaching dangerous proportions, proportions which, as was so well described, are dangerous to our national health and wellbeing. First, efforts must be made to clean up the sources of pollution. Second, legislative action must be taken to ensure that

wastes are properly treated before being discharged into our watercourses. The views expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and his arguments in favour of this measure I think are most surely agreed to by all hon. members of this house. For regardless of the constituency from which we come, this problem has already become, or will shortly become, one of major concern to those we represent.
Mr. Speaker, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "water" as "a colourless, transparent, scentless compound of oxygen and hydrogen in liquid state, convertible by heat into steam and by cold into ice". I think that to go beyond the mere definition of the word it should also be stated that water is the most important of our natural resources, because there can be no existence without it and no progress where it is in short supply.
Some excellent reading for anybody interested in this topic may be found in a booklet published by the international joint commission in 1961 entitled: "Safeguarding boundary water quality". One short statement in that booklet indicating the significance of pollution reads as follows:
Pollution impairs the quality and usefulness of water. It makes it unfit for domestic or industrial use. and recreation, and may cause serious illness. It destroys fish and wildlife. It creates offensive conditions and interferes with navigation. It may create areas of desolation and render the stream useless for constructive purposes. It causes economic losses, and it reduces the capacity of the waters to perform their many beneficial and necessary functions.
I come from a constituency which is fast changing from its traditional agricultural background to one of suburban and industrial character, and while farming still plays an important part in the economy of our area, even the most rural of our municipalities have felt the pressure of growth and in several instances they have also felt the evil of water pollution.
Hamilton harbour, once the site of many fine bathing beaches and beautiful homes, has in just one generation completely degenerated into a massive pool of sewage and offensive chemicals, causing the city council to spend millions of dollars on a sewage treatment system to cope with this unfortunate problem.
Similar steps have been and are being taken by many other communities in southern Ontario. In the metropolitan Hamilton region the amount of money being spent is reaching fantastic proportions; but this must be done in order to combat the very evident hazard to health which pollution brings. These projects will, I hope, restore our waterways, especially our great lakes waterways, to their 27507-3-213
Criminal Code
former purity and beauty. However, before we legislate through the medium of the Criminal Code, as this measure would suggest, I believe we should recognize the steps taken by provincial authorities as well as the voluntary steps taken by industry in this field.
First of all, I should like to mention for a moment the steps taken by industry. A large oil refinery is located along the north shore of lake Ontario about midway between Hamilton and Toronto and, if this proposal became law, it would perhaps qualify as one of the worst possible types of offenders. As hon. members know, a concentration of phenolic waste is one of the worst contaminants in existence.
There is in Ontario legislation which would, and with some substantial effect, prohibit this plant from discharging objectionable wastes into this main interprovincial and international waterway. However, this company has undertaken to provide itself with one of the best possible examples of industrial waste treatment.
The Cities Service Oil Company has developed a $3 million conservation program, including a "green-belt" buffer zone around its plant, an air pollution prevention plan and a waste treatment plant called by its operators the most modern and most efficient anywhere in the world. According to information I have received from the company, the quantity of waste treated averages about 300 gallons a minute and, as an example of the success of the process, called biological oxidation, all traces of phenol waste are removed and the water is returned to lake Ontario in a purer state than that in which it was taken from the lake. To graphically illustrate the success of the operation-and I think this may be of particular interest to the hon. member for Kootenay West-may I say that the company has installed a large aquarium where native fish of the great lakes thrive in water which has gone through the petroleum processing plant. The treatment process incidentally enables the company to recover thousands of barrels of oil which would otherwise be lost and which would under less favourable circumstances flow out into lake Ontario to pollute that great waterway.
The example I have described is but one of a number of similar steps being undertaken in southern Ontario where industries are taking the initiative in waste treatment. I would, however, suggest that this particular company has gone far beyond its responsibilities in demonstrating to others what can be done in this important field.

Criminal Code
In Ontario, as indeed in several other provinces described by the hon. member for Kootenay West, provincial authorities have been set up to study and control pollution and related matters, and in the few minutes remaining to me I should like to outline one or two measures which have been taken in Ontario in this regard.
In 1955, recognizing the need for safeguarding Ontario water supplies and adequately dealing with the effects of pollution, especially those from which domestic water supplies were being drawn, the government of Ontario set up a committee to look into these questions, and followed it the next year with the creation of the Ontario water resources commission. In 1957, legislation was passed increasing the scope of the commission's functions. I should like to read briefly from a paragraph contained in a booklet describing its major activities. It does these things:
Supervises the operation of all water, sewage treatment and waste purification plants in Ontario, and lends technical assistance in this connection.
Keeps close watch over stream pollution through examination of streams and sources of pollution. The commission has the right of enforcement of any of its requirements to individuals, industries or municipalities in this regard ...
Advises municipalities concerning their water requirements and their needs in connection with sewage disposal and treatment. '
Reviews plans and approves or disapproves of all water and sewage projects to be undertaken by municipalities or persons . ..
Operates laboratory and research services in connection with problems relative to the fields of water, sewage and industrial wastes.
The remarkable accomplishments of this commission since its formation and the commencement of its program has led to the investment of $363 million in Ontario in an effort to combat what would be included in the Criminal Code under the bill of the hon. member.
I believe that the federal government has a place in this particular question. However, I believe that place should be a co-ordinating one between the individual provinces, each of which has a particular problem in this connection.
I agree wholeheartedly with the principle behind the proposal of the hon. member. There is in Canada today a tremendous need in federal, provincial, municipal and business circles for a complete awareness of the tragic loss to our nation of one of our finest natural resources, namely pure water. As we extend cultivation, disrobe our forests and plow our fields without regard to soil erosion and as we continually overload our waterways with the wastes of our industries and our cities, the banks of our rivers and lakes become garbage dumps for the next generation. Our

harbours have been turned into gigantic cesspools, indeed frightful products of modern civilization.
I suggest that we require much additional research, but in addition we require much additional education. We face today in Canada the complete loss of all major waterways as places of recreation. We face an impairment in the use of this water for agricultural purposes. We face an impairment in the use of this water for domestic consumption, except by expensive chemical treatment and filtration. We also face one of the most costly projects which this nation has ever undertaken, if action is not taken quickly to stop individual offenders.
Recent progress has been quite substantial in several areas in spite of serious obstacles. Perhaps the greatest stumbling block is the post-war industrial expansion and population surge in this country. We now have the opportunity of restoring a healthy state to Canadian waterways defiled for the present by a young, aggressive nation. I believe this critical situation could best be summed up by reading from the report of the joint commission on boundary waters. It states in part as follows:
The satisfactory quality of these waters in the future can be secured and maintained. They can be used and enjoyed by the people of both countries continuing as one of the greater natural resources as long as the rain falls and the rivers flow.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Carlier-La-salle):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code, is to make it a criminal offence to pollute interprovincial waters, and this purpose could easily be unanimously accepted by this house. I understand, however, that as the bill is drafted it is word for word the same as a former bill drafted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was in the opposition. It seems to me that this bill is brought forward again in the same manner as it has been year after year by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) possibly in order to embarrass the Prime Minister and also so that once again it would not be supported and would be talked out. For these reasons I want to be brief so that I will not be accused of making a lengthy speech simply for the purpose of continuing until six o'clock.
I ask the hon. member for Kootenay West to amend his bill so that when an individual is found guilty of polluting interprovincial waters he will not have a $25,000 fine imposed on him, but a lesser fine. I would also ask the hon. member for Kootenay West to agree that a clause be inserted which will provide that the bill will come into force on March 31, 1963 in order that municipalities

bordering on interprovincial waters will have time to complete construction of their sewage purification plants by that date. That is the date when financial aid to the municipalities ceases, according to the amendment to the National Housing Act brought forward by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton), which extended the expiry date from March 31, 1961, to March 31, 1963. I asked for this extension before the passage of that bill.
The constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle, which I have the honour to represent, is vitally concerned. It is situated at the western end of the island of Montreal where the St. Lawrence river and the Ottawa river, both of which are considered to be interprovincial waters, join. I should like to speak on pollution problems at length and also about the water purification board recently created by the province of Quebec. I have a large file on pollution. I believe that this bill is necessary and having suggested certain changes I would ask that debate on the bill not be prolonged to six o'clock in order that passage in principle may be granted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, could I reply to the hon. member's question?


Mr. Speaker:: There was no question and there was no amendment. There was a suggestion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question? Does he realize that if he or some of his colleagues would introduce the suggested amendments the member for Kootenay West would be very pleased to support them in order to see the bill get through the house? Does he also realize that the only motive of the member for Kootenay West is the welfare of the people of Canada? I have no wish to embarrass the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Those are not questions calling for an answer at this time.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must admit that I have not done as much homework as I possibly should have in connection with this bill. However, I should like to make a few brief remarks with regard to it. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. We realize, of course, that bills of this nature are always talked out and I believe this is so because the house realizes that it is the responsibility of the government to govern. However, we also realize that this bill in its present form has been a matter of discussion in the house over the years, and since the previous Liberal government and the Conservative government are 27507-3-213J
Criminal Code
both agreed in principle on the bill we sometimes wonder why it has never been passed. The reason must be that conditions in the country are such that at the particular moment they do not warrant this suggested amendment to the Criminal Code.
I could refer to Hansard and the discussions that have taken place in years gone by. In 1955, and back as far as 1953 when I was in the house, there were many discussions. I can recall the then member for The Battle-fords and the member for Kootenay West making very able presentations for the passage of such legislation. I think we have an opportunity at this time to reflect on what private enterprise has done in respect of living up to its responsibilities in connection with pollution. I believe the reason the bill has never been passed is that the government has been encouraged by the fact that private enterprise has done a lot toward keeping our streams pure, and free of the waste materials and toxic acids that normally come from a good deal of industrial expansion.
I was somewhat amused and wondered a little about the reference to the Columbia river by the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I could not help it.


Bert Raymond Leboe: I believe that. I will take him at his word. I do not think that he on reflection would wish to deprive people of water just because they live south of the Canadian border. They are human beings, just as are the people who live in Canada. I think we must never be guilty of a dog in the manger attitude. I should like to see a full discussion by members in all parts of the house, so I will simply say that I am certainly in agreement with bringing forward a bill of this nature for discussion and keeping before our minds the necessity of seeing that our streams remain pure.
I might say that industrial development in the riding of Cariboo is only in its infancy, but we already have a large industrial plant at Taylor Flats. We are going to have a pulp mill in the Prince George area and those who are building the mill will have to make certain, of course, that the Fraser river is kept unpolluted. I conclude my remarks by saying that I believe the hon. member for Kootenay West has been very sincere in bringing this bill forward and it should receive the consideration of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since I was given the honour of seconding this bill I feel I should say a word or two in support of it. I will endeavour not to say so much as to make a nuisance of myself.

Criminal Code


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Impossible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Saint John-Albert, in his usual flattering way, has said it would be impossible for me to be a nuisance, and I thank him for saying that. I feel, knowing the great admiration in which I am held by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), that, notwithstanding party differences, this is one occasion when I can sincerely follow John. It seems to me that this might be the last chance for the Prime Minister to carry out one of the promises he made to the people of Canada. I felt that I could be of assistance along with the honourable and genial member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), in assisting the Prime Minister to carry out that promise to do what he could in every way, by legislation, by administration and other ways, to end so far as possible the pollution of all these streams that come under federal jurisdiction.
I am very sincere about this, sir. For 25 years I have lived on the banks of the Ottawa river. During those 25 years the condition of the Ottawa river, the Rideau river and unfortunately also the Gatineau river, has not improved. It does seem to me that if there is one project about which it would be wonderful to do something before our national centennial, it would be to clean up these open sewers in our capital city and make these rivers once again the kind of thing of which we Canadians can be proud as part of our national heritage.


Robert Jardine McCleave: As I
look about this distinguished chamber this afternoon, I have some suspicion that either the trains to Montreal and Toronto have broken down for some mysterious reason or else some other event is upon us. Perhaps that is so, since there has been the dry sound of clicking knitting needles from the gallery above.
I was disappointed that in an otherwise excellent debate, during which much good has been said about fellow citizens and the work they have done in this field, very little was said about one of the most impressive achievements of this government in this fight against water pollution. There has been a reference by the hon. member for Kootenay West to the municipal sewage treatment process, which I suggest to you fits clearly into this field. He described it as a very limited approach. Well, sir, I have had the advantage of obtaining from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation figures which would make the hon. member change the adjectives in that description. I think this has been an imaginative approach and one which has worked out very successfully indeed.

As of January 18 last loans under this program totalled $138 million. I should have qualified that somewhat by giving a breakdown, and if I am permitted I should like to have this table appear in Hansard for the assistance of hon. members. The breakdown is as follows, actual inquiries where municipalities are eligible for such assistance, $51,768,000; applications on hand, $2,119,000; approvals are of the order of $84,900,000, making up the total of $138,787,000.
In addition to this, there are some 72 applications now being processed for which no definite amount is known. Perhaps before proceeding I could ask if the house would be agreeable to have this table printed in Hansard. The table is headed "Loans for Municipal Sewage Treatment Projects, Summary to January 18, 1963". The breakdown is by provinces, and the total amount for Canada in the three categories I have mentioned. The figures were drawn up by those who should know, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, at my request for this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seeks leave of the house to put this table, prepared by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, on the record. Has he leave of the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this is most interesting material, and will be of particular interest to have printed at public expense for dissemination by Conservative candidates. I am just wondering what relationship it possibly has to this particular bill which deals with an entirely different subject. I am not objecting to it, but I just wanted to draw attention to the pure motives of the hon. gentleman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am afraid the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is forgetting that he promised, when he took part in this debate, he would not be a nuisance. There has been a reference to the subject of the bill. Perhaps the hon. member did not have an opportunity of reading it, and of noting that it deals with the fight against water pollution. This bill of the hon. member for Kootenay West would make it a nuisance, under certain circumstances punishable by criminal action, if people do not take steps to keep our water supply pure. I am saying that one of the massive steps being taken, which appeals to me much more than criminal action, is to provide municipalities with a very generous scheme under which the problems of water pollution can be tackled. This is the purport of my argument.

I thought the members of the committee, not only Conservative but Liberals, Social Credit members and those of the N.D.P. would be interested in such a table.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has given a very convincing argument. I would not want to object at all, but I hope I can make an appeal to the hon. gentleman. In return, would he conclude his speech in
Criminal Code time for a vote to be taken on this admirable bill which we would all like to see passed.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the house grants leave to the hon. member to have the table printed in Hansard'!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to follows:]
LOANS FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PROJECTS Summary to January 18, 1963
Province	Preliminary and eligibility enquiries on hand where estimated value is known	Formal applications on hand	Approved by order in council	Total	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amountsooo	woo	$000	$000Newfoundland	
5	253	-	-	5	1,010	10	1,263Prince Edward Island	
1	11	1	6	6	110	8	127Nova Scotia	
2	2,683	-	-	3	1,180	5	3,863New Brunswick	
4	108	-	-	8	218	12	326Quebec	14,007	4	711	21	3,784	44	18,502Ontario	
68	32,437	12	1,010	138	60,984	218	94,431Manitoba	1,107	1	75	21	914	26	2,096Saskatchewan	
13	490	-	-	95	2,871	108	3,361Alberta	388	1	317	33	2,229	49	2,934British Columbia	.... 3	284	-	-	37	11,600	40	11,884134	51,768	19	2,119	367	84,900	520	138,787


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To depart for a moment from the table, I might say that municipalities from all provinces have taken advantage of this excellent program which was started, as perhaps hon. members will recall, in December, 1961. In December of last year, these provisions were extended and provided long term loans to municipalities, as well as forgiveness for certain work completed before 1963. This provision has now been extended to March 31, 1965.
I was impressed by the point made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Rock) to the effect there should be notice given to people so that the act would not suddenly fall upon them, and so they would know when the act would come into effect. This would give them an opportunity to clean up, for example, any part of an industrial
operation which polluted our water resources. I am sorry the hon. member did not put his idea in the form of a formal amendment. However, if and when the bill goes into committee, this could be done and the amendment considered. This would be really the basis upon which I should like to give my support to the bill, that is giving notice of the pollution in the first place and then stating a time within which these serious matters of water pollution could be cleared up.


Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West upon introducing this bill. At the outset of his speech he said he would like to see debate on it concluded by six o'clock. I know there are several other hon. members who would like to speak on it, and I am sure the hon. gentleman knows full

Criminal Code
well that I have been interested in water pollution and have spoken on bills like this previously. At one time I introduced a resolution dealing with a similar problem.
I am sure he will agree I am not in the habit of making a nuisance of myself in the house and of taking up much of the time of the house, but I want to make a few comments in regard to this bill, Bill C-27. The purpose of the bill is to make it an offence for the owners of industrial plants and oil refineries, or other persons, to discharge noxious matter into an interprovincial water, thus endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public.
I have a particular interest in the bill because lake Winnipeg lies within the boundaries of the constituency of Selkirk and we have several interprovincial rivers running into that lake. We have the North and South Saskatchewan rivers emptying into lake Winnipeg. We also have the Red river, which is an international river, and the As-siniboine river which flows into the Red river and is an interprovincial river, also emptying into the lake. Industrial waste is one of the big factors we have to contend with, and as the law stands today industry is now responsible for taking care of its industrial waste. In many cases industries find the cheapest method is to release waste into the rivers, and that is one of the main reasons why we have had our rivers polluted. However I am sure industry realizes its responsibilities and is willing to share in the cost of cleaning up the rivers.
This matter of water pollution was one of the subjects discussed at the resources for tomorrow conference held in Montreal in October, 1961. It received a lot of attention, papers were presented on the subject and workshops were set up to deal with the matter. On that occasion a paper prepared by Mr. Menzies was submitted to the conference, a paper which I have read and found to be very interesting and helpful in understanding the problem of water pollution.
Basically we are concerned with the effects of pollution. Briefly these are its effects on human life and health, fatal and contagious diseases and infections, its effect on other forms of life, fish losses through poisoning and oxygen depreciation, its effect on waterfowl and the destruction of waterfowl habitats, together with its non-fatal effects on water for domestic purposes. I may say that in Manitoba we have seen much wildlife,

many waterfowl, die from the effects of water pollution. We have seen its effects on fish and we know the danger caused by water pollution.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned that the water table was gradually falling and that pollution would become an increasingly difficult problem. I have to agree with that statement. It is becoming a greater problem; but as the hon. member for Halifax mentioned, this government took the initiative in passing legislation in 1961.
Under the provisions of that legislation loans were offered to municipalities, and as the hon. member for Halifax pointed out, the total of loans made to date is $84,900,000. When additional applications now being processed are approved, the total will be brought up to $138 million. Hon. members must remember that 25 per cent of this is nonrepayable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if we could get a moderation of some of the conversation. The Chair is having some considerable difficulty in hearing the speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is considerable excitement.


Eric Stefanson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I particularly wanted to make reference to the loans that have been made in the province of Manitoba. In that province up to January of this year 21 loans have been made totalling $914,000, and of that 25 per cent or $225,500 will be rebated. There are a further five applications in the process of being approved, totalling $1,182,000, and besides that 14 other Manitoba communities are presently preparing anti-pollution plans and have made inquiries in regard to loans under section 6(b) of the National Housing Act. This section of the act certainly has been effective as a start in tackling the great problem of water pollution, but I realize there is a lot yet to be done. Probably the government has to work out further plans with the provincial governments and municipalities.
The resources for tomorrow conference, when dealing with water pollution, discussed several items and I want to comment on the recommendations they made to the government at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time appointed for consideration of private members' business is now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the house leader what business the government proposes submitting to the house for its consideration on Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Monday I have already announced there would be a supply motion,
Business of the House and the subject for debate on that occasion is generally in the hands of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It now being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock on Monday, February 4.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 4, 1963